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.

Probably the most variable thing about this game is terrain, as no two stores have the same thing. But I am curious as to what kind of terrain do people prefer and which do people hate? How do you decide if the terrain is balanced if you have maybe only one large piece and a bunch of smaller ones. Are there any terrain pieces that you would if given the option you would not use?

The main types of terrain I see are:

Ruined buildings: usually two or three walls and one floor, open but with a wall or two to hide.

Large fortresses: Something big that takes up a lot of space and limits movement. You sit your models on it and probably never move from it because its too hard to get down.

Woods/craters: just area terrain that offers no height advantage or place to hide.

The foam rock block/statue: A piece of terrain that blocks line of sight but you can't enter it or get on top of it.

Enclosed building: building with 4 walls, maybe you can get on top of it but mostly it just blocks line of sight.

Tank traps/barricades/fencing: a think line to give cover save and block potential charges.

Personally I most enjoy city-scape, generally ruined buildings with MAYBE one or two enclosed buildings.

I'm not too picky as long as there is at least one big Los blocking thing and cluttered terrain elsewhere. Idc what army you play the game is just no fun with nothing to think about and just shooting back and forth at eachother.

City-scapes are really good for 40k, especially if the avenues between buildings are only big enough for one tank, maybe two. Tank traps, barricades, destroyed parks, craters and half-collapsed buildings.

All sorts of hiding places and ambush avenues, and choke points.

I think this is one of the weaker aspects of 40K. The game itself very much lends itself to minimalist tables with simple "block that line of sight..." stuff and rarely immersive, awesome tablescapes. I shudder when I see the stuff people play over at a lot of stores (to be fair this is often with half-assembled, unpainted miniatures as well).

Give me a beautifully set up table with asymmetric terrain and I'm good to go.

Warhammer being limited to 4-6 turns and limited mobility really kills the availability of bigger/crazier tables with a lot of special terrain and buildings/bridges/etc. Saddens me it does! I find most 40K tables could use some serious inspiration from historical gamers --- it is indeed the 3rd army.

I like when the game almost boarders on too much terrain. Dense urban boards look good, but so do forests or alien worlds it doesn't make much difference. Just that playing on an open field is kind of boring; as long as it's all not mysterious terrain or something and pretty straight forward so it doesn't slow the game down.

Wouldn't matter if I was playing some gunline army or not either.

I don't mind having ruins, but I prefer hills and forests for my battles. I like having room to maneuver my forces, though that may just be 7ed fantasy and historical games influencing me.

One thing that I like that no one else seems to: Rivers.

I rarely play Imperial Guard any more, but I do like the amphibious rule on the chimera, and rivers let that rule be used. Also, it lets you have large terrain that restricts movement, which makes skimmers and jump troops more valuable.


If anyone is familiar with the Pegasus hobbies Gothic buildings, I have a few of those kits. Awesome for wargaming. These make either good high-peak church like buildings, or flat-topped administrative buildings that you can land on/fight on.

I'd love to build a semi-collapsed suspension bridge (imagine that scene from I Robot) that is the same height as the Pegasus buildings, then make wood and rope bridge (Indiana Jones style) connecting the platforms.

Basically, I think the third dimension isn't used enough in the game.

I prefer ruined buildings with a big centrepiece. But most of my games are on planet Bowling Ball so I take what terrain I can get.

I prefer dense urban terrain, noting like a bit of house to house figthing to make ones day a bit better while purging heretics/ loylaists

Coming from Bolt Action where it is all fields and stuff, I love playing on urban boards... It feels more 40k!

I want my terrain to be multifunctional:

I want to be able to climb on it, get in it, hide behind it, shoot through it, and interact with it.

I believe in a mix of blos and cover terrain, and I don't like units to be out of reach from assault due to impossible hight differences.

 lambsandlions wrote:

Ruined buildings: usually two or three walls and one floor, open but with a wall or two to hide.

Yes the board can be just filled whit them and I would be happy. With the exception of eldar and Tau lists. These armies abuse them way to much by hopping on the one or the other side of the 3mm wall so they need to be restricted when you play against them.

Large fortresses: Something big that takes up a lot of space and limits movement. You sit your models on it and probably never move from it because its too hard to get down.

Yes it would be fun, but I would make some rules for assaulting and moving on and off the way too high towers, or make them impassible.

Woods/craters: just area terrain that offers no height advantage or place to hide.

Sure fun things, just make shure that there is also some decent BLOS in the game

The foam rock block/statue: A piece of terrain that blocks line of sight but you can't enter it or get on top of it.

Perfect, these things are needed in a game

Enclosed building: building with 4 walls, maybe you can get on top of it but mostly it just blocks line of sight.

One of the best things in the game just make sure that there are also some cover area's

Tank traps/barricades/fencing: a think line to give cover save and block potential charges.

Cool things to add to your terrain, but they have nasty special rules. Use them with care, and be wary of the Tank trap rules or just ignore them.

