I noticed even in battle reports that terrain seem not to play too big part - and it definitely should.

1. What are your tips for picking terrain deck to tournaments? Keep it as small as possible, have 2 4's?

I find terrain from Hawthorne expansion especially good - being size of a forest but letting only 2*1 in it can be a major factor on battlefield.

I also think that changing deck size from 8 to 10 could be a major factor.

2. Also: how do you draw terrain in casual plays? Deck of single terrain cards (no 2 forests for example) and just randomly pull 4?

3. Do you have any other house rules for using terrain that work better for you than original rules ?

Terrain is a huge thing. Often in the madlands reports, you will see the terrain pushed to the side because terrain shenanigans can be rough to deal with (post house-rule nerfs it has gotten better). Some of the best terrain imo is the bone totem, estate courtyard, and the wild root patch.

1) My choice on Terrain is always based on the build, and if I want to utilize it, or just jam my opponent with it. If playing a fortress build, bringing small unenterable terrain is good, so you can sit behind it like a bumper. For more aggressive builds, it can make for a good springboard into a flank.

2) We play tournament style decks in casual.

3) If you missed it, Church and I have made a house-rule errata to terrain that has taken a lot of the rage inducing factors out of the game. Basically, you cannot enter, or exit terrain outside of your activation. This nerfs Scuttle abuse, and EoA abuse, which makes the game a lot more fun for everyone.

All of it depends on what I’m bringing.

If i have brought a unit that can still springboard off of terrain with the proposed house rule Jukey mentioned, then I focus on terrain with the minimum capacity to allow that unit to enter. So if I have Faolan or LordV, 2 capacity. If I have 4 tray flesh rippers, then 4 capacity terrain. If I’m using heroes that springboard I really like Hawthorne’s terrain.

Second priority is to look for text that helps me. I love bone totem for a ranged army, especially my preferred style of multiple small archers. It’s a bit counterintuitive, but I try to avoid terrain with Cover if I bring archer heavy and I try to avoid Fortified if I’m melee focused. If I have a higher armor force I’ll bring the terrain that does 1 damage to units in or near.

Last is if I just don’t see any terrain that helps me and my army really doesn’t use terrain. Then, I’ll grab 2 rocks, probably Hawthorne’s, and something else low capacity.

Also, your post seems off. You don’t bring a sum of 8 capacity in your terrain deck. You bring 4 terrain pieces. Any two pieces can’t exceed 8 capacity. So you can bring:

-4 pieces with no capacity

-4 pieces with 4 capacity

-3 pieces with 2 capacity and 1 with 6.

-etc.

I will explain where question 3 came from. I have 3 and half huge boxes of plastic thanks to rw, containing 3 armies 4 coresets 2 latari starters and bazilliard small expansions for the three.

I construct armies (have about 15 lists that would work) but neither of those with specific terrain in mind. To construct decks separate for each of those armies would cost me too much thought.

So probably I will just blind draw 4 to choose (my opponents come to my home usually 8 pm, and it will shorten setup).

When we play here, we randomize the missions, deployment, and use the bidding from the standard game. The terrain is randomized from a pile which has two of each card. We’ve had a couple games with two 6-capacity terrain, but we’ve managed to adjust and none of armies are built for a specific configuration. Since we’re not playing super-competitive, it works just fine and we’re often amazed at what comes up...

On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 4:36 PM, sarumanthewhite said:

When we play here, we randomize the missions, deployment, and use the bidding from the standard game. The terrain is randomized from a pile which has two of each card. We’ve had a couple games with two 6-capacity terrain, but we’ve managed to adjust and none of armies are built for a specific configuration. Since we’re not playing super-competitive, it works just fine and we’re often amazed at what comes up...

I've played missions and terrain random, and had very few bad games.

It usually involves a narrow pass and a draw of large terrain that holds few or no trays.

What does it mean for terrain to matter?

I always bring terrain that I think will benefit my list in some way. Rocks can sometimes block a flank and prevent someone from engaging with you. Most factions have terrain that gives them a benefit for the way that they like to play, it is thematic. So in that respect, the terrain does matter a great deal.

When it comes to the actual game, sometimes the person who wins initiative and the particular deployment just doesn't let much happen with terrain. Sometimes both players make a conscientious choice to play away from it. It may not have "mattered" for the tactical dimension of how the game played out, but it certainly "mattered" for the strategic choices of the players.

Your question is very interesting and I thought about it a bit. I think we’re talking about two separate subject- tactical decision making and strategic decision making (by restricting the play area). I appreciate the strategic part and am interested in making it more of a tactical feel

So I think it’s a couple of things:

1) The terrain is digital (you’e in or out) and has a finite capacity.

2) It slows down the movement of melee units (which it should, in general)

So, my experience is that both players tend to place it out of the way or maybe one piece gets placed in between the two forces as a blocking element. You noted this above.

I think the bigger issue is the capacity of most terrain is small enough that keeps all but the smallest units from entering. I’ve noticed that some of the later developed pieces affect units at a certain range of it or allow them to get some speed coming out and I like that element.

My feeling is that with more terrain pieces, you would limit the charge range of various units. Unfortunately, you could just take big units right out of the game by creating a gap that’s too narrow. This goes back to the terrain capacity.

My perspective is probably biased by 40+ years of gaming where terrain wasn’t digital, part of a unit could overlap it and which it would slow down, it would still keep moving. I’m not sure how to do this without completely upending the game as the “digital” terrain rules are written throughout the game.

Thoughts?

Game is very flexible.

One could houserule it by :

1. Adding 2 terrains per scenario (from2-3 to 4-5), not affecting general rule of placing terrain

2. Removing biggest units from unit count (greatest would be 2*2 or 3*2 with the latest being chosen rarely because of difficulty with maneuver)

3. Adding one more round

This way battlefield could be more interesting, and terrain would play bigger role.

This could change balance, and would force more maneuver. Rank Discipline cavalry would be even more powerful. I definitely will experiment with this idea.

offtopic question: one unit just left terrainand is touching it.

If enemy unit enters the same terrain with charge modifier, does it actually charge?

1 hour ago, Skaflok said:

offtopic question: one unit just left terrainand is touching it.

If enemy unit enters the same terrain with charge modifier, does it actually charge?

Yes. RRG 81.8