Kill Team Terrain - How To Fix The Worst Board I've EVER Seen!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2024
- Warhammer Kill Team and the Seattle GT brings us one of the worst terrain layouts for a competitve event I've ever seen, so I take the opportunity to have a teaching moment. I explain why it's bad and then fix it. Join me!
If you're thirsty, I have a Patreon, it comes with datacards and a podcast: / glasshalfdead
I have a channel that only covers Sigmar: / @tacticalskew
If you want more of the Kill Team community, try my Discord: / discord
And for more of my channel try my FB page: / glasshalfdead
Merch: www.etsy.com/uk/shop/GlassHal...
teespring.com/en-GB/stores/gl...
0:00 Intro
2:58 Terrain Examples
3:58 Roast
8:06 The Inbetween
9:38 CLASS BEGINS
20:46 The Fix
#killteam #warhammer #40k #terrain - เกม
What do you think? Can I save the worst competitive board ever seen WITHOUT ADDING MORE TERRAIN? Find out in this video!
My Patreon because sometimes I post exclusive videos there but not much: www.patreon.com/GlassHalfDead
My Objective Markers: www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1213692293/kill-team-objective-markers
My Discord server because it's useful: discord.gg/wAPqR8U
Good pre-doctoring roasting, good post-roasting doctoring.
🍿 Came for the roast, ended up nodding along to some really good advice about how you think about setting up terrain. Looking forward to the next one.
Well said, this sort of video is super helpful. Good job glass.
By the Emperor! That terrain layout is exactly the same as the example in the rulebook of what not to do, yet somehow worse!
The only acceptable setup of a board like this would be if every board in the tournament was the same lol. "Think you're a good player? Win on a terrible layout then." 😅
Great to hear some sensible commentary and suggestions and not just a piss take, which to be fair, I would have still watched.
You should do more content like this, assuming it gets the hits and the algorithm approves.
Good vid. That original layout was absolute ass.
I can't speak too much for Kill Team, as I haven't put the hours in with board design. But from arbitrating more games than is healthy for Necromunda, the key to a fun map is to force people out of their deployment zone.
Deployment areas should have a maximum of one decent piece of LOS blocking terrain (to allow staging), with the rest being light cover. I've always had the philosophy that players should fight just as much for terrain advantage as they do for objectives; so my boards always have a pyramid approach, funnelling everyone to the centre instead of letting them just set up sniper nests on the edges of the board (which that original layout was criminally guilty of).
High value objectives should have a risk attached to them, ie low cover/open LOS, with low value/easy objectives being in a position thats easily defensible. Taking advantage of jumping/climbing mechanics like you demonstrated is great for this because of the risk attached.
Asymmetrical is always a winner too. Both from an aesthetic and tactical point of view. Let players roll off for any perceived advantage when they deploy.
Wow absolutely awesome video! I really like the doctor talking us through the how's and why's things do an don't work.
Academic Circle Hello! It’s very weird that GW couldn’t just use the Warhammer World layouts for the Seattle GT.
“Academic hello” sounds like my jam
It's the dream board for the Wyrmblade. Being able to get Obscured using Light Cover, you can effectively send operatives to the middle of the map, while if your opponent does the same, he gets shot from every side.
Is it just me or is glass extra charismatic lately?
I like the idea of turning the ork heavy buildings upside down turning them from chunky vantage points to slim heavy walls
I don't play but I do make terrain, which is how I found this video. So glad I did. Always appreciate any GW roasts, and I think it's important to know how the terrain works in game, as that will help with how I build it. Thank you. Subscribed )O(
Not something I have thought too much about before, very good video. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
While I am not the biggest fan of Infinity by Corvus Belli, I have to say: Having played this monstrosity of a rulebook/system intensively, one thing you really learn is how to set up good gaming tables for skirmish games.
You can apply all these rules and guidelines to Kill Team (which basically just ist Infinity - Beer and Brezels Edition) and set up so much better tables.
In the beginning it was so hard for me to come back to 40k/KT from Infinity because the tables felt so boring and one dimensional. Mostly death valleys(which most of the bad tables in this video are, too)
sometimes playing on bad board set ups, although preferably not in a competitive environment, is good. it gives you an idea of what works/ doesnt work and why.
played on a board with only light terrain for deployment cover. only 2 models out of 11 left with full health (4 incapacitated) by actiavtion number 3, gives you some quick and dirty experience why you need heavy terrain for obscuring in deployment.
played on one with probably too much terrain, which worked great as smaller models could maneuver around whilst larger models had to traverse, but only one vantage point in the middle meant difficulty in countering concealment.
also had one map where we didnt consider tac op terrain requirements, meaning they couldnt be scored(luckily neither of us took them) but our ability to quickly make and adjust a board is quickly improving by playing on bad boards
Loved the roast 😂
Thanks for the video.
