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.

Hey guys!
I am one of the organizers for the Bugeater Grand Tournament.
Specifically I design and build the terrain.
When we set up a table, we try to produce what we call the "Reverse mirror".
Meaning...both sides have an almost identical set up with a mix of area and blocking on each side with a 12"x12" blocking piece in the middle.
It works and folks don't complain.
We also feature the top 4 tables to the top 8 players round by round.
What I'm curious of is this...
As top players, would you be more or less challenged by more or less than the 2 piece of terrain per 2''x2' block?
Sound off guys!!
It just makes for a better experience next year.

Just to make sure I'm clear, you are asking if we were to divide the table into 6 sections, would we PREFER MORE or PREFER LESS then two pieces per section (which would be 2 feet by 2 feet in size)?

Personally, I don't have a problem with more (or less) terrain PIECES - so long as it still adds up to being roughly a quarter of the table SIZE. In other words, I care about the total sum of terrain - not the individual pieces.

With that said, the other alternative I enjoy is the idea of Adepticon placing - where each player chooses a piece to place one at a time.

thats a cool idea, Ive never been to an adeptacon, how does it work?

Honestly I wish MORE places would subscribe to the "2 pieces per 2x2 section" model. Above all though, I'd like for terrain to be consistent across all tables at an event. I know it's a hassle figuring out the logistics of making/buying and shipping all the terrain for a big tournament, but don't leave some tables fighting over the last three trees on Planet Bowling Ball while top tables get huge mountains to fight around.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
thats a cool idea, Ive never been to an adeptacon, how does it work?

Page 1 of this doc has instructions...
http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2013/40KChampPrimer.pdf

Although they also did an explanatory video this year running through the whole pregame setup sequence. Let me see if I can find the link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahVMcXMeGTs

The argument I always find is where to place los blocking terrain. If put in the middle of the board I hear complaints like "you have just put that there so you can sneak your daemon prince up without getting shot down" or if you put the oos blocker at the back of the board "you just put that there so you can hide an objective behind it" seems to me like either way people will complain so I just place terrain in ways that looks cool.

I'm always a fan of more terrain, but I'd also argue that it gets very boring when terrain is almost identical on every table (for example, always having a 12x12 blocking piece in the middle.

Part of the tactical game of 40k is having to use the terrain to your advantage. I'd rather each table was varied and themed to look good / make sense and be different from other tables. For example, table 5 has a massive mountain in the centre surrounded by lots of LOS blocking rock stacks but relatively little area terrain. Table 6 is entirely forested, but as very few hills, etc etc...

That way the roll for table side actually means something.

I had a game in a tournament once where the only kind of terrain on the table was 10" high rock walls, forming a canyon system. I got matched up against green tide Orks. Plenty of terrain, but still bad terrain placement.

thanks for the feedback fellas,
it seems that most guys like a variety...
I will endeavor to add a few "Landscape" tables as well.
And fear not!!
We leave no table skimping for terrain...

Important thing is each table should have LOS blocking terrain somewhere in the middle region. (And it shouldn't consist of only two 20" high pillars of rock with the diameter of a citadel colour pot... )

The 25% recommendation however is the most important part. +/-5% is ok but more or less will result in unfair conditions for some armies.

The argument I always find is where to place los blocking terrain. If put in the middle of the board I hear complaints like "you have just put that there so you can sneak your daemon prince up without getting shot down" or if you put the oos blocker at the back of the board "you just put that there so you can hide an objective behind it"

My answer to both would be "yup, thats the whole purpose of LOS blocking terrain and thats how 40k works." Some guys just don't realize there is more depth in the game than standing opposite each other behind the aegis and roll out who wins...

Good points Nazdreg.

Next item up...

Rivers.

My though is to allow at least 3 crossing points spread across the table.

What do you guys think?

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Good points Nazdreg.

Next item up...

Rivers.

My though is to allow at least 3 crossing points spread across the table.

What do you guys think?

I want to see rivers as much as I want to see Mysterious Objectives and Mysterious Terrain. Which is, a lot, because I like random things happening.

