Okay, so we know FFG has some pretty light weight guidance on what is required or even desirable for setting up a table...

Quote

Most of the battlefield will generally be open terrain.

The [next] most common type of terrain on the battlefield, area terrain, includes woods, tall grass, rivers, and the ruined shells of blownout buildings.

[Barricade] type of terrain is often found in multiple small segments that can be combined to form defensive lines.

And only slightly more concrete guidance for competitive terrain setup...

Quote

The players set aside an even number of terrain pieces that cover roughly a quarter of the battlefield, choosing some pieces that will block line of sight and some that will simply provide cover.

Now I fully support this kind of hands off approach that allows players to reuse and explore many different types of games (for reasons I have exhaustively defended in other threads and do not wish to re-hash here). However I have found some rule of thumb guidelines that I am finding make for certain kinds of games and I thought it would be interesting to share and see what other folks have been using as well!

With that said, here is my not very well organized or thought out rules of thumb:

1. Bring LOS blocking terrain for every type of unit. Yes even the AT-ST and T-47 Air Speeders! Having an opportunity to manuver and control when you get shot at makes for much more dynamic games. As more units get sharpshooter, just having heavy cover is not enough.
2. Place some LOS blocking terrain near the center of the table. One big one in the middle, or offset to one long edge or the other, or even two big ones, with a narrowish (range 1-2) corridor in between is fun and again creates positioning and maneuver games. Too big an empty zone in the middle table though, and it can become a WWI style no-man's land.
3. Place some LOS blocking terrain at range 1 from the blue and red edges or the table, and at the center of the short edges. Create the opportunity to mitigate a turn 1 Veers or Leia. Don't you want to surprise folks playing those cards later anyhow?
4. Place some cover at range 1 from the table edges (includes the above) and some more at range 2. Knowing that most deployments are at rage 1 creates the opportunity for defensive positions and initial positions
5. Make sure you have room for large bases to pass between 1/2 of the terrain pieces. Conversely create choke points where only small bases can squeeze through. Makes players consider different units differently. Don't scatter small low terrain so tightly that large bases are denied large ares of the board unthematically. While you are at it ingnore the overhang rule for repulsor vehicles.
6. Create good sniping corridors. Best of all when there's lots of low cover or even low LOS blocking terrain, but some corridors are open from height 1.
7. Use LOS blocking area terrain. Gives you milage for both LOS blocking and area terrain useage, and you can make it difficult area terrain for more variety.
8. Be aware of the center of the board and the two flanking positions for "intercept the transmissions". Knowing that objectives might be placed here allows you to be both intentional and balanced in how you place the terrain. Are both exposed to the attacker making them risky to hold or both out of LOS? Is the center defensible? Elevated?

What kinda guidelines do you all use?

Put one or two LOS blocking buildings or plateaus in the middle. Then put down 1 of each the following somewhere:

• Fences (12" or so)
• Woods or the local equivalent
• Impassable terrain (usually a pond)
• Rough terrain (low scrubby bushes)

At this point I step back and see what the battlefield "looks like it needs" to provide an interesting game. Which can vary with systems and factions.

I tend towards building a battlefield which looks like a place, especially with regard to settlements or outposts.

Most settlements are built along a main road and then branch out. They tend to want a water source near fields. That sort of thing. I do the same with woods and clearings. In a desert the vegetation will stick close to rivers, that sort of thing.

Once that is done, I shuffle things around a little so that vehicles can move and we're not going to left with a deployment zone with no cover at all.

I go with the reasoning that the real world has plenty of sniping lanes and cover to move up short ranged weapons- that's why they evolved after all. Having a battlefield help the immersion is more important than making it 'fair' but I try for both.

I start with a theme for the board if I can, and then start the major landmarks of the theme. Once that’s done, I fill in the gaps. Being mindful of providing plenty of hiding spaces and firing lanes. But making most of them come at a choice if I can help it.

Then I try to mirror the board as much as possible to ensure fairness if at all possible.

22 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

Okay, so we know FFG has some pretty light weight guidance on what is required or even desirable for setting up a table...

And only slightly more concrete guidance for competitive terrain setup...

Now I fully support this kind of hands off approach that allows players to reuse and explore many different types of games (for reasons I have exhaustively defended in other threads and do not wish to re-hash here). However I have found some rule of thumb guidelines that I am finding make for certain kinds of games and I thought it would be interesting to share and see what other folks have been using as well!

With that said, here is my not very well organized or thought out rules of thumb:

