Terrain in games - cons and otherwise

[ryanbo724]

I was reading some posts on the terrain that is set up for games and I was curious as to what the forum felt on this issue.

I have played at a larger convention 2 times and the standard terrain set up was one piece of terrain in the middle and 2 pieces of terrain on each side of the board, kind of at a 45 degree angle off of the terrain piece in the middle. Kind of like the pips on the dice for number 5. (Hopefully that made sense) There was no real advantage to the side you got to set up on, and the role for deployment was strictly for who went first or second. Now, I am sure there are exceptions, like Circle choosing the side of the board with a large forest or a wall when playing certain armies, but on the whole, it was a mirror setup with a center terrain piece.

How do you feel about this type of terrain set up? I understand that it is there to give the feeling of fair play, but I find it to be boring. I have heard people say that certain larger Cons from this year were a "gun lines dream" - Is that fair to people who don't bring gunlines?

We have a new PG at our FLGS, and in talking with him, he has stated that he would like to put terrain on the board where choosing to go first or choosing to go second and side is an actual decision to be made and not a trivial decision. Knowing that I have an advantage with terrain, but I have to go second and will struggle to get in to the controlling zones or that engagement will be dictated to me is something that I feel should be taken in to account in games.

Personally - I feel that you get more well rounded lists that include pathfinder models or models that can provide pathfinder and in general, armies that can adapt and over come any problems that terrain may cause and a better assesment of the players skiill. There is no - I won the roll and with this scenario, I win!!!

Lastly, I think that a table with a stream and bridge and forest that is done with well made terrain just looks cooler to play on and for any people who happen to watching.

So - what do you think about terrain in competitive and non-competitive environments?

[niceas]

Personally, I prefer a varied table, with 4 - 6 pieces of terrain. I'm not a huge fan of a perfect mirror - I think there should be differences so that there really IS a choice about whether to go first or second.

[MadJack]

Personally, I prefer a varied table, with 4 - 6 pieces of terrain. I'm not a huge fan of a perfect mirror - I think there should be differences so that there really IS a choice about whether to go first or second.

I second this. The terrain shouldn't give an overwhelming advantage to one side or the other, but there should be a difference between them that makes the choice of sides meaningful.

[Carrington]

I like terrain a lot, partially for the aesthetics -- terrain on the table is like flocking on a base: it adds tremendously to the immersion factor.

That said...

The interesting thing I've found is that terrain (especially buildings and other 'hard' impediments) tends to sharply increase the amount of time/necessary to achieve a caster kill. Maneuver becomes much more important, which means the turn-length of the game increases dramatically.

And, in general, I tend to think that terrain has a tendency to shift the game a certain amount away from "offense dominant" to "defense dominant," mainly because the funneling effect of terrain tends to force an attacker to commit resources piecemeal, therefore increasing the effectiveness of the counterattack.

Scenarios, of course, mitigate this dynamic, but their balance is much more likely to be swung by the particular terrain arrangement.

[MagnustheJust]

back in the middle of 5th edition $40k, I kept getting accused of using too much terrain for the tourneys I ran... At least till I showed them the 40% saturation listed in the rulebook.


For Warma/Hordes, I personally like varied terrain covering between 25 - 30% of the table. Forcing both players to think on several vectors really adds to the enjoyment for all involved.

... so long as Everb0rk is not involved anyway!!

[Rapier]

For competitive play: terrain should be pre-decided.

So for instance a specific scenario (king of the hill) should have pre-determined terrain set up so that every table at the competition for that scenario looks the same.

It isn't necessary for the tables to be mirror split - however you have to make sure that the winner of the game isn't decided by who wins the dice roll for deployment edge. As a result its often easier for the designers of the scenarios or the people running the event and setting up the tables to just make them all mirrored.

For non-competitive games - I really believe terrain should follow the set up rules in the book; that is players take turn placing terrain peices - an individual player may favour one side and hope they win the roll -a player that knows he has more pathfinder units may set up as much terrain as possible - it's one more element to the game I think.

