| The One Ring http://test.one-ring.co.uk/ |
|
| SBG deployment & terrain http://test.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=24116 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | jscottbowman [ Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | SBG deployment & terrain |
Its been a while... Getting to grips with the new army books and missions... Am I right in thinking that its possible for opposing forces to be deployed virtually touching, if they are both deploying as far forward as possible (in the '1-3' zone)? Its seems an odd way to start a game, yet I couldnt find anything stating minimum distance between deployed warbands or words to that effect. Area terrain; 'woods' - how do you guys generally play this, for shooting cover? I find it a real hassle to have to figure it out tree by tree and usually just say : shooting through 'woods' so 4+ to shoot through it ... I tend to do this, as when i move a unit through a wood, I tend to rearranage the trees as i move through, keeping my block of shields to front and spears behind... so individual tree position becomes meaningless. Thanks in advance for replies. |
|
| Author: | Guillaume4 [ Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SBG deployment & terrain |
From my interpretation of the warbands rules, your assumption that warbands can line up right in front of each other seems correct. My brother and I play the same way with the rules about shooting. If there are two obvious things in the way, we do 2 in the way tests, but if there is just woods, we just do one in the way test. Moving the trees makes sense. However, we play that trees are static because it fouls up formations and adds a lot more tactical issues making woods realistically tricky. |
|
| Author: | SouthernDunedain [ Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SBG deployment & terrain |
jscottbowman wrote: Its been a while... Getting to grips with the new army books and missions... Am I right in thinking that its possible for opposing forces to be deployed virtually touching, if they are both deploying as far forward as possible (in the '1-3' zone)? Its seems an odd way to start a game, yet I couldnt find anything stating minimum distance between deployed warbands or words to that effect. Area terrain; 'woods' - how do you guys generally play this, for shooting cover? I find it a real hassle to have to figure it out tree by tree and usually just say : shooting through 'woods' so 4+ to shoot through it ... I tend to do this, as when i move a unit through a wood, I tend to rearranage the trees as i move through, keeping my block of shields to front and spears behind... so individual tree position becomes meaningless. Thanks in advance for replies. I have played many games both friendly and tournament where both forces have deployed about an inch away from each other. And the trees are supposed to disrupt your formation, if you have a shield block, dont go marching through trees. Re-arranging trees to suit your army is (in my opinion) cheating. As for LoS, best thing to do is play True line of sight, if there are 2 trees in the way, that is 2 in the way tests. No trees = clear shot but make sure you agree that before you start playing. |
|
| Author: | jscottbowman [ Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SBG deployment & terrain |
Thanks... so set up becomes crucial as you can be into it very quuickly... as regards trees and area terrain, the problem I have is that different model trees are , well, different.... it depends how they are modelled... mine have quite slender trunks, wide bases to stop them falling over and high up foliage... so the wide base has a greater impact than the width of the trunk, and the lofty foliages doesnt always come into play, its why I tend to abstract area terrain in this way... I consider the half movement through difficult terrain to be enough of an issue... Thanks for your reply. |
|
| Author: | Beowulf03809 [ Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SBG deployment & terrain |
I live in the woods (and have most of my life). Real trees ARE very different. And different sized trunks, height of branches, density of foliage, surrounding undergrowth, etc. all makes a huge difference in real life and should in the game as well. Growing up I played many games of paintball (ok...we used BB and pellet guns since paintball hadn't been invented yet) in the woods near my home and I can assure you that you always look for the best tree to hide behind. SBG is a game scaled to individual units and as such you should treat individual terrain obstructions just as importantly. In WotR and in Flames of War (WWII war game) terrain is far more abstract because the scale is different. In those the AREA is what is important. I have played many games of each with different colored cloth pieces cut to various shapes and sizes and layed out to represent the terrain. Light green is open woods. Dark green is dense woods. Things like that. We would usually put a few trees in these for some visual appeal but would move those tree models around or remove them as needed to allow the army models to go where needed. But in SBG each of our terrain pieces is treated exactly WYSIWYG and it really adds an element to the game. We have some woods that only have a few trees on them, others with several. The only 'special' way we treat things are that any tree or similar obstacle you are in base contact with is not In The Way for your own shots. It is assumed you turn around it, fire, and duck back. This is how the game treats walls and such so it makes sense and has precedence. I know it may seem like it's slowing the game down and actually it DOES. But I think it's for the best. You can always use different terrain or fewer trees if it seems to be a real problem but I think the tactical aspect of WYSIWYG terrain in SBG is one of it's most engaging points. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|