The ongoing terrain debate

[Jack Shrapnel]

7th ed... 8th ed... hybrid ed... (7.5 ed?)

The ongoing house rule debate regarding True LOS, terrain features and what to do....

I'm pretty confused as to what is going to make a workable, fun system that "makes sense"....

But I'm gonna throw something out there in a devil's advocate kind of way.... did we actually TRY using the full 8th ed rules for terrain?

okay that chart is pretty huge and can seem overwhelming, but it was new and that's going to happen... I remember Scott was pretty keen on trying it out at the beginning and I know at least I jumped rather quickly into the "don't like" category without really giving it a fair chance I think.... Maybe we are viewing 8th ed terrain rules as "not doing anything" because we're not actually using the 8th ed terrain rules???

True LOS has been around in 40K for some time now, and although the debate was pretty big when it first came out, with cover saves and the like, everyone got used to the system and it pretty much works... Again, in 8th, with True LOS I for one jumped quick into the "don't like" category without again giving it a fair shake I think... kept noticing all the times when it came to "that's stupid" without looking at all the "well that makes sense" other occasions... maybe I was seeing what I wanted to see?

I mean I certainly don't miss having dwarf rangers moving 1.5 inches through woods and not being able to see, shoot or move for the whole game... I mean who even used this unit in 7th?

I am all for woods doing something.... increasing tactics, etc... but we kind of didn't use those mysterious woods that we're supposed to be using in 8th... you know... to make woods do something....

I'm not going to pretend to know the answers, and I've certainly not been playing this game long enough to know what the right decisions are for house rules and the like... Frank and I tried some magic ones last night that really seemed to make sense for example.... I just have been having this nagging doubt lately that maybe I haven't been giving the new system a real chance... finding all the things I don't like rather than making new tactics with what rules are there.... and maybe actually using the rules that are there (even the ones I think might be just a little stupid - I might be completely wrong!)

I may be totally 100% off base here... but thought I'd throw it out there for discussion anyways...

- are house rules going to create unintended consequences?
- have we given ALL the 8th ed rules a fair chance?
- do we really miss THAT many things about 7th? I seem to remember some pretty unfun combos....!

[danydaigle24]

I totally agree with you Shannon when I started reading 8th Ed I was really impress by all that special terrain.. but when I started talking with you guys I quickly saw that you guys were not impress at all and it was too long and painfull to remember all terrain effect wich I can understand but Im sure when you play lets say 20 games you get use to the mysterious river effect and all that...

I was back in Fantassy and really glad to play with new rules but real quick I realize that lots of people complain about 8th and want to change rules but for me what I like to most about the game (40K and Fantassy) its to adapt and find a way to make my army good... Like I dont care if Frank or You or anybody kick my ass and destroy me in one turn because I will go back home and think all week about how I can counter his strategy and adapt my army to try to perform... but thats what I like and I understand that not everybody are like that so thats why once again Im back to 40K where nobody contest rules and play to way it has to be play... and Its only my opinion here I respect what you guys are doing its just the way Im feeling...

[redshirt2375]

I have yet to play an 8th ed game using the new special terrain rules. I do know that if remembering them is an issue, there are terrain cards you can download so that you can mark each piece so you won't have to remember what it is and what it does.

I had hoped at some point you guys would start using those rules to see how much it changed things, but to date no one has had any interet in trying them out.

For one, it means that the charging through terrain won't happen every game because I think with some of the special effects, it could prove disasterous for the unit so some people won't be as likely to take the risk, but on the other hand, some of the bonuses you get could be very handy.

[Jack Shrapnel]

oh... I'll just add something, thinking more about it....

I'm not saying that there should or shouldn't be house rules... and I certainly respect Frank's opinion on the matter and what he is trying to do... he's the guy who knows this stuff inside and out... it's just my own opinion, based on me thinking about it, and perhaps not being very fair myself in how I was looking at it initially....