Well,
If we make the river nothing more than a difficult terrain check, then it shouldnt pose too much of a problem for "tournament" style games right?

Now,
How about Themed tables?

Would you be opposed to gaming on say -- a moon... with craters and felt cut outs with cotton tufts that look like gas vents to represent area woods?

Well, Chimeras ignore rivers, just to keep that in mind

Good point Enigwolf....

But how many I.G. players actually move their parking lot across the table? Just kidding.

I guess its not that big of a deal, as alot of armies have vehicles that can just ignore terrain anyway.

LOS blocking terrain in my opinion is the most crucial terrain type when it comes to game balance and I must echo that the further los blockers are from the center of the board the more irrelevant they become to balance and the higher likelihood of them causing imbalance.

The best thing about los blocking terrain is it’s generally the easiest to make. Coffee cans, margarine containers, spray cans. All of them make great “promethium” tanks or general industrial buildings. They’re also fairly quick to paint.

I think a big, but not overly large LOS blocker in the middle is great. It allows assault to become a bit more viable and also balances the game out so that it isn't completely in favor of static shooting armies. LOS blockers end up resulting in players moving their models more, which is IMO a very good thing.

I'd also always include a decent LOS blocker in each Deployment Zone to help alleviate the problem of alpha-strikes just a bit (I think this is fair as you'd end up sacrificing some board control in order to avoid being alpha struck).

I am sure you are familiar with NOVA terrain. I feel they do a very, very good job and it seems as though you have a similar thought process on how to handle it. The only gripe I have had with their terrain as that some of the middle pieces are slightly too big. I'm not sure units such as Dreadknights/Riptides or Land Raiders should generally be able to hide fully out of LoS.

Either way, 25% coverage with a good mixture of LOS Block and Ruins is the way to go. It makes the game much more enjoyable for players involved and also creates a more balanced game.

Kudos to you!

I would also point out that ruins can also pull double duty as los blockers if you ensure the bottom levels have solid walls with no ability to draw los through them. We made sure to block all the windows on the bottom floors of ruins in our terrain collection. It looks cool too, having them all boarded up.

Great feedback guys!!

Thanks for the encouragement and ideas!!

Looking forward to next year!

Depends on the army I'm playing. My primary army is Drop Pods, so terrain is almost completely inconsequential to me.

If I am playing IG or Tau, I want no terrain in the middle with sparse terrain around the edges. (Just enough to hide a tank in, say.)

What is far, far, (I cannot emphasize this enough) FAR more important to me is that the boards look good. Especially in a tournament, I want the game to have a professional quality look to it, which means that I want the terrain set up in a method which is not only fair (having some boards denser than other is perfectly reasonable, as long as the density balances out on average) but artistically pleasing as well as narratively feasible. A tall order, to be sure, but that's why TOs wear the big-boy pants. (And part of the reason I go so long between running events! )

I agree Solo-- the tables should be balanced for deployment, but APPEARANCE is SOOOO much more important..

The next table in the workshop is going to be an Eldar themed table...wraithbone LOS blockers and Crystal Forests...im trying to incorporate some sort of energy fields for area terrain...Any ideas guys?

 Jimsolo wrote:
Depends on the army I'm playing. My primary army is Drop Pods, so terrain is almost completely inconsequential to me.

If I am playing IG or Tau, I want no terrain in the middle with sparse terrain around the edges. (Just enough to hide a tank in, say.)

What is far, far, (I cannot emphasize this enough) FAR more important to me is that the boards look good. Especially in a tournament, I want the game to have a professional quality look to it, which means that I want the terrain set up in a method which is not only fair (having some boards denser than other is perfectly reasonable, as long as the density balances out on average) but artistically pleasing as well as narratively feasible. A tall order, to be sure, but that's why TOs wear the big-boy pants. (And part of the reason I go so long between running events! )

I gotta say, in the context of a competative tournament, balanced terrain is far more important to me that aesthetics. That's not to say aesthetics aren't important but there are plenty of pretty board out there that are in no way fair or balanced.