Stumbled across an old Infinity thread image on Pinterest that piqued my interest on the subject of terrain density. I've never played that game so I don't know how closely it compares to Necromunda, but ignoring the snark, how much terrain is too much? How much is too little? Would a variable table for terrain density be something worth having or should it be consistently the same? Just curious what people think.
Terrain Density
- Thread starter knowman
- Start date
You have to be able to see your models in the terrain, so the Murricah Style would make it difficult to see and move your models. Especially if you add gangways.
I'd find it difficult to say without having the table in front of me.
If in doubt though, more is better than less. Otherwise the shooting gangs just have too easy a time of it.
The type of terrain is just as important as how much you have though. The stuff which came with the original game was perfect. Infinity terrain (at least the stuff I've seen) is particularly bad as it either blocks LOS or it doesn't provide much cover at all. You really need things like see-through bulkheads.
If in doubt though, more is better than less. Otherwise the shooting gangs just have too easy a time of it.
The type of terrain is just as important as how much you have though. The stuff which came with the original game was perfect. Infinity terrain (at least the stuff I've seen) is particularly bad as it either blocks LOS or it doesn't provide much cover at all. You really need things like see-through bulkheads.
So while I have had to resort to Tabletop Simulator, pretty much exclusively and this might skew my answer, my opinion is as follows:
I love the look of a complicated terrain, from a world-builder and story-aspect. I like the look, it drives my imagination, and feels cool.
I prefer the practicality of cleaner terrain, from a game design and playability aspect. If you look at maps for video games in particular, you will notice that successful games have fluid and clean map design. As we can see in the European example, the terrain is simple and akin to a video game. It is practical and functional. I can check LOS far easier than I would be able to on a "true-hive map" which makes it easier to play. The lower density also creates easy access to creating "zones" in your games where you sort of script where battles will usually take place as people fight for certain tactical positions.
Not to mention, there is less to block-out and think about in the EU map. The Murrica Map will only have about 30% of the map used at all in a single game, so there is wasted design space happening. No one is going to hop up on that T shaped building top. And since IRL terrain is modular in nature, you can keep the games varied with simple placement of the terrain as you make sure each terrain "matters".
On Tabletop Simulator, you have "less freedom" to modify maps real quick before a game and so you tend to have a "map pool". My playgroup on discord has generally stuck to a few maps because they just help the game along.
A note on scatter terrain: I am assuming that both map examples do NOT include scatter terrain. Scatter terrain, in my mind, being a variable that is applied during map building (IRL).
Huzzah for my incoherent thoughts,
Commi
I love the look of a complicated terrain, from a world-builder and story-aspect. I like the look, it drives my imagination, and feels cool.
I prefer the practicality of cleaner terrain, from a game design and playability aspect. If you look at maps for video games in particular, you will notice that successful games have fluid and clean map design. As we can see in the European example, the terrain is simple and akin to a video game. It is practical and functional. I can check LOS far easier than I would be able to on a "true-hive map" which makes it easier to play. The lower density also creates easy access to creating "zones" in your games where you sort of script where battles will usually take place as people fight for certain tactical positions.
Not to mention, there is less to block-out and think about in the EU map. The Murrica Map will only have about 30% of the map used at all in a single game, so there is wasted design space happening. No one is going to hop up on that T shaped building top. And since IRL terrain is modular in nature, you can keep the games varied with simple placement of the terrain as you make sure each terrain "matters".
On Tabletop Simulator, you have "less freedom" to modify maps real quick before a game and so you tend to have a "map pool". My playgroup on discord has generally stuck to a few maps because they just help the game along.
A note on scatter terrain: I am assuming that both map examples do NOT include scatter terrain. Scatter terrain, in my mind, being a variable that is applied during map building (IRL).
Huzzah for my incoherent thoughts,
Commi
I like a lot. But only played once or twice 15 years ago. Since then I have replicated the original buildings many times over, including the Outlanders and the Storm of Vengeance Campaign Supplement. There are 500+ bulkheads in the set now and it features a 8.5 foot long 2.5 foot high wall of them. It has portals through it, and laticwork gangways in places. I constructed gangways that are up to about 3 feet long, and attach to the original buildings. The floor plates and bulkheads are constructed into buildings comparable in size to the wall. What is a good size of pics to post? My point being I made all the buildings extend out from one side of the wall which splits a 4 by 8 sheet of plywood diagonally. You can reach in and position and move models everywhere in the layout. The city block layout prevents this. But, I should play on any layout, no?
spafe
Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
These are some games that I've played in what I would consider 'acceptable' terrain levels. Since then my main gaming group have switched to heralds of ruin 40k kill team (which is similar size by and large to necro games), and added some 12"X12" risers and a few other bits to properly cram out our boards.... we like up close and personal.
