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.

ruminator wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/236975-Terrain%2C%20Lost%20in%20the%20Mist%20table.html

On the last table called Lost in the Mist - if this had special nightfighting rules then you could get away with it ... just.

Each of the tables at the Astronomicon tournament had its own mission and special rules; often many special rules. See http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/377147.page for mission briefs.

The Lost in the Mist table had the Dense Fog special rule (among others), which I assume is at least as restrictive as Night Fight.

Part of the skill of a player is adapting his plan and forces to the terrain.

A game isn't you versus the other guy only, it's you versus the other guy, luck and the layout of the table.

Either way, you think that every table has to be set up for lots and lots and lots of cover? Guess almost half the battles ever fought in history shouldn't have been fought due to lack of cover...

Get over it. some battlefields will have cover saves for you and some will not. Not every table will or even has to have any sort of features on it. I failed to see the rule where cover saves were mandatory features on the field, mainly because there isn't one.

It's called situational tactics. Sometimes you have to work for the game, not let the game work for you.

Kill/Solo, again, the point at a tournament is fairness. If the terrain is dramatically different from table to table, it's no longer about adaptability (sure, adaptability is good) ... it's "he's playing a completely different game on that table than I am here."

Terrain is a VERY critical component of what makes the game happen; if it's radically different on every table in terms of density and blos/area proportions, you're not running a tournament ... you're just running a bunch of games and hoping the results are accurate. You might as well have some boards be 4x4 and some boards be 4x8. You're accomplishing the same thing as if some boards are wide open and some boards are super clustered. Remember - even 4x6 is not expressly mandated by the rules of 40k ... instead, they strongly suggest 25% with BLOS + area + partial BLOS on a 4x6 board ... and frankly, applying both of their suggestions to every board is probably a good way to play the game in its balanced state.

In another sense, what I'm saying is - sure, you're both right ... just not so much in relation to a tournament.

No, we're talking about the entire game. Blocked LOS is a gift, not a right. If it happens, it happens. Anyway, far too many people abuse the cover save rules too often; cover saves against Gets Hot! and other such nonsense.

If a certain board has no terrain, then expect the fight to be quick and bloody, whether there are shooters or not. IF the table gives a Cities of Death look a run for its money, expect a longer game with less happening, due to tougher terrain and a cover save every 30 seconds.

Deal with it, sometimes there are not 60 foot buildings and mountains on every table. sometime, the terrain is infantry friendly, but mean to the vehicles. It happens. Nothing is fair, even the dice, according to some people...

Well, see, as a tournament organizer I can actually make the terrain fair across the tables, in terms of nobody getting radically different terrain formats based purely on luck of what table they draw. It's a pretty cool power, that one to work at making your own big GT as fair as you can ... but I try not to abuse it.

<antagonistic tone detected; broadcast mode active: moderate your posts, people, or you will be moderated>

Personally, I've never disagreed w/GW's stated note - more terrain makes for a more interesting game, regardless of what army I happen to be using that day. There are no interesting deployment/movement choices to be made for a Guard player playing on a salt flat; it's just rolling dice. And if I'm just rolling dice, we should play Yahtzee instead.

The thing is, when 100% of tables at an event have less than 25% terrain and all the terrain is 1" or less, there is a problem. It isn't luck if all of the tables have inadequate terrain. It drastically shifts the Metagame and changes the value of units without rebalancing the points.

I would either rather a fair mix or a fair middleground of terrain. If everything was the 25% with the right types of terrain for everyone, I think it is overall more fair.

Otherwise we might need to call tourneys "40k shootout edition" where you bring as much wargear cover and shooty stuff as you can.

Dashofpepper wrote:Many people travel to tournaments, and trying to cart a piece of terrain capable of blocking LOS through the airport in addition to anything else you might be carrying...probably not so effective.

Tournament organizers do need better terrain as an average.

However, most armies have the ability to bring their own cover anyway - there's no need to concern yourself with the table. Between psychic powers, wargear, vehicle armouries...most armies these days bring cover with them.

