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.

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.

As I look through the battle reports for many of the other recent tourneys int his forum, I am seeing more and more the same thing... Basically table after table of what basically boils down to ZERO LOS blocking terrain.

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

Is it just me, or does it feel like some events simply do not have enough terrain or the right type of terrain for events? No wonder the Meta game has shifted to ultra shooty!

Are these tables the exception not the rule in your experiences? maybe events should require players to bring a piece of large terrain as part of their entry in addition to their objectives? Is there really an epidemic out there or is it just me?

Those are some horrible tables, you would be crazy to bring anything other than a gun line.

The problem is one of resources. It takes a lot of time and effort to build up a collection of good terrain. Most stores or groups have a couple of good tables, and enough ok terrain for a few more. Running a tournament with 25 tables means scraping the barrel, borrowing stuff from anyone who can provide it, and making do.

A group can build up good terrain, but it's a matter of cost, effort, and skill. I've got enough terrain at my store for 50 tables of fantasy, figuring 5-8 pieces of 8th edition terrain), and 30 good tables of 40k, (25% of the table covered by terrain, and some of that has to be LOS blocking. This took hundreds of hours of labor to accomplish over a couple of years. Our group benefits in that because I have the stores, we have room to build the terrain, and room to store it, along with a wholesale discount on much of the scenic supplies. Much tougher when it's someone giving up their basement or renting a storage locker to store it all for use once or twice a year.

A lot can be done cheaply, if you know how, and substitute a lot more labor and time for a lack of cash. Time can be precious though, and harder to get for some of us than cash.)

Hopefully as the GT's and tournaments mature, the groups running them will continue to add to their collections, and we'll see better and better tables. Adepticon certainly wasn't built in a year.

Wow, how hard is it to scrape together some crappy styrofoam packing buildings? They do a better job at blocking LOS than the Cities of Death stuff!

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..

Tables at Throne of Skulls this year were pretty much like picture number 2 (most actually had less terrain than that). Shooting armys had such a great advantage because of it.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Wow, how hard is it to scrape together some crappy styrofoam packing buildings? They do a better job at blocking LOS than the Cities of Death stuff!

Skip the packing foam. It doesn't hold up to long use. Better, for walls and building corners is broken up ceiling tiles. Cut up a sheet of masonite for the bases, afix the tile bits to the masonite with liquid nails. Paint on some wood glue, cover with sand, heavier around the join to the masonite. Primer it black and drybrush. Make enough to cover a 2'x3' area, so you have 25% of the gaming table covered.

Then after making a dozen pieces for table one, repeat 24 more times.)

Some stuff we've built:

Subcrazy wrote:Tables at Throne of Skulls this year were pretty much like picture number 2 (most actually had less terrain than that). Shooting armys had such a great advantage because of it.

I could not agree more

You have got some fantastic looking terrain there mikhaila. It would be a pleasure to game at your store.

I agree with augustus about the terrain, very few gaming table now actually have a "ooo ahh" feel to them anymore. Oh well it just draws more attention to my orks =D


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Where is this store? Please tell me it's in CA!!!

Nope.. other side of the country.. near Philly, PA..

Wow mikhaila i think im going to be road triping to play on your tables!

Tables should look like:

I think tournaments should present a variety of tables with some offering 25% coverage and some offering more.

Don't forget that the 25% coverage is a recommended minimum, also, the height and type of terrain pieces makes a difference to their usefulness for different kinds of armies.

Tau, for example, like good LOS blocking terrain to hide their Battlesuits behind. They dislike low are terrain which gives assaulters plenty of easy cover.

As Mikhaila pointed out, it takes a lot of effort to produce enough terrain pieces for a large tournament. Maybe players should be encouraged to bring stuff with them, which is what we do for Platinum Devil.

Despite all the above, I don't think most tournaments lack for players so it clearly isn't a major problem in that sense. At worst, perhaps it biases the selection of armies.

