Tuesday, August 30, 2011

NOVA: The Tables

by SandWyrm

Here's what the tables at the NOVA Open 2011 looked like before the Invitational games. As in, nobody had yet moved the terrain pieces on the tables around to accommodate their display boards.

The 40K Tables

This one's pretty reasonable, but too open on the right side.

This one's more marginal.

Better hope I don't get spearhead deploying on the near left.

Now things are starting to get ridiculous. If I'm mech, I'm not just restricted, I can't move anywhere on the near left due to the size of the pieces and the spacing between them.

This was hands-down the worst table layout at the NOVA. People whispered about it during games, as in: "Oh man, I hope I don't have to play on table 8!"

If this one was just spread out a bit more it would be OK.

This one was fine, spacing-wise. But by your 3rd game, you got tired of the symmetrical layout.

I actually played on this one for my 2nd game against the Tau. The terrain was scrunched together much tighter than this, but the judge we asked about it assured us it was correct.

Too open on the right. 

This one's fine, apart from the really small gap between the center and far-center pieces.

Why fill in that gap on the near-left with a barrier?

What happened here?

As we descended into the bottom tables, things got much more traditional.

In my opinion, landing platforms should never be used in competitive play. It's just too wonky a model.

Though I may criticize these layouts, I want to emphasize that I understand how much work getting this much terrain together is. John told me that they'd had people promise terrain only to back out at the last minute. While the people who stepped in to fill the gap sometimes did so with aquarium pieces so inappropriate that you literally couldn't place a single model on them. I had one of these on my table in game 5 and my opponent had to place his models off to the side and indicate with dice where the front line of his troops was.

Still though, I think that (like win/loss itself) we need to (as a community) talk about what the ideal terrain layout (or layouts) would be for an event like this. Obviously Mike wanted to achieve certain things with this layout in terms of balancing the scales away from pure mech a bit. But if Adepticon failed to add enough LOS-blocking terrain, then I feel like NOVA went too far the other way in reaction.

But LOS-blocking isn't the only issue. There's also the issue of the symmetry and how it dictated deployment.

Take this layout, which is more or less Adepticon's standard. It has problems, but to me, it's more tactically interesting than always having a big hill in the center. Instead of having to always figure out how to take that hill first, this layout makes me think about which path(s) I want to take to get to the enemy. Which might include that hill, and might not. While the terrain did differ a bit from table to table, I just didn't feel like there were as many choices to make at deployment time during the NOVA. It got too samey as the day wore on.

If we could just combine the two approaches, I think we'd have something special. Or at least less tactically repetitive. As I told Mike, at Adepticon I never felt screwed by the terrain. When I lost I always knew it was my fault. While at the NOVA I lost games to unavoidable terrain tests. Which made it feel much more random.


  1. Most of those latter tables are Battle for Salvation tables (with no further addendum).

    While some tables are adjusted a little b/c they get bumped around, the point quite was to have terrain that ACTUALLY blocked serious line of sight (not just blocked it to only one or two direct angles), and that forced people to consider more maneuver and/or the consequences of thinking dozer blades are dumb, yadda yadda.

    I am very interested in reading up on the feedback, though, as you process through your games and turn-by-turn movements, etc. ... most of my playtesting is done beating down players like Tony with a mobile mech guard army loaded up with 10 Chimeras and 3 Vendettas ... hence my curiosity.

  2. "...and that forced people to consider more maneuver and/or the consequences of thinking dozer blades are dumb, yadda yadda."

    And you know Mike, there's nothing wrong with that. But I didn't know that was the plan going in. Your diagrams didn't account for the tiny spaces I would have to move tanks through. I'm fine with making terrain tests when I'm impatient or a tank in a lane gets popped and I have to go around. Them's the breaks. But I was making so many tests per game that I was losing matches because I had to get into the center and I happened to immobilize 2 or 3 tanks on the approach instead of one.

    It's not like I saw the other mech IG guys doing anything but castling up their Leafblowers. So did it really make them maneuver more? I really don't think so. I think they were just able to camp outside the danger zone and play to their strengths.

