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.

Personally, I prefer a balance of low terrain that provides Infantry with cover and taller LoS blocking pieces able to hide 1-2 medium vehicles.
Also, and this is something I do almost religiously, it is also important for the board to be symmetrical.
Nothing bothers me more than a lop-sided terrain setup that presents an obvious "best" side for the player that wins the roll-off to choose and immediately put their opponent at a disadvantage.

In addition to a board discussion, I have a specific scenario I want some opinions on:
I play mostly casual games now with my sons' Space Marines. They both have VenDreads to get some anti-tank work done at range. An issue that we've had is that when I go first (which seems to happen FAR more that 50% of the time) there always seems to be just enough of 1 or 2 of their Dreads in LoS that I can focus fire and kill them.
That puts them at an immediate disadvantage, which I do not want to be their experience in every game as it has been.

So I've been debating getting some additional terrain and setting up our board specifically to provide 100% blocking areas in both deployment zones so that they can always hide their Dreads even if I get first turn.
But if just seems....off...to tailor the terrain for this advantage, when the same is not typical at organized events.
So what would any of you do in this situation?

-

Local club has lots of terrain so when I set up, I like to completely cover the table. Roads, craters, bunkers, ruins, buildings you name it. I don't want any table showing through the terrain. Also like to keep it even so there's no obviously good side to take and have advantage.

As for your situation, I might recommend using the cities of death terrain rules which are quite good. Models 50% obscured benefit from a -1 to hit. So that might be enough to sway the odds for you's without the need for "tailored" terrain.

Honestly, in an ideal scenario I'd just do it myself and let the opponent pick which side they want. I do not know why, but setting up a board brings out the control freak in me.

I don't insist on symmetry, but I do on... what would be the word? fairness, I guess. Both sides will have an equal number of terrain pieces of roughly matching heights, laid out in a roughly similar way.

I would tailor the terrain to make a game more enjoyable for everyone involved, in your specific scenario.

We generally just throw terrain at the board until we agree it's good. Symmetry isn't too important, since it isn't usually symmetric around all possible axis, and you can get hammer and anvil deployment or corners deployment as options, so I don't bother with symmetry normally.

I generally try to play ITC missions in PUG games, so it ends up being random deployment maps.

For me it has to be symmetrical and offer lots of line of sight blocking terrain and cover. i play admech and nothing is more boring than not having to move all game because i see everything

We have a bunch of different "sets" of terrain and each set gives a good variety of terrain for one board. In general there's at least 2-3 LoS blockers able to block vehicles, with maybe one of those able to completely obscure a Knight, then a variety of barricades and smaller terrain pieces to provide cover but not block LoS quite so easily.

We tend not to create symmetrical boards but we do try to create boards where any of the potential deployment zones aren't disadvantaged over another.

Symmetry is the worst because it makes choosing a table side pointless. Asymmetry, preferably with on side having a slight advantage is better because it actually means (especially with CA 2018) that the decision on whether or not you want cover or to go first is actually an important decision instead of just defaulting to going first.

With a casual or pickup game I usually play by the proper rules in the BRB when determining board orientation and size, deployment zones, terrain etc.

It's helpful and prevents any way to pre-tailor your armies to a specific event or missions ( ie: prevents hustling of newer players or more fluffy armies).

So choose a random mission, choose 4-6 large pieces of large terrain, and similar low terrain. Take turns to place them, etc. There's rules in each of the missions to determine where the terrain can go (usually a minimum distance between the big terrain pieces), who picks the deployment zones, who places objectives first, who deploys first, who attacks first etc.
This means that things will change from time to time. There will be some advantageous layouts but it's outweighed by other things like objective placement and who goes first.

Sometimes the setup can take a little time, when you do it the first time, but then you get used to plopping terrain down, and you stop caring about orientation and min-maxing because the deployment zones might change!

In my club we sometimes house-rule that in order to get cover you need to be within 1" of a terrain feature (hill, wall, ruin, building, whatever) and be 50% or more concealed from the perspective of the shooter. This makes it less ambiguous (ie: am I fully in a terrain feature or not?) and makes the armour save a bit more understandable (I'm leaning against this wall)

Alternatively on smaller battles we've experimented with, being 50% obscured or more makes you -1 to hit, but you have to be within 1" terrain to get a get an armour save benefit. This doesn't work so well in larger battles as it's extra modifiers, things to think about and more disagreements.

