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.

I prefer to play with at least 25% of the board covered in terrain, with at lest one piece of LOS-blocking terrain near the center.

I actually like how 6th edition suggested setting up terrain: divide the table into six parts, and have D3 pieces of terrain in each, with larger pieces counting as more than one and able to count in multiple sixths.

I don't mind terrain, my DKoK artillery ignores it, and it usually forces my enemy to slog through it, to my advantage.

My Scions have move through cover, deep strike and flyers, terrain is rarely an issue for them.

I like something around but no more than 25%. Thick forest some ruins and some other cool stuff. I hate tables stuffed with tons of Terrain. It bogs things down, can make deployment annoying and if you have CC vs Ranged it throws things off. most army's dont have the transports to just fly over terrain that would probably immobilize a tracked transport. Every table does not need to look like a city. If a rhino has to scrape paint going down every street you have gone to far.

Personally I like heavy terrain 30-40% coverage as it gives the board some character and it encourages moving around the board instead of sitting and shooting. Lots of LoS blocking to hide units and create areas of short range shooting and close combat.

 Yarium wrote:
+1 for the more, the better!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamgee wrote:
I'm one of those Tau players who isn't phased by lots of line LOS blocking terrain. I actually prefer a decent amount.

Then again my friends seem to like having minimal which is in my favor.

A rare thing here. You have my respect. Hahah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

white_wolf wrote:
I like something around but no more than 25%. Thick forest some ruins and some other cool stuff. I hate tables stuffed with tons of Terrain. It bogs things down, can make deployment annoying and if you have CC vs Ranged it throws things off. most army's dont have the transports to just fly over terrain that would probably immobilize a tracked transport. Every table does not need to look like a city. If a rhino has to scrape paint going down every street you have gone to far.

What armies do you play? Just curious to see if that affects the way you like your terrain.

white_wolf wrote:
I like something around but no more than 25%. Thick forest some ruins and some other cool stuff. I hate tables stuffed with tons of Terrain. It bogs things down, can make deployment annoying and if you have CC vs Ranged it throws things off. most army's dont have the transports to just fly over terrain that would probably immobilize a tracked transport. Every table does not need to look like a city. If a rhino has to scrape paint going down every street you have gone to far.

Sounds like tanks in real life to me. But then again, 41st millinium and all that.

I love terrain, especially tall terrain. It gives a vantage point for snipers, jump troops, and even transports to dock at. Rubbles and ruins, thick buildings and crammed streets.
That is a warzone to me. Not these No Man's Lands I see all over the place....

It might have something to do with me being a Tyranid player though.

 Carnikang wrote:

white_wolf wrote:
I like something around but no more than 25%. Thick forest some ruins and some other cool stuff. I hate tables stuffed with tons of Terrain. It bogs things down, can make deployment annoying and if you have CC vs Ranged it throws things off. most army's dont have the transports to just fly over terrain that would probably immobilize a tracked transport. Every table does not need to look like a city. If a rhino has to scrape paint going down every street you have gone to far.

Sounds like tanks in real life to me. But then again, 41st millinium and all that.

I love terrain, especially tall terrain. It gives a vantage point for snipers, jump troops, and even transports to dock at. Rubbles and ruins, thick buildings and crammed streets.
That is a warzone to me. Not these No Man's Lands I see all over the place....

It might have something to do with me being a Tyranid player though.

Yes. Please. More. Hahaha. Tall terrain is amazingly fun. Adds more complexity to the game, which I like.

I like lots of terrain, it makes taking pictures of mini v mini look more diorama-like (Especially when the bases are being obscured)

25% for standard games as that's what GW used to say that's what the rules were based around, if you deviate too much either way you advantage/disadvantage different armies.

I don't go higher without breaking out Codex: Cityfight and/or Cities of Death and/or the old Stalingrad supplement for Flames of War.

 Gashrog wrote:
if you deviate too much either way you advantage/disadvantage different armies.

Are all armies equally advantaged with 25% terrain?

I find playing with board size, points totals and terrain density/type really helps mix 40k up.

I'd go for at least a third (and maybe as much as half) of the board covered in terrain for 40k. It does need to be a mix of types though, including some decent sized LoS blockers, ideally somewhere in the middle so that you can't just stick your army in one place and shoot the whole board. Add in a goodly amount of area terrain and some smaller blocking bits. Shooting is good enough in the current environment without making it easier by playing on planet bowling ball.

I love to cover the board with terrain with maybe just one or two open sections. In a Bolt Action game I had yesterday we filled the board with trees, walls and fences. It made spotting the Italian tanks really difficult

Well, we play on 4'x6' boards.
When I set up terrain for a game, I take five larger pieces, one in the centre and one in each corner, and between these pieces I set up craters, about four in total. This is enough terrain but doesn't overload the board.

Here's an idea of the terrain we used for a 4000+ pt game.

We used less than normal as we wanted to ensure any LOW models could still move around.



Here's a setup we used for a three player game (using the streets to make a city scape).



From a 2000pt game.



I do want to add more verticality and additional lanes in the future as I get some more MDF terrain painted up.

That looks lovely. Sadly at my FLGS 40K terrain is limited to one box/table. Each box contains three to four 'large' (think ruins, usually corners) pieces and a few smaller pieces like walls, craters and aegis lines.
For a 6' by 4' board.

Is it any wonder I gripe a lot?

About this much. Perhaps a little more LOS blocking.

heavy levels, i play lots of cities of death