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.

Hello DakkaDakka, got a semi serious question for you all, and I hope to get some feed back on it.

At my local gaming club, we have lots of terrain, and unfortunately both myself and others are prone to placing terrain in advantageous positions within our deployment, either as a result of the way we place, a theme, or just sheer dumb placement. Now, I've played these guys over the last year and we all agree it's time to draw up some house rules or a standard as such to follow for terrain, as we all agree that that fun>everything.

So, a draft rule set we've come up with is as such:

1. All terrain is to be a at least 12" away from any board edge.
2. All terrain within 18" of a board edge is to be no higher than 4" high.
3. All terrain is to be spaced evenly throughout the board unless a specific scenario is being used.
4. All big LoS blocking terrain must be central in the board and evenly spaced.
5. Scatter terrain is allowed within 12" of the board edge.
6. Both players must be happy on the final positions of terrain before the game begins.

So, your thoughts dakka?

I usually just ask a 3rd party to set it up.

and it never becomes an issue.

One way we've not formally tried, but has been kind of a loose house rule, is that if you had two players both secretly right down their table end pick first - then roll to see who chooses first. If both players pick the same, randomly pick one of the other deployment maps and try again.

So if one long edge is clearly better to both players (say because of the big factory or chapel in the middle), play lengthways or diagonally.

Step 1: Set up table
Step 2: Roll for first drop (which is where sides are picked).

Then setting up the table becomes less of a customized advantage and more of a double-edged sword.

I could set up the perfect deployment zone for me, and then I lose the roll and my opponent plops his happy butt in my seat.

Now the table has to be set up a bit more neutrally. You may not even know the deployment TYPE at this point, for an extra twist.

Common sense and 3rd party are my favorite methods. Symmetric tables i see are least prefer. Actually i will flat out refuse to play on those boring soulless boards

My meta uses set up and then determine sides. It does cut down on people placing terrain in the most advantageous places.

I will often pre build the table so it makes sense and looks good. Then I ask my opponent if he is ok with it or wants anything changed. Usually they are ok and I have no issue with changing anything that seems off. Then we roll off and go to it. I have never had any issues.

do as in warmachine?
Deploy terrain on the table, then roll off to choose either:
Your deployment area
or
Whether you go first or second

Definitely set up the board before figuring out deployment.

Here's one way I've done it:
- Set the largest piece of terrain within 6" of the center
- Set the next building within 6-12" of it
- Continue placing pieces within 6-12" of another piece of terrain until you run out of space.

You can take turns placing terrain if you want

 Desubot wrote:
I usually just ask a 3rd party to set it up.

and it never becomes an issue.

This.

Or have one player set up the all the terrain on the table and let the other person choose the side they start on.

And always make sure it looks great!

Just keep rule #6.
Terrain changes the game and can be fun. Sure it's not always fair but with your current criteria every board is going to start to be identical. At that point you may as well go back to playing on planet bowling ball and not bother creating a new terrain based metagame.

Two options:

1) Accept that terrain placement is part of strategy and alternate placement. Agree on a standard set of terrain for the club, and then the players alternate picking and placing a terrain element up to the maximum total agreed on by club rules. It's still placing terrain to your advantage, which is odd from a narrative point of view, but both players have equal opportunity to do so and it is balanced.

or

2) Have one player set up the table, again using a standard pool of terrain and number of pieces to place, and the other player choose which side to take. This creates a strong incentive to set up a balanced table, if the player setting up the terrain creates an obvious advantage for either side then they can guarantee they will be playing against that advantage.

1. All terrain is to be a at least 12" away from any board edge.
2. All terrain within 18" of a board edge is to be no higher than 4" high.

This is a really bad idea and makes it way too easy for alpha strike armies. There should be hiding places in each player's deployment zone so that turn-1 shooting doesn't have easy targets everywhere, especially now that merely being behind terrain (instead of within its boundaries) does nothing in 8th.

3. All terrain is to be spaced evenly throughout the board unless a specific scenario is being used.

This is balanced, but not always the most interesting option. Asymmetrical terrain layouts lead to interesting strategy, forcing each player to pick the best positions on the table instead of homogenizing everything.

5. Scatter terrain is allowed within 12" of the board edge.

Scatter terrain should not exist. It has essentially zero value in 8th beyond aesthetic improvements to the battlefield, and should not be considered "terrain".

6. Both players must be happy on the final positions of terrain before the game begins.

This is a nice thought, but doesn't really add much. What if they disagree and both players can't be happy? You've added a requirement, but haven't added any means of satisfying it.

First set up terrain, then roll sides and deployment. Always place something los blocking in the middle.

Isn't setting up terrain before determining side what you're supposed to do anyway?

I've don't think terrain placement has ever happened after rolling for sides.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Isn't setting up terrain before determining side what you're supposed to do anyway?

I've don't think terrain placement has ever happened after rolling for sides.

Correct. are you going to make one side much better than the other if you don't know which side you're getting (or you might even get a short side or a diagonal sector depending on the mission)? It sounds like OP has been determining both the deployment type and choosing sides before putting terrain down which is just weird.

