Are you playing with enough terrain?

[RogueLeader42 1,001]

6 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Holy crap this was eye opening.  

Allright, the picture below is an average amount of terrain I use in a game (on the green mat)

The mat is only 3 square feet.

A 3x6 800 point game should be using 4.5 square feet of terrain.  I've only been using 2/3 of the terrain I should be using.

This picture includes:

Bunker (Battle Kiwi)

2 Landing pad stands (Battle Kiwi)

2 plasma generators (Battle Kiwi)

Shield Generator/Turbolaser stand (Battle Kiwi)

Scatter terrain (Battle Kiwi)

6 Barricades (FFG)

3 Moisture Vaparators (Imperial Terrain)

7 cargo containers (various type) (Imperial Terrain)

4 types of cargo pallet (Imperial Terrain)

Golan Arms Turret (Imperial Terrain)

Power Generator (Thingaverse)

Scatter Crates (dunno bought them for IA)

 

Still to few!
 

Honestly I also wanted to start a thread about the fact, that too many people use to not enough terrain on their tabels. I also play Infinity and am working on a starship corridors table for it. Would be interesting to see, how it works out in legion. Ne Support and Heavy allowed. Just infantry firefights in cramped environments.

[Lancezh 98]

I agree is not's enough by far zrob, especially since nothing or almost nothing really breaks line of sight.

[Thraug 1,066]

azavander

That looks like about 50% of the mat area in terrain. It may look deceiving from here. Did you measure it out?

[Zrob314 833]

2 hours ago, Lancezh said:

I agree is not's enough by far zrob, especially since nothing or almost nothing really breaks line of sight.

Are you kidding that nothing breaks LOS?

About half of the items in the picture can break LOS to trooper units, about 1/3 can break to an AT-RT (depending on where the target is) and 3 of the items are taller than an AT-ST.  Units can also physically enter the bunker

Edited May 21, 2018 by Zrob314

[svelok 6,487]

9 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Allright, the picture below is an average amount of terrain I use in a game (on the green mat)



The mat is only 3 square feet.

A 3x6 800 point game should be using 4.5 square feet of terrain.  I've only been using 2/3 of the terrain I should be using.

Yeah, exactly this. However much terrain you think is enough, double it. (Those players who come from games like 40k, played on a full 6x4, this picture is fully half the amount of terrain your games should've been using - 40k also has the "25%" rule, which amounts to six square feet.)

Miniatures games are about movement, and without terrain, movement isn't interesting. Use more terrain! Keep adding terrain until you stop liking how much terrain you've got, and I'd bet you never really ever reach that point. Too little terrain turns a movement game into a shooting gallery with dice.

I've yet to play a miniatures game with terrain (eg, not X-Wing/Armada) where players didn't regularly and consistently use way too little. 

And on that point, Infinity terrain is fairly cheap and works pretty well for Legion, IMO. (Legion's height/climbing rules mesh well with Infinity's flat, even levels.)

[LunarSol 1,369]

7 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

Are you kidding that nothing breaks LOS?

About half of the items in the picture can break LOS to trooper units, about 1/3 can break to an AT-RT (depending on where the target is) and 3 of the items are taller than an AT-ST.  Units can also physically enter the bunker

The picture is misleading.  It's top down enough to make things look flatter than they are.  I didn't really notice how tall things were until I saw the shield generator, which from that angle looks almost like its printed on paper.

It's definitely easy to underestimate how much terrain you need.  4.5 square feet of solid terrain is probably the most I've seen in a game, but the game's terrain rules work well with it and make for both dynamically interesting tables and better gameplay experiences.

[azavander 150]

1 hour ago, Thraug said:

azavander

That looks like about 50% of the mat area in terrain. It may look deceiving from here. Did you measure it out?

I did, cause my friend did the same thing. So we piled it all on one side of the table and it took up little over 1/4.  Because of the way I built the terrain on larger bases. (Not knowing the rules) the bigger  of the pieces have custom terrain rules so that parts of them don’t block line of sight down the middle just the sides like a valley as if it was 2 separate pieces. 

