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.

When I play vs my GK mate he has a Vindicare Assassin. Now, he basically hunts around the shop and finds the biggest, tallest piece of terrain, and places it inside his deployment zone. Now, I know that you roll for depoyment zones; but I'd really rather have a setup of terrain which is broadly "fair".

The rules seem to say that you set up terrain in a way that you both agree with - last time I mentioned this and he wasn't that happy about it, next time I think I'll insist. It's no fun having a sniping unit - that I can't target at range because of the night shields and I can't assault without wings because of the time it'd take to get up the building.

Is my position fair enough? I could do something crappy on my side of the board - not place *any* terrain except for a "wall" which denies line of sight and allows me a safe 12" move forward.

Best way to do terrain is to have a 3rd party place all terrain. Then after you pick mission and deployment type roll to see who setup first and goes first. Also make sure it is 25% terrain.

Next time wait to roll for first turn/deployment after he's done that, and then steal "his" deployment zone.

But yes, terrain is supposed to be agreed on by both players (or at least as evenly placed as possible unless you're playing a special mission). If the two of you can't agree on something, do what cgage said and have someone else set up a table for you.

We have a couple of ways of setting terrain in my FLGS;

1)both players start unpacking, so we invariably know which side is ours before terrain hits. One player then throws terrain out of the crates and both players can adjust.

2)Roll off to see who places 1 piece first, then alternate until all of it is on the table or we agree to stop.

3)3rd party sets it up.

Most of the time we actually discuss the terrain features and play non standard deployments(corner to corner with 12 inch 'no man's land' was the most recent I played) and we try to make it look cool.

If he continues doing this after you mention it to him, either do the terrain setup in the BGB or have a third party set it up. If he refuses, find another opponent.

-cgmckenzie

I've never been a fan of the 'both players putting terrain down' style set-up. It winds up with some awfully hodge-podge tables.

By preference, if the table isn't already set, I prefer having one player set up the terrain (discussing how much terrain is required, if necessary) and the other choosing a table edge.

When my friends and I get together for a game whoever gets to the store first sets up the terrain.

The person that gets there second always has to agree that the terrain looks good. otherwise we rearrange it.

I try to set up the table as symmetrically as possible, this avoids any arguments over terrain.

borboski wrote:It's no fun having a sniping unit - that I can't target at range because of the night shields ...

Not quite sure what you mean by this part btw, I know it is a bit off-topic, but the GK Vindicare has no special rule to avoid getting shot at.

On the terrain, well I can see a problem with that, especially if he also has a techmarine to make sure he has a ruin to bolster. However with infiltrate, getting into a position to shoot should not be a big problem for the assassin in either case.

The WH one does have nightshields, which are nightfighting essentially.

We have one player set up the terrain, then the other gets to choose the side he wants.

It makes for fairer games, barring personal preferences.

We also rotate who gets to be the one setting the table, as some of us like a barely covered table, and others like bordering on Cityfight.

I agree.

About 25% terrain, one player places the other chooses a side is the easiest way to ensure fair terrain.