Terrain Density

[Garben]

Apologies if this isn't the right place, not sure where else it would fit better. I am just getting back into 40k after a long break from it.  Last played with 6th or 7th edition rules but have picked up 9th and now 10th edition.  now we are finding time to play again I am setting up a home table for casual games with friends and want to get a grasp on where terrain desnity is these days, at one time I remember it was recommended around 25% for tournament play and we used to run our games a bit heavier at around 40% as it gave a more interesting game when you are not worried about the balance being out.  We are aiming to play 1000-2000 point games with Primaris, Necrons, Nids, Eldar and mechanicus armies, mainly infantry with a few transports and walkers.  Also want to throw in some Knights.  Heres some pics of the main big terrain pieces and some scatter.  I would be grateful to hear any views on the density of the terrain, howi t may effect play in 10th especially problems it may cause, while the table will not be for competitive play we want it to be an enjoyable game

[Bouargh]

Hi,

 

As far as the official tournament scene is concerned, the lately published guide (hlF8WKv4gJpXPZha.pdf (warhammer-community.com)) tat is based on the ITC system (more or less) can be an useful reference.

 

Terrain heavy.

 

Otherwise it is all a matter of preference: I personally like city fight, so lots of ruins and vantage points, LoS breaking obstacle BUT some roads and alley that are more or less as width as a LandRaider in order to structure some quadrant.

There is no rule really, it is more related to the fact the you want to standardize with casual pick and drop games or if you wish to go to a more narrative format.

The current ITC stuff reminds me rather of Jungle fight table, quite dense, when Codex Catachan was issued - but it is fine for a standardized apporach

Anyway, if you go at scenarios, you do what you want: a flat table with little obsatcles and 2 o 3 hills and a few rumbles can be perfet for a tank battle on a plain, whereas your shared pics is gorgeous for almost any kind of encounter in suburbs...

Edited July 13, 2023 by Bouargh
Thick thumbs striked back...

[Garben]

Thanks for the link @Bouargh,that is a great reference and more terrain heavy than i remember outside of the old city fight book.  

[Xenith]

I recall that in one of the rulebooks, 5th ed perhaps, GW reccomended that 1/3 of the table be covered with terrain, and that half of that should be totally LOS blocking, so I generally aim to have 1/6 of the playing surface with LOS blocking terrain.

 

Infinity the game also has some more detaled terrain setup guides, in particular terrain height. I feel that the tallest terrain piece should generally go in or near the centre of the table to trule block board-wide fire lanes. In your example, I think the density is good, however you have a tall piece on either side of the board and nothing but lower level terrain in the middle, meaning games will gravitate to castling up in those tall buildings and annihilating anything that moves into the open. 

[Bouargh]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

I recall that in one of the rulebooks, 5th ed perhaps, GW reccomended that 1/3 of the table be covered with terrain, and that half of that should be totally LOS blocking, so I generally aim to have 1/6 of the playing surface with LOS blocking terrain.

 

Sounds familiar indeed...

 

Anyway, terrain density and distribution of LoS blocking and higher building is also depening on the way the game is going to be developped: for example if the aim is to favour the CC as game mechanics, to limit/cancel effect of shooting you load heavily in LOS blocking.

Height distribution is the same kind of decision that can impact the game dynamics: getting a vantage point in your deployment zone can be key whereas getting it in the middle of the table will define a central focus point to be seized or to organize movements around it....

 

ITC system is based on symetrical distributions toequilibrate the pros and cons of the scenery distribution and gives same contexts to both players. it is a way to equilibrate the impact of the terrain which is fine for competitive play  but makes IMHO a more casual game boring.

But terrain cannot be on the other hand something that defines too much the sense of the battle, except if it is included in a scenarized game and compensated by objectives and PV. 

 

9th Ed had terrain organization recomendation in the BBB and also reprinted elsewhere on internet in on WarCom - Shuld look for the link.

 

 

 

As we can see it may include a kind of search for symetry in order to balance terrain effetc while letting room for some interesting tactical challenges. Just setting deployment areas differntly from one game to another with the same table may already induce interresting options. 

As seen there, density and haight distributions are quite aligned with the guidelines @Xenith explained. it is almost like an ITC table anyhow... So I tend to rather paly on stuff less comon such as this:

 

 

or this:

 

 

But it is all a matter of personal preferences...

[ValourousHeart]

I like to use this image as a DON'T DO THAT lesson.

 

The first thing everyone notices are the 3 Repulsors dangling from the top of the ruin.  Just ignore those for now.

 

Instead notice that this game is being played with deployment zones on the short board edge.  That means those Knights are 4 to 6 feet away from the Marines.  Now notice that the fire lanes on this table are 4 to 5 feet long and in some places 6 feet long!

 

DON'T DO THAT!  PUT CRAP IN THE WAY.

 

If you don't have much terrain in your collection, maybe you should get more.  Alternatively you can not put terrain in the deployment zone, to make it more dense in no-mans-land.

 

When not using Knights, one story buildings with a roof deck are generally good enough for infantry and tank armies.  They block LOS and give some elevation.

 

When using Knights, you want 2 (maybe 3) story buildings with a roof level to block their LOS.  Gaps in terrain only need to be big enough for a Knight to pass sideways.  It is not necessary for a Knight to be able to pass between every gap, but you also don't want to block access to any part of the board.  Give the Knights a way in, but make them walk around.  That will give slower infantry a short cut to run away if they don't want to be stuck in assault.

[Xenith]

This is generally how my tables look. I try and put the buildings at a 45degree angle to the board edges to remove straight fire lanes, then stagger the buildings if possible. There should be very few places that you can draw a straight line from one board edge to the opposite edge without intersecting terrain, and you absolutely should not be able to draw a line from one corner to the opposite corner without intersecting LOS blocking terrain! 

 

[Garben]

thanks all for the reply's and thanks @Xenith for the Infinity mention, completely forgot about the detail they went into on table layouts.  from the above it seems that more is good and avid even distribution which wont be a problem as it is for casual gaming among friends.  just setting up a small 500pt ad mech vs necrons for the weekend on a 4x4 table, first game in a few years,  I have set up the terrain and the other player gets to choose board edge, one side has a good high position and the other side has more access to solid cover in the buildings 

[Xenith]

That table looks great and thematic, and you should have soke good firefights on it! 

[blacksnapt]

That table looks great!!! Where Did you get that terrain from?