....certainly if I've offended anyone I apologize, and certainly didn't mean to put anyone off the game by my initial way of looking at things....

[redshirt2375]

No offense was taken on my part. I've had very little experience with the system so far and since the house rules have been in effect for every game I've played I have yet to actually play a game under the full 8th edition rules.

I agree that magic definitely needed some work since, as I learned at the tagteam, you can't run a no-magic list against a magic list anymore and hope to win unless your opponent blows up all of their casters or rolls snake-eyes for each of their magic phases.

Terrain was nicer when it allowed you to hide units and required you to manouver around it if you didn't want to get stuck in it for potentially an entire game. I do know that my first look at the special terrain rules did seem a little daunting since there were quite a few, but I've never tried them out since they were dropped very early on in our group.

It could be worth trying out to see if they bring a little more balance to the new terrain rules, but if not, then coming up with 7.5 ed terrain rules could be the better option

[danydaigle24]

Im not offend too Shannon. I know you Scott and Frank are the expert in this game. I just wanted to say how I feel about fantassy. If you guys have more fun changing rules its good for you because we have to keep in mind that is a game and if people stop having fun they will stop playing like me I stop playing in 7th Ed and I dont know if Ill be back in 8th maybe when lots of armybook will be there...

[stonecutter]

What we are trying to do right now is figure out what will make the game more enjoyable for everyone, not just the few of us who have committed so much $$ that we have no choice in the matter ;D

There are a number of things about 8th edition that are excellent such as the simplified charge rules, being able to move through terrain and the importance of blocks of infantry/troops, the step up rule and the inability of a single big monster to roll your entire army. The issues of LOS/terrain/magic are not isolated to just K-town - I have heard and observed the same complaints from players across Ontario and on several worldwide forums. Many people from across the globe have noticed a significant decrease in the number of people playing fantasy due what is believed to be dissatisfaction with the tactical aspects (i.e. terrain doing nothing) and magic becoming overwhelming.

Keeping that in mind, I think we can be free to experiment and make the game enjoyable for ourselves while still trying not to introduce so many house rules as to create an almost entirely new set of rules. I am certainly willing to give terrain another try with the full set of rules where the majority of terrain will be mystical as it could be fun, albeit cumbersome if there are 10 pieces to deal with.

Now, leaving that aside, here are my observations from last night's games on the proposed changes to magic (no level added to casting or dispelling) and LOS (terrain blocks unless you are touching/in it):


Woodies vs Tzeentch Daemons (2 30+ horror units each with herald and greater daemon)

The change to casting made a HUGE difference. The inability of the Tzeentch troops to spam with a single d6 casting cut back on the lower spells while there were several failed castings of 12+ spells even when using 4 PD. I had one 4th level life caster and she actually managed to get off 1 or 2 spells per turn. We didn't add DD to units with MR as it will quickly became apparent that it wasn't necessary. Overall, the impact of this change was to shorten the magic phase considerably and it made the available DD much more valuable. The approach works very well for low to mid level magic on both sides but magic heavy lists definitely suffer, perhaps excessively.

On the movement side, being able to use intervening terrain to block LOS made quite a difference from a tactical perspective. We spent a lot more time focusing on troop movement and trying to get into flanking or charge positions. Overall, a much more thought provoking and challenging game that resulted in combat not occurring until turn 3 or 4.

Game 2: Woodies vs Brets (RAF variant with 2 lances, 3 units of peggies and 2 trebuchets)

On the magic side, we each had a life 4th level. Results nearly identical to game #1. Judged to be very good overall as we each got 1-2 spells off per turn which helped but was hardly a game maker/breaker.

For terrain, it again forced us to consider movement much more and made hiding from the lances much easier for the woodies. Being able to hide from artillery also helped although it made life tougher for the archers. The change in LOS certainly altered the game and made it more tactical but we are not sure if another option similar to 40K might be better (i.e. cover save vs attacks).