Shaping the Battlefield
Moderator: The Dread Knights
- Quinn
- Cold One Knight
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:18 pm
- Location: Patrolling the Northern Border
Shaping the Battlefield
I brought this subject up in the "Field Problems:.." Sticky and think it is something that is sometimes overlooked by this forum. What is the optimal terrain placement on a battlefield, based on your force structure and the opponents? Veteran players probably know this instinctively, but there are many of us who could use your expertise and experience to our advantage.
This may be difficult to do without the ability to graphicly show the battlefield on this forum, but maybe some basics would still be useful.
Any help would be appreciated, give us some input please.
//quinn
This may be difficult to do without the ability to graphicly show the battlefield on this forum, but maybe some basics would still be useful.
Any help would be appreciated, give us some input please.
//quinn
Last edited by Quinn on Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pain?....you don't even know what pain is.....yet.
Well, for basics I would say that if you have a shooting heavy DE force, then placing terrain to funnel the enemy, give you clear LOS and some hills are the obvious choices.
For a more combat oriented army, something to block LOS along your routes of advance to places that might obviously be occupied by enemy missile units would be a good plan. Forests blocking LOS to hills, walls, towers etc. would work well.
More advanced tactics would really require some sort of visual medium for discussion I fear.
For a more combat oriented army, something to block LOS along your routes of advance to places that might obviously be occupied by enemy missile units would be a good plan. Forests blocking LOS to hills, walls, towers etc. would work well.
More advanced tactics would really require some sort of visual medium for discussion I fear.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
- Albert Einstein.
- Albert Einstein.
- Quinn
- Cold One Knight
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:18 pm
- Location: Patrolling the Northern Border
Nice idea but i think it all benefits what you ahve in your army and what you are fighting with
This is my point exactly! Where is the best placement of terrain for different types of armies? Like I said before, most of us have a innate sense of where to place terrain, but I've read enough Battle Reports where the misplacement of terrain has adversly effected the battle plans of the players.
Also, the placement of your units (which and where) can also shape the battlefield to your advantage or disadvantage. We can probably think of other things in this string (the use of magic to delay units, RBTs to weaken and or delay units, etc.) which also serve to 'shape the battlefield' to our advantage. I think this is very important, as important as Force Multipliers or Redundancy.
Pain?....you don't even know what pain is.....yet.
- Maraith tuerl
- Malekith's Best Friend
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 12:50 pm
The difficulty in answering this question, and the reason I didn't include specific parameters for it in my Field Problem rules, is linked to the same issue. That is, that there are many different methods to use in setting up terrain (what, 6 or 7 in the BRB alone, then a few other ideas in WD and other places?) So, the only time that a plan on how to place terrain is useful, is when you assume that both players *can* place terrain where they want to, and that they can have some control over what type of terrain to place. For this reason, I like to focus more on what you do with what you've got.
Having said that, if you do have control over how the battlefield gets laid out there are a few general concepts that are important.
First, all terrain (on any table, any method) can be classified by how it affects the battle:
LOS Blocking Blocking terrain may or may not impede movement, but it's one of the most essential types of terrain to control or utilize because it's important in all phases except cc (and even there, in a roundabout way). In the movement phase, it blocks charges-- can't see it, can't chargeit. Magic and shooting phases are obvious here.
Movement Blocking Impassable terrain, of one type or another. Useful mainly for securing your flanks or rear from non-flying enemy charges, or for protecting war machines or other shooters from same.
Movement Impeding Difficult or Very Difficult terrain. It's similar to MB terrain, though it's important to be aware of the distances at which it will block enemy charges, and which distances you are vulnerable. It's also useful for baiting a charge from an overconfident or inexperienced opponent (present them with a ripe target that's well within his normal charge range, but which will cause him to fail when penalizing the unit for the terrain)
Combination Quite simply, terrain that is more than one of the above... LOS and Movement blocking.
Now, using all these types of terrain is a major effort regardless of whether you place it or not, and you can still shape the battlefield to one degree or another even if you can't control the terrain placement itself. You do this deployment and movement.
For example. If you have an army w/ war machines (RBTs in our case) or other heavy shooting, if you place them early and on obvious lines of enemy advance, you can deny that line of advance to your opponent.
If you advance to the reverse slope of a hill with your heavy combat unit, you can deny that hill to the enemy without actually exposing yourself.
The tactics are many and varied, but the point I'd like to get across is that shaping the battlefield goes well beyond placing terrain to help screen your troops early in the game, or funnel your opponent into your charges.
