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!
I'm not entirely sure if this belongs in general or scenery, but general is a bit safer. I've found that when I play on a table with (what I think) is a decent amount of terrain... I tend to win or draw more often than I lose. If I let my friends decide how much terrain there should be (which is less) I tend to have my rear end handed to me. I tend to play CC armies while they play shooty armies... so this is about as surprising as finding out that water is wet.
Regardless, I thought I would post a few pictures of the set up I used for my last couple of games, and see if people thought it looked a little heavy, a little light, or just right. Yes, you too can be Goldilocks. That and I just like posting pictures of my stuff.
You play your game, I'll play mine.
i think for such a big table its a little light for WH40k- if you play against an army like IG or Tau with all those big guns you will get a whupping. For WHFB though its probably a bit too much!
I think its good to play with lots of different densities though as it throws up new challenges etc.
Nice Buddha by the way!
PLAN CLAN MAN!!
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man- S. Johnson
1. Sweet table my friend!
2. 40k is based on modern combat (NOT WW2 LIKE THEY TRY AND TELL YOU!!!). Modern combat is fought in cities where shooting is fast, close, and brutal. With the ability to attack a foe in hand-to-hand and get a runaway victory with it, makes the desire for close shooting even higher on the list. Explain this to our modern day Army (with all their tanks and long-range missile funding) while showing them the budgets going to the Marines (with a few APCs and excellent grunt training) and showing the modern Iraq conflict (Baghdad, Fallujah, brick sphincter shanty towns) and perhaps they'll realize why we're getting our butts handed to us by a bunch of underfunded militias with 'inaccurate' and 'inefficient' Ak-47s:sleep:
Therefore, denser is indeed better in 40K
Yeah looks a little light to me. Hills are a good general piece of terrain because they restrict line of sight but not movement which means vehicle heavy armies don't suffer an undue disadvantage.
"God is dead" Nietzsche- 1886
"Nietzsche is dead" God- 1900
Why are there scams? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q71FLDIMBc8
I have the same tape measure.
What a friend of mine do to figure out terrain is we divide the table into quarters and then fill one quarter with terrain. Take that all off and redistribute around the board. Gives us an even ammount of terrain everytime. We also try to mix and match things that block LoS. I'd say your board looks about fine.
"The internet perceives censorship as damage, and routes around it."
Off topic.Originally Posted by CaptainSarathai
1) The army is meant to fight "traditional" wars against large conventional armies. The Marines are meant to spearhead invasions and act as a raiding force. The army knows quite well that it's ordinary units are not Marines, just as the airforce know's its airfield defence troops are not Marines. They serve different purposes and are trained differently. That said the army does have units that are as effective as the Marines in MOUT. If they could train every soldier to be as good as the Marines they would.
2) Anyone who calls the AK-47 "inaccurate" and "inefficient" has probably never seen a real rifle, let alone an AK. They are the worlds most produced rifle because they work.
40k needs dense terrain to be played as the game designers intended it. They recommend 25% of the table should have terrain, and I think that is a good minimum. Anything less just makes shooty armies to dominant.