How Do You Lay Terrain?

[ElectricPaladin]

How do you lay terrain in your games? Do you use narrative terrain? Do you use the turn-by-turn system described in the new book? Or do you do something else? Please vote, then describe.

I'm curious because at my FLGS, I'm pretty much the only proponent of the new system. Terrain can be so important to the game, and this feels like the only fair way to do it. My fellow players are very patient with my preferences, but they generally prefer narrative terrain or "vaguely evenly distributed" terrain. I want to get some idea of what else is going on out there.

[lobster-overlord]

we usually have a non-involved party set up for us if there is someone available. I love creating pain in the butt terrain boards for people who I won't be fighting against.

[Anggul]

We generally just set it up in a fair-looking manner before doing anything else, basically out of habit. It does get annoying when you then try to mark out the deployment lines though, as it's normally impossible to get it right with so much stuff in the way.

[Animus Silvanna]

I have yet to get to try the new book system since it seems like it will add another hour to the game. ( In Afghanistan so time is money) anyways so usually we section off the board into 4 quads and fill in 25% of the board then I'm usually the one that gets stuck spreading it all around since i have most experience. This is done ofcourse fairly and with no table sides declared. Our terrain is something to be desired aswell LOL but I made it all out of cardboard boxes and rocks. Perhaps if time wasnt really an issue I would do it by the book.

[Cursed13]

Well "The Book" has two ways of doing it. The "Narrative" way and the "Alternating" way. For some reason the Alternating method seems to have established itself in player's minds that it is the one and only way of deploying terrain in Sixth. It also is the most complained about method. I personally use the Narrative method, with a 25-30% of the table being terrain, with a mix of Line of Sight Blocking terrain and Cover Granting terrain. I have yet to add any Special Rule Granting terrain from the Debris section of the BRB, but I really want to. No one has ever complained about the tables I set up, no one has ever felt they were unfairly unbalanced and usually enjoy their games more on the tables I set up. I just find the Alternating method can get confusing, is an annoying waste of time and isn't necessary if you can just deploy terrain using the Narrative method and tweak it to fit any Fortifications that anyone brings. By tweak, I mean move the terrain a little bit to fit it, but not enough to totally change the board, just be adult about it.

[Houghten]

Look at the terrain set-up from the last chaps' battle.

Ask opponent "are you happy with that"?

Receive positive or noncommittal answer, move to dice-off for deployment.

If negative answer, or noncommittal becomes unrestful when moving to dice-off, rearrange terrain so no particular advantage is provided, then return to step 3.

[DarkLink]

Throw terrain on the table until both players agree it's fair. No reason for anything more complicated than that.

[imperialpower]

Unless it is for a scenario set up until all players are happy with the terrain, that is how I have always played and thought it was the norm?

[Mr Mystery]

If possible, I prefer a third party to set up the board, ideally so it makes some kind of sense, but you are often limited by the available selection.

Taking a cue from 5th edition, a quarter of the board is packed with scenery to get a good amount, and the laid out in a tactically pleasing manner. Army lists are drawn up before hand, and if we have a third party, scenario or mission is determined prior to setting up the terrain. If no third party, take it in turns to place, then determine the mission. I find this tends to prevent the scenery deliberately favouring one force over the other.

[ElectricPaladin]

The thing I don't like about "until everyone is happy" is how much that's subjective and reliant upon social interaction. What's to stop a bully with an IG army from browbeating his opponents into playing with incredibly sparse terrain? Or, to pick a less extreme example, what's to stop a game between a well-meaning 'Nids player and a well-meaning Tau player from totally bogging down when they try to decide how much blocking terrain vs. how many area templates vs. how much open ground to play. It seems like a system that embraces both players seeking advantage is easier than one based purely on vague negotiation and fake impartiality.

Yes, yes, we should all refuse to play with b^ttfaces, but why not also invent a system that is b^ttface-resistant so I have less to worry about on game night?

[magickbk]

When I was on GW staff, we would usually pre-set the tables for game nights to keep it fair, but the terrain placement rules back in those days were more fair.

At home, we use the current system, but before we roll everything else up, so it encourages a fair placement because you don't know where you will be on the table.

I haven't had the chance to play in a store during 6th yet, so I can't speak to what I'm going to encounter.

[Denzark]

Try and match set ups out of GW batreps... Or go for a vaguely symmetrical effect. Unless we have a narrative, ie attack the walls. No alternative tosh, takes too long.

[JMichael]

Our group generally do narrative or simply amicable setup (we adjust to make neither edge better than the other).
However, in our final team league game we did the rulebook alternating setup and found it hard to resist the 'to my advantage' terrain as we had fortifications and knew the table edges already.
My first experience with the alternating was not great. While our group is mostly competitive for fun players, it's hard not to setup to your advantage (I like big LoS blocking terrain, some like open terrain).

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I suppose there are different ways to lay terrain, but it generally starts with communication. Work out a way to strike up a conversation. If things go well, keep trying to arrange get-togethers before going for a full date. Take the terrain somewhere nice and pretend to be really interested in everything the terrain has to say. Don't be too aggressive the first date or two and with any luck the terrain will invite you up to its table. After that things should go well.

[Aegwymourn]

I find that the alternating method in the book is generally far to slow of a process. It would be nice if it didnt take as long as it did. Generally we follow the "standard" method of roughly 25-35% coverage with at least one decent LOS blocker. Also allowing enough space for most tanks to get around and generally a path or two even for Land Raider sized tanks.

[Wolfshade]

Throw terrain on the table until both players agree it's fair. No reason for anything more complicated than that.

Agree, afterall if you set up terrain first you don't know what side you have and therefore what is best.

Sometimes narrative will define a certain layout though.

[SotonShades]

I do like the system in the book. It is a great way of representing the fact that an smart general tries to find a place where the terrain favors the strengths of his army or minimizes it's weaknesses. The only real downside is that it takes too long. It also seems weird that the fortress options are set up first, as it is then only too easy to block the LOS of emplaced weapons or squads sitting behind a barricade. Surely no General would have his Aegis line set up facing a wall? I would house-rule it to place terrain, then place fortresses in tiles where there is still space (based on the normal D3 roll) or replace one piece of terrain if not.

A lot of guys at my main club like to set up symmetrical battle fields (as near as possible) so neither side gains an advantage. Only problem with that is that your army selection may make better use of a more open deployment (i.e. lots of tanks that want to manoeuvre for firing position) or would actually like a lot of terrain spread out so they can run from cover to cover to close up easily without necessarily being slowed by having to go through it. As often as not with this type of set up I see a big open killing field with parrallel-ish lines of terrain/buildings/etc along the two board edges, roughly mirrored along the short width of the board. I'm not a big fan of this approach as it takes away from the tactical decision of rolling for sides and reduces tactical deployment options.

I do like the narrative approach, especially when one player turns up for the game before the other, so can get the table set up while waiting. I played a relatively new player the other week with this kind of set up, with a load of ruins to the left end of the board, a field of craters and wooded areas off to the right. we ended up playing hammer and anvil, and I got the ruins, which made for a more difficult game for him, but at the end he said he really enjoyed it and couldn't believe he'd been playing on symmetric tables for so long.

Now, I voted something else. As I said, I love the narrative approach, but I don't feel it's right for every game, especially if you are practicing for a tournament or something. As often as not, I literally grab all the terrain out of the box and randomly fling (or place for the bigger or less sturdy pieces) on to the table with no real thought. After I'll have a look at the spacing, or see if I have clustered stuff too much. More often than not I have to move some terrain back to where the box was... Most of the time it makes for a non-symmetrical game where neither side has any real advantage, unless it is more by their deployment and the particular list they are taking. Maybe it is having played for 15 years that I've gained a natural instinct for setting good tables. Another thing I've seen and done myself before is to follow this method and then use a scatter dice to move everything around. Much more random, couldn't really be considered to be biased, even if one side ends up with all the terrain and the other has a fairly empty board. This does suffer the same problem as the books set up though; it takes time. Not something we always have the luxury of.

[Houghten]

What's to stop a bully with an IG army from browbeating his opponents into playing with incredibly sparse terrain?
Werl, in my local cluster there is a cadre of hoary old veterans (players who have been playing for a while, not players who also fought in World Wars) who will take an interest in the game, wander over and browbeat that player right back. Nobody actually throws the phrase "Most Important Rule" around like you see time and again on this site, but "Dude. Don't be an arse, seriously now" is fairly common.

I don't know how your lot would do it, though.


Or, to pick a less extreme example, what's to stop a game between a well-meaning 'Nids player and a well-meaning Tau player from totally bogging down when they try to decide how much blocking terrain vs. how many area templates vs. how much open ground to play.
They need to think less hard.

[Force21]

Mostly narrative/even amount of terrain on the table...making it fair for both players.

Its easier and does not take long...

but I do like the idea of Deep Striking terrain...saw some other gamers do that & thought. huh thats funny, should try that sometime...

[thelion]

i like the narrative version of laying terrain, my groop keeps things fair (or as close to fair as we can every once in a while one of us will try to be slick) but the big reason i like this is i am not a big fan of 2 armys hacking out just to hack it out. (unless there are fallen in my enemy's army, i am a DA player after all) but since most of my groop plays diff SM chapters (we have a BA, RG, SW, Salamanders, and me the DA players in our main groop) so i for the most part we need to have something to fight over.