This thread might interest some of you: http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=82504&start=0

That table looks pretty solid although I'd base the ruins and break down the ToS into two smaller bits of area terrain.

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?

Kilkrazy wrote:*Tau terrain*

I really enjoyed playing on your terrain - a good mix of space, LOS blockers and area terrain.

That Tau terrain is excellent and exactly what I'd want to see on a tourney table.

So since it does seem to be a problem, the question is: What are we gonna do about it?

*Would people pay higher entry fees for better terrain?
*Many events require objective markers or ambassador models for missions, If an event said 'bring a piece of terrain at least X by Y big' as part of your tourney kit, that is on average 2 pieces of terrain per table. Would people be cool with being required to bring terrain?
*Maybe have a 'terrain' fee which can be offset if you donate a piece of terrain?
*Maybe have a terrain contest where people can win prizes by bringing a bucket of cinematic terrain and 'staging' a cinematic table, So those who wish to enter and have snazzy terrain can decorate a single table day of the event and try to win a prize.
*Maybe a discount to the event if you donate some terrain via mail before the event starts?

Just ideas, but it seems like anything has to be better than the alternative of 'zero' terrain. I know I would schlep terrain with me to tourneys if it meant better quality of tables.

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.

Best 've seen is by a guy Jonny in Northern irleand who runs a best battlefield competition, it mean splayers enter their own tables setup for a prize and also means hes got less terrain to worry about finding himself. win/win

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/236963-Terrain%2C%20Grot%20Mart%20table.html
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/236975-Terrain%2C%20Lost%20in%20the%20Mist%20table.html

Those pics are from the tournament that I attended in Toronto recently: my main comment on the feedback form was "ensure that there is at least some *LOS-blocking* terrain on *all* tables."

Some tables had some LOS-blocking terrain, but most tables had only low cover-providing terrain (well, cover for infantry - not for MCs or vehicles!) Skimmer lists (eg Leafblower) could often see over almost all terrain on the boards. And most tables with the WH Cities terrain, which was actually tall enough to provide vehicle/MC cover, had it all bunched up around the edges; central terrain seemed to be mainly little rocks/barricades, bushes and craters.
eg
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/236977-Park%20in%20Space%20table.html

When I play at home or at the LGS, I'm a big fan of at least one or two 2-level or 3-level hills, bastions, solid no-window tall bunkers/buildings located somewhat centrally, so as to have something which can be maneuvered around. Most tournament tables tables seem to have a real killing ground in the center. Having LOS-blocking terrain that is not bunched around the edge allows for more actual tactics, I find.

Nkelsch,

I would be more willing to pay a fee or a larger fee for guaranteed decent looking tables and enough terrain to make the battles more worthwhile and interesting to play on.

With bringing terrain that’s just more that I have to bring with me and that would also make it more difficult if TO's now had to wait till people showed up before they could prepare the tables for the event.

Dash,

While I think some armies have no issue with bringing enough armour or psychic powers that isn't true for every army.

And I think most would agree that playing on an open table with no real terrain to actually maneuver in makes the game quite boring to play even at a tournament. Now I know I have been spoiled living near a bunker that doesn't have this kind of problem but any time I’ve been made to play on a barren table I was more interested in my watch and how soon the game would be over than anything happening on the table.

My $.02, from an article I wrote for 3++ that was posted today:

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2011/06/40k-terrain-setup-by-mvb.html

MVBrandt wrote:My $.02, from an article I wrote for 3++ that was posted today:

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2011/06/40k-terrain-setup-by-mvb.html

+1

This is excellent and simple, and should be the starting point for all table setups. Especially the bit about terrain pieces that actually fully-block LOS to vehicles and MCs.

One (constructive) comment:
I don't think that the big LOS-blocker has to be dead center all the time, as that might lead to very repetitive tables; but it should be in the central 1/3rd of the table rather than off on the edges. If the main piece is offset to one end/side, then any other LOS-blockers can be weighted more on the other end/side. Slight asymmetry is both aesthetically pleasing and adds to the game: there should be some benefit to choosing deployment zone, even in a tournament, and there is no benefit if the board is symmetrical. I don't see a problem with moving to the other side of the table in a tournament, and I've often done that; most folks keep their army on its display board/movement tray until after deployment zones are worked out.

