Data Sphere

We here at Data Sphere are on the lookout for terrain setup methods in the same vein as Bostria's tutorial on Beasts of War. Do you have a method you'd like to share with us?

I start out with Bostria's method (9 big terrain pieces), and then keep adding scatter to make little scenes.

A totally different way of setting up tables that I've found led to some interesting games is to ignore all thoughts of fire lanes etc.

Set the table up so that it looks like a 'real' scene, for example if you've got a bunch of cars don't be afraid to have a big road through the middle or across a corner. If you've got snack bars etc. then clump them all together around a courtyard area. If you've got a mix of industrial and residential scenery, separate it all out onto different area of the board, usually with some kind of fence or other boundary between them. If you've got lots of similar buildings don't just scatter them around randomly.

Then do a second pass and tweak it for gaming purposes if need be, for example making sure there's some kind of divider along the middle of the road or a row of big pot plants/trees, dot the cars around so that a model can potentially cover-hop to get across the road in a couple of Cautious Moves.

Overall it makes the table look much more interesting and you tend to automatically get a mix of environments/fire lanes instead of a homogeneous table where everything's about the same. It also tends to make for slightly lopsided tables so choosing Initiative becomes as attractive as going first.

I usually run with IJW's method. Beginning with a road or two, adding buildings around them, creating a container park in one area. Check firelanes/gaming status of table. Then add cars, other scatter terrain and some advertisements to the buildings to cut down firelanes.

Yeah IJW's approach makes more sense. Firing lanes are a fact of military life, after all.

I agree. And we paint those miniatures and build those tables so they look good after all!

We usually follow something similar to IJW's idea, where we attempt to make things look like a real city setup, as opposed to arranging things with the game in mind.

Another method we've used in the past is this:
1. Set out all of the large buildings we're using. Place them off to the side of the game table for now.
2. Each player takes turns placing one building.
3. Continue until all buildings are placed.
4. Bring out a box o' scatter
5. Place scatter terrain in a free-for-all.

This is all done prior to any Lt. rolls, so when we are arranging our table, we don't know which side we'll be playing on, which helps build a more balanced table.

I intentionally didn't mention this elsewhere but the 'official' method of deploying terrain has always pissed me of a little. I get that there needs to be examples and the Dev Team has every right to show what they used/continue to use in their games so to eliminate as little confusion as possible as to how the game was tested and on what sort of setups the testing was done. But the concept that their is a 'right' way and a 'wrong' way to set up a table just doesn't sit well with me.

Clearly much like politics or anything else decisive like that you can swing too far one way or the other with terrain. Too much and you over complicate everything and your game turns into a bunch of little 1 on 1 skirmishes where ever two models interact. Template weapons often become far to useful to pass up especially since they are usually on throwaway 5 to 15 point troops. Too little and you give rise to first turn tabling syndrome where who ever goes first just blows everything they can see away. Strong rambo units with long range, high burst weapons take over the game and everyone wants to Alpha Strike each other out of the system.

You can see many and varied are the tables I have created and used.





























There is a proverb you hear in Australia often and maybe elsewhere in the world.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

I put it to you that there is more than one way to setup a Infinity table.

All that is important is you have fun in the end and if your getting stuck up on something like how the table is built before you even start your game you're likely to have a bad game.

Thanks for all of the replies so far. I've used something like IJW and coleslaw's method before and that's been my favorite layout so far. If someone wants to take the time to write up something a bit more formal with pictures, we would certainly post it on the front page. If not, I'll get something similar put down in the next few weeks.

VisOne, my intention is to list a few different ways to skin the cat. New players/people without imaginations/people looking for something different might appreciate a few different "standards" to try out. No politics intended.

http://certs-tabletop.blogspot.com/2013 ... rrain.html

One of my favorite articles about terrain set up. Reading Certs blog is what made me want to take the leap into Infinity. Though I'm also big on a 'narrative' table; if I can't explain why something is what function a building serves or why something is somewhere, I usually won't use it.

Melvin McSnatch wrote:No politics intended.

Sorry wasn't meant to come off like I was implying you were politicising it.

I meant it more as an analogy in the fact that terrain, its density and how its setup seems a very polarizing thing in the Infinity community worldwide as different meta's battle it out for who is right, who is wrong and why the only option is the correct open 'we' use. Which seems odd since the vast majority of games are played on fixed/set tables which only play 1 way.

Had a bad game due to a first turn alpha strike/pantsing?

Rotate the table 90 degrees and play again.

OR

Move a few pieces, switch sides play again.

If the same table size, the same terrain and the same method of placing said terrain is always used then you will inevitably have someone min/max their lists to that style of table. So mixing it up is always good.

Don't forget to mention that Infinity doesn't have to be played on a 4' by 4' table with a 12" straight rectangler deployment zone. You can play on the angle from one corner to another. A 6' by 4' is just as fun long deployments of short deployments even something like the 6' by 3' I showed earlier. Hell a round table would be awesome fun or even better a HEXAGON! Now that is the future of wargaming.

VisOne wrote: Hell a round table would be awesome fun or even better a HEXAGON! Now that is the future of wargaming.

i like the way your mind works! HEXAGON TABLE NAOW!

Completely agree with IJW's comments - have had a great deal of fun with themed boards that aren't laid out like something from a very old isometric PC game (with everything exactly 8" apart).

Within reason of course!

A thought on this: I see a lot of tables where the deployment zones are rather sparsely populated with terrain. I noticed this in the BoW setup, but MiniWarGaming also does it a lot. While it does concentrate terrain at the center of the table (where it should be), I can't help but feel exposed around the edges.

What do you guys do? Center the terrain, or spread it out as to cover the DZ's as well?

Terrain everywhere ;-)

Terrain needs to make sense to me and be playable.

Why is there a shipping container in the middle of an intersection?
Back alleys may look cool be try reaching a big old ham fist into there.

I would say that the danger of Infinity is that terrain creep is going to get to the point where it is like fighting in a maze.

Arachas wrote:A thought on this: I see a lot of tables where the deployment zones are rather sparsely populated with terrain. I noticed this in the BoW setup, but MiniWarGaming also does it a lot. While it does concentrate terrain at the center of the table (where it should be), I can't help but feel exposed around the edges.

What do you guys do? Center the terrain, or spread it out as to cover the DZ's as well?

As someone who enjoys fielding several Hellcats in a single list, I whole-heartedly approve of sparsely-populated deployment zones.

On the other hand, sparser deployment zones are nice for armies with lots of larger based models; I need some room for my Long Suffering Margarita Guard, after all. Its bad enough trying to get him on the table, let alone down the table.

Hero of Man wrote:Margarita Guard

Mob of Blondes wrote:

Hero of Man wrote:Margarita Guard

It will forever be the Margarita as far as I'm concerned. It exists entirely to party and carry chicks.