PDA

View Full Version : Would you prefer to place the terrains than have somebody done it for you?



40kdhs
15-02-2009, 01:43
When you participate in a tournament, would you prefer to place the terrains than have somebody done it for you?

Please vote and thank you.

Arnizipal
15-02-2009, 02:15
In most tournaments I played in terrain on each table was set up by the organisers. Players were assigned a table and rolled a die to see who got to pick sides.

I think that's the fairest way to deal with it. It cuts back on the sneaky tricks that some terrain layouts can give you and forces you to field a more rounded force.

*votes and thanks self* ;)

starlight
15-02-2009, 02:39
Tournaments - usually done by organisers or players alternate.
Game store - either done by staff or players alternate.
Game club/gamer's house - players alternate.

Pretty simple overall.

Lord Malorne
15-02-2009, 02:49
No guilt for Starlight it seems ;).

I usualy let the other guy do it, makes it easier and I have one thing less to think about...:D

havoc626
15-02-2009, 02:57
We either play as the table is set up, or, if it isn't set up, we'll alternate. Simple enough way of doing it, and if the field isn't a good set up to start with, we'll move a few things around to make it a bit better. I don't really think about it that much, just have one or two things that I need, like something to hide a WLC behind, and then I'm happy.

The Red Scourge
15-02-2009, 06:50
Choosing where to fight is just as important, as fighting itself. Terrainhammer is one of the best tools you have in the game. I definitely prefer to be able to have an influence over how the battlefield looks.

olmsted
15-02-2009, 06:58
always best to let an unbiased person set up terrain. doesnt allow any benefits such as terrainhammer.

Condottiere
15-02-2009, 07:10
A set of published maps would ensure neutrality.

Rank&Foul
15-02-2009, 08:23
Cool idea on the published maps but I can't imagine why anyone would forfeit their right as a general to pick their battlefield by placing terrain. I think that tricky terrain set up to suit your armies strengths is a great element of the game. Just think about armies and spells that benefit from water features. How many event organizers are going to have the foresight to accommodate that?

Gorbad Ironclaw
15-02-2009, 08:57
A set of published maps would ensure neutrality.

Not really as that's assuming that those published maps would be neutral and unbiased and I'm sure some of them is going to be out of alignment so those will be favoured by some players.


Anyway, for a tournament I much prefer having it done by the TO. It's just much easier that way.

In friendly games, whatever #shrug#. Usually we just take turns putting down something and then maybe scattering it. Otherwise we might get someone else to set it up. Doesn't really make much difference.

2d6
15-02-2009, 09:56
Terrainhammer bugs me, especially generals with warmachines who think that the game can't start untill the's a hill in each deployment zone.
You should not have optimum terrain for your army in EVERY game.

If you have aquatic models you don't automatically get water, if you have lore of life you don't automatically get woods/rocks/water, sometimes there is nowhere to deploy your scouts.

Even alternate placement allows too much scope for bias, it's very easy for one general to fill both deployment zones with hills for example.

A neutral party is always a better option where possible.

My favorite terrain generation system is in the Ancients game Field of glory.

Firstly you roll to see which side is the "home" side, and a chart then tells you what terrain pieces are available and how many of each.
You then alternate placement, but you have to roll on a table for each piece and you're forced to place it near a set table edge, or in your or your opponents half.
Once you placed it your opponet rolls a dice and may be able to do nothing, rotate it, slide it 6" or remove it alltogether.

Makes for a much fairer layout .

neXus6
15-02-2009, 10:02
As long as the terrain is varied a bit, so not 1 hill each, 1 forest each, 1 outcrop of rocks each with an almost mirror image set up I don't mind who sets the board.
Random terrain generation can be really fun, I've had some crazy boards that noone in their right mind would have set up.

