Thursday, May 10, 2012

The Nova, Terrain in 40k, and 40k is a Shooting Game

So…..lots of stuff in that title J

This post is going to be long. It might be a bit ranty here or there and might be a bit holier than thou in some places but I feel some of it needs to be said. Also I’m going to try and intersperse it with photos to break the text wall and entertain you with boobies (images stolen from my buddy Spags at TheBack40k cause I'm at work and looking might not be a good idea).

We’ll start first with NOVA. This part is a little gushy. This is the event that started a firestorm. There was a cry for a while for a more competitive format (in terms of clearly defined winners based on record) and Mike Brandt stepped up and took on the challenge of creating a tournament to provide it. His ideas influenced quite a few events in one way or another and normally in a good way.

Clarification: Now to be clear I’m not saying that Nova is the only or best format but I do feel Mike’s openness in his approach and his general urge to reach out to the community has helped create the environment we have on the circuit. Right up there with the guys from Adepticon, WargamesCon, and newly on the scene Reece’s group over there at Frontline Gaming.

And this format is Mike’s baby. He’s constantly tweaking and playing with it. He takes in ideas on how to make it better from the community and builds on it. In other words he’s a great TO. Some of you might be wondering why I’m blowing smoke up Mike’s ass. It mostly has to do with the fact that, as an event that is often considered the flagship for competitive 40k (even if all 40k is competitive in its own way), Mike takes a lot of hits from parts of the community and that can be draining on a person. Especially when the heat he catches is primarily from a small subset of people who consider themselves a big part of the competitive community. Most recently it’s been about terrain which segues nicely into the second part of the title.


Now in 2010 I attended the Nova Open. I sold an army to ensure I had the funds to make it out there to support the type of tournament I really wanted to see grow. Now I’m sure most of us remember the middle of 5th edition. No one had really accepted that LoS blocking terrain really needed to be built and used. So I was actually surprised when I showed up and there was actually a piece or two on the table. Fast forward to 2011 and, in my opinion, the terrain ramped up significantly. While some of the hills turned out to be a bit big I can’t fault the mentality as it reminded me of how 40k should be played. In 4th edition we had it easy with defined terrain blocking LoS thru it. In 5th we’d had a major issue with that and shooting fish in a barrel was the new past time.

Now most of you will remember I was torn between running my Nids (considered uncompetitive) and my other armies and I wound up going with my Loganwing for various reasons like transportability and the fact that I was probably going to play Dash J

Had I known there would be actual LoS blocking terrain like what we got I’d have hands down ran Nids. Why? Because there was actually terrain to use to get cover on big bugs and to mask approaches. It felt like how the game was meant to be played with movement being important again. And I can see how it would help armies designed to use cover like Nids, Tau, and DE. Oddly mostly Xenos armies as the 3+ armies tend to fair well in shooting matches based on game mechanics.

And what’s happening this year? Take a look at Mike’s blog and see some of the amazing terrain he’s building for the event. He’s adjusting and building new centerpiece terrain this year that won’t be so large and block as much LoS but he’s holding to the style of terrain he’s always had. Evenly distributed with some LoS blockers. Based on what I’ve seen of tables outside the US and how much more fun the game is with terrain I’m 100% in favor of it. But a few people don’t like it.

There was a bit of a pushback on some of the vocal parts of the internet after Nova 2011. Mostly concerning terrain and how it ruined some armies. That pushback was mainly from people who played gunline style lists with little to no counter-CC. With some of those people going so far as to claim that Mike was changing the game to suit his local area or to just change it to his type of 40k.


It all settled down and most the reviews Mike got back for the event showed a massive percentage of the community was happy with the terrain which is great. But this segues into a bit of a rant for me.

Terrain is something we need more of! Almost no event has adequate terrain. By adequate I mean full 25% coverage mixed with BLoS and partially BLoS terrain. Terrain is what makes the game interesting. It allows for assault, shooty, and combined arms armies to all compete on the same playing field. No first turn blast offs and people actually having to move their little toy boxes. Much more interesting. Granted some people think that terrain that blocks LoS can lead to hiding and slightly more boring game play. Personally I think it causes people to be mindful of mobility. They can’t hide if you can move and be effective too.