Having said that, if you do have control over how the battlefield gets laid out there are a few general concepts that are important.
First, all terrain (on any table, any method) can be classified by how it affects the battle:
LOS Blocking Blocking terrain may or may not impede movement, but it's one of the most essential types of terrain to control or utilize because it's important in all phases except cc (and even there, in a roundabout way). In the movement phase, it blocks charges-- can't see it, can't chargeit. Magic and shooting phases are obvious here.
Movement Blocking Impassable terrain, of one type or another. Useful mainly for securing your flanks or rear from non-flying enemy charges, or for protecting war machines or other shooters from same.
Movement Impeding Difficult or Very Difficult terrain. It's similar to MB terrain, though it's important to be aware of the distances at which it will block enemy charges, and which distances you are vulnerable. It's also useful for baiting a charge from an overconfident or inexperienced opponent (present them with a ripe target that's well within his normal charge range, but which will cause him to fail when penalizing the unit for the terrain)
Combination Quite simply, terrain that is more than one of the above... LOS and Movement blocking.
Now, using all these types of terrain is a major effort regardless of whether you place it or not, and you can still shape the battlefield to one degree or another even if you can't control the terrain placement itself. You do this deployment and movement.
For example. If you have an army w/ war machines (RBTs in our case) or other heavy shooting, if you place them early and on obvious lines of enemy advance, you can deny that line of advance to your opponent.
If you advance to the reverse slope of a hill with your heavy combat unit, you can deny that hill to the enemy without actually exposing yourself.
The tactics are many and varied, but the point I'd like to get across is that shaping the battlefield goes well beyond placing terrain to help screen your troops early in the game, or funnel your opponent into your charges.
- Drek
- Malekith's Best Friend
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 4:48 pm
- Location: Naggaroth...where the ice cream never melts
I'm glad this topic is here! Terrain is a very important part of the game, and when I am given opportunity to place it I always feel like I'm groping in the dark. I just sort of plop this down here, that down there, and gradually it kind of takes shape into something that may or may not work to my advantage.
Maraith, your categories were helpful...more! more!
Maraith, your categories were helpful...more! more!
- Underway
- Silver Khaine Winner
- Posts: 2492
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 7:04 pm
- Location: Contemplating the construction of my fleet.
This is something that distinguishes good players from bad players (along with thinking a few turns in advance), and I can certainly use more experience in this facet of warhammer. The useage of terrain is so very important for the DE moreso than other armies because of our higher movement, and fragile nature.
I agree with MT's analysis, very good.
I agree with MT's analysis, very good.
- Dyvim tvar
- Lord of the Dragon Caves
- Posts: 8372
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:34 pm
- Location: The Dragon Caves of the Underway (Indianapolis IN)
- Contact:
Since my army is small and maneuverable, I like to have one piece of terrain in the middle of the field that blocks (or slows) movement and line of sight, like a forest or building.
This allows me to use my speed to go to one side or the other of the central piece of terrain, hopefully leaving at least some portion of the enemy army out of position. Second, it can be used to protect my small and fragile army from missiles and spells while I am closing for combat.
This allows me to use my speed to go to one side or the other of the central piece of terrain, hopefully leaving at least some portion of the enemy army out of position. Second, it can be used to protect my small and fragile army from missiles and spells while I am closing for combat.
Truly These are the End Times ...
- Grogsnotpowwabomba
- The Aspect of Murder
- Posts: 4646
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 7:07 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
Terrain placement is really a mindset. There is no hard and fast rule to dictate how it should be done. Instead, you must evaluate both your army and your opponent's army, and decide how terrain could best aid you in defeating your opponent. It really is different every battle.
I'll give you one example to help illustrate the thinking involved. I usually play by taking turns placing terrain, but in addition, terrain is then scattered 3D6" from where it is placed to give more of a random factor. I have found that this makes battles much more interesting, and also makes people a bit more "honest" in how they place their terrain. After one person decides they are done with terrain, the other player is allowed to place one more piece. Then players roll for table sides as normal.