[devin.pike.1989 1,546]

Same with frostgrave.  People think the game is super skewed in favor of the shooter wizards.  While the xp table does favor murdering other people's troops, if you have enough terrain it becomes less of an issue.

[FSD 865]

You’d be surprised how much terrain you might be putting in the trash or recycling bins. 

 

Used the floral containers from the kids’ prom to make cargo containers thanks to some gloss black spray paint I had left over from an art project.

Bought 5 lbs of hamburger and the container makes a great bunker after being hit with a cheap can of hammered silver spray paint I picked up at Wal-mart. 

Players do not have to spend tons of money to get enough terrain to fill 1/4 of the table. 

[CaptainRocket 527]

Thank you for this thread!!! ?

There is just not enough being played with from what I see and it's totally skewing folks perception of vehicles and things like Fleet Troopers.

My personal two thoughts about terrain:

1. When selecting terrain, put an objective marker in the center of the table, then fill one corner with terrain, all touching. Only when that one quarter of the table is totally full (Seems like a lot right?), can you take it all off and start placing to make a map. For most folks I wager the density will *feel* like 50%.

2. When selecting terrain be sure to take at least 50% of that (12% total) that will block line of sight even to an AT-ST. (An AT-ST is 1.5 range / 9", so bring at least 10% 1 range/6" tall terrain). This makes repulsor craft on both sides *way* more survivable!

 

 

[NeonWolf 942]

I recently ran an Operation: Gathering Forces event at our LGS so I thought I would share the tables that I set up.  I did my best to make sure each one had different types of terrain and actually spent almost an hour between rounds 2 & 3 resetting the terrain since the table size increased from 3'x3' to 6'x3'.  I followed the Competitive Terrain rules (RRG p.9) so the terrain filled roughly 1/4 of the table (3'x18") and each piece was at least Range 1 from other pieces.  The only exception to that was the table with the barricades, which had the major terrain pieces at least Range 1 from the others with the barricades placed after all other terrain.

Table 1: This was the "Endor" table. The green felt areas with the smaller trees counted as Light Woods the height of the trees, so it did not block line of sight or movement but did provide light cover to Troopers, Speeder Bikes, and AT-RTs.  The brown areas with the tree trunks counted as Heavy Woods that were infinitely high, so they were difficult terrain for Troopers and Ground Vehicles and impassible for Speeders.  They did not block LoS but provided Heavy Cover to all units.

Table 2: This was the one the players called the "Scarif" table. The green felt areas were Light Woods as tall as the trees again.  The river was Shallow Water so difficult terrain for Troopers and Ground Vehicles.

Table 3: This one didn't have a theme but one of the players brought the Tatooine style buildings so I used them on a table.  The hills were tall enough to provide cover to Troopers, Speeder Bikes, and AT-RTs, as was the smaller of the two buildings.  The taller building was tall enough to provide cover to AT-STs as well.  Of course, all terrain provided Heavy Cover if it obscured a mini.  No cover for being on top of the hills.  The smaller crescent shaped rocks blocked LoS to troopers and gave Heavy Cover to AT-RTs and Speeder Bikes.

Table 4:  No planetary theme here, just wanted to use ruins and barricades to go for a war-torn setting.  The square-ish, flat topped building was impassible, all other building were Ruins per the RRG. The taller building on the right was Height 2 and blocked LoS for all units, the rest were Height 1 and blocked LoS to everything except walkers.

 

ROUND 3-4 TABLES

Table 1: Same terrain rules as above, just a larger table.

Table 2: Again, same rules as above just larger.

Table 3: Most of the terrain was from Table 4 above so the same rules as posted there.  The Craters were difficult terrain to Troopers & Ground Vehicles, Open to Repulsor vehicles, and provided Heavy Cover to Troopers overlapping it but not to Ground or Repulsor Vehicles.

Table 4: This one ended up being the "Tatooine" table for the 3rd & 4th rounds.  All terrain pieces were considered Impassible for all unites, except for the hills.  The taller rock formation in the front left of the picture was Height 3 so even T-47's had to fly around.

