The need for clear terrain guidelines and rules is not so much to rein in competitive players as it is to help people from getting it wrong on accident.
A clear and accurate idea of what a balanced and entertaining table looks like is critical!
Especially when so many of the game effects interact with specific terrain types.
10 hours ago, Jake the Hutt said:But some of that terrain is just big flat surfaces, which really shouldn't count as terrain at all.
Indeed.
A patch of rough ground or a 1"x4" piece of debris is not terrain by itself. Your battlefield shouldn't look like WW1 No Mans Land.
More like this,
And less like this,
3 hours ago, SoonerTed said:2.5x2.5 is 6.25 square feet, which is 35% of 18 square feet (6 ft by 3 ft).
Plenty of terrain by the recommendations, right?
Wait, which mat are you talking about?
I play on a 6x3, the mat in the picture is about 23"x23" (or 1.91 feet, sorry I am not currently in the same state as the mat) or approximately 3.67 square feet....
6x3 mat is 18 square feet
25% of 18 is 4.5
The square root of 4.5 is 2.132......
Point is I'm still missing about a square foot in order to get minimum terrain threshold.
On 5/28/2018 at 12:45 AM, Zrob314 said:Wait, which mat are you talking about?
I play on a 6x3, the mat in the picture is about 23"x23" (or 1.91 feet, sorry I am not currently in the same state as the mat) or approximately 3.67 square feet....
6x3 mat is 18 square feet
25% of 18 is 4.5
The square root of 4.5 is 2.132......
Point is I'm still missing about a square foot in order to get minimum terrain threshold.
You had said the mat was "more like 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet"
1 hour ago, SoonerTed said:You had said the mat was "more like 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet"
Yep, I was in Ohio when I posted that and the mat was in Colorado my apologies for remembering, same for when I made the post on Sunday.
So, I just this moment picked it up and put my tape measure to it. It is 18x24 (specifically it is an Alvin GBM1824)...so that's 3 feet square, original post stands and I'm missing 1.5 square feet of terrain in the original picture.
Apologies for the confusion.
Ssoooooooo please FFG five us an official terrain coverage %, cause it’s really needed ?
4 hours ago, Ritalbringer said:Ssoooooooo please FFG five us an official terrain coverage %, cause it’s really needed ?
They did. 1/4 = 25% ?
Edited by CaptainRocket
We use a lot of pieces but it still may not be enough.
Area terrain pending.
10 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:They did. 1/4 = 25% ?
25% is not enough to warrant bringing units with short range e.g. Fleet Troopers or Flamer At-RTs. Especially with true line of sight and terrain not having to block line of sight.
Just now, Rumar said:25% is not enough to warrant bringing units with short range e.g. Fleet Troopers or Flamer At-RTs. Especially with true line of sight and terrain not having to block line of sight.
It depends on the footprint and line of sight impact of the terrain you're using. Fill a quarter of your table with FFG barricades, then spread them out. Fleet troopers and flamers will dominate that table. Dump three large, low hills out there instead, though, and even with the same footprint, their only creating a couple long fire lanes, and short range stuff will be useless, as you say.
25% is enough, but not if you're using **** (from a gameplay impact perspective) terrain in the first place.
Well personally I think you want a mix of possible terrain types under the rubric of 25% total...
For example an Endor board that's about claustrophobic jungle warfare with few long fire lanes might see:
A urban assault board on Ryloth that's very vertical and has streets that are long fire lanes might see:
A desert outskirts of Jeddah board that has long open sight lines, but also craters and ridges and crevasse to hide in might have:
12 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:They did. 1/4 = 25% ?
Not that I doubt you, but where is that from? I can't seem to find it on the email compilation thread, nor in the RRG, but my searches may be ill formed.
The issue that is about to come into play is with the new turrets, in a heavier terrain scenario the rebel one will end up nearly useless.
16 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:Not that I doubt you, but where is that from? I can't seem to find it on the email compilation thread, nor in the RRG, but my searches may be ill formed.
Page 9, in the “Competitive Terrain” box. So, if you want to be technical it only applies if you want to use that rule. But it’s generally a good guideline, I think.
4 minutes ago, nashjaee said:Page 9, in the “Competitive Terrain” box. So, if you want to be technical it only applies if you want to use that rule. But it’s generally a good guideline, I think.
Ah, okay. I wasn't looking for the term "quarter." I view that as a minimum typically, but I'm a mite spoiled at my FLGS. They have a bunch of terrain for things like Bolt Action and 40k, so lots of buildings and area terrain. I think lots of medium sized terrain is preferable to one or two large pieces of terrain honestly. Which is one reason I really like that FFG included barricades in the core box.
1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:I think lots of medium sized terrain is preferable to one or two large pieces of terrain honestly. Which is one reason I really like that FFG included barricades in the core box.
