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.

After reading lots and writing many battle reports, I keep seeing comments like "This is the wrong terrain set up" or "Too little terrain" or "It's not balanced unless there's center LOS blocking" and then followed by "Central LOS blocking is unfair"

I'll be organizing terrain for some upcomming tournaments and kind of wanted people's opinions on what should be placed with no bias of what people are going to bring for general book games.

What do people as a poll generally think is "fair" for games?

I like quite an even spread of Terrain with about 25-30% of the table coverd with a mix of area, forests, ruins and LOS blocking. I really dislike tables with zero LOS blocking but you can see through everything, you might as well just give every model a cover save from the beginning and be done with it...it annoys me somewhat.

With the area terrain now having the 2+ w/ go to ground i rather like it. Ruins are cool w/ people shooting out of windows. Reminds of real fighting.

I like a mix w/ maybe a special agreed apon feature or rule like low grav., an obj that gives a random psy power to a model, or a skyfire matrix somewhere. I like something different each time.

I voted "dispersed" but you can make thematic tables with heavy urban areas for some cool games. But here's my opinion on the one really NOT to do, the Central blocking LOS table.

It sounds good on paper, but twice a friend of mine faced Tau in one of these tables. The advantage it brings is so unfair it's not even funny. The JSJ keeps Battlesuits away from LOS at all times and if you try to "pincer" them between 2 units, hey look, he just jumped over the terrain and is out of LOS again.

I'm not sure if other armies can heavily exploit this type of table, maybe armies with lots of ordnance, but this table can bring an enormous advantage to one side of the table and the other is royally screwed.

25% coverage is a lot. Somewhere between 15-25% coverage is good if you have big LOS-blocking pieces of terrain. If you incorporate hills (i.e., not area terrain, just hills) and things like that in the figure, then 25% is perfect.

I usually like to throw something medium sized that may or may not block LOS in each corner, then something big in the center, then throw little doodads everywhere else. My FLGS has a ton of buildings and whatnot, based, that work well for this.

I usually like tables with plenty of LOS blocking, as it makes nice choke-points and centers of fighting that can make a pretty thematic game.

In General, I like about half the table covered in a variety of terrain.
At Tournament settings, use the rough guideline of 2 pieces of terrain Blocking / area about 8" in size for every 2' x 2' square.
That gives a "Terrain Density" of 2
The Rulebook suggests 1-3

I like having a really dense terrain set, because I just love the idea of Space Marines and Chaos Demons stalking through ruins, close-ranged firefights.. It's just awesome fluff-wise and fight-wise ;3

I have zero preference, so long as the table is thematically appropriate. I spent a ridiculous amount of time making my army look good, and I would rather have them look good on the table, among cinematic and entertaining (as well as sensible) terrain than be given a terrain set-up that is favorable to my play style.

Since I tend to run drop pods, the terrain isn't that big a hang up for me. If I got handed a table that was 'best' for my play style, I suppose it would be heavy on the LOS blocking terrain, so that my pods could divide and conquer better.

As far as what I consider to be the most fair, I think that the answer is all of the above. No one formation of terrain is best. I think one style will benefit one army, another will benefit another army. I prefer the way my group does it, where a neutral third party sets up the terrain. Some days it's a parking lot, and some days it's like fighting through the streets of some urban hellhole. The variety is what provides the balance, in my opinion.

I like a cool themed table. As long as it makes sense for the battle, I use it. Center LOS blocking terrain can often be a pain for me, but if the battlefield looks cool and makes sense, then I'm totally cool with it. Cool terrain/cool themed battlefield beats strategic terrain placement, imo

I think if you are organizing a tournament, then you should be concerned with overall balance. If the tables are all the same basic "a couple of pieces on each side with one in the middle" layout then IMHO that is a total fail on the organizers part.

Taken to extremes, a billiard table and the infamous "the entire table is a wood" are the two opposite ends of the spectrum. I would come in a bit on both sides (!) but aim for a mix of both open and closed tables.

I try to fill a table as close to 25% terrain as possible. Nice simple rule of thumb for this is to put it all base to base in one corner unti it fills a quarter of the table, then disperse. I try to always include some ruins, some forests and/or other area terrain, some LOS blockers, and some small barricades/fences. I would use water features but there aren't very many of those at the shop. I try to scatter the terrain so that it's balanced no matter which deployment style is used.

Since I'm usually setting up the table before my opponent arrives, I just give them choice of sides to ensure that if the table wasn't balanced, it's only going to penalize me. If you're doing a tournament, I'd suggest just getting another pair of eyes on it to make sure it's not unbalanced and make adjustments if necessary.

The most important thing I've found for terrain is how big the pieces are, and where they're placed.

I always ask to do narrative terrain placement, because our store has lots of little pieces, and when people place them strategically, the end result tends to be terrain that doesn't actually DO that much.

If you're playing a game where there isn't serious hiding spaces, because there are lots of little level 3 ruins that have plenty of good firing angles, then really, you might as well be playing without terrain, most of the time.

to the OP:

How about a variety and follow the rules?

 Lobukia wrote:
to the OP:

How about a variety and follow the rules?

See, that's the whole problem. When we do variety, it always seems to get critizied no matter who or what's being played as there doesn't seem to be any sort of concensus on what's a "fair" table.

Some people swear up and down that any self respecting tournament would always have a center LOS blocking terrain piece while others say it's an unfair disadvantage or what not. I'm mostly interested in people's popular opinion. I'm not looking for rules but just trying to get a sampling of what the majority seem to perfer. I know I'm not gonna please everyone but I do want to try to please the majority.

If everyone wants a theme battle, I got lots of great ideas for those but it's almost never fair which is kind of the point when organizing a tourney. If I was just doing a local scenario play without prizes then heck ya, I'd love to do fixed maps of defense stations, bridge assaults, trench storming action with uneven points and special map triggers but it's definately not something to base a tourney off of.

As the terrain will be pre-set on tables, we don't have time to follow through on rolling and placing terrain back and forth especially if we want to finish a 3 round set and finals in one day.

Thought:

Looking at what's been said, if you're going for some tourney layout, why not try a small center parital LOS blocking terrain, somewhere within a 12" radius of the center of board. Then have a slightly elevated platform on either side of the board (just a couple inches). One unit might be able to see pat the LOS, but then they expose themselves. As well, the LOS (if it's short enough in height) allows cover without totally screwing over distance armies. Like..I'm imagining a one story ruin with missing walls in places, no roof, etc.

Anyway, if I was doing a tourney I'd do stuff like that. Another thing I might try is an imperial statue or two. Their narrow, can block of sight, but don't completely obscure it.

Anyway it's probably not helpful advice, but it's a thought.