Setting up Balanced Terrain for Kill Team!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- In this video Shane talks about how he thinks terrain should be set up for a balanced game of Kill Team!
Patreon - / commandpoint
Discord - / discord
Help support the channel by making purchases through our Amazon Storefront, at no extra cost to you! www.amazon.com/shop/commandpoint
Apple Podcasts - podcasts.apple....
Spotify - open.spotify.c....
Instagram - / commandpoint
Podcast music by Manco - / mancopaints
Art by Pasi - www.artstation...
London Wargamers released an excellent pack that has Orctarius set/ups for all the matched play missions.
Where can i find it?
@@daviddavo2704 drive.google.com/file/d/1sSlKgFPFq6o-tK_9KNaePKxvGQw5Bq2X/view
Well done and informative.
In theory the player based terrain is awesome. By the same beutiful logic as one kid splits the candy and the other selects first.
But I guess there is a major issue in inconsistency when terrain i such a big deal. Suddenly you realize that you mistakenly misplaced the last vantage point with cover and the balance i wrecked or you get that one devestating blast you talked about just because it turns out that a piece of light terrain is more than 1 from your drop zone and the entire team is hugging it out behind something that actually provides cover.
It certainly deserves to be tried out though!
Love to see it. Great insight
Wow! you did a great job with this one!! 10/10!
Thank you!
This is a really well organized argument! I think you glossed over the potential negative outcomes of making a board too asymmetrical; someone on Glass' discord collated the Attacker/Defender win/loss data, and found it was quite close, considering the sample size was small. Also, in your Heavy terrain segment, the text says 'Heavy Terrain that does not block LOS in Drop Zones is key for a balanced board' - think you mean visibility here (based on what you said), which I 100% agree with. Player-placed terrain seems untenable for time at a venue purposes, and I think removes some confidence from attendees from the 'legitimacy' of an event? Could just be an emotional response from going against the status quo though. Great video!
Totally agree
Can someone explain to me how terrain can be heavy but still allow line of sight? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of it being heavy?
Great video.
12:00 - but theres a rule that specifies that the floor of the vantage point should be ignored in such cases, no?
I can hide a model completely with Heavy Terrain just because of the obscure rule.
That’s okay, because if you do that the obscured model can’t shoot anything else either. Like I mentioned in the video, keeping your models safe isn’t an issue unless that safety is completely one-sided. It should be give or take.
@@shanesmith447 thank you for your answer and thank you for your video, i definetelly will use it in my games.
But regarding the safety... I mean, the same for just a cover with conseal, right? If i do that the consealed model can’t shoot anything else either.
I believe you have much a greater experience and i just don't get smth, sorry.
The inherent problem with player-placed terrain and asymmetric boards is it creates a true meta-game that tests each players skill at these tasks… Do you want the game to be a test of how well each player can create a terrain layout that ultimately benefits their Killteam? (For example, Fortnite separates the good players from the great players based NOT on how skilled they are at playing a FPS, but instead at how good they are at building.)
You have convinced me, due to how players choose Drop Zones and place their models, that the terrain MUST be asymmetrical. I also see your argument for why it’s basically impossible to create a terrain layout that works for the myriad mission types and combinations of match-ups. These issues are compounded by your excellent analysis of what a “balanced” game board should contain… but in competitive play, neither player has an incentive to create a balanced board. The incentive is to place terrain that benefits you and harms your opponent.
I see a few possible solutions:
1. Change how players select Dropzones and set-up models. A different system makes symmetric terrain layouts viable.
2. Limit the.number of Scenarios at events. At the most extreme, competitions could have only one Scenario and multiple known terrain layouts, say two for each Terrain Set produced by GW.
3. Create rules for player-placed terrain, which essentially forces them to build “balanced” tables based on the elements highlighted in this article. TOs can then use whatever terrain they have on-hand (assuming they have a good variety of terrain.)
Personally, my preference is option 2. In the true world of competitions, where millions of dollars are on the line every game, the field of play is always pre-defined to very exact standards. Every NFL or FIFA field is identical, and the ‘mission’ is always identical, yet no one seems to think these competitions are boring because of this. Why should this be different in miniature war games?