In the end as long as the board makes for an interesting game, and roll for table sides isn't pointless (mirrored terrain) or the most important thing (terrain so bias that whoever wins the roll will win the game) I'm happy. :p

march10k
15-02-2009, 10:17
Yikes....hard to puzzle out what the question is. But I prefer that terrain be placed by a neutral party prior to the event. Both sides are then likely to find something to like, regardless of which side of the board they get.

Desert Rain
15-02-2009, 10:53
At an event I prefer to have the terrain set up prior to the game.

Stuffburger
15-02-2009, 14:02
As long as the terrain is varied a bit, so not 1 hill each, 1 forest each, 1 outcrop of rocks each with an almost mirror image set up I don't mind who sets the board.
Random terrain generation can be really fun, I've had some crazy boards that noone in their right mind would have set up.

In the end as long as the board makes for an interesting game, and roll for table sides isn't pointless (mirrored terrain) or the most important thing (terrain so bias that whoever wins the roll will win the game) I'm happy. :p

My feelings exactly.

Condottiere
15-02-2009, 15:10
I'd like a neutral party to set it and a map to consult before the game.

Griefbringer
15-02-2009, 17:23
On a tournament, I would think that having the terrain pre-set would speed up the game.

OTOH in a grammer tournament, the use of word "terrains" would probably be heavily frowned upon. As far as I know, terrain is terrain - it is not countable and thus does not have separate individual and plural forms. Though in a gaming sense you can talk about "terrain items" or "pieces of terrain".

zak
15-02-2009, 17:28
The terrain is enormously important in Warhammer. In tournaments I don't remember anything other than pre-set terrain, but in friendly games we take turns in placing terrain and then dice for sides to avoid preferable set up's for shooting heavy armies.

Conotor
15-02-2009, 17:28
What i hate is that there is never any water... poor skinks.

40kdhs
15-02-2009, 17:40
Choosing where to fight is just as important, as fighting itself. Terrainhammer is one of the best tools you have in the game. I definitely prefer to be able to have an influence over how the battlefield looks.

I think that it's the best way to play a game because you pick your opponent's brain by seeing how he uses his terrains. Yes, you'll know how he deploys his army that way.

DeathlessDraich
15-02-2009, 19:13
2 months after starting Warhammer, I played in my first tournament.

All the terrain was meant to be fixed but I had only just learnt how to move terrain randomly using Artillery dice - so I happily moved all the terrain on the tables I played much to the organisers consternation. :p

The Red Scourge
15-02-2009, 21:21
Terrainhammer bugs me, especially generals with warmachines who think that the game can't start untill the's a hill in each deployment zone.
You should not have optimum terrain for your army in EVERY game.

And you don't, cause your opponent also have the chance to set up terrain. Try to place a forest in front of the artillery lovers hill, that always brings out the smiles ;)

Doing it this way, you ensure that wood elves get their forests and skinks get their lakes etc., so noone pays points for advantages they can't use.

Templar_Victorious
16-02-2009, 06:10
We generally go for a preset terrain and roll for sides, on multiplayer games.

in 1on1 we tend to scatter roll for a number of terrain pieces. And roll for sides.

Keller
16-02-2009, 18:37
I prefer a 3rd party set up the table, but that never seems to happen here.

Generally, whomever gets there first just starts setting up the table, then the oppoent gets a chance to suggest changes. A die usually decides the starting sides, though not always.

All in all, we are pretty casual about it.

Gaargod
16-02-2009, 19:24
Personally i always find people don't put enough terrain down at GW stores. When you look at tournament games, there's tons of it, meaning that you actually have to accomodate it into your battle plan, rather than just ignoring it as there's only a couple of pieces of edges.

I'd rather have some unbiased person put enough on to make it interesting that the more usual 'i want a hill' thing that happens.,

fastcarfreak
17-02-2009, 15:39
I think if you can truly have an unbiased terrain setup, that is the way to go. Then you can randomize sides unless utterly obvious where setup should be (for example lizards located on a water board where one side has much more water or bretts defending a castle or woodies defending the woods)