Although I do like to play on set piece terrain battles - fantastic looking pre-designed boards and the like so I don't mind if someone else sets up all the stuff and people just get a table and roll to pick sides (fairness roughly equates).

On a similar note I think the scenarios for unbound presented by PP were all excellent - I especially appreciated the attacker/defender one (Scorched Earth). I hope steamroller will one day have an attacker/defender scenario on similar lines. I also liked flood-lands a lot; but the random element of the shallow water wouldn't be suitable for highly competitive play I don't think. (It would be for me; but I could see others disliking it - shallow water happens to turn up the turn your warjack is knocked down, and now it's fire has gone out).

I'd also love to see more terrain placement rules added to the game - we have things like Blindwater congregation getting to place swamps at the start - and forests created by circle. How about a Rhulic earthworks ability? (One per game X new jack can place 1 trench terrain piece for every full 3 inches it moves).

[ScottEBJJ]

I was reading some posts on the terrain that is set up for games and I was curious as to what the forum felt on this issue.

I have played at a larger convention 2 times and the standard terrain set up was one piece of terrain in the middle and 2 pieces of terrain on each side of the board, kind of at a 45 degree angle off of the terrain piece in the middle. Kind of like the pips on the dice for number 5. (Hopefully that made sense) There was no real advantage to the side you got to set up on, and the role for deployment was strictly for who went first or second. Now, I am sure there are exceptions, like Circle choosing the side of the board with a large forest or a wall when playing certain armies, but on the whole, it was a mirror setup with a center terrain piece.

How do you feel about this type of terrain set up? I understand that it is there to give the feeling of fair play, but I find it to be boring. I have heard people say that certain larger Cons from this year were a "gun lines dream" - Is that fair to people who don't bring gunlines?

We have a new PG at our FLGS, and in talking with him, he has stated that he would like to put terrain on the board where choosing to go first or choosing to go second and side is an actual decision to be made and not a trivial decision. Knowing that I have an advantage with terrain, but I have to go second and will struggle to get in to the controlling zones or that engagement will be dictated to me is something that I feel should be taken in to account in games.

Personally - I feel that you get more well rounded lists that include pathfinder models or models that can provide pathfinder and in general, armies that can adapt and over come any problems that terrain may cause and a better assesment of the players skiill. There is no - I won the roll and with this scenario, I win!!!

Lastly, I think that a table with a stream and bridge and forest that is done with well made terrain just looks cooler to play on and for any people who happen to watching.

So - what do you think about terrain in competitive and non-competitive environments?

I, too, noticed the consistent theme of Diecons terrain set-up from pictures posted on various sites. I think the type of terrain set-up where only one terrain piece, the center placed one, will ever come into play is really bad for this game.

It's absolutely boring, as mentioned is super favorable to ranged armies, and really makes the table side decision granted to the second player a non choice.

People have and will retort saying that there are 5 pieces of terrain on the table, but with 4 of them no where near any zone during standard deployment only one matters. They will also say a clogged up table will be unfair to some armies. Which is true, just as those tables with no terrain are unfairly balanced as well.

Part of the problem is that people use the same terrain for 40k and WM. They shouldn't. The 40k pieces I see consistently are to big for this game. You put anything other the a hill in the table center if all of you terrain pieces are 10' by 10'. But if you have a bunch of 3-5 inch walls, forests no larger in area then a 5in AoE give or take, and hills around that size as well you can suddenly have 5 or so pieces of terrain in the middle 28 inches of the board without it being unfairly clogged up.

But overall if Diecon is what terrain has been looking like at other cons, then terrain needs to be revisited.

[ForestZ]

I used to favor symmetrical terrain until another thread on this subject swayed me, due to the nature of the balance of 2nd player choosing board side. I think MadJack summed up my thoughts concisely and eloquently.

I second this. The terrain shouldn't give an overwhelming advantage to one side or the other, but there should be a difference between them that makes the choice of sides meaningful.

