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've recently decided to make a gaming table and I don't know how much terrain and cover to put on it. I was wondering if anyone had any advice or pictures of gaming tables so i can get a good idea of what would be a great gaming table.

25% depending on the size and height of the cover. Though I'd suggest not actually modelling it on the table but making it separate to allow more freedom.

As for theme, if you don't have one go with one that suits your main army.

As a general rule you should ahve enough terrain to cover a total of 25% of the total area. Depending on what kind of battling you wish to do can have an effect on this. People who are fond of Cities of Death style matches want as much terrain as they can get. More and mixed terrrain really adds to how any game can really be effected tactically speaking. Some's good, more's better.

CoD had its own rules for terrain depending on size of game.

25% is good, 35% is better - unless you like fighting battles over wheatfields and shooting at cows.

25% coverage is the recommended minimum, and most people overestimate the amount they put out.

The shape and size of the terrain pieces also makes a difference to the in game effects. For example, low area terrain is good news for infantry but is no use to tanks and MCs.

Finally, the distribution on the table is obviously important. Hills placed around the edges often might as well not be there for all the effect they have.

The best thing is to have a good variety of pieces of different types for blocking movement and LoS of different units. Rule off 1/4 of the board and fill it with a selection of terrain pieces that make sense by following a theme (canal city, desert foothills, forested land, or something). Then spread the terrain out into an attractive layout.

Keep in mind that the gaps between pieces affects movement. Close together pieces can block the passage of large models while allowing infantry to creep through. The same pieces will have a different effect if placed farther apart.

As above, about 25% is usually what you want. Less then that and you end up with too much open terrain, more then that and you get into city-fight territory (which is an option, but requires some list-tailoring).

Here's a good idea to start with. Not the most fun table ever, but it's a solid balanced table that works with more standard deployments:


Now, lets that that and shove it into the corner:


And see, about 25%


SO for your table. Just get a good play surface, and then get or make terrain about like that above. Then start building more from there and see what works for you.

I'm more of a narrative-based gamer, so I prefer tables that actually have a theme to them and aren't just a mish-mash of various terrain pieces. If I'm playing on an arctic tundra, I'd expect almost no terrain like buildings and the like to provide cover or anything. I'd want it to be a big open expanse of snow features - unless of course it's some kind of facility in said locale, in which case buildings and the like would be suitable.

If you want a game board purely for relatively even battling, then the methods above regarding 25% of the board and how to get a good spread of terrain work perfectly. If however, you prefer a board with a bit more of a purpose and theme, then just plan out an idea you like and build a board to match - regardless of how much or how little terrain there is.

That said, beware of completely saturating the board. Whilst some people love an entire board covered in dense city terrain, this will make it an absolute pain to play on both from a practical point of view and from a gaming point of view (given the extra things you have to take into account on a board full of buildings).

I know this isn't the type of quantitative answer you are looking for, but the right amount of terrain is the amount that just "looks right".

I'd much prefer to play on a table that is interesting both visually and in how it impacts the game. This could be a lot of terrain or a little. I'd even prefer playing on a cool looking table that hinders my army more than a bland table that blindly follows some terrain percentage/placement formula.

The rule of cool is my prime desire when it comes to terrain...

Ghost of Man's pic is a great example of what 25% really means.

I actually prefer 25-35% or more, but I do alot of skirmish gaming, so being able to maneuver large units isn't as much of a big deal for me. I also am very fond of unified terrain sets that match a theme. At my house nearly all my terrain is based around a desert, theme, with enough options that it can be tweaked for wastelands, post apoc, industrial or fantasy.

One other thing to note. You can get away with 25% or less terrain coverage if you include, Hedgerows, solid fences, LInes of trees, Rock spires and other tall terrain that does not have a large footprint, but blocks line of sight.

Here's a couple of overhead shots of battles I've recently had.
Fantasy Skirmish at home.

WarPath. Not as thick, but if you count the hills in FLGS's RoB board it's still over 25%

"Wastelands: Meltdown" Post-Apoc Skirmish at home

yeah,
25% + is recommended.
It's best to have as much terrain as you can get available! as ultimately it's agreed between the players playing the game.

The thing to remember is that a packed table starts to favour a Combat themed army and lots of open and low level terrain suits a gun line army.

