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 just curious really. So, what would be your ideal amount?

I typically love a lot of terrain on the board. The more the better! (Especially line of sight blocking)
I feel like it offers more to the game. You actually have to take the terrain into account and I just think the table looks sooooo much better, especially if it's built/painted good and it all matches.

I'm sorry if this has been asked before, I assume it may have before, but oh well.

Asked many a time. It usually happens when someone posts photos or a batrep and there's a single palm tree in the middle, maybe a tiny ruin and then two gun lines.

More scenary the better.

Standard is tightly pack a quarter of the table with interesting los blocking terrain. Then spread on the table. Add more if it looks better/adds verticallity/unusual objective placement.

ShaneTB wrote:
Asked many a time. It usually happens when someone posts photos or a batrep and there's a single palm tree in the middle, maybe a tiny ruin and then two gun lines.

More scenary the better.

Standard is tightly pack a quarter of the table with interesting los blocking terrain. Then spread on the table. Add more if it looks better/adds verticallity/unusual objective placement.

I figured it had been asked before, just thought I'd ask anyway.

Thanks for posting.

I like the look of a lot of terrain as well, but not too much. Like I enjoy ranged armies but I don't want it to be as simple as sitting there and shooting, I want to have to move at times to get a better job and keep it balanced.

Too much and melee armies win with little competition and too little it's the other way around.

These are about average terrain setups I use. I always play the imperial ruin sets and larger pieces as BLoS even if they obviously have gaps and windows in them.

RoB plus an extra hill or two
4-6 large ruins
roads
canals
bridges
a bunch of sandbag walls/barricades

That usually does it.

Terrible picture but I'd consider this the minimum.

Plenty of line of sight blocking terrain, preferably at least four ruins and a whole load of terrain with special rules. I love having special terrain, like the Promethean Relay Pipes or ammo dumps. Makes the game more interesting.

The more the better! The fewer clear lines to just shoot across from board edge, the more the game requires movement and manouvre, which makes it more interesting for all involved. Also, I play most terrain taller than a human as LoS-blocking, and impassable, no running or shooting through walls here!

 n0t_u wrote:
I like the look of a lot of terrain as well, but not too much. Like I enjoy ranged armies but I don't want it to be as simple as sitting there and shooting, I want to have to move at times to get a better job and keep it balanced.

Too much and melee armies win with little competition and too little it's the other way around.

I suppose that makes sense.

I love a dense city board - I reckon the best 40k games should feel like they're being played on an embiggened Necromunda table.

I always use True Line of Sight. If you can't see it, you can't shoot it. If you can see it through a window, it gets a cover save.

 Ratius wrote:
These are about average terrain setups I use. I always play the imperial ruin sets and larger pieces as BLoS even if they obviously have gaps and windows in them.

Spoiler:

I'd usually play about double the amount of that. With a little more LOS blocking terrain added.
But it still works like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
RoB plus an extra hill or two
4-6 large ruins
roads
canals
bridges
a bunch of sandbag walls/barricades

That usually does it.

Terrible picture but I'd consider this the minimum.

I agree. That looks just like the minimum. I play more usually. But yeah. It's cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tydrace wrote:
Plenty of line of sight blocking terrain, preferably at least four ruins and a whole load of terrain with special rules. I love having special terrain, like the Promethean Relay Pipes or ammo dumps. Makes the game more interesting.

Ah, same here! Love using the rules for shrines, twisted corpse, etc. Really adds depth to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
The more the better! The fewer clear lines to just shoot across from board edge, the more the game requires movement and manouvre, which makes it more interesting for all involved. Also, I play most terrain taller than a human as LoS-blocking, and impassable, no running or shooting through walls here!

That sounds really fun.

I like to play with terrain that towers above even Wraithknights and with multiple levels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I love a dense city board - I reckon the best 40k games should feel like they're being played on an embiggened Necromunda table.

I always use True Line of Sight. If you can't see it, you can't shoot it. If you can see it through a window, it gets a cover save.

I've always used the same rules tooooo.

Last year Mantic Games offered a ridiculously good deal on their modular sci-fi terrain. I bought a huge box, and now I have more terrain than my FLGS.
I like to play in dense urban environments. It adds a lot of tactics to the game, especially for ranged armies, as positioning and setting up proper lines of fire and kill zones becomes very important.

If you can drive a rhino around, there's not enough terrain.

I prefer my games of 40k have enough terrain to make people ask "you guys playing city fight?"

Then my city fight games to have virtually NO empty table space.

Iron_Captain wrote:Last year Mantic Games offered a ridiculously good deal on their modular sci-fi terrain. I bought a huge box, and now I have more terrain than my FLGS.
I like to play in dense urban environments. It adds a lot of tactics to the game, especially for ranged armies, as positioning and setting up proper lines of fire and kill zones becomes very important.

Tactical_Spam wrote:If you can drive a rhino around, there's not enough terrain.

namiel wrote:I prefer my games of 40k have enough terrain to make people ask "you guys playing city fight?"

Then my city fight games to have virtually NO empty table space.

