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.

Which method of terrain placement do people use?

I have to say that I am a bit sick of alternating terrain placement. It just never seems to generate very nice games for me. Terrain coverage seems a bit low sometimes and it can easily generate pretty unbalanced setups. For instance, how many people have played a game with two long range armies, where one side gets vastly more terrain than the other? The outcome can be decided before the game even starts. Alternating terrain does have its good points, it avoids arguments and has a "fairness through randomness" aspect to it.

However, I have seen many people not even consider narrative terrain placement. I think that the main problem is probably the name. People see narrative and think about all the "forging a narrative" stuff, which is a side of the hobby a lot of people just ignore. This is fine, but I think that narrative terrain is actually better. Maybe if it was called "mutually agreed terrain" it would be more accurate. Back in 5th, setting up a board was usually a process of spacing the terrain out so that there were no large gaps and then tweaking it until both players were happy. You would make sure that both sides had equal amounts of large ruins and that the midfield wasn't empty for one side either. I suppose this process was helped immensely by rolling for board edges after terrain placement, it meant that there was a natural balancing act. You wouldn't want to make one side much better, as it could be the side you got.

I'm trying not to make this a narrative>alternating post, although I think it is obvious which I prefer. Alternating does have its merits. However, I think that the rule book line "If you and your opponent can't agree on a narrative..." shows that people should at least consider narrative placement before jumping to alternating. Again, I think that if "narrative" were replaced by "mutually agreeable", people would have a less coloured view of it and narrative would be a more accepted placement method.

So, what do you think?

NOVA style in comp, narrative in friendlies.

Honestly, my group was using alternating placement (of a sort) for most of 5th ed, so we just kept using it in 6th.

Most of the terrain on my table (trees/water features) are stationary. We move around the hills and stuff for 'Free for all' type games and put them in a certain position if we think of a scenario, "king of the hill" etc.

My local ground tend to go with Narrative terrain just because it is faster and no one seems to feel that the Alternating Terrain rule adds anything worthwhile to the game, particularly considering the time it adds that could be spent actually playing the game.

Alternating terrain is stupid as hell, and makes no sense at all (for example, why even roll to choose table edges if you do it before any terrain is on the table?), produces unbalanced tables, and encourages TFG to make custom game-breaking terrain favoring their army (for example, the bucket that goes on top of the opposing quad gun so it can't see anything, or the lethal terrain piece that covers the entire table outside their own deployment zone).

The solution is to go back to 5th. Place terrain, then roll off to decide who picks a table side and goes first.

Narrative Terrain is the only way to do it fairly.

Alternating is ridiculous.

To play devil's advocate, though, alternating terrain placement could be used to balance some imbalances out e.g. Leman Russ behind ADL, FoR / Bastion LOS blocking with huge terrain pieces etc.

I'm not a fan of the alternating terrain placement. Setting it all and then finding out which side you get and which deployment type you'll use makes setting up terrain a bit more fair and honest, I believe.

 Sigvatr wrote:
To play devil's advocate, though, alternating terrain placement could be used to balance some imbalances out e.g. Leman Russ behind ADL, FoR / Bastion LOS blocking with huge terrain pieces etc.

But that's just stupid. Why would I build a fortress right behind a giant rock that prevents my fortress from seeing anything? And why do we even need to deal with the "imbalance" of a Leman Russ using a fortified firing position to protect itself?

Also, once you allow terrain to be placed for strategic purposes you just let TFG win every game. You brought an aegis blocker? Congratulations, I brought my lethal terrain piece that covers the entire table with the exception of a small space in my deployment zone to place an objective and a scoring unit. Good game.

The question is: who is TFG? The one who uses the already existant terrain pieces (not talking of purposefully bringing terrain to the table) or the one trying to break forts?

I always ask my opponents if we can do it narratively. Almost without exception, they decline. As such, what I actually do is mostly alternating, even if I wish it otherwise.

I liked the old way of doing it.

Place terrain, roll for sides. That keeps things fair because everyone is invested in a fair table setup.

Narrative is how I roll.

I think if you place all the terrain, THEN roll to see what side you get is the most balanced. Prevents anyone from OP'ing one side because they know it's there side, or blocking anyones fortifications.

We do alternating, and since we're not all TFGs it works well. I set out 6-8 pieces of major terrain that are of a similiar theme at each table, and until there is one piece of major terrain in each quadrant of the table, you must place some where else.

We have a smattering of minor terrain (hedge rows, machine gun nests, small trees, etc). Each player gets to place these after sides and mission are choosen

We also allow fortifications to go last (just makes more sense, you pick where you build things)

My buddy and I place terrain so that it will make for a fun game for both. Sometimes we roll for table edges after, sometimes we go into it knowing which edge we are playing from before the first piece is laid down. Though this way obviously works best when both players want to have an equal amount of fun, so TFG that just wants to crush somebody to boost their own self-esteem can always throw the wrench in things, so I guess the alternating placement can help you take the sting out of playing him.

I can understand the "fairness" of alternating, but it makes for bland, artificial battlefields, and an escalating feeling of one-upmanship when placing each terrain piece.

It more fun to decide that "in this battle, my Eldar raiders are ambushing your Black Templar detail from the woods as the marines move to investigate why no-one is answering from Bunker 223, so the bunker is the main focus, and lets set up some really thematic wilderness around it".

