View Full Version : Terrain Placement.

09-12-2007, 06:31
I was just wondering, are you guys generally strict on the rules for placing terrain? No terrain within "This number of inches" of the middle of the board.
I play wood elves, and ive only won one game due to the fact that there were objects in the middle of the map for me to run across not getting charged.....shooting wasnt much of a problem for both sides.
But my friends always use that rule. Im kind of sick of it.
a 6" forest in the middle doesn't help much either.


Gorbad Ironclaw
09-12-2007, 06:35
The rules as suggested in the rule book for terrain placement are IMO rubbish, and doesn't lead to very good or interesting games. Too little terrain, and I don't need a football field in the centre of the table.

What we generally do is take turns placing something like 5-7(generally) pieces of terrain on the table, then when they are all places, we scatter them 2d6.

That usually leads to enough variation and can produce some very interesting results. If it looks completly hopeless, we just redo it.

09-12-2007, 06:40
Wow, thats a good idea.
And yes the football field pisses me off,

But I'll suggest that next time....
Do you guys just place whatever type anywhere? Like forest here.
building here etc.?

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
09-12-2007, 12:30
I agree
Me and my oponent use scatterdice from the centre of the board. I think that work out alright. Except when it when right in front of my Xbows...

Mad Doc Grotsnik
09-12-2007, 13:53
Darklord...you do know you set up after terrain has been placed, yes?

But you need the clear area in the middle of the field. Well, clearish. Obstacles are okay in my opinion, but area terrain really should be for deployment zones and the flanks. Why? Dense centre table terrain simply gives certain armies far too big an advantage, like Skinks, Woodies and Beastmen, as they don't need to worry so much about manouvering around them. Regiments can cross an Obstacle in a single turn, which means I am slowed down, but will take two to three to cross a wood, which means I am bogged down. Against a ranged army, this simply isn't fair!

09-12-2007, 15:02
When I show up with my lizard men; I like to have an impassable river running through the middle of the board, a large lake on one side of my opponent's deployment zone, a forest on my side to hide my slaan in (near the river for spell range purposes), and a big forest to hide my skink scouts and shamans on the other side of their deployment zone. When I show up with my Khornate army, I'm generally in favor of no terrain being on the board. Unless my opponent has a gunline that is, then I like the idea of terrain to hide behind... ;).

In all seriousness though, I do think that terrain in the centre of the table is difficult to balance for many army lists. I do not personally like the idea of placing terrain, and would prefer random placement (this means that a gunline player can not rely upon having a hill in his deployment zone every game, etc.). That said, while the current system is imperfect for game balance purposes, I think that the idea of a clear middle for the battle field is likely a good idea.

09-12-2007, 15:42
Our group still uses the terrain tables from 6th edition.
We divide the table top in 4 squares and both players roll up 2 pieces of terrain per square. They can place it anywhere they wish (in the square) and afterwards it's scattered 2D6 in a random direction (when you roll 'HIT' you can choose to leave the piece there or scatter along the small arrow).

It's simple and works really well.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
09-12-2007, 15:50
I've always used a third party spectator to set up my terrain. Both players agree what won't be used (usually hills in deployment zones, which are very boring!) and then the third party makes it look pretty.

09-12-2007, 17:09
Pick a point of the terrain to be 12 o clock (the front/top) and roll a scatter dice, and thats the direction that 12 will face. Then scatter the terrain D3 dice's worth of inches. (1/2=1 dice, 3/4=2 dice, 5/6=3 dice) for a firm random result.

09-12-2007, 17:49
I've always been a terrain lover. We have lots of odd trees, rocks and such available to our gaming group. So we set up the terrain in a mutual manner (both players agree to it) and then we make the board look good.

Normally if you only have a few pieces of terrain each the board is rather empty! It's rather ugly and barren sometimes. If you use some creativity you can make the board look rather good. You just can't really use the "real" rules

Bingo the Fun Monkey
09-12-2007, 19:55
Having a third party set up terrain usually works just fine.