Ok, so my friend who plays Cygnar has taken to buying an entire set of river terrain because he "likes the way they look". When set up, they divide the entire field into 3 sections and are wide enough that anything without Pathfinder will have a pretty difficult time making it all the way across in one turn. It's pretty obvious that he's just simply placing a moat around himself so he can shoot me without having to worry about getting charged.
When I set up terrain, I do exactly like the book says. I strive for a visually appealing and tactically challenging board. Usually a forest or two, a couple of obstructions, and a scattering of linear obstacles. I keep everything spaced out so nothing gets bottle necked, and still leave plenty of shooting and/or charge lanes.
I thought about bringing up the part about "players should not strategically place terrain features in a manner that unfairly aids or penalizes a specific army" but then the argument can be made that any terrain that blocks LOS or provides concealment, cover, or elevation aids me against him which is technically true.
I fear the only way to resolve this is go to the steamroller terrain placement rules where we alternate pieces, but I'm hoping to avoid that as those board setups tend to look very engineered and aren't as visually appealing or tactical.
Anyone have any similar experiences or insights into this?