    Can I adapt my mobile IG lists to work in this particular environment? Sure! But that's also not a meta-typical game of 40K. It's NOVA-40K, with it's own considerations and tradeoffs. So I personally felt a little blindsided.

    If I make it next year I'll be much better prepared. But it sucks to "lose" a year getting up to speed just because my army/codex isn't as adaptable on the fly as Wolves or GKs. Farmpunk and Spag just brought the same lists they always do and did fine. If my performance in the NOVA had matched my performance elsewhere, I would have ended up somewhere around tables 16-32. Either roughly equal to Farmpunk or (on a bad day) one tier below him. That's where the IG player I beat in the Whiskey Challenge ended up.

  3. I have been waiting to see some player feedback on the terrain. I was watching the live coverage the 11th Company did (loved it btw!) To me it looked like there was a good amount of terrain and from what I could see on the feed the terrain itself look good. That said it looked a bit too bunched up in the middle of the table to me.

    It seemed like it would really hamper movement and from your description of immobilizing vehicles it would seem that was the case. Did you hear of anyone else having the same types of problems?

  4. Oh yes, I heard a lot of complaints. It was a huge topic of conversation. Especially on the 2nd day from the other guys at the lower tables. We all had much the same issues. The last guy I played was a Chaos player and he'd taken bikes. You can imagine how that went for him. White Scars armies would be especially screwed over.

    The only guy I heard complementing the terrain layout was Alex from the English ETC team. He actually thought it was pretty light and that the ETC was better because it had twice as much terrain. Yikes!

  5. wow Knife fight ina phone booth...my Green Tide orks woulda loved it. I'm surprised Gaunt hordes did not crush everyone. Poor DE and IG.....

  6. Aye, the terrain definitely played a factor in my games as BT gunline. The LOS blocking on the majority of the terrain features made it very difficult to pull out victories in the traditional way.

    Had to completely revise my tactics and though my record didn't show it, all of my losses but one came down to the last couple rolls of the game (3-5). While the terrain was unexpected (I wouldn't have brought what I did knowing what I do now...), I did the best I could with what was put in front of me. I managed to give my opponents very close games in spite of it, but only because of my experience with the army. :)

    The terrain was, what it was. But I wished I had seen pictures of a board set up prior to the event. However, when I win games with VPs as low as 215 points, then you start to get a feel for how big a disadvantage it gave me. I couldn't SEE anything in pretty much every game until things were right in my face or if I throw my own units into the few open fire lanes to die.

    My army doesn't have built in mobility in its gunline like mech IG, SW, BA, or really any other shooty army has. My stuff had to sit still if it wanted to shoot and that was bad, so my shooting suffered greatly. But I managed and relearned how to use my army in a different fashion, and had two dice rolls been in my favor, I'd likely be 4-0 on the second day. ;)

    The terrain thing is my only real criticism of the tournament. But really, it is a very minor complaint, even though it impacted me dramatically. I'm better prepared for next time now, so no worries. :D

  7. I think the problem people have, on this post as well as the prior one from a few days ago, is that you seem to be coming from the position of "I should never have to take a Dangerous Terrain test on my vehicles, unless:

    A). One of my vehicles got destroyed in the Rhino/Chimera-sized hole I demand be between all pieces of terrain
    B). I am diving for Objectives on Turn 6, in which case I no longer care"

    And while we've certainly got used to playing that way around here, it's probably not going to be (nor should it be) the precedent set for everywhere else. Dangerous Terrain tests should not be an at-your-convenience sort of occurence for armies with 10+ moving vehicles.

    The fact is, Dozer Blades exist specifically for armies like yours. If you fancy yourself as "Mobile Guard" and want to rely on that mobility to set yourself apart while talking about how all the Leafblowers just sit in their castles and never move, then you should absolutely be taking advantage of a piece of wargear that lets you render terrain virtually irrelevant to your army on the whole.