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.

As I look through the battle reports for many of the other recent tourneys int his forum, I am seeing more and more the same thing... Basically table after table of what basically boils down to ZERO LOS blocking terrain.

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

Is it just me, or does it feel like some events simply do not have enough terrain or the right type of terrain for events? No wonder the Meta game has shifted to ultra shooty!

Are these tables the exception not the rule in your experiences? maybe events should require players to bring a piece of large terrain as part of their entry in addition to their objectives? Is there really an epidemic out there or is it just me?

Some of those are not just sparse, but what scenery there is looks pretty pants. If two opponents turn up with nicely painted armies then they deserve a table to match.

The road sections made me LOL - not only do they look awful, but the tanks have to come off the road to go around the landing platform!

Grot table was the best looking of the three, but it was hardly a competition!

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

Overall, if the organisers are short on scenery then ask players to bring some. I played an army last tourney that needed cover so I made a point to bring a table load myself along .... vested interests and all that!

You could even go so far as to get Clubs to essentially sponsor certain tables and put them together. Top few tables should always look gorgeous and want players to play there.

I agree that terrain does not need to be symmetrical. I also think it should vary from board to board.

This pic is of a very assymmetrical table which nonetheless led to very interesting and enjoyable games.

In a tournament setting, you want a fair bit of symmetry, b/c you don't want people having entirely different games for reasons dramatically flexed off match-up and skill. I.E. just as the mission should be the same on every table, so should the terrain ... WITHIN REASON.

That's to say, I think if every table had the exact same pieces and exact same set-up with no flex whatsoever, that'd be horribly boring for a lot of people who don't go purely for the competition.

Strangelooper wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:My $.02, from an article I wrote for 3++ that was posted today:

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2011/06/40k-terrain-setup-by-mvb.html

+1

This is excellent and simple, and should be the starting point for all table setups. Especially the bit about terrain pieces that actually fully-block LOS to vehicles and MCs.

One (constructive) comment:
I don't think that the big LOS-blocker has to be dead center all the time, as that might lead to very repetitive tables; but it should be in the central 1/3rd of the table rather than off on the edges. If the main piece is offset to one end/side, then any other LOS-blockers can be weighted more on the other end/side. Slight asymmetry is both aesthetically pleasing and adds to the game: there should be some benefit to choosing deployment zone, even in a tournament, and there is no benefit if the board is symmetrical. I don't see a problem with moving to the other side of the table in a tournament, and I've often done that; most folks keep their army on its display board/movement tray until after deployment zones are worked out.

I agree, great article!

I am not really annoyed by asymmetrical tables as long as the table looks cinematic or at least somewhat balanced, just not symmetrical. This allow roll off to choose sides, which I am cool with as well.

I also agree that not every table needs to be a giant brick in the middle. This just changes the Meta again forcing everyone to plan for divided forces and shooting. This is where tables should be different and it is ok if some tables DO have killing fields. The problem is every army has a table design which will screw it. The problem is when every tourney has all the tables of that one design. (I.E. almost no terrain and no LOS blocking) I would say setting every table up with a giant 18"x18"x6" brick in the exact middle can sometimes accomplish the alternative to the no LOS terrain.

I don't think there is a perfect table terrain design that is equal for all army types. Unless you begin disclosing tables and making all of them fundamentally the same so people can design army builds around terrain, someone will always be unhappy. I think having tables that favor shooting or assault or other tactics are ok as long as there is a good cross-section of them and then it is the luck of the draw and not a consistent shift towards toomuch/notenough terrain.

I need to start bringing a camera to tourneys more often so I can take images of things I see. I think RTTs suffer more than GTs so when a majority of your gamer base is local maybe you can be a little more 'beggy' about bringing terrain.