Play with cities of death terrain rules, and set up taller buildings closer to the center of the board rather than around the edges. Turn 1 upfront damage is much, much lower, and units don't start to actually die until someone gets into the middle and gains the high ground/starts getting unimpeded LOS on opponent models.

A dreadnought with -1 to hit and a 1+ save is not going anywhere turn 1.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Symmetry is the worst because it makes choosing a table side pointless. Asymmetry, preferably with on side having a slight advantage is better because it actually means (especially with CA 2018) that the decision on whether or not you want cover or to go first is actually an important decision instead of just defaulting to going first.

This. That was a common mistake in Warmahordes too (where terrain mattered even more) you either had them all on the sides where they didn't matter or symmetrical which removed some of the benefits if you had to go second. Neither is good.

IMHO it should work the way the rules suggest: Both players lay out terrain in a suitable manner, and try to have variety such that while you might have commonalities (say at least one LOS blocking feature on either side) they should NOT be symmetrical. You then roll for deployment (another thing I see people often skip and just use Dawn of War) as normal and follow the rules for whatever mission you're using.

If there's only two of us present, we keep throwing terrain on the table and rearrange it to look cool. Until neither person feels like adding more/rearranging further.

If there's more present, it's not uncommon for someone else to set up a board so it looks cool - it's inherently fair because the setup was independant of who was playing, and what they brought.

In either case, it works well primarily because the setup is independent of winning. The board is being set up to be a compelling battleground, not to specifically help either player win.

My favorite games have had large structures in one part of the map, or a giant river across the board, or a forrest giving way to the ruins of civilization, or a great ravine. Symmetry wasn't part of the layout. Neither was balance. The layout was driven by grandeur.

That's not as viable in a tourny situation.

LoS blockers go down (fortress of redemption towers, plasma fortress, stack of crates, etc) and then just filled out with smaller stuff so that there is flat space to place models without the table looking empty.

Neutral third party sets up terrain, if possible.

We tend to choose a terrain theme, and then add until we’re happy with the looks.

We build asymmetrical, as we don’t have the terrain to make it the same on both sides. I also always try to build up so it isn’t possible to get a lane of fire from one side of the board to the other, and try to clutter the board enough so it’s possible for units to move from cover to cover across the board (especially since my son enjoys melee heavy units, though I prefer ranged units).

More often than not, we’ve also already decided table sides before the first piece of terrain has hit the board, but we try not to give one side or the other the advantage - unless it’s specifically part of a scenario.

So it looks cool.

First: a lot of meaningfull terrain, usually so there are just slight openings of LOS from deployment zone to deployment zone. IMHO only few, well defined long distance shooting lanes should exist. Many Necromunda tables are more sparsely populated than my 40K tables.

Second: fully asymmetrical, there is nothing more boring than irrelevant, mirrored layout. My preferred way to balance it is to play two matches in a row with switched deployment and score it cumulatively. If time is a concern I vastly prefer playing two smaller games this way than a sigle large battle on "fair" table or make a documentation of layout and recreate it next time I play to finish such double match.

Third: include terrain that limits not only LOS but also mobility of various unit types (narrow bottlenecks, lava rivers, areas of difficult terrain, rock formation labirynths etc). Terrain interaction should be more than simple LOS/no LOS.

Fourth: cohesive, with clear theme and looking like a real place. I loathe mess of random terrain elements just to fulfull rules requirement. 40K is more than just a sterile play of rule interactions and for me it has to be reflected in terrain as well as forces.

Depends on the game.

Vs. Newer Player Pickup or League Game:
I let them set up the terrain. They're having fun, so let 'em.

Vs. Regular Playgroup Pickup Game:
Flood that table with terrain! Nothing makes me happier than a crowded table. Most people don't seem to actually like this though, because it can get awkward to move units around, and so I won't push it, but I personally love it. Plus, since this is just for fun, we're not using ITC terrain rules, so you need lots of terrain to really block LoS.

Tournaments or Tournament Practise:
The table should have a rough symmetry, even if not perfectly symmetrical. For tournaments, I prefer ITC rules for terrain, as I enjoy the game style it encourages. There should be a large LoS blocking piece in the middle that armies can "dance" around, and at least 6 more terrain pieces that block LoS in a rough hexagon around that middle piece. Preferably, no corner should have vision to any other corner, and no mid-field spot should have vision to any other mid-field spot.

I like mirrored boards a lot.

