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 how much terrain do you guys use?
This is my table for tomorrow, its nowhere near being all painted but when you gotta paint you're own armies plus your friends it gets difficult

I use a similar amount, but more centralised. You have a huge empty space in the middle that renders walking forward and being in cover/LOS virtually impossible. Huge defenders advantage on your table.

 hollow one wrote:
I use a similar amount, but more centralised. You have a huge empty space in the middle that renders walking forward and being in cover/LOS virtually impossible. Huge defenders advantage on your table.

Yeah I try do do something different each time, even if it means one side has an advantage over the other. Sometimes an army gets the short straw.

I have made more "Balanced" maps/boards, but I would like to get another building to fill more space

We try to put as much LOS blocking stuff as possible. craters, etc.. are great and a couple added where buildings should be really adds depth to the table.

Still too parse but getting there. But first need to paint existing stuff.

Generally, if we can see the table, theres bot enough terrain. Ill grab a picture next time im at the game club.

A lot. We feel the game needs impassable pieces of scenery, LoS-blockers, cover granting barricades and piles all over the place so players must make actual decisions on where they'll deploy and move. You can screw up and lose because of bad movement.

Here are a few examples, normal and Zone Mortalis boards:

40-60% depending on table size vs points/model count.

 Sherrypie wrote:
A lot. We feel the game needs impassable pieces of scenery, LoS-blockers, cover granting barricades and piles all over the place so players must make actual decisions on where they'll deploy and move. You can screw up and lose because of bad movement.

Here are a few examples, normal and Zone Mortalis boards:

Where are those buildings from? Looks great.

 Nighttail wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
A lot. We feel the game needs impassable pieces of scenery, LoS-blockers, cover granting barricades and piles all over the place so players must make actual decisions on where they'll deploy and move. You can screw up and lose because of bad movement.

Here are a few examples, normal and Zone Mortalis boards:

Where are those buildings from? Looks great.

http://www.battlesystems.co.uk/products.html

A pal of mine took part in their Kickstarter campaign and got a bunch of these. You could glue them together or just use the plastic pins, we usually build them anew every time and then use them for two days straight. Keeps the shapes and table setups fresh. When disassembled, they don't really take more space than a couple of books would, so they're also great for storing.

Simply - a lot.

Nearly Necromunda level of clutter for regular 40K and totally dense and maze-like, with cover no further than 5" from any point on the table for the actual Necromunda. And I like tables with varied "ground level height" - hills that span on half a board, "negative height" trenches/craters/riverbeads etc, so that positioning and movement have all the meaning.

How I see it, there should be only a limited amount of lanes for both tanks to move and long range weaponry to shoot, no huge open spaces for assault to mass into a huge blob etc... Typical 3rd ed 40K codex examples, WHFB or "tournament standard" tables are pretty much "planet bowling ball" for me and from all of the previous examples in this thread only Sherrypie's tables are close to my favourite density (your "normal" table lacks only some "negative height" ground level craters/trenches/height variance - if the grey mat area was raised a level or two and there were some half-level holes large enought to fit a tank in them on the desert mat side of the board it would be ideal).

A large amount. The terrain is, without question, the third army. However, that doesn't mean we don't occasionally intentionally put "no man's land" into the tables. Also, we use a lot of custom terrain rules when needed. Acid rivers, doors to buildings which open/close, etc.

nou wrote:


How I see it, there should be only a limited amount of lanes for both tanks to move and long range weaponry to shoot, no huge open spaces for assault to mass into a huge blob etc... Typical 3rd ed 40K codex examples, WHFB or "tournament standard" tables are pretty much "planet bowling ball" for me and from all of the previous examples in this thread only Sherrypie's tables are close to my favourite density (your "normal" table lacks only some "negative height" ground level craters/trenches/height variance - if the grey mat area was raised a level or two and there were some half-level holes large enought to fit a tank in them on the desert mat side of the board it would be ideal).

We've been talking about making trenches at some point, likewise with craters. Currently there aren't any but I really like the idea of having that "negative height" there, especially in siege games that I long to play in the future. Sturdy walls of bunker lines, prepared killing fields full of craters and mine fields, all that stuff. But that last bit is neat too: I might test raising the "urban" area an inch or three next time we play, with some ramps down to the desert for vehicles. Thanks for the idea

 Sherrypie wrote:

nou wrote:


How I see it, there should be only a limited amount of lanes for both tanks to move and long range weaponry to shoot, no huge open spaces for assault to mass into a huge blob etc... Typical 3rd ed 40K codex examples, WHFB or "tournament standard" tables are pretty much "planet bowling ball" for me and from all of the previous examples in this thread only Sherrypie's tables are close to my favourite density (your "normal" table lacks only some "negative height" ground level craters/trenches/height variance - if the grey mat area was raised a level or two and there were some half-level holes large enought to fit a tank in them on the desert mat side of the board it would be ideal).

We've been talking about making trenches at some point, likewise with craters. Currently there aren't any but I really like the idea of having that "negative height" there, especially in siege games that I long to play in the future. Sturdy walls of bunker lines, prepared killing fields full of craters and mine fields, all that stuff. But that last bit is neat too: I might test raising the "urban" area an inch or three next time we play, with some ramps down to the desert for vehicles. Thanks for the idea

It is a simple solution but really changes how games play, especially with "short edge" deployment zones. If the height difference is substantiall enough infantry can get some relief after closing in because of "edge shadow" cover or even complete LOS blocking. I use such "full 3D landscapes" almost exclusively and games have really different feel than those played on a flat mat terrain.

Typically there's 1-2 large object in each deployment zone, and a medium object or two in the no-man's land. I have some plastic hills with flat tops that infantry or guns can sit on top of, and some tank obstacles and barbed wire I can scatter about.

I don't like the appearance of the "scattered ruined buildings" boards, but it's generally agreed in my group that about 4-9 moderately sized pieces of terrain makes the best board for playing on.

I've always wanted a board with opposing lines of trenches and lines of barbed-wire and craters and czech hedgehogs; but nobody would even play with me on a board like that.