Topic: How Much Terrain Makes for a Better Game?

[Irisado]

A number of you who have been playing GW games for a long time will probably spot that I've paraphrased and slightly altered a quote from a rather well known GW games developer, whose view it was that the more terrain there was on the table, the better the game would be.

I've found this particularly true for me when playing 40K.  The more terrain there is, the more challenging the game becomes in terms of capturing objectives, clearing out fortified positions, and indeed manoeuvring units to where they need to be.  The game thus becomes more strategic and requires more thought.  I thus tend to prefer playing on surfaces with more than the minimum percentage of terrain.

How do the rest of you feel about terrain?  Do you prefer terrain dense boards or do you like to game with less terrain?

[volatilegaz]

I'm with you.

I like as much terrain as we can squeeze onto a board without making it impossible for non-skimmer vehicles to get around without risking immobilised every turn.

I like a mix of LOS blocking, hard cover, light cover, dangerous and difficult.

I like multi-levels and water features.

[Wyddr]

Yup, I agree as well.

I do think, though, that having some open spaces also can add to the game. Certainly not the whole board, but having to judge whether to cross an area without cover as opposed to go the long way while obscured is a fun tactical challenge.

[DCannon ForLife]

~8 pieces is good enough for me.

More importantly, though, is whether or not the terrain is player-placed in a competitive way. If I want a wide open battlefield, I take one of the LoS blocking pieces and put it in a corner. If my opponent has some nasty shooting, I put an LoS blocking piece in the middle of the table.... If I want a strongpoint for my Distortion Cannons, I put a ruin front-and-center.

Of course, this is all done BEFORE rolling to choose deployment zones, so I have to be careful to balance my 'optimal' terrain layout against the possibility that I may be playing from the other side of the table.

[Partninja]

My LGS plays on 6x4 tables made up of 2x2 (some are 2x4) pieces. Our terrain are usually about 12x12 in size (some a little less, some a little more). We try to put at least two pieces to a section. We also have lots of craters and smaller bits to fill in gaps if needed. Generally its a bit more than the suggest amount in the end.

[Calamity]

The worst games I've played all had the common factor of having close to zero terrain peices.  Terrain makes the game better, and I'd have as much of it as possible.  At one stage we used a rule of thumb: d3 separate terrain peices in a section.  Usually a quarter, but sometimes a sixth. 

[Spectral Arbor]

We usually play with about 1/3 of the board covered in terrain. In practice, that's pieces placed roughly 6-12" apart. We have a couple of large ruins, couple of large hills, some smaller hills, some various forests, some walls [LOS blocking walls are very fun, you should try them. They're easy to make!] Most of our terrain is between 6"x6" and 12"x12".

I have encountered boards with too much terrain. It's pretty rare, though. "Too much" terrain penalizes low mobility armies, something I encountered when playing the Guard. Most armies / strategies can cope, but some can't.

In general more terrain is better, but there is a "too much" point.

[Mr.Peanut (Turtleproof)]

I like what makes for an interesting game.  In my opinion, a table set up with perfectly planned trenches on both ends (thanks, 7th and your DLC fortifications) is just as boring as a bare table.  When there is just enough terrain to challenge your thinking, it's great: it alters your ability to shoot or charge, makes you struggle to get that perfect ambush.

For the same reason I do not like bridges unless the scenario compensates for that disadvantage.  I had a lousy game many years ago using my Dark Eldar, straight from the Codex.  The table was far, far too small, so when my reserves came in they... ambushed them.  There was no game to be had, just us rolling dice while the Imperial Guard got slaughtered.  The only happy moment for my two opponents was when they killed one of my Haemies in close combat.

Much better to have an amazing looking table with interesting options than a lopsided, joyless massacre.  Or Sigmar style bulldozing models into each other.

[murgel]

I like to have tables with no less than 1/3 up to 2/3 terrain, about half of that should be blocking LOS.
We did have great games with more open terrain. But those were all special scenarios, like an attack on a trench system in which the attacker had almost double the pints the defender had. (The scenario was from the diary of one of my ancestors, who did a "nice" job describing the terrain)
And once we made a game of an attack over an open plain, with tanks and infantry using them as cover...

But generally I feel the more LOS blocking (reducing)terrain the better,

[Cavalier]

I play with a lot of terrain. 2 big pieces of LOS blocking for either player in their deployment zone, 2 big pieces of terrain where LOS can be blocked by clever model placement and then 2-4 pieces of area terrain/standard cover save granting terrain scattered across the board.

So typically 8 big pieces of terrain and then various pieces of battlefield debris, lichen and stuff just for scenery.

At home its Eldar vs. IG which means their is a ton of firepower being slung around and to prevent the game from being decided turn 1 my brother and I made enough terrain so that important models can be protected from your typical shooting alpha-strike. While at the store (which I bring my terrain to whenever I play due to the store's painful lack of terrain) I want my opponents to have protection from my Wraithknight, Hornets etc.

All in all it makes for great fun games, where big plays of the game can all pivot around central pieces of terrain. It also allows assault units to have a chance in 7th ed, especially foot-based ones. Also it puts a premium on barrage type weapons, jet-pack and jet-bike units and typically forces people to play more aggressive which is usually a good thing.



Note on the pics below that I use some truly massive pieces of terrain so that you can protect units even from getting "flyered" to death from certain angles if you are careful.

[Calamity]

Three Leman Russes and two Basilisks?  I like that.  I like that a lot!   

[Cavalier]

Heheh thanks Tangi. Throw in an Imperial Knight and you're dealing with one of the most hardcore armored blocks in the game. With all the 4+ cover terrain they can be almost impossible to dislodge. It really makes the Eldar work to bust those tanks... then Veterans swoop in and things get messy!

[Calamity]

Excellent! 

No offence meant but I am an IG player. 

I hope if and when they get a new codex, they give the IG player a reward for taking three Basilisks in a battery.  'The Emperors Wrath' for example; pinning and ignores cover for the earthshakers!   

Anyway, I love the pics of those fully painted boards.  They must be so fun to play on.  The amount of terrain on them seems to be about right as well.

[Lorizael]

Much better to have an amazing looking table with interesting options than a lopsided, joyless massacre.  Or Sigmar style bulldozing models into each other.

Bulldozing models? Ouch, models won't last long doing that! Not sure that was ever Sigmar's style either! He preferred horses to heavy plant machinery.

Very much in the camp of more terrain the better; it always makes for more interesting, tactical games; whether that's 40K, WH or SBG.