Terrain usage and placement at tournaments

[SpiritofHokuto]

Bringing this over from the Blackout thread so it doesn't get unfairly derailed.

What are people's thoughts about terrain usage and placement at tournaments? Should players be allowed to contest and change existing table layouts? Should there be hard and fast rules as to the type of terrain that players can bring to tournaments that ask you to? Same for placement of said pieces. And have you encountered any bespoke terrain rules that you think are particularly good? And are there any other thoughts or ideas you have about terrain at tournaments in general?   

[Skabnoze]

Honestly, the basic core terrain rules in AoS are so binary and basic that I don't really see an issue with terrain types.  Terrain only really has 2 basic types: terrain that models can be placed on and obstructions that models cannot stop on.  There is technically a 3rd type which is terrain that models can garrison inside - but those rules have never really worked well in Warhammer Fantasy games (any version) and I think we are safe to leave them out of this discussion.

Terrain that you can put models on will generally grant cover to the unit in it and can be seen through due to TLoS.  Terrain that models cannot stop on are generally big obstructions that block LoS and have to be maneuvered around except for the subset of models with an ability to move past them such as flying models or things like Spiderfang.

Unless we are talking about people using very specific warscroll terrain with special rules everything else pretty much falls under the above blanket.  I guess you could make a specific argument for/against Woods - since they are now a hybrid of the two types.

I think that it is going to be pretty hard to really stack a table in your favor unless you are doing a handfull of things:  using blocking terrain with absurdly huge footprints, using too little, using too much, or stacking one side much more than the other.

I don't see anything wrong with letting both players move the terrain on the table around as long as they are required to agree on the board set-up prior to deploying their forces.

[Overread]

This is going to vary a lot based on the scale of a tournament. A local one might well rely heavily on players to bring their own and if they did bring their own they might well take it game to game with them. Even at a bigger event if they'v brought their own they might want to keep it with them (avoids damage and loss due to unseen actions of others). This is especially the case if they've put a lotof work and effort into the terrain.

 

 

I agree that the terrain rules are very light in Sigmar (honestly this same complaint can be said of nearly all the rules).  I think as it stands if the tournament allows users to bring their own then this should be communicated to player and then to have all terrain inspected upon entry just like conversion should be. This allows the removal of any terrain deemed unsuitable or not in keeping with the spirit of the game and competition and the weeding out of terrain in case someone has brought way way too much to be fair.

 

Meanwhile if a tournament has its own then they are within full rights to demand that only their terrain be used. 

 

 

 

Clearly if the TO sets up boards and uses their own terrain they can at least ensure fair play from their own game standards for the event. If they allow boards to be adjusted and home terrain to be brought then I'd argue that either the event is kept more casual than competitive (eg no prize money) or the TO and other officials oversee the setup and deployment of game to ensure fair play. 

 

Remembering that terrain setup is a skill and its very easy for a more skilled player to gain advantage over a less skilled one through terrain. This doesn't even have to be deliberate; its very easily done by accident.

 

Like a lot of issues more officials can resolve the matter; however adding in more points of discussion can create more delay in games getting started. 

[lolwut]

Allowing people to bring terrain from home and set it up on the board at a tournament is bonkers to me. Build a list that is all FLY and just bring a ton of impassable walls, fence in the objectives, and laugh.  That said, tournaments should always have sufficient terrain, even if it's foam. A bowling ball is not a good battlefield surface. 

[Skabnoze]

Just now, lolwut said:

Allowing people to bring terrain from home and set it up on the board at a tournament is bonkers to me. Build a list that is all FLY and just bring a ton of impassable walls, fence in the objectives, and laugh.  That said, tournaments should always have sufficient terrain, even if it's foam. A bowling ball is not a good battlefield surface. 

I would assume there would be a set amount of terrain that you could put on the table and both players would have input as to where the terrain goes.  If one person was able to unilaterally determine the entire board set up like that then I agree there is an issue.

[Future]

What unfair advantage does terrain grant? There isn't a lot you can do with terrain to model for advantage. 6 medium to large pieces is recommended even from GW if I recall. Most 40k tournaments require the center terrain to be LOS blocking so why shouldn't that be the case in Sigmar.

