When we're only talking about a cm or 2 difference (at most) in various war engine heights, I do not see this being any real issue with the game.

For some/many of us, modelling terrain properly is as much part of the hobby as moving our toy soldiers. Having pretty terrain has certainly helped grow the local Epic community here in Perth.

Agreed.
Whilst I think it's important that everyone should understand the rules fully, there has been too much time for evolution of interpretation to bring things back now.
I guess this just emphasizes the need for play tests from across the globe to help pick up issues.

The 5 minute warm up is a compulsory part of our game.
Here's the guide to the 5 min conversation that is/will be in the Tournament Pack. Note that terrain is covered:
I'm not including this quote to try and dredge up more questions. It's meant to be a guide only.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

While I don't disagree with the rulebook sections backing the use of TLoS that you quote, and it may have been JJ's intention to use TLoS in the game, let's remind ourselves that while the rules are great, they ain't perfect, and JJ is just a bloke, capable of mistakes or flawed reasoning, same as any of us!

I think the reasons to use LoS-blocking area terrain are pretty good:

1. different model scales, proxies or basing your titans on resin bases to add an extra bit of height make TLoS inconsistent and may give advantages/disadvantages to one player
2. JJ has specifically stated that the game has an elastic ground scale which makes things kinda weird anyway
3. Epic as a game is pretty abstract already, with most granular elements removed, it kinda seems weird to preserve this particular fiddly mehcanic
4. Fixed terrain, while lovely (yours particularly so Onyx ) tends to be more impractical and can get in the way during a game, we've all had those engagements where we can't tell if a crucial unit or three is within countercharge distance, with EpicUK style 'scatter' terrain, you can just remove the trees or buildings and get right in there to check.... I probably move the trees and buildings around 2-3 times a turn when playing an average game, helps remove ambiguity
5. Terrain scale, as has been said previously, the terrain scale of the game is pretty bad, even the mighty warlord titan is only of the order of ~30 metres/100 feet tall, many trees reach this height quite regularly and many are significantly higher, I'm currently sat in a building with 4 stories which is over 25 metres tall.... in all practicality, titans just aint that big (and they're the biggest things in the game)

I really like how battlefields with modelled terrain looks and have maximum respect for your efforts in creating it Onyx and Co. I just tend to think that in a game of abstraction, that terrain is best abstracted and is more representative of the type of terrain in the area (whether it be ruins, buildings, or woods) rather than specific buildings

also I don't think this needs to be standardised at all for the NetEA process, perhaps a few thoughts tacked on to a batrep as to how the list might have performed differently with area terrain/TLoS would be the best option?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Onyx, found your rulebook quotes insightful, i'm still not sure on dismissing the height difference though:


2cm in a game where the infantry are 6mm tall! that's a lot. That's 1/3 of the height of my reavers, big difference. See tim's picture where a reaver towers over a warlord – for me this is the main sticking point, I can't look at that picture and dismiss the difference as insignificant.


I suppose this is the most personal (as in least rules related) part of it all, but as someone with a reasonable amount of pretty terrain (no where near as much as yourself though) this does not bother me at all. In the same way I don't expect a stunningly painted or re-posed mini to be treated any differently by the game from an undercoated blob, likewise if the building is a grey block of an intricate masterpiece of turrets and spires I would not expect a game/rules (LOS allowance) difference. Great terrain, like well painted miniatures, vastly enhance the game experience (for me), but only at an aesthetic level, not rules implementation/mechanics.

Did having pretty terrain attract people, or did having true LOS attract people? these two are not inextricable and not using true LoS is no excuse for low effort terrain modelling.

(again, all personal opinion, everyone free to play how they like etc, etc, the scale difference in titans just bugs me!)

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

especially when you look at the buildings next to the titans which would block LoS for the GW reaver but allow the scratchbuilt one to see over (and in turn be seen!)



^^this

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Guys, I get that you want to keep playing the way you want.
I do to

I've laid out the rules for all to see (something which many in positions of authority regarding tournaments and army list design don't seem to have seen before).
I'm not championing any particular interpretation.

