Re: Enough terrain on the board?

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.

**pretre**

So continuing the discussion we were having in Ailaros' battle report re: how much terrain is enough terrain?

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:... I don’t really think the terrain was that far off of what you might see in a tournament setting. A little yes, a lot, no, game influencing, absolute not. Here are my reasons:

1. You have to count the built in hills as board coverage, especially because the other hills weren’t hills but area. There was actually a fairly diverse selection of terrain on the table covering ¼ of the table. If you read the terrain section of the rule book, ¼ isn’t area terrain, ¼ is a mix of area, hills, things the block LOS, things that don’t, things that give cover, things that don’t.
2. There was a lot more LOS blocking terrain than any tournament. At Adepticon and tournaments that use Adepticons terrain you’ll be lucky to have one truly LOS blocking piece on the board. Our LOS blockers were a little smaller than usual, but there were alot more of them.

If I could have improved the terrain to make it totally tournament like there would have been fewer but bigger pieces, and they would have been mostly area. But there would have been less LOS blocking stuff, and really not much more over all.

Skipping the other table that we were talking about since they were silly.

I think there just isn't enough or it isn't spread well. I think when you look at good tables, the LOS blocker has to be central at some point on the table so as to make tactical maneuvering required.

Also, re: Realms of Battle boards, I agree that they are features, but they actually are almost negative terrain in this setup since they provide a vantage to look over all of the terrain on the board without any cover.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Recapping some of my earlier points there is:
1 LOS blocker
3 medium Hills
2 pieces of Area terrain
1 Ruin
The natural slope of the RoB board which is setup to create a valley effect.

I do not think that if we piled this all up in one corner it would total 25% and I think the RoB features actually detract from the amount of terrain.

**ArtfcllyFlvrd**

pretre wrote:
I do not think that if we piled this all up in one corner it would total 25% and I think the RoB features actually detract from the amount of terrain.

But if you add 25% on top of the RoB kills the table would be choked. The RoB hills are almost 25% themselves. I’ll admit they aren’t ideal because they either create a valley (but the valley effect can help the guy on the hills) are a plateau and neither are much fun. I think that with the RoB hills and the other features (all providing cover) there is considerably more than 25% coverage. Looking at the pictures in hind sight there is a bit of an empty spot in the middle, but that also happens in tournaments, you need to roll with it.

I’ll agree the table was not ideal, but I stand by that it isn’t noticeably off the mark and wasn’t game influencing.

I guess the question is how much of the terrain should be hills, how much should be area, how much should be LOS blocking? I thought we had a better mix than most tournaments which is almost all non LOS blocking area (At least Adepticon and the tournys that use their stuff)

**sourclams**

What the RoB inbuilt hills counted as will pretty much make or break this terrain dispute. If they were area, then it's the right amount of terrain, but deployed in what my group would call 'bs distribution' away in the corners where they do not actually do anything beyond provide cover for heavy weapon teams.

If the hills weren't area terrain, then there clearly isn't 25% coverage on that table, but the central deployment of the remaining terrain kind of makes up for it. The right half has a better distribution than the left half, where you can see roughly the 2' diameter circle of open killing ground. If there was one more piece of significant terrain in the middle of that circle, I think it'd be okay.

**ArtfcllyFlvrd**

sourclams wrote:If the hills weren't area terrain, then there clearly isn't 25% coverage on that table, but the central deployment of the remaining terrain kind of makes up for it. The right half has a better distribution than the left half, where you can see roughly the 2' diameter circle of open killing ground. If there was one more piece of significant terrain in the middle of that circle, I think it'd be okay.

The table isn't supposed to be 25% area terrain. It is suppose to be 25% with a mix of area, impassible, LOS blocking, difficult, and hills which are open ground with no cover. Maybe you disagree with the rules, but those are the rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I agree the hole in the middle is too big. I think the angle of the picture might be making it worse becauses I genuinely did not notice it during the game.

**sourclams**

Did I ever specify 25% area terrain?

