Terrain can make a huge difference. Yet it's very "loose". In fact, the only game that "properly" accounts for terrain IME is Hell Dorado, where you begin each game with a Terraformation Phase where both players buy well-defined terrain pieces of varying points cost onto the battle field and different models have skills that affect this. But in Malifaux as in almost all other minis games you place and adjust terrain until both players are happy with the result. Usually in tournaments the organizer puts down the terrain and you aren't supposed to move it. Our playgroup played with too little terrain and the games were improved immensely when we added quite a lot of it. But lately there has been talk amongst us about what is too much terrain. We all know that the official line in the amount is that terrain should cover 25%-50% of the table. However, there's still the placement of it and also not all terrain was created equal. To pick two extreme examples: If you use only Ht 3 fences/walls (half-an inch thick, for example) that 25% coverage is way too much terrain. If you use one giant inaccessible mountain, that 50% coverage is way too little. A big lake can make life too easy for shooty crews while lots of walls can make life too hard for them. There are models with 36" ranges and they pay the points for them so they should be able to use that range every once in a while. Or is it merely there to allow them to control the board in that the enemy can't position themselves in some places because they're afraid of the sniper? A couple of pics from Argentbadger's excellent tournament report of the Scottish GT (seriously, go read it, it's really well written and informative - then come back here, as there will be spoilers): https://thebovineoverlord.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/0011.jpg https://thebovineoverlord.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/007.jpg https://thebovineoverlord.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/012.jpg https://thebovineoverlord.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/015.jpg Argentbadger also comments on these, especially on the third one that it's quite silly. But the second one is also a bit strange, though Argentbadger wins against Perdita there, so it's not always about shooty winning when the table features a giant, barren killing ground. But both of those tables seem to fulfill that 25% rule. So yeah, what are your thoughts on terrain? How do you rate the four examples from the Scottish GT? Have you ever had too much terrain? Also, if anyone has pics of tables that they feel are excellent examples of just the right amount of terrain for Malifaux I would be super interested in seeing those.