[PG_Snakeman]

Terrain is a hard thing to balance when setting up a table for a tournament. From the organizer perspective, you have to be cautious of not inadvertently favoring one faction over the others or making things too dense/sparse. At the same time, you have to be aware of all the steamroller restrictions - no terrain in deployment zones, terrain 4"+ apart, no obstacles on top of objectives, etc. That strongly limits what terrain you can put out and where and how much. For example, five pieces of terrain on the table that are all forests is very different than an equal number/size of terrain on the table that is hills and rough terrain that doesn't block line of sight. And put one hard cover wall on top of a hill that a high defense 'caster can hide behind and your players will never let you live that down.

On top of all that, there's player perception. One player's need to have enough charge lane options to make things interesting can very quickly tip over to another player's open killing zones of ranged attack death.

What I'm saying is that I agree with you that terrain should not be a simple mirror setup, but that in practice it's a very fine line for a TO to walk and sometimes it will look like they got it wrong. Talk to whoever is organizing events for you and give them your feedback. I can tell you first-hand that I appreciate comments and suggestions/requests very much. Sometimes I take them, sometimes I don't, and sometimes I take someone else's suggestion so it looks like I didn't take yours, but I always want to hear feedback. Most good TOs should be similar.

[ScottEBJJ]

http://museonminis.com/privateer-weekend-diecon-pics/

For reference. There are honestly some tables that literally have no useable terrain on it.

[quindraco]

In a competitive environment, it's up to the TO to ensure that the tables are fair for the format while being fun to play on.

In a non-competitive environment, I find that games are lot more fun when you can find someone else to put up terrain for you, because terrain is the most overpowered stuff in the game, and both players will place terrain strategically if possible; for example, there's generally precious little reason for a Hordes player not to grab as much deep water as possible against a Warmachine player, except to be less competitive - and if the scenario objective is in deep water, the game is basically determined before either side has even rolled for first. If there is no such person available, I usually ask my opponent to refrain from putting down deep water, as a favor to me. In both cases I typically roll for number of pieces - the local favorite formula is d3+3 pieces.

[Patryn]

Personally - I feel that you get more well rounded lists that include pathfinder models or models that can provide pathfinder

Having too much rough terrain would be a big problem for some factions (Cygnar, unless gunline), and no problem at all for others.

[quindraco]

Having too much rough terrain would be a big problem for some factions (Cygnar, unless gunline), and no problem at all for others.

Piper, Runewood.

[bouncymischa]

In a competitive environment, it's up to the TO to ensure that the tables are fair for the format while being fun to play on.

In a non-competitive environment, I find that games are lot more fun when you can find someone else to put up terrain for you, because terrain is the most overpowered stuff in the game, and both players will place terrain strategically if possible; for example, there's generally precious little reason for a Hordes player not to grab as much deep water as possible against a Warmachine player, except to be less competitive - and if the scenario objective is in deep water, the game is basically determined before either side has even rolled for first. If there is no such person available, I usually ask my opponent to refrain from putting down deep water, as a favor to me. In both cases I typically roll for number of pieces - the local favorite formula is d3+3 pieces.

I find it amusing that the rulebook specifically states in the terrain section that terrain placement is not supposed to be a competitive part of the game. While I suppose it may be argued that players are naturally competitive, it does imply that those who place terrain seeking to gain a specific advantage from it are not playing by the rules of the game as defined in the rulebook.

[quindraco]

I find it amusing that the rulebook specifically states in the terrain section that terrain placement is not supposed to be a competitive part of the game. While I suppose it may be argued that players are naturally competitive, it does imply that those who place terrain seeking to gain a specific advantage from it are not playing by the rules of the game as defined in the rulebook.

That's just the book speaking nonsensically; it's fundamentally impossible for both players to purge themselves entirely of reaching for terrain based on how it will effect the game - for example, my distaste for deep water - so it's easier to just encourage both players to maximise the impulse and hope it works out. If I can't find a third party, I just straight-up ask my opponent to be as competitive in their placement as they can, barring deep water.

[ryanbo724]

Great responses all!

I would agree that the line between choosing a side as an advantage and having the terrain negate the outcome of certain games is a very fine line to walk - I don't know how a PG or TO would do this from a standardized approach but I truly feel that a better came is had by all if the terrain is something that has to be thought about in your strategy and not something that is trivial to the game.

