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'm talking about terrain set up. With batreps of other people I usualy see sparse battlefields where both forces can usually see a good chunk of the enemy, so my question is why?

Because some units don't have grenades...

In the case of Batreps, it's because it makes taking photos easier, and because most people lack photogenic terrain. >>

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Because some units don't have grenades...

Theres alot more terrain than rough/difficult terrain

 Furyou Miko wrote:
In the case of Batreps, it's because it makes taking photos easier, and because most people lack photogenic terrain. >>

Makes sense but i don't think thats necessarily the case as the set up in betreps is very similar to what ive seen at all the game stores ive gone to.

SaJeel wrote:
I'm talking about terrain set up. With batreps of other people I usualy see sparse battlefields where both forces can usually see a good chunk of the enemy, so my question is why?

Because players are dumb. That type of setup works great in WFB where long ranged firepower is not as reliable. In 40k all an open table means is that the army with the most longest range guns will win before the other army gets close enough to them. The table should be effectively split down the middle with serious cover, but also some clear fire lanes, but nothing that allows an army with longer range firepower to completely dominate without moving a single model. I always laugh at someone who complains that there army is always getting shot to pieces in games and then whenever you watch them set up a game they set the table up completely open like this and then they wonder why their melee army is never getting anywhere in their games.

Of course now the people with shooting armies will complain about screamerstar armies as the only existing close in army in existence in the game and the reason why the table needs to be open.

Of course what is funnier still on this subject are those with long range shooty armies who want the table wide open, but then whine when *they* get stomped by an army that out shoots them at long range in a game.

Skriker

Because nice terrain costs a lot of money and most people are too lazy to make it themselves.

"Because nice terrain costs a lot of money and most people are too lazy to make it themselves. "

my thoughts exactly, makiing terrain isent exactly easy, plus if you wanna do a bat rep and you have like soda cans and bowls as terrain the internet looses its f***ing mind and crys and bitchs despite the fact that you put all that hard work into it.

Cheaper.
Quicker.
Easier.





Pick one.

Because a lot of people either lack proper reading comprehension skills or have a desire to disregard the rules.

How "Use at least 25% terrain, more is better" ever became"Use an absolute maximum of 25% terrain, preferably less....and make sure that a large part of the terrain is either placed or constructed in such a way that is has no meaningful impact on the game - because following the letter of the rule is always better than following the spirit" is beyond me.

I blame tournaments.

My understanding is that NOVA style terrain has an LOS blocker center board on every board to break up this problem of shooting range armies. it actually makes for pretty interesting games also. Havign to move a little bit, split fire, hidfing for a round in preparation for assault which forces enemies to evaluate and decide if they want to back away... Lots more player level decisions just from the expedient of that one piece of terrain that is common on all there missions.

i like that they do this. I play Tau and Eldar and a host of other things and i know a lot of those players would just gunline you to doeath in a no-fun matchup if it was allowed. So it's good to see that LOS blocker, even if its not enormous, kind of helping to break up the battlefield whether its hammer and anvil, dawn of war or Vanguard deployment.

It DOES screw with some Alter of War missions So that's one downside.

Unfortunately the worst tables I have played on have been consistantly at tournaments where they seem to pander to gun line armies sadly.

Ideally there should be some tables with a bit of terrain, some with lots and some with the middle.

Laziness.

LoS blocking terrain is not always favorable for an assault list because it also slows and blocks movement. Shooting is better even with LoS blocking terrain .

Martel732 wrote:
LoS blocking terrain is not always favorable for an assault list because it also slows and blocks movement. Shooting is better even with LoS blocking terrain .

Perhaps if you play a massive horde type army, that extra terrain can be more of a hinderance to moving and wielding your army, but smaller specialist assault armies not full of 20 model strong units will do just fine. Yes shooting is better even with LoS blocking terrain. Such is the nature of the beast, but without the LoS blocking terrain shooting can easily become completely dominant and despite the baseline rules, many armies are still geared towards the tried and true assault. Even with a shooty army I find games boring if I can just sit back and shoot my opponent off the table in a couple turns. BOR-ING!!!

Skriker

I sort of wish Tau/Eldar players in my group found winning boring. I have found that LoS blocking terrain actually seems to help me the most against IG and Necrons. It doesn't really seem to help my chances against Tau/Eldar. Maybe I'm misremembering, but it doesn't seem to help.

