Enough terrain on the table

[Math Mathonwy]

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.

[r4st4f4n]

First one is so illegal, I would have called the cops xD
But I don't like the others either.

I tend to place terrain, so that One Cannot Simply™ target an enemy that's claiming the center of the board, without moving from its own Deployment Zone.
So all of those Deployment-to-Deployment LoS lines, affecting Turn 1, are heresy in my eyes

[Csonti]

HERE is the bible of this topic. Which is actually a pinned thread on this forum.

Obviously from the above tables, only the last could qualify as a decent go. Even there I would placed the two biggest buildings more around the centerline. The second could be also arranged to be playable but the buildings should be placed much more "chaotically" to shorten and deny firing lanes.

[Math Mathonwy]

HERE is the bible of this topic. Which is actually a pinned thread on this forum.

Urgh, I always miss the pinned topics for some reason. 

[Sholto]

I played on the first two tables. The first one was Reconnoitre with Ramos against Rasputina, where I ate a few icy blasts but managed to score VPs well enough. The second was Turf War with Kaeris against Pandora. That was a massacre, as Pandy had nowhere to hide from the burning and the shooting and the burning. The third one was just silly, though. Everyone commented on it, and imo tables like that should be reserved for Story Encounters.