If the in-built hills weren't area terrain, then they weren't terrain. They're not impassable, don't block LoS, and unless they're a mud pit that don't offer cover, then they have no impact at all on play. Someone can say 'this is a hill!' and try to pass it off as one, but in reality they're low shelves that would struggle to give even a guardsman cover from the majority of angles on that table.

Thus, if the in-built "hills" were area terrain, it's 25% total coverage for the table, if not, it's maybe 15% or so. You thunk down a ruin in the center of that circle, though, and it's good.

**Kilkrazy**

I did a poll on this last year. I asked how many CD size pieces of terrain would be needed to fulfill the recommended 25% of a standard size table.

Height was not considered. The object was purely to discover what people thought in terms of coverage of the table. A terrain piece, as you rightly point out, could be low but impassable, tall and LoS blocking, difficult, etc.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327774.page

Anyway, as you can see, the result was about 20 pieces average.

The actual number needed is 48.

This confirmed my suspicion that many people put far less terrain on the table than the game needs to work properly.

Distribution, size and shape of pieces also matter, of course, however people are routinely putting out only half the coverage needed, they are not going to get a balanced game whatever the variation in size, shape and distribution.

**ArtfcllyFlvrd**

sourclams wrote:Did I ever specify 25% area terrain?

If the in-built hills weren't area terrain, then they weren't terrain. They're not impassable, don't block LoS, and unless they're a mud pit that don't offer cover, then they have no impact at all on play. Someone can say 'this is a hill!' and try to pass it off as one, but in reality they're low shelves that would struggle to give even a guardsman cover from the majority of angles on that table.

Thus, if the in-built "hills" were area terrain, it's 25% total coverage for the table, if not, it's maybe 15% or so. You thunk down a ruin in the center of that circle, though, and it's good.

The built in hills most certainly are "terrain". They completly block infantry from on side to the other, and the very long shelf even obscures vehicles for a considerable portion of the board. To say they aren't terrain at all suggested to me you thought there should be 25% area terrain. I don't understand how you can say they aren't terrain. Maybe the placement was bad, but there are only so many configurations of the GW board and most of the have the hills on the sides.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I did a poll on this last year. I asked how many CD size pieces of terrain would be needed to fulfill the recommended 25% of a standard size table.

Height was not considered. The object was purely to discover what people thought in terms of coverage of the table. A terrain piece, as you rightly point out, could be low but impassable, tall and LoS blocking, difficult, etc.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327774.page

Anyway, as you can see, the result was about 20 pieces average.

The actual number needed is 48.

This confirmed my suspicion that many people put far less terrain on the table than the game needs to work properly.

Distribution, size and shape of pieces also matter, of course, however people are routinely putting out only half the coverage needed, they are not going to get a balanced game whatever the variation in size, shape and distribution.

20 peices in the right places makes for a better game than 48 in the wrong. It's all subjective, it depends on the size of the pieces, what they are classified as, whether their placement influences the tactics of one of the two opponents, there are soooo many variables, it's impossible to really sum them all up.

**sourclams**

Although I fully agree with you KK, I think distribution is as critical a component for 'proper' table coverage as spread (and you probably do, too).

The RoB board is a good example of this with those low hill-shelves around the edges. If those are terrain that give cover to infantry, then the table probably starts with 15% coverage. Being oriented completely around the edges, however, they don't have much impact on movement or maneuver at all. They just reward walk-on Devastator squads.

If it was a 1' tall opaque brick with 22"x22" sides, in the dead center of the table, however, that begins to feel like waaay too much, even though the table needs another 350 square inches.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:The built in hills most certainly are "terrain". They completly block infantry from on side to the other, and the very long shelf even obscures vehicles for a considerable portion of the board.

I simply can't agree with this. What line of sight are you saying that they block sight from? The eighteen inches along the bottom left corner? From the other 90% of the board they block absolutely nothing. If there was a 1" high rectangle with 70x46 dimension plopped in the middle of the board, would you say you were playing with 90% terrain coverage?

