We have all seen it. We’ve been there. We bring our dope-ass Drukhari, Blood Angels, or any other melee-centric build/army to a shop to meet for a game, only to find out that your opponent has already “set the table up, bro”.
You look at the table only to find it is devoid of almost any terrain, and across from you is a gunline waiting to rain bolter fire upon you. Minimum effort, maximum trauma. You realize you are better off hanging yourself with your underwear, rather than playing this game.
This may seem a bit extreme, but it is important to note that terrain an extremely important aspect of wargaming, and it is equally important to get terrain rules and layouts just right.
- Terrain is more than Decorative
It is a functional part of the game. Its importance can’t be stressed enough, whether you are a hyper competitive tournament player or a super casual in the garage. It gives a distinct change in the math, but can also help tell the story of your game.
Terrain can shut down shooting lanes by blocking Lines of sight, as well as by altering probability through “hit mods” or “save mods”. This may seem like small potatoes, but over enough time this slight changes in modifiers can add up and end up saving your caboose.
Back in my day terrain could slow you down as well, making the prospect of entering it a calculated risk. This exists in some games, but in others it has fallen to the wayside in favor of a more “positive” game experience-another topic that is going to be addressed at some time also.
2. Terrain and Game Balance
Wargames with guns are shooting-centric. This makes sense. They should be, as firearms are destructive. Melee becomes more about shock and awe, as well as positioning in many of these games. Bolt Action is probably one of the few exceptions, as in BA melee is an “all or nothing” affair. The loser is completely wiped, and this can make melee a gamble, but winning can pay off in a big way.
In games like 40k-and to some extent Firefight- Melee is a viable first option. As long as you have terrain to protect yourself. Armies like Blood Angels (40k), and Nightstalkers (Firefight) have strong melee options and are predicated around getting into your opponent. Games with these stronger melee options terrain needs to be functional. It needs to allow those players the ability to utilize cover in order to move from place to place without fear of being shot off of the table.
This doesn’t mean every game should be tight alleys and narrow roadways. Terrain that is too dense makes it almost impossible for the more shooting-centric armies to play, as they cannot turn a corner without getting charged instantly. From a gameplay perspective there needs to be balance. That being said, some games are just ass. This is the way it is, and rather than fix the inherent issues with the game, static layouts are the quick fix. I have strong feelings about static/standardized layouts, which, if time permits, I’ll dig into later.
3. Terrain Layouts
Layouts can have a variety of meanings, but for the purposes of this article it will reference one of three things:
a. Static/Standardized Layouts – This is when the company has pre-determined layouts that let players know exactly where features should be placed. This is especially common for Tournament Formats
b. Player Placed Terrain – This is exactly what it sounds like. There is a pool of terrain, and players alternate placing it until it is all placed.
Pre-set, but not standardized – This is more for tournaments, potentially narrative play. The Organizer sets the tables, but isn’t following a standardized format
There are pros and cons for each, and I’m going to discuss them in order from worst (IMO) to best.
The Worst: Standardized Layouts
This may or may not be a hot take. It does have its pros, for sure. Players know exactly what to expect and can plan accordingly. This isn’t a bad thing, and it makes it easier, especially for tournament players, to get their reps. It takes guess work out of intent, and gives players a smoother experience.
It isn’t all good, however. Terrain layouts that are standardized can get stale, and if Meta isn’t shifting for one reason or another games can feel a lot like a “rinse repeat” affair.
Tables can lack variety. If standardized layouts all implement a specific type of terrain, the lack of terrain diversity can make a game feel stale and bland.
The other issue is that games can use standardized layouts to band-aid poor rules writing. This may not seem like a big deal, but if a game has glaring issues then forcing players into standardized layouts doesn’t fix the issues.
Player Placed Terrain: Really good or really bad
If it is implemented well, Player Placed Terrain (PPT) can be a fun and exciting experience, especially at events. If it is implemented poorly it can all but ruin the game.
What is implementing poorly? A good example is an event that I went to. The order of operations was:
Roll for DZ and Terrain pick
Winner chooses DZ and places first piece
Game continues normally from there
This is atrocious and drastically rewards a player for winning a roll-off.
When I have run Player placed terrain in the past I have done:
Roll for Terrain placement first
Players set the table
Players roll for DZ
This encourages players to create a balanced and even table, even if it isn’t symmetrical. It also allows players to try to skew, but could end up fucking themselves over if they lose the DZ roll off. You can high-risk high-reward, or try to create even and balanced. The choice is at least in the hands of the players in this capacity.
My only real complaint, outside of what I just stated, is that when players are coming to an event, I want to let them play. I always feel guilty when asking players to set the table when I’m the TO, but that’s just a personal feeling.
My favorite: Pre-set but not Standardized
Wars have varied terrain. Wargames should also have varied terrain. Players should not always be able to plan for every detail of an event. This creates more “pocketed” metas, which isn’t bad. Events in my region might favor smaller pieces but more dense terrain. Events in Lafayette might favor more open terrain, and events in Chicago may favor a more infantry friendly board. You have to know the region in order to succeed, and you have to be able to adapt to new challenges. This is by for one my favorite things about wargaming, showing off your ability to adapt and overcome.
In Conclusion
Terrain is just as, if not more, important than the lists being played. A melee-centric list may struggle in an open field. Shooting lists may get shredded trying to move slowly street-to-street in a dense urban jungle. When you are playing a game with your friends the main thing to keep in mind is that unless you are setting up a specific scenario for a campaign, terrain doesn’t have to be symmetrical, but it should be balanced.
Chris