Chapter Tactics is a 40k podcast which focuses on promoting better tactical play and situational awareness across all variations of the game. Today Peteypab, Geoff, Sean, and Val all discuss the terrain clarifications and code of conduct released by the ITC. As well as chatting about what we will expect to see in the upcoming LVO.
Show Notes:
- Click here for a link to the lists I mentioned in the show.
- Check out Geoff on Twitch! Where he plays games, talks 40k, and generally entertains you.
- Click here for a link for information on downloading best coast pairings app where you can find lists for most of the events I mention.
- Check out the last episode of Chapter Tactics here. Or, click here for a link to a full archive of all of my episodes.
- Commercial music by Music by: www.bensound.com
- Intro by: Justin Mahar
Need help with a list idea? Got a rules question? Want to talk tactics? Then email me at…
frontlinegamingpeteypab@gmail.com
Please do not send an army list in a format such as Army Builder, send them in an easy to read, typed format. Thanks!
Lol, well, you are forgetting one very important point: we made this terrain WAY before the terrain rules changed. Not the other way around.
And an enclosed ruin is nothing more than a ruin with 4 walls and a roof played right out of the BRB. Again, we’re not creating anything, just adding a house-rule that you can’t literally fly a vehicle into a building which was never the intent of ruins in the first place. All the enclosed ruins tag-line does is stop that, otherwise it is in all other respects a normal ruin.
So, I do understand your position a bit, but you’re really blowing it out of proportion, honestly and then building an argument off of suppositions that aren’t accurate.
And finally, we aren’t getting rid of beautiful, expensive terrain just because some folks don’t like certain aspects of it. Just not going to happen. Therefore, if you play them as ruins right out of the BRB, they function in the exact same way as we describe, but you can literally fly a plan into them…so, yeah. You end up in the exact same place but with a slightly absurd potential scenario.
To clarify before I’m called a conspiracy theorist or something here: you’re a business, do as you please. However, as the packet writes out this is a rule made to solve a problem created by the terrain.
You make the terrain. You make the problem. The burden to resolve that problem should rest with the game.
Again, not accurate.
We created ITC terrain to be affordable, easy to build and paint and good for tournaments to help make it easier for people to scale up their events and retain quality.
The terrain rules changed. They become much more restrictive on what could or could not go into them. That was out of our hands.
And, this is seriously not nearly as big of an issue as you make it sound. We’ve been playing this way all edition, and it has been fine.
Further, most of the tables at the event will not have these kinds of terrain pieces, lol. So, it’s even less of an issue.
I’m not making it out to be an issue at all.
I’m doing my very best to make it emphatically clear I don’t care why the terrain rule is in effect, or what you opt to do as a business. I’m illustrating that the problem we have is:
1.) Due to interactions with the terrain, it creates x or y scenario.
2.) This Terrain is made by FLG, in this instance
3.) In order for FLG to correct the issue created by their terrain, which is used at their events, we have now “created” (use whatever term you’d like, as you disagreed with the above) a house rule that works to help circumvent this interaction
I don’t see where this is inaccurate.
Are you wrong for doing so? Nope.
Are you not allowed to do this? Nope, go nuts.
I’m just disagreeing with the points made specifically during the podcast, as AP did, where it’s just “this is an unavoidable” problem is what is inaccurate, and that this problem and the solution is controlled by you, lol.
Yes, you made terrain a long time ago, and you’ve monetarily invested in it and it won’t be going anywhere. As a result there is a cost vs benefit ratio which determines whether it is financially viable to make further adjustments; you’ve decided it isnt (entirely fine) and have implemented a rule to try and “fix” the issue without having to invest.
Makes sense.
I just don’t like the rule. The solution exists because the problem exists, rather than creating a solution to a common problem, it’s a solution made to solve a problem that doesn’t need to exist.
Not blowing it out of the water. Not even slightly heated. Just pointed out the problem and solution are both unnecessary. Lol
Fair enough.
Whenever we roll out updates the team gets blasted, so it’s easy to see someone being angry when perhaps they aren’t, so my bad there.
And yeah, point taken. It was an oversight to allow Flyers into buildings in the first place, but as that isn’t likely to change anytime soon, we had to do it ourselves and that always causes folks to rankle a bit.
As stated, there’s no viable way to change the terrain in regards to time and man hours, nor is there any desire to do so.