The tried and tested method (pioneered by HG Wells) of having one player setup terrain and the other player choose sides also works.

Thank you for your input gentlemen, and it's been good, but I suspect my initial post lacked info so here is some more:
Both opponents put the terrain down on our group, and it inevitably leads to one or both either subconsciously or deliberately putting a very useful piece of terrain on the deployment. This inevitably backfires when one person does it (as you can lose that deployment) but it feels a bit silly when both opponents have it. Also, our metal is quite casual and fluffy with very little deep strike units used, so we must take into account this as well!

I've talked to the guys today (mentioning all the suggestions!) and we're going to try out some ideas in our games meet up tomorrow:

Why would you not put LOS blocking terrain in deployment zones? Might as well make turn one even more deadly aye?

Terrain sucks, why make it worse?

I don't think making hard rules works for this - terrain and armies are too varied to make any kind of coherent point on it. However, a few pointers;

-avoid defensible platforms in deployment zones (to avoid camping with long range shooting)
-create lanes of fire across the battlefield
-LOS blocking terrain can go anywhere - it should be possible to hide units first turn, but not a whole army.

CassianSol wrote:
-avoid defensible platforms in deployment zones (to avoid camping with long range shooting)

So long-ranged defensive armies/strategies shouldn't exist? No thanks.

Jeez, those sound so complicated. How about just place the terrain so it makes the table loot pretty?

No, just a thousand times no. This isn't a paintball field, it's a wargame with little toy soldiers. Set up a realistic battlefield, and then deploy as normal - sometimes you're going to be in a better position, big deal.

Here are my guidelines:

1. One player sets up the whole terrain. This is usually me. My opponent will then choose his deployment zone. No 3rd party needed.
2. Put big LOS blocking terrain in the middle of the board. Prevents playing on planet bowling ball.
3. Make sure that a Land Raider (our biggest vehicle) can traverse the battlefield without having to move through terrain.
4. Put a lot of terrain on the battlefield.
5. Done. This takes approximately five minutes of my time.

@OP:
I can understand where you are coming from. Back in the day when I was playing on a frequent basis, my buddy and me teamed up against two other guys. We were having a WF battle and we still had to write our lists. So I told our opponents to place the terrain by themselves. These guys were flabbergasted at my proposal as they were accustomed to alternate the deployment of terrain. This always meant screwing the oppoent over in a very repulsive fashion. Their credo was: If both players don´t complain about the terrain then it wasn´t a good placement after all. Suffice to say, one of them was not capable of creating a decent battlefield and thus they were argueing and second-guessing the position of each terrain piece. So after our lists were ready, we proceeded to place the terrain ourselves and this dude just gaped in wonder and amazement as the beautiful landscape unfolded before his very own eyes. We asked them, if they were happy and they responded it was fine.
I made a mental note at this point to never deal with this guy again.

If you believe the internet hyperbole, terrain doesn't matter, so there is no configuration that could possibly benefit you over your opponent since it doesn't matter anyways.

I currently have 4 large buildings (2 more to build). I divide the table into 6 2’x2’ sections; I roll for each piece to see where they are placed. I then do the same with the largest walls, and cover; I then fill in blank spots with the lower/shorter walls. I then turn things or adjust things until they seem fairly balanced and each deployment zone has a spot to hide, some cover, etc. We discuss what counts as cover, we agree on LOS (ie windows on first floor of ruins are “boarded up”. There ends up being fire lanes, etc.; my devastators can’t see the entire table (not even close), so our support units aren’t overpowered, but melee can’t hop from cover to cover and stay invisible for long if they want to have an effect on the game. My opponent can adjust the terrain if he sees anything he doesn’t like but it’s never happened. Winning/losing for us lately has dimension down to either a clear mistake by one of the players or a few whiffed dice rolls in late game. It’s worked very well.

I never really worry about terrain setup. The usual convention for most the other wargames I have played is for the player who cares what the table looks like the most (usually me) sets up terrain. The other player then gets to make adjustments as they see fit to make sure there aren't any problem areas. If both players are veterans and want to, often games are custom scenarios designed based on the terrain and what each player's army consists of. The intent with the scenario is to create a game as close as possible.

I usually try to create a particular theme with terrain available to better facilitate a basic story of why the battle is happening (or in historical games to feel like a part of a particular battle). I am concerned more about the finished product over game play advantages. The notable exception is making sure the largest models can still move around most of the table. Although, I sometimes purposely create areas where vehicles (sometime just tracked/wheeled to show case walkers more) can't go. Many of the miniatures wargames I have played also have the 2-3 objective capture missions. So I also like to also have a dense terrain half and sparse terrain half so an assault player has the advantage on one side and the ranged focused player has the advantage on the other, but this can sometimes be tough to pull off effectively.

However, since I don't really care about being ultra competitive (and definitely not at the cost of poor looking table), I don't really care than much about how terrain is going to affect my chances.

We always just get a third player to set things up for us. Makes it much easier.