So I think we go towards the 'murricah' level terrain, but I disagree with the little blurb bits at the side of the pics, the more terrain the better imo.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are those three different boards, @spafe? I couldn't tell. The first one, just the perspective leaves me confused. But the second and third one seem about right to me. Lots of cover from intervening bits that make it possible to get out of the view of a heavy on Overwatch, or at least to get a solid cover bonus, without tons of solid cover to make it impossible. I think that would be the main problem with the "Murricah" board, the fact that the terrain is all solid. It still seems like you have some moderate length lines-of-sight straight on, but not a lot of side-to-side. I would think something like that would be a dream for a CC-focused gang.
What about the idea of the terrain varying? Seems like it might be complicated and I think we're all limited to what terrain we have, but it seems like one potential variable might be less terrain to give a slight advantage to shooty gangs or more terrain for CC ones. Maybe something like the Treacherous Conditions table? Imagine being able to remove or add a piece of terrain (before deployment, of course).
What about the idea of the terrain varying? Seems like it might be complicated and I think we're all limited to what terrain we have, but it seems like one potential variable might be less terrain to give a slight advantage to shooty gangs or more terrain for CC ones. Maybe something like the Treacherous Conditions table? Imagine being able to remove or add a piece of terrain (before deployment, of course).
Well, considering that the scenarios instruct the players to take turns putting down terrain, I'd say that either side has some say in the matter. So if you have a box of terrain, both players can take turns placing terrains until they are more or less satisfied. It is an agreement between players, not a rule. If you only ever play pre-made maps at a FLGS, then that is a matter of meta and something you could ask the shop owner about in regards to altering his tables.
You should be able to run into cover from most, but not all places. But that cover should only protect you from 50% of angles at most, so encouraging movement. So it depends on the terrain you have. The necro standard set is relatively cover free, with very little scatter.
Infinity is a pretty different game to Necromunda despite initially looking kinda similar. For those who haven't played it Impetuous given a model an additional Order (think Action) that can only be used to move. The US layout favours this as you are less likely to get shot at during your additional move. In Infinity everyone is on overwatch all the time.
The EU layout mentions using tactical tools and thinking. This is referring to using stuff like smoke grenades to cover models moving through firing lanes.
I'm not trying to say one was is better, just give some perspective to those unfamiliar with Infinity.
From a Necromunda standpoint I think things like risers blocking ground level line of sight for long range attacks are great. It gives the option to close to get a bead on your opponent or climb up high to get a better shot. Having the height then can give some cover to the opponents by having them hug walls and whatnot. Necromunda has much more focus on close combat than Infinity so I tend to lean towards more scatter terrain. This allows the close combat oriented models to actually get some play.
The EU layout mentions using tactical tools and thinking. This is referring to using stuff like smoke grenades to cover models moving through firing lanes.
I'm not trying to say one was is better, just give some perspective to those unfamiliar with Infinity.
From a Necromunda standpoint I think things like risers blocking ground level line of sight for long range attacks are great. It gives the option to close to get a bead on your opponent or climb up high to get a better shot. Having the height then can give some cover to the opponents by having them hug walls and whatnot. Necromunda has much more focus on close combat than Infinity so I tend to lean towards more scatter terrain. This allows the close combat oriented models to actually get some play.
spafe
Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
@knowman , sorry, the first is a different board, the other 2 pics are from the same board. yeah it's a crazy perspective, my bad. Most of that terrain is 2 levels high.
Ah yeah, I hadn't twigged that everything in the examples were solid, I had assumed (wrongly) that they were to show volume of terrain density. Yeah that much solid is a bit much, but that much with some having wholes in and being moveable through... seems perfect.
Ah yeah, I hadn't twigged that everything in the examples were solid, I had assumed (wrongly) that they were to show volume of terrain density. Yeah that much solid is a bit much, but that much with some having wholes in and being moveable through... seems perfect.