But I have to ask, you say the solution doesn’t have to happen, so what, in your opinion you just let everything ride? I’m not entirely seeing your point. You say problem doesn’t need to exist, yet it does, so I don’t fully see how you propose a solution, given the fixed variables in play, that doesn’t require the alteration we implemented?
>>As stated, there’s no viable way to change the terrain in regards to time and man hours, nor is there any desire to do so.
I agree. Thats a decision you can make and it’s viable. Not about to demand a business lose money for any reason.
>>But I have to ask, you say the solution doesn’t have to happen, so what, in your opinion you just let everything ride? I’m not entirely seeing your point. You say problem doesn’t need to exist, yet it does, so I don’t fully see how you propose a solution, given the fixed variables in play, that doesn’t require the alteration we implemented?
I’m just pointing out the problem is not a problem of the game. It’s a problem of the terrain. Obviously, you have time limitations, but as far as other options?
1.) Not using the terrain.
2.) Letting any of the doors be doors.
3.) Not blocking things other than infantry from going inside.
I’m not intending to imply I have a solution for you.
Again, I’m trying to make this very clear, because it’s why I’m commenting )ON THE PODCAST( and not on the update regarding the terrain, because there was a )VERY SPECIFIC( comment about how it’s unavoidable. It’s avoidable. The business just (within their rights, obviously) decided it’s not worth the investment.
My company creates x or y software. Causes a bug. We concede the bug is annoying, but not worth investing money to fix. It’s avoidable, we just aint about to avoid it.
I’m replying to AP calling out the comment calling it unavoidable, but your gosh darn website has me replying in like three websites looking like a crazy person (which I commented on before anyone replied, because I anticipated it, lol)
TL;DR
YOU DO YOU HOMIE
RUN YOUR BUSINESS
DONT SPEND UNNECESSARY MONEY
IM JUST SAYING THAT ME, CONSUMER, KNOWS ITS AVOIDABLE AND DISAGREED WITH IT BEING CALLED AVOIDABLE
Secondary point, and forgive me for the spam, this forum comment type doesn’t lend itself well to editing:
Your point regarding most of the tables is also part of the issue.
People don’t know what’s gonna be there.
They’re flying to vegas, paying x for a ticket, y for a hotel, z for a plane and as AP attempts to illustrate during the podcast, he doesn’t even know if parts of his army are viable because some portions of the terrain completely turn off his army.
Totally, plan for it.
I’m one little nerd at a desk, and I have all of these questions after one forum post and a podcast, and even during this podcast it sounds like the group of VERY educated players were confused about what could do what, and even Pablo had no idea if further explanations were coming.
People are dumb, homie. Gotta give them as much information as possible so they can’t jump to silly conclusions I’m trying to illustrate for you, because I’m a much smaller headache than some greasy nerd getting read in the face in vegas. =P
No worries, bro. But yeah, if you want me to remove content I can. Like, all of your comments here on this post or just a few specific ones?
Purge it all, Chapter master.
Damn it Geoff you funny bastard I lost it and messed up part of my paint job at “brought to you by Oh Boy O Berto!”
That is it Geoff is my official 40k spirit animal.
why does it say 10 comments in here, but I can only see one?
I noticed that too, I thought it was just my computer. On the back end I can still see all the comments, but for some reason the rest of the comments are hidden.
That means some comments got deleted or blocked from view, is my guess.
I ranted like an angry old man for a moment and then in retrospect asked Reece to delete them.
Good on you.
Better to recognize when you’re wrong than ruin everyone elses fun.
Stroooooooooooooooongly disagree
lololol
All good, buddy =)
Tip of the hat to that. A not often shared sentiment in today’s age.
Maybe someone can sort me out, but I’m not seeing how the enclosed ruins change hurts Tau. The change has stopped units with Fly from entering enclosed ruins. It has reduced the number of units that can hide away, invulnerable to shooting. Closed walls have always blocked LOS and nothing besides infantry has ever been able to “pass through” walls, which arguably hurts Tau, but those are just rules from the rulebook, not ITC rulings. My understanding is that they’ve just removed an exception for models with the Fly keyword who, by RAW, could end their movement within a building even if they had no way of actually getting inside. Doesn’t this just make it harder to hide airplanes from shooting for a turn?
Yeah, that is correct. And, we’ve been playing this way for years, it’s really not much of a change. People are just overreacting to things a bit.
Hey guys. Another awesome episode. It really feels like you’ve worked out whatever sourness has been there in the past and everyone has moved on to interesting discussion and no hard feelings… except Geoff who take everything way to seriously.