You can just declare lampposts, hydrants, flower pots as decoration and not scenery, so no cover. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Not a bad solution, provided that it's a clear house rule. Worth considering, thought, that you need to balance that with their impact on movement. IE if those gribblies don't provide Cover they also shouldn't impeded Movement (or vice versa). Personally, I prefer more abstract tables that infer realistic terrain without awkward gribblies that cause these issues.
Pour out a fire hydrant in memory of the El Hacking Device. (And good bye to the poor, misguided defensive hacking device...)
Lately I've been thinking about using terrain that does impact movement but does not provide cover. Chain linked fences or gates for example. I wouldn't terribly mind some awkward objects on the table that deny the ability for something to stand in a particular place while simultaneously not providing cover.
You could also use things that only obstruct lof but dont give arm. Like park benches, wooden info panels, tinted glass for bus stops. If its a good concept you come up with that is consistent and fast to understand it can even spice up tournament tables like this. Ppl will play the table accordingly or ignore it if its not a needed feature for the table to "work". So it shoul stay optional.
I like the idea of chain-link fences for that but not gribblies like hydrants etc. That's the sort of table rule that makes sense, is easily understood and adds some gameplay character to the table. I think those sort of table-rules can be worthwhile. Part of the reason for this is that chain-link fences emphasize the importance of mobility skills whereas on-table gribblies really just punish large base sizes. Honestly, I think large bases have enough downsides that you don't need to add more (although admittedly N4 does seem like it'll be better overall in that respect). I would tend to "either they're terrain and Cover applies, or for all practical purposes they don't exist" as it's clear and unambiguous and doesn't result in the issue where a Maggie doesn't get cover from a trash-can but does get their movement slowed by it. Basically it's a question of "hey is this terrain or is just table-art?": this means there doesn't have to be a house rule, just an agreement about whether it's part of the game or not (same as if I put a can of drink on the table... we implicitly agree that it's not really part of the table, it's just there to enhance the game exerpience). Again though, I'd prefer to design this problem out when building a table rather than be forced to deal with a pre-game discussion.
I like the idea of chain-link fences for that but not gribblies like hydrants etc. Chain-link fences's are the sort of table rule that makes sense, is easily understood and adds some gameplay character to the table: I think those sort of table-rules can be worthwhile. Part of the reason for this is that chain-link fences emphasize the importance of mobility skills whereas on-table gribblies really just punish large base sizes. Honestly, I think large bases have enough downsides that you don't need to add more (although admittedly N4 does seem like it'll be better overall in that respect). I would tend to "either they're terrain and Cover applies, or for all practical purposes they don't exist" as it's clear and unambiguous and doesn't result in the issue where a Maggie doesn't get cover from a trash-can but does get their movement slowed by it. Basically it's a question of "hey is this terrain or is just table-art?": this means there doesn't have to be a house rule, just an agreement about whether it's part of the game or not (same as if I put a can of drink on the table... we implicitly agree that it's not really part of the table, it's just there to enhance the game exerpience). Again though, I'd prefer to design this problem out when building a table rather than be forced to deal with a pre-game discussion.
I like the idea of chain-link fences for that but not gribblies like hydrants etc. Chain-link fences's are the sort of table rule that makes sense, is easily understood and adds some gameplay character to the table: I think those sort of table-rules can be worthwhile. Part of the reason for this is that chain-link fences emphasize the importance of mobility skills whereas on-table gribblies really just punish large base sizes. Honestly, I think large bases have enough downsides that you don't need to add more (although admittedly N4 does seem like it'll be better overall in that respect). I would tend to "either they're terrain and Cover applies, or for all practical purposes they don't exist" as it's clear and unambiguous and doesn't result in the issue where a Maggie doesn't get cover from a trash-can but does get their movement slowed by it. Basically it's a question of "hey is this terrain or is just table-art?": this means there doesn't have to be a house rule, just an agreement about whether it's part of the game or not (same as if I put a can of drink on the table... we implicitly agree that it's not really part of the table, it's just there to enhance the game exerpience). Again though, I'd prefer to design this problem out when building a table rather than be forced to deal with a pre-game discussion.
Spoiler Triple... the forum software needs a serious kick in the posts. Detecting duplis is easy, and merging not much harder.
I have similar discussions with my opponents in N3 (e.g. are the railings solid, what height are the planter with shrubs, ...). Doesn’t seem any different. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
I said years ago that the main driver behind the "Wulver Girl Now!" and "Female Knight Now!" movement was just the weirdos who wanted something 'sexy', not the actual concepts to happen organically. I stand by that statement still.
Nah, most people just wanted some variation within the concepts. Also, there's nothing wrong with wanting something sexy.
Nope. They wanted the sexy. You were here. You remember the whining about the Wulver Girl when the boxed set dropped. "She looks too mannish!". They wanted waifu or bust, apparently.
I don't really remember the reaction, tbh. And again, there's nothing wrong with wanting something sexy. The issue is when people get creepy about it.
oh, there is a 100% chance of having a male baby when a dog face impregnates a woman? Is logical to ask for female wulvers. Also, after many many years, we have our first female dog warrior. You're welcome, Moonchild
Are you unable to fucking read or something? You lot didn't fucking "ask for female wulvers". You demanded it like a bunch of petulant children. That whole stupid movement is why I feel pretty okay behaving the way I do on this forum. You lot constantly fucking flung shit at me over that topic and the "Female Knight Now!" garbage, calling me "sexist" or "puritan"or a couple of folks deciding to start implying I was a homosexual. I told you lot to wait for CB to do it. That, at that point in time, they were starting to do more mixed gender boxes. But nope. I was a fucking "troll". Moonchild is a trash model, by the way.
Which is when they start wanting something sexy in a miniatures game or insulting people with claims that they "must be" sexist/puritans/Muslim/homosexual when they want things to look semi-professional. So yeah. The whole movement was and will continue to be trash.
It's ok to have strong opinions, but the way you're phrasing yours is unpleasant and hypocrytical. Tone it down, please.