1. Bring LOS blocking terrain for every type of unit. Yes even the AT-ST and T-47 Air Speeders! Having an opportunity to manuver and control when you get shot at makes for much more dynamic games. As more units get sharpshooter, just having heavy cover is not enough.
2. Place some LOS blocking terrain near the center of the table. One big one in the middle, or offset to one long edge or the other, or even two big ones, with a narrowish (range 1-2) corridor in between is fun and again creates positioning and maneuver games. Too big an empty zone in the middle table though, and it can become a WWI style no-man's land.
3. Place some LOS blocking terrain at range 1 from the blue and red edges or the table, and at the center of the short edges. Create the opportunity to mitigate a turn 1 Veers or Leia. Don't you want to surprise folks playing those cards later anyhow?
4. Place some cover at range 1 from the table edges (includes the above) and some more at range 2. Knowing that most deployments are at rage 1 creates the opportunity for defensive positions and initial positions
5. Make sure you have room for large bases to pass between 1/2 of the terrain pieces. Conversely create choke points where only small bases can squeeze through. Makes players consider different units differently. Don't scatter small low terrain so tightly that large bases are denied large ares of the board unthematically. While you are at it ingnore the overhang rule for repulsor vehicles.
6. Create good sniping corridors. Best of all when there's lots of low cover or even low LOS blocking terrain, but some corridors are open from height 1.
7. Use LOS blocking area terrain. Gives you milage for both LOS blocking and area terrain useage, and you can make it difficult area terrain for more variety.
8. Be aware of the center of the board and the two flanking positions for "intercept the transmissions". Knowing that objectives might be placed here allows you to be both intentional and balanced in how you place the terrain. Are both exposed to the attacker making them risky to hold or both out of LOS? Is the center defensible? Elevated?

What kinda guidelines do you all use?

I like these for the same reason many will hate them- they can create vastly unequal games and present tactical challenges well beyond what an untrained combatant can deal with. They also make for interesting and tense fights, and give every unit a way to shine.

These sound pretty good, except one of my personal rules for terrain is get that big dumb building out of the middle of the table! Maybe that's because I grew up with White Dwarf battle reports, but I like a nice deadly middle with (ironically) very little dead space on the table in the form of buildings and other terrain the models can't interact with. That stuff should go to the table edges where they can look beautiful!

I noticed that many Legion batreps on Youtube have featured very nice tables, and look forward to seeing them improve as people get more and more terrain built and get better at setting it up. My one actually useful recommendation for anybody is to check out historical gaming tables, or even high quality miniature dioramas, because they often do such a lovely job recreating the world on the tabletop, and producing areas that feel real and not like a paintball field. Just reviewing them, I think, can give you a better feel for how to set up buildings in conjunction with each other and how to place vegetation and other scatter terrain more naturalistically.

On 12/7/2018 at 11:07 AM, Katarn said:

I tend towards building a battlefield which looks like a place, especially with regard to settlements or outposts.

Most settlements are built along a main road and then branch out. They tend to want a water source near fields. That sort of thing. I do the same with woods and clearings. In a desert the vegetation will stick close to rivers, that sort of thing.

Once that is done, I shuffle things around a little so that vehicles can move and we're not going to left with a deployment zone with no cover at all.

I go with the reasoning that the real world has plenty of sniping lanes and cover to move up short ranged weapons- that's why they evolved after all. Having a battlefield help the immersion is more important than making it 'fair' but I try for both.

This is basically my approach. Make a realistic looking village, outpost, ruined city, industrial plant, etc. Then after it looks nice, put on the gamer glasses and adjust things to make for a reasonably balanced game.

I think if you start from the game balance perspective first you get an artificial looking collection of stuff on the table, and you lose some of the immersion.

Huh, it's funny that some folks are seeing these ideas as somehow in conflict with immersive or thematic tables~

I have a set of Desert Planet (Tatooine/Jakku) terrain, and a set of Forest Moon (Endor) terrain, and when setting up I always try to create a sense of place while following the guidelines above.

You can also satisfy the considerations I was listing while having interesting asymmetries... it doesn't need to be paintball like!

13 hours ago, frankelee said:

These sound pretty good, except one of my personal rules for terrain is get that big dumb building out of the middle of the table! Maybe that's because I grew up with White Dwarf battle reports, but I like a nice deadly middle with (ironically) very little dead space on the table in the form of buildings and other terrain the models can't interact with. That stuff should go to the table edges where they can look beautiful!

Well one of my favorite set ups does have a narrow corridor at a diagonal near the center, lots of battles happen around cross roads for a reason!

That said, I haven't found that a single big obstruction makes Legion any less exciting or deadly. I'm curious about the situations you've encountered in Legion. My experience has been that the units are quite mobile and maneuver is pleasantly very effective in contrast to some other attritiony mini games I've played~

36 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

Well one of my favorite set ups does have a narrow corridor at a diagonal near the center, lots of battles happen around cross roads for a reason!

That said, I haven't found that a single big obstruction makes Legion any less exciting or deadly. I'm curious about the situations you've encountered in Legion. My experience has been that the units are quite mobile and maneuver is pleasantly very effective in contrast to some other attritiony mini games I've played~

I wouldn't say having that big obstruction makes the game unexciting to play, or that anybody is having fun the wrong way if they prefer it... It just really bugs me because it feels like it overly partitions the battlefield and I think battle reports with too much dead space are less enjoyable to watch (for both this game, and others like 40K). Also I have had the experience of units moving up to a building like that and being stuck taking two turns to get them around the corners and back into the battle, which makes me feel "Ugghhh!"

I also agree that Legion does allow a lot of mobility, and part of that is the mission selection which encourages doing stuff instead of sitting and shooting, but because of that I think it's more fun to avoid obvious shooting lanes and confined alleys that can punish aggression and movement. Instead I like a big mix of cover and small sections of blocking terrain, so you get some options about where you won't get shot, but you're still going to get shot at from somewhere. And you might have to get aggressive in order to have a clear shot at where your enemy wants to advance. But that's also an expression of my love for scatter terrain!