PDA

View Full Version : Terrain deployment; 'by the book' or other?



Harwammer
13-07-2009, 22:18
I consider terrain important to be a very important part of the game; you use the rules in the front of the BRB to craft a battlefield that will suit your army. My opponent disagrees, prefering random or third party placement.

What style of terrain placement do the members of warseer prefer using for a game of warhammer?

Witchblade
13-07-2009, 22:54
We normally pick a 'standard' set of 5-7 medium-sized terrain pieces for 2000-2250 point battles, e.g. 2 hills, 2 forests, 2 impassable terrain. We then deploy by the book.

Most of my opponents and I consider terrain a very important part of tactica.

AlmightyNocturnus
13-07-2009, 22:59
A 3rd person always does it in our gaming group. I sometimes like to ask a complete noob to do it - they usually come up with creative terrain schemes (i.e. not a hill in each deployment zone)

Almighty Nocturnus

HunterSkunter
13-07-2009, 22:59
Since we have a pretty basic gaming surface, we noramlly deploy a few elements in the center of the board, then do the standard deployment by the book.

Condottiere
13-07-2009, 23:10
There are lots of ways, though probably pre-determined layouts are the most enjoyable, since both parties can study the map beforehand and determine the most appropriate deployment.

Avian
14-07-2009, 05:47
In my experience, terrain setup where one or both players are involved very rarely lead to a good setup. I use a random method nearly all the time (tournaments are 3rd person, naturally).

The last time I played with a method like the one in the rulebook, we ended up with a non-battle - the Wood Elf player was sitting in his clump of woods which I was not stupid enough to enter. That was the dullest, most pointless game I have had in two years.

The Red Scourge
14-07-2009, 06:20
Terrainhammering is a part of the game just like everything else. When a gunliner places a hill, you place a forest in front of it. When a wood elf starts cluttering the table with terrain, you pull the plug and try to get as clear a field as possible. Choosing the best place to fight for his army is too important to be left to chance.

Special scenarios is of course exempt from this :)

@Avian. Why did you allow the wood elf to fill his deployment with forests?

Tarax
14-07-2009, 06:46
I voted 'By the book', by which I meant the Random Terrain Generator in some of the old rulebooks. Although mst of the time we don't play it that way, it's the one I prefer.

Usually I let the other player place terrain and I adjust some of it. In agreement of course. :angel: :D

big squig
14-07-2009, 07:06
I just place terrain. Period. It happens before anyone rolls for side, so you can't stack all the best terrain on your half of the board. So long as both players agree that it's a good terrain set-up, all is good.

Besides, WHFB doesn't even use all that much terrain.

gantrakk
14-07-2009, 07:25
Generally, pick six pieces of terrain then we take turns placing three down each and then do a two or three D6 scatter on all of them with the terrain bouncing if it comes into contact with the board edge or other terrain. Then if both side are happy play and if something stupid happens scatter again, I find it a rather good system since you can influence the terrain but are not guaranteed to get what you want.

Avian
14-07-2009, 07:34
@Avian. Why did you allow the wood elf to fill his deployment with forests?
He didn't fill anything, there were two forests about 12-15" apart on the table, he won the roll for table sides, plonked down his free forest in between them and that was that.

It wasn't exactly effective since I still won, it was just dull, dull, dull and a prime example for why I greatly prefer random terrain.





I just place terrain. Period. It happens before anyone rolls for side, so you can't stack all the best terrain on your half of the board. So long as both players agree that it's a good terrain set-up, all is good.
Am I right in thinking that you have not run into Dwarf players who deploy a hill in each diagonally opposite corner of the table, so that no matter what happens they will have something to castle up around?

big squig
14-07-2009, 07:41
Am I right in thinking that you have not run into Dwarf players who deploy a hill in each diagonally opposite corner of the table, so that no matter what happens they will have something to castle up around?

LOL, no I haven't run into that situation yet! :p

Then again, I don't play much fantasy nor do I enjoy it very much.

