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.

There has been an awful lot of talk lately about terrain and how much is enough. The book says 25% with a mixture of LOS blocking and area terrain. So why does it seem, when you look at pictures, that Europeans seem to follow this rule and Americans don't? Or is it just the major American tournament organizers and bat rep creators like BoLS just ignore the rule while everyone else actually follows it? I don't find terrain to be a problem at my FLGS but it seems to be a bone of contention for many.

We don't have a problem with this at our FLGS either. The 25% rule, when you can stick to it, is a near perfect rule. If you have doubts check out the latest article Dis wrote on CNC. http://captureandcontrol.blogspot.com/

In my opinion if you can properly mix LOS blocking, area terrain, and random bits it is easy to get good coverage. For anyone who has followed our Battle reports here on Dakka or on CNC you know we build tables with a good balance of cover that is fair and evenly placed.

25% actually does cover a table fairly well (as the linked blog shows), although I think we tend to up it just a little and end up playing on about 33% or so pretty frequently. Still well within the same magnitude though.

That said sometimes its awesome to play on a city fight style jam packed board too. Plus these sorts of changes force you to think differently about the game which can only make you a better player.

Jack

I think 25% is just about perfect. I've played with about 50%, which just put me at a major disadvantage to the Tyranids, as they kept hiding and running between cover to avoid my Long Fangs.

I've found that with lots of vehicles becoming prominant 33% is quite a good balancer, it provides infantry with a decent amount of cover saves vs the high ap, and limits vehicle mobility, it also makes barrage more usefull and anything ignoring TLOS brilliant! Also a brilliant challenge for my daemons with the DS risks and lack of grenades

The more terrain, the better the game.

I just can't read most of the reports in the BatRep forum. I take one look at the great stretches of green nothingness, with the odd piss poor ruin or pathetic hill (or, worse, a single crater, which never adds anything), and I just can't be bothered reading.

33% does seem to be a very good number for terrain coverage. The best method I have found for terrain set up is to have a neutral 3rd party set the terrain. When I worked at our FLGS and ran 40k I would always set up people's tables and that tradition has continued. If you know someone who builds good tables have that person set up your table for you!

I've played games anywhere from the green stretch of grassy plain (due to not having a proper gaming board or terrain at the time, and not being somewhere where I can just grab a random object and say, "This is a hill") to about 75% of the board obscured by some kind of terrain of another.

I much prefer playing with more terrain rather than less. Typically at my LGS we follow the 25% rule, but sometimes if I bring my own terrain we'll toss about 50% of the table's worth out there just for kicks, because as HBMC said, the more terrain, the better the game. Does this mean my Tau have a riskier game to play, having more Deep Strike obstacles and LOS blockers? Yes. But that's all part of the fun.

SaintHazard wrote:

I much prefer playing with more terrain rather than less. Typically at my LGS we follow the 25% rule, but sometimes if I bring my own terrain we'll toss about 50% of the table's worth out there just for kicks, because as HBMC said, the more terrain, the better the game. Does this mean my Tau have a riskier game to play, having more Deep Strike obstacles and LOS blockers? Yes. But that's all part of the fun.

See this is what I like. An adherence to the 25% terrain as a minimum but feeling free to mix it up when you want to. I think this thread has a lot to do with people being constantly bombarded with Battle Reports that have 10-20% terrain rather than the more commonly accepted 25-35%.

A good 30% works for me, though it varies between armies. My Kult of Speed works best with less, whereas my Wolves can do well with any number.

25% works nicely for friendly game all the time, however in tournaments I like how my FLGS does it.

They create "theme" boards. One may be city fight with lots of terrain while another is a farm with 2 or 3 building tops. My personal favorite is our industrial wasteland where all terrain is considered difficult and dangerous.

I guess my point is I like to mix it up.

Our tables have 25-33% area terrain for every battle.

None of us have really invested the time in much line-of-sight blocking terrain. We have a few pieces, though. Sometimes, i stack my 1" thick hills up high enough to block sight. Does that count?

Got into an argument with another guy about this, one time. He runs foot sloggers, I run mech forces, so he likes covering 75% of the board with terrian, while I think 25-30% is good enough. He made the argument that in Europe they use the 75% rule, but to me that is to much of a penalty to mech forces, because if you make them run dangerous terrain checks every turn, you are going to lose vehicles very quickly. I prefer LOS blocking terrain with some woods/swamps to mix it up.

guardpiper wrote:Got into an argument with another guy about this, one time. He runs foot sloggers, I run mech forces, so he likes covering 75% of the board with terrian, while I think 25-30% is good enough. He made the argument that in Europe they use the 75% rule, but to me that is to much of a penalty to mech forces, because if you make them run dangerous terrain checks every turn, you are going to lose vehicles very quickly. I prefer LOS blocking terrain with some woods/swamps to mix it up.