  8. despite the fact that he's a filthy daemon player, i agree with dodger on this. most of our local tournaments are lucky to get 15-20% coverage on the tables (though this has been getting better), and with very little of that being LOS blocking in any significant way.

    judging by the photos, i liked the amount of terrain on the tables. the layout was a little uninspired and uniform, but i can certainly see why it was done that way.

  9. SandWyrm: some ETC tables was realy with heavy terrain, but not all. Some sets of tables was full, some light. You can see some "light" tables on my video from Montreux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJYpwdI6IwM&feature=player_embedded

  10. I think the terrain helped me quite a bit and made the games more interesting. I was not expecting terrain like this, so I was surprised when my Vindi's siege shield turned into a major advantage. I think the terrain was good, just positioned a little wonky after display boards moved it all around. If tanks were able to move freely between the terrain it would have been perfect. My land raider could not move without taking difficult terrain tests. If it had the option of moving it would have given me a few more options.

    Since Mike is on here, I have send my thanks to him and his team. The Nova open was just plain incredible!

  11. Applause to Dodger3.

    Sandwyrm... when you say that it gets old playing on the same layout 3 games in a row, and then criticize a table for having a different layout 4 pictures later, forgive me if I stop listening to the words you speak as serious argument.

    You've done nothing but demand the ability to freely maneuver around the entire table this whole time.

    So many things that others have said are correct. You have a piece of wargear available to you that would solve this problem completely. If I don't take a power weapon, far be it from me to complain about terminators passing their 2+ saves.

    And I'll ask the question again since you blatantly ignored it the first time around - how many tests were you actually taking, compared to how many you failed?

    On the tables that seemed to irk your ire the most, there was a clear (if open) path across the other side - would it have been more beneficial to go around that way instead of risking the terrain (because that's a choice you have to make when you're on wheels)?

    If you moved 3 tanks through terrain on a turn and immob'd 2, then that's just bad rolling. It happens. If you moved 12 and lost 2, them's the apples.

    Let me pose another question to every other player out there... how many times has sticking to cover and botching a diff terrain test lost you a charge you really needed? Or kept you out of range with your melta-gun when you really needed to slag that tank?

    Terrain happens.

    Tables look great, Mike... I can only imagine the amount of work that goes into making that many look as good as they do, especially when my 4x4 at home doesn't have a single piece of painted terrain or flock on it (at least it has legit terrain now! Ha).

  12. @Dodger/Steve

    I'm not saying that I should have free reign all over the table. Far from it. But I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect that I should be able to get at least 2 Rhino/Chimera sized vehicles into the center without having to take terrain tests. Unless of course my opponent manages to pop one to bottle me in. That's fair and something that I have to deal with all the time in Indy during casual games.

    Dozer blades are definitely something I'll be looking at more closely. Along with Manticores. I can see now why Mike was extolling their virtues a few weeks back. In a limited LOS system like NOVA's, they're much easier to protect.

  13. @Marshal Laeroth

    Yep. EVERY game I played but the last was exceedingly close. Two came down to the final tiebreaker. If I'd brought a better list... well let's just say I would have done better. :)

  14. @Foodie

    The basic gameplay dictated by the layout did not vary. It was "Take the center hill!" all day long. When I took it, I won. When I didn't, I lost. It got a little old. That's a *different* gripe than the terrain spacing or the amount of LOS-blocking vs. non-LOS-blocking pieces.

    Go back and look at my words. I'm NOT saying take all the terrain off my side of the table and lower the height of everything else. I'm not looking for advantage here, just fairness. I WANT to see Nids/Orks/DE do better, but I feel that Mike over-corrected too far the other way. The terrain helped those armies at the expense of really nerfing mine. Am I not allowed to have fun because I play guard? Are the sacrifices I made to attend the NOVA less important than theirs?

    I know you have a beef with Mech because of the armies you play, but the answer isn't to exclude the armies you don't like. Adepticon's layout allowed me to move 4-5 tanks into the center without any real restriction. NOVA in many cases allowed none. I'm saying give me the ability (unless the opponent interferes, as they should) of moving up 2. 2 tanks in 10 is not unreasonable. Pop one and at least 3 of the others will be taking terrain tests to get around him.