A Mk 1 Thunderbrick can hide much more easily than a FW Thunderhawk whether a player is using the rules as written (TLoS) or an evolved interpretation. Fan made models have nothing to do with it.
I don't see a need to worry about these things because our gaming group has not sought to take advantage of these sorts of things. Not to say that we don't play competitively, we just play a straight forward game that uses the rules as written. There has not been any issue or disputes that I'm aware of.

The issue of pretty terrain is important because it can be really hard to try and explain to a new player that the Imperator that is hiding behind a couple of bushes can't be seen...

Fortunately this isn't about me, Epic in the UK or even about correct understanding of the rules.
This thread has shown quite clearly that there is a variety of interpretations of the rules and that is why we need to have a wide ranging army testing regime.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Ok, so we're now clear that terrain rules can be played quite differently and that that can potentially have a marked effect on how certain armies play. It's definitely been really interesting for me - I basically don't play enough games competitively enough to figure this stuff out for myself. When you're squeezing in late night onine games around work and family, competition isn't really a priority! Personally I like the idea of the EpicUK style, plus the addition of the hill tweak and the Australian approach of area terrain being as tall as its tallest element and perhaps allowing TLOS, certainly over terrain, for large war engines.

I am totally with Onyx with regards to having nice terrain - I would not have got into this hobby if white dwarf was filled with pictures of squares of paper being pushed around tables filled with pieces of card of varying shades. If I wanted that, I'd play chess or go - I'm looking for escapism and nostalgia in equal part with my gaming experience but that's just me. That's not necessarily incompatible with abstracting out the LOS of sight rules a little though.

So getting back to how the NetEA process can be made quicker, it's obvious that the EUK scene has less difference in meta, more regular games (by a smaller number of trusted/interested players) and is focussing on less lists at a time - which is pretty much exactly what Steve said earlier on in this thread and actually probably how the game was developed in the first place, with an even more focussed meta at GWHQ or wherever.

To replicate this globally I think there probably is a need to reduce the number of confounding variables between playtests and that basically means normalising the differences in terrain rules to some degree. That could either be by agreeing to some form of shared terrain rules - which isn't going to happen - or by at least recognising what the specific effects are on play and being very aware of them.

For example, the "uniform height" brigade, could try implementing some form of TLOS at least in some circumstances, either by way of giving hills some special ruling or by allowing terrain pieces to have different uniform heights or whatever. The guys who prefer TLOS are probably going to have to come up with some guidelines for terrain placement along the lines of Stelek's guide to 40k terrain placement, so always including a piece of LOS blocking terrain somewhere near mid table to avoid cross table fire lanes for example, and basically being very aware of fire lanes in general. Anyone who's played infinity will recognise these kind of arguments about what makes a good table. At least this should help alleviate some of the "this unit is rubbish/overpowered, undercosted/overcosted - I just don't get why you keep saying it's so good/so awful" kind of arguments? 18 games does sound like quite a lot but that will in part be to include the wide range of metas, which in turn causes more argument because units can potentially behave so differently, which leads to argument which is never best done online, which can lead to bad felling yada, yada, yada... If you want to bring down the number of games you're going to have to reduce the number of differences in the meta.

If having a "developmentally approved" state is going to help then that probably should be introduced but I'm not totally sure what the benefit is? Unless it's needed to make some TOs comfortable with allowing lists for tournament play and therefore ironing out the creases in a competitive environment - you almost might as well just allow experimental lists, but if it would help why not?

The rest is just down to people I guess - "can do" attitude and all that. Not really sure what to say about introduction of new stats and those kind of arguments. I suppose if you're going to attempt it you really need to spam it very early on to either prove that they're not that bad or show that they are potentially game breaking...

Obviously, all of this only applies the listed being developed under the NetEA banner and can be completely ignored but the original post was looking at how to improve and speed up the NetEA testing process so unless something changes, then nothing's going to change. If the NetEA system of development wants to get quicker, like the EUK process is at least perceived to be, then it's going to have to become more like the EUK process - and by that I don't mean replicate it, but reduce the number of moving parts.

I think to 'standardise' testing for NET-EA you've got more of an uphill struggle than just terrain tbh (and i'd point out that you get further issues on that score when you have people with differing styles heights and depths of terrain, not to mention the footprint of said terrain and also it's distribution on the table, as well as with TLOS it's actual density and suchlike).