Urgat
14-07-2009, 08:12
Here is how we do it:
-players alternately place a piece of terrain.
-then we scatter everything 2D6 :p

Dunno if it's good, but it's always worked for us.

EndlessBug
14-07-2009, 08:25
the scattering after deployment of the terrain seems the best way.

We just have boards preset, though will sometimes re-shuffle them if the opponent agrees. Try to keep both sides balanced on terrain.

Arnizipal
14-07-2009, 11:07
Here is how we do it:
-players alternately place a piece of terrain.
-then we scatter everything 2D6 :p

Dunno if it's good, but it's always worked for us.
That's how we go about it as well. We still use the 6th edition terrain charts to roll up each piece of terrain first though.

paulb11
14-07-2009, 11:31
We used the 'by the book' method to begin with. Ended up with nearly the same combination of scenery every game. Standard 1 hill per side, if WE were playing as many forests as possible etc.

Now have a nifty excel spreadsheet that randomises the terrain we have and places it in sections. Usually get 6 pieces of terrain. We then place the terraiin in each given section. To give a little tactics to the terrain, each player then can move or replace 1 piece each.

Works much better, we get buildings, ruins, rivers etc now they were never seen before.

Condottiere
14-07-2009, 11:37
Practised players who can select and place terrain tend to create a landscape that neutralizes the opponent's advantages, and possibly maximize their own.

Shimmergloom
14-07-2009, 12:03
yeah that's what we do now.

We roll for D3+1 pieces of terrain. Select our terrain. Roll to see who places first. We place it, but not within 12" of the center of the table.

Then once it's all placed, we scatter the terrain 2D6(hits keep the terrain where it was placed). It can scatter to within 12", just can't be placed there initially.

Once it's all scattered, we roll for sides as normal.

The terrain is still probably 90% hills and woods since the chart from 6th edition was taken out of the book, but overall it's much better than the old way of people just putting all their woods and farmsteads and marshes in the center of the table, all the way across so that only skirmishing armies had a chance.

When the game is over after terrain placement, then like Avian said, the games are just dull and stupid.

There just needs to be a complete re-working of terrain in the main rulebook.

My suggestions would be:

1. make it clear what is LOS and what is not. We've had to use house rules for years that it goes obstacles and hedges/etc are smaller than large targets, hills are larger than large targets. Woods and buildings are both larger than hills.

2. difficult terrain and obstacles are just a -1 to basic movement, but you can still march(unless march blocked of course).

3. very difficult terrain is -2 to basic movement, still march(unless march blocked).

4. lakes and rivers are impassable, but for LM they can enter them, but cannot shoot from them.

5. buildings are impassable except for skirmishers(on foot, US10 or less) and single man sized models on foot(alternative optional building fighting rules can be included for advanced rulesets).

Staurikosaurus
14-07-2009, 12:35
1 on 1 at my house or at a buddy's place we go by the book. At the local club we go by third party set up. Once in awhile, we'll let one guy set up, but the other guy gets to choose side. In any case, I rarely see rivers :(

Llew
14-07-2009, 13:11
This is how we traditionally do it:

1) Settle on one of the random terrain generation lists from an old rulebook.
2) Whoever rolled the terrain nominates a spot anywhere on the table and marks it.
3) Roll a scatter die, + 4d6.
4) If the scatter die is a hit, place the center of the piece there and choose the orientation you like for the piece.
5) If the scatter die isn't a hit, move the marker the distance and direction indicated by the scatter die and place it as in 4 above. If you can't fit it on the table, the piece is removed.

theunwantedbeing
14-07-2009, 13:46
We just decide amongst ourselves how the terrain should look.
Making sure that there's no terrain within 12" of the centre of the board.

The only issues that arise are when somebody turns up with a gunline and demmands a hill for all their stuff to go on.