I find it very interesting/surprising that so many have mentioned asymmetrical terrain preference.
I understand the "boring" aspect, but how else do you make it fair?

And why should the roll off matter so much? Wouldn't that mean even MOAR chances for he game to be decided before you even play? If a player has a clearly better list AND gets the obvious "best" side, what is the point in playing it out?
Or do you see it as a chance to mitigate such list imbalance?

I may start trying some asymmetrical layouts and see how that goes.
But I think in my games at home, I'm going to make sure each deployment zone has at lease 1 LoS blocking piece that at least 2 Dreads can hide behind.

 Yarium wrote:
Depends on the game.

Vs. Newer Player Pickup or League Game:
I let them set up the terrain. They're having fun, so let 'em.

Vs. Regular Playgroup Pickup Game:
Flood that table with terrain! Nothing makes me happier than a crowded table. Most people don't seem to actually like this though, because it can get awkward to move units around, and so I won't push it, but I personally love it. Plus, since this is just for fun, we're not using ITC terrain rules, so you need lots of terrain to really block LoS.

Tournaments or Tournament Practise:
The table should have a rough symmetry, even if not perfectly symmetrical. For tournaments, I prefer ITC rules for terrain, as I enjoy the game style it encourages. There should be a large LoS blocking piece in the middle that armies can "dance" around, and at least 6 more terrain pieces that block LoS in a rough hexagon around that middle piece. Preferably, no corner should have vision to any other corner, and no mid-field spot should have vision to any other mid-field spot.

I like that term "rough symmetry". I'm not always trying to have the board mirrors, but it's ALWAYS unfair if one side has all the buildings and the other side is just craters

-

As an old StarCraft player I prefer some semblance of symmetry unless I am going for a thematic battle where there is an obvious narrative to the table(ie. in one game of AoS Ogors and Daughters fought on the Church Square of an abandoned town). However, symmetry in my mind is not the same building on opposite sides, but similar chance of cover on both sides.

Near deployment zones I prefer to put down low buildings with the largest buildings I own(3-4 stories high) I keep to the center. It gives you a reason to fight over the middle as the middle provides both cover and sometimes advantages over the rest of the map if you man them with your troops

For proper matched battles I dislike asymmetry mostly because I have seen games fold entirely on the side that got unlucky and got at most a shed in their deployment zone because there was a bad roll on the deployment maps, missions, and/or initiative. For me the only way to provide a fair game is to attempt some sort of symmetry.

 Eldarsif wrote:
For proper matched battles I dislike asymmetry mostly because I have seen games fold entirely on the side that got unlucky and got at most a shed in their deployment zone because there was a bad roll on the deployment maps, missions, and/or initiative. For me the only way to provide a fair game is to attempt some sort of symmetry.

This has been my experience as well. 1 lucky roll at the start of the game shouldn't determine the battle, but if the terrain is set up to dramatically favor one side, that is what happens.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
For proper matched battles I dislike asymmetry mostly because I have seen games fold entirely on the side that got unlucky and got at most a shed in their deployment zone because there was a bad roll on the deployment maps, missions, and/or initiative. For me the only way to provide a fair game is to attempt some sort of symmetry.

This has been my experience as well. 1 lucky roll at the start of the game shouldn't determine the battle, but if the terrain is set up to dramatically favor one side, that is what happens.

-

At least with Chapter Approved 2018 missions (and half the new ITC beta missions) this isn't a problem. The player who goes second gets to pick their deployment zone, so if you're going second, you pick the better deployment zone. Your opponent gets to go first, so he can hopefully do enough damage T1 to mitigate having a worse deployment zone.

Rough Symmetry, as described by earlier posters. A few main pieces on either side of the board, in the same style of structure. Doesn't have to be the exact same size, but going for a rough shape.

As for how I run the set up, since my gaming community is quite small, if I'm playing at a FLGS and since I'm quite the eager beaver and arrive before everyone else on game nights (usually), I'll set up the board I want to play on, making it as balanced and roughly symmetrical as possible. When I find someone to play, I'll ask them to look over the table if it looks good to them as well. Way, way more often than not, they're fine with the layout. I hope that's not just them being polite for my sake

If I run a match at my home, I'll run it one of two ways. If we've got lots of time, we'll pick mission and deployment maps, then take turns placing terrain until it 'feels right.'
If we're more limited for time that day, or are looking for a more competitive match, then I'll set up prior to them arriving, and ask if the table looks good. And usually give them choice of table side.

