I'm a little fuzzy with the vertical movement rules. I have a few queries;
1) is the only way to move vertically up to start in base contact with the terrain? And then finish touching the nearest top edge?
1b) this makes sense with impassable terrain, but what about climbing to upper levels of ruins ect?
2) you can't climb down something unless you're also touching an edge of the terrain? Again, also true with multi level buildings, ruins ect?
Thanks
1) Yes. Yes.
1b) You can climb up a level one "ruins" and clamber up a level two "ruins"
2) Yes. It's the same rule as going up.
The terrain rules make going over relatively small obstacles extremely frustrating. I had a game today where a long but narrow hill (about 10 inches long, but only 3 inches wide and 3 tall) was right at the edge of my deployment zone. I hadn't quite understood how the terrain rules worked, so when I took my first turn I was dismayed to see that my squad had to spend an action to walk just a half inch to the edge of the hill, and a second action to Clamber to the top of the hill (losing a model in the process). Then on the next turn they had to spend an action moving to the far edge of the hill, and a second action Clambering down. 4 actions and one lost model over 2 turns for a total movement of less than 5 inches. I also had a At-Rt parked facing the hill with no way to turn, but I wasn't worried since it has 2 different climbing skills. I assumed that would help it easily get over the hill. Turns out neither Climbing Vehicle or Expert Climber are particularly helpful. Just like the troops, it took 4 full actions to get the At-Rt over a hill which wasn't even as wide as its base.
Its my own fault for not giving the climbing rules a closer look (I thought you could continue movement after climbing/Clambering) and setting up badly, but I suspect I'll never be doing any climbing again unless the mission absolutely requires it. Climbing is just way to action-intensive. Spending 4 actions to get over a hill is ridiculous.
On 4/21/2018 at 11:58 PM, Jake the Hutt said:The terrain rules make going over relatively small obstacles extremely frustrating. I had a game today where a long but narrow hill (about 10 inches long, but only 3 inches wide and 3 tall) was right at the edge of my deployment zone. I hadn't quite understood how the terrain rules worked, so when I took my first turn I was dismayed to see that my squad had to spend an action to walk just a half inch to the edge of the hill, and a second action to Clamber to the top of the hill (losing a model in the process). Then on the next turn they had to spend an action moving to the far edge of the hill, and a second action Clambering down. 4 actions and one lost model over 2 turns for a total movement of less than 5 inches. I also had a At-Rt parked facing the hill with no way to turn, but I wasn't worried since it has 2 different climbing skills. I assumed that would help it easily get over the hill. Turns out neither Climbing Vehicle or Expert Climber are particularly helpful. Just like the troops, it took 4 full actions to get the At-Rt over a hill which wasn't even as wide as its base.
Its my own fault for not giving the climbing rules a closer look (I thought you could continue movement after climbing/Clambering) and setting up badly, but I suspect I'll never be doing any climbing again unless the mission absolutely requires it. Climbing is just way to action-intensive. Spending 4 actions to get over a hill is ridiculous.
Expert Climber allows units to Clamber without having to roll any defense dice to suffer wounds. The AT-RT has this ability already and the Grappling Hooks upgrade can give it to units with the Gear upgrade slot. While it doesn't necessarily improve on action economy in the situation you described, it does at least eliminate the possibility of taking wounds from Clambering.
I played a game last week with some 2" tall hills just to try out the Climbing & Clambering rules. Lost a mini from my Rebel Trooper unit both on the clamber up and the clamber down. Definitely made me think about outfitting some squads with Grappling Hooks if I wanted to play in a tournament.
On 4/22/2018 at 1:58 AM, Jake the Hutt said:Its my own fault for not giving the climbing rules a closer look (I thought you could continue movement after climbing/Clambering) and setting up badly, but I suspect I'll never be doing any climbing again unless the mission absolutely requires it. Climbing is just way to action-intensive. Spending 4 actions to get over a hill is ridiculous.
That's a good thing, though. Playing on a table that requires a lot of climbing makes for more interesting games.
