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.

What method do you guys use to set up the terrain. The method I use is usually whoever's house we are playing at sets up the terrain. It just saves time and nice to think that they have that 'home field' advantage (with random deployment zones, it is fairly balanced. It can make sense narrative wise, as you are invading them. An alternative is for us to each set up half the board, this will often be done if the person is always playing at someone else's place.

Two ways: One person sets up terrain, the other person okays it (maybe after moving a few pieces around).

Two being we get a third party to set it up. It helps that I play at my local GW, not at home.

We usually have someone who isn't playing in the game set it up. And, try to keep it symmetrical if possible, so one person doesn't end up with a huge advantage. But, it happens sometimes.

I like the old way of filling up a quarter with terrain to decide how much to use. It's not raw, but for friendly games one person sets up the terrain and the other guy gets to pick which side to deploy first. We do it so the loser of the roll of gets to set it up then. If they're deploying first you have incentive not to give one side an advantage, and it makes losing the roll of less of a bummer because it gives ya something to do.

This is how we usually do it. The player who arrives first sets up terrain, the other players switches some things, from then on each player makes adaptations unitl both players agree.

You can use the 'ol scatter die to randomize placement.

I have two ways of going about terrain placement:

1. Make the table symmetrical, no real advantage for either side.

2. This is more fun, set up the terrain however I like, typically I make it feel a little more real (city blocks, edges of a farm field, etc.) then make deployment zones completely random. Use dice rolls to decide the orientation of the fighting, then another dice roll to decide who goes on which side. No choice on deployment zones on the player's part, only dice.

Kinda random, but if you guys haven't tried the game on a circular board before it's actually awesome.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Two ways: One person sets up terrain, the other person okays it (maybe after moving a few pieces around).

That is my old gaming group. Worked well for us.

 Cothonian wrote:

2. This is more fun, set up the terrain however I like, typically I make it feel a little more real (city blocks, edges of a farm field, etc.) then make deployment zones completely random. Use dice rolls to decide the orientation of the fighting, then another dice roll to decide who goes on which side. No choice on deployment zones on the player's part, only dice.

I like this.

I prefer designing some interesting assymetric layout (including objective markers placement and defining deployment zones) and then play two games with shifted sides and first turn order and treating those two games as a single "match" with cumulative result.

Symmetrical terrain placement like in a lot of Dawn of War scenarios.

If we're using a store table where the terrain is preset we just roll for sides and go.

Otherwise, we just mutually make a cool looking table, roll for sides (according to mission parameters) and play. I know that's not "RAW" correct, but we really don't get too fussy about it.

Personally (if) I played current...I'd set up a table to represent any kind of real location. Objectives/missions/table sides to be determined afterwards. I personally hate symmetrical tables or the curiously well spaced terrain. A table should represent a location first, and be a gaming surface second (unless, of course, you're doing some tournament nonsense).

RAW can suck it.

roll off and alternate per-piece works pretty well.

Just straight up cooperative on what we think looks right! Usually. This might work for us just because I don't have much terrain at all, though, and because i usually only play with someone i know pretty well.

Tycho wrote:
If we're using a store table where the terrain is preset we just roll for sides and go.

Otherwise, we just mutually make a cool looking table, roll for sides (according to mission parameters) and play. I know that's not "RAW" correct, but we really don't get too fussy about it.

The second way is how I play most of my games. We both sorta toss stuff down, and finish with a “look good to you?” If it’s a little lopsided, we adjust.

As for sides, we mostly just default to the sides of the table we are standing on. If the table was set up balanced, it shouldn’t matter. Plus moving all your stuff is a pain.

When I used to play we agreed on a centrepiece in the middle. After that we split the terrain in half equally (say two Bastions, four craters and four ruins each). One person places their first piece down and rolls 3D6 scatter. Then the next person does the same and it continues until all the terrain is placed.

That was for competitive games. For casual games we literally chucked it on the board, 'look good?' 'yeah', start playing.