I faced an Orc army this past weekend in 1500pts. This is a fairly basic example of using terrain placement to enhance a refused flank strategy. His force consisted of:
Orc Boss BSB
Lvl 2 Orc Shaman
Lvl 2 Goblin Shaman
20 Black Orcs /w 2xHW + Command
30 Big Unz /w 2xHW + Command
30 Boyz /w Choppa + Command
20 Night Gobbo /w 3 Fanatics + Command
2 x 5 Wolf Riders /w shield+spear
1 x Orc Chariot
2 x Spear Chukka
My army consisted of:
Noble /w GW, HA, SDC, Shield, Seal of Ghrond, Dark Steed
Noble /w GW, RXB, HA, SDC, Shield, Ring of Hotek, Dark Pegasus
16 Warriors / Shield + Standard + Musician
12 Warriors /w Shield + Musician
12 Warriors /w Shield + Musician
5 Dark Riders /w Musician + RXB
5 Dark Riders /w Musician
5 Dark Riders /w Musician
12 Witch Elves /w Command + Manbane
5 Cold One Knights /w Musician
5 Cold One Knights /w Musician
As you can see, my army is much faster, more maneuverable, and heavily outnumbered by the enemy. In addition, the enemy has more shooting and magic ability than I do, so I cannot sit back and wait for him. His shooting also makes hills useful for him and I have relatively little use for such hills. With all of this in mind, my first priority was to divide the battlefield into two lanes through a wood or other difficult terrain piece, which I was able to accomplish. My secondary goal was to place hills away from deployment zones to reduce the effectiveness of his Bolt Throwers. I unfortunately did not succeed in this. A forest was placed to try to reduce the use of his hill, but it scattered in a way that made it harmless to him.
Taking things a step further, I then deployed my Dark Riders and small Warrior units first in a manner that suggested a balanced deployment. Once my opponent fell for this bait, I stacked my main force on one side of the battlefield opposite his Black Orcs and Orc Boyz, and blitzed the one side, while tying up the other half of his force with my small Warrior unit and Dark Riders. My speed allowed me to quickly punch through his one side, while the wood in the middle of the table and the use of my "throw away" units stalled his other side. Once I annihalated the one half of his army, I rolled around and mopped up the rest of the force.
If the woods had not been in the middle of the battlefield, he would have been much more capable of supporting his army as a cohesive force. The woods, however, allowed me to divide and conquer his army.
I'll give you one example to help illustrate the thinking involved. I usually play by taking turns placing terrain, but in addition, terrain is then scattered 3D6" from where it is placed to give more of a random factor. I have found that this makes battles much more interesting, and also makes people a bit more "honest" in how they place their terrain. After one person decides they are done with terrain, the other player is allowed to place one more piece. Then players roll for table sides as normal.
I faced an Orc army this past weekend in 1500pts. This is a fairly basic example of using terrain placement to enhance a refused flank strategy. His force consisted of:
Orc Boss BSB
Lvl 2 Orc Shaman
Lvl 2 Goblin Shaman
20 Black Orcs /w 2xHW + Command
30 Big Unz /w 2xHW + Command
30 Boyz /w Choppa + Command
20 Night Gobbo /w 3 Fanatics + Command
2 x 5 Wolf Riders /w shield+spear
1 x Orc Chariot
2 x Spear Chukka
My army consisted of:
Noble /w GW, HA, SDC, Shield, Seal of Ghrond, Dark Steed
Noble /w GW, RXB, HA, SDC, Shield, Ring of Hotek, Dark Pegasus
16 Warriors / Shield + Standard + Musician
12 Warriors /w Shield + Musician
12 Warriors /w Shield + Musician
5 Dark Riders /w Musician + RXB
5 Dark Riders /w Musician
5 Dark Riders /w Musician
12 Witch Elves /w Command + Manbane
5 Cold One Knights /w Musician
5 Cold One Knights /w Musician
As you can see, my army is much faster, more maneuverable, and heavily outnumbered by the enemy. In addition, the enemy has more shooting and magic ability than I do, so I cannot sit back and wait for him. His shooting also makes hills useful for him and I have relatively little use for such hills. With all of this in mind, my first priority was to divide the battlefield into two lanes through a wood or other difficult terrain piece, which I was able to accomplish. My secondary goal was to place hills away from deployment zones to reduce the effectiveness of his Bolt Throwers. I unfortunately did not succeed in this. A forest was placed to try to reduce the use of his hill, but it scattered in a way that made it harmless to him.
Taking things a step further, I then deployed my Dark Riders and small Warrior units first in a manner that suggested a balanced deployment. Once my opponent fell for this bait, I stacked my main force on one side of the battlefield opposite his Black Orcs and Orc Boyz, and blitzed the one side, while tying up the other half of his force with my small Warrior unit and Dark Riders. My speed allowed me to quickly punch through his one side, while the wood in the middle of the table and the use of my "throw away" units stalled his other side. Once I annihalated the one half of his army, I rolled around and mopped up the rest of the force.
