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.

Views on whether these terrain setups are too heavy, optimal, standard or otherwise peeps?

T1


T2


T3


T4


T5


T6


T7


Would be good if we evaluated from friendly and tournament perspectives (I get the impression most tourneys are terrain light?).

1. Do you think 6th ed (dynamics-wise) needs lots of terrain?
2. If so what type?
3. If not, why? (no wave serpent spam answers please )
4. Compared to above, what do you play? Why?

I think what you have there is perfect. I guess people who rely on vehicles or fighters might complain/cry/pout but that is great terrain set up and looks awesome.

I like the 5th picture, where i play we use paper printed terrain ans we only have buildings/ fortifications and can not mount a good terrain.
The 3rd would be great in a custom mission!

Very interesting Garret, my initial view on the 5th pic, is that its too light and not enough BLoS in it (only one building and one ruined Chimera for cover, 2 hills with good battlefield LoS to snipe from).

What makes you like it by the way?

I prefer terrain myself. I dont think you need as much as you do in LOTR but you definatly need a lot more then in WHFB

But how much is " much" Namiel in your opinion? Do you play by the rulebook instructions or "theme it"?

I would love to play on any one of those setups! If anything, more density is better in my opinion, and you seem to have a decent quantity of terrain down. Very nice.

 Ratius wrote:
But how much is " much" Namiel in your opinion? Do you play by the rulebook instructions or "theme it"?

For standard games we go by the rulebook of d3 per 2x2 tiles. If we are playing a theme game then definatly theme it.

 Ratius wrote:
Very interesting Garret, my initial view on the 5th pic, is that its too light and not enough BLoS in it (only one building and one ruined Chimera for cover, 2 hills with good battlefield LoS to snipe from).

What makes you like it by the way?

Well its has enough terrains to make to make the game interesting but not to much to turn it on a LoS positions "issue" ,few building means more important spots and since its not terrain heavy it allow a good mobility and a more tactical approach.
For me a board that is cluster with terrains like the 7th dos not have much appeal to me , its just "run to cover and shoot". a good warhammer game need to have a solid tactical approach and terrain is a very important factor in it. for example we have a board that is 3x5 with 2 rivers completing cross the table that can not be cross except on the bridges that normally are heavily defended ,(player 1 need to cross the table in 6 turns , player 2 needs to prevent it) that makes Assault marines more attractive that terminators.


By the way its just me or GWS website is slow as politicians ?

Edit:spelling :/

All looks good to me!

The quantity of terrain is easily good enough for all of these boards. I'd argue the "quality" on a few though, I think there should be 1-2 LoS blockers on a board.

Eww so much GW terrain...

Sorry i just cant stand the GW terrain for many many reasons (price being one and annoying shapes or patterns another).

However i'd say the number of terrain is fine. WH40k really doesnt favor a race over another that much if at all in cityscape battlefields ... though the crater riddled battlefield could be unfair for assaulty armies since it basically gives the castled army an extra turn to dakka.