I would like the term advantage more clearly defined. I think players should be able to place every piece of terrain before board sides is chosen.

[SpiritofHokuto]

I would also take a leaf out of Infinity's book and make the two sides somewhat uneven in terms of terrain so that choosing sides isn't so much of a moot point. 

[Overread]

It's not actually likely that a person could bring terrain that would give them an unfair advantage, but rather that the custom setting up of terrain on the board could result in an imbalance of the placement of the terrain that gives a bonus to one player over the other. The assumption here is that the TO setup tables which don't give a bonus to players; or at the very least any bonus is incidental/accidental and isn't pre-planned.

Now you can fairly argue that placement of terrain is part of good gameplay and tactics and thus isn't bad being part of the tournament scene. I'd go one further and say that its not bad so long as the TO/Official has overseen the fair placement of terrain - though this isn't always possible at every event. 

[Tittliewinks22]

After seeing Ben's themed terrain, I think I'm going to start making 6-8 pieces for each of my armies now!

I'm not a big tournament player, but it's a great look

[PlasticCraic]

My personal 2 cents on this...

The Nighthaunt example at Blackout specifically - I'd have no problem whatsoever with playing on that particular table.  Would relish and embrace it.  Warscryers are relatively tall and skinny so they're not even that hard to slog around - it's a good table.  Plenty of angles to get Line of Site, a couple of choke points, looks awesome.  10/10.

The principle of bringing your own scenery in general - I understand it, but I think it needs some parameters.  A lot of events here in Australia require 3 pieces of terrain per player, which is fair enough.  I would never call any TO lazy, certainly none of the TOs I have experience with here in Australia - because I know that is not true.  They are doing it for the love.  And however much scenery you've had to paint and lug around - they've done more.  So although I'd prefer to travel without it, I have no issue with having to bring terrain.

Where it can be an issue is that it is open to abuse - and someone could always be tempted.  For example - a Nighthaunt player bringing 3 Numinous Occula would be rather pushing the limits of what is reasonable.  But so too could a Freeguild player bring 3 fences for example (to leave LOS wide open whilst giving their gunline a couple of extra inches protection from charges).

My own suggestion would be that if you are requiring players to bring terrain, set out some guidelines, and make it part of sports scores.  For example you might say "All players are required to bring 3 pieces of terrain.  1 large piece and 2 small or medium pieces.  1 of the 3 should block Line of Site"...or whatever you thought was appropriate.

The part of the sports scores you complete is "My opponent brought a reasonable range of terrain in line with the requirements of the player pack".  Mr 3 Numinous Occula or Miss 3 Fences would then be dropping sports scores as a payoff for trying to game the system with 3 really extreme pieces, rather than the required spread of pieces.

Yes it's subjective - but all sports scores are subjective (including Best Opponent) - and it's actually less subjective than most.  You could refine it as you wish (e.g. they have to get 2 or 3 negative scores before they drop any points for example), but overall I think it would be a sensible balancing factor in events where you do require players to bring scenery.

I think that would work pretty well personally - and if I was given the chance to play on a table like the one at Blackout, I would jump at it, and if it was part of sports scores I'd give my opponent full terrain points for sure.

[Rogue Sun]

There is zero problem with players bringing terrain for tournament use. Tournaments bring in more players on average than casual play and stores/venues often can't supply enough terrain to fill the number of tables required. The problem stems from allowing players to bring the terrain they bring to each table they play. Ben was allowed in 4 of his 5 games to change out existing terrain with his own. Now I'm sure there was no ill intent meant - his terrain looks great and he wants to play on a great looking board - but with the size of his terrain coupled with the composition of his army it's hard not to imagine he created an advantage for himself inadverdantly or otherwise. 

If players bring terrain to a tournament they need to give it to the TO prior to the tournament start so that the TO can set it up on a table *where the terrain will remain* for the entirety of the tournament. This eliminates any potential advantage one can give themself and leaves it up to luck of the draw for playing on that particular board. 

[stato]

In the tournament run by the local gaming club I attend players bring 5 pieces, 3 large and at least partially LoS blocking, 2 small scatter pieces.  Terrain has either been placed by the TO at the beginning or by players. If its done by the players its done as per the rules, where players pick a piece (any piece of the 10 available for the table) and place it, repeat until table is set-up.  Roll for scenery rules, scrolls were not used. The scenario is then announced and then table sides are picked. 

