Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The terrain at my FLGS is set up pre match by a 3rd person who sets it up roughly evenly, but looks logical and true to the fluff

I always set up terrain so that it makes logical sense and fits the fluff. Random bits of terrain scattered across a board or terrain that is set up to be perfectly even just looks silly in my opinion. I can't stand it.

We decide the type of table we want to play on, rural or urban or a mix and just throw terrain on the table until it is full up and neither side can just sit back and shoot at the entirety of the other side of the table. If we are playing a multiple player game and each have a "camp" terrain piece we'll place those first, as evenly spaced out as possible on the table top, and then drop in the rest of the scenery. Usually the urban parts of the table top are well ordered, and lined up and such, while the more wild aspects can see terrain randomly thrown around until it "looks good". Somewhat annoys my sensibilities to thrown normal looking buildings randomly around the table as if the city planner was totally insane, but to each his own.

Skriker

Correctly.

I usually try to place a ruin on both sides, area both sides, a big piece in the middle, and then leftovers for aesthetics like trees, smaller rubble and such.

In the store, the terrain is preset and is usually pretty evenly placed.

At home, I set up terrain to tell a story. I do not in any way try to "evenly" balance the terrain. Going first is generally tougher, so the person that chooses to deploy first should have a bit of a terrain advantage to help balance that. I don't try to shaft one side, of course. I might have to deploy there!

I often set up a settlement with a road running through it on one side, then place hills and forests and such on the other side. I have some city fight style terrain, so sometimes I'll set that up instead. Other times, I have one side clearly set up with fortifications and the like, while the other side has some ruins or hills and forests. I find "unequal" terrain tends to make for more interesting battles, as both sides try to adapt their tactics to the board. We still have "fair" games without actively equal terrain.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Going first is generally tougher, so the person that chooses to deploy first should have a bit of a terrain advantage to help balance that.

I think that whoever is forced to go second should straight up be able to decide if night fight is in effect...to even out and mitigate though not negate...the alpha strikers.

Unless you are playing a special home made scenario, symetrically is usually the best method.

I prefer to place them in a way the terrain would be realistically since I like the look and feel more if it actually looks like a battlefield/city/jungle rather then randomland

But I don't let that stop me and can play with any terrain setup
Should also point out that either way I try to balance out the terrain so no side get the advantage.

Usually we try to mix the first two. We like giving both sides a somewhat equal amount of terrain, always making sure to have LOS blocking terrain at least one decently sized one in the middle, but usually it has some apparent theme or design of some sort.

In Universe!

We always just set up the terrain so it makes sense in world, create a ruined city, outpost etc then let the dice fly!