**pretre**

I thought CD was Cities of Death. I was wondering how KK fit that many ruins on one table. Makes so much more sense now.

**Kilkrazy**

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
sourclams wrote:Did I ever specify 25% area terrain?

If the in-built hills weren't area terrain, then they weren't terrain. They're not impassable, don't block LoS, and unless they're a mud pit that don't offer cover, then they have no impact at all on play. Someone can say 'this is a hill!' and try to pass it off as one, but in reality they're low shelves that would struggle to give even a guardsman cover from the majority of angles on that table.

Thus, if the in-built "hills" were area terrain, it's 25% total coverage for the table, if not, it's maybe 15% or so. You thunk down a ruin in the center of that circle, though, and it's good.

The built in hills most certainly are "terrain". They completly block infantry from on side to the other, and the very long shelf even obscures vehicles for a considerable portion of the board. To say they aren't terrain at all suggested to me you thought there should be 25% area terrain. I don't understand how you can say they aren't terrain. Maybe the placement was bad, but there are only so many configurations of the GW board and most of the have the hills on the sides.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I did a poll on this last year. I asked how many CD size pieces of terrain would be needed to fulfill the recommended 25% of a standard size table.

Height was not considered. The object was purely to discover what people thought in terms of coverage of the table. A terrain piece, as you rightly point out, could be low but impassable, tall and LoS blocking, difficult, etc.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327774.page

Anyway, as you can see, the result was about 20 pieces average.

The actual number needed is 48.

This confirmed my suspicion that many people put far less terrain on the table than the game needs to work properly.

Distribution, size and shape of pieces also matter, of course, however people are routinely putting out only half the coverage needed, they are not going to get a balanced game whatever the variation in size, shape and distribution.

20 peices in the right places makes for a better game than 48 in the wrong. It's all subjective, it depends on the size of the pieces, what they are classified as, whether their placement influences the tactics of one of the two opponents, there are soooo many variables, it's impossible to really sum them all up.

The area of terrain coverage, its height compared to different models, and hazard status (difficult/dangerous) are all objective facts.

Positioning things is subjective.

Obviously you could put all the terrain in one corner, or stretching along the mid line as a wall, or dotted around. That wasn't the point of my post. The point was that most people are playing with half the amount of terrain they ought to have.

Assuming that most people use some common sense about where they put pieces, won't the table work better with 25% coverage as recommended, than with only 10%?

**Ailaros**

Just to note here, the RoB hills were not counted as area terrain (in fact, the non-RoB hills aren't usually counted as area either).

The only thing I'd note about the RoB hills is that they're actually sort of anti-terrain. They don't provide cover, and they also allow you to shoot over other cover in the middle of the board. Because they exist, fewer cover saves can be made, and fewer things are out of LOS altogether. As such, really they should subtract from the total amount of terrain, rather than add to it (or not count either way).

**pretre**

Ailaros wrote:
The only thing I'd note about the RoB hills is that they're actually sort of anti-terrain.

This! I may have said this or not before, but I whole-heartedly support this statement. It's like a free ruin/hill/vantage point for all your shooty units.

**chromedog**

We tend to run with around 30%.
Mix of LOS blocker, area and linear.

I have my own terrain organised into tubs - one per table layout (I have one table - it's double sided though) and six sets of terrain to go with it).

I tend to use two tubs and 2/3 of my table for infinity games (which gives around 75% coverage).

**ArtfcllyFlvrd**

sourclams wrote:

I simply can't agree with this. What line of sight are you saying that they block sight from? The eighteen inches along the bottom left corner? From the other 90% of the board they block absolutely nothing. If there was a 1" high rectangle with 70x46 dimension plopped in the middle of the board, would you say you were playing with 90% terrain coverage?

I played a game on the exact same board just before and the hill crest blocked LOS to tanks, units, and gave cover saves several times. Not to mention outflankers, infiltrators, or units pushing up the side of the board for objectives all of which would be impeded by the hill and it's very large footprint.

pretre wrote:
Ailaros wrote:
The only thing I'd note about the RoB hills is that they're actually sort of anti-terrain.

