Philosophy of Designing Terrain Boards

[prowla]

I've been thinking this for a while now, and the thread "Too Much Terrain?" is what got me posting this. I'd like to discuss how do you put together a good terrain board.

My main premises are:

1) Board should be partially designed. I find "each player places a piece" somewhat poor, as each player tries to place terrain to cater his playstyle. Plus, if you really want to make a fancy terrain board, some features of it should be fixed.
2) Board should be partially random, enough so that each game is a bit different. You could always throw 3d6 scatter dice for where to place each piece, but that can lead to clumps of terrain etc., being a bit too random.

This has led to me thinking about a semi-random/semi-designed terrain board system. First, you might have one or two central pieces of terrain in key locations, to make sure the board is balanced enough. After those assigned 1-2 terrain pieces, there might be 6-7 pieces of terrain designed as "random terrain", 11 location markers on the board numbered 2-12, and before each game you roll 2d6 for each terrain piece and place it on the marker, until all terrain pieces are placed.

This gives you possibility to plan some features on the board, for example a hill that has 1-2 terrain markers. You also know where most of the clear terrain is, so you can roughly design fire lanes etc. to be as balanced as possible. Also, this allows you to change the terrain piece type/size as needed, to make the board more balanced. In other words, this should bring some design + some randomness on the board.

[Lord Damocles]

I much prefer boards which start out with no terrain on them at all (not even hills *glares at Realm of Battle*). Having fixed terrain tends to dictate where other terrain ends up, and can prevent themed setups ('Let's have a battle in an Imperial mineworks... with that bunch of trees stuck right in the middle... again...').

As for setting terrain out, yell at a third party until they do it for you. That way it's nice and neutral.

[AndrewGPaul]

I like to have an idea of what the battlefield will be before I start. That way I can build a layout that looks plausible, rather than the all-too-common "three ruinds and a forest randomly scattered on a bowling green" look. Once it's done, I'll move things around or add appropriate "scatter" terrain to break up open areas.

[Novafix]

We normally go with 1 player makes the terrain set up with a theme - we used to then let the person that hadn't set up terrain choose the board side which more or less guaranteed it to be even. Usually it's not so bad even with the board sides being random with mission.

[Jericho]

The alternating pieces method can be a problem, as some folks will do things like placing LOS-blocking terrain 1" away from a deployment zone hill, thus making a big section of the board useless just to spite their opponent. Obviously it's not always that bad, but hey some people get silly

The random methods described in some books (ie, Fantasy 8th edition) are absurdly random and don't work unless you have everything from Orc totems to quicksand pieces in your collection. Not to mention haunted houses and whatnot. It's just plain too random and not very practical... I mean what happens if you roll the max number of pieces and you keep rolling "villages" etc. that compose of multiple large pieces each? Clearly it's a decent idea if you are playing a pickup game at a game club or something but not necessarily the best for home use where you might not have that much to draw from.

For friendly games, it's easy to have a compromise with some randomness or alternation, but the flexibility to change up anything that's totally messed up before you pick sides. Fudging with scenery a bit before you have established mission/deployment shouldn't be an issue.

@novafix, the one guy sets up the other guy chooses method is also pretty fair, as this keeps the first guy honest!

With tournaments, it's obviously pre-established and not up to you

[Konovalev]

With the group I play with, we generally alternate placing terrain. Then whoever deploys first picks their table side as part of their deployment. And it tends to keep us fair in our terrain placement since you don't really know is going to win the roll.

[Chapters Unwritten]

I always let my opponent set up the board. My thought process is that if I am a good enough player I should be able to overcome an unfavorable board. Plus I get the occasional game where I get to pick the edge first and my opponent ends up on the uglier side.

I have given a lot of thought to board design. One thing we do that I find enhances the game greatly, is we will, after all terrain is placed on the table, rotate it 30 or so degrees. This is especially great for roads, ruins, and blocky city tables. Turning the board's terrain slightly makes the game so much more life-like (for lack of a better term).