    And again, it's all about expectations not being properly set. Next year, if I make it, I'll design my list with this terrain in mind. Making most of this argument moot. The most lasting concern I have is the symmetry that makes every game excruciatingly similar in terms of goals.

  15. Again, I play a mobile mech guard army with 10 Chimeras and 3 Vendettas, and Tony K has lost to me every time we've played in many, many games .... using this terrain format and mission set. Is that valued at all?

    Some of the tables got too scrunched by display boards, but the choices you have to make are a more congested "free" roam of your tanks wherever you want them, or the utilization of wide and/or more narrow avenues of movement.

    Thanks for all the positives, guys!

  16. @foodie,
    "You've done nothing but demand the ability to freely maneuver around the entire table this whole time." Has he really? That's not what I heard. Sandy's points are:
    1) I took the wrong army build to this terrain environment
    2) The terrain layout is too focused in the center of the board.
    3) Certain kinds of armies are screwed in this layout. Bikes, for example, will have trouble because they cannot claim objectives without rolling for dangerous terrain.
    4) Layouts are too uniform. Allowing you to deploy in the same manner every game. Games are too similar.
    5) At least 2 Rhinos and Chimeras should be allowed to get to the center of the board without testing for dangerous terrain.

    Legit points I think. Decent feedback to be considered for future tournaments.

  17. actually, none of my second day games were 'capture the hill'.
    Against DE, it was a flank game. We had lots of stuff tied up on a flank, with an archon and incubi duking it out for a while. There was 1 possible CC attack with wytches attacking a SR using haywires that could have gone horrible for me, but didn't.
    Against Ghostin's Nids... He had the hill the whole game. I didn't want it at all. I ran up a weak flank and picked off more KP's than he could get from me. Great guy. I loved the Illinids (not what he calls them)
    Against BA. The hill was only important last turn. noone held it until last turn. we fought mostly on my side of the big hill. He went first, and I reserved my Ravens.
    Against orks.. I never took the hill. He marched onto it. I ran up a flank out of reserve, and Cleansed a bunch of orkses.

    went 3-1.

  18. @Mike

    I do value that. Would you mind sharing the IG list that you usually ran in testing? I think it would give a lot of insight your choices about the NOVA terrain.

  19. @Jiří Kocman

    Thanks for the video. Most of those tables actually look pretty good to me. Lots of terrain, sure. But there's clear movement lanes and the ability to see into portions of the opponent's deployment zone. Nice.

  20. @Mike

    More than the list, I'd really like to see a fully photographed battle report between you and Tony. I think it'd be very interesting to see how you handle terrain that gave SandWyrm serious problems.

  21. I think everyone would like to see a battle report where Tony loses or at least struggles. :)

  22. I partially agree with Sandy here (btw it was awesome meeting you finally and your army looks more amazing in person than here on the web!)

    My main gripe wasn't so much about mobility, but more the over-abundance of LoS blocking terrain. I run a hybrid mech SW list (4 squads of GHs in Rhinos/RBs, 3 LF packs, 2 speeders, some Thunderwolf Cav is the gist of it) and in several of my games (game 3,4 and 8 specifically) I had major issues with drawing LoS - as in when I literally got down eye level of my LF models I couldn't see anything over the central hills or behind one of the corner BLoS pieces. Basically I could only target whatever moved into one of the few uncluttered movement lanes. I didn't expect to have LoS available all the time, but often a large percentage of my shooting was nullified as I couldn't see any targets until they were literally on top of me (it's the one downside of LF packs). Of course this wasn't the case in the games where I could place them in an elevated position - whether it be some ruined buildings (game 2) or on a hill (games 1, 5).

    Otherwise I LOVED the detailed terrain and the tournament was AWESOME. The terrain layout, while unoriginal/boring after 3 games (i.e. big LoS blocking piece in the center, usually two more similar types of terrain in opposing corners), it was uniform across all boards and made it standard throughout the tournament so there were no surprises.