Hiportes
14-07-2009, 13:47
1) Settle on one of the random terrain generation lists from an old rulebook.
2) Whoever rolled the terrain nominates a spot anywhere on the table and marks it.
3) Roll a scatter die, + 4d6.
4) If the scatter die is a hit, place the center of the piece there and choose the orientation you like for the piece.
5) If the scatter die isn't a hit, move the marker the distance and direction indicated by the scatter die and place it as in 4 above. If you can't fit it on the table, the piece is removed.

This is exactly how we do it as well, and it works surprisingly well. Only a few games has terrain been blatantly one-way (usually in favor of those WEs).

Keller
14-07-2009, 13:57
We're pretty casual about it. Usually one player, or both, just throws terrain out so it looks decent. Then the other player(s) have an option to adjust as they see fit, then we pick sides. The player who least-recently adjusted terrain (if at all) may choose side.

Typically, we just throw out terrain and see which side on is more convenient to when they stroll to the table to decide sides. We've never really had a problem with it, but we aren't super competative, either. Afterall, its just a game.

Malorian
14-07-2009, 14:14
In like doing it by the book but there are times when people can get a bit silly and you need another person to do it, and also some times it's nice to have terrain that looks good rather than is set up to be tactical.

But more often than not I go by the book.

DarkTerror
14-07-2009, 15:02
When placing terrain by the book you end up with a very ugly board. Given that the Warhammer community is very involved in creating great looking models, paint jobs, and pieces of terrain, why on earth would you make the board look so terrible?

For that reason, our terrain is either set up impartially by a 3rd party or by both players in an agreeable manner. Either way, the board looks beautiful and fun.

GW set up their terrain system to make the setup process, quick, fair and easy to do with minimal terrain. Myself, I have lots of terrain and am more interested in making the board look good than being quick.

Mercules
14-07-2009, 16:45
At one of the local shops for tournaments he places 4-5 pieces of terrain on the table to be used on that table. Then if the players wish they can use the book rules to place terrain.

What I don't understand is half the people there state that they are ok with the terrain and it doesn't matter. Mostly they place it out of the way when they need to place it. Terrain is a large part of the game. I won't complain too much though as another player tucks a woods into a corner of each deployment area while I am playing Wood Elves. I need a place for my Waywatchers to go. ;)

My favorite boards to play on are 3rd party setup. Best thing to do is grab someone who doesn't play Warhammer, give them 5-7 pieces of terrain, and tell them to set up the table for you. You get a very interesting and usually nice looking board.

beaumontbrawler
14-07-2009, 16:53
I normally just tell my opponent to lay out the terrain however he/she likes . . . so that they will get to choose the battlefield on which they die and have no excuses for losing.

Keller
14-07-2009, 19:37
What I don't understand is half the people there state that they are ok with the terrain and it doesn't matter. Mostly they place it out of the way when they need to place it. Terrain is a large part of the game. I won't complain too much though as another player tucks a woods into a corner of each deployment area while I am playing Wood Elves. I need a place for my Waywatchers to go. ;)

Terrain is indeed a huge factor in warhammer. It drastically changes the game depending on what terrain you have, and where it is placed. I just prefer to have a good looking board and work around the terrain than worry about its set up; that always feels like cheating somehow to me.

lord mekri
14-07-2009, 20:56
generally i and my regaular players prefer a third party to set up the terrain for us, or one of us will set up the terrain, and the other chooses the sides.
this allows for interesting fields of play, rather than:
1.perfectly symetrical sides (if we are being fairminded)
2. block and counter block (ie - a hill in every deployment zone, with a stand of trees close by).

i mean honestly, empire and dwarf players love the hills, hate the trees. wood elves, beasts and other skirmish armies love the trees, and only like hills in the middle of the board, and most of the cc armies would greatly appeciate flat lands...

i'd love to see a dwarf gunline try and work without hills. i mean, i have been forced to try and make wood elves work with only 1 stand of trees...