So it might be unfair to have 45% of the table covered with large building when your playing against tau...
While lowering it to 20% and mostly swamps when your playing Orks, that would be 'Terrain'ing for Advantage!'

some tables that I've played on from my batreps, the games were fun and felt fair.











Panic...

I like a good mix, sometimes we play on boards with loads of terrain, sometimes we play on a sparse battle field. Keeping it different keeps it interesting.

Keep each item of terrain separate, that way the battle field never needs to be the same as the last game you played.

In my oppinion, any where from 25% to 100%
yes 100% i have played a game where a full 6'x4' nothing but one big forest and another pushed right next to it almost as open as a harvested corn field
*i think the forest was just to keep my shooty marines at bay.*

I gotta say, all these overhead terrain shots are really inspiring. I find them at least as -if not more- usefull than landscape and table level shots when it comes to getting ideas on how to actually layout the terrain for gaming.

I'm working on a gaming table myself and this thread has provided a lot of inspiration. I play Space Wolves in 40K and plan on starting a Dark Elves army in WHFB within the next few months so I want to create a table that'll fit both armies.

My theme is what I call a "rocky valley". My plan is to get some green astroturf from a garden centre to use as my base, then build some rocks sticking out of the ground to use as hills and block LoS. To add some colour, I'm going to sparingly use some green flock to look like moss/lichen is growing on the rocks. I've also picked up a couple of birdhouses from Michaels that look like castles and are the right scale for both games.

Eventually I'd like to try my hand at building a river, but I need to get the other terrain finished first.

Thanks! i figured this thread would help more people than just me. I'm just starting the game myself but i've been building and painting for years. I really want to make a badass gaming table.

Def don't fix pieces to the table, unless you live in a castle and have room to leave the board set up forever! It also means you can never move the terrain around.

Also, it's worth getting the people you'll be playing to have a look, otherwise it will be accused of being biased to one type of army!

Good luck! (Pictures when it's done please!)

Oh you can count on pictures!

I liked all the battlefield shots, very impressive. However! I take the opposite view from many of you in that battlefields should have a lot more than the 25% mentioned. My main doubt about all these battlefields is that they are too open, most of these would allow a shooty army to stand back and fire. A good battlefield should always force both opponents to continually move(you know, use actual tactics to defeat an opponent). Terrain should be used to obscure, not to allow clear views, I've played in too many boring games where an opponent would not budge during the whole game, destroying the whole point of playing in the first place.
My rule of thumb; battlefields should be just as challenging as the actual forces.

deleted

Slipstream, maybe this would be more your kind of battlefield. I agree that the more terrain the better though at a certain point it becomes difficult for vehicles to maneuver across the battlefield. Equally important as the amount of terrain is playing games that actually require seizure of objectives and movement of units. The basic 40k rules do an ok job of this but IMHO it's in making your own scenarios that terrain and wargaming really get used to the fullest.

i usually just use the same couple of pieces for our game and move them around. I think it doesn't hurt to have areas with lots of cover nearby and a few thats a bit sparse. Lines of fire are something to watch for and also taken advantage of.

Something to bear in mind is that terrain around the edges of the table has much less impact on the game, and that raised terrain (like multi-level buildings or elevated hills) in deployment zones can act as sort of "negative terrain", in that it allows shooty units to see over intervening terrain and units, thus making the field functionally more open.

I seem to recall that somewhere it said that it was a good idea to put something big that blocks LOS in the middle of the board and so then put something to let models hide in at each of the four corners and to put junk that blocked movement and some LOS in between without going over board. Of course i like the idea of Cities of death so the only real important rule i could see is to separate your major terrain elements by about 6 inches to allow for roads to let larger models actually move. otherwise tanks don't function at all and would just need to hide at the edge of the buildings which is fine if your buildings are just in the middle of the battlefield but not cool if something the size of a rhino cant move without making dangerous tests.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The important thing i would say would be the large buildings in the middle to separate the battlefield. You don't want to let long ranged direct fire weapons to be able to shoot anything from anywhere ever. The worst thing to do though is to have nothing blocking LOS then the people with the most long ranged guns just win and the people with assulty armies just lose so its a fine balance of not to much and not to little. I have seen what happens when a hammerhead can see the whole battlefield at once and it isn't nice of fair. The game became a race to kill it before it killed everything else.

just remember this...lots of cover/terrain favors CC, short ranged, and slower units...while more open ground favors heavy weapons and faster units.