Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
My main opponents are SM and BT. (Tau soon to come along). But the SM/BT players want heaps of terrain on the table because they are scared of all my guns.
It's got to the point where they almost give up just because I am maximising my shooting and target priority etc getting the best kill results out of my weapons (thanks to helpful advice I've read on these forums). Basically is this par for the 40k course that SM players (or maybe IG opponents) want terrain but the IG don't really care about it as much?
I suspect that it may just be that their armies are not balanced and too much reliance is given to that one devastator squad etc that gets blown to smitherines by turn 2. My IG-logic tells me that if you have more units then at least some of them will be left alive. But for SM it is harder to field more squad units because he wants to field the 'cool stuff'.
Is my SM opponent just blaming terrain for a poor army? or is this a valid reason to gripe for most IG vs SM battles?
I would suggest playing a few games using your friends armies, to give eachother a feel of how a fair table would look like - secondly, White Dwarf recommends that 25% of the table should be covered in terrain, which I think is a good number.
if you play on a normal table 48" each side then I use 2 or 3 terrain pieces in the middle and 2 or 3 pieces in each deployment zone. I have found that this is enough cover to hug and still gives you a nice LOS.
DonÂ´t mess with the dicegod
We play with a lot of terrain as well. A lot of LOS-blocking terrain in the middle can be a big challenge for IG. But generally, your units are protected as well.
I always like terrain because it makes every game different than the next, as well as being tactically more challenging. With more terrain, some units will become more valuable. Like AF squads, Roughriders and Hellhounds.
I would suggest you let someone else set up the battlefield, or roll a die for the number of scenery pieces, if you think they only want terrain because it suits them.
Last edited by jerre; January 23rd, 2006 at 13:28.
I have to agree 25% of level three area terrain makes 40k a much better game tactically, playing guard on an open board Just gets boring eventually, even If It may be easier to win on certain occasions.
I usually just take one quarter of the board fill It with terrain, then take It In turns to place terrain makes for a fair and challanging game everytime. :yes:
25% terrain is what is recommended, and I must agree. If you're opponents demand more than 25% of the table to be covered by terrain, then they are relying too much on having cover. You don't always get to pick where you fight, and where you fight will not always be to your advantage.
As a dark eldar player, I fully understand the desire to have LOTS of terrain, but when I don't get it, I deal with it and find a new way around the situation (hence where the game's strategy comes into play).
I think it would be very cool if every player had their own set of terrain designed specifically for their army that they brought to all their battles. Before each game, both players could roll of to determine whose terrain set was used (both sets of terrain would have to cover the same amount of table space though). I think it would add a lot of character to the game.
My 40K Armies:
- Thousand Sons
- Mordian Imperial Guard
- Dark Eldar
My Fantasy Armies:
- Lhamian Vampire Counts
I think Cadian7th's idea of filling a table quarter with terrain and then taking turns to redistribute it evenly is and excellent one.
Unfortunatley, our club has the misfortune of owning seveal huge (24x18+) pieces of woodland, which certain people with combat orientated armies insist to death is put on the table, cripleing a guard army from the word "go".
The last game I played was a cleanse mission, and I somehow let my opponent talk me into having this piece of mega-woodland in the middle of the board, he got deployment priority, and of course a Wraithlord appeared in the dead centre of the table.
Nougat, as a guard player you may have the reccuring feeling that you have got the short end of the stick when it comes to terrain (this is generaly because you have), which is why I am a strong skeptic as to the effectivness of bread and butter line infantry in practice. IMO you are far better off with a mobile army which can use the terrain to it's advantage. Throw in a few units that the enemy is actualy scared to let up close and personal.
The rulebook itself recommends how much scenery you should have, maybe look that up?
The terrain is always going to favor somebody. Too much favors CC, too little favors shooters, woodland and jungle favor Kroot and Jungle Fighters, rivers favor skimmers, etc. etc.
My group has enough terrain that we can muster a few different varieties and we roll a D6 after armies have been chosen. If somebody gets an edge, that's just the breaks. It all evens out in the end. The usual spread we use is:
1: Desert (only terrain is a little oasis using the jungle trees from the Tau set).
2: River with light woodland (~20% coverage).
3: Town on plain (1' square worth of buildings centered on table).
4: Town with river and light woodland (like 2, but with the 1' town in the center).
5: Town with 40% woodland coverage (one half the table is bare, the other half has trees).
6: Heavy forest.
This way 1 and 2 favor shooters, 5 and 6 favor CC/jungle fighters, and 3 and 4 can go either way, depending on how people play it.
thanks for the feedback guys.
I know that the rulebook suggests 25%, but depending on the coverage area of individual peices it can be a lot different. I'll try to explain what I mean because that doesn't really make sense.. Take the following
1) A single large terrain peice covers say 1'x1'
2) Several smaller terrain pieces (smaller in table covering base area) collectively cover 1'x1' (if set up all in a jam - which you wouldn't really do), But are set up in a scatter to use more space.
Option 1 looks like heaps less terrain, even though the arbitrary 25% is equal.
Now, I don't want to get into nitty gritty measuring up terrain area before the game and saying things like "no you can't place that ruined building because that'll bring the total to 27%" !!!
We usually have a third person set up the terrain (which is agreed upon by the players before dicing for sides). But then mid game it comes out that the terrain is too critical to the game and that it basically dictates the winner.
I disagree with this, preferring a tactical challenge, and feel that my army can adapt on the spot to a variety of situations.
Sorry for the long post and probably rambling about useless stuff, but I just wanted to get a feel for how other IG players felt about terrain quantity steering the winner of the game.