Too much Terrain?

[dblaz3r]

Great looking table, I'd happily play up to 2k on that.

[Adra]

Well it looks like a great table to me....

....but more importantly...I have that same plastic shelf unit you have and i see you have painted it the same colour as the wall so its blends in. Thats a good idea...im totaly going to steal that idea for my new game room. Adra Away!!!!!!

[Azulthar]

Looks great, but for a 'balanced' game I would use less terrain personally.

Really depends on what you find more important.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

Lovely looking table, and the amount of terrain looks just about adequate. I think I would prefer some of the terrain to be a bit more dense, but it looks like it should give fun games.

[Lord-Gen Bale Chambers]

Great looking table, I would love to play on it.

I always like more terrain. A lot of terrain and multiple levels is a good way to change the transport meta. When you put objectives on a 3rd or 4th floor, you force troops to get out. When the ideal path of a transport is full of difficult terrain checks and the few clear spots are covered with your opponents ant-tank weapons, you are adding more to the game.

People that complain are probably those who can't line up there tanks across the board so they can all fire. On a board like that or with similar or more terrain, the tanks all end up blocking each others line of site and getting in the way if one gets immobilized on the only clear "road".

Points-wise, 1500-1750 is probably the most you could use on a side.

[Phaeron Setek]

That table looks amazing. It actually reminds me of real areas of the world I've seen whilst on vacation. And that is hard to achieve. Good job, sir.

And the hardest table I've ever played on was a city fight table designed by an old manager at my LGWS. It was 8'x4' with 8" wide roads and ruins on almost every block... one screw-up and you were toast. Although, it was truly the heyday of my Wraiths. Hide in a building->Assault enemy through the wall-> consolidate back through the wall... untouchable.

[Captain Ventris]

For those inquiring on the rules we use for ruins... If your models are physically moving over rubble or a wall, its difficult terrain, if not, clear.

[TheDungen]

I call rule of awesome on this discussion. Its a good amount of terrain if it looks like an awesome place for a battle to take place.

Your board looks awesome so it passes. if your opponent can create a open board that looks just as awesome I'll take it into consideration.

[Toadius80]

Personal opinion is the 1/4 rule is the minimum. So that's fine to me. Looks great too so id have no problem playing on your tables bud.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[unknown_lifeform]

I'd love to play on that table, looks totally fine to me. You have a good mix on there and haven't fallen into the classic traps of not having enough LOS blocking stuff or spreading everything out evenly. You have some dense areas and some open areas.

Personally I'd rather err on the side of overdoing terrain than underdoing it. Most of the actual tactics in a game of 40k come from moving and positioning. Lots of varied terrain accentuates this and encourages a mobile armies, which IMO is more fun. And whilst that could be said to benefit certain armies pretty much any army can be chosen to work well in dense terrain unless you have completely overdone it. When I hear people talking about how the only thing that matters is the army list and there aren't any tactics in 40k I always wonder how many of them are playing on open tables and just rolling dice at each other.

[loveless]

Looks fine to me - I'd say it's a bit above the minimum, but that's the minimum, not the maximum. Great-looking table.

[big squig]

That's a wonderful table and is exactly how much terrain you should play with...if not more. It looks like a battlefield too which I must say is rare with most wargamers.

[grey knights rock]

I think this looks like the perfect amount of terrain.

[SLeepy]

I think the amount of terrain completely depends on what type it is. If that ruin is only difficult for scaling the walls, then that is great. If it is all area, then that is not great. If the tree clumps are area, great. If the tree clumps are impassible… could be ok. If the cracked ground in the open are difficult, then I think you might have too much terrain.

Now I love how it looks, but assault armies or mechanized might have a serious time just moving depending on how you classify your terrain. I personally think it is fine as long as there is enough open space to get a transport across the open areas without a test or deepstrike a 10 man unit without just about auto-hitting something that can hurt your troops.

One thing I noted after looking at it again is that there does not seem like a bunch of room for vehicles depending on the deployment (some quarters look filled with forest or ruin). I would love to run infantry in this one due to all the epic terrain and move-shoot-cover I imagine perhaps my immortals performing.

Hmm, I would say as a final decision that the table looks fantastic, but is perhaps a bit vehicle constrained. If some of the terrain is removable then it would not hurt to have some games with less or perhaps a different configuration that has massively weaker/sparser cover in the middle or in certain quarters to allow more paths (though it is cool to plow through a forest or a wall). I say weaker because everything you have (with the exception of the low ruin) looks like it could hide everything except a monolith (the only thing I have for reference, sorry). But over all this is defiantly something I would want to play on, but perhaps variety is in order (then again, perhaps I have the perspective wrong and there is more space than I think there is).

[totgeboren]

As others have said, the table looks awesome, and I would love to play on it. However, if you always play with that amount of terrain I can understand if some in your group feels like you are rigging the game against him. For example, I could imagine my Armoured Krumpany would have a hard time on that table, seeing as how there very few avenues open for larger vehicles to drive through. Someone who want to play mech would probably have a hard time, and very fast assault armies can advance almost untouched at many places of the board, meaning for example Tau would have a hard time.

Those who like to use small fast outflanking vehicles will also be punished, seeing as how you can't really speed up the flank with a bunch of say buggies without them getting immobilized, or even being able to shoot anything from the side. But sometimes battlefields are like that, some units work best in the open, some in terrain. Lots of terrain makes vehicles worse, so as long as your group likes infantry, you can promote that by having lots of terrain.

What I feel is most important is that you vary the terrain from game to game. I have been playing in cityfight landscapes for years, and now I made my own desert terrain, and I can tell you, 40k became a totally new game when you couldn't easily hide your vehicles (I'm making new and larger terrain now, but in the beginning when I didn't have much terrain avalible...)

[cynic]

Looks perfect to me.

[gutsmaka]

not too much, and actually has a real look to it, not just random terrain scattered everywhere. I'd play up to 2.5 k on that

[KaisKlip]

We need someone to come out and say that yes, it is too much terrain, so we can have a discussion ^_^

[xerxeshavelock]

2 things spring to mind with those photos. First, the areas of some of the peices of terrain are bigger than I usually see, but aren't too tall so would work well for the current ruleset. Second - the height of the terrain makes it look as though there is more than usual. If those trees were replaced by bog-brush trees, and the ruins were the small plastic ruins the table would look quite sparse. Now there are more fliers in the game (I mean tall skimmers atm) that height may even give a better game.

[unknown_lifeform]

very fast assault armies can advance almost untouched at many places of the board, meaning for example Tau would have a hard time.

Really? I'd be happy to play my Tau on that board. My army is plenty mobile so I can either manoevre round the flanks to get LOS behind tall objects or make use of the large areas of open ground to fall back and force my opponent to cross them before getting into HTH. I could only see it being a problem for a static gunline army, which in my view is a fault with the army, not the ammount of terrain. I could see a mechanised, non skimming army with no rough terrain modifications being a bit restricted (but still playable), but this is largely because of large blocks of rough terrain near the table edges rather than the actual ammount of terrain - break some of the large areas up a little to leave some pathways through and it isn't an issue.