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 after some bad experiences at our (not so) local Gw store my group and i have had alot of debates about these topics, so i thought id bring the question to my fellow dakkaites.
The debate stems from what i see as ideal game table set up and what is considered standard for our local GW. I feel that at any more than 2000 points an 8 foot table is a must. And that the table should have a reasonable amount of terrain on it, 3-4 hills 3-5 structures or ruins 2-3 woods maybe a water feature and so on. I feel that a game with this set up will force players to use tactics and maneuver to win the game rather than simply pushing units together and letting the books and dice decide who wins. Although at our local GW it seems that most players simply throw a couple pieces of terrain on the table and dont give it a second thought.
One player went so far as to pick up the piece of terrain i had just placed as part of my start of game terrain deployment and just put it back on the shelf. This player also had a good reason for not wanting a fairly large structure in the center of the table as he was playing a 10x10 horde of slaves.
It is apparent to me that many of the players at the GW store share this attitude towards terrain an attitude that terrain just gets in the way and that less is better. Not being in an area where i have many choices for places to play i was interested what other people's experiences were and what your opinions were about these topics.

Thanks for reading

Heh, I love me a reasonable amount of terrain... anything that forces you to actually think about what you're doing can only be a good thing in a strategic game

Edit: as for that guy putting a terrain piece back... what a numpty

I honestly haven't played with much terrain because I am still learning but I think it balances out the whole who goes first thing. On an open field with clear lanes of fire the advantage goes to who gets first turn, terrain helps to negate that advantage.

Hargus56 wrote:I honestly haven't played with much terrain because I am still learning but I think it balances out the whole who goes first thing. On an open field with clear lanes of fire the advantage goes to who gets first turn, terrain helps to negate that advantage.

This baisicly sums it up. Terrain helps evening the battlefield for the various armies. And its more fun also with terrain.

Don't the rules specify how much terrain you should put on the field?
Yeah, at least in a pitched battle you have to put down d6+4 pieces of terrain that are randomly selected from the terrain chart. Then each player rolls off and takes turn placing a piece of terrain where you want it. So based on the rules you have to use a certain amount of terrain.

I'm especially surprised about people not placing terrain fairly. When I started playing fantasy my favorite part was the cool terrain. 40k just doesn't have the same, unique array of terrain options.

I don't know about other parts of the world but here; if a player were to take a piece of terrain that another player had placed for a game we would tar and feather that player. And if you think I am joking come an d play a couple of games in Canton Ohio.

tona7 wrote:Don't the rules specify how much terrain you should put on the field?
Yeah, at least in a pitched battle you have to put down d6+4 pieces of terrain that are randomly selected from the terrain chart. Then each player rolls off and takes turn placing a piece of terrain where you want it. So based on the rules you have to use a certain amount of terrain.

That's a terrible system for terrain. Fill a quarter of the table with terrain. Different types. Big and LOS blocking, small bits that hamper movement, forests, structures, etc. Take turns placing them evenly about the table. If your opponent is being a douche about terrain placement (like placing it all at the edges), get a 3rd person to place the terrain.

-Loki- wrote:

tona7 wrote:Don't the rules specify how much terrain you should put on the field?
Yeah, at least in a pitched battle you have to put down d6+4 pieces of terrain that are randomly selected from the terrain chart. Then each player rolls off and takes turn placing a piece of terrain where you want it. So based on the rules you have to use a certain amount of terrain.

That's a terrible system for terrain. Fill a quarter of the table with terrain. Different types. Big and LOS blocking, small bits that hamper movement, forests, structures, etc. Take turns placing them evenly about the table. If your opponent is being a douche about terrain placement (like placing it all at the edges), get a 3rd person to place the terrain.

Well, if we don't use the rule the way they are written what is the point?

I mean GW wrote the rules that way because that is what they intend. Do you think they care if it is dumb or not?

But I agree cover 25% of the table with terrain.

Loki, I was just paraphrasing what it says in the fantasy rulebook.
But I actually like it. Of course you can throw down whatever terrain you want, but in fantasy, terrain actually does more then just blocking line of sight and providing cover for troops. Each piece has a cool flavor and an added extra benefit (or potential threat.)

an 8ft table is waaaaaaaay too big for 2000 points.

4X6 is fine up to 3k. larger then 3k and you might want an 8ft table, but thats where the cut off is.