Cover isn't the problem, LoS blocking is. Leafblower Guard and shooting armies in general aren't as dominant if they can't see 98% of the board.

I think the best terrain format for a competitive tournament is standardized tables. Its not as aesthetically pleasing as custom themed tables, but it means that every table is fair, adequetly covered and with none granting an unfair advantage. There is enough randomness with mission match ups, army variety, etc. By keeping tables standardized and adaquetly covered with Los blocking and area terrain, you help to level the playing field a bit.

That's what's were striving for with the boa.

Janthkin wrote:
Personally, I've never disagreed w/GW's stated note - more terrain makes for a more interesting game, regardless of what army I happen to be using that day. There are no interesting deployment/movement choices to be made for a Guard player playing on a salt flat; it's just rolling dice. And if I'm just rolling dice, we should play Yahtzee instead.

Many Aussie tournaments have players bring terrain along as well as what they can locally muster. My club can supply up to around 18 tables' worth of terrain at 25%, but we get around 50 players for the tourneys, so we HAVE to ask for the loan of terrain to get enough terrain to run the thing.

Our stuff is a mix of low terrain Ibarricades, hedges) and tall stuff, a lot of it even full LOS blocking to a MONOLITH.

MVBrandt wrote:Kill/Solo, again, the point at a tournament is fairness. If the terrain is dramatically different from table to table, it's no longer about adaptability (sure, adaptability is good) ... it's "he's playing a completely different game on that table than I am here."

Terrain is a VERY critical component of what makes the game happen; if it's radically different on every table in terms of density and blos/area proportions, you're not running a tournament ... you're just running a bunch of games and hoping the results are accurate. You might as well have some boards be 4x4 and some boards be 4x8. You're accomplishing the same thing as if some boards are wide open and some boards are super clustered. Remember - even 4x6 is not expressly mandated by the rules of 40k ... instead, they strongly suggest 25% with BLOS + area + partial BLOS on a 4x6 board ... and frankly, applying both of their suggestions to every board is probably a good way to play the game in its balanced state.

In another sense, what I'm saying is - sure, you're both right ... just not so much in relation to a tournament.

Players rotate around tables at a tournament, getting an average of five games against different opponents and armies. If it's fair for players to be expected to face different opponents and armies, why isn't it fair to fight over different terrain?

Here are a sample of 5 tables from Con of the North this year in Minneapolis. They have awesome looking terrain and over all it plays ok too. This tournament is more hobby than competition. All armies were painted and 75% were way above average table top. This tourney always fills up and is my favorite RTT to attend.

Terrain by Terrain Specialties, they run the RTT.








Yes, thats a forgeworld thunderhawk. I believe it was a former Gamesday table, "Thunderhawk Down"?

Three of five from those tables are very pretty but completely useless for decent 40k - no LoS blocking at all is a recipe for disaster.

I play at adepticon and at the store that builds adepticon's terrain so the terrian I see is virtually 100% what is recommended by the rulebook (6 roughly 1'x1' peices with a mix of cover/non cover, LOS blocking/non LOS blocking. etc).

If anything we play with too much terrain because all the hills are mounted on masonite board and the rule of thumb at the store is to call them area, which means there is 6 1x1 peices to get a 4+ save from, a little more than the rulebook suggests.


But when I'm reading battle reports I look at some of the tables at other tournaments and my heart sinks. If only my guard could get on some of those tables!

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:No, we're talking about the entire game. Blocked LOS is a gift, not a right. If it happens, it happens. Anyway, far too many people abuse the cover save rules too often; cover saves against Gets Hot! and other such nonsense.

If a certain board has no terrain, then expect the fight to be quick and bloody, whether there are shooters or not. IF the table gives a Cities of Death look a run for its money, expect a longer game with less happening, due to tougher terrain and a cover save every 30 seconds.

Deal with it, sometimes there are not 60 foot buildings and mountains on every table. sometime, the terrain is infantry friendly, but mean to the vehicles. It happens. Nothing is fair, even the dice, according to some people...

