Librarium Online Forums banner

How much cover do you usually use?

1K views 27 replies 16 participants last post by  theyak 
#1 ·
I guess the official amount of cover that should be placed on any given playing surface is supposed to be 25% of said surface. Being as it is that I play most of my games vs. an architect, once we found out this stat, we have figured out almost exactly what we need to cover 25% of the board. The thing is . . . that 25% is ALOT. Of course, I have this reaction mostly because I enjoy shooty armies and like to have wide open shooting lanes, but I also noticed that alot of the tables I've seen set up at various gaming clubs/Games Workshop stores don't seem to have as much terrain on the tables . . .

. . . so how much do YOU use? Obviously, the varying amounts of obstacles, etc, on the board drastically changes the game. And perhaps I just haven't used terrain to my favor as much as I need to, but lots of cover spread basically evenly across the board sure seems to help BT to sneak up on me and Tau Crisis Suits plenty of hiding places to jump-shoot-jump from.

Not whining, just wondering :) I concluded long ago that I'll never be a master strategist :) Thats why I play Marines and Necrons, ha.
 
#3 ·
Sorry about putting it in this forum, I didn't know if General Hobby was more than just 40k and I actually wanted to get responses, lol.

30-35%? I'm assuming you guys don't actually shoot much?
 
#6 ·
I think it's about finding the right balance between the strengths of your armies when placing scenary. For example, if your army prefers to stand back and shoot then you will prefer the battlefield to be more open. However, your opponent's army might be close combat specialists using terrain as cover before launching an assault. Perhaps by taking it in turn's to deploy scenery you will achieve parity.
 
#7 ·
I dont think I have ever tried to reach a mathematical sweet spot. We always just place terrain until it looks good. Probably not the best way, but we arent overly competitive.

One thing I think though is that the rules are already biased towards letting close combat beat shooting in ultimate potential. I supposed a 25% or more covered board would be fair, as long as the terrain not only gets in the way of shooting but also slows down those wishing to get into close combat. If the clear runs for those wishing to enter combat are as restricted as the firing lanes, it might make for a very interesting game. I think the problem is that the scenery most of us have is very good at blocking line of site, but poor at slowing the advancement of combat monsters. Maybe we would all do well to build some tank traps and swamps to stop those rhinos and make fleet models stumble through difficult terrain with no advantage of great cover.

A good discussion to have. ^_^
 
#8 ·
I use 25% in most games. I usually divide the table into quarters and fill up one quarter. Usually spilling over the edges a bit. So it maybe close to 30% in the end. I make sure to take a mix of flat (lakes and rivers), bunkers (infantry can shoot over, but is difficult terrain) and woods (size 3). Usually we don't put size 3 in the middle of the board. Makes for a nice "no man's land" shooting gallery.
 
#11 ·
I like the last few examples. They seem to provide a good solution. I feel that in most of the games I play, players only own terrain that provides cover or blocks sight and movemet completely. These tend to reduce the chances of a shooty army and increase the chances of a choppy army. Water features and bunkers such as magnet_man suggests are great for balancing things back for a shooty army. And city-fight, while giving lots of cover for advancing choppy armies, also gives plenty of protection for shotty armies by placing them in difficult to reach places with clear fire lanes.
 
#13 ·
The biggest problem I have found with my club is that the majority of our terrain blocks line of sight but is only "difficult" meaning I have to move around it or into it to shoot through it but my opponent can often walk right through it. It is supposed to slow them down, and doesn't, it's supposed to prevent my shooting and does.
I would like to see more features like walls and cliffs and fences or things that would at least force my opponents to divert some as opposed to being slowed by an amorphous generic terrain feature. The only comparison I can give from experience is mordheim. In that game you are forced to look for doors, gaps in walls or the occasional window to shoot from or move into a building. Now I grant you this doesn't work as well as for the squad based combat of 40k but it forces a more strategic battle, timing where your men are on the battlefield relative to your opponent is crucial.
 
#14 ·
Yeah, that is the same problem we often have with terrain. It only benefits an assault army because often it is Area Terrain that completely blocks my LOS but only marginally slows him down, and even provides him extra staying power while within it.

Our local Nid player can be quite unfriendly when it comes to terrain placement and he ALWAYS bitches to get more added to the table, even if a third party placed it. I think we might just start playing at hobby and GW stores more and just use their terrain as-its-placed so that we don't have to argue over bias or impartiality of our buddies.

Which is unfortunate, because it's very convenient to have a board of your own to play on.
 
#15 ·
I usually play with a lot of terrain on my tables, because tables with lots of terrain usually look cooler.

It is a shame, because it does usually favour assaulty armies, but that's the way it works out for me. Oh well.

Anyway, unfortunately, very little terrain is actually impassible in 40k--or, at least, very little of the terrain at my store is actually impassible. That means that it's much easier to block line of sight than it is to seriously impede movement.
 