Now, 4X6 may feel a little crowded for certain horde armies like a list that takes massive numbers of Clanrats and Night Goblins, but that is the point. you take a horde army, you should feel crowded. Its actually an advantage because it limits the ability for someone to flank you.


as for terrain, filling no more then 1/4 of the table with terrain is a very good rule. much better then the stupid random terrain chart(which requires you to have a buttload of terrain to use. We all know why GW put it in there)

tona7 wrote:Don't the rules specify how much terrain you should put on the field?
Yeah, at least in a pitched battle you have to put down d6+4 pieces of terrain that are randomly selected from the terrain chart. Then each player rolls off and takes turn placing a piece of terrain where you want it. So based on the rules you have to use a certain amount of terrain.

I'm especially surprised about people not placing terrain fairly. When I started playing fantasy my favorite part was the cool terrain. 40k just doesn't have the same, unique array of terrain options.

This is what we do except only roll d3 random wacky stuff. All woods and waters are always mysterious.

Acardia wrote:

tona7 wrote:Don't the rules specify how much terrain you should put on the field?
Yeah, at least in a pitched battle you have to put down d6+4 pieces of terrain that are randomly selected from the terrain chart. Then each player rolls off and takes turn placing a piece of terrain where you want it. So based on the rules you have to use a certain amount of terrain.

I'm especially surprised about people not placing terrain fairly. When I started playing fantasy my favorite part was the cool terrain. 40k just doesn't have the same, unique array of terrain options.

This is what we do except only roll d3 random wacky stuff. All woods and waters are always mysterious.

Yes! Sweet, I love mysterious terrain!

So is d6+4 terrain too much for a table? Or is there some other part of the random terrain chart that you guys don't like?
I'm just surprised that people dislike it so much. Granted we're all newbs at fantasy, but when my friends and I first started reading the fantasy rules we all got hella excited about seeing all this terrain stuff.

Thanks for the replies everyone.
It seems that there are allot of different opinion's on table and terrain set up.
I still think 6 foot is to small for large games but this is debatable and up to player preferance i guess.
I will have to try some of your idea's for our next game session.

tona7 wrote:

Acardia wrote:

tona7 wrote:Don't the rules specify how much terrain you should put on the field?
Yeah, at least in a pitched battle you have to put down d6+4 pieces of terrain that are randomly selected from the terrain chart. Then each player rolls off and takes turn placing a piece of terrain where you want it. So based on the rules you have to use a certain amount of terrain.

I'm especially surprised about people not placing terrain fairly. When I started playing fantasy my favorite part was the cool terrain. 40k just doesn't have the same, unique array of terrain options.

This is what we do except only roll d3 random wacky stuff. All woods and waters are always mysterious.

Yes! Sweet, I love mysterious terrain!

So is d6+4 terrain too much for a table? Or is there some other part of the random terrain chart that you guys don't like?
I'm just surprised that people dislike it so much. Granted we're all newbs at fantasy, but when my friends and I first started reading the fantasy rules we all got hella excited about seeing all this terrain stuff.

the biggest issue with the random terrain chart is how much terrain you need to own/have avaliable to actually use it. What happens if you roll a couple of encampments? Most people won't have enough buildings for even one encampment and there is a good possability you will roll more buildings.

There is also the problem if you roll 10 pieces of terrain and the majority of the pieces take lots of space. like rolling 2 rivers, 5 forests, an Encamptment with 3 buildings, and a couple of hills for good measure.

Where are you going to put the armies? especially all those Hordes the rules are encouraging.

I see. Yeah, not having the terrain makes sense. My group either will play at a hobby shop that has a large collection of terrain, or we'll be satisfied with converting terrain out of whatever we have around the house. I've only recently gotten really into building my own terrain, and I still only have a few pieces. So I can see where that is a downside.

If you place your own terrain, do you tend to still use the terrain aspects from fantasy? Like do you create mysterious woods and rivers and do you use things like haunted mansions and dwarf breweries?

tona7 wrote:Loki, I was just paraphrasing what it says in the fantasy rulebook.
But I actually like it. Of course you can throw down whatever terrain you want, but in fantasy, terrain actually does more then just blocking line of sight and providing cover for troops. Each piece has a cool flavor and an added extra benefit (or potential threat.)

Yeah, I actually thought this was for 40k. I rarely venture into the Fantasy forum. Thats how terrain works in 40k.

Even most hobby shops won't have enough terrain to cover all the possabilities, especially if you have 4 or 5 tables needing terrain at once.