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.

Hello,

ive got a question. Since i noticed that there are totally different views on how much Terrain should be on the table i wanted to know what your personal standpoint is. Since there definitely is a "too much terrain" and most definitely a "too less terrain" whats the golden mid-way for you?

We always followed the 1/4th of the table covered with terrain "rule" and afterwards spread it around. We now have a player (IG Parking lot ) that is complaining that we use too much of it.


this is how it usually looks.

Divide the table into 2x2sections. Each section should have eitherf A) A large building or terrain feature, B) 2 small buildings or terrain features or C) Severall pieces of smaller terrain features like rubble and low walls.

25% is a minimum, I prefer 40-50% however (reason being that a lot of the terrain people use, such as hills) do absolutely nothing to interfere with line of sight or really do anything aside from generating more coversaves).

I always followed the 1/4th of the table covered with terrain "rule" and afterwards spread it around.

there are usually 3 pieces in each deployment zone (For pitched battle) and 4 in the center of the table.

Works pretty well.

We have a lot of terrain that is able to provide cover saves at least for non vehicle models. You kinda see that on the pic.

Its more than just cover saves, if you check the rulebook they say it should be an equal mix of los blocking, los interfering,and non-los interfering (but cover generating) terrain. Most peoples/stores terrain collections lack the first two categories.

Mywik wrote:Hello,

ive got a question. Since i noticed that there are totally different views on how much Terrain should be on the table i wanted to know what your personal standpoint is. Since there definitely is a "too much terrain" and most definitely a "too less terrain" whats the golden mid-way for you?

We always followed the 1/4th of the table covered with terrain "rule" and afterwards spread it around. We now have a player (IG Parking lot ) that is complaining that we use too much of it.


this is how it usually looks.

Spoiler:

That is what I would call a nice industrial themed table with a good allocation of terrain unless you have a lot of tanks in your army.

The way the buildings are spread out makes it hard to get vehicles through the gaps, keep formation, and have good LoS. It demonstrates why tankers don't like going into built-up areas.

That is why your IG tank company player doesn't like it.

To be fair to him, if you always play on the same kind of table it can get a bit dull. Why not shake things up by clustering the buildings into close groups, to allow more movement and firing space around the board?

Not enough.

25% is the bare minimum to have an enjoyable game.

40-50% is preferable and there should be an even mix of LoS blocking and area terrain.


Area terrain also needs to have defined heights for the purposes of giving vehicles cover(IE: the trees are 6" tall, so any vehicle 12" tall and shorter will have cover from them if 50% of the view of the hull passes through the Area terrain)


The terrain also shouldn't cover the board evenly. There should be cramped areas and fairly open areas.

The 25% rule always seems to be the golden rule for us. I agree it can be a little restrictive though, so I try and throw in a little more or a little less once in a while. Sometimes it is good to play games with more or less terrain then you'd normally see. We generally try and have a third party set up the terrain for our games, so no one is getting an advantage. That allows those of us with an artistic sense to come up with cool 'scenes' with the terrain. I LOVE setting up terrain to give some actual backdrop for the game, in a story sense. Maybe the 3rd party option might help in your case.

Also, that busted mega-monitor terrain piece you have is so sweet it's giving me a cavity.

As much as i can get away with, the more the better. All that lovely hard cover does wonders for my Guardsmen and their tanks. Easyer to make killing zones for you to walk into and harder for you to rush me

Jimsolo wrote:
Also, that busted mega-monitor terrain piece you have is so sweet it's giving me a cavity.

Thanks . The monitor is actually build from one of those antennas old school tv's came with back in the day . I think we will try to let a third party setup the table. We're now setting up one terrain piece per side until everything was placed.

When looking at photos especially from american tournaments it seems sometimes there isnt even 25% covered. Feels like 10% .

I do feel like that is the case sometimes. I think there often isn't enough terrain for a tournament the store is holding, or they have enough but they squeezed in that 1 extra table that stole all the terrain from the others.


People also rely too much on Area terrain cause its easy to make(green felt plus 2-3 trees = forest)

There isn't nearly enough LoS blocking terrain, especially for a TloS game.

Being a Tyranid player, as much as I can get away with.

Terrain is awesome, the only problem with my usual game (and by the looks of it, yours too) is LOS-blocking terrain. It's frustrating not having a shooting phase because your opponant has hidden everything and there's literally nothing you can do. Then bam, next turn is assault and it's all over.

I usually have LOS blocking terrain for most of the board, with 2-3 decent lanes for vehicles and long LOS. Then one pretty much random clear area for tank-camping or "setting up camp" with infantry. All leads to diverse gameplay across the board.

chaos0xomega wrote:25% is a minimum, I prefer 40-50% however (reason being that a lot of the terrain people use, such as hills) do absolutely nothing to interfere with line of sight or really do anything aside from generating more coversaves).

This.