I will say that one of the most memorable games I have EVER played was a casual game where their was a giant piece of terrain that ended up breaking the board up in to 3 high walled canyons. The thought it took before the game and how scenario was going to be played and how I was going to play my army was the best part. Manuevering through the canyons with the proper army element in each of the 3 was critical and really brought a whole new dimension to the game for me.

[TheNoob]

I have always personally thought, terrain (and table set ups in general) are a damned if you do, damned if you dont kind of thing.

Too much, and the game can come down to the first simple die roll to see who sets up first (its happened), too little and some lists can become just auto-win buttons.

I, personally, always like to err on the side of caution and make sure the tables are all basically even so it can kinda (you can never really do it) remove as much "luck" or randomness to the game and make it come down to skill as much as possible.

[MadJack]

Having too much rough terrain would be a big problem for some factions (Cygnar, unless gunline), and no problem at all for others.

That's no problem for Cygnar. In a 50 point list you can have 2 Stormwalls and 2 Storm Striders, so the only model in your army without pathfinder will be your caster!

[Kuarnix]

I love some of the mirrored set-ups shown in some of the older steamrollers. Each table quarter gets hills/forest, whatever combination you want, and two linear obstacles go in the middle in some fashion, usually on a diagonal slant and sometimes offset, around 4"-10" apart. It's a very comfortable table and terrain certainly has a larger impact on the game than an empty center, while not unduly harming either factions with little pathfinder (or bricky lists). You have to pay attention to how you're setting up your models around those obstacles and the empty lanes, and herd your opponent (if you can). If you go first, you can get to the obstacles faster and control the center, but you may have trouble getting everything over them in a charge, while if you just walk over you'll get charged by the second player. It's quite a dance.

One of the worst things you can do in terrain setup in this game, I think, is put a large terrain piece in the middle (I'm thinking, diameter 6"+, though 6" might be okay). Some of the 40k sized forests and water features are particularly bad because of the rough terrain. I've found they can really exasperate the rock-paper-scissors effect that you sometimes see in some matchups. Hills aren't that much of an issue at all though, and if they're in the middle I think it's better that they're larger rather than small (encourages forward playing, even from gunlines).

[bouncymischa]

That's just the book speaking nonsensically; it's fundamentally impossible for both players to purge themselves entirely of reaching for terrain based on how it will effect the game - for example, my distaste for deep water - so it's easier to just encourage both players to maximise the impulse and hope it works out. If I can't find a third party, I just straight-up ask my opponent to be as competitive in their placement as they can, barring deep water.

Following that sort of process has resulted in some pretty nonsensical battles in past, for me, including one game where all six terrain pieces were placed along the centerline of the board. I suppose it could just be due to the fact that I much prefer a more aesthetic looking table, and am willing to forgo competitiveness to achieve it. Given my own experiences in the past, though, I have to say that a player who decides to maximize his competitive impulses during terrain placement is probably one I wouldn't want to waste my time playing against.

[ForestZ]

In a competitive environment, it's up to the TO to ensure that the tables are fair for the format while being fun to play on.

In a non-competitive environment, I find that games are lot more fun when you can find someone else to put up terrain for you, because terrain is the most overpowered stuff in the game, and both players will place terrain strategically if possible; for example, there's generally precious little reason for a Hordes player not to grab as much deep water as possible against a Warmachine player, except to be less competitive - and if the scenario objective is in deep water, the game is basically determined before either side has even rolled for first. If there is no such person available, I usually ask my opponent to refrain from putting down deep water, as a favor to me. In both cases I typically roll for number of pieces - the local favorite formula is d3+3 pieces.

We are currently running a modified league format that provides random terrain (each person rolls for 3 pieces, then places them alternately) and weather. I played a game against a Trollbloods player that rolled 3 deep waters (I got 1 in my set) and proceeded to place them all on my side of the board (he was choosing board side) providing me two narrow funnels to get to the objectives. It was annoying, to put it mildly. Fortunately, my own terrain placement blocked him a bit, and the cyclone we rolled for weather ended up ripping through a good chunk of his army, but it definitely turned me off to the adversarial placement (even though I turned right around and tried a similar strategy against my next opponent...you play the game you're given, after all.)

