Terrain Placement Rules

Is there a fix terrain placement method in WM?

Yesterday at WGS I have a Interesting 35Point game which I believe its Warhammer Terrain placement rules, Which each player deploy D6 terrain which need to be at least 3" away from each terrain.

Well so happen Im fighting against a Everblight u can guess what terrain he choose (3x forest)
Its quite a tough struggle for my side but I still manage to won.

Well I would suggest u guys try this method its kinda fun, but I would say try with 3 different terrain piece to be fair.

yeah park 3 houses in front of my girl don't come near BIG B!!!!!

In Primal MkII, the Terrain Setup is mentioned on page 88 (pg. 86 in Prime MkII). There are no rules for terrain placement at all except that it should be visually appealing. There's no minimum or maximum distance between terrain pieces. No minimum or maximum number of terrain pieces. You just need to specify the type of terrain before the game begins.

Usually house or club rules may modify this. Personally, I would rather not follow GW rules in any way for WM/H.

Wayfarer wrote:In Primal MkII, the Terrain Setup is mentioned on page 88 (pg. 86 in Prime MkII). There are no rules for terrain placement at all except that it should be visually appealing. There's no minimum or maximum distance between terrain pieces. No minimum or maximum number of terrain pieces. You just need to specify the type of terrain before the game begins.

Usually house or club rules may modify this. Personally, I would rather not follow GW rules in any way for WM/H.

Yes but they no state at all method on how to decide which terrain to use, I would say GW rules is fair for both sides at least no one will complain well cox no terrain I got shot and lost or some crap.

Some armies are terrain oriented and some are not at least we must make the situation fair for both sides.

Therefore I suggest using this method and only choose 1 of each different features terrain and the person tat roll highest in terrain roll gets to decide 1st to deploy 1st piece follows by turn orders.
These way we get to see and learn how terrain works and also can plan more creative strategies.

From where I've read. Yes, the core book itself doesn't have any placement rules. But tournament rulebook, be it Steamroller or even the Blighted and all that, even most others imply that terrains cannot be within 2" of each other. Other than that, some tournaments seem to use fixed placement on tables.

And yeah, some of the factions do really heavily on terrain, I think that it's more on the horde side. Such as Circle, Gator 'Minion' with their water.

This is the Steamroller rules for terrain placement.

The type, volume and placement of terrain is up to the TO, but there are a few
guidelines that must be followed when setting up tournament tables:

• Do not place terrain within potential deployment zone areas.
• All terrain pieces must be placed at least 3˝ away from other terrain pieces. This
includes terrain pieces granted by Theme List bonuses.
• Do not place terrain in contact with flags or objectives for scenarios that use them.
• Do not place obstructions in control zones when playing scenarios that use them.

I guess the "choosing terrain" part was the the TO's call. I personally don't like that method, but masuk dalam kandang kambing, embeeekk, masuk dalam ladang lembu, moooo!

Well Tournament its TO calls ,
Normally Terrain is fix on tournament but I'm more concern bout casual games.

If less say I ask 3rd party to set up the terrain , myself or even my opponent might think this terrain setup not good or not beneficial/screw me over me instead more on my opponent .

Well guy any idea ?
normally stuff like this its up to house rules I think to settle as Wayfarer said.

This my suggestion for casual games terrain setup .

Start of the game each player roll 1D3+1 each player choose a unique type of terrain with measurement of 4"x 6" or 4"x 4 " (if possible and I heard its standard measurement of league/tournament) and put it on the pool .

Then roll for deployment and decide who start 1st .

Now the player who roll higher for terrain choose and place a piece of terrain and follow by the next player(YES u can place the terrain who is chosen by other players).

Conclusion
I believe this matter is fair and each players get a chance to pick at least a nice spot on battlefield to take cover or set up an ambush or combos .

I would agree with Tekanan and follow the guidelines from steamroller to as part of this terrain setup.

Tekanan wrote:This is the Steamroller rules for terrain placement.

The type, volume and placement of terrain is up to the TO, but there are a few
guidelines that must be followed when setting up tournament tables:

• Do not place terrain within potential deployment zone areas.
• All terrain pieces must be placed at least 3˝ away from other terrain pieces. This
includes terrain pieces granted by Theme List bonuses.
• Do not place terrain in contact with flags or objectives for scenarios that use them.
• Do not place obstructions in control zones when playing scenarios that use them.

Well, yes if you're using Steamroller rules. Remember that in a casual game, your opponent does not have to agree to use it. Setting house rules would settle the arguments one way or another. eg. WGS house rules uses the Steamroller rules even for fun/casual games. WM-my can do the same or otherwise.

Also, I think we need to get into the habit of specifying terrain before terrain setup. eg. Can flying or jumping models end up on top of buildings? Which ones are linear obstacles? Rough terrain? etc.

If we're using the same house rules for terrain as per WGS, it makes us easier to anywhere since the guys are used to the ruling. Standardisation makes so many things much easier.

Wayfarer wrote:WM-my can do the same or otherwise.

It doesn't make sense for WM Malaysia to have a house rule because we are not a shop or a specialised group within the WM community. Therefore, no such 'house rule' exist here .

I've already make it a habit to declare terrain types before the beginning of each game just to not get that nasty surprise (wth that's a wall that provides +4 DEF cover?). I strongly recommend people follow suit too as this is the suggestion of most WM communities.

We also have this bad habit to "chose table sides" even before terrains are placed. This obviously has to be fixed haha.

Terrain should never be placed as an advantage to your army unless scenario or your tier list dictates it. It is meant to just add more dynamics to the game. I myself believe the best is using a 3rd party terrain placement. Noone can argue on the validity of it and if someone manages to, just get a different 3rd party next time .


If you want to go to the extreme, there's a fan-made terrain placement generator somewhere on the net meant for warmachine. I've tried it and the terrain placement is indeed random and you end up with really weird terrain deployments.

Well my suggestion is not for setting up house rules its to make the game more exciting. Its like the FFA X CHAOS format we played.

As I know there is quite a few faction which can perform better with specific type of terrain.It be a waste to deny these ability such as "amphibious" can almost never seen use. This can also make the game more dynamic by setting up and planing the strategies . U will get what I mean when u tried it.

jasechew wrote:Well my suggestion is not for setting up house rules its to make the game more exciting. Its like the FFA X CHAOS format we played.

As I know there is quite a few faction which can perform better with specific type of terrain.It be a waste to deny these ability such as "amphibious" can almost never seen use. This can also make the game more dynamic by setting up and planing the strategies . U will get what I mean when u tried it.

Hmm, making it into a "format" sounds exciting and a better idea. Any ideas on what this format should be called? We should try it out this weekend.

I have no idea yet what's name.

But I think its good way for players to get to know and try out fighting in heavy terrain environment.