Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like to mix it up depending on my mood, but I prefer the traditional woods and hills kind of set up with a few ruins because I'm more of a nature guy. I do like a good city set up too if it's done right and gives the impression of streets with curbs.

That being said, I wonder if part the problem with 40k right now is it's too easy to get cover saves and block line of sight which is why we've got an increased prevalence of death stars and scatter bike spam.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
I like to mix it up depending on my mood, but I prefer the traditional woods and hills kind of set up with a few ruins because I'm more of a nature guy. I do like a good city set up too if it's done right and gives the impression of streets with curbs.

That being said, I wonder if part the problem with 40k right now is it's too easy to get cover saves and block line of sight which is why we've got an increased prevalence of death stars and scatter bike spam.

Death Stars are prevalent because of the way so many special rules confer to the whole unit and there are some really good psychic powers that are available to so many units. Basically those powers are a force multiplier and the more bodies in a group the more those powers are worth.

Scatter bike spam is a thing not because of terrain but because scatter bikes are broken and there is no way they wouldn't be just broken.

I liked the old idea from 5th edition I think it was, fill a quarter of the table with terrain stuff, then spread it out.

Roughly one third LoS blocking, one third stuff that hinders movement but you can see over and one third stuff that does both.

Mix of hills, area terrain, ruins, buildings, obstacles, scatter etc.

This is a universe of "nuke it from orbit", there should be a reason bods are on the ground slugging it out up close, so make the terrain require you to get close, some fire traps but ideally not ones you can set up to use but have to move to get to.

I like terrain that makes normal infantry bods useful for something and provides parts of the table larger models have trouble going, but with areas they can dominate - just spread the objectives about.

FoW has a section on setting terrain up thats worth a read if you know someone who plays it, basically about making the terrain look 'real', placing buildings so they have a purpose, and providing a bit of terrain that justifies why the fight is "here", e.g. a key building, a crossroads, river crossing, something to justify why one side is trying to hold it and the other wants to take it.

Also FoW has ideas on placing stuff like fences logically, not just randomly in the middle of an open area, in effect think of the natural terrain then place the non-natural stuff round it logically.

Can create some tables that are varied, encourage varied lists and with terrain you can make some of the cheese lists a bit harder to play

I have two preferred terrain styles, depending on what is available:

Heavy Urban: Great for my guard, also if set up well allows numerous tactical options and surprises for both sides.

Hills/Woods: If available, hilly terrain that is big enough to block LOS but smooth enough that vehicles can viable drive over it is great. This allows for amazing freedom of movement, love driving my transports through/over this type of terrain. Throw in some patches of woods and you're all set

I like it dense, preferably telling a bit of a story.



On this table a ship has crashed at the perimeter of an imperial development. The shantily constructed habblocks were demolished by the shock of the impact, but the sturdier defensive bunker and industrial facility remain standing. Looters have set up camp around the ship, hoping to dig out something valuable.

Little did the looters realise the crash was set up as a strategic attack by a chaos warband looking to loot the facility themselves for supplies. The ship itself was always a stripped out junk hull with nothing of value to the looters anyway.

40k is best on dense and clustered city-scapes, ideally with a mixture of high and low vantage points, cramped streets not fit for more than a tank or two to roll down, and cover everywhere.

The game is primarily better like this because of the limitations it puts on shooty armies. Inability to mass up in fully functional firing lines, dramatically shortened range on all but the unit or two you can cram into a tower, plenty of cover and LoS blocks to give weaker enemies a chance to weather the shooting storm and get closer.

Similarly it also nerfs assault to some degree. Super-speed blitz tactics are very difficult due to more movement blocks, and risky due to constant dangerous terrain checks. Difficult terrain also slows the advance of assault units as it protects them from fire.

The biggest problem with this kind of game is the length of time it takes vs the shortness of terms. Sprawling city battles really need more like 10 turns per game, at least, and in current editions it can be hard to not get bogged down in the rules.

I disagree. That setup super favors jump-shoot-jump lists. Those lists need the most nerfing, not more free help.

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. That setup super favors jump-shoot-jump lists. Those lists need the most nerfing, not more free help.

Martel, I agree, but I think the trade off would be to nerf those Jump-Shoot Jump units. I think those rules should not exist.

I think a mix of every possible feature is best. Some LoS, some cover, some open. That lets me put objectives out in the open when I get to place them so Xenos have to try to hold things out in the open.

JSJ has been in the game since 2nd. Or at least JSJ-esque. They're not going anywhere.

I'm quite a big fan of city-scapes myself. They have the terrain for it in store but it's my ambition to build my own, with ruined buildings, bombed out bridges and the like.

Desert terrain are another favourite, good for when both you and your opponent are playing predominantly armour based lists where having room to manoeuvre is useful. That said I still like for at least part of the urban map to be built up somewhat.

For 40k; one needs a decent amount of line of sight blocking terrain and cover. I should not be possible cross the table either with or without and LoS blocks or cover.

I think ruins are fantastic for 40k. They are easy to build and and tailor to the rules. Providing the cover and LoS disruption needed while also enabling multiple levels and interaction.

I like a combination. My planned table top is going to have 2-3 Manufactorum buildings, a set of the new Haemotrope Generators, some of the shipping crates, some Promethium Relay Pipes, and lots of craters. Basically, it will be a ruined city/manufacturing district of a Forgeworld. Lots of opportunity for cover and difficult terrain, but also open enough to allow some freedom of movement.