Quote Originally Posted by LansXero View Post
Adding subjectivism to such a nuanced and complex game is the opposite of good. if some games this piece does X, sometimes Y and sometimes Z, then its a crapshoot that I'll remember what every piece does, on top of everything else I already have to remember to not mess up. Once again, if we are talking friendly "oops, may I do a take back?" "sure go ahead friend" games, its not that big a deal. But assuming something does X and moving accordingly then it did Y, leads to gotcha! moments which suck and are a headache for TOs. Worse if its all based on verbal agreement, will you write it down on the sheet? Will it be on the mission packet, for every fkin table and every single piece of terrain on the entire tournament as I dont know where I'll play?

Im being extra pessimistic as usual, but I dont see them having the right goal in mind: To make games more fun. That fun needs to be played in a reasonable amount of time, with a minimum requirement for rules adjudication and a minimum of dead time. Adding more factors and contributing to AP is not how you improve an edition that, for all its supposed flaws, reinvigorated the game and brought 40k back into the spotlight.
Equally, I am , as ever, being optimistic!

I think the thing that has been missing from the terrain system is actually the attitude towards it? The rules have always been there, but they've felt like an addition to the base game, rather than integral. What the game needs in order to make more complex terrain than in 8th work is to have it be recognised as a part of setup just as much as mission selection or deployment. Generally speaking the terrain instructions have been fairly sparse: 'set up the battlefield in a mutually agreeable manner' - what does that even mean? What does a good battlefield look like? What 9th needs in order to make more detailed terrain work is clear examples of battlefields and instructions on how to agree a battlefield. Sure, it's based on verbal agreement, but so is the decision about which mission you're playing, and many other things: going back on the verbal agreement about what terrain does should be as frowned upon as falsely declaring you were playing a different mission and trying to get points on that basis. For that to work, there needs to be an explicit 'you need to do agree terrain' element to set-up of a game, rather than just 'whatever' as there is now.

It's similar to the introduction of Crusade: there have been both narrative rules and terrain rules as an optional extra for ages, but because they're not seen as 'core' they're not used. So it sounds like 9th is explicitly setting them out as a thing that IS core, if you want to play that way.