  23. I know I wasn't there, but I think I'll have to agree with Sandy. I like to see a good amount of terrain, but I think some of the tables just don't seem right.

    I think it needs to prevent whole armies setting up on one board edge and just shooting whilst getting cover. Some elements of the list should be able to do this, but not entire armies.

    The terrain being very scrunched toward the centre of the table does also seem a little odd.

    The terrain does look awesome however and I'd like to give a massive 'hats off' to Mike and all his crew for their efforts. I look forward to using the terrain next year.

  24. The current 2k Strakenguard list primarily used in testing =

    Col. Iron Hand Straken + 2 Meltagun Vets + Medic + Regimental Standard + Carapace + 2 Bodyguards + Astropath + Chimera w/ Hull Heavy Flamer - 345

    Lord Commissar w/ Cloak, Meltabombs - 80

    5 x Veterans w/ Shotguns, 3 Meltaguns, Chimera w/ Hull Heavy Flamer - 775

    Al'Rahem w/ 2 Meltagun Guardsmen, 2 Las/CCW Guardsmen, Chimera w/ Hull Heavy Flamer - 175
    2 x Guard Squad w/ Meltagun, Chimera w/ Hull Heavy Flamer - 230

    3 x Solo Squadroned Vendetta - 390

    I sometimes operate with Dozers, especially when I attend GT's, but don't mind taking the occasional dangerous test, and didn't want that to affect my perception in playtest.

  25. The terrain wasn't that bad. The complaining about loosing games because of a certain army isn't valid in my opinion. Yes, you have to play differently, but not to the point of loosing games because of terrain. Yes I would have liked to see smaller corner pieced of terrain, but those same pieces that hurt me in some games, helped me in others. If the terrain is equal on both sides, then not adapting to the terrain is a player issue not a terrain issue.

    @Sandwyrm. We had this discussion on the drive back about not being able to pre-calculate every scenario. There were 2 other guard armies that were on the top tables that were very similar to yours except one was an actual leafblower and 1 had an executioner instead I believe. You had to change how you played your list to the terrain not the list. Besides the manticores or other artillery which we have been discussing for months now.

    The only real issue I had with the terrain was that it should have been more dispersed into the corners on many tables. I didn't hear anyone at the top tables complain too much about terrain. You take what you get and adapt to what is there. The secret to 40k. "Thinking on the fly"

  26. @Spaguatyrine

    Not sure who you were directing the first part at, but I never claimed that I lost because of the terrain. All of my losses (except one) were down to the Tertiary Goals and often came down to the single last roll of the game.

    What I DID say was that my army was severely disadvantaged by the terrain. It was built around the Alpha Strike, based on what the terrain last year looked like on a board. But the terrain gave my army a double "FU" and laughed. It took away the entire premise of the list and threw it out the window. So I did what I could to adapt, pulled out some wins, and had some very close games. Its all that could be done.

    Unfortunately, I didn't have the privilege of playing another gunline army, so the argument that my opponent suffered the same drawbacks is flawed. When I can't hurt them when they cross the board because of BLOS, then there is a minor issue. I'm not complaining, I'm just stating that I was unprepared for the terrain that was used at Nova.

    All I was saying is that I would definitely not have taken the list I did had I seen the boards before the tournament. Something more mobile/MSU would have been much better. Or even a drop pod list, which would have pretty much dominated games imo with all that BLOS terrain about. ;)

  27. @Mike

    Interesting. Thanks!


    Your army/codex has assault capability. That makes you more flexible when the terrain changes.

  28. "But I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect that I should be able to get at least 2 Rhino/Chimera sized vehicles into the center without having to take terrain tests."

    But you're not asking for that. You're asking to move those two models (which will, in reality, be about eight models in a conga line--if there's room for two, there's room for all of them, unless one gets blown up as mentioned above) via the path of least resistance EVERY time.

    You have paths to get to the center on all of those tables, but you're asking for a 24" straight-dash to the center point, every time. Those empty side lanes you were complaining about in the prior article have a HUGE gap between them on all of the boards that DON'T have a gap on the long table edge. You could easily have deployed in the corner and drove around the corner terrain piece and came into the middle without testing, on practically every board pictured up there.