Don't be confused into thinking that everything you put down on the table counts as terrain. If you're putting down hills in such a way where a model on top of them can ignore cover saves elsewhere on the board (by being able to shoot over the terrain, rather than through it), then it's really ANTI-terrain. I played at a store once where like half of their terrain was towers, which meant that really there was towers full of heavy weapons (and vehicles) that had free reign over the board. Didn't play there long...

Yeah, I would view hills as not counting as terrain unless they are extremely rocky and tall.


I think a good ratio of terrain is as follows.

20% area terrain

30% LoS difficult terrain

Hills arn't terrain unless they fall into the above catagories.

40%-50% usually. Anything below that looks too sparse in my mind. It's why so many reports in the BatRep forum are so disappointing - hardly any terrain, and what's there is pathetic (a tank trap, a crater, a small 3" high 4" long wall).

I keep this example in my gallery of a table that fails at terrain:

H.B.M.C. wrote:40%-50% usually. Anything below that looks too sparse in my mind. It's why so many reports in the BatRep forum are so disappointing - hardly any terrain, and what's there is pathetic (a tank trap, a crater, a small 3" high 4" long wall).

I keep this example in my gallery of a table that fails at terrain:

Of course those are 2 armies that love having no terrain

Joey wrote:Terrain is awesome, the only problem with my usual game (and by the looks of it, yours too) is LOS-blocking terrain. It's frustrating not having a shooting phase because your opponant has hidden everything and there's literally nothing you can do. Then bam, next turn is assault and it's all over.

I have the opposite problem, my FLGS is all ruins that seem to have more windows than a pedo whose house backs onto a school playground, and LoS-blocking terrain that Gimli would struggle to hide behind, nevermind a taller-than-average model or a tank.

It means that your tanks generally get no cover saves against AV firing from the top levels of the many ruins, and can be seen without issue from a good portion of the board, and assaulty armies aren't so much helped by the pieces of terrain scattered between the ruins as hindered by having to walk around them to get anywhere, whilst at the same time being shot by an army with an almost global and perpetual 4+ cover save.

Joey wrote:Terrain is awesome, the only problem with my usual game (and by the looks of it, yours too) is LOS-blocking terrain. It's frustrating not having a shooting phase because your opponant has hidden everything and there's literally nothing you can do. Then bam, next turn is assault and it's all over.

Then move away and out of range of the assault, perhaps?

Also, to those of you that are griping about the terrain selection at your FLGS...I'm sure they wouldn't mind some new terrain donated by yourselves to fill in the holes they are missing

Lormax wrote:Also, to those of you that are griping about the terrain selection at your FLGS...I'm sure they wouldn't mind some new terrain donated by yourselves to fill in the holes they are missing

Yes, because we all have the skill and income to purpose-build terrain that isn't even guaranteed to be used in any games you play.

I've tried making my own terrain, and it was a god-awful failure every time, so assuming everyone can pull whatever terrain they need out of their arse is more than a bit crap.

Lormax wrote:

Joey wrote:Terrain is awesome, the only problem with my usual game (and by the looks of it, yours too) is LOS-blocking terrain. It's frustrating not having a shooting phase because your opponant has hidden everything and there's literally nothing you can do. Then bam, next turn is assault and it's all over.

Then move away and out of range of the assault, perhaps?

Also, to those of you that are griping about the terrain selection at your FLGS...I'm sure they wouldn't mind some new terrain donated by yourselves to fill in the holes they are missing

Yeah. Because ive got nothing better to do than waste my money. Please go troll somewhere else.

making ruins is simple enough, same with hills. I've mad etons quickly and would class myself basic in construction skills for building things.

25% to 30% is about standard at my house. If you put to much on the table it becomes a slugfest in h2h as no one shoots they just jump out and assault....

I find that boring.

Depends on the game.

This is a nice amount for "Infinity"


This would be crowded for 40k.
In Infinity, if you can see it, it will die if it is not in cover - and intervening cover doesn't count - only b2b with it (although if intervening cover blocks LOS completely, you have no shot).
This is important considering the "everyone has overwatch" aspect of the game.

I use legos for Terrain when I play at home.

Why not? There destructible, easy to make and re-use.

I like 50% terrain with Multi-Level ruins. It adds so much to the game, and it forces you to think more tactically. Also, any good comander wouldn't engage in conflict in an open field IRL...

chromedog wrote:Depends on the game.

This is a nice amount for "Infinity"


This would be crowded for 40k.
In Infinity, if you can see it, it will die if it is not in cover - and intervening cover doesn't count - only b2b with it (although if intervening cover blocks LOS completely, you have no shot).
This is important considering the "everyone has overwatch" aspect of the game.

Ha! I have that same Blade Runner skycar sitting in its LE box.

HA!

It's NOT a "Blade Runner LE" model.

It's an old Fantasy Forge Security grav car (now available through Scotia-Grendel). I bought it in about 1990/91.

Thanks for noticing it though.