I'm aiming for 9-10 pieces of terrain, mostly LOS blocking. As a rule of thumb, divide the board into 9 equal sectors and make sure there's a least 1 decent piece of terrain in each. The center section especially should have 1 or 2 pieces of good LOS-blocking terrain. I like to combine the included barricades in groupings of 3 or so as a single emplacement.
Proper LOS block in the middle of the table is just as important as having enough terrain.
Routinely i see people at my local game store with tons of terrain on the table, but a simple 1/2" tall hill in the middle so its almost impossible to be out of sight unless youre near the board edge. And then people complain about gunline armies of course.
Just wanted to +1 this thread as it has been immensely helpful. I got Legion at the same time that I picked up an Operation Icestorm box to try Infinity. For how we like to play, I can already tell that a pretty dense urban layout is going to be key. The table setups by Captain Rocket and Lord Cedric on the second page have been particularly inspiring. I don't know how viable it would be (although I play purely casually), but I'd like to create an urban table that is sort of the Star Wars version of where I live in Providence. A wide main "street" with a couple dense blocks of 2 to 3 story buildings on each side - force the AT-STs out to where they'd be more vulnerable, like the Jedha City scene where the walker stomps in with the quick reaction force following the ambush. Don't you dare get caught out in the open on the main road, BUT duck in and out of the alleys or up on to rooftops to really threaten it. Once I've built and acquired the pieces I need, I'll have to play around with it so speeder bikes and the T-47s (which I ADORE) don't feel completely neutered. I've only just started on this now that my minis are getting close to being finished, so hopefully in the weeks ahead I can come back with some pictures of my own.
But thanks to everyone contributing the great pictures - as a newbie to this side of miniatures gaming, I really appreciate threads like this.
The truth is somewhere in between.
That FFG terrain is for demo purposes; they're not evening playing with suppression, let alone most of the terrain rules.
On 6/7/2018 at 4:23 PM, Vineheart01 said:Proper LOS block in the middle of the table is just as important as having enough terrain.
This is super true. I watched a game where they had lots of big pieces but all around the edges of the table. All that meant is an AT-ST sat in one spot and shot all game, while units were funneled into each other because the terrain was being used to effectively create a game on a 2x4 mat with no cover.
In 2 recent games we specifically put out 25% terrain before placing it. Both games felt like they had a lot more tactical nuance and strategy required.
No. I am not playing with enough terrain. Please send me terrain so that I can rectify this situation. Painted preferred, but not required.
On 6/7/2018 at 2:05 AM, Ritalbringer said:Ssoooooooo please FFG five us an official terrain coverage %, cause it’s really needed ?
No thanks. I don't want the man to spoon feed me my games. Official battlefields will lead to definitively best and worst lists and units, which stymies the hobby. Official terrain is treading close to a boardgame. IA already has all the official terrain rules a body can want. Besides I can already hear the bickering and adjudication because a table had 23% or 27% of it's surface area covered and not 25%...
On 6/7/2018 at 4:23 PM, Vineheart01 said:Proper LOS block in the middle of the table is just as important as having enough terrain.
Routinely i see people at my local game store with tons of terrain on the table, but a simple 1/2" tall hill in the middle so its almost impossible to be out of sight unless youre near the board edge. And then people complain about gunline armies of course.
Absolutely! In almost every game I've ever played, the same system works. First plop a big LOS blocking object in the center of the table. Then take turns placing things until one person says there's enough scenery. The other party can then place X number of pieces if they want to, then you flip a coin to see who gets which deployment zone. X varies according to the game system, and the scenery collection being used. It's usually in the low single digits though, and we count lots of little things (ex: 4 pieces of 6" barricade) as 1 piece of scenery.
Edited by TauntaunScout3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:No thanks. I don't want the man to spoon feed me my games. Official battlefields will lead to definitively best and worst lists and units, which stymies the hobby. Official terrain is treading close to a boardgame. IA already has all the official terrain rules a body can want. Besides I can already hear the bickering and adjudication because a table had 23% or 27% of it's surface area covered and not 25%...
The exact set up of each table should be unique, this makes each game dynamic as you have to plan your approach and be mindful of danger zones where you're too exposed, but the type and volume of terrain needs to be specified and standardized.
The mixture and volume of types of terrain makes a huge difference to the game. If you don't have enough LOS blocking terrain then Vader and Fleet Troopers become unusable. Too much scatter and you can't play AT-STs or Air Speeders. Too little scatter terrain, Rebel troopers become unplayable. In order for players of both factions to participate in games and to remove the need for bickering there should be guidelines as to what type and setup should be used.
FWIW, This is my setup.
25% of the table is packed with terrain evenly split between LOS blocking, scatter, area and elevation changes.
I usually pick one piece for the center and then set up the rest so the table is about symmetrical about any 2 axes.
