|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 11, 2016 18:02:10 GMT
Hi I've been reading through both the old fanaticus and this threads and Battle reports lately and noticed a few discussions on the size of terrain features in Dba 3.0 games with the trend leaning towards smaller features.I was wondering what different members opinions are and what do you see as the advantages/ disadvantages to larger ir smaller terrain features?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 13, 2016 23:31:01 GMT
I think it depends on how you want your army to operate, and what sort of army your opponent has. Interesting that you cannot change elements from game to game, except in special cases, but you can change terrain. What if there were a rule that you had to use the same terrain, and size thereof, in each game?
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jul 14, 2016 6:04:21 GMT
When selecting the terrain type and size I look at the army I'm using and that of my opponent. That said I tend to select smaller terrain rather than a larger item so I can place two items within the same sector, if required.
For example if using an Ax based army I would prefer two areas of bad going with a small gap between so that my opponent can manoeuvre between them and my Ax can attack out of the bad going effectively ambushing. A single large piece would generally be avoided by an opponent unless he had bad going troops.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jul 14, 2016 7:32:54 GMT
I also prefer the smaller terrain pieces.
If placed not too far apart they can serve as stepping stones for Ps.
I rarely have to discard a third piece for the same quadrant.
Small wood and difficult hill can quickly become command and control problems for your opponent (line of sight).
|
|
|
|
Post by wombatdazzler on Jul 14, 2016 21:41:40 GMT
I started with large sized pieces, but after several games I have now moved to smaller pieces. More chance of them staying on the table.
Daz
|
|