Martel732 wrote:
I sort of wish Tau/Eldar players in my group found winning boring. I have found that LoS blocking terrain actually seems to help me the most against IG and Necrons. It doesn't really seem to help my chances against Tau/Eldar. Maybe I'm misremembering, but it doesn't seem to help.

Havent faced tau yet but as a casual eldar player terrain is more my friend than anyone elses. Because I play a mobile aspect warrior foot army I need cover to live and move shoot run in and out of. My friend plays eldar too and we just love cover. My guard love cover too but its just not as effective as cover for eldar. I feel your pain ish

 Skriker wrote:
20 model strong units

Wait...

... only... twenty?

What is this crap, who would only use TWENTY Orks?

Maybe its lootaz units ?

Terrain is ok , but real terrain boards are not fun to play for my IG army. Other armies that are gunline and can deal with those , are either more shoty or very movable or shoty and resilient. An IG army that doesn't get two realy good turns of shoting turn 1&2 , which already can be limited by stuff in reservs BS 3 being fickle to roll on , wining gets impossible .

Battlefields lack an amount of terrain for the same reason that most of those games also consist of unpainted or unassembled models.

Lots of people only care about the bare minimum, and don;t like to make or buy terrain.

For me, though the terrain makes or breaks the game, as I love full battlefields, whether urban or more jungle/forest.

 Melissia wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
20 model strong units

Wait...

... only... twenty?

What is this crap, who would only use TWENTY Orks?

Wasn't talking *just* orks, and picking a number that was larger than normal, but not crazy skewed towards lunatic ork players at the same time.

Skriker

Nonsense, there's nothing lunatic about having 181 Orks as your bare minimum model count.

Only when you have to buy trukks for all of them. Otherwise sounds like an Ork army to me.

 Melissia wrote:
Nonsense, there's nothing lunatic about having 181 Orks as your bare minimum model count.

In one unit??

 Skriker wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Nonsense, there's nothing lunatic about having 181 Orks as your bare minimum model count.

In one unit??

(30*6)+1.

 Skriker wrote:

SaJeel wrote:
I'm talking about terrain set up. With batreps of other people I usualy see sparse battlefields where both forces can usually see a good chunk of the enemy, so my question is why?

Because players are dumb. That type of setup works great in WFB where long ranged firepower is not as reliable. In 40k all an open table means is that the army with the most longest range guns will win before the other army gets close enough to them. The table should be effectively split down the middle with serious cover, but also some clear fire lanes, but nothing that allows an army with longer range firepower to completely dominate without moving a single model. I always laugh at someone who complains that there army is always getting shot to pieces in games and then whenever you watch them set up a game they set the table up completely open like this and then they wonder why their melee army is never getting anywhere in their games.

Of course now the people with shooting armies will complain about screamerstar armies as the only existing close in army in existence in the game and the reason why the table needs to be open.

Of course what is funnier still on this subject are those with long range shooty armies who want the table wide open, but then whine when *they* get stomped by an army that out shoots them at long range in a game.

Skriker

This man speaks the truth. Thank god the TOs around here have caught on to the stupidity of open battlefields

Also keep in mind if it is a tournament then the stock of prepared terrain will be overstretched.

It takes money (and time which is money) to have terrain. It also takes significant storage space. All of these are things that most players will want to devote to model models rather than terrain. The best thing GW ever did for table terrain was adding fortification slots as player now buy terrain much more often than they ever did before.

I've used books peices of paper hell my warmachine group used scraps of felt cut into interesting shapes! from what I can see 40k for it to be fair, fun, competitive and tactically rich needs a lot of terrain. The current meta for tables is: One ruin here one ruin there, one line of sight blocker in the middle, and this creates a game where all that you are realistically doing is asking is my list better than yours? There is very little tactics or thought into actually playing the game, by removing terrain the game just bubbles into who has the best[cheasiest] list.

I think my penchant for lots of terrain in games is driven by starting 40K in the days of 2nd edition. Back then terrain was very, very important.

 ansacs wrote:
Also keep in mind if it is a tournament then the stock of prepared terrain will be overstretched.

It takes money (and time which is money) to have terrain. It also takes significant storage space. All of these are things that most players will want to devote to model models rather than terrain. The best thing GW ever did for table terrain was adding fortification slots as player now buy terrain much more often than they ever did before.

I dare say this statement is right on the mark. The more cluttered the battlefield, the more friendly it will be towards Assault Lists.
but since the terrain usually costs as much as the army, and takes up more than twice the storage space. It can really be a big investment for a player to stock up on terrain to begin with.

You can use many things to represent terrain, the act of cost is a flimsy one