I think the problems with it may be unique to our league format though, since the person choosing table edge is already known before terrain placement (and there's no way to change that).

[Patryn]

Piper, Runewood.

Well yeah, but that is hardly making your whole list mobile :P

[quindraco]

Following that sort of process has resulted in some pretty nonsensical battles in past, for me, including one game where all six terrain pieces were placed along the centerline of the board. I suppose it could just be due to the fact that I much prefer a more aesthetic looking table, and am willing to forgo competitiveness to achieve it. Given my own experiences in the past, though, I have to say that a player who decides to maximize his competitive impulses during terrain placement is probably one I wouldn't want to waste my time playing against.

I feel strongly in the opposite direction, as I said; if I see my opponent deliberately avoiding competitive decisions, I will feel disrespected and, accordingly, offended, that they don't consider me worthy of their A game. I didn't put down my models for you to fight me half-bottomed; give it your all or don't waste my time. In a non-tourney format we can do things like relax some of the rules (e.g. you can rile after running if you like), and if you're selecting models or terrain as an experiment or fun, that's fine too, but, other than deep water, if you make a terrain decision to deliberately *avoid* an advantage, I'm going to feel exactly as offended as I would be if I beat you and you claimed I only won because I was attractive and distracted you.

[jandrese]

One terrain system I've seen is a purely randomized one:

1. Roll a D3 and add 2, this is the number of pieces of terrain to place.
2. Place a Deviation template in the center of the table.
3. For each piece of terrain:

1. Roll a D6 and consult the following chart:

1. Hill
2. Forest
3. Water feature
4. Linear Obstacle
5. Obstruction
6. Rough Terrain (Or Trench, etc... depending on what you have).

2. Roll D6, this is the direction
3. Roll 2D6, multiply by 2. This is distance.
4. Roll D6, this is orientation (starting orientation is based on how it sits in the box).
5. Place the terrain piece as described by the three rolls above. If you have different color dice, you can roll the previous three roll all at once.

It sounds complicated, but it's actually pretty quick and easy. It does tend to leave the terrain in a rough circle around the center, but that's generally reasonable. If you want a more random setup, change the roll in Step 3 to 1D6 but multiply by 4. If you roll exactly the same direction and distance for two different pieces of terrain, reroll the second, otherwise overlaps are fine. There can be a little fudging if a linear obstacle pokes into an obstruction or something too.

One suggestion: If playing with a scenario try to avoid any major pieces of terrain in any scenario zone (obstructions mostly). Small obstructions, linear obstacles, hills, and small forests are alright though, as long as there is only one per zone though. If this happens, just reroll the location of the offending piece of terrain. The rules say not to place terrain in deployment zones, but it's rarely a problem for me.

[jandrese]

I love some of the mirrored set-ups shown in some of the older steamrollers. Each table quarter gets hills/forest, whatever combination you want, and two linear obstacles go in the middle in some fashion, usually on a diagonal slant and sometimes offset, around 4"-10" apart. It's a very comfortable table and terrain certainly has a larger impact on the game than an empty center, while not unduly harming either factions with little pathfinder (or bricky lists). You have to pay attention to how you're setting up your models around those obstacles and the empty lanes, and herd your opponent (if you can). If you go first, you can get to the obstacles faster and control the center, but you may have trouble getting everything over them in a charge, while if you just walk over you'll get charged by the second player. It's quite a dance.

One of the worst things you can do in terrain setup in this game, I think, is put a large terrain piece in the middle (I'm thinking, diameter 6"+, though 6" might be okay). Some of the 40k sized forests and water features are particularly bad because of the rough terrain. I've found they can really exasperate the rock-paper-scissors effect that you sometimes see in some matchups. Hills aren't that much of an issue at all though, and if they're in the middle I think it's better that they're larger rather than small (encourages forward playing, even from gunlines).

Yeah, if we're doing the alternating terrain placement thing, I almost always go for a big hill right in the center of the board, just to wall off shenanigans from my opponent. It doesn't even have to be all that big if you're respecting the 3" minimum distance rule.

You will get a look from me if as a Circle player the first thing you do is drop some 18" diameter forest smack dab in the middle of the board for your Tharn to frolic in.

[niceas]

Yeah, if we're doing the alternating terrain placement thing, I almost always go for a big hill right in the center of the board, just to wall off shenanigans from my opponent. It doesn't even have to be all that big if you're respecting the 3" minimum distance rule.

You will get a look from me if as a Circle player the first thing you do is drop some 18" diameter forest smack dab in the middle of the board for your Tharn to frolic in.

I'd be more worried about Legion dropping said 18" diameter forest.

You'll get strange looks from me if the centre of the table is empty of terrain.

[bouncymischa]

I feel strongly in the opposite direction, as I said; if I see my opponent deliberately avoiding competitive decisions, I will feel disrespected and, accordingly, offended, that they don't consider me worthy of their A game. I didn't put down my models for you to fight me half-bottomed; give it your all or don't waste my time. In a non-tourney format we can do things like relax some of the rules (e.g. you can rile after running if you like), and if you're selecting models or terrain as an experiment or fun, that's fine too, but, other than deep water, if you make a terrain decision to deliberately *avoid* an advantage, I'm going to feel exactly as offended as I would be if I beat you and you claimed I only won because I was attractive and distracted you.

I suppose, in the end, everyone is different, and it's worth acknowledging that fact. Outside of a tournament environment (where the TO would be setting up the tables anyways), it's between the two players to decide how competitively they want to approach the game, including terrain placement. Your method is likely best for players that do want to approach the game in the fashion you describe, and thus useful advice for that sort of player. I do have to admit I find it amusing that, while competitive players do seem determined to follow the rules quite rigorously, the suggestions made in the rules regarding terrain get shrugged off as being "nonsensical". :P

I'll have to see if I can put together some of my notes when I get home about how I like to set up my tables for casual play, to offer some advice to those players who may be seeking a more casual game experience.

[RocketSurgeon]

When I first first started playing, I was bad about trying to game the board with terrain placement. More people should've called me out on it. I don't remember if any did or not, to be honest. I just remember realizing I was a jerk and deciding to try to stop doing that. It is a hard thing to be completely free of, especially with certain factions that more utilize certain terrain types.

I started trying to push friends in friendly games to play less even board setups on purpose. Taking turns being ambushed with all your models in the middle while the opponent has three small circle deployment zones around you, that sort of thing. Good times. I think its good for perspective, too. Feel the effects of various situations and learn to recognize them so playing with strangers is more likely to result in a good time. Maybe if you're used to one side having an advantage you can better respond to situations when you feel like you're disadvantaged. Both tactically and emotionally.

[genix]

The terrain setup system I've used a couple of times is:

1. Roll D3 + 3 for number of pieces.
2. Get that number of dice, and pair them up. If it's an odd number, the odd dice out goes in the middle of the board.
3. Then each player takes one of the pairs of dice left over, and places each on his side of the board.
4. Then roll for each pair to see what kind of terrain they become.

example:
1. Rolled 2, so thats 5 pieces of terrain.
2. So we have 5 dice with the following numbers facing up: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3. The die showing 3 is placed in the center of the board.
3. I place dice showing 1 and 2 on my side of the board - spacing them out. Opponent does the same.
4. Roll for the 1's. Oh they become cover. Roll for the 2's, and forest. 3 cannot be cover or forest since those are now taken, and maybe becomes a hill.

Terrain setup can be as complex or simple as one wants really, and many players just like to set up without any fixed system. That can work too. I like the above because placing the more abstract dice somehow finds the terrain being placed in more non-standard layouts (ie: not like the pips on the 5-side of a die) and sometimes you find odd things like a big hedge providing concealment right in the middle of the board.

[quindraco]

Genix, I think you have some brilliance in that plan. Specifically, I am very enamored of the idea that choosing terrain location and terrain type are done in two different steps. I'm going to have to try that.