Iron_Captain wrote:Last year Mantic Games offered a ridiculously good deal on their modular sci-fi terrain. I bought a huge box, and now I have more terrain than my FLGS.
I like to play in dense urban environments. It adds a lot of tactics to the game, especially for ranged armies, as positioning and setting up proper lines of fire and kill zones becomes very important.

All great answers.
Love you all.

I'm actually very, very tired of ruins. I kinda wish they were banned.

I like terrain on my terrain. The GW in Nottingham would often use very dense terrain with lots of 4+ cover saves. I always enjoyed that. Made weapons that lacked AP less limp.

At home I preferred to play smaller games, on 3 by 3 foot where pretty much the entire table was industrial development, crashed space ship, bunkers, landing pads, raider encampments.

At Warhammer World I liked to play on the skull tower of skulls on the skull plain table of skulls. Because skulls.

Sadly never got to play a game of 40k on the huge escape from goblin town table :(.

I like a lot of terrain because it gives assault armies a chance to get to assault.

I found an old picture of the table set up with terrain ready to play.


A space ship falls from orbit, debris makes contact close to an imperial industrial compound, devastating the area and demolishing all but the sturdiest structures!
Chaos renegade stow-aways make their camp around the crash site and prepare to begin their raids!

here is an example of how I like my terrain. This table was build for mordheim but same principals apply. City fight should be this but at least 5-6 levels tall

 Hayley Williams wrote:

ShaneTB wrote:
Asked many a time. It usually happens when someone posts photos or a batrep and there's a single palm tree in the middle, maybe a tiny ruin and then two gun lines.

More scenary the better.

Standard is tightly pack a quarter of the table with interesting los blocking terrain. Then spread on the table. Add more if it looks better/adds verticallity/unusual objective placement.

I figured it had been asked before, just thought I'd ask anyway.

Thanks for posting.

Ask away. Yes it has been asked a lot and will be asked a lot again. Thing is, if you look way back when it last made, it would just be locked for necro. So don't feel bad for asking.

I like a lot of terrain just like you but sadly don't play anymore. Nobody plays around my area that I know of.

My second 40k purchase was the Cities of Death book. Then came the Imperial Sector.

 namiel wrote:
here is an example of how I like my terrain. This table was build for mordheim but same principals apply. City fight should be this but at least 5-6 levels tall

Spoiler:

Oh wow. That board looks absolutely beautiful. I would actually play AoS on a table like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 Hayley Williams wrote:

ShaneTB wrote:
Asked many a time. It usually happens when someone posts photos or a batrep and there's a single palm tree in the middle, maybe a tiny ruin and then two gun lines.

More scenary the better.

Standard is tightly pack a quarter of the table with interesting los blocking terrain. Then spread on the table. Add more if it looks better/adds verticallity/unusual objective placement.

I figured it had been asked before, just thought I'd ask anyway.

Thanks for posting.

Ask away. Yes it has been asked a lot and will be asked a lot again. Thing is, if you look way back when it last made, it would just be locked for necro. So don't feel bad for asking.

I like a lot of terrain just like you but sadly don't play anymore. Nobody plays around my area that I know of.

Sucks that you don't get to play. :/

Thanks for the support too!

 Scott-S6 wrote:
RoB plus an extra hill or two
4-6 large ruins
roads
canals
bridges
a bunch of sandbag walls/barricades

That usually does it.

Terrible picture but I'd consider this the minimum.

This is my ideal minimum. Enough that no matter the deployment, neither army has a huge advantage in cover/shooting.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
RoB plus an extra hill or two
4-6 large ruins
roads
canals
bridges
a bunch of sandbag walls/barricades

That usually does it.

Terrible picture but I'd consider this the minimum.

This is my ideal minimum. Enough that no matter the deployment, neither army has a huge advantage in cover/shooting.

Ah, okay. Cool.

For a 4x6 table 6d3 pieces of terrain works well.

Not sure if that standard made it into the last rulebook, but it’s what we used at my last FLGS.

 Nevelon wrote:
For a 4x6 table 6d3 pieces of terrain works well.

Not sure if that standard made it into the last rulebook, but it’s what we used at my last FLGS.

Oh, hey! I think that's similar to the AoS rules. I think. Maybe. I don't know. Haha.

+1 for the more, the better!

 Hayley Williams wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
For a 4x6 table 6d3 pieces of terrain works well.

Not sure if that standard made it into the last rulebook, but it’s what we used at my last FLGS.

Oh, hey! I think that's similar to the AoS rules. I think. Maybe. I don't know. Haha.

I don’t know the AoS rules. The system was divide the table into 2x2 sections and roll a d3 for each one. That’s how many pieces of terrain needed to go in that area. Players took turns putting stuff down until all the slots were filled. With a good mix of terrain, some big LoS blockers, some woods, runs, etc. it made for a good table.

I'm one of those Tau players who isn't phased by lots of line LOS blocking terrain. I actually prefer a decent amount.

Then again my friends seem to like having minimal which is in my favor.