    Yes, that would require you to take an extra turn of movement to reach your destination. Yes, that is what every other army has to do, all the time, in reaction to terrain. And yes, you could completely nullify the issue and ALWAYS have that 24" straight-dash by taking Dozer Blades.

    And I know the "take Dozer Blades" angle is a little overplayed at this point, but that remains the most serious question: if YOUR army doesn't need Dozer Blades, who ever possibly could? They're literally designed for you. Your army is reliant upon driving straight at the enemy and engaging them with mounted Vets carrying short-ranged weaponry within a couple of turns, and if there happens to be a hill in the way, it puts you at a serious disadvantage in terms of your anticipated strategy.

    But...you play a Codex with a piece of wargear that solves that specific problem. That's a pretty big deal. You get to make terrain irrelevant and maintain the mobility your list is built on regardless of variances in terrain--all for about 30-40 points, as only the offensive-designed Chimeras will even need the Dozer Blades in the first place.

    If you're going to be upset about something, be upset that the local playstyle has spoiled you in terms of being able to use those extra 30-40 points on more guns instead of spending them to reinforce a clear weakness in the list--not that other places may potentially exploit that weakness.

    When I attend local tournaments, all the way up to 1850, I take minimum Troops; 2x5 Plaguebearers. When I'm talking about those lists online with other Daemon players, they're shocked and/or think I'm an idiot. And they are correct--minimum Troops at 1850 is a horrible idea, but I'm familiar enough with the local meta to know that I can get by with them. Nobody around here runs the sort of things that directly threaten my Plaguebearers in an immediate manner. So I generally reply with the same thing: when people start killing the first ten, I'll run fifteen. In essence, I'm willing to wait until the local meta forces me to cover for a weakness in my list, even if I know it's a weakness.

    But I assure you, if I went to Adepticon or NOVA, I would not take minimum Plaguebearers. I can't assume a wider field would allow me the same luxury of playing with an exposed weakness in my list. That's essentially exactly what you did, and everything fell apart because of it.

  29. I thought I'd agreed on the Dozer Blade point earlier. But just to be clear, I AGREE. :P

    I don't think that you and Foodie are ever going to be sympathetic on the access-route thing. But I've said my peace on it. I don't think I'm asking for much. Mostly, I got it. Except where the terrain had been moved around by the players. Though there were some tables that never had those routes.

    Like I said, now that I've seen/experienced NOVA's terrain, I'll be prepared for it next time. I was simply expecting one META and encountered another. It happens, but I don't have to be happy about it. :P

  30. It's not even purely moving around terrain. What is the point in taking tanks with more than one weapon when you have to be moving every turn. I get that people want to prevent 'line-up-and-shoot' type scenarios, but you're taking the game to the whole opposite end of the spectrum where 'shooty lists' (and I've no problem with these existing), just do not have any ability to really put out any firepower before an assault-based list hits them. I get that lining up and shooting takes no 'generalship', but stopping that whole list dynamic entirely is not the way we should be heading in my opinion.

    Take table 86 (in the pics above). With the two large hills (centre and bottom right) and the large building top left, it wouldn't be difficult to hide entire armies for 2 turns whilst they're approaching. Same goes for table 45.

    The 12-18" of free board all around the edge again, just makes very little sense and just reduces the functional area of the board.

    I want a close game, but that doesn't mean I have to be within 2" of my opponent to see and shoot him.

  31. I have nothing against Mech.

    I have something against people bitching because they think they're God's gift to 40k, and I'm sick of it.

  32. @Marshal,

    Wasn't pointing to anyone person. But the fact as I see it, is I should bring an army list that can deal with anything. Terrain, any army, any situation. While I hate to castle, sometimes it might be neccessary to do so in a particular game. I.E. When I played an awesome dark angels player Alex Fennel who had ravenwing bikes and 26 deathwing terminators.

