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.

Hi all, I haven't played since 6th or 7th edition and just coming back to 40k with 10th edition. I can't seem to see any advice on terrain setup/density. The games are going to be casual with friends and we used to be a little terrain heavy compared to the old advice (think this was around 25%) as more terrain feels like a more interesting game. The games will be 1000-2000 points mainly using following armies -primaris marines, necrons, Tyranids, eldar and mechanicus. We are hoping to get a few chaos and imperial knights but other than that most of the armies are infantry with a few transports or carnifexes. Any thought views or advice on the terrain pictures will be gratefully received

Tables look great to me.

Just avoid the uncreative trap of symmetrical tables filled with L-shaped ruins, and you're golden.

Table is looking great, it will tell a story.

Only issue i see is that since you mentioned knights those might find impossible to move to objectives(or anywhere outside starting position) on those boards. Those hanging walkways are going to be headache.

Unless you houserule. But if opponent can just walk to objectives and win because opponent can't legally get to objectives not exactly good game

Love the tables btw.

Thanks for the feedback
@tneva82 all the pieces can be broken down, walkways just clip in so can me moved when needed but the objective locations is a good point as I would usually set up terrain ahead of the game night then objectives go down on the night. worth noting the walkways may need to be ruled out or destructible

Yeah if you rule that knight can move through(some hard belief on their kneeling ability) issue mostly goes away. But as is on those layout knights can't move which means they basically autolose.

Removing entirely works but makes less stellar look. And slows infantry going from one building.

Same handwaving might be needed on some other models like Magnus to keep them not locked on where they started.

But overall reasonable folk should be able to sort it out and with board like those i suspect unreasonable folk aren't involved

Looks great. Keep the walkways for more fun infantry play, and just let big models move through them as if they weren't there.

I watch people setting up terrain for games and I see them picking up various pieces and plonking them down roughly equally spaced, but it just doesn't look right to me.
I like to imagine how it would be if it were real, a few dense areas, an open space, chokepoints etc. However if I set up terrain this way I'd allow my opponent to pick his side.

These tables look great to me. As this doesn't seem to be a tournament setting, and you aren't vehicle heavy, the multi-level terrain isn't really an issue. If your group knows what terrain to expect, I wouldn't make up any special rules for knights to walk under/through it (though you may want rules to actually destroy it!).

I think one of the biggest weaknesses of matched play/tournament play 40K is that tables need to be set up and built to accomodate bikes/vehicles/huge walkers/etc. It reduces the variability of the gameplay if every board is suitable for knights and flyers. I totally understand why it is done (you don't know what someone will show up with), but when you have a known group of like-minded people, I would go with terrain that makes a fun game for all of them.

Having said that, though, be careful with too many multilevel, catwalk-accessible structures. Even with infantry heavy armies, it can skew the games too heavily towards shooting armies, as the melee focused units get corralled into just a few approaches.

Thanks all for the feedback and sorry for the delayed reply, been painting up some admech. Seems like more is better but keep an eye out for issue with big things moving and specialist close combat troops having an easy ride outside of LOS. speaking of which just setting up for a 500 point Ad Mech vs Necron game which will be our first in a few years

That looks like a wonderful table.

Agreed. Would be delight to play there

Where I live vs eldar or knights some armies would be shot off the table on the table, sometimes even if they went second. Without LoS blocking terrain Towering and overwatch have huge impact on the game, and having objective in the open turns the game in to a check of who has turn 1 scouts or infiltrators with preferably stick objectives and the fire power to clean stuff off objectives.

In the 500pts necron vs ad mecha game. I strongly advise the necron player to keep it chill, he will win anyway, but if the army is made properly the ad mecha will never be able to clear or kill a necron brick or on off an objective, even if there is full LoS. And I have my doubts the ad mecha player is bringing an army made out of 500pts of dragoons.

To me that terrain looks way more suited to Infinity or Necromunda than 40k.

Infinity terrain would be 50% to 100% denser.

Looks like infinity table around here though. With 1-3 towers for snipers to dominate the entire field. It is what gave birth to the kurva comp lists with 20-30 models even for elite armies. And what then killed infinity here, when Corvus Belli locked the army size to 15 models.
That and removing steel phallus, Toha and Caldenonian spam lists that were popular.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Infinity terrain would be 50% to 100% denser.

I just meant the type of terrain. Multi story buildings with rooms you can go inside work perfect in Infinity but you never see them on a 40k table because they just become solid objects. The game doesn't really allow you to do anything by going into those structures and large models have no way to really get cover from them like they could in an L shaped ruin. That shouldn't be your only terrain feature but the current rules of the game are designed around it.

Solid tall blocks give better cover actually as it gives protection even from towering. Several of those pieces do that. And the benefit of cover is easily gained by putting piece of vehicle behind it

Toofast wrote:
To me that terrain looks way more suited to Infinity or Necromunda than 40k.

have had very good games of 40k on seriously dense terrain, however you need to make sure all players are aware of it so they can build lists accordingly