Mr Mystery
08-01-2013, 02:32 PM
Evening all. Just another simple sounding, but probably surprisingly divisive topic from yours truly.
Simple enough question....what is your ideal gaming table? Not so much 'four legs good, two legs bad' type stuff, but the actual board level itself.
What sort of terrain do you prefer? Should it be an eclectic mix? Randomised? Hand selected? Placed aesthetically? Mixture of deployment types?
I ask because all too often, people seem to discount what sort of terrain you might have to face across when rating units and armies, and clearly the style of table being played on will have a massive impact.
Now, for me, I like a 6'x4' board. It seems to be pretty standard, and the dimensions don't overly favour any army's playstyle. Even with a refused flank, you can still realistically get to grips with the enemy in the space of a turn or two, whilst they still get the benefit of being able to deal with you piecemeal (if they're good, and you're sloppy at any rate). 4x4? Just not wide enough. Favour assault armies too much for my tastes, and hinders manoeuvrable armies on account there's nowhere to realistically manoeuvre too. 8x4? Refused flank becomes too reliable. For instance, a small model count Tau army can quite happily castle up in one corner against a horde army and have the game to themselves.
As for terrain? The more the merrier. The random rules are useful to keep things challenging, but ideally, I'd want the old 'quarter of the board' rule in effect (by that, you section off a quarter, and fill it with terrain as densely as you can, THEN place it from there). Gives a solid amount of terrain, evening things up a little bit.
But then, there's height consideration. Lots of tall buildings with gantries, and the shooty armies can just camp out, picking off the enemy willy-nilly as they struggle to lay a claw/hand/solid boot to the face on you. All low level, and you're giving assault armies too easy a time, and limiting the effectiveness and scope of sniper or firebase type units.
LoS LoS LoS.....yep. Again, ideally a variety of terrain, some blocking LoS entirely, some restricting, others quite open. All about keeping the field open to both players.
But there's one thing I don't like, and that's regular games on modular boards, where hills are built in (like the Realm of Battle. So I bought the flat sections!) This is mostly a hangover from Fantasy, as hills were really important, and occasionally (like against the oh-so-clever and tactically challenging/mind numbingly dull Dwarf gunline) overpowering. Much better to my mind to just have a flat playing field. That way, nobody can take set board conditions into account when writing their list, arguably creating more of a challenge from the get go.
Other than that, I like a fitting (themed) selection of terrain. Mixes it up a bit, and again, gives new opportunities. I say themed would be ideal, as nothing looks quite as odd as a heavily industrialised imperial sector......with a couple of random woods....
So yeah. For me it's a big part of getting a game 'right'. Flat, 6x4 board, with a selection of quarter filling terrain, set down by a third party, or if none available, randomisation (including scattering the terrain).
How about you? (no right or wrong answer here folks!)
Simple enough question....what is your ideal gaming table? Not so much 'four legs good, two legs bad' type stuff, but the actual board level itself.
What sort of terrain do you prefer? Should it be an eclectic mix? Randomised? Hand selected? Placed aesthetically? Mixture of deployment types?
I ask because all too often, people seem to discount what sort of terrain you might have to face across when rating units and armies, and clearly the style of table being played on will have a massive impact.
Now, for me, I like a 6'x4' board. It seems to be pretty standard, and the dimensions don't overly favour any army's playstyle. Even with a refused flank, you can still realistically get to grips with the enemy in the space of a turn or two, whilst they still get the benefit of being able to deal with you piecemeal (if they're good, and you're sloppy at any rate). 4x4? Just not wide enough. Favour assault armies too much for my tastes, and hinders manoeuvrable armies on account there's nowhere to realistically manoeuvre too. 8x4? Refused flank becomes too reliable. For instance, a small model count Tau army can quite happily castle up in one corner against a horde army and have the game to themselves.
As for terrain? The more the merrier. The random rules are useful to keep things challenging, but ideally, I'd want the old 'quarter of the board' rule in effect (by that, you section off a quarter, and fill it with terrain as densely as you can, THEN place it from there). Gives a solid amount of terrain, evening things up a little bit.
But then, there's height consideration. Lots of tall buildings with gantries, and the shooty armies can just camp out, picking off the enemy willy-nilly as they struggle to lay a claw/hand/solid boot to the face on you. All low level, and you're giving assault armies too easy a time, and limiting the effectiveness and scope of sniper or firebase type units.
LoS LoS LoS.....yep. Again, ideally a variety of terrain, some blocking LoS entirely, some restricting, others quite open. All about keeping the field open to both players.
But there's one thing I don't like, and that's regular games on modular boards, where hills are built in (like the Realm of Battle. So I bought the flat sections!) This is mostly a hangover from Fantasy, as hills were really important, and occasionally (like against the oh-so-clever and tactically challenging/mind numbingly dull Dwarf gunline) overpowering. Much better to my mind to just have a flat playing field. That way, nobody can take set board conditions into account when writing their list, arguably creating more of a challenge from the get go.
Other than that, I like a fitting (themed) selection of terrain. Mixes it up a bit, and again, gives new opportunities. I say themed would be ideal, as nothing looks quite as odd as a heavily industrialised imperial sector......with a couple of random woods....
So yeah. For me it's a big part of getting a game 'right'. Flat, 6x4 board, with a selection of quarter filling terrain, set down by a third party, or if none available, randomisation (including scattering the terrain).
How about you? (no right or wrong answer here folks!)