  33. "Take table 86 (in the pics above). With the two large hills (centre and bottom right) and the large building top left, it wouldn't be difficult to hide entire armies for 2 turns whilst they're approaching. Same goes for table 45."

    This makes it sound like your army is nailed to the ground or something, not to mention the deployment options available to prevent that exact situation from occuring.

    Those three terrain pieces you mentioned (on either table) are in a straight line diagonally across the table--far left, center, near right. An opponent can only make use of two of them to cover their army while approaching your army if you happened to deploy in either far left or near right. Otherwise, they get the center piece to cover their approach, and nothing else.

    Even if Spearhead forces you into one of those corners, it takes one turn of movement to remove the near piece of terrain from your field of vision. If you were forced to deploy near-right, you deploy as far down the short table edge as possible, and suddenly there's no ability for anyone to use the near-right piece of terrain as a block.

    Yes, the placement of that piece of terrain would entice many people to castle up behind it to block the enemy's LoS to them. In that case, yes, there will be two pieces of terrain the enemy can potentially use to block LoS back to themselves during their approach.

    But nobody's forcing anyone to deploy like that, and deploying behind a piece of terrain to block LoS to you only to later think "hey, he gets to hide behind it too! that's not fair!" is not necessarily a legitimate complaint.

  34. @Foodie

    I've never claimed to be God's gift to 40K. I will never be the best player, but I know about where I should place. Which is between the 50th to 75th percentile. If I don't, then I've really mucked up my list/strategy somehow. Or something about the event threw me off. Or both.

  35. As I Tau player I found the giant triple level hills in the center game breaking in 2 games.

    @Dodger3 My heavy shooting is infact 'nailed' down. I would like to know how I should deploy my army to stop Battlewagon orks or Dual Landraider lists from rolling me if they get first turn. It looks to me like it's they move up 12" first turn, are out of my LOS then roll me second turn.

    Big LOS blocking terrain helps assault armies for the most part, both the fragile ones and the MEQ ones. It does Tau no favours.

  36. Amazingly, I agree with Spraug. You know to bring an all-comers list. Of course, some Codex get away with 'all-comers' more easily, when their codex does everything well.

  37. I do not know how at Nova, but at our tournaments, it is possible to agree with an opponent that the terrain shifts a little. Although the terrain is assembled at the start of the tournament by organizers, players sometimes move with him because they want to make space on the table, or just accidentally. If the terrain in our country was inflated middle of the table, we certainly agree about the dispersal field. But as I mentioned before, I do not know the rules for NOVA Open.

  38. @Jiří Kocman

    The NOVA rules were very explicit that the terrain and the objective markers were not to be moved in any way without a Judge's OK.

    By day 2, however, the inconsistency of the judging on such matters was clear. So in a couple of games my opponents and I were checking/correcting the objective positions ourselves and making minor nudges to terrain that looked like it had been moved.

    I think that the players can be trusted to resolve some of these matters themselves. It's only at the top tables that things get tense enough to require a judge's impartial intervention.

  39. @Da Warboss

    I think the IG list that Mike posted was very instructive. That list has very little in the way of long-range fire. Almost all of it's work is done close-in.

    I can point to a couple of similar lists of my own that would have much better to have. I got screwed by trying to straddle the shooty/aggressive line (due to my DE/Thunderwolf insecurities) instead of going all-in on my preferred strategy. Not realizing that the terrain would favor that play style.

  40. No offense, but all the "take Dozer Blades" comments seem to have a whiff of "IG is OP so you can't whine".

    Count me on not a fan of the big stuff at the center on almost all the tables. Seems boring.

    Also, it does seem to have terrain too close together on some tables.

  41. Just wanted to point out that bikes were by no means nerfed by the terrain. Both me and Brandon (From the White Scars Blog) went 5-3 with bike lists and placed in the top 55. Brandon also went 3-2 in the invitational. The terrain definitely adds a dimension to the game, but in no way differently than the lack of LOS-blocking terrain heavily favors GK, IG, and SW. The game was designed with 25% terrain in mind, and this assumption was written into the codexes.


out dang bot!

Recent Favorites

All-Time Favorites