TL;DR: I like cluttered, assymetric terrains with a lot of different influences and hate "ballanced, cookie cutter" terrain setups you can prepare for in list building stage.

@OP: you forgot to list hills and trenches, which also happen to be my "terrain of choice". To elaborate:

I like a lot of non-binary LOS blocking/cover (a terrain that will give you either partial or full cover depending on angles/elevaton/area), arranged in an asymetric way. And then play at least two games on it with sides switched between games and treat both games as a single match. This way I can have interesting, non repetetive scenarios which are balanced by doubling up games.

And trench-like terrain (either proper trench lines or crevasses, solidified lava rivers etc...) which allows movement in cover but limit it to predefined lines, so you have some choices, both as a defender and an attacker, to use them or prepare against most probable lines of advance...

Terrain setups I don't like: predominantly flat tables, with no pieces of area terrain and only a couple of ruins/LOS blockers arranged in a "fair and ballanced way". Boring as hell and higly artificial in terms of immersion.

In regards to actual models of terrain - I prefer modular boards with both negative and positive elevations possible, with the whole terrain being modeled as one, coherent, variable set. And I hate flat mats with blobs of ruins/buildings on them - which happen to be the typical YT battle reports terrain...

I love city terrain, with large los blockers, fencing, tank traps, trees, walkways and roads in higher elevation. I absolute love multidimensional terrain.

For example my little homemade walkway that is still in progress

http://pasteboard.co/hgf8JrfAL.jpg


And prefer true terrain tables instead of mats, its just damn hard to make something good enough in my oppinion

 Brutallica wrote:
I love city terrain, with large los blockers, fencing, tank traps, trees, walkways and roads in higher elevation. I absolute love multidimensional terrain.

For example my little homemade walkway that is still in progress

http://pasteboard.co/hgf8JrfAL.jpg

Your link doesn't show the terrain for me, just an upload menu...

Now its a link instead, everything went fubar xD

 Brutallica wrote:
Now its a link instead, everything went fubar xD

Very nice walkway indeed. I like to place one of Maelstrom objectives on top of such terrain, so it is a very high risk point of interest - tends to induce major clashes if it's worth the risk.

If I may suggest one thing - you could make some parts of the fence thicker/cover giving, so it can partially be an elevated "battlement" sort of thing.

If I may suggest one thing - you could make some parts of the fence thicker/cover giving, so it can partially be an elevated "battlement" sort of thing.

Yeah, it currently feels a notch too flat up there, i thought of lining up some drums and ammo crates along some part of the sides.

Tall, line of sight blocking. It's what the game is balanced around at the moment.

SJ

I like tall corners, usually ruins on a foot print base. And I think it is more useful to arrange these so they do NOT follow the edges of the table, i.e. the walls are diagonal to the edge of the table with most of the corners pointed inward.

This creates little "hiding" spots for units so that you don't need as much terrain to get the full effect.
It's also nice to have around 6" of open ground between each piece. Large enough to prevent most units from being able to hop from one piece to another in the same turn, yet close enough to "fill" the board aesthetically.

-

Anything themed I love, desert, snow, city, forest and good+fair blos on both sides/middle.
After that Im happy.

 Brutallica wrote:
I love city terrain, with large los blockers, fencing, tank traps, trees, walkways and roads in higher elevation. I absolute love multidimensional terrain.

For example my little homemade walkway that is still in progress

http://pasteboard.co/hgf8JrfAL.jpg


And prefer true terrain tables instead of mats, its just damn hard to make something good enough in my oppinion

THIS is exactly what I want to see. a couple small pieces of terrain that are high enough in the air that troops from below can't just jump up from the ground. It gives a good vantage point, but is also relatively exposed. Also small enough that skimmers and monstrous creatures can't land on it. The 3rd dimension isn't used enough in 40k.

As images tell more than words, here are some pics of my main terrain set in two setups (it is still WIP). Especially the 4x4 example shows how assymetrical setup can be used for three or four uniquely flavoured games depending on deployment zones.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-104976-53162_Lava%20Terrain%20WIP.html

Miniwargamming,com actually does a lot of great tables more recently, especially when it favors one side.

This gorkamorka board is beautiful.
http://www.miniwargaming.com/content/Welcome-Mek-Town-New-Gorkamorka-Terrain-GreenLeafTerrain

Ruined city-scape is the ideal 40k scenery for me. Forests and fields don't make me think sci-fi grimdark.

As much as possible. Makes fighting Tau fun and it's good for my Crisis ^^

Every kind of terrain seems to work against me, so I guess it doesn't matter to me.

Mixing it up. Some games are a big, crowded urban table. Sometimes, things are a lot more open, with hills, craters, a few tall things.

Generally, more is better, but all crowded all the time can be just as ultimately limiting as always playing on planet bowling ball.

zone mortalis