This! I may have said this or not before, but I whole-heartedly support this statement. It's like a free ruin/hill/vantage point for all your shooty units.

That's exactly why it is terrain. It has tactical advantages/disadvantages to normal flat ground. I just don't understand how you can say it isn't, unless your definition of terrain is only something that blocks LOS or gives cover, which is not the rulebook definition. Things that improve LOS or reduce cover are equally valid terrain features.

**pixelgeek**

First off I hope ArtfcllyFlvrd isn't taking this personally. I don't think its intended to be.

I like a fair bit of terrain on my tables and any time I can draw a straight line from one edge to the other through the centre of the table I head back and grab some more terrain.

The RoB is, to my mind, made for Warhammer Fantasy. The contoured terrain limit the available space to place 40K style features and make you think that you have more terrain on the table than you do.

**ArtfcllyFlvrd**

pixelgeek wrote:First off I hope ArtfcllyFlvrd isn't taking this personally. I don't think its intended to be.

I like a fair bit of terrain on my tables and any time I can draw a straight line from one edge to the other through the centre of the table I head back and grab some more terrain.

The RoB is, to my mind, made for Warhammer Fantasy.

I'm not taking it personally, I just don't understand some of the comments. I think some people have thought it influenced the game pictured, I genuinely don't think it did. It could helped/hurt either player equally but I think it ended up being a non factor.

pixelgeek wrote:The contoured terrain limit the available space to place 40K style features and make you think that you have more terrain on the table than you do.

This is 100% true. If you didn't count the hills and tried to cram 2'x3' of area terrain between the hills the table would be unplayable. I really dislike the RoB boards for a lot of reasons but it was all the was unclaimed when I showed up that evening.

**TheMicah25**

I think illumini made a good point regarding the cause for the outcome of the game, although i still think in this instance your fantastic dice rolling ability had alot to do with it.

with this in mind, i think the table looked great but could have done with more terrain. but regardless of this, the punishment which Ailaros's blobs took from your dice was still sustained with his blobs in terrain. so i would suggest that even with the 'perfect' amount of terrain the blobs would still have been shot up (although i think a little less so as they would also have been in more advantageous positions and thus more likley to have been a closer game).

all i can suggest is a REMATCH!! i would love to see it played again for many reasons such as how good the battle looked with 2 well painted armies.

**matterofpride**

I do think that that table is a little light on things..but I think that about half the tables I see on here.

But I think the amount of terrain isn't as important as how relevant the terrain is to the able and battle if that makes sense.

Like the pic above.. Hardly any of the terrain on the table really mattered for anything. It effected how they deployed but thats about it.

There is terrain on the table but it still leaves things feeling very open..even a slight moving of a few of the same pieces would of made things more interesting..Be it that battle or another battle between other armies since really it was set up like a shooting gallery.

I see tables like that set up alot which doesnt lead to very eventful games.

**Ailaros**

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: It has tactical advantages/disadvantages to normal flat ground. I just don't understand how you can say it isn't, unless your definition of terrain is only something that blocks LOS or gives cover, which is not the rulebook definition. Things that improve LOS or reduce cover are equally valid terrain features.

Oh, most certainly.

I would argue, however, that something needs to at least provide cover OR mess with LOS in order to be considered terrain. If they reduce other terrain in addition, there's nothing wrong with that. In this case, however, the plastiform hills are ONLY reducing the rest of the terrain, which means the end result is not terribly dissimilar to a board that has no terrain.

Of course, as was also mentioned, that the only thing the hills do is hug the board edge also makes them relatively insignificant, apart from their ability to neutralize other terrain.

I hold no grudge whatsoever over this, as if the purpose of weekly play is to prepare for things like adepticon, which also have insufficient terrain, than it more than makes sense to practice for exactly what you're going to preform. That does not, of course, say anything to the sufficiency of terrain at said events.

**-Loki-**

The problem with that table is terrain placement, not terrain quantity. Those hills are big enough to help block LOS, there's a huge LOS blocking terrain peice as well as the terrain.