If he was trying to say there actually was a "75% rule," he was bullshitting you. The rule is 25%, not 75%. And that 50% makes or breaks a game.

But yes, more terrain can be very punishing for mechanized forces... yet another reason I love my Tau. Skimmers FTW.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The more terrain, the better the game.

I just can't read most of the reports in the BatRep forum. I take one look at the great stretches of green nothingness, with the odd piss poor ruin or pathetic hill (or, worse, a single crater, which never adds anything), and I just can't be bothered reading.

My sentiments precisely.

When we set up the table (read: when not in a tourney) we use at least 25%.

My only complaint with going above the %25 rule is the overly generous cover saves allowed in 5th edition. If a player runs a foot soldier army and we are using %30+ terrain then I usually request a -1 Cover save handicap (for everyone ofcourse) so that we don't spend all day in a Hatfield vs McCoy style shootout where nobody dies until turn 3. Yes I am exaggerating a lot but the point I wanted to raise was the slowing down of the game brought on by city fight level dense terrain.

25% minimum.

I love the challenge of a City Fight and upwards to 80% terrain as provided by my FLGS. With that said however I always request time to make a list if I know I am going to be playing on a board with that much terrain.

25% seems to be a nice level in the games I play. Go less and the table's too open. Go more and you start having trouble moving things about.

My real issue with terrain right now is that we don't really have enough terrain that blocks line of sight. I'm slowly working on larger pieces to alleviate that concern.

I've always played with 25%. I've also been accused of using much less than 25% in the past, especially when 25% looks like this:



The thing is, tall terrain LOOKS like you're playing with more terrain when you take pictures of it, while short terrain looks like you're playing with less.

My guess is that americans just play with shorter terrain instead of huge towers and citedels that are taller than they are large in footprint.

I'd reach into my terrain "kibble"* box to spice up that table myself. It looks to have enough large pieces but also looks very open and detail free.

Jack

*Kibble being the very small stuff; barrels, small individual tank traps, single rocks, etc...

I've heard a couple of people complain when one of the players sets up the terrain. Usually, I find that having a third party set the terrain makes it far more fun. However, i also prefer terrain, the more the better, just for the look of the thing. I also prefer interactive terrain, stuff my Marines can run around in, climb/jump on, shoot through, etc. Of course, that's just me.

It's not just about the relative area of the terrain, but also about how it breaks up line of sight. This is important where-ever shooting is a relevant part of a game.

Ailaros wrote:I've always played with 25%. I've also been accused of using much less than 25% in the past, especially when 25% looks like this:



The thing is, tall terrain LOOKS like you're playing with more terrain when you take pictures of it, while short terrain looks like you're playing with less.

My guess is that americans just play with shorter terrain instead of huge towers and citedels that are taller than they are large in footprint.

That table looks good to me. It looks similar to the tables in the article on our site. I would play that table any day, I would even play a table with a little more terrain if asked to! I think I said it before 25% as a minimum is the best policy.

decent table .. althought I'd worry about woods and TLOS and stuff.. woods should be like old skool area terrain..

Ailaros wrote:I've always played with 25%. I've also been accused of using much less than 25% in the past, especially when 25% looks like this:



The thing is, tall terrain LOOKS like you're playing with more terrain when you take pictures of it, while short terrain looks like you're playing with less.

My guess is that americans just play with shorter terrain instead of huge towers and citedels that are taller than they are large in footprint.

Now thats a board Id like to play on. All my friends are assault armies except me and this eldar player, and the insist on having 50% upwards and when I ask to go downwards they accuse me of trying to favour my more shooty army. And the accuse ME of being unfair


As payment, I now am planning on fielding 3 basilisks alongside my manticore. That should do it.

Id be fine playing city fight, with roads down the centre, maybe a crossroads, and hollowed out ruins lining the outside, but I just dont see that happening in my gaming club.

That table doesn't look anything close to 25%. If you were to take all that terrain and pile it onto a quadrant of the table, it looks like there would be plenty of room left over.

25% always seemed a little sparse to me. 33% is a bit more my style. I never have enough LOS blocking terrain though.

that's actually my point. That table has 25% on it. So does this table:



Really, it's just how tall the terrain is that makes it SEEM like more or less.

ok this is a (bad photo) of a terrain set up i used the other day



there's another 2 story buildig just off scree bottom right

Any of you guys ever use the Deathworld Scenario rules from 3rd's Codex:Catachans?

50%-90% of the board must be jungle, just normal jungle, then you have the nasty terrain, angry plants, vine covered ravines, hills, wooded hills and my favourite, swamps in the middle of the only decent sized clearing.

It was written specifically to take advantage/showoff the Catachan's wonderful special rules, like having 12" LOS through trees, Move Through Cover, Ambush and Sly Marbo.