Are we playing the same game?

I've gamed in a variety of places over the years whether LGS's, homes or even motels etc. From what I've seen there is an often overlooked portion of the hobby, one that is integral to defining the environment. In fact it literally changes everything. I'm speaking of terrain.

So which game do you commonly play:
The game where you might get a single line of sight blocking terrain piece if your lucky two, and then maybe a smattering of forests or a fence?

The game where terrain dense boards are littered in ruins and wreckage with multi level buildings and maybe even water features or race specific scenery?

Something altogether different.. (elaborate please)



I ask because it makes a difference.
The first game is strictly a shooting game. It favors guns and range, and movement is king when there is no down side. Here infantry have no place and assault is dead.

The second game is really an entirely different animal. It actually enables a fourth phase.. the assault phase. This game is more hostile to mechanized ground forces, caters to infantry more than the first and can even cause entire air forces to fight for space to place the models.  


So I'm curious, how do you play? Do you choose and place terrain for thematic purposes or until both players are happy, or do you roll off aiming for 25% board coverage like in ages past?
Do you use 'those same 3 terrain pieces we got again' or something else like beer cans? (yea I'm guilty too heh heh budweiser pod assault ftw!).

The difference is part of whats at the core of how units and even whole armies are perceived and evaluated by players, how advice is given and received. We may play the same army but do we play the same game??

Heres the floor take it away..

I recently became tired of playing on planet bowling ball, so made some big old hills to block line of sight.

Brom wrote:

So which game do you commonly play:
The game where you might get a single line of sight blocking terrain piece if your lucky two, and then maybe a smattering of forests or a fence?

The game where terrain dense boards are littered in ruins and wreckage with multi level buildings and maybe even water features or race specific scenery?

Something altogether different.. (elaborate please)

I play on tables both light and heavy with terrain.

Tournaments are generally notoriously light though - as they always choose to add tables and participants regardless of their terrain supply. I am pretty sure that's common knowledge and, why, paired with the ruleset, tournament armies are so often shooting favored.

Our local meta tends to be very GW ruins heavy. When the club veterans set up terrain, it's almost always high noon on Main Street: six ruins set up lengthwise down the board in two rows of three, facing one another.

There's enough to give cover to most units, even vehicles, but rarely enough to fully block LOS for any models.

Our scene, even for tournaments, is terrain heavy. LOS blocking terrain will always be a feature and of late some really large terrain pieces, such as a combined basilca administratum/muntions factorum/shrine of the atilla have appeared on tables. We run lots of tournaments and use the entry funds to acquire better terrain sets to play with in the future.
The TOs encourage players to bring everything but S8-10 ignores cover nonsense.

We usually build up small town with GW scenery ruins or even ours, but however the town is usually in the center so you could turn around it. It usually has a small oper area (like plaza) and 2-3 LOS that cut through.

Few times we play with less LOS blockers, mostly because we aim to maintain an equal environment of play and granting cover saves to those army who don't have obscene armor save is considered a fair play.

So, as thumb rule:
*if there is an army with wide armor save 3+, and the other not= high density of LOS blockers.
*if the two army has more of less the same armor save capacity= free density.

I almost always play with 4 LARGE pieces of line of sight blocking terrain placed per player, and 5-8 pieces of small terrain per player.

When setting up games - and for the tourney I am running later this year - I aim for between 25% and 33% of the table being covered with terrain and of that - at least 2 large LOS blockers but ideally 3 or even 4.

Don't forget, night fight more then one turn can help too, if it lasted longer then one turn. Light or heavy set ups, this can benefit DE, eh, some at least.

My whole group generally makes an effort to be a bit heavy on terrain. I don't mind, playing a fast army. My main opponent is Nurgle, so he generally likes to have a good amount of terrain to boost his cover saves / survivability. I don't mind as I feel that a lot of terrain usually adds another tactical element to the matches.

To each their own though. I've been playing with the same guys for like eight years, we're pretty set in our ways

I've learned the hard way that I need to be pro-active about setting up terrain. This is not to say that my opponents are trying to gain an advantage by denying me places to hide; it frequently isn't something that they need to think about. When setting up for a game, if there are not at least four or five structures that will block LOS to my vehicles, I will walk over to the shelf and get some, and distribute them evenly around the table.

This is not entirely for my own benefit. The more terrain that's on the table, the more decisions players will have to make (no matter what their armor saves are), and I think that more decisions = more fun.

I love terrain heavy boards. Ironically I enjoy them the most when I play with my Tau Farsight army, so much fun (for the same reason that I enjoy terrain heavy boards with DE).