Though, one of our players has another method. He's got a big fancy garage, just for Warhammer. Three tables, always set up with some pre-set ITC-style arrangements.

What I find interesting, is, either me being blind and unable to read, but 40k has a lack of 'Terrain placement guides.' AOS core rules have a section on different methods and rule-suggestions or terrain placement, covering scenarios of One-player setting it all up, taking turns, ect.

 Galef wrote:
I find it very interesting/surprising that so many have mentioned asymmetrical terrain preference.
I understand the "boring" aspect, but how else do you make it fair?

And why should the roll off matter so much? Wouldn't that mean even MOAR chances for he game to be decided before you even play? If a player has a clearly better list AND gets the obvious "best" side, what is the point in playing it out?
Or do you see it as a chance to mitigate such list imbalance?

I may start trying some asymmetrical layouts and see how that goes.
But I think in my games at home, I'm going to make sure each deployment zone has at lease 1 LoS blocking piece that at least 2 Dreads can hide behind.

 Yarium wrote:
Depends on the game.

Vs. Newer Player Pickup or League Game:
I let them set up the terrain. They're having fun, so let 'em.

Vs. Regular Playgroup Pickup Game:
Flood that table with terrain! Nothing makes me happier than a crowded table. Most people don't seem to actually like this though, because it can get awkward to move units around, and so I won't push it, but I personally love it. Plus, since this is just for fun, we're not using ITC terrain rules, so you need lots of terrain to really block LoS.

Tournaments or Tournament Practise:
The table should have a rough symmetry, even if not perfectly symmetrical. For tournaments, I prefer ITC rules for terrain, as I enjoy the game style it encourages. There should be a large LoS blocking piece in the middle that armies can "dance" around, and at least 6 more terrain pieces that block LoS in a rough hexagon around that middle piece. Preferably, no corner should have vision to any other corner, and no mid-field spot should have vision to any other mid-field spot.

I like that term "rough symmetry". I'm not always trying to have the board mirrors, but it's ALWAYS unfair if one side has all the buildings and the other side is just craters

-

Clever asymmetry with a lot of diversity of landscape functions does not have to provide clear advantage. What I like to do is to arrange terrrain features so that parts of the table favor/punish different types of units. The reason why you might see this as giving distinct advantage to player is because your mental image of a table is far less cluttered, so you have only a single area with a single gradient of advantage. On cluttered tables there are many overlaping gradients of advantage and many semi-isolated subareas and utilizing those require thought and skill. This is ephasised further with Maelstrom missions but since default mode of 40K play is EW on scarce terrain most people never even experience this.

 Galef wrote:
I find it very interesting/surprising that so many have mentioned asymmetrical terrain preference.
I understand the "boring" aspect, but how else do you make it fair?

And why should the roll off matter so much? Wouldn't that mean even MOAR chances for he game to be decided before you even play? If a player has a clearly better list AND gets the obvious "best" side, what is the point in playing it out?
Or do you see it as a chance to mitigate such list imbalance?

I may start trying some asymmetrical layouts and see how that goes.
But I think in my games at home, I'm going to make sure each deployment zone has at lease 1 LoS blocking piece that at least 2 Dreads can hide behind.

 Yarium wrote:
Depends on the game.

Vs. Newer Player Pickup or League Game:
I let them set up the terrain. They're having fun, so let 'em.

Vs. Regular Playgroup Pickup Game:
Flood that table with terrain! Nothing makes me happier than a crowded table. Most people don't seem to actually like this though, because it can get awkward to move units around, and so I won't push it, but I personally love it. Plus, since this is just for fun, we're not using ITC terrain rules, so you need lots of terrain to really block LoS.

Tournaments or Tournament Practise:
The table should have a rough symmetry, even if not perfectly symmetrical. For tournaments, I prefer ITC rules for terrain, as I enjoy the game style it encourages. There should be a large LoS blocking piece in the middle that armies can "dance" around, and at least 6 more terrain pieces that block LoS in a rough hexagon around that middle piece. Preferably, no corner should have vision to any other corner, and no mid-field spot should have vision to any other mid-field spot.

I like that term "rough symmetry". I'm not always trying to have the board mirrors, but it's ALWAYS unfair if one side has all the buildings and the other side is just craters

-

Because the selection of the table side should be an advantage to the player who probably isn't going first? So it's actually offsetting the already existing advantage of taking the first turn, thus making it more fair rather than less.