Troah
14-07-2009, 21:09
We half the time do "What looks the most pretty." :D

Condottiere
14-07-2009, 21:27
Anyone ever consider borrowing the maps from famous battles and recreating those on the tabletop?

InsideReticle
14-07-2009, 21:41
I've considered doing terrain based on real-life scenery, definitely. I've never done it, but I've considered it. The abstract hills in warhammer make is complicated, since hills slope.

lakissov
14-07-2009, 21:42
In all local tournaments, the terrain is pre-set by the organizer.

In usual games, we always deploy randomly (4-6 pieces, for which we determine table sector [1 of 6 2'x2' squares] and sub-sector [1 of 4 1'x1' squares making up the sector], then determine the facing by scatter dice, and then, when all pieces are deployed, we scatter them 2d6"). This creates very varied tables.

My opinion is that deploying 'by the book' makes the game more boring, as you rarely see interesting tables. All the time, the gunline is going to set a hill in each deployment zone, and armies fearing shooting will put a lot of cover, etc. I think, a good general should be able to evaluate the random terrain he got, and get a battle plan based on that.

Of course, some of these random deployments are more and some less favourable for different army types. But they are random - and so on overage one should be fine. And the fact that you have to adjust to unexpected terrain and make a plan based on it is good, as it forces you to think more.

Urgat
14-07-2009, 22:24
Anyone ever consider borrowing the maps from famous battles and recreating those on the tabletop?

I've always wanted to recreate some Shadow of the Horned Rat or Dark Omen maps, but that requires more scenery than I have... for now :)
I'm still saerching at ways of making lightweight, actually playable CLIFFS with ramps the troops can actually climb without falling over. Which is not easy coz a fair number of the standard bearers around here fall even on flat ground >>
And of course, it means you couldn't play simple pitched battles, since these battlegrounds are never fair.

Kerill
14-07-2009, 23:29
We play by the book, but to be fair it results in 90% of games having exactly the same board setup for my games. If I'm playing WOC there is always a 20-24" corridor in the middle (forests will be angled towards the deployment zone )with forests on either side (courtesy of my opponent). If I am playing lizards there is always a 20-24" corridor in the middle with forests/lakes on either side of it and I make the corridor. It does add a little bit of tactics, but to be honest I think the 6th edition random terrain rules were fairer overall and having different terrain each game would be more challenging.

kramplarv
15-07-2009, 01:20
we take a number of pieces, and a number of coins. then we just throw the coins on the table. Then we place the terrain where the coins fall :) random ftw! :D

Tarax
15-07-2009, 06:45
What looks pretty, doesn't necessarily mean it is practical.

In fantasy I like open spaces where I can move and shoot. As opposed to 40K where a lot of terrain is needed to avoid being shot at.
If someone would place a lot of terrain in the middle of the table, I would remove them and place them on the sides. I am a general and I can choose where I want to fight, can't I? If terain is unfavourable to me I will set my army up somewhere else where it is more favourable. As my opponent will do the same, my side of the table will suit me, while his side will suit him.

I can understand that some people have a problem with this, but only in the stories will a Bretonnian Knight Army march into Lothern Forest to fight some Wood Elves.

As both players should have fun, the table will benefit both players (almost) equally.

WLBjork
15-07-2009, 07:44
Third party. Simpler and quicker and avoids awkwardness and "terrainhammer".

Gazak Blacktoof
15-07-2009, 07:45
Mutually agreeable setup or a third party setup. I've tried random methods but they're never very good.

snurl
15-07-2009, 08:57
We're pretty casual about it. Usually one player, or both, just throws terrain out so it looks decent. Then the other player(s) have an option to adjust as they see fit, then we pick sides. The player who least-recently adjusted terrain (if at all) may choose side.

Typically, we just throw out terrain and see which side on is more convenient to when they stroll to the table to decide sides. We've never really had a problem with it, but we aren't super competative, either. Afterall, its just a game.

Yes. Sometimes whoever is hosting will set up terrain before we arrive, and lets us choose which side. Works well, looks great.