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.

Ailaros wrote: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.

On this table you've put all the big pieces in the middle, the other board had all the big pieces in the corners. That makes a huge difference.

Ailaros wrote:

I'd consider that table bare.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'd consider that table bare.

I too think it is quite bare - I recon it is probably about 15% covered.

I like to have 30-50% coverage, though I think it would be fun to play on a very densely populated board of 75+% for thematic missions.

Ailaros wrote: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.

I love me a city fight but this looks beyond terrible. I would never play on this.

If I am going to utilize a lot of buildings they must at least be put into a formation that resembles a modern city block or at least an educated guess at it...with that setup it would be hard to even move squads.

beezley1981 wrote: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.

Terrain can be very misleading. If you check out the linked article I put near the top of the thread you will see tables set up and then broken down into table quarters. It is sometimes hard to judge 25% just by looking at the table, I think that may be why some people short change the table. Throw all the terrain into a quarter fill it up then distribute the terrain, that will make certain there is a minimum of 25%.

From what I've seen online of late and with the rapid increase in Indy GTs, I think there has been a bit of a lag when it comes to 5th edition terrain. For these larger events, it appears there's difficulty getting a good balance of terrain for each and every table. While I can only imagine the amount of time and work necessary to construct terrain for 25+ tables, the trend appears to not have much in the way of LOS blocking terrain. With this trend, I've observed the term 'alpha strike' armies being developed. These are armies that rely on getting the first turn and simply put so much shooting into the other army, it is effectively crippled first turn. If there are large swathes of LOS from board edge to board edge, it definitely has a huge impact on the type of army being designed as well as impacts style of play.

I also believe you see different mindsets that have developed. Those who play with more terrain and those with less. Which then leads to some folks scratching their heads when they test out internet lists and the list doesn't seem to do as well as described. There are many factors about a lists effectiveness, but terrain is a huge factor in an army's playability.

OverwatchCNC wrote: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.

Those are fantastic shots, OverwatchCNC! Really illustrates the point. I hope you don't mind if I repost one for an example....

CNC Blog wrote:

With my friends we tend to play probably 25-33% terrain. My roommate has orks and nids so he loves having lots of LOS blocking terrain to hide from my space marines and our other friend's Tau and IG. Here is an example of my brand new game table and terrain set (that I just finished making).

I don't mind at all! The site is there to provide people with information, I would never protest someone taking an image from our site in order to better the 40k and gaming community.

Not densly packed - it could do with another piece or two but still not terribly bad..

Heres my not so scientific analysis!:



perspectived then bases of terrain outlined then placed in a quadrant. Rough but not far off...

Well, we usally use 60% but lately have decided its a little too much. 40% works fine.

Alkasyn wrote:its a little too much

No such thing, good sir!

Phototoxin wrote:Heres my not so scientific analysis!:

And here's mine:




The Tape Measure is ruining the Feng Shui of this table, clearly.

You missed the open plain on the left.

No I didn't. The terrain near there is big enough and closely packed together enough (is that even correct sentence structure?) to be fine. It's the great swathes of pricey flat real estate that need fixin' on that table.

And the tape measure. Never forget the tape measure.

Remember the Tape Measure!

OK men we're going to take back that tape no matter the cost, never forget what it costs us when they took it from us, all the carefully planned maneuvers we failed to execute without precision measuring.

It lies in an exposed area between the woods and hill 17, we're gonna rush in there with artillery support and smash everything and reclaim it.

We, Will, Regain our Measure!

/nonesense.

Jack

That part of 'this is not terrain' - you can hide behind them rocks!

When I've played games with my friends we use 1 of 2 methods:

1) We alternate placing terrain on the board and roll for who gets which side of the table or,

2) One person sets up all of the terrain and the other person gets to choose which side he wants to start on.

All I can say is that this works well for us.