[C3POFETT 833]

I love the idea of the more terrain the better. I have been feverishly painting away on 3 core sets. My reason was that my tables are "interior" tables. A Death Star/Star Destroyer interior is my first table and a Bespin table is in the works. The Bespin Table will be based on EA's Star Wars Battlefront Administrators Palace map. It will offer interior spaces with loading platforms. I did a small one for Imperial Assault custom skirmishes and I really loved it.

I have a lot of homemade terrain as well as some 3D printed stuff for an Imperial Outer Rim Oupost map and I felt like I had too much but laying out on 1/4 of the table I am like one big piece or two small pieces shy of a full table.

Thanks for the info and the thread.

[shmitty 3,315]

Area forests are really great.  GF9 used to make really nice ones, but they are no longer in print.  I've been looking around for something comparable, but will probably just end up making my own.

[Lord Cedric 141]

I'd prefer having more terrain than less. But I also prefer aesthetics and making sure that terrain "fits" thematically, makes sense the way it's layed out as well as a balance for both sides. Here are some snap shots of my average tables:

 

[kaffis 407]

16 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

It's going to be interesting.  As it is I stop putting things down because it feels too full or crowded.  going to have to try to adjust my density level as it were.

One thing that can contribute to feeling too "dense" is using lots of small objects. We measure our subjective density perception by the amount of space between objects, not by how much space they're actually taking up. So if you think about putting down a quarter table's worth of, say, coffee table books and spreading them across the table, it's going to feel pretty sparse -- the firing lanes are wide (but broken up in a couple places), and while you might have to go around a book, you'll never have a problem squeezing even an AT-ST between two books. But if you were to put down a quarter table's worth of FFG core-set-issue barricades and spread them across the table, the lanes between them would probably be too narrow to fit even a Speeder Bike base.

I notice you have a lot of smaller pieces in there. This is probably contributing to the cramped feeling you're getting. If you swapped some of the smaller pieces like the moisture vaporators or the cargo pallets out for some more larger pieces, it would *feel* more open because you've got more breathing room to move in the fewer, wider lanes between terrain.

On 5/20/2018 at 5:45 PM, Jake the Hutt said:

Also, flat terrain like low hills, swamps, puddles and rubble may count as difficult terrain, but likely won't block line of sight or provide cover. I think you really need a LOT of line of sight blocking and cover providing terrain for Legion.

More than that, at least some of it (and probably a significant portion, like a third of it) should be able to block LOS for something as tall as an AT-ST. People coming from 40k and Infinity are really underestimating how much of their "LOS blocking" terrain the AT-ST can just see over unless you're practically in contact with the base of a thing or the whole way across the table.

10 hours ago, Lancezh said:

I agree is not's enough by far zrob, especially since nothing or almost nothing really breaks line of sight.

In addition to a bunch of it probably being pretty low when considering AT-STs, as above, don't let fancy and high-quality sculpts like the Moisture Vaporators fool you -- those are almost useless as terrain from a gameplay standpoint. They're too narrow to block more than maybe one model out of a squad, so they're not going to provide cover very often at all, and they're definitely not going to block LOS to anything. They're nice pieces, visually, so I'd definitely want to sprinkle them on; but I'd basically consider them "free" terrain that I wouldn't even put down on my 1/4 table measuring.

5 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

2. When selecting terrain be sure to take at least 50% of that (12% total) that will block line of sight even to an AT-ST. (An AT-ST is 1.5 range / 9", so bring at least 10% 1 range/6" tall terrain). This makes repulsor craft on both sides *way* more survivable!

Since you bring up repulsor craft, it's worth pointing out that having some tall area terrain is also helpful. I really hope we get to see some nice Endor/Kashyyyk tree kits someday, that are a good 18-24" tall and well-sculpted to evoke their settings.

[Stasy 2,502]

As a noob to terrain for mini gaming, how tall should the terrain be for the AT-ST and blocking it's LOS?

I'm just getting around to making some stuff for my table, but since my Walker is still sealed in box (I only have so much time to do stuff), I'm not sure how big some of my terrain should be. 

[Zrob314 833]

1 hour ago, Stasy said:

As a noob to terrain for mini gaming, how tall should the terrain be for the AT-ST and blocking it's LOS?

I'm just getting around to making some stuff for my table, but since my Walker is still sealed in box (I only have so much time to do stuff), I'm not sure how big some of my terrain should be. 

