Terrain can significantly affect the results of a game (obviously), so how can we minimise this impact when playtesting? Put another way, can we try to evolve a standard set of terrain layouts that are designed to be as 'neutral' as possible that people can then use when playtesting.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

When DS and I have time we use the SM/TL method:

Divide the board into 2x2 (60x60) squares (this usually makes for a 2x3 board of squares)
A player rolls a 1d3 for each square and rolls that many times on a random terrain chart.
The player places the pieces how they like and then the next player takes an adjacent square.

I feel its pretty fair.  If we're short on time though one player sets up and the other picks corner/side.  As long as you go by the guidelines in the rulebook and give ample amount of infantry cover and LOS blockage I think the games are as fair as they can be.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

If any of you have access to the Epic 40K Battles Book I seem to remember it has many terrain tables in for various world types, though I agree with Hena that player sense could be applied as well.
That little green book is one of the greatest things ever produced by GW. I used to love the Fog of War games back in the day.

For the purposes of play testing I reckon that stuff which is too exotic should be avoided for the most part. In other words, swamps/lava and the like unless there is a specific case where a rule is to be tested.

Would it be necessary to provide recommendations? E.g. if a skimmer heavy Eldar army is playing a ground slogging Ork army, then ensure rivers have at least 2 bridges per 1500 points or so, at least one of which can take large vehicles? This could be used in any tournament games.

It might be safer to stick to the more common woods, hills, rubble/ruins, and building of various sizes. The combined terrain of titan legions and Epic 40K would probably more than suffice and give a nice mix of building states, though inclusion of the SM towers would also add a bit.

The nature of these three replies demonstrates exaxtly what I was suggesting, and IMO will have dramatic effects on the resulting battles. We have different table-sizes, different selection mechanisms and a "player's sense" all thrown in. What I am asking is whether it is sensible to devise and publish a limited number of "standard" 6'x4' battlefields that should be used for testing armies, and how practical that would be?

For example, how many woods, hills and Built-up areas should we use and what dimensions are the different bits. Does it matter if the terrain is not symetrical? What 'definitions' should we use regarding LoS and visibility - and whether terrain or titans can overlook them etc. Should we include roads & rivers, bridges & fords etc and if so, how to position them so they do not dominate the battlefield.

The comments by lookatmybiglongname regarding the 40K battles book comes close to what I was thinking about because they are relatively standard in nature. Can we adopt and adapt some of these??

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

When we use the table, Dave and I do use some common sense and re-roll to get the proper "feel." We usually have fairly terrain-neutral boards.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

I always go with the tournament standard 2 pieces per 2' square. Then its a mix of hills, woods and buildings/ruins.

I'm not sure that fixed table layouts will help normalise battles that much.

Ok (and without any implied critism) consider the two tables presented in Irondeath's recent reports that I am sure we would all want to use. Both very different from each other, yet relatively open and as such terrain that favoured armies with long range firepower. This (and the lack of cover) tended to dictate the strategies and the way the battles developed, starting with the initial deployment.

In an extreme case, a table might contain 12x 4"x4" pieces (buildings for example) and thus be practically bare - while the reverse could equally be true with 12 hills each 1' in diameter, providing a rolling terrain with lots of valleys to hide in.

And it doesn't stop there. Putting formations in wood or built-up areas can also be used against them because of the way that the terrain limits fighting to what can be seen (so 10cms) and thus can limit the number of units activly participating. Having all-BUA, or all-wood terrain obviously impacts vehicle movement, while the presence of rivers provides natural defences and choke points. etc.

Often the margins we are trying to evaluate are quite small or subtle, and the point is that if we are playtesting armies or formations, we need to remove as many external factors as possible so that the real results can be evaluated better.

This is why I am wondering if we can generate and post a small number of "evaluation" terrains. (Note I do understand that people constraints, but would hope the terrain might be simple enough to minimise the impacts)

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt