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.

So, I was in Warhammer World last week for a Forgeworld purchase, a game of 40k against my regular opponent (and a decent burger...).

Luckily it was a quiet monday afternoon, so we used all the terrain on our table, then nicked all the terrain from the next one as well. Between the two we scrounged the equivalent of 4 square feet of terrain.

Going on the guidelines in the 40k book that approximately 1/4 of the board should have terrain on it, a 6' x 4' board needs about 6 square feet of terrain - this is what I've nearly finished building for my table at home (and as its urban, plenty of it blocks LOS too). Warhammer World - the 'nerve-centre' of the hobby only has 1/3 of the recommended amount of terrain on their tables.

As the game progressed, I realised quickly that it was only going one way. Andy's marines were punishing me with long range fire that I could not respond to (I played sisters and he sensibly popped my transports on turn 1, forcing me to walk) and I had no cover to advance behind to get into range.



All this got me thinking - can the quantity and quality of terrain be the deciding factor in games? With many tournament games - and even pick-up games - there is nowhere near the recommended amount. Games at home are always much tighter and more tactical than games I play elsewhere. There are some units that I can run successfully at home that I would never dream of taking anywhere else because they rely on terrain to survive long enough to affect the game.

Most threads on tactics and unit selection dismiss units with poor toughness or saves irrespective of their potential to inflict damage, yet such units are viable with enough terrain - it becomes a great leveller.

Should the gaming community now be asking for more, particularly from tournament organisers? Better terrain forces more tactical decisions and makes more units viable, expanding the game and changing the ratio of tactics to list building when assessing good players.

Well, I plan on attending a Tournament in Pompey next year, and one of the provisos is that each player bring 3 different pieces of terrain to garnish the boards with. This to me is an excellent way of ensuring lots of terrain.

Though that is a Fantasy Tournament (going with a bunch of friends, so should be a giggle anyways).

I do agree that the right terrain is essential to a good game, be it Fantasy or 40k. One of the great pleasures in Necromunda is exploiting the cover better than your opponent, and this should now translate over to 40k nicely.

However, where does the terrain come from? Short of making supply a necessary part of entry (easy enough these days with all thats available off the peg, and cheap enough for those swine capable of building their own )

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
All this got me thinking - can the quantity and quality of terrain be the deciding factor in games? With many tournament games - and even pick-up games - there is nowhere near the recommended amount. Games at home are always much tighter and more tactical than games I play elsewhere. There are some units that I can run successfully at home that I would never dream of taking anywhere else because they rely on terrain to survive long enough to affect the game.

Most threads on tactics and unit selection dismiss units with poor toughness or saves irrespective of their potential to inflict damage, yet such units are viable with enough terrain - it becomes a great leveller.

Yes. I also think that you'll see a lot LESS MEQs, since armor saves will become much less important, so why pay for it?

Should the gaming community now be asking for more, particularly from tournament organisers? Better terrain forces more tactical decisions and makes more units viable, expanding the game and changing the ratio of tactics to list building when assessing good players.

Yes, definitely.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, I plan on attending a Tournament in Pompey next year, and one of the provisos is that each player bring 3 different pieces of terrain to garnish the boards with. This to me is an excellent way of ensuring lots of terrain.

Sounds like an excellent approach, though I do make my own, so I'm a bit biased.

I do agree that the right terrain is essential to a good game, be it Fantasy or 40k. One of the great pleasures in Necromunda is exploiting the cover better than your opponent, and this should now translate over to 40k nicely.

And THAT is one of the reasons that necromunda is a much better game the 40K. With 40k's larger unit sizes, and 2" unit coherence rule terrain becomes much more difficult to use effectively, particulary when you're moving a 20-30 model mob. I usually just ignore terrain, or rely on grotz.

Terrain is key.

However, you have to remember to include large, line-of-site blocking things in your terrain as well. I see this as more of a problem, stemming from people having their terrain carried on from 4th edition, than a general lack of terrain in the stores that I've played in.

Personally, my favorite terrain setup is "city fight". Big blocks of LOS blocking ruins with roads (read: fire lanes) running in between everything. Throw a couple fortified buildings in there and you got a great board!

I play IG, and I love terrain, despite the fact that it makes CC armies much harder to take down. It just adds so much more to the feel of the game

Terrain, with both area and plenty of LOS blocking pieces, is essential for fun 40k imo.

At the place I frequent, the terrain is so short :( We need tall stuff!

Most definitely terrain is a deciding factor. You can pretty much tell how a game is going to go by the terrain. If there's not much, then the game turns into a line 'em up and shoot 'em down affair if one of the players is running an army that features long range ability.
Close combat armies suffer in that environment, but thrive in dense terrain settings.
That being said, the new rules for infiltrators is a good equalizer.

That's why I'd love to see a 6-game tourney where each player plays one game as an attacker and one as a defender on each of three table types: mostly open desert, "regular" wooded, and densely-packed (either jungle or city) tables. Of course some match-ups would be brutal for some armies, but it would certainly make for some interesting games and, perhaps, take a bit of wind out of some of the more common tournament builds.

Vale,

JohnS

The more terrain, the better the game.

I have seen a huge amount of Battle Reports, here and elsewhere and especially tournament reports, where the pictures show what can only be described as open fields wth the odd tree or ruined wall, a hill or two, and maybe a building. It's sad to see so little terrain.

I fill my tables. I aim for 50% coverage if not more, and I hate it when there's any less.

BYE

Yeah I love terrain on tables, as it allows to be more tactical rather then just moving across an open field. It also adds a heck of alot of fun and realism to the game.

I like decent terrain simply so it can make some sense in my mind for fighting on such a small table, now granted i mostly do WW2 historical stuff, but setting up a large town makes you feel like you are fighting over stuff, a plain board would need to be huge to allow for fun for me, after all armies rarely line up along a strip of a couple of fields then go at each other. So yeah something that looks worth fighting over is important to me... so i tend to favour towns / or in 40k city fight type terrain.

Nothing i hate more then seeing 3000 points of army crammed along the side of 5ft board facing another lump of models doing the same with little inbetween, not exactly a tactical game then.

So i guess thats why i favour the historical 1/72 scale, but if i do play 40k i prefer it on a 6' by 8' table, again with plenty of terrain on it.

The big thing I like about Rules of Engagement is their cover system. There is a minus for soft and hard cover which affects shooting and saves. The idea is unless on hard open cover, say like roads, court yards etc you can benefit from cover. If you sneak, you get the benefit from both modifiers, this represents the troops making full use of any cover available. In 40k game terms you could apply this as an invunerable save or a +1.

I agree with the statement that terrain in practice is often short of what is recommended. I generally prefer 25-35% of the board in terrain simply for variety's sake if not for a better looking game.

My question is will more terrain hinder/help the Ork and Daemon armies that seem to be doing so well at the US tournies lately?

On the one hand, some terrain will make it more difficult to safely deep strike or require additional movement to go through or around. I personally have encountered virtually no impassable terrain in tournies.

On the other hand, more terrain that doesn't block LoS merely gives those armies more cover saves.

Thoughts?

H.B.M.C. wrote:I fill my tables. I aim for 50% coverage if not more, and I hate it when there's any less.

I hear you, man! At least 50% and higher in city fight (my favorite terrain). Are wars not won in the industrial hubs and cities.?

Dal'yth Dude wrote:I agree with the statement that terrain in practice is often short of what is recommended. I generally prefer 25-35% of the board in terrain simply for variety's sake if not for a better looking game.

My question is will more terrain hinder/help the Ork and Daemon armies that seem to be doing so well at the US tournies lately?

On the one hand, some terrain will make it more difficult to safely deep strike or require additional movement to go through or around. I personally have encountered virtually no impassable terrain in tournies.

On the other hand, more terrain that doesn't block LoS merely gives those armies more cover saves.

Thoughts?

It seems that horde orks get a lot of cover saves anyway, from grots, KFF, or (apparently) wrapping around cover (or something). I would say you don't have much to lose; the hordes would be slower, and they would probably get a cover save anyway. Line of Sight blocking impassible terrain is even better, as it allows you to form bottlenecks. The upswing of this is, Kult of Speed gets a much needed boost from more cover, so it's better for orks as a whole.

No idea on the Daemon thing. I didn't even know they were doing that well, besides that one player.

Like HBMC, I like a lot of terrain on the table. 50% is a good proportion IMHO. It makes TLOS a better system the more terrain that is on the table. The shooty units can take up better defensible positions. With a lot of the tables I have played on as of late...it greatly favors close combat armies since they can close the distance much faster when the terrain isn't slowing them down. I don't like that much.

Capt K

yeah,
I think 25% area coverage is about right, and try to have the terrain spaced out...

I feel that too much terrain can ruin a game.
to much terrain reduces the effectiveness of shooty units and heavys etc and can give a unfair advantage to close combat squads.
So regardless of if I'm playing a shooty army or playing against one, I like to reach a compromise with my opponent when we are putting out terrain, and ask questions:

shall we add more terrain or is this enough?

shall we add in a few forests?

shall we have a few clear areas?

shall we move this to create fire lanes?

shall we add a road or two?

I find most people quickly agree on a sensible level of terrain.

Panic...

Orkeosaurus: I agree that Orks will probably generate a lot of their own cover saves. But one can still shoot the closest unit without intervening units/terrain. Adding terrain will obviously affect how many units that would be.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Orkeosaurus: I agree that Orks will probably generate a lot of their own cover saves. But one can still shoot the closest unit without intervening units/terrain. Adding terrain will obviously affect how many units that would be.

Yeah, it doesn't weaken them that much.
That's why I say tables need more impassible terrain. There should be an inherent disadvantage to filling the table with so many cheap troops, and that disadvantage should be blast weapons and bottlenecks. None of that "hope the ork player runs out of time" crap.

As a Tyranid player, I like LOS blocking terrain a lot. Even something to give a cover save is handy, since most of my guys are about as well armored as your average lemur.

Plus, it lets me get close to know that wonderful smell before I run around a corner and charge the bejeezus out of you with Hormagaunt hordes.

I like a minimum of 1/3rd coverage, preferably more.

My group tends to play with impassable terrain that will most often block LoS to normal infantry. But my experience at the FLGS or tournies is that kind of terrain appears in about 10% of those games.

The building/window TLoS rules also irks me in execution. In my experience the troops in the open have it better than the troops in the building. I'm not sure how to resolve that.

Hello,
My view is the more scenery the better.Too many games
become boring long range shooting games that don't
make for an enjoyable battle.Last night I played against
a well dug in IG army and I can honestly say that if
there wasn't a lot of scenery (luckily there was) my
marines would have been decimated in the first round.
All players should realise the following:
1)Not all scenery has to be crossable
2)Low hills (i.e lower than a figure ) are useless in a
40k game!Scale the hills up for pete's sake!
3)40k is a skirmish game , not WFB where you are not
allowed much scenery.
4)Decent scenery does make for a better game!
5)If your opponent has a really shooty armour and does
not want much scenery,question why he wants to play you.

Slipstream wrote:
2)Low hills (i.e lower than a figure ) are useless in a
40k game!Scale the hills up for pete's sake!

So true. I hate it when people try to bring low hills and knee-high sandbag walls for terrain.

Yeah,
This is 40k... it's grim and it's dark and it has guns! Why should we fill the board with so much terrain they become useless?

Slipstream wrote:...
4)Decent scenery does make for a better game!

I agree. nice scenery will always raises the enjoyment of a game, More won't aways equal better! there's s a point when you have too much terrain...

Slipstream wrote:...
5)If your opponent has a really shooty armour and does
not want much scenery,question why he wants to play you.

Everyone who plays 40k wants to win... why play other wise? but your right using terrain setup to bais a game is a low...
Like wise you have to watch out for someone with a army that's all about combat and he wants lots and lots of terrain.

the OP was questioning tourny terrain, it's like that because they have lots of boards to cover! sure they could make more terrain, but people don't expect lots at tourneys!? the norm is to bring a balanced army with possible bias to shooting...
Panic...

Panic wrote
the OP was questioning tourny terrain, it's like that because they have lots of boards to cover! sure they could make more terrain, but people don't expect lots at tourneys!? the norm is to bring a balanced army with possible bias to shooting...

I know people will take into account the amount of terrain at tourneys, but those levels of terrain do favour certain armies.

I also agree that there can be too much terrain and that this can cause problems - there is a happy medium, though which (**GW got something right shocker **) is about 25%. If GW recommend this, why can't they supply it at their own flagship gaming hall??

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Slipstream wrote:
2)Low hills (i.e lower than a figure ) are useless in a
40k game!Scale the hills up for pete's sake!

So true. I hate it when people try to bring low hills and knee-high sandbag walls for terrain.

I think you need a mix. Knee high hills provide a cover save, taller hills something to hide behind. Honestly though, I really don't like tall hills, so much as rock outcroppings. With the tall hills they tend to take up WAY too much space, or look really goofy (like a hill meat loaf). Rock outcroppings or formations look fine jutting out of the ground, and taking up a small amount of table area.

BigToof wrote:...tall hills they tend to take up WAY too much space, or look really goofy (like a hill meat loaf).

Win.



Ghidorah

Ghidorah wrote:

BigToof wrote:...tall hills they tend to take up WAY too much space, or look really goofy (like a hill meat loaf).

Win.



Ghidorah

You would know, I stole the idea from the desert table that you and Jeremy put together for ACME.

imo terrain when used properly decides 50% of the out come. yes 50%.

its one thing that your opponent have no say in what you throw into your army list.

but its the other when the opponent know how to use the terrain to ruin your army's advantage
or strategies.

BigToof wrote:I think you need a mix. Knee high hills provide a cover save, taller hills something to hide behind. Honestly though, I really don't like tall hills, so much as rock outcroppings. With the tall hills they tend to take up WAY too much space, or look really goofy (like a hill meat loaf). Rock outcroppings or formations look fine jutting out of the ground, and taking up a small amount of table area.

Well, uh, it could be an alien planet you see... and, uh...

Wel you guise, aleins and demens dont exits ether but their still in the gaem!!!! Dont you no its justt a gaem its not like its reel god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

you know i've never seen water ... its one of those things that would make a map unique ... only skimers, infantry and chimeras could be able to cross it ... making a map a far greater challenge