So? What's the answer to that question? The photo at right is my game table as it looks now (and soon to be the sight of a gun-line IG vs. renegade gun-line IG slug fest). This is the amount of terrain I prefer, and what you see just gets rearranged periodically. It seems like a fair amount of terrain and I prefer terrain to be a bit more dense than what is generally encountered @ game shops. I want it to look like a battlefield, not a game table with the random allotment of terrain scattered about with little to no thought.
This really hasn't been an issue except that lately I've been facing Nids on a regular basis, and despite what 'teh interwebz' insist, that the Nids suck, they've been giving me a hellova time! One factor that the Hive mind has frequently mentioned is the amount of terrain I have. Most game shops seem to have their terrain doled out rather sparsely, and the lack of cover is what he insists is benefiting his army.
Its kinda hard to compare as our FLGS' city table is on par with mine (just with bigger buildings), while their desert table is quite literally, a desolate wasteland with minimal cover. Nids however are a rarity @ the FLGS.
So is terrain my problem with nids? I generally play 'fluffier' lists, but the nids aren't exactly optimized either (well, maybe not...), however running a 2 v 1 game with the '2' being a Nids/Vraks renegades in a split force org, not even (according once again to 'teh interwebz') the vaunted Space Wolves and their death star unit could stand up to them (and the Vraks shooting was less than stellar).
So what the hell?
Modern warships (V) - land attack
12 minutes ago