An AT-ST is 7-9 inches tall depending on how you pose it.

[Chucknuckle 2,811]

16 hours ago, Katarn said:

Where possible I try to get a narrative to the table. 

It looks a lot better when you have a small village with a main road through, the crops a short dirt trail away with the woods cleared to the verge of the farmland.  Or an imperial refinery with slag heaps to one side and a polluted river running through.  Just plonking terrain down haphazardly or trying to make it symmetrical just doesn't have the aesthetics of a wargame- there's no immersion. 

This does mean there's probably a slight advantage to one side or another but unless you're in a tournament, that's life (and from what I've read, war).

Agreed. I find if you think about what you're battling over, the notions of what terrain to use sort of come to you naturally.

[CaptainRocket 527]

8 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

Thank you for this thread!!! ?

There is just not enough being played with from what I see and it's totally skewing folks perception of vehicles and things like Fleet Troopers.

My personal two thoughts about terrain:

1. When selecting terrain, put an objective marker in the center of the table, then fill one corner with terrain, all touching. Only when that one quarter of the table is totally full (Seems like a lot right?), can you take it all off and start placing to make a map. For most folks I wager the density will *feel* like 50%.

2. When selecting terrain be sure to take at least 50% of that (12% total) that will block line of sight even to an AT-ST. (An AT-ST is 1.5 range / 9", so bring at least 10% 1 range/6" tall terrain). This makes repulsor craft on both sides *way* more survivable!

 

 

Here's an illustration of my table from yesterday... it looks like it's a pretty dense urban layout, but it still all tucks into 1/4 the board!

[cookluke5150 117]

The problem with the board above and some of the others is that your are ignoring the range 1 in-between each terrain piece rule.

[Brightguy 130]

Which is a quality guideline, but I don't believe it needs to be or was intended to be followed literally for all pieces.  Otherwise you couldn't have barricades touching each other.

[azavander 150]

17 minutes ago, cookluke5150 said:

The problem with the board above and some of the others is that your are ignoring the range 1 in-between each terrain piece rule.

RRG pg 9 in the box point 2

 

Starting with the player whose army has the lowest total point value (if both players’ armies have the same point total, flip a coin), players take turns placing a single piece of terrain on the battlefield, beyond range 1 of all other pieces of terrain. If terrain cannot be placed beyond range 1, the player may place it anywhere on the battlefield as long as it is not touching another piece of terrain.

 

it’s a pretty loose rule based on that emphasis mine, but you do make a good point that I had forgotten about

 

[Copes 225]

6 hours ago, Lord Cedric said:

I'd prefer having more terrain than less. But I also prefer aesthetics and making sure that terrain "fits" thematically, makes sense the way it's layed out as well as a balance for both sides. Here are some snap shots of my average tables:

 

Absolutely love your setup. Where is the mat from? I'm a huge fan.

[Amanal 2,557]

10 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

Table 1: Same terrain rules as above, just a larger table.

Table 2: Again, same rules as above just larger.

Table 3: Most of the terrain was from Table 4 above so the same rules as posted there.  The Craters were difficult terrain to Troopers & Ground Vehicles, Open to Repulsor vehicles, and provided Heavy Cover to Troopers overlapping it but not to Ground or Repulsor Vehicles.

Just a suggestion but try using the same terrain and have the little disks with palm trees on top allow LOS through them, while the larger felt pieces are big enough that even though they are only light woods they will block LOS through the area of terrain. Also, even though the trees modeled are small make them as high or higher than the tallest model. In both games this would limit the AT-ST being able to see everything and conversely everything seeing it.

I think you'll your games will be a touch more fun as a result.

 

[Zrob314 833]

2 hours ago, azavander said:

Starting with the player whose army has the lowest total point value (if both players’ armies have the same point total, flip a coin), players take turns placing a single piece of terrain on the battlefield, beyond range 1 of all other pieces of terrain. If terrain cannot be placed beyond range 1, the player may place it anywhere on the battlefield as long as it is not touching another piece of terrain.

^^^ This

This isn't 6 asteroids in a starfield, this is trying to create ground based cover in a game where movement is largely optional.