Here are some older pics. There currently are 500+ bulkheads and there are several smaller floor plate towers, an Outlander building 6 bulkheads tall, and similiary upscaled version of the "Storm of Vengeance" campaign pack. It all spreads to two and half feet wide, 9 feet long, and 6-7 bulkheads tall. A main wall runs 6-7 bulkheads high and 9 feet long, with portals through to the outside of the hive or hive dome. Each of the original building floor plates has been replicated into one large building keying on that plate's shape and function. Thus the condominium, arena, and industrial type constructs. I have added long and short gangways, stacked gangway assemblies, and magnetic retaining system for the gangways connecting to the buildings on most floor plates. The 40K buildings almost fit on the rest of the 4'X8' piece of plywood. Sorry, all is stored now on shelves. It is all sitting on an octagonal poker table I made.
And guess what?
And guess what?
Attachments
Last edited:
I'm going to go controversial with this one ... Euro ftw.
I like a more open style of terrain density. I know the thoughts on what this does to cc gangs v shooty gangs - so here's why I disagree with the community zeitgeist coupled with an understanding of what I consitute as a fair concept of density.
1 - While CC gangs are harder to run than Shooty gangs, it is not fair then to cripple shooty strengths by blocking all avenues of fire. Especially given the efforts made to balance the two "over-styles" of play in the NCE.
2 - I like my terrain to look like a thing. A hab-zone with streets and connecting walkways for example. I don't like an unrealistic looking mess on the board for the sake of blocking fire-lanes.
3. - There are different areas of the board. Some should be closed in. Some should be open. It should be down to the player to move/cover/influence the board in such a way as to play to their gangs strengths. Not entirely design the field to that end.
4. - That said: Not all lines of sight should be open and efforts should be made not to allow any gang to dominate the whole board with overlapping fire from multiple risers in their deployment zones.
Rather, it is important that any strategic areas are resources which should be fought and maneuvered for.
I like a more open style of terrain density. I know the thoughts on what this does to cc gangs v shooty gangs - so here's why I disagree with the community zeitgeist coupled with an understanding of what I consitute as a fair concept of density.
1 - While CC gangs are harder to run than Shooty gangs, it is not fair then to cripple shooty strengths by blocking all avenues of fire. Especially given the efforts made to balance the two "over-styles" of play in the NCE.
2 - I like my terrain to look like a thing. A hab-zone with streets and connecting walkways for example. I don't like an unrealistic looking mess on the board for the sake of blocking fire-lanes.
3. - There are different areas of the board. Some should be closed in. Some should be open. It should be down to the player to move/cover/influence the board in such a way as to play to their gangs strengths. Not entirely design the field to that end.
4. - That said: Not all lines of sight should be open and efforts should be made not to allow any gang to dominate the whole board with overlapping fire from multiple risers in their deployment zones.
Rather, it is important that any strategic areas are resources which should be fought and maneuvered for.
I'm with you in terms of there being a "story" behind the terrain, at least in sections of the board. The narrative of the hive is of a chaotic place, cobbled together from bits and pieces of different ages, different levels having partially collapsed, etc.
I agree that it shouldn't be such a jumble that there's no clear lines of sight, but I think a middle ground is ensuring that any good shooting point has clear lines of sight to some of the board but not all of it. It seems like with the Euro board set up, there's 2 or 3 places where a heavy could cover 60+% of the board, which seems too much.
But I think I'm otherwise in agreement with all of your points. I think if the "'Murricah" board was done with more open terrain, platforms and walkways, that might be more acceptable, but that it's a CC gang's dream right now.
I agree that it shouldn't be such a jumble that there's no clear lines of sight, but I think a middle ground is ensuring that any good shooting point has clear lines of sight to some of the board but not all of it. It seems like with the Euro board set up, there's 2 or 3 places where a heavy could cover 60+% of the board, which seems too much.
But I think I'm otherwise in agreement with all of your points. I think if the "'Murricah" board was done with more open terrain, platforms and walkways, that might be more acceptable, but that it's a CC gang's dream right now.
I like my terrain to be "Themed", i.e. An industrial complex, or a ruin, or a Shanty Town. And there should be plenty of cover, but only partial in the main, and more linear like pipe work rather than bunkers.
@knowman Can't find any perfect samples, but this thread explains it:
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?12984-quot-25-terrain-coverage-quot