#16 ·
I like water features. You can make them dangerous, difficult, or impassable. One game when we couldn't figure out what to do with water we rolled a die; 1-2 = dangerous, 3-4 = difficult, 5-6 = impassable. This made for an interesting game. Maybe you can cut some thin pieces of grey felt for now and just claim that it's a level 3 impassable wall. Generally our only impassable terrain is any terrain where we can't place a model. At our game shop we have some aquarium tank rocks that you can't balance a model on. Therefore it becomes impassable.
 
#17 ·
One thing I think though is that the rules are already biased towards letting close combat beat shooting in ultimate potential. [/QUOTE said:
I agree wholeheartedly, and have often said the same thing myself. However, I prefer to play city-fight, as it is where my close fire marine tactics come into their own light.

Also, never trust GW with their crap ideas. 25% to them means that if you have a 4x8 table, and divide it into 1x1 squares, 4 of those squares should have SOME kind of scenery in them, size not related.
When playing open-field games, we play corner to corner, toss some terrain in the center to block up shooting lanes from deployment, and throw some extra bits over the rest of the tabke. It results in the CC guys hoofing it to mid-field, and the shooters racing to get around the flanks. It makes for great fun. If you want to use a method like this, we discovered one like it in the CoD book, it transfers quite nicely.
 
#18 ·
We normally dont use a lot of terrain, usually a few forests & small buildings, maybe a hill, or 2, with a fairly open centre. Overall I guess it would be about 20% coverage.
But lately my opponent seems to like placing a lot of those small GW 40k walls around the field. (about 4-6).. So this means we dont have a lot of terrain but units are getting a lot of cover saves. I find it a bit annoying having all these nice AP2 weapons while those pesky Chaos Havocs are still getting 4+ ward saves. It takes a lot of shooting to get through the first 3-4 marines with a 4+ ward, just so you can START to kill the heavy weapons.
I must say it was very satifying to nuke the whole squad in 1 shot from a combined Fire Prism beam (dispersed) :D

It favors a shooty army greatly because it gives them cover without blocking LOS like a larger piece of terrain would.
I wouldnt quite say it's unfair because both of my 40k armies are mostly shooty too (but slightly less static & needs to move), so it works both ways, but I would probably still prefer we had less walls & more LoS blocking scenery.

FB is a little different in that it's supposed to be 2 armies meeting in an old-fashioned pitched battle in the middle of a field etc, so usually the centre is fairly open, with a few forests & hills etc further towards the edges & flanks. The rule-book even suggest NO terrian within 18" of the centre point.

I prefer a lot of scenery in 40k because it encourages better tactics etc. It can boil down to a heavy weapon slug-fest if there isnt enough terrain blocking LoS.

Cheers
 
#19 ·
On the subject of terrain, I like a lot of LOS blocking terrain, however, it can start getting annoying when almost every piece of terrain offers a 4+ save.

Thats why I try to play with this in mind: Most terrain should be 5+, some terrain can be 4+, but an equal amount should be 6+.

That way, they're is only 1 or sometimes 2 squads which can get a 4+ save. But this still keeps the table looking cool, and allow for plenty of LOS blocking terrain, such as forests.

When armies can fit 3 or 4 squads into 4+ cover, it really starts to change the balance of the game. Especially when its a Nids player trying to get all his Fex's 4+ cover, no way thats fair.
 
#21 ·
On the subject of terrain, I like a lot of LOS blocking terrain, however, it can start getting annoying when almost every piece of terrain offers a 4+ save.

Thats why I try to play with this in mind: Most terrain should be 5+, some terrain can be 4+, but an equal amount should be 6+.

That way, they're is only 1 or sometimes 2 squads which can get a 4+ save. But this still keeps the table looking cool, and allow for plenty of LOS blocking terrain, such as forests.

When armies can fit 3 or 4 squads into 4+ cover, it really starts to change the balance of the game..
Exactly

I think maybe I'll suggest we make the walls a 5+ cover, or use less of them.
 
#27 ·
Silent Bob said:
I play marines--most saves are already better than anything cover's gonna give me!
Cute.

I always enjoy a table that makes geographical/narrative sense (ie: why is that building next to those trees? Are the trees a park in a city? Is the building a hunters cabin? Why are those trees tropical jungle, and those snow covered pines? Huh?), but that's generally not something that is too hard to achieve with a bit of careful thinking, and not just using whatever comes out of the club terrain box first.

As far as making a balanced game, I generally try and do what the rule book says.
25-40% terrain, mostly 5+ cover saves (mainly ruins and trees), and a rough split between sizes 1-3, though mostly LOS blocking.

I normally try to ensure that each deployment zone has at least one 'firebase', but that it won't completely dominate the battlefield.

Common sense really.

-t.
 
#28 ·
I can SWEAR that I replied to a similar thread before I dissapeared for a couple of months.. but alas I have no reply here... until NOW!

Well, I can say what "we" do at the place where I play, and I like t a lot. We roll a d3 per quadrant that we are playing, and use some common sense. If we are playing on a 4x4, and we roll 12 pieces of terrain, we don't pull out the HUMONGULOUS modular terrain pieces.
The game's about havin fun and if you choke the board with terrain, that's not always fun.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top