Runefang was run over the weekend and one of the things that I was keen to achieve was that we used the right level of terrain density and diversity for a 2000 point game on a 6' X 4' table.
My view is that Kings of War benefits from more terrain than you would see on a Warhammer 8th Ed table and so using the guidelines provided in the recent KOW FAQ set up the following tables for the two events.
I'd be interested in getting feedback on a number of questions:
- How did the participants find the terrain - density and diversity
- How does it compare to other gaming areas - too much/too little
Appreciate any feedback.
Posted with Blogsy
Didn't play at the event obviously but it looks a little lighter than the tables at Kapiti & Auckland Clash of Kings, especially with regards to obstacles.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny. I was told it was more than Kapiti but that there were less obstacles
DeleteKapiti had more I think, but this tournament had a lot more impassable terrain (buildings etc). Since I play on Kapiti Tables every week I certainly noticed the difference sometimes. My Potion of the caterpillar was not nearly as useful in some games.
DeleteHowever I thought this was a huge improvement over the first tournament we had around the corner.
I thought that the terrain density was fine in that it really did affect play without hindering it. Terrain should have an impact on a wargame, but it wasn't so dense or so proscriptive that entire sections of the board were shut down. Only two things might be worth reconsidering;
ReplyDeleteThe first is that that blocking terrain should be either hard up against the edge of the table, or there must be sufficient room for a regiment/troop to get in behind it.
In one game of Pillage, my opponent put an objective behind a sphinx, where only individual models could reach it; the gap was about 60mm. He had these in his list, I didn't. You could say that my list was poorly designed to combat this, and you'd be right. The question is whether this is OK and worth repeating.
The second is greater use of obstacles rather than difficult terrain. A number of units have Pathfinder, and the Caterpillar potion is taken by a lot of heavy cavalry. Obstacles (which need Strider, not Pathfinder) will put some limits on these units.
However, overall, the terrain was fine, and added to the games.
Thought individuals can't claim objectives so he wouldn't have been able to claim it anyway. But yeah having positions where you can guarantee no-one can claim an objective makes things a bit average.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I wasn't very clear; I meant individual models (as in singular) rather than Individual models (as in infantry or cav heroes...). My mistake.
DeleteMy opponent had a number of monsters and Large Inf heroes who could claim this objective. I accept that you can't (and shouldn't) try to grab all of the objectives, but my options narrowed somewhat because of the terrain layout.
I think an acceptable answer is "Shouldn't play Dwarfs"
DeleteA totally unexpected and truly surprising sentiment Pete.
DeleteNow tell us about how awful the 4th Ed Chaos Marine codex was, and how underpowered Skaven/Ratkin are, so you can complete the trifecta :)
I can get on board with a game that bastardizes dwarves
DeleteI almost want to come up with a game where Dwarves are the fastest thing in the game to compensate for how short they are
DeleteSome sort of ant man tech where the shorter they get the stronger/faster they become relatively?
DeleteThinking more like Jack Russell or aggressive Chihuahua
Delete