So you can try and game the system, but only by bringing some pieces, and even then you might not get to place them or end up on the table side (or edge) you want.

In the images of the table under discussion it doesnt look any different to any normal AoS table, maybe above average LoS blocking but that should be a thing anyway (I play KO and yet have more LoS blocking scenery then most players, as i think its only fair to not give myself an extra advantage).  As people have said, walking around those pieces of scenery is no more difficult than any building or other non-GW rocky outcrop (such as the Gamemat.eu stuff).

[stato]

2 minutes ago, Rogue Sun said:

... Ben was allowed in 4 of his 5 games to change out existing terrain with his own. Now I'm sure there was no ill intent meant - his terrain looks great and he wants to play on a great looking board - but with the size of his terrain coupled with the composition of his army it's hard not to imagine he created an advantage for himself inadverdantly or otherwise. 

...

What did the normal tables look like?  Ive not seen any comparison shots to see his table gave an advantage.

[Rogue Sun]

1 minute ago, stato said:

What did the normal tables look like?  Ive not seen any comparison shots to see his table gave an advantage.

This was the one game where his opponent wad not OK with him switching terrain out. It is far more open with far less LOS blocking. Ben still tabled his opponent as he is a solid player. But one can imagine why tables like this suddenly being filled with movement and LOS hindering mountains may be considered giving yourself an advantage.

[Drib]

I do have more or less the same opinion as @Sleboda, that knowing the terrain may give you a home field advantage. It is also difficult to get a true insight into the pros and cons of the terrain, when asked if it is okay to set it up especially when you are a bit nervous (and already planing your first turn). You might even forget the bonus of cover that other terrain would have yielded. Well that's no problem for some armies that don't benefit from cover (like Nighthaunt). Or you did underestimate the choke points created, that could have been bypassed by flying units, but you brought non.

That aside, if a player (the one who brought the terrain OR his opponent) gets an advantage in the tournament by someone's terrain, the tournerment cease to be truely competive, as some games were not held under equal circumstances. That puts the disatvantage to players that were never asked if it is okay for them to use other terrain.

I do support the "each player brings the same amount of terrain and it is used 50/50"-rule if there is not enough terrain to fill all tables in every other case, the TOs preset should be used.

[stato]

1 minute ago, Rogue Sun said:

This was the one game where his opponent wad not OK with him switching terrain out. It is far more open with far less LOS blocking. Ben still tabled his opponent as he is a solid player. But one can imagine why tables like this suddenly being filled with movement and LOS hindering mountains may be considered giving yourself an advantage.

To me this is a solid example of why Tournaments SHOULD get players to bring scenery, thats a poor excuse for a table. That opponent would have been begging for Ben's terrain if he went up against a solid gunline army.

[RuneBrush]

My own view - it depends entirely on the circumstances.  Generally yes, if you're using the generic terrain rules.  Most tournaments don't have many large terrain pieces, so you normally have a fairly open and flat layout - it should be set up "old school" in that each player places the same number of items prior to rolling for sides.

I do think that if players are bringing terrain then they need to run it past the TO as being acceptable.  If you've made up a load of terrain to give you an advantage in game then expect to be told to jog on, but if (as per Ben's bits) it's some pieces that provides both players an epic game then all cool with that.

17 minutes ago, stato said:

What did the normal tables look like?  Ive not seen any comparison shots to see his table gave an advantage.

It was very classic Warhammer - it is just worth noting that the scenery is provided by the venue and each table was set up in the same manner.

8 minutes ago, stato said:

To me this is a solid example of why Tournaments SHOULD get players to bring scenery, thats a poor excuse for a table. That opponent would have been begging for Ben's terrain if he went up against a solid gunline army.

As above, the scenery was provided by the tournament - it was all painted/finished too, which as you can see from my picture and the one from @Rogue Sun meant that the games looked amazing.

I know that if Blackout was a "bring your own" it likely wouldn't have had either my brother or I there.  As public transport commuters it was bad enough trying to bring armies and overnight bags, let alone large terrain pieces.