We got seriously spoiled in 4th with the way terrain was interpreted so we didn’t need to build things that blocked line of sight because a felt cutout did. This lack of terrain for most of 5th has lead many people to think of 40k as a shooting based game with a small assault element. And that that small assault element is so insignificant that it should be ignored when building lists in favor of more small shooty units. These are the same people who complained loudly about the terrain at Nova and who complain about LoS blocking terrain in general. 40k is a game that’s meant to be balanced between combat and shooting. I’ve found it to be exactly that if you have solid terrain. Outside of that shooting armies, particularly 3+ marine armies, tend to jump way out in front. Terrain is important for the way the game was designed (as written in the rulebook) and for variety of armies you’ll get to play in an event.

With 6th edition on the horizon most of this might not matter in 2 months. It’s possible they’ll bring back category terrain since that’s the type of product they sell.

So what was the point of this whole post? First to point out that TO’s are people too. Their events are their babies. Bashing people and their events will only lead to people just not wanting to do it and then we’ll be back to 2008 with very few events in the country. If you know any TO I’d send them a thank you for allowing us to have the type of event circuit we have.

Shout out to Duke from Feast of Blades, Spags and crew for the Indy GT, Mike for Nova, all the Adepticon dudes, all the WargamesCon dudes, Jay and Da'Boyz, Reece and his cali crew, and Tim from Bugeater. Thanks guys for being a part (big or small) of us having such a great tournament scene.

Secondly to discuss my views on terrain which pretty much equals the more the better. And thirdly just to point out that I don’t consider 40k a shooting game. I take CC units to counter common CC units out there and rely on CC to do some of the work in the armies that I build. And lastly to point out I’m tired of certain people claiming it’s not 40k if it’s not played their way. Most of us know someone like that in real life or in the blogosphere.

Oh, and sign up for Nova, it’s gonna be blast! It's about 70% full for 40k as of yesterday.

Sorry for the long wall of text. I tried to break it up J


Comments (31)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Agreed. The odd thing is that Citadel scenery is surprisingly affordable compared to basic GW kits, and it's so easy to make. I've been loving reading Mike's descriptions of the terrain making process and it's been making me think pretty hard about getting one of those kick-ass hot wire jigs.
I agree with you that a few people are bitching about the terrain. The solution is just to put up pictures of a few tables that will be at NOVA. You said it yourself having known what the terrain was like you would of brought your nidz instead of Loganwing. That is why people are complaining about, they didn't know and the terrain was out of norms (what people usually play with).

And good job on breaking up the text.
1 reply · active 672 weeks ago
I did a post (linked below) on terrain a couple of weeks ago, too. It was more of a "terrain is the last frontier of the great 40k general" angle. I agree, the more various the terrain, the better!
http://greenstuffindustries.blogspot.com/2012/05/...
From Gornall:

Awesome post!!! I had been following discussions on this topic on other blogs and I agree with your comments 100%. I have seen some people acuse MVB of changing "how the game should be played"when I think they are the ones who play a completely different game as the rest of the community.
From Spaguatyrine:

Nice post! And pic.. I mean text. But seriously,

We all want a game that is challenging, memorable, and fun. Sometimes we win, and sometimes you lose. Don't blame MVB or Matthias, or terrain. Get better and come back again next time.

I hate dawn of war because I loose longfangs for at least a turn. Oh well. Adapt and overcome.
From WhoaDirty:

If the TO makes every table a City Fight table, should it matter as long as it is advertised ahead of time? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought a picture of an example table was posted prior to NOVA last year? If so, people shouldn't complain about the terrain if they didn't do their research.
From hyv3mynd:

Agreed and thanks for writing this. I even went to great lengths to defend the terrain on a certain blue blog that was railing on the NOVA '11 terrain. What did I get for my efforts? Every comment deleted.

Terrain is one of the top deciding factors in picking tournaments for me. That and time limits. I play Nids mostly and an open table and enough time to only play 4 turns are the two top reasons we don't see them at more tournaments.

Seeing pics of Mike's terrain for this year already got me more excited than any other aspect of the event. I even threw down $200 for one of his fancy foam cutters.

Anyways, I've never met him in person, but I think Mike knows a few grumpy loudmouths don't speak for the majority. We want plentiful and diverse terrain at tournaments. Keep up the great work.
So for some reason someone's posting overrode the comment system so I deleted them so it would pop back up right. Hence the reason for the "From **NAME**" on the last few posts :)
Great article! the words were good too......lol____Is 40k a shooty game?...maybe. like you said it depends on the terrain. After 6ht I think it might swing the other way though with the rumours....
Very interesting piece and I couldn't agree more. I suspect we have all seen the endless whining that appears on The Blog That Shall Remain Nameless over the NOVA terrain and how it allegedly turns 40k into some variant that is at odds with how GW intends for the game to be played. MVB posted a pretty lengthy response to those accusations the other week but this was swept aside with the blog author's usual disdain for anything that doesn't fit into his own vision of the way the world works (ie, no actual argument, just abuse).