I actually agree with this alot. The way we do terrain in our group, is the 2 players roll 1d6 and thats how much terrain is on the table, and they take turns picking. Sometimes the table is covered, sometimes there is practically nothing on the table, it makes it very random and therefor the games different every single time.

Dunn, not all of the tables have LOS blocking terrain but at least the tables look very nice and are not completely barren.

I honestly can't believe how many people side with terrain being a gift. To me its definitely a requirement.

If the table is completely barren with no interesting features the chances that I would accept a game or play on it would be pretty slim

nkelsch wrote:
Examples of tables that blow my mind:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/236980-Terrain%2C%20Sink%20the%20Baneblade%20table.html
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/234361-.html
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/236963-Terrain%2C%20Grot%20Mart%20table.html
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/236975-Terrain%2C%20Lost%20in%20the%20Mist%20table.html

Tables like these are why 6th edition really needs to return to a more abstract line of sight system. It's a game involving 8+ foot tall superhumans wearing armor made from fictitious materials facing off against ravening hordes of green-skinned fungus-men; why do players have a hard time using their imagination where terrain is concerned?

Part of the skill of a player is adapting his plan and forces to the terrain.
A game isn't you versus the other guy only, it's you versus the other guy, luck and the layout of the table.

+1

The problem becomes when folks can start to meta game terrain at an event. Then the terrain provided starts to influence the forces played and at the very least gives an advantages to those veteran players familiar with the event layout. I’m certainly a fan of table layouts having a minimum and a maximum range of possibilities so players can never be 100% sure the table make up.

Terrain for any event organizer is a never ending beast that constantly needs feeding and attention. It is interesting because we always see people bemoaning tourney level terrain but how many folks are offering to step up and help solve the problem?

Want awesome terrain at the events you attend? It's less a money problem although money is a factor then it is a labor and idea issue. Contact that event organizer and offer to help in some way. Most events have terrain days, weekends or in some cases months. It takes a considerable amount of man hours to turn out quality terrain in mass. Unable to attend in person for a terrain weekend. Events need terrain ideas as well as manpower. Come up with an great piece of terrain or whole table theme. This involves more than just .. Hey you guys should do a Chaos Waste table set... my parts done. You need to provide the event with a prototype, the list of materials and instructions for how to produce it in mass. The easier you make it so that it could be given to just about anyone with modest hobby talents to produce the better. Additionally, pay attention to the existing design principles and standards the event already has in place for the terrain.

While it is hard work and it is certainly not the glamorous volunteer spot. It is a pretty special feeling when you realize that hundreds of people are having a great time playing on tables you helped build and design.

Course if you’re not willing or unable to do the above, at a minimum police the terrain at the event and make sure you and other folks are taking reasonable care of it. Terrain damage happens. But don't sit your beer or your display base on terrain pieces. Pick up and move the terrain don't just use your display board as a terrain mover. Don't poke your finger or pencil into the foam and please don't pull out a sharpe and write the numbers 1 through 6 on each piece of terrain on the table! What is worse than building new terrain for an event? Having to throw away or repair terrain that was at the start of the weekend perfectly good. So make sure you help take care of the terrain your event already has in place.

As with everything it is easier to complain about the problem then to be part of the solution. This is the internet afterall. But want better terrain at the events you attend step up and make it happen. Your event organizer will thank you.


Hank

Ascalam wrote:The problem with LOS blockers being missing its it even further supports MEQ/MECH armies.

Marines will generally take the 3+ armour save rather than cover anyway, and a lack of cover isn't much of a concern.

If you have 6+ armour, on the other hand, you're SOL..

Additionally, having insufficient LOS blocking terrain makes armies like "leafblower IG" and Longfang spam even more effective than they already are. When long range, high power, multiple shot units can park in one position and fire on 90%+ of the table without even having to shift their position, the strengths of those units are maximized and their weaknesses eliminated by the terrain alone. A few good LOS blocking terrain pieces placed more centrally to the board create shadows which require actual thought to unit placement during deployment and movement during the game.