If a board is to have static elements it's important to have them be on tiles that are off-center. For instance, if you make a board that has an outcropping of trees on one of the tiles (let's say they are 2x2 like the RoB board), don't put it in the middle; put it nearer to (not right on!) one of the corners. This maximizes its usage, letting you rotate it and have the terrain feature be in a variety of unique positions.

I have longed to create customizable tables for my club but the store owners use the tabletops for shipping, and as such they do not let us put any custom terrain on them. We deal with this by using mats and such, but it would be nice to have an honest-to-god cool board to play on.

My dream is to build a table that is in a 2x8-based frame, so it is deep enough to have some terrain attached but it is also able to have a slat that "closes" the top, letting the store have their precious flat surface for shipping while having a gorgeous terrain board beneath, safely protected. In particular it'd be extra cool to be able to "pause" games week to week by sealing the top and locking it with all the models in place, too...

[prowla]

@novafix, the one guy sets up the other guy chooses method is also pretty fair, as this keeps the first guy honest!

If the two armies are different, person doing the setup can make the whole board benefit his playstyle

I was also trying to apply game theory into "both take turns to place terrain on one side, then the sides are rolled for" situation. I came to the conclusion that it's still better to make your side best for you, you always get better outcome even if the sides are then decided randomly. For some reason, I always get the feeling of "terrain chess" when taking turns placing terrain.. Cannot help thinking which piece would benefit me where!

There's always room for argument that "you only won because you got to set up the terrain.." - so I thought it would be nice to include some randomness to remove that argument. Besides, it's more fun when there's a big random element, IMO.

[Grimtuff]

I have 2 preferred methods: Either you get a neutral 3rd person to set up the terrain for you, or if it is not possible, you set up the terrain however you want then break out 2D6 and a scatter dice and roll to see where the terrain actually is. Obviously you have to fudge it a bit if you get piece on top of one another or loads clumped in one area but it tends to create less arguments as the terrain setup was truly random.

[Captain Ventris]

I usually set up our table as 99% of our games happen in my basement cause it has a bar...

Granted though I never know which table edge or really what mission we will play, I always make sure. Both sides have some tactical advantage of some sort and that there are actual obstacles throughout the table. Lastly as I said in my last thread, it has to look good and feel like a real place.

[Chem-Dog]

I'm not too certain that it's as much of an issue as it's made out to be.
Overly slanted terrain choice is a rubbish and incredibly unreliable way of gaining an advantage as a player can easily be called on it prior to a game start and you do submit to the dice to decide who picks the edge so, unless you have a specific rather devious reason for putting terrain pieces in certain places, I fail to see what real advantage anyone could play.

If I set up terrain I check with my opponent to see if terrain's to their liking. Often I get somebody else to set up for us (depending largely on whether or not I've got a pint yet). The only thing I'm looking for in a table is a fairly believable looking set-up to fight over, I don't actually care if this means I get the bum-end of a set up from time to time, it's the nature of the beast.

Besides, anyone can win when the odds are even, I like the challenge of occasionally having things going against you at the outset. Makes victory all the sweeter.



And a plausible excuse for defeat.

[sprugly]

Generally, as I play at my or others homes, the host sets up the board before time so we can get down to it quickly.

When I'm doing it I do try to theme the board a little, not just a random mix of stuff. So it could be all ruins or ruins going into rock formations or something.

The fact that you won't choose the side of the board you're on 50% of the time means you can just set up a fun table without even accidentally favouring your own side.

Sprugly

[prowla]

To expand the topic from terrain setup:

What do you think makes a good and balanced board setup? What kind of terrain it should have? Is the main idea to give balanced setup between some firing lanes to shooty armies, and some cover to CC armies?

[Easy E]

I don't play much anymore, but when I do it is typically a narrative scenario planned out before hand, and the terrain is set-up to match the narrative scenario. Typically, this is in collaboration with my regular opponents. Sometimes the Terrain set-up is not intended to be "Fair and Balanced".

For pick-up games, I let my opponent set-up if he wants to or find a third party to help.

[ArmyC]

I am all about a flat board. Then build your terrain to fit the board you make.