[quindraco]

I suppose, in the end, everyone is different, and it's worth acknowledging that fact. Outside of a tournament environment (where the TO would be setting up the tables anyways), it's between the two players to decide how competitively they want to approach the game, including terrain placement. Your method is likely best for players that do want to approach the game in the fashion you describe, and thus useful advice for that sort of player. I do have to admit I find it amusing that, while competitive players do seem determined to follow the rules quite rigorously, the suggestions made in the rules regarding terrain get shrugged off as being "nonsensical". :P

I'll have to see if I can put together some of my notes when I get home about how I like to set up my tables for casual play, to offer some advice to those players who may be seeking a more casual game experience.

I generally regard any rule that physically can't be obeyed as nonsensical - e.g. when an opposing player who doesn't own an electron microscope asks to place his small-based model in perfect collinearity with two other small-based models to turn off LOS. :-P

[Sergeant Bus]

Check out Muse on Minis episode 10. I sent them an email on this very topic and I really liked their response. I recommend listening to all their episodes but they answer my question in mail section near the end.

-Sergeant Bus

[Kuarnix]

You will get a look from me if as a Circle player the first thing you do is drop some 18" diameter forest smack dab in the middle of the board for your Tharn to frolic in.

Yes, I've played in that situation many times. Sometimes it's interesting, and sometimes it hilariously backfires on the person who placed it, but too often when that gets put down, I just happen to be playing against something that ignores the forest a la legion or MHSF......

I've even seen the strip of forest 4" deep across the middle.

[TsavongLah]

Have each player roll 3d6.

1: Deep Water
2: Forest
3: Forest
4: Hill
5: Shallow Water
6: Obstruction/Linear Obstacle

Alternate placing, done.

[DoktorVivi]

I write down all of my pieces of terrain on little strips of paper ('Forest,' 'Building,' 'Pond,' etc.) and stick them in a bag. Each player grabs a couple (can use dice to determine how many. Usually do 3 each) at random without looking and tosses them on the table. Air resistance should scatter them across the table pretty effectively. Any that are too close get separated. Then place terrain.

[Bishop84]

I like terrain a lot, partially for the aesthetics -- terrain on the table is like flocking on a base: it adds tremendously to the immersion factor.

I don't flock my bases because I think they take away from the immersion factor in game. If I flock my bases with grass and I'm playing on a desert or snow board, my figures have all found the only patches of grass in the entire area! And those patches have the peculiar habit of following my guys around. I guess it kinda makes sense with my druids, but not so much with Menites. I think it just looks dumb. Same reason I hate most epic bases. A distinctive pile of bodies or rubble should not follow my character around wherever he goes. Spell effect bases like eFeora and eGaspy are awesome, but rubble and stuff like Testament and eButcher not so much. Plain black or grey bases are neutral enough to ignore while playing.

That said, I love terrain variety. When I set up a board, I strive for balance but not exactly mirrored. I don't want any side to have an advantage over the other, but total symmetry never looks right either. I dislike the "I place, you place" setups because they always look too engineered, and usually quite sparse.

[bouncymischa]

1: Deep Water
2: Forest
3: Forest
4: Hill
5: Shallow Water
6: Obstruction/Linear Obstacle

Interesting that you favor forests over obstructions -- I've always been the opposite, because obstructions tend to have the most impact on play and are ignored by fewer special rules than forests...

[ryanbo724]

At a convention - if you won a roll and knew that the side provided you with a benefit but left you an uphill battle on scenario - would you take side or first turn?

Or would you not want that to be a factor in your game?

[Kuarnix]

Woah, wacky double post thirty minutes later.....

[TsavongLah]

Interesting that you favor forests over obstructions -- I've always been the opposite, because obstructions tend to have the most impact on play and are ignored by fewer special rules than forests...

Interesting. It's probably that both LGSs that I play at don't have very many Obstructions that aren't fat buildings that totally block LOS and are impassable, which people seem to find a little bit annoying. I think it's the lack of interactivity; you can't do much other than hide behind buildings, whereas forests can be moved through and provide some defensive benefits while also allowing your stuff to see out of them.