*ponders*

I see the point here. The armies I play (Orks and DE) can bring cover with them in one respect or another. But mitigating a bad table is different than actively encouraging a certain army type, which bad terrain does.

It's rare to see a table with 25% terrain on it - even the tables linked here with terrain had all the terrain around the outside of the board leaving an open killing zone in the middle. It would be nice to sometimes have 25% terrain...and sometimes have 50% or 75% terrain. And sometimes have 15% terrain. For things to be mixed up. Actually have to adapt.

kronk wrote:

nkelsch wrote:So last weekend I played in a tourney (rtt 3games) and I was kinda disturbed at the utter lack of real terrain on the tables. Plenty of difficult terrain, barricades and fantasy tree bases. Most tables had almost zero pieces that could block LOS to a rhino let alone larger stuff.

Could you post pictures of how your tables look for comparison? Pictures 1, 3, and 4 were pretty sparse.

This one is light in terrain overall, at least has some line of sight blocking pieces.

I guess others have explained why. Fronting the terrain for multiple tables for a tournament can get expensive and time consuming. Maybe they're working on it?

I think some people are going to think this is a meanspirited thing for me to say, but I will stand by it:

If a store or group doesn't have sufficient terrain available to adequately cover the tables to the minimum 25% stated in the BRB, then they have no business running a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:
It's rare to see a table with 25% terrain on it - even the tables linked here with terrain had all the terrain around the outside of the board leaving an open killing zone in the middle. It would be nice to sometimes have 25% terrain...and sometimes have 50% or 75% terrain. And sometimes have 15% terrain. For things to be mixed up. Actually have to adapt.

I agree wholeheartedly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:
However, most armies have the ability to bring their own cover anyway - there's no need to concern yourself with the table. Between psychic powers, wargear, vehicle armouries...most armies these days bring cover with them.

While this is true, having cover is not the same thing as not being able to be shot at in the first place. Ignoring 50% of glance/pen hits or wounds is far less effective than not being shot in the first place.

Also, I feel that having to negotiate terrain requires a much higher degree of tactical thought than mere target prioritization. When a player has to make decisions during movement in order to bring their forces to bear while still limiting the force the opponent can respond with, that requires a much greater degree of player ability than lining up and shooting.

This is always going to be a problem for as long as GW's stance is "Hey screw it whatever here's a suggestion I guess! But they're your models so do whatever you want, we don't really care!"

The best way to help the metagame and the tournament scene at the same time would be to go back to "solid" numbered terrain (TLOS takes all the problems with regional differences in terrain and tables exemplified in this thread and then mutiplies them) with a balanced "map pool" that consisted of diagrams with specified footprints and sizes - let the TO's get creative with whatever that 5x3'' size 2 thing *is*, as long as it is located in the same spot on the table everywhere in the country.

The argument that tables don't need LOS blocking terrain is fundamentally flawed, IMO.

Remember, this isn't real life or even a simulation of real combat. This is a game. The game is less fun for the majority of armies when there isn't adequate terrain. I know it sounds swarthy and manly to just say, "the good player adapts!" but it just isn't true.

How do you "adapt" on a table with little to no terrain? You can't "adapt" your way out of sitting on an open table facing down 20+ missile launchers. If your army lacks the tricks to somehow put up a fight, you lose before the game begins.

That isn't fun.

The game is about having fun. It is more fun when things are as equal as possible because it then reduces non-player controlled variables. Put as much control over what happens in the players' hands as possible and they have more fun.

It is not fun to lose a game because of something you have no control over. Prime examples: a wonky, imbalanced mission or bringing an assault or lower tiered army and playing against a top tier shooting army on an empty table. That is just not fun at all. It leaves you with a feeling that you had no chance from the start.

What happens on planet bowling ball is that shooting armies dominate. You see less diversity in armies and everyone has less fun.

By including a "template" for what types, amounts and locations of terrain will be on each table you have eliminated a very large variable. Now the game is more about skill than luck of the draw on table/mission match-ups.