Yet it's all placed that the edges of the table? Why the feth isn't any of it in the center of the table? They might as well have not put any of it on there. It's not doing anything.

**Mannahnin**

Agree with Kilkrazy, Sourclams, Ailaros, et al.

If you arrange the hills on a RoB board to form a big hill in the middle of the table, I could see counting that. But otherwise there is no way they count toward 25% coverage. They functionally subtract from the value of the terrain on the table, as said before- sort of "anti-terrain".

The table photographed appears to have maybe 12-14% terrain, if that. Certainly not enough to fill a single square of the board, which would be 16.16%.

**BuFFo**

If I was playing someone, and that table was out playing field, I would easily say "Oh hells no. Imma grab some terrain, be right back." Raised table surfaces falsely disguised as hills do not work. You need to actually make them count for something, plus, terrain in the middle of the board creates more tactical planning.

So many gamers player with less than 25% terrain. I never do. I have some players suggest lower terrain for different kinds of games, and even then I tell them "Hells no. We are getting some terrain on this desert."

**ChrisCP**

Being really generous with the terrain, using all the RoB hills. Nah not enough, look at them open firing lines!!!

**Hans Chung-Otterson**

If you piled all those blue parts into a corner, though, it certainly seems that it would be 25%.

**SilverMK2**

Have to say I like my boards stacked with terrain (75%+). Makes for a much more interesting game with units sneaking up on each other, vital reserves getting delayed due to terrain, vicious fights for commanding positions, etc.

If you can see more than 1-1.5 ft before there is some more LOS blocking terrain, you don't have enough

Having said that, you can have less terrain deployed well to get similar effects, such as this table from Platinum Devil:

Lots of small 1 floor LOS blocking buildings, some area terrain and a couple of hills.

**Kilkrazy**

A well set up table should have some open fire lanes to give some challenges to shooty and melee armies.

A table which is either completely open or completely closed is too beneficial one way or the other.

**ChrisCP**

Hans Chung-Otterson wrote:If you piled all those blue parts into a corner, though, it certainly seems that it would be 25%.

I tried with the original, but it was too time consuming, I'll try again with this edit. The real trouble with the layout is one must count the RoB bits as terrain to reach anything like 25% and there are only 4 Los blocking pieces on the board - everyone can see everyone more or less - which is kinda 'broken' when missiles reach the width of the board.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

**Lycaeus Wrex**

I think that unless you are playing in a tournament the amount of terrain on the table, as with practically every aspect of 40k, is entirely negotiable. If you don't like how a table is set-up, get a third party to intervene, if you don't like the way RoB is arranged, alter it. It's not hard to reach a common consensus if people use their common sense.

This seems to be a perfect example of how players (or commentators) fail to communicate effectively at the time, and instead bring their gripes and grudges to a forum instead.

I personally play with about 50% terrain. HOWEVER that terrain is a balanced mix of 4+, 5+, 6+, area, difficult and dangerous terrain. I'm also under the strong belief that everyone makes every terrain piece provide a 4+ save, simply because it's the 'best' save they can give themselves, and thus offers the greatest advantage in game.

L. Wrex

**Kilkrazy**

The point of having terrain on the tabletop is that it should have effects on movement and combat, in order to present players with interesting tactical challenges and opportunities.

There is also an aesthetic consideration, but that isn't part of the 25% recommendation.

The Realm of Battle hills, when ranged around the long edges of the table, have almost no effect. If there were a low wall or fence, you might get an LoS advantage. That isn't the case in the original picture, though.

The amount of terrain available at tournaments will depend on the size of the event and the resource available to the organiser. The second Platinum Devil was well fixed for terrain as several players brought their home set ups (the picture earlier is of my Tau desert terrain) to help out the event.

**SilverMK2**

Kilkrazy wrote:(the picture earlier is of my Tau desert terrain)

I thought it was yours but didn't want to put a name to it in case I was wrong

Excellent terrain by the way - I don't think I got to mention that to you on the day I was there.