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.

Are there any common "hey, don't be a jerk and place that terrain there" guidelines when setting up a table for a game? Sorta like tall buildings in the deployment zone or a large piece of terrain clumped next to more terrain?

Normally at our local shop we try and have a 3rd party set up the tables to try and be fair but I'm wondering how most people set up their own terrain. I've looked at a lot of the battle report pics and the tables are very different a lot of the times.

I think the general rule is 25% players take turns placing if theres no 3rd party avail

well thats what my friend and I do

I am usually the first person to show when a game is planned, or one of the first in the store when showing up randomly.

I will almost always set up terrain on a table so that it looks acceptable to me, get my models situated, then wander around until an opponent shows up.Then I get to explain what I was thinking (that would be difficult, that would be ruins, etc.) and ask if the other person wants to add/change/remove terrain or if they think it is a good table set up.

I find that 25% can look sparse or crowded depending on the actual terrain so I tend to just eyeball it--it needs to look like fun.

Usually I set it up with my opponent and we try and make it look there is a method to the madness and not just random terrain bits.

That works well for friendly games, I'm sure placing taking turns may be better for not so friendly ones.

We usually just put it out and agree that it is 'okay'. To be more objective, we just quickly place it all, and then roll scatter dice for each piece to randomize things.

For home games, I generally go with one player setting up the terrain, and the other player choosing sides.

I've never been a fan of the 'both players shove terrain on there willy-nilly' approach as the end result generally lacks any sort of cohesive theme.

First, we decide how many pieces of terrain will be allowed. Then we alternate placing it until it's all done.

If playing objectives we place them at this time. Same thing, each player alternates until they are placed. Whoever placed the least amount of terrain, gets to place the odd numbered objective. If it was the same amount, then we roll to see who goes first.

We then have a roll off. The higher dice roll gets to pick the side they want to be on.

It's hard to be a jerk this way and everyone gets to participate in the site building.

----
Now sometimes we take the time to move terrain around to try and build on a theme. Like for example a city type battle, we'll line the buildings up to form streets. Given that this is all friendly, everyone enjoys it.

insaniak wrote:For home games, I generally go with one player setting up the terrain, and the other player choosing sides.

I've never been a fan of the 'both players shove terrain on there willy-nilly' approach as the end result generally lacks any sort of cohesive theme.

Same here. It was good enough for HG Wells....

Personally I prefer one guy builds then the other picks his side. This makes it so that it is rather hard to gain an advantage trough terrain. If you put lots of cover on one side and leave the other side open you will get screwed when the other guy picks. You tend to get balanced boards this way with features available to both sides.

I find that alternating placement leads to TFG moves. You setting up ruins, I'll just place the giant blocking terrain piece so you can't put LOS to most of the board. If this method is used I would suggest some rule where the terrain features must be a certain distance from one another.

I generally set up the terrain at my house, and when my friend arrives we both take a look at the table, maybe adjust a piece here and there, and then roll off for which side we start on.

When I place the terrain, I keep in mind the fact that I don't know which side I'll be starting on, so I try to balance it out and not give either side a clear advantage or disadvantage.

I always ask if the other person wants to do it the Rules way or not. If not, well;


I've always though it better to create a game-table that feels like it could exists, and will make for interesting tactics. I mean, it doesn't really matter if one side of the table has no cover on it, if that player is going to be deepstriking all their forces, or is playing a first-turn strike list.

So I ty to make it interesting. One day, I ended up setting a road right across the diagonal of the table, with a 'suburb' (about 3-4 housing ruins) on one side and an 'industrial complex' (two large factory pieces) on the other.

Or set up the large building ruins as though they were once a city, with the gaps in between them where the streets used to be, right in the center.

Or there's a wall that almost cuts off a corner of the table, meaning it's a huge inconvenience for most units, but flyers can go right over it.


I figure you should have fun with the terrain, and do unexpected things. Terrain placement can really even it out between a veteran and a newb, leading for a more fun game for both, or it can make a relatively straightforward brawl between two similar armies much more taktical.

The one thing I really don't like with Terraining is when it's just "oh, I'll put three hills on each side at the edge of the deployment zones, with a forest on either edge, so it's fair to both players". This is combat, it shouldn't be completely fair to both, unless they're both playing Imperial forces in a tactical exercise.

My friends and I randomize the terrain. We pick out 25% worth of terrain then roll 7D6 and scatter from the center point for each piece. If a hit is rolled divide the distance in half. It works out well and makes for some interesting setups.

Prior to this method my roommate (shooty eldar) had a tendency to bottle neck me(speed freaks) EVERY time when alternating placement of terrain.

Rule one--Make it look cool.

Rule two--25%. At least!

Rule three--Some of the terrain should block LOS.

MannyMcCoconut wrote:Prior to this method my roommate (shooty eldar) had a tendency to bottle neck me(speed freaks) EVERY time when alternating placement of terrain.

Yeah, this is a common problem with terrain. I play gunline Eldar, so I always want the terrain to be fairly open with well-protected locations with huge lines of fire. My CC opponent wants tons of LOS blocking terrain and plenty of cover saves all around. We never really have a problem coming up with a good compromise, but this is the inherent problem of having the players set up terrain.

The tables at my FLGS stay set up most of the day which really cuts down on having too many opinions for what goes where.

My regular opponent and I have slowly evolved a set of terrain placement rules. We divide the (6x4) table into 6 equal squares and divide the terrain into 6 roughly equal groups. Those get randomly assigned to a table square, and then one player places all the terrain within a square and roll 2D6" scatter for each piece. Where possible, the initial placement of a piece of terrain must be >12" from another that has already been placed. After all that has been done, we roll a scatter die to determine the direction the buildings and ruins face.

The end result is a semi-random terrain setup that still feels reasonably cohesive and very rarely benefits one player over the other.