And having a standardized terrain template for each table doesn't mean that they all look the same, just that each table will roughly have the same size and type of terrain in the same places. The theme of each table and the style of terrain piece can vary for aesthetic reasons.

Rolling random terrain or having really unique tables is great for pick up games and campaigns, but not at all good for tournament play.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Either way, you think that every table has to be set up for lots and lots and lots of cover? Guess almost half the battles ever fought in history shouldn't have been fought due to lack of cover...

Get over it. some battlefields will have cover saves for you and some will not. Not every table will or even has to have any sort of features on it. I failed to see the rule where cover saves were mandatory features on the field, mainly because there isn't one.

It's called situational tactics. Sometimes you have to work for the game, not let the game work for you.

One of the hallmarks of a good military officer in times past was knowing how to read the terrain. Generally, an officer would not commit his troops to battle if the terrain was unfavorable, I.E. a big empty open field. Note: this is more of a Napoleonic era and forward type deal.

Anyway, my thoughts: minimum Terrain should be closer to 40% of the total board area. If all terrain was LOS blocking to some degree 25% is fine, but the fact of the matter is that most people use very little LOS blocking terrain, really it ends up just "being there" rather than having any sort of impact on the game.

Another thing that I've seen people do, is to include "corner terrain" in the 25% figure. I'm sorry, but sticking a hill in the corner is not going to have any impact on the game whatsoever, aside from maybe providing some sort of difficult terrain to a unit of devestators or something of the sort that might be deployed on it.

Speaking of which, I find difficult terrain to be overutilized and dangerous terrain underutiilized. There are lots of things that could be classified dangerous, that usually aren't. Likewise there are lots of things that are classified as difficult terrain that shouldn't be. A small rolling hill isn't really going to impair my movement. Nor is a copse of trees. I shouldn't be taking a hit to my movement because of this. Non-clear terrain =/= difficult terrain.

Speaking of hills, it really irks me when people try to claim a cover save when they stick a unit on top of a hill. I'm sorry, but that unit is clearly in the open. I don't care that there are a couple of rocks modelled on it, its not area terrain, get over it.

Um, to support Reece - the BRB specifically states every table should include LOS blocking terrain. I'm not sure what's arguable about that.

Reece swinging the clue by four. Whoever said LoS blocking terrain was a 'gift' is completely clueless, as are the people who have some weird desire to have some tables with 15% and some with 40% and all that other stuff. The purpose of the terrain is twofold, to look good and to provide an even match for both armies. 25% properly selected and deployed terrain fits the bill perfectly; over- or underdoing it in some way tends to swing the game in favour of one player or the other. You're supposed to be providing a challenge for both players that allows them a more or less even chance, not allowing people to luck out by getting more favourable tables for their particular army.

@ MVBrandt
great info on your blog mike, the terrain setup is what ive been striving for when building our tournament tables.

@ Reecius
good supportive writeup

-regarding 25%, you would be suprised how much a table gets filled up when you use true 25% coverage. I think expecting a tourny organizer to provide more than that is a stretch. Most tournaments have trouble providing 20-25 % let alone more than that.

- regarding hills. I personally hate the old "rolling" hills i would see on some tables. they barely gave vehicals cover and models were constantly tipping over. Infantry cover was hard to deal with as well. I prefer the "stepped" hills over the other type. Cover is easier delt with for infantry and they provide a more stable platform.

@Inquisitor_Dunn
that is some very beautiful terrain and its something we can all strive for as terrain builders. However in a big tournament that type of terrain would almost be impossible to provide in large scale.
I also question some of those tables in the back round of those pics. That one with all the tubes on it seems sort of meh to me as far as playability.

The things im always considering when building terrain is , function, durability and astetics(sp). The terrain gets transported around quite a bit so building terrain to survive storage an transport is key and sometimes astetics will suffer.

The more terrain (especially LOS blocking) the better the game. I can't agree more that shooting armies are superior on open boards. 4+ cover terrain is not the same as LOS blocking terrain. So many armies that are considered Tier 2 would work if there was enough terrain on the board.