The first is a natural looking hill. In games where realism is heavily encouraged, it seems like this hill would be the natural choice for players. However, what the hill has in realism it very much loses in practicality.
The biggest problem with a "rolling hill" is that it is nearly impossible to measure height. In games that have modifiers based on height, this can cause a good deal of confusion and disagreements during a game. After all, you can't truly measure 1" without doing an unnecessary amount of mathematics.
Another problems is that hills are at an angle, and miniatures don't like inclines. I was a proponent of rolling hills until I tried to run a horde of plastic Orks across one. Pewter models that aren't top-heavy can usually overcome this, but plastic models just down have enough weight pushing down on them to readily prevent them from toppling over. This is incredibly frustrating for me because I try to be very precise in my measurements, and as soon as a model hits the deck I'm unfairly gaining or losing movement.
The best way to circumvent the first problem is to talk to your opponent. In Warmachine, the general agreement is the "toe in" rule, meaning that if any portion of your base is on the hill, the model is at a 1" elevation. Unfortunately, this takes realism out back and shoots it. In Warmachine this means that a model with a millimeter of its base on the hill is more difficult to shoot. It's silly, but I think it's the best way to rule a rolling hill.
The other popular type of hill is more of a ziggurat shape. Unlike the realistic hill, this type of hill trades form for function, making it much more rules friendly. However, it also has its own unique considerations.
As you can see, this style of hill leaves no doubt about your measurements - the first tier is 1", the second is 2", and so on. The biggest issue I have with them is that they more closely resemble low cliffs than an actual hill. I'm not such a purist that I will only play on realistic terrain, but I still can't look at hills like this and not look at them as low-rising cliffs.
Like rolling hills, placement is also an issue with these. Without the ability to create a "toe in" rule, how do you determine when a model is on the hill? The easy solution is to say that if you can stand on it, you're on it. I don't care for this rule simply because it's not universal enough - not all models can have half their base hanging over the edge of the hill, and I believe that no rule should be inconsiderate of any model's dynamic pose. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of what happens when a model's base hangs over the hill and overlaps another model.
So what about saying "all in, or nothing"? This then limits the variation of the hill design. Looking at the image above, a large-based model will have great difficulty maneuvering up there, and would probably find itself rather confined. And if someone is going to be very picky, then a model whose base hangs over one of the gaps left by the hill's numerous vertical ridges would be considered illegal, and that's just asking for silly arguments.
So then what's the answer? Unfortunately both hill styles come with their share of problems. The natural hill with the toe-in rule is simple but hinders realism. Ziggurats that let you be on the hill as long as your base can balance is perhaps the easiest way to handle that, and allows for multiple heights. Personally, I like the second option just because it allows you to deal with a flat surface. Anything that risks knocking over my models, breaking parts, chipping paint, and screwing up my movement isn't terribly appealing to me.
Where do you guys stand on hills (pun mildly intended)? Do you prefer rolling hills, ziggurats, or some other style entirely? Let me know!
See you tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment