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 lived with my brother and a gamer roommate for a year plus, and we played on super-dense city fight ruined terrain (cheap, painted and broken up styro packaging for buildings), and those games were always fantastic. The more dense the terrain (within reason) the more interesting the game in my opinion. It also lends itself well to objectives having a more narrative feel.

We tend to use the D3 terrain peices per 2 by 2 space, adding or removing a few peices as we see fit. Or sometimes we'll just set it up as we feel like.

Problem is that certain tyranid/ork/blood angels players tend to be pushier for more terrain since a crowded battlefield benefits CC armies greatly.

We have lots of rocky outcroppings and hills.
LoS was blocked all over, but with fire-lanes in places. It's pretty good, but only for shooting. 'Nids and other cc armies got pwned.

Until we recently got some trees glued to area bases, there was no need to roll for difficult terrain, making MtT powers useless. Area terrain and difficult ground makes a huge difference, whether LoS-blocking or not.

Terrain is everything to me at the moment. Haven't painted a model in months. It does depress me going to the local GW with the generic RoB boards or Hobbit layouts they have.

Most players forget building upwards. Even the city fight board earlier in this thread is pretty flat. It's amazing how different a game can be with a few overpasses or large hills.

I've built one hill that fills most of a 4x4 board creating a two level battlefield. It even splits in half to make a leathal valley of death down the centre of the board. I need to get som pics posted on here.

 BryllCream wrote:
We tend to use the D3 terrain peices per 2 by 2 space, adding or removing a few peices as we see fit. Or sometimes we'll just set it up as we feel like.

same here, and our board is always terrian filled.

 BryllCream wrote:

Problem is that certain tyranid/ork/blood angels players tend to be pushier for more terrain since a crowded battlefield benefits CC armies greatly.

As opposed to a relatively empty board, where the assault army might as well not bother at all.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

Problem is that certain tyranid/ork/blood angels players tend to be pushier for more terrain since a crowded battlefield benefits CC armies greatly.

As opposed to a relatively empty board, where the assault army might as well not bother at all.

Because that's exactly what I said? There's a difference between a table that's got plenty of terrain on it (which I like), and a table that's been specifically choked off so that only units with jump packs can get around the battlefield. One time my opponent actually wanted to block off an entire section of the board with tank traps

My group does not randomize terrain... We try to create a fun, fluffy board. Below are a couple examples. What do you think? too much? not enough?

Thats a good amount. maybe a little more on the top one but all things considered they are great.

jlopatin wrote:
My group does not randomize terrain... We try to create a fun, fluffy board. Below are a couple examples. What do you think? too much? not enough?

HOLY MPTHER OF GOD

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats a good amount. maybe a little more on the top one but all things considered they are great.

Thanks! On the top board, we purposely left it open because we wanted lots of space to drive tanks around. I think the left side could have used at least another large piece... Perhaps a forest or something. Ironically, the entire battle took place on the other side of the river!

I really enjoy terrain. Word of advice though. Don't make an entire board a giant forest. Was trying to do a jungle type battle the other day. Took forever.

I play Imperial Guard, and I always push for at bare minimum 40% of the board is terrain. I'll even go for more, my favorite games are city fights where its hard to move around in and it takes a while to get line of sight.

I love the terrain, it really helps forge a narrative in regards to the actual game itself, heck you could even think up a story about the board you're playing on.

I've got the terrain from the Battle for MacRagge box set, I'm not sure if I got the name right. Haven't tried painting it since I'm not that good at painting terrain.....

Thing is, if I had my own board, I'd fill it with terrain, I'd even have a section dedicated to thoes Spike Plant things that turn other models into them.

Sadly I suppose too much terrain could just cause problems and make the game less fun.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I really hate when I get to a tourney and the terrain has been set up like a video game map, with some silly symmetrical arrangment with no conceivable tactical value. I love the board to suggest a story.

100% agreed. I much prefer terrain that sets a halfway-convincing looking scene over one side of the board being mirrored on the other. Similarly, I prefer not to mix terrain styles too much - e.g. if possible I would avoid having half the buildings as stone ruins and the other half as industrial buildings and so on. A good thing about 40K is that you can use terrain from many different periods - medieval, modern and WW2 structures can for the most part belong in the setting, but again I wouldn't mix the time periods too much.

Certainly some of my most memorable games have involved loads of terrain - I remember one cityfight game, where I was using SW vs IG, that was well intense, with squads having to dash over streets in the open (including one moment when I ended up with a squad in the middle of the road only for an enemy Executioner to turn the far corner), storm troopers sniping from buildings while Grey Hunters tried to storm the place, snipers wreaking havoc from a tower until a Castellan missile plopped down among them, squads moving through rubble to try and knock out a Basilisk and having to break through a dug-in infantry platoon - in other words, loads of the kind of cinematic gameplay they are promoting this edition (this game was in 5th edition), but it just sprang spontaneously from the rules as the game progressed.

...

I also have something else to thank that game for - the above-mentioned incident with the Executioner convinced me to go out and buy one of my own shortly after.

Terrain gets in the way of dice rolling and model removing. Why would you want to bother with it?

Every local store I play at has TONS of terrain to pick from. I'm a totally casual player, and have had the luxury of getting along pretty well with the person across the table from me during terrain setup. Usually, we set it up how it looks nice and thematic, working together to pick pieces, and we keep in mind bottle-necks and LOS and all of that while we place it.

But too many people don't seem to care. Batreps with DVD cases and soda cans (unless we're playing beerhammer). I get that it's still PLAYABLE, but it's not fun to look at.

 BryllCream wrote:
We tend to use the D3 terrain peices per 2 by 2 space, adding or removing a few peices as we see fit. Or sometimes we'll just set it up as we feel like.

Problem is that certain tyranid/ork/blood angels players tend to be pushier for more terrain since a crowded battlefield benefits CC armies greatly.

It's actually worse when you consider that the rulebook method of terrain deployment can turn terrain placement into something competitive.

First game of 6th we played we did the full terrain set-up rules to the letter (with the exception of mysterious terrain, which we rolled for after we deployed it). We placed buildings taking turns and ended up with a nice looking board.

Second game I played we realised that you could use the terrain deployment rules to really mess with your opponent, especially as terrain is deployed after fortifications.

What’s that? You deployed your Aegis line there? Ok, just let me put this massive building in front of it so you have no LOS from your defensive line. Never mind that if that building had been there you would have never actually put your defensive line in such a position...

Anything that turns terrain deployment into a competition, especially if it leads to nonsensical tables with no logic behind them, can only be a bad thing for everyone involved.

jlopatin wrote:

This one has a lot of empty space but it’s used really well. It could have a few extra small ruins here and there, but the way the terrain is spread around (and the central LOS blocking fortress) could make for an interesting game. The exception is that back left-hand corner. It just has a crater. It’s very empty and needs another bunker or a hill or something.

jlopatin wrote:

The whole right side of this table appears to be devoid of any real terrain. The flat roads – are they roads? – don’t appear to add anything but texture (and texture is not terrain – just look at the Realm of Battle board to see what I mean by that). Aside the terrain in the top right-hand corner and a couple of tiny bits towards the centre this table is just missing terrain. The left side is filled, but the right side is missing so much.

That second board looks like a blast to play on, though.

I know I wish we had more terrain at my local flgs. We have a few hills and walls but not much line of sight blocking terrain. Ruff going for my orks. It's just a big shooting gallery. Last full game I played I got excited because I actually made it to the halfway mark.

I've never understood why people throw so much money and effort into building and painting their armies, only to play games over tables with awful and sparse terrain.

Do you think maybe terain in general has taken a back seat due to the fact the GW push their own so strongly in WD? a lot of the enjoyment of the hobby IS the hobby, the whole package, the game, models, terrain! I can remember being totally awestruck and inspired every time a WD came out and they had made some insane and realistic board or terrain with hints on how to make your own! it made the bat reps so much better, I can only think of the Istvaan V one as an example now but if they started to encourage us to get back into being creative it might take the focus off winning at all costs and get back to people enjoying something we all love on many different levels!

Bring back more terrain I say!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because to much terrain is a bloody hassle.
We have a guy who sets up nice terrain at our club, but its annoying because it screws with deployment and vehicles.

This is the strangest comment I've read all day, and that's saying something as I've been reading Kickstarter Comments.

when you play a shooty army dense terrain really favors assault and not shooting.

Dense terrain favours intelligent maneuvering. When you're setting up terrain it's important to leave some open firing lanes and strategic points to fight over. If you have full firing lanes from your deployment zone, then something's wrong. I know when I play, I always like to have at least one big LOS blocker near the middle of the table at the very least.

I always tell myself I'm going to make some terrain, but I so rarely play at home any more that it's just not worth it. I'd rather just have more of my toy soldiers.

A few years ago my LGS had a swear jar. It got filled up pretty fast with certain people and that would get spent on more terrain. I thought it was a pretty good idea.

If you have a problem with to little terrain, don't go to Adepticon. I have heard that each board will have only 6 pieces of terrain on it, each player will get to set 3 pieces. Can you imagine how boring that would be?

I tend to like a lot of cover.



This was a board I set up for a small apocalypse game didn't actually get to play on it, some of the smaller alleys could fit a Russ, others could fit a rhino chassis. The main street in the center could fit a baneblade or a warhound titan.

valace2 wrote:
If you have a problem with to little terrain, don't go to Adepticon. I have heard that each board will have only 6 pieces of terrain on it, each player will get to set 3 pieces. Can you imagine how boring that would be?

I tend to like a lot of cover.



This was a board I set up for a small apocalypse game didn't actually get to play on it, some of the smaller alleys could fit a Russ, others could fit a rhino chassis. The main street in the center could fit a baneblade or a warhound titan.

I love this board, many possible ways to attack someone. Good firelanes for heavy weapons and nice cover for Assault and shooty Infantry

my brother, our friends, and I try to get together at least once a month to work on some terrain. I keep a decent supply of stuff like foam board and masonite as well at grass, flock, and sand. We normally get a few decent pieces made, and one or two that either get painted the next day or the next time we get together.
I find it's a nice change of pace from painting my army, and helps us expand our collection of terrain.

As far as amount of terrain, we normally lay all the terrain out on the side, and take turns placing it until we are satisfied with the amount on the board. Then we discuss how we will rule each piece if it's unclear and do any shuffling.

I actually refer to terrain as "The Third Army" on the table. If everything looks great - but your terrain looks like soda cans and shoe boxes. Blech! It's as important an aspect of the game as the armies on the table imho.

http://theindependentcharacters.com/blog/?p=2359

That was a good episode.

I love terrain. Our local store has piles of the stuff, scratchbuilt, GW, FW, the works.

There's also three fortresses of redemption, because. In one tourney, we used two of them on a 4x4 table with lots of rocks, hills, and other low-save terrain, and the objective was to capture the other fortress; the more damaged it was, the less points it was worth.

Terrain can really make a game more enjoyable, some of ours even has nicknames, like this 5 floor apartment called "Club Fabio," after a particularly spirited defense by Fabius Bile and some enhanced marines in 5th ed, or can create a theme; make half a table covered in fortifications, the other half lower terrain, and have an "endless swarm" tyranid army attack a Guard defense, and award victory based on how long it takes the Guard to be defeated.

in particular, I find, you need "centerpieces" and "detail" terrain. Soemthing big and attention grabbing to set the scene, like a big temple, custom built Necron ruins, etc, and little bits to add detail; hedgerows, fences, plantlife, rocks, etc.

It might take a little longer, but when most games take hours, spending the 10-15 minutes setting up a good, attractive, themed table really improves the experience. And a bare table with a ruin or a few rocks is not enjoyable. And I say that as a guard player with more pieplates than sense.