The imbalance only arises when there's, like, one piece of climbable terrain an on otherwise 2d table, and then everybody (obviously) just ignores it.
11 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:Expert Climber allows units to Clamber without having to roll any defense dice to suffer wounds. T
I know that. But even with Expert Climber or Grappling Hooks mitigating the danger of clambering, clambering and climbing is just too action intensive to be a good option.You end up spending 2 actions to get up a height 1 hill/building/obstacle, and another 2 to get down. Thats 2 full turns, or 4 if you're suppressed. Thats just ridiculously slow, and makes climbing a very unattractive option. I wish climbing wasn't so prohibitive, since I own a lot of multi-level terrain I'd love to use with the game. Unfortunately we'll have to live with the rule, but I anticipate never climbing/clambering unless I absolutely have to in order to secure an objective.
2 minutes ago, svelok said:That's a good thing, though. Playing on a table that requires a lot of climbing makes for more interesting games.
The imbalance only arises when there's, like, one piece of climbable terrain an on otherwise 2d table, and then everybody (obviously) just ignores it.
I agree that climbable terrain is a good thing. Coming form Infinity I use a LOT of large multi-level terrain in my games. But when climbing over a very small piece of terrain takes 1/3rd to 2/3rds of the game (depending on if your unit is suppressed) it means you're not very likely to actually want to do it unless you literally have no choice. I really wish the game had more dynamic climbing rules that encouraged you to seek higher ground or allowed you to move over terrain in a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately we'll have to live with this as it is.
1 minute ago, Jake the Hutt said:I agree that climbable terrain is a good thing. Coming form Infinity I use a LOT of large multi-level terrain in my games. But when climbing over a very small piece of terrain takes 1/3rd to 2/3rds of the game (depending on if your unit is suppressed) it means you're not very likely to actually want to do it unless you literally have no choice. I really wish the game had more dynamic climbing rules that encouraged you to seek higher ground or allowed you to move over terrain in a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately we'll have to live with this as it is.
You mean like, agreeing with your opponent that you can go up stairs at normal speeds? ?
1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:You mean like, agreeing with your opponent that you can go up stairs at normal speeds? ?
That doesn't actually fix the problem. To me at least, the possibility of losing a model from clambering isn't the problem with the climbing rules (if anything, the risk involved makes it an interesting choice). It's the amount of time/actions it takes to climb up or over anything. You could agree to count every surface on the board as a ladder and it wouldn't speed up the process at all. Getting over a unit over a small hill will still take a minimum of 4 orders or two turns.
6 minutes ago, Jake the Hutt said:
That doesn't actually fix the problem. To me at least, the possibility of losing a model from clambering isn't the problem with the climbing rules (if anything, the risk involved makes it an interesting choice). It's the amount of time/actions it takes to climb up or over anything. You could agree to count every surface on the board as a ladder and it wouldn't speed up the process at all. Getting over a unit over a small hill will still take a minimum of 4 orders or two turns.
I mean, okay, I understand - but why is this particular terrain being chosen for the game in that density?
thats not necessarily a failure if the game design as such...
The payoff of terrain that tall is its height blockingbLOS. There has to be a reason you go over and not around as well...
I mean... isn’t that a compromise that has to be made with the terrain? Huge terrain is detailed and awesome looking, but rarely practical.
1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:I mean, okay, I understand - but why is this particular terrain being chosen for the game in that density?
thats not necessarily a failure if the game design as such...
The payoff of terrain that tall is its height blockingbLOS. There has to be a reason you go over and not around as well...
I mean... isn’t that a compromise that has to be made with the terrain? Huge terrain is detailed and awesome looking, but rarely practical.
Like I said before, if I had realized how the terrain rules worked I probably wouldn't have deployed where I was and tried to climb the hill. But now that I do know how the terrain rules work? I doubt I ever will want to climb anything unless I absolutely have to. It's just not action efficient. Which means that terrain that would be otherwise interesting and fun to climb and make the game more vertical will probably be be relegated to simply being line of sight blocking barriers to move around at ground level.
