SgtBrowncoat

Terrain in perspective: My perceptions of terrain usage in wargames.

Rate this Entry
I have spent a lot of time meditating on tabletop terrain usage and I thought I would share some thoughts. I will use Warhammer 40K as my example system, but most of these ideas could apply anywhere.

If there is one thing I have noticed more than anything else when it comes to tabletop terrain, it is that people go for simplicity, in 40K terms, that tends to mean it is either cover or it isn't, and if it is cover, then it provides a 4+ cover save. If not, then it either blocks line of sight or doesn't matter.

There is nothing wrong with simplicity, and I am not here to judge, but I wonder sometimes if players are missing out on a more fulfilling, challenging experience by keeping it so simple.

For example, the 40K rulebook calls for cover that can provide anything from a 3+ to a 6+ cover save, ranging from a true fortification to fences to razor wire. Having a variety of cover types on the table can create interesting decisions and tactical situations, do I move into the 6+ cover to take advantage of a weak spot in my opponent's line? or do I sit tight in 4+ cover, keeping my troops safe, but losing the offensive opportunity?

Another thing that gets lost to simplicity in a lot of games is terrain that doesn't count as cover at all. For example, Roads, Lava flows, Minefields, etc aren't particularly 3D, and usually are forgotten on the tabletop. Roads can allow vehicles to move faster, again creating interesting tactical decisions.

Lava and mines could create dangerous terrain, people seem to forget that dangerous terrain is not limited to bikes and Jump troops. When faced with a strong assault army, for example, I might choose to put my devastators behind a minefield instead of in cover, and let the dangerous terrain provide a more useful barrier, or at least kill a few of the assaulting models as they approach.

How about impassable terrain? I almost never see anyone using impassable or line of site blocking terrain on the tabletop. In keeping with our theme, these types of terrain create more challenges to the player, based upon how they are used. Interestingly, the 40K rulebook recommends about a third of the terrain on the table to be terrain that blocks line of site completely. When was the last time your table had that much line of site blocking terrain on it?

What kinds of terrain and features do you think are missing from the tabletop? What ideas have you had for changing terrain up and making more interesting tactical decisions?

Please comment and let me know what you think, I am considering making a regular thing of these articles. The next one will focus on Warhammer Fantasy battles terrain.

Thanks for reading!
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Patimuss's Avatar
    I feel much the same way Ed. I will be addressing 40k as it is the game I am focusing on the most as of now. It seems as if terrain has become an afterthought. Not only does the typical game completely lose sight of anything other than 4+ cover saves, but the amount of terrain used is severely lacking as well. It seems as if the typical game consists of 2-4 ruins a hill or two and maybe, if you are lucky, some foliage or small walls. Whenever I see a game set up like this it makes me feel sad. 40k is not a game that is meant to be played on wide open fields. Even the rule book suggests that "As a general rule [...] the more terrain, the better the gaming experience". To me this is one of the leading causes for my least favorite parts of the hobby, stagnant meta game, and stagnant gaming experiences. More terrain, and more diversified terrain for that matter, makes for more interesting games and allows for balance to be created amongst the armies. Perhaps power armor armies wouldn't be so popular if they couldn't just stand and shoot across the board or if they had to deal with dangerous terrain which ignores armor. Having to make decisions and such based around terrain makes each game as unique and thought provoking as the terrain you put on the table as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting a game like 40k to be deeply strategic or balanced, but terrain can help. So I am all for the use of more terrain and more diversified terrain. In my eyes it does nothing but make the game better.
  2. crazyman522's Avatar
    I agree. I have only played 3 games at haven but when i did play people only got what looked cool. It was not the way I pictured the game. But its not just at haven alot of videos I watch online are boring with no terrain or very little. I am making some of my own terrain along with trying to paint my imperial fists bc I would like to have more of a challenge. People make the game seem boring and non-realistic. Maybe its just me and my overreactive imagination