From MVB's latest comment on that blog it looks like he may be coming to the end of his tether on the subject. Can't say I blame him. He must have the patience of a saint to put up with the petulant, childish abuse and demands from an (extremely) vocal but entirely unwelcome section of the 'community'. If I was Mike, I would return Andrew's registration fee and tell him to sod right off. If he's not happy with the terrain and wants to use it as an excuse for why he can't win then don't play. Then he and his merry bunch of sycophants can whine and abuse each other on their little blog to their heart's content without anyone else having to put up with it.
1 reply · active 672 weeks ago
No need to hate on that blog over here, we all know what it is.

Great post hulk. Terrain definitely defines the game, and it's so open ended in the rulebook. Which makes it good, because it tells the players that there isn't one-way to set up terrain. It's definitely open to interpretation, and TO's can work with it as they see fit / how they can afford it. Better players will adapt, just like any game and any sport.
Thank you, Brad.

The thing is, Brad's every bit his own person ... the very same unhappy human beings who will trash TO's for reasons that aren't even legitimate (a certain blogger I can think of spread the blatant crap that I paid for Stelek to come to NOVA, for instance, and never once asked me about a single thing he's said about NOVA), will claim the only reason people say anything nice about one event or another is that they are sycophants.

Suffice it all to say, it's stuff like this that keeps me going. I lose money almost by design running the NOVA, and spend close to 40 hours a week on it (in spite of a 50-60 hour/week proposal management career) most weeks. I can intellectualize and realize that loud dissenters are often minority opinions, but it's good to get the emotional kick by hearing counter-points as well.

Grazie.
calypso2ts's avatar

calypso2ts · 672 weeks ago

Great article (and not just for the pictures). The lack of suitable terrain at the start of 5th edition had a huge impact on how people played the game and now that it is starting to fall back into where it should be there is natural pushback.

I have been following the terrain production for Nova and think it is great.

I see the Da Boyz take huge critiques for their comp heavy event. Maybe Nova and Da Boyz are forcing players who attend to conform to the way they play the game. Too bad that is the privledge you earn when you go through the work of hosting a GT. Further, it gives each event its own character.

I do not see anyone calling for Fenway to tear down the Green Monster or for left field in Yankee stadium to be pushed out. Your park, your rules.
Great Article. Hands down the easiest "wall o text" I have read in a while. 25% terrain is critical to have any kind of game balance IMO. This is really a very small community and the online presence is still only a fraction. Additionally a lot of people in that online presence need to find better ways to constructively criticize things that they don't like about other parts of the community. Criticism is a necessary part of evolution/change but when people just bash things it just turns into online mob actions and is only destructive IMO.
Thanks again for the article.
Love this post. Will be linking it when I talk about 6th Edition and changes they should make.
Admittedly, I am one of those that didn't exactly have the most wonderfully performing army due to the terrain. I did run a largely gunline army; the fact of the matter was that my list was slanted a bit too far in that direction, so the 3-4 line of sight blocking terrain pieces (especially the figure-8 piece in the center) proved to be a very large problem for my list to deal with. My mobility, skill, and familiarity with the list was my saving grace...if not, I very likely could have finished with 1 or 2 wins total.

I have made it well-known that I was unprepared for what came to pass, even though I did my research beforehand. Seeing things in pictures is not the same as having it in front of you and scaled to both of your opponent's armies. I'm well used to playing with 25-35% terrain cover, but the amount of BLOS terrain was a little shocking to me at the time.

NEVERTHELESS, Mike ran an amazing event. Truly. It was some of the best fun I've had in a very long time -- the people I met there were amazing. I don't fault him for the terrain or his position on it. If that is how he wants his event and has the support for it, I'm all for that. I did't complain about how well I did, nor do I place any blame on Mike for that. My list was what it was, it was ill suited for the event. That was on me. I was extremely happy with how I did considering that fact. Was I disappointed in my record? Of course, but I learned from the mistake last year and I'm much better prepared this time around. Would I like only 1-2 BLOS pieces of terrain? Yeah. But I'm not going to bitch if its not the way I want. I'll simply buck up and adapt, like I've been doing with my BT for years now. :P
3 replies · active 672 weeks ago
Mike's view of terrain and mine aren't exactly the same, though they're certainly similar - obviously, having never run an event for 128 people (or whatever it was) there's an element of him having more experience with it impacting games (or not) on a large scale.