 Ailaros wrote:
I always ask my opponents if we can do it narratively. Almost without exception, they decline. As such, what I actually do is mostly alternating, even if I wish it otherwise.

If you both disagree, logically you should roll off.

Keeps you from being on the losing end of the terrain decision out of politeness, and at the same time gives you a chance at Narrative Placement without an argument.

My group does narrative. One person places the terrain and the other player makes changes if they feel it's necessary. If both players are happy roll for table edges and place fortifications.

I have no problems with alternating placement, though if given the choice I'll go with narrative. It's more of a tradition of the group that we each get a turn on creating the battlefield.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The question is: who is TFG? The one who uses the already existant terrain pieces (not talking of purposefully bringing terrain to the table) or the one trying to break forts?

How the hell are the things you mentioned "trying to break forts"? Putting a Leman Russ behind an aegis line is using it exactly as it was intended to be used.

When setting up It's less of a narrattive and usually more of "does this table look cool?"

If it does, then we both start playing, if not, we make the terrain look amazing.

 kestril wrote:
When setting up It's less of a narrattive and usually more of "does this table look cool?"

If it does, then we both start playing, if not, we make the terrain look amazing.

This is narrative terrain placement. Mutually agreed placement for the sake of fun and coolness.

And a completely innacurate name.

Mutual terrain placement would be a better name. NARRATIVE terrain placement would be fluffy, or something that tells a story (the black templars and eldar example above would be narrative.)

My group uses 5th ed terrain placement. The temptation among those competitive-minded of us to place terrain in the most extremely exploitative manner is just too great (which in our experience isn't fun for anybody), even if we agree not to make deliberate Aegis-killer pieces, etc.

We've had too many games pre-decided by poor terrain setup so we generally go with a more or less fixed "tournament-style" map with some extra craters and area terrain thrown in.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The question is: who is TFG? The one who uses the already existant terrain pieces (not talking of purposefully bringing terrain to the table) or the one trying to break forts?

How the hell are the things you mentioned "trying to break forts"? Putting a Leman Russ behind an aegis line is using it exactly as it was intended to be used.

I am more referring to stuff like placing artillery on the SLP, Imotekh hiding behind a cornered Bastion etc. Leman Russ behind a ADL is not entirely broken, but a huge buff to static play that is, admittingly, the by far worst list to play with / against.

 Sigvatr wrote:

I am more referring to stuff like placing artillery on the SLP, Imotekh hiding behind a cornered Bastion etc. Leman Russ behind a ADL is not entirely broken, but a huge buff to static play that is, admittingly, the by far worst list to play with / against.

Why is static play un-fun to play against. I've never really faced a decent explanation on it.

So they (gunlines) don't move?

They have a shooting phase long enough to last your whole turn.

This seems just as bad as facing a crazily-mobile list (Razorspam, Venomspam, Cron-air) which I don't understand as boring either. Just different playstyles. Gunlines forgo the movement phase. Tau forgo the assault phase. Certain armies forgo the shooting phase.

It's unenjoyable compared to other match-ups because nothing actually happens except of your enemy spending 15 minutes on rolling dice alone. It makes for a pretty boring, undynamic game.

It got hilarious on a tournament a few months ago when one IG played vs. another and 90-95% of the time, someone was just throwing some dice around.

A crazy-mobile list is a lot more interesting as there's more variation, the entire game becomes more dynamic. You need to adapt to new situations given the enemy's movement and do not only sit around for 15 minutes, watching someone rolling the dice.

Playing vs. a gunline is the same as watching someone play Yahtzee for 15 min. Simpy boring.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am more referring to stuff like placing artillery on the SLP

How exactly is that breaking anything? The landing pad is clearly designed to be a firing platform that gives a defensive bonus to anything using it. Putting artillery on top of it is using it exactly as GW intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's unenjoyable compared to other match-ups because nothing actually happens except of your enemy spending 15 minutes on rolling dice alone. It makes for a pretty boring, undynamic game.

You said "breaking", not "using exactly as intended, which happens to be a playing style that I find boring".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am more referring to stuff like placing artillery on the SLP

How exactly is that breaking anything? The landing pad is clearly designed to be a firing platform that gives a defensive bonus to anything using it. Putting artillery on top of it is using it exactly as GW intended.

It's 100% WAAC. Having...5 or 6 artillery pieces on a SLP certainly is not what GW intended to do.

You said "breaking", not "using exactly as intended, which happens to be a playing style that I find boring".

"Anti-Fun". It certainly isn't boring for IG players...but people playing such an army might likely have a different mindset than most other players.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's 100% WAAC. Having...5 or 6 artillery pieces on a SLP certainly is not what GW intended to do.

Then why did they make it large enough for 5-6 tanks, elevate it off the ground to give them a nice view of the table, and then give a major defensive bonus to everything up there? It's blindingly obvious that GW intended for you to put significant shooting elements on top of the landing pad, and putting 5-6 tanks up there is doing exactly what it was designed for.

"Anti-Fun". It certainly isn't boring for IG players...but people playing such an army might likely have a different mindset than most other players.

"Breaking" means doing something that wasn't intended. It has nothing to do with fun, or boredom, or anything other than "are you using this rule the way it was intended to be played, or are you exploiting a mistake in game design".

We usually have someone outside of the game set the terrain. Sometimes while the players are not in the room. I've walked into some trolled up tables with 90% of the terrain in one big blob in the middle. I played it anyway for the lulz it usually doesn't happen that often so when it does we have a laugh and play it out.