All the tournaments I've been to the terrain has been pre-made and they're usually pretty good, last one I went to in Sydney had a few tables of literal rubbish - KFC boxes, buckets and cups either somebody is very clever or works at KFC because it was all clean, we couldn't hide in the terrain but it was LOS blocking.

At the FLGS there's two pre-made tables and two empty tables, the usual agreement is place a five pieces each in Igougo style then roll to decide the deployment style, then roll off to decide who gets to choose their deployment zone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How fussy are you guys about terrain quality?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
All the tournaments I've been to the terrain has been pre-made and they're usually pretty good, last one I went to in Sydney had a few tables of literal rubbish - KFC boxes, buckets and cups either somebody is very clever or works at KFC because it was all clean, we couldn't hide in the terrain but it was LOS blocking.

At the FLGS there's two pre-made tables and two empty tables, the usual agreement is place a five pieces each in Igougo style then roll to decide the deployment style, then roll off to decide who gets to choose their deployment zone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How fussy are you guys about terrain quality?

I generally prefer terrain to at least look what it represents. If you are using premade terrain (from GW or any other company) I'm fine with it not being painted, but as in your example, kfc boxes wouldn't be acceptable. Printed cardboard terrain would be fine though. Not being willing to make some sort of terrain (even cardboard print outs) just strikes me as lazy. Also it means that if you want a crowded battlefield (often because its an advantage to your army or a disadvantage to your opponent, you actually need to put some effort into it.

Place the terrain before the mission and table sides are determined.

Quarter the table, and give each player equal amounts of same type terrain to place.

like this:

1::2
2::1

The advantage gained by placement is mitigated by the fact that no one knows where they will start or where they need to go.

It usually makes for interesting games, and gives a more organic and realistic feel to the terrain.

An addition to my previous question.

Do any of you ever come across the 'too much terrain' syndrome?

This isn't just a case of just filling up the battlefield with terrain (or though it is usually the result), .Myself and a friend both have large amounts of terrain, he because he has been playing since second Ed and it builds up, even though I took a several year break from 40k I still played several RPGs and a couple of historical wargames and have continued building terrain (a friend of mine had an agreement, I supply the terrain, he supplied the armies). Since getting back into 40k I have joined with a couple of local groups and when players come here they are surprised at the amount of terrain I have and it seems that every spare inch is filled - I have put this down to simply being overwhelmed with choice so taking a bit of everything (or though I do wonder if this is always the case as I play a shooty army) I tend to indulge them as having seen their collections, its enough, but its not lots.

In addition to the various methods mentioned above, is their any other ways you would go about solving this issue.

This was part of why I asked the original question, to get some ideas of possible options that everyone would feel is fair.

Everyone at my store knows that I'm not biased in any way and always try to make things fair (in more competitive focused games) or interesting (in more casual games). As such, I almost always set up for my games with input from my opponent ("what do you think of these here, is this enough, etc"), and I'm sometimes asked to set it up if two people can't come to an agreement about what is fair or if I'm helping set up for a tournament.

If I'm helping with a tournament or people that play competitive I always aim to do LoS blocker in middle somewhere, or 2 equally spaced (usually slightly staggered, not directly along the line) at thirds of the table, then equal number of cover sort of spread evenly around each player side. Not identical, but similar and "fair". If we roll for deployment and get a different setup we'll rotate walls and such that'll be poorly placed in such a game or that creates a clear advantage for one player.

As for most of my personal games I either do a slightly similar setup or a bit less balanced, or try to set something up that fits a certain goal. Maybe the theme of it is that my DW are attacking an entrenched chaos or space wolf (basically the same thing) army that's hunkered down holding a position, so we'll set it up that there's a lot of open terrain to drop terminators but give him a slightly more defensive deployment zone. Maybe my army is clearing out a city being attacked by demons, so we're playing in a tightly packed street battle (we use all the ruins we can find, try to play when no one else is). All depends on how well I know the person, and if they're more competitive focused or story driven.

I love terrain the more on the table the better it is the great equalizer, Ill never put it down just to mess with my opponent ie him with tau me with orks a million peices blocking him.

I just find making it look like a kill team game is so much more cinematic. Im not playing to win just to have a fun time.