Point being - I was one who said the terrain at several tables I saw last year looked bad, and certainly benefited some armies to the detriment of others. It led to some games that sounded very frustrating and unfun to play, from the perspective of at least one participant in those games. It also would have largely negated some items or options - such as Conversion Beamers being unable to fire much diagonally for instance - things like that I'm pretty trepidatious about, since there is no way to counteract that situation.

I'm not, however, saying that it's now Mike40k or whatever - just that those specific hills, as Mike has said, had more of an impact on some games than would have happened in a perfect world.

The NoVa is still the only existing event I would love to fly over the Atlantic specifically to attend.

Vis-a-vis a shooting game, however, I have to disgaree that the two are perfectly balanced in the core rules. The fact that you hit vehicles on the Rear is poor compensation for hitting them on 4+ or 6s virtually any time you catch up to one you haven't already damaged, only getting a single strike from Grenades, Melta Bombs not being AP1, and then the myriad issues with time constraints, distances, blocking, bubblewrap, and the fact that (barring Kharn) it will always be easier for skilled shooting units to hit and thereby have a chance to inflict damage than for combat units* - there are a great many more limiting factors to inflicting melee damage than shooting damage.

Is the gap as wide as perhaps it is sometimes asserted? No. However, if hyperbole is the only way to get people to pay attention to the debate long enough to see for themselves the inequality, then I have no qualms with that.

* - For anyone who doesn't already realise, this is two-fold: the fact that you can hit on a 2+, and often with a re-roll built in, shooting, but can't in CC; but also because shooting rolls to hit are based only on your own ability without the comparative process for Weapon Skill. A Shooting unit will always be exactly as good at hitting in any circumstance, but a combat unit is inherently less reliable, despite the variation being small and unusual, but they also variably take damage BACK, a much more important factor as they can hit things that kill them much more easily than they'd like.
2 replies · active 672 weeks ago
I agree that there is a disparity between shooting and assault and that this has led to some people going purely for shooting and pretty much ignoring assaults. What it does not mean is that this is the intention of GW or that the game should change its name to Shooting 40K, which seems to be the position of certain people in the blogosphere.

There are some simple fixes to help bring assault back into the game, one of which is merely to use the terrain that GW recommends in the rulebook. You can also rebalance the base number needed to hit, add in modifiers for large targets (is it really just as hard to hit a jetbike moving at 36" as it is to hit a Land Raider moving 12"?), give shooting modifiers to hit or damage for moving targets etc. These are all things that may or may not find their way into 6th Edition. I for one would like to see greater balance. About the only thing I don't want to see is a return to consolidating into another assault UNLESS there are also rules for breaking off an assault. Otherwise we return to the situation where 1 assaulting unit can simply walk through an entire shooting army without them ever being able to bring their weapons to bear.
HS,

I agree completely. Tournament terrain is way too sparse, and no one should be surprised by IG gunline's meteoric rise to success, at least partially owing its success to that condition. NOVA terrain is a step in the right direction, however Mike's post brings up a point: terrain is expensive. At small tournaments, I look forward to NOVA-esque terrain, but understand that it is tough for a club to have 25% terrain for 16+ tables. It warms me when multiple clubs come together to share terrain, because I believe the game (specifically the mentioned mobility and tactics that come from more terrain) benefits greatly.

Three cheers for Mike, and for your blunt yet appropriate, post about terrain in the twilight of 5th edition.
Tragedyoius of Spaim's avatar

Tragedyoius of Spaim · 671 weeks ago

Darn if you didn't suck all the chrome off MVB's trailer hitch. It's obvious he likes that sort of thing. There should an Internet contest to see who can make him shoot the biggest load. I'm sure you'd be right up there chief.
1 reply · active 671 weeks ago
Tournaments really require good terrain and good missions to be solid competitively. The scoring system really isn't nearly as important; there are things to be said for (and against) W/L, W/L/D, BP for effective measurement of performance.

We've built hundreds of hills for good BLOS terrain, and we've been fortunate enough to get great deals from Amera Plastics on huge crates of buildings and terrain that is fantastic for durability, usability, and efficient storage. We generally play on pretty heavy terrain as well, and we've found that the game is much more dynamic and interesting, and that rarely do you end up reenacting The Somme, which is a good thin in my book.

I'm registered for NOVA and looking forward to it. I think I have a bit of an edge in the awesomeness of terrain utility scale, but Mike's stuff sure is pretty. ;)
Just want to say thank you for the information that you have been shared on your site. Well it is better.
Every time I see a new comment on here, especially something from years ago, I'm stunned.

Post a new comment

Comments by