I've been trying to find some good options for Octarius terrain setups, and I like some of the boards from LWG, especially the season one and three boards since I don't have to pretend some of the vantage points don't exist.
The missions in the Critical Missions Operations Pack presents 4(ish) deployment zones:
Long Edge 3" (1.1; 2.2; 3.1) (Octarius mission 1.1 also has a listed setup with this deployment, also 2.3 is similar)
Corner Triangle (1.3; 3.2; 3.3) (Octarius mission 1.3 also has a listed setup with this deployment)
Double Corners (1.2)
Short Edge (6" for 2.1; 9" for 2.3)
I've seen board setups I like from LWG for the first three deployment scenarios, but I'm having a hard time reconciling the short edge deployment zone boards (especially the deep 9".) Octarius mission 3.3 has an interesting setup for 6" short edge, with its' dashable dueling long walls; however the walls would be inside a 9" deployment zone. Is this a good generic setup for short edge 6"? Would turning the walls around be a solution for the 9" deployment? Octarius 2.1 also has something similar, but also presents concerns.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and maybe a 'Terrain Doctor' analysis on mission 2.1 & 2.3, and maybe an analysis on using the Octarius book setups for generic mission play. Thanks again.
If a game wants to be competitive in any way, it needs rules for terrain layout. Just look at starcraft mapmaking.
Good fix. Looking forward to a crowded board analysis. Also, I miss Arena.
Never did pre-setup. Opponent and I do alternating turns on adding a piece of terrain.
Before we start, we roll 1d4+1 to decide how much big terrain each gets to place and then its back and forth.
It all happens before Attacker and Defender gets decided, so there's an incentive to not make it onesided because you can't know if you or the enemy gets it.
'Neither are you" except i was there lol
Terrain is such a big thing in KT. I’d welcome more vids on it.
magnetize the model's feet and bases so you can swap it around
Break out the flamers...we got roastin' to do
Excellent fix.
I enormously enjoy setting up the missions from Octarius and Nachmund (I don't have the Chalnath terrain). It can be extremely unbalanced and plain weird, which is fine for a non-competitive one-off game. But it's always funny.
One of the important things that you did but didn't mention addressed on of the most important "it looks terrible" factors: you took it off of the road map. The original setup had buildings blocking the middle of the road which makes no gameplay difference at all, but is hideous from an aesthetic perspective. Craters, barricades, destroyed vehicles, rubble from the collapse of a big building blocking a road? Absolutely. But not a building. Changing the underlying map made a huge difference before you did anything else.
I thought GW specifically said these are bad boards in the Core Rule book... why would anyone think vantage points in each corner be acceptable?
IMO You dont want symmetry in a game where You can choose side, so in most games.
Agreed. A smart Defender should be able to pick a side which is more advantageous to his/her strategy
Can you please share a pdf file of lwg' terrain loadouts? This would be really helpful!
Kids to school, for a second I thought you said kids to pool 💩
I saw that terrain too and… holy shit that set up was just awful lol
Hi where can I get the lwg layouts?
Check out the Terrain channel in my Discord if you're in there!
Yep, that’s a joke terrain setup. Authors are completely unaware how killteam works.
Gonna be honest thought, you were clowning on us for a sec. But then uh I realized you weren’t, that’s a yikes from me. Guess they didn’t take a look at their own recommended layouts…
In this age of clickbait being the only thing that matters, I can see why you thought that. Really, I was just having fun with the thumbnail because the board was silly :P
@@GlassHalfDead ah yeah no worries I was more saying I was shocked GW came out with that board layout
Perhaps just 1 board with a "bad" layout would be good to have, just to throw a wrench into the expected matchup win/lose outcomes.
Like 1 board that heavily benefits ranged teams, and 1 board that heavily benefits melee teams. If you just so happened to luck out with the board, an underdog lower tier team will now have a real significant chance at taking out a much stronger tier team.
If the disadvantaged player manages to win, then that's real proof of superior game skills (and/or dice luck)
That also rewards folks who have planned for different matchups with a varried roster. Interesting idea!
1:51 good