If the woods had not been in the middle of the battlefield, he would have been much more capable of supporting his army as a cohesive force. The woods, however, allowed me to divide and conquer his army.
3 bots slain in Khaine's name.
maybe it's esier to change the quistion a little bit into how can you use terrain?
for example if a wood is halfway into your deployment zone place a sorcerres is it she wil have cover to fall back into she has cover against missile fire and your opponent will be discouraged to charge her into the woods
if the hill is in the middle or a little closer to his deployment zone you can gaiin a lt of advantage by moving around it with darkriders maybe with a noble you can flank charge
I think this would be a lot clearer. but I myself am not that experienced with terrain because I'm basicly a dwarf player my ideal terrain would be an empty battlefield with one hill at my side
for example if a wood is halfway into your deployment zone place a sorcerres is it she wil have cover to fall back into she has cover against missile fire and your opponent will be discouraged to charge her into the woods
if the hill is in the middle or a little closer to his deployment zone you can gaiin a lt of advantage by moving around it with darkriders maybe with a noble you can flank charge
I think this would be a lot clearer. but I myself am not that experienced with terrain because I'm basicly a dwarf player my ideal terrain would be an empty battlefield with one hill at my side
Nothing in the world is as sure as the glitter of gold en the treachery of elves
ehhhhhhh
(high ones that is)
ehhhhhhh
(high ones that is)
- Grogsnotpowwabomba
- The Aspect of Murder
- Posts: 4646
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 7:07 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
I think the point of this thread is to get an idea of how to place terrain to give the best chance of victory.
Even as a Dwarf player, terrain is more important than you give credit. You can easily siphon off the enemy's entry points into your domain through good terrain placement, which will make it easier to take them on in your favor.
Even as a Dwarf player, terrain is more important than you give credit. You can easily siphon off the enemy's entry points into your domain through good terrain placement, which will make it easier to take them on in your favor.
3 bots slain in Khaine's name.
- Tacklbry
- Malekith's Best Friend
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 9:04 pm
- Location: Lynnfield, MA USA
Presuming your opponent is setting up terrain as well as you, then it should balance things out. If you are deliberately setting up the terrain in a manner to give you an advantage, without your opponnent having the same opportunity, its pretty lame, and you might as well not even play the game.
I usually try to set terrain up so that it provides interesting challanges for both players. If I set the terrain up, I try to do it so that no one gets any real advantage before it starts. This makes set-up of the army more important than the location of terrain features.
I usually try to set terrain up so that it provides interesting challanges for both players. If I set the terrain up, I try to do it so that no one gets any real advantage before it starts. This makes set-up of the army more important than the location of terrain features.
I like dwarfs, their skin makes fine boots. ![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
- Grogsnotpowwabomba
- The Aspect of Murder
- Posts: 4646
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 7:07 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
tacklbry wrote:Presuming your opponent is setting up terrain as well as you, then it should balance things out. If you are deliberately setting up the terrain in a manner to give you an advantage, without your opponnent having the same opportunity, its pretty lame, and you might as well not even play the game.
I usually try to set terrain up so that it provides interesting challanges for both players. If I set the terrain up, I try to do it so that no one gets any real advantage before it starts. This makes set-up of the army more important than the location of terrain features.
I don't agree with this outlook. You can always think of it as your commanders jockey for a battlefield more suitable to their plans. The new scenario generator in WD actually gives certain armies (like Dark Elves) advantages in this realm, because their speed and maneuverability allow them to choose when and where to fight.
In any case, terrain placement is really the beginning of the battle, and you should place it to best suit your plans. Remember that after terrain placement you still must roll for table sides, so stacking it too much one way can always backfire on you. This is also why I like to scatter it 3D6" as I mentioned, so that it further keeps people "honest". Regardless, never overlook the advantages terrain placement can give you. It is part of the battle...
Last edited by Grogsnotpowwabomba on Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
3 bots slain in Khaine's name.
- Tacklbry
- Malekith's Best Friend
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 9:04 pm
- Location: Lynnfield, MA USA
I findint more interesting to try and figure out how to use the terrain to my advantage, even in an unconventional manner, than trying to set it up for my advantage.
For scenario play, or even campaign play, presupposing the terrain and the choice of location for the battle may be appropriate. In terms of play, an interesting game is more important to me than winning, so I prefer the terrain to provide challanges.
For scenario play, or even campaign play, presupposing the terrain and the choice of location for the battle may be appropriate. In terms of play, an interesting game is more important to me than winning, so I prefer the terrain to provide challanges.
