How Do You Place Terrain?

Hi guys, how much terrain do you generally use where you play? We tend to just place out 4-5 pieces (Forests, buildings, some special pieces like the Temple of Skulls or some dangerous terrain.) and say "You OK with this?". I'd wish for a bit more variety, but then again, that's what my own modular tables will be for.

What about you? Please answer the poll.

Theo

This post has been edited by theorox on Jan 9 2012, 08:56 AM

We often let player 1 built the terrain and let player 2 pick table side. (which count s like a mutual agreeable manner)

This post has been edited by BorkBork on Jan 9 2012, 09:02 AM

Normally for aesthetics. I like a table to have a real sense of location as it adds to the narrative of the game.

We tend to be short on time, so the host (or whoever gets to the Mill first) sets up the terrain then the other guy chooses the side.

We use differing systems depending on the day's preference. But always to create benefits/disadvantages for the players. Usually we chose around three pieces each and place them in turns till we have placed all the pieces. Sometimes we roll on our own random terrain generator (fitted to our existing terrain, and the fact that we still play 7th ed.).

That said we are starting to use more aesthetically pleasing set ups.

Wazoo

We prefer not to use terrain. In the ancient world, battles were typically fought on an open field, where the opposing armies would both assemble on the day of battle to fight it out. It is only in modern times when armies got bigger that you began to see the kind of skirmishing tactics that we typically see in WWII films involving soldiers moving through woods and hills and shooting at each other.

So, for a fantasy medieval setting, we prefer to have some open ground over which cavalry can make massed charges and that kind of thing.

If terrain is used that it have to be placed in an aestetically pleasing way.
We dont use much blocking stuff usually because I´m on the same boat as masurandi but if, there have to be a sense and logic in the placement. Stuff like bushes and whatnot are always on the field but on head-to-head battles there have to be a big free space.

Masurandi, I understand where you're coming from, but Warhammer has nothing to do with ancient times and the battlefields of the Warhammer world are better represented with a variety of terrain wich creates a diverse battlefield with choke points, steadfast disruption and vantage points. Adding more terrain really balances the game, and I fear playing without it would lead to "walk forward, charge the enemy, slug it out" games or one side standing back and shooting at anything they want. :/

Theo

hi theo

i see what you mean. i dont actually play warhammer myself, we use the no quarter rules instead (which is good because we can play orcs versus Perry miniature Saracens although they are from completely different ranges and the orcs are much bigger) which do not really allow one side to just stand back and keep shooting (well they allow it but its not a very good strategy)

i prefer little or no terrain because it allows cavalry to make wide flanking movements against infantry, but i guess maybe that wont work very well in warhammer?

Agreed on that.

Terrain is of huge importance, especially when relying on steadfast. I played a wood elf army, where my opponent had already created the battlefield when i got there. I thought it was fine cauz he let me choose side, and i just wanted to get going. It wasn't until the game started that i realized the he his placing of forests made bottle necks all through the middel, leaving my two anvil units stranded and unsupported. He he couldn't break them, but he held them with treemen and treekin for the entire game, and picked of the rest of my army. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it's the last time I'm underestimating terrain like that.

Therefore i like the BRB way of placing terrain. Taking a piece each and placing it once at a time, or another way is just trying to make a cool scene. The first is more balanced, and good for random games, and it could be used as part of tactics, as if your generals try to choose a terrain that fits him.
The other way is often more fun in order of fluff, but it can ruin a game a bit, if your opponent makes the battlefield and you realize that you have the terrain against you. Even if it wasn't intentional. I still prefer it though

My group plays with rolls on the random terrain chart. But we opt to change or re-roll if we are tired of one specific type of special terrain, or we have too many on the board already. Sort of a mix between rolling on the chart and mutually agreeable manner.

About playing without terrain: You certainly can not have any Wood Elf players there... They play guerilla warfare, an ancient style of battle designed to use the terrain to defeat numerically superior foes.

About plain fields of battle: If that really has been the norm forever, why did this guy Sun Tzu write a bunch about knowing the battlefield and using the terrain to you advantage?

Must admit that I had not thought about that bit in Sun Tzu (although I did read that book years ago) -

maybe my view on battles being fought on plains is a bit Eurocentric, its based on the Classical Greek idea of warfare which essentially involved two armies massing up on opposite ends of a battlefield and fighting it out - and that was the mindset that continued into later years as well - but I guess it was not the way they fought battles in ancient China...

I m just a bit worried about terrain getting in the way of larger units - my girlfriend's strongest unit is an Orc War Chariot (she plays the orcs) and I m wondering how having a large wood in the middle of the playing field would disadvantage her (I take the Saracens so I have a lot of infantry and archer units)

This post has been edited by masurandi on Jan 9 2012, 04:32 PM

It would, probably. I don't know the rules for No quarter, never heard of it really, but I imagine that each terrain piece should have advantages as well as disadvantages. Wouldn't that forest make it harder for you to shoot up that chariot with your archers? It would in Warhammer.

Theo

We usually place terrain in turns until both players are satisfied.

The forest would make the actual shooting at the chariot harder because there would be no Line of Sight, but because the rules we use dont really allow archers to do that much damage shooting at a target, it would be to my advantage to have it there because then my infantry and archers could move to it quickly and her chariot and cavalry (boar riders) would not be able to charge them and gain ramming damage the way they could in open country - if there were buildings in the middle the archers could use it as shelter and the cavalry could not charge them either -

no quarter is a free rules system that can be adapted to any set of miniatures - we decided to use them because they were free and we could easily adapt them to the kinds of armies we both wanted to have and not worry about army lists etc. - i am actually thinking of trying warhammer but my own army is Perry miniature Saracens - is there any middle eastern type army in Warhammer that could be used for those figures?

Not really middle eastern type, but the Empire covers a lot of different human unit types. It's not unusual to use models as a "counts as" army. Also the old Dogs of War have varied rules you could check out. DoW is out of print though...