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.

My primary competitor is CC oriented with all his armies. On the other had I am not a CC specialist in order to keep the games more interesting.

Now for my gripe...

Whether we play at the local shop or in my buddies place he always insists that there is a standard % of the table-top that MUST be covered in terrain. He actually said the on that night that 43% must be covered which sounds especially strange to me b/c why would such an odd fraction be used in a game (these things are not science haha). The high amount of terrain on the board always works to block my long range support, affect my deep striking units whereas his jump troops and winged princes are tearing up units by turn two.

enough complaining and onto the questions:

Is there a standard % of the board that should be covered by terrain?

If so, how much?

If not, how much do you prefer to play with?

The guideline in the rulebook is that a quarter (25%) of the table have some terrain, with a mix of stuff that blocks line of sight, stuff that provides cover, and stuff that doesn't.

That is on page 88 of the rulebook, first paragraph of the second column, if you want to show your friend. 43% would certainly favour an assault army, unless a lot of it was things like ponds and marshes, that doesn't really provide cover but that slows his guys down.

Yep. 25% is the guideline, although tournaments frequently have less terrain than that (just a matter of people not building enough).

great

25% tabletop covered in a combination of terrain types

thanks so much

I'll speak up next week!

How does Terrain effect your deep strike units also; the more terrain the better imo.

Remember though if you play a 6x4 board 25% of that is not alot really

I love terrain and am I always building/buying more of it but playing as Guard means i don't like too much as it blocks line of site. Anything above 50% is silly but below 20% is not enough IMHO. (Some circumstances want little terrain but then that's acceptable.) I put about 35% terrain because nothing in life is perfect so why should your battlefield be but it also gives more realism if you have got places to run for cover.

The OC-D

theocd wrote:
I put about 35% terrain because nothing in life is perfect so why should your battlefield be but it also gives more realism if you have got places to run for cover.

Two comments on this.

1) While nothing may be perfect, the game is designed to be played with about 25% terrain. The balance designed into the game, in the price values of things, is based on this. Obviously, you can set up your table however you want, but the more you vary from that 25% baseline, the more advantage one army type will have over another. 25% isn't picked because of some abstract aesthetic, it's picked because that's what the designers balance the game around.

2) I find it funny that you mention realism in a game with spaceships, and aliens that attack you with swords when you have weapons that are accurate to over a mile... I also find it funny that you think having somewhere to run and hide is necessarily realistic. Look at many battlefields and you'll see that they're really little more than fields, with maybe a hill somewhere. Unless you're fighting in a city, it's entirely realistic to not have anywhere to run and hide.

When I set up terrain I aim to create a battlefield that is both aesthetically pleasing and tactically interesting. Terrain should not be an extension of army design or another tool to min/max with. Crate an interesting place to battle, not one that simply aides or favors your army, or hoses your opponent.

Does the battlefield set a scene? Is it cinematic in some way? Would it make a good setting for a climactic fight in a movie, comic,story, etc.?

I am amased at people that spend hundred of dollars and hundreds of hours painting amies only to put out crap terrain in uninteresting ways to fight over...

Redbeard wrote:
1) While nothing may be perfect, the game is designed to be played with about 25% terrain. The balance designed into the game, in the price values of things, is based on this. Obviously, you can set up your table however you want, but the more you vary from that 25% baseline, the more advantage one army type will have over another. 25% isn't picked because of some abstract aesthetic, it's picked because that's what the designers balance the game around.

I both applaud and laugh at your faith in the GW design team...

@Redbeard:
1.) I see what you are saying but I don't understand why price enters this??? Almost all of my scenery is from ebay or hand made so price doen't reflect my choice of terrain at all. Also, I veer away from the 25% spread because if you look at any GW battle report they have a board (for example) that is 6' x 4' and in each 2' by 2' bit they put one piece of terrain and that's what annoys me and that's what makes me choose otherwise.
2.) I mention realism in the game because although it has the space ships and whatnot it is still based loosely around the realisms of an actual battle. I used the cover as an example as it means your troops have got somewhere to go and it gives them purpose in a game that could simply be annihilation.

@CT Gamer: Sometimes I use your technique too, to create '40K Movie Moments'.

Playing with that much terrain coverage favors certain armies far more than others. For example, Imperial Guard with lots of AP 2/3 are at a severe disadvantage on boards with that much cover because suddenly all their powerful weaponry is partly negated by 4+ cover saves.

The price redbeard is referring to is point costs of units. A Guardsman who paid 15 points for a plasma gun expecting to kill a marine with every shot is now at half effectiveness, but the plasma gun is no cheaper.

Playing with too much cover is just like playing with too little; the game is balanced around a certain point, and going over or under that point skews the game in different ways.

Hollismason wrote:How does Terrain effect your deep strike units also; the more terrain the better imo.

Depending on the terrain, Deep Striking units may be destroyed by it.