Then there's also the fact that even rules aside the 'meta' in each group playing the game differently, which can skew testing even more than any rules or terrain differences. Even within the same rules set you can play a very different game of Epic, from certain units and tactics being in or out of favour in certain metas, to what's considered a reasonable activation count. These can lead to a very different testing environment for a new list, which in itself isn't a major problem perhaps, and can even be a strength in the sense that you're then testing multiple various builds of the lists - right until you have arguments between people in two different testing environments as to what's good/bad or undercosted/overcosted as these can be impacted by both the kind of lists people are taking and how they're using it.

^^^Likewise.

Nice terrain enhances the experience immensely and I take a lot of care over it. However arguments over TLOS ruins it much faster ! Abstracting our terrain conventions is the best thing we did.

I have to say the cover abstraction which bugs me is the Titan with a toe in scrub claiming cover, but I live with it and it makes life so much simpler. Infinity has similar conventions/contradictions (despite being very TLOS) however without it the game would be unplayable.

That said I think there is room for 3 "levels."

1-Marsh/scrub(and maybe some ruins) - area cover but does not block Los.

2- general terrain. Taller than all models but Titans. Blocks Los. Titans and models on hills can see over but casting a "shadow" like pop-up. Titans behind can take a -1 cover.

3- tall buildings/mountains etc. taller than Titans&hills. Only pop ups can see over.

I actually have a question - looking at the pictures of the tables you posted, you mention you already play woods as area terrain but how do you play the rubble/ruins boards you have? Are they also treated as area terrain or do you get down to eye level for them and actually see what is visible (if this I asume you use a laser pointer or something?).

Just to be pedantic your are modelling pretty terrain not 'terrain properly'. I confess not having been to oz but I imagine your hills are taller than most buildings by a significant amount, that urban areas have a lot of roads near their tower blocks etc. so you are already abstracting the terrain to some extent, but there is nothing wrong with wanting a) pretty terrain (I think we all do, even if we deal with it in an abstract manner or not) and b) to interact with that terrain in the way you do with true line of sight - and do you look from a models eyes or gun barrel when you do that?
Perhaps it is more a playing environment as I couldn't abide some of the 'discussions' I have seen with model eye view los. I think you need an easy going group of players who even when it is critical can shrug their shoulders and say take the shot. Oh and nice small thunderbricks

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Probably a very stupid question:

If you don't use TLoS... what do you use???

My IG tanks have no bases.

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941

I agree with RichardL about an uphill battle to standardise NetEA playtesting.
Thankfully, I'm not calling for anything like that.
It isn't going to happen...

Yme-Loc of course we play TLoS and there has been no need for laser pointers (I do have a bad back but even I can lean over and check LoS very easily). Of course we can't see through the windows of the ruined walls, that would be crazy!

TRC - yup, pedantic
"and do you look from a models eyes or gun barrel when you do that?"
Of course we play as the rules are set out here. It's really not that complicated.

Obviously the point about Thunderbricks is that that the original game designers were aware that there would be a variety of models long before we started kitbashing our own models.

I really don't see why people are afraid of TLoS.
I allow 2 1/4 hrs for 3000pt games in my tournaments. There are very few games that go to victory points and most of those are because the players have played 4 turns with no clear victory goal winner. My point is that TLoS hasn't slowed us down or made Epic Armageddon unplayable as many here seem to fear...

Maybe I'm just blessed with a really nice bunch of guys to play with (and that includes Matt-Shadowlord who is as capable of breaking an army list as anyone in the world ).

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Sorry to be a bit dense, the quoted text refers to range and LOS separately, one being the weapon and LOS being a models eye view - is that literally then the models eyes?

This is a very interesting thread, very useful to see how others play the game

To me one of the things that would make me write more battlereports would be to skip the current move by move thing and make it include something like this: both armylists, a picture of the board after setup but before turn 1, a summary of how the battle went (win 2-1 BTS, ...) and a summary of how the units/army worked (what was good/bad, suggestions on changes) It would also be nice to know if you played a champion or a 5 year old...)
Right now the battlereport disturbs the game experience for me and takes unnecessary time to write up.

I don't get it, why would it be crazy to see through a window if you play TLoS? No stranger then to see between two ruined buildings...?

I have to repeat the question because I can't really understand how can you play the game without using TLoS.

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941