GG1 Terrain

[Bort]

Just a visual representation for the GG1 terrain density recommendations.

 

80% Terrain to be Disrupting LOS

70% Terrain to be Disrupting Movement.

That implies that 50% of the terrain (or roughly 20% of the table surface) should be covered with terrain with both features.   Just, cause, well, I was curios. 

 

*Edit.  The Impassable are both Impassable and Impassable (Climbable) terrain.

[Morgan Vening]

4 hours ago, Bort said:

Just a visual representation for the GG1 terrain density recommendations.

80% Terrain to be Disrupting LOS

70% Terrain to be Disrupting Movement.

That implies that 50% of the terrain (or roughly 20% of the table surface) should be covered with terrain with both features.   Just, cause, well, I was curios. 

Hmm... Not sure I'm a fan of that 50%. Sure, forests fit into that category (concealing and severe), as well as sloped roof buildings (blocking and impassable). But 50% of all terrain being that really limits other options. Flat topped buildings (blocking but not impassable, but requires climbing) kinda fitting in that category seems fine.

As I've said in the past, I'd like Wyrd to post several examples of what they consider a sufficient example of a table is. In a game where terrain affects balance, and where too many concerns are addressed with "you need more/less terrain", with no real example of what a sufficiently terrained table is, it's hard to assess.

[LeperColony]

I think people should be posting the boards they play on much more frequently.  We'd all likely benefit from seeing more set ups from casual play, local events, and major tournaments.

[Bort]

1 hour ago, Morgan Vening said:

Hmm... Not sure I'm a fan of that 50%.

At least the total terrain is down from the 50% table coverage suggested in GG0, which I found a bit crowded.

 

Just another note, the GG0 specifically states Impassable (Climbable)   I left out the climbable by mistake. So maybe that makes it better.

So all flat roofed buildings are Blocking + Impassable (Climbable) right.  Meaning you can climb on top of them, but you can't enter them,  and thus covers both parts.

 

 

I think (especially if you read the Chokepoints/Paths part of the GG0 terrain stuff) they really want you to force engagement lanes instead of just having a big open field of play.

 

 

[JArrow]

If you add facts that impassable terrain is always blocking or concealing, and descriptions that majority of movement disrupting should be impassable and LOS-blocking should be evenly between block and conceal you end up following distribution (by table percents):

Blocking-Impassable (buildings): ~15% = about wedge deployment area

Concealing-severe (forests): ~4% 

Concealing/dense (fogs): ~8% = about corner deployment area

Severe (hazardous, rough ground etc) ~12% = about half of standard deployment area

[Bort]

10 minutes ago, JArrow said:

If you add facts that impassable terrain is always blocking or concealing, and descriptions that majority of movement disrupting should be impassable and LOS-blocking should be evenly between block and conceal you end up following distribution (by table percents):

Blocking-Impassable (buildings): ~15% = about wedge deployment area

Concealing-severe (forests): ~4% 

Concealing/dense (fogs): ~8% = about corner deployment area

Severe (hazardous, rough ground etc) ~12% = about half of standard deployment area

I don't think Impassable always imply blocking or concealing.  Might be in most cases in reality, but I don't think it's guaranteed.

A body of water for example will simply be impassable. You cannot step onto it, but it's not going to block/conceal anything. 

 

 

I do like the numbers you came up with.   Probably in the realm of over analysing, but that's my wheelhouse.