25% coverage then you place it around somewhat evenly, then if you want (you have to have played older editions to do this. ) scatter the terrain using a scatter dice and a D6.

No arguments about placing for advantage etc. Has done me right every time.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'm not always trying to have the board mirrored, but it's ALWAYS unfair if one side has all the buildings and the other side is just craters

-

Because the selection of the table side should be an advantage to the player who probably isn't going first? So it's actually offsetting the already existing advantage of taking the first turn, thus making it more fair rather than less.

Which I agree should be standard, but it isn't always due to different missions having different rules.
Seize the Initiative is also a thing, so rather than take ANY chance that the terrain will favor one side or the other, I'd prefer the sides to be roughly the same.

The easiest way to achieve this is to have similar terrain feature in both deployments.

-

I generally host, and normally set up a table to be quasi-thematic when I do. Examples:





Generally speaking we do rules for LOS blocking through sections of trees (the raised hill portions, etc)

Unless a table is set up specifically for a narrative game (a large plot point in our ongoing campaign) then we use my deployment deck I designed and a simple system we call "strategic initiative". In the campaign whoever is "in control" of the narrative zone would be choosing one of three deployment cards. Basically the person with strategic initiative decides on attacker/defender (determined more or less by the overarching narrative of how the campaign is going).



Basically the player with strategic initiative draws one card and places it on the table. This player gets to accept it or draw again. If he draws again, this first card cannot be used. If the second card is awful he can draw a third time, but then that's it...so it gives the player slight control over what random deployment he likes best. This deck of deployment is far less balanced than the normal GW cards that inspired it, so it makes for more random and hectic engagements. Objectives, and campaign points are placed before the game starts.

start with a piece or two of line of sight blocking terrain in the center and one in each corner. it should be at least to the poitn that an imperial knight behind it should get a cover save and most transports can manage to be out of line of sight with proper positioning. there should be a few pieces of this or other terrain where shooting armies can set up in terrain for decent cover and drawing lines of sight through lanes across the board (other than the LOS blocking obviously)

Considering the fact that I almost exclusively play casual, I often try to agree with my opponent beforehand if I can. One favourite method is to have the first player to arrive (or the home-player, or whatever) set up terrain in any pleasing manner. Often overlooked, this also saves time, as often the table is prepared to start deploying and gaming right away. Then, the other player gets to choose a side of the table; no roll-off. Somehow, even total strangers except absolute TFG's, manage to set up a fun table, when they know they will not get to choose their table side anyways.
When I can't contact the other player before the game (random store pickup, etc.), one age-old method comes to mind. Divide the play area into squares (6 for a 4 by 6 standard table), roll a D3 for each section, and in turn the players place a piece of terrain wherever they like, up to the indicated amount; the result of the D3 roll. While this does tend to take away control over the symmetry of the table, it is random, and thus encourages thought behind winning the roll-off which we do use when setting up the table like this.

What makes a battlefield/table fun for me?
Like many here, I prefer two or three tall, line-of-sight-blocking features smack in the middle of the table. And plenty of cover for all that infantry to slog through. But not too much so that even medium vehicles like a Leman Russ has difficulty moving. Also, I don't really mind putting down green-based models on a brown battlefield. Each player bases his miniatures the way he or she likes anyways, often based on what table they have at home. But I do like to see some consistency and maybe a theme within that battlefield. At home, I have made eight tiles of about 2 feet squared. I can take any six, and build a 4 by 6 foot play area. They are roads (2 straights, 2 corners, 2 T-junctions and 2 crossroads) and sidewalks. I have many Pegasus Hobbies building ruins, including a PH cathedral that I often place in the middle, and a couple of GW ruins, and a few others. While this leaves road-length fire lanes wide open (sort of, though they are often filled with scatter terrain like tank traps, containers or rubble), it also provides a means to have a lot of ruins for cover, and allows me to clog the middle with high buildings/ruins to close off large sight lines. I wouldn't place deathworld forest model terrain on this table, however, it would break the theme. The way it is now, it's simple, versatile, thematic, and each and every one of the people playing the game at my house enjoyed it thoroughly. (Even without actual city-fight rules or anything, just playing the game with a couple of objectives.)

On symmetry; I don't really think a table has to be symmetrical, just balanced. A table set up like a row of buildings on one side and a large swathe of difficult ground swamp on the other half might, through at least one of its axises, be symmetrical, but is it balanced? Especially if you play from swampy side to city buildings?