Terrain saturation made easy

[whargoul666]

Everybody talks about how much terrain we need to play over, the new meta being lots and lots, but nobody seems to agree over how much is enough. I have been thinkin about this and have figured out its easy. You need 2'x3' of terrain to maintain 25% on a 4'x6' board (I think that is the BRB recommendation). I have been basing all of my terrain on 1/8" pcb board and now I have realized that the easiest way to judge terrain is that I need 6 1'x1' pieces and to spread this out cut some of them down to 1'x6" or 6"x6" then you can easily add up your percentage and get to that 2'x3' sweet spot. From there add or subtract 1'x1' chunks to make denser or thinner boards.

6 1'x1' tiles of terrain will field a pretty sparse table (but be completely legal), it is my feeling that the more you cut these 6 pieces down into smaller parts, the better coverage you will have (even though that's not really technically true).

Example 6"x6"

Sooo... You need 4 of these to make 1 1'x1' of your chunk of 6.

I dunno if this is something everybody knows already, but it seems to me an easy way to determine the amount of terrain to play on.

[Dave Mcturk]

loving terrain deployment in 6th.... very 'traditional' for wargaming...
we take the 'control' out of it by throwing 6 d6 ... one for each 6th of the table..
alternating terrain placement cannot exceed the dice rolled 'tariff' for each sector...

a 1 is max 6"x6" a 3 is 12" by 12" ...

so players have some control over terrain but not enough to make it a given...

one thing that has developed is the deployment of 'open area terrain' ... ie fields, scrubland, low hills... that give 'infantry cover only' ... almost realistic !

equally the random element means players cannot predict dense or light terrain....

[knas ser]

I like the terrain generation but dislike that fortifications are placed first. It makes no more sense to me than placing terrain after the rest of the army deploys would make. I mean maaaybe that forest grew up in front of the fortress long after the fortress was built, but really? And the hill just grew as well, did it? And the marines decided to plant their Aegis defence line behind the hill as well?

Silliness!!!

[Dave Mcturk]

we place fortifications after terrain deployment ... and dont decide deployment area until after terrain deployment ! ... stops the players playing clever beggars... but allows for creating fire lanes or blocking to suit players armies ...

in general i think the 'fortifications' are just another attempt to grab money out of your pocket

[Sizzly]

What an excellent rule of thumb. Gonna crib it for the table I'm working on. Once I have double that amount (for variation) I can finally take a break from world building.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

in general i think the 'fortifications' are just another attempt to grab money out of your pocket

Pretty much, but they do add another layer of depth to army list selection so I'll live with it.

[knas ser]

in general i think the 'fortifications' are just another attempt to grab money out of your pocket

I think that about everything that GW does!

But it doesn't stop me thinking fortifications are cool. I'd just like to see some non-Imperial ones added.

[Sizzly]

I concur. Chaos is easy enough to do, but some fortifications with an Eldar bent would be grand.

[DarkLink]

Terrain is as much about blocking LOS as it is about area coverage. In fact, it's more important. Terrain does three things, slow movement, block los, and generate cover saves. All three are important, especially since some armies havebwideapread Ignores Cover.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Dark Link speaks truths. LOS blocking is very important.