I like dwarfs, their skin makes fine boots. ![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
- Grogsnotpowwabomba
- The Aspect of Murder
- Posts: 4646
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 7:07 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
dante wrote:but that ussally ends up with about to iddentical halfes maybe not with you but that happens a lot
Not it doesn't. In the example against Orcs I posted above, my opponent did his best to keep the center of the battlefield open, and I was able to block this with a Forest. Contrastly, I tried to keep hills away from the deployment zone, but he was able to get a hill favorable to him.
You will become a more successful player when you set up terrain properly. Don't overlook it, and bear in mind that the point of this thread is how to setup terrain in an advantagous manner. If you don't agree with this outlook on terrain placement perhaps this thread is not where you should be.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
3 bots slain in Khaine's name.
- Maraith tuerl
- Malekith's Best Friend
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 12:50 pm
I've played both ways, and to be honest, even in games when each player knows his table half before terrain goes down, and sets up terrain 'to his advantage' the fact is that each player has only half the table, and half the terrain... and he still doesn't control his opponent's actions. So no matter how you deploy terrain, there's still a lot of thought that goes into how to work with what's there.
- Grogsnotpowwabomba
- The Aspect of Murder
- Posts: 4646
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 7:07 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
tacklbry wrote:I findint more interesting to try and figure out how to use the terrain to my advantage, even in an unconventional manner, than trying to set it up for my advantage.
For scenario play, or even campaign play, presupposing the terrain and the choice of location for the battle may be appropriate. In terms of play, an interesting game is more important to me than winning, so I prefer the terrain to provide challanges.
Like I said, a good general will seek a battlefield favorable to his forces. Terrain placement simulates this strategic maneuevering before the battle commences. There is nothing about this that makes the game less "interesting", especially if your opponent is also placing terrain to his advantage...
3 bots slain in Khaine's name.
- Maraith tuerl
- Malekith's Best Friend
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 12:50 pm
Maraith Tuerl wrote:I've played both ways, and to be honest, even in games when each player knows his table half before terrain goes down, and sets up terrain 'to his advantage' the fact is that each player has only half the table, and half the terrain... and he still doesn't control his opponent's actions. So no matter how you deploy terrain, there's still a lot of thought that goes into how to work with what's there.
Grogsnotpowwabomba wrote:Like I said, a good general will seek a battlefield favorable to his forces. Terrain placement simulates this strategic maneuevering before the battle commences. There is nothing about this that makes the game less "interesting", especially if your opponent is also placing terrain to his advantage...
lol... I guess we were typing at the same time...
- Quinn
- Cold One Knight
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:18 pm
- Location: Patrolling the Northern Border
At least this topic got some discussion going!
As I continue to ponder this subject, it becomes apparent to me that 'terrain placement ' is just one part of 'Shaping the Battlefield'
This is an excellent example of 'shaping the battlefield' and exactly the type of thing that I was hoping would be posted here.
//quinn
![LoL !lol!](./images/smilies/icon_lol1.gif)
As I continue to ponder this subject, it becomes apparent to me that 'terrain placement ' is just one part of 'Shaping the Battlefield'
Taking things a step further, I then deployed my Dark Riders and small Warrior units first in a manner that suggested a balanced deployment. Once my opponent fell for this bait, I stacked my main force on one side of the battlefield opposite his Black Orcs and Orc Boyz, and blitzed the one side, while tying up the other half of his force with my small Warrior unit and Dark Riders. My speed allowed me to quickly punch through his one side, while the wood in the middle of the table and the use of my "throw away" units stalled his other side. Once I annihalated the one half of his army, I rolled around and mopped up the rest of the force.
This is an excellent example of 'shaping the battlefield' and exactly the type of thing that I was hoping would be posted here.
//quinn
Pain?....you don't even know what pain is.....yet.
- Grogsnotpowwabomba
- The Aspect of Murder
- Posts: 4646
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 7:07 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
That is why I posted a full example, because I think it best illustrates the thinking involved, from terrain placement, to deployment, to actual execution on the battlefield. All three things are closely linked, and it is hard to describe one without explaining the others (in my opinion).
3 bots slain in Khaine's name.
tacklbry wrote:If you are deliberately setting up the terrain in a manner to give you an advantage, without your opponnent having the same opportunity, its pretty lame, and you might as well not even play the game.
Ahhhhh, but remember the teachings of the great Sun Tzu, who showers us with advice upon the importance of terrain in battle. Terrain is one of the major points a commander must take