[pseudonyme]

More or less an off-topic question : is there a collective intelligence repository of terrain set-up (whatever the game system) ?

 

[MOMUS]

1 hour ago, Rogue Sun said:

This was the one game where his opponent wad not OK with him switching terrain out. It is far more open with far less LOS blocking. Ben still tabled his opponent as he is a solid player. But one can imagine why tables like this suddenly being filled with movement and LOS hindering mountains may be considered giving yourself an advantage.

That looks like @Dan.Ford and his khorne army, why not ask him why he chose to stick with the table terrain?

Plenty of tournamnets in the past allowed/encouraged or needed you to bring your own terrain (or a few pieces) but usually you places them first game and left them on that table, then at the end of the event went back to collect them.

This way you play across several gamers efforts and have a mix or terrain types. Seems a bit odd a player could carry around his own terrain table to table.

[ianob]

Blackout was my first major event and when I saw that board at 9am and was ogling it, was very surprised to hear that it belonged to a player using Nighthaunt. I was even more surprised when it went with the player to his second game. I’ve never seen or heard of anything like that in my life, competitively. It was definitely a bit of a shock.

I’ve been to a few events which were bring your own terrain. In G1 you and your opponent set up a fair board using the terrain pieces you each brought, and then it stayed there all day. That seemed fine.

Clearly the situation at Blackout has been norm for events in the past but I think from speaking to people who’ve been at more events than myself, that this was the most extreme example they’d seen of something not sitting well - a whole army that flies, running multiple characters whose major weakness is being sniped, having massive movement and LoS blocking terrain pieces. 

Regardless of the intent behind this terrain, I don’t think anyone can disagree that it *is* advantageous to that army in most situations. And for the integrity of the game, as it grows and matured and more people with differing opinions (fair ones) start playing the game, I think the practice of bringing your own terrain probably needs to be modified slightly. People bringing amazing boards is really great for the game, but those boards need to be of more of a “tournament standard” and they should probably not be following the player. Also TOs need to make it very clear that raising issues with your opponents terrain is fine and that no one is going to look at you like a ****** for doing so. Not everyone has a mind to object even if thy want to, especially in this hobby that often attracts introverts, socially awkward persons, or simply people who are too nice. Let’s keep it inclusive.

Its nice to see that this thread has managed to stay away from accusations of cheating, because as someone who was there, that’s clearly not what this was. It was simply the intersection of an army and terrain pieces that happened to benefit it, combined with a good tournament for the player (would anyone have been questioning the terrain if he’d gone 3-2? Probably not). 

[Kugane]

I think lack of large LOS blocking terrain pieces in most games is what is keeping more than half of the factions from being competitive. There are a lot of armies that are not competitive at all that would benefit greatly from terrain pieces like the ones used by Ben and give them a fundament to build an army around. Not to mention it makes games far cooler and, what I would assume, fun.

[Overread]

Separate chat on terrain theory and terrain placement in general (ergo not limited to concepts such as free building at tournaments) 

 

[Yoshiya]

Not a tournament player so take this as you will but I think after seeing the pictures of the other boards my only real problem is that Ben seemed to be playing in a practically different game in regards to choke points  etc so having the terrain follow him around is a bit problematic.

That said, I think his particular board is what all boards should aim for so I don't particularly think he was looking to get an advantage, just that he happened to be using his terrain in an event where it clearly stood out from the norm. Also, at the end of the day his opponents agreed to his using of it so I don't think it particularly counts against him.

I think as others have said, the TO needs to set expectations of what the boards will look like and if you want to bring your own terrain it needs to stay in line with that.

[Jamopower]

12 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

There is technically a 3rd type which is terrain that models can garrison inside - but those rules have never really worked well in Warhammer Fantasy games (any version) and I think we are safe to leave them out of this discussion.

The reason why they didn't work in Fantasy was because of the very limited movement of the ranked units. In AoS  (or any other similar skirmish game) there are zero problems with the garrisoning. Essentially your unit becomes the terrain piece and you lose the movement (and possible los blocking of the building) in exchange of -1 to hit against. It's of course advantageous for some units, but that's always the case with terrain of any sort.

[Screwface]

Just as a hypothetical, what would the conversation be like if Ben Johnson had lost the one game where the opponent insisted on generic terrain?