And to be clear, I'm not talking about huge buildings or anything like that, although I love putting big terrain pieces on the table. In the example in my first post I was referring to a 2 inch high flat topped hill that was barely 3 inches across. I feel like that kind of terrain shouldn't take two full game turns (or more) to get over.
6 minutes ago, Jake the Hutt said:Like I said before, if I had realized how the terrain rules worked I probably wouldn't have deployed where I was and tried to climb the hill. But now that I do know how the terrain rules work? I doubt I ever will want to climb anything unless I absolutely have to. It's just not action efficient. Which means that terrain that would be otherwise interesting and fun to climb and make the game more vertical will probably be be relegated to simply being line of sight blocking barriers to move around at ground level.
And to be clear, I'm not talking about huge buildings or anything like that, although I love putting big terrain pieces on the table. In the example in my first post I was referring to a 2 inch high flat topped hill that was barely 3 inches across. I feel like that kind of terrain shouldn't take two full game turns (or more) to get over.
Something you can hide behind at least - I mean, 2 inch high... that’s nearky 3 and a half meters in scale.... I can’t vaukt that quickly ?. Be happy you can clamber it at all I guess ?
I guess so. And you're right, it is something I can hide behind. I'm just disappointed that the game doesn't actually give you a good reason to climb. It seems like in most cases its going to be much better to go around terrain than over it (obviously depending on your terrain).
7 minutes ago, Jake the Hutt said:I guess so. And you're right, it is something I can hide behind. I'm just disappointed that the game doesn't actually give you a good reason to climb. It seems like in most cases its going to be much better to go around terrain than over it (obviously depending on your terrain).
Could always be a proper high ground objective later on... who knows...
if its a gradual hill would it still slow you down? some of terrain I made was more along of a gradual slope on some sides but more cliff like on others. Assuming that since it was gradual hill didn't impact movement unless you were going up the cliff sides. Have i been playing that wrong?
All I know is I'm going to to be building g a lot of staircases for my terrain!
2 minutes ago, azavander said:if its a gradual hill would it still slow you down? some of terrain I made was more along of a gradual slope on some sides but more cliff like on others. Assuming that since it was gradual hill didn't impact movement unless you were going up the cliff sides. Have i been playing that wrong?
"Hills and Dunes" are considered "open", so they wouldn't slow you down. However, they are not well-defined in the rulebook (for good reason, I would say). I think you would add it to the list of pre-game checks.
Side note: we really need to develop a "pre-flight checklist", lol.
2 minutes ago, azavander said:if its a gradual hill would it still slow you down? some of terrain I made was more along of a gradual slope on some sides but more cliff like on others. Assuming that since it was gradual hill didn't impact movement unless you were going up the cliff sides. Have i been playing that wrong?
"Hills and Dunes" are considered "open", so they wouldn't slow you down. However, they are not well-defined in the rulebook (for good reason, I would say). I think you would add it to the list of pre-game checks.
Side note: we really need to develop a "pre-flight checklist", lol.
6 minutes ago, azavander said:if its a gradual hill would it still slow you down? some of terrain I made was more along of a gradual slope on some sides but more cliff like on others. Assuming that since it was gradual hill didn't impact movement unless you were going up the cliff sides. Have i been playing that wrong?
As far as I'm concerned, it's what you and your opponent agree on. The RRG says up to half the height of your mini is just difficult terrain. Of course, that depends on the slope as a Height 3 mountain could have a very gradual slope in theory.
31 minutes ago, nashjaee said:"Hills and Dunes" are considered "open", so they wouldn't slow you down. However, they are not well-defined in the rulebook (for good reason, I would say). I think you would add it to the list of pre-game checks.
Side note: we really need to develop a "pre-flight checklist", lol.
I'm running an Operation: Gathering Forces "single day event" in a couple of weeks and I've been trying to figure out how to handle terrain. I'm considering setting a group of terrain pieces at each table with a list of what each piece counts as then letting the players deploy the terrain per the RRG.
Since we don't have Tournament Regs yet, and I am not expecting to by the time of my event, this seems like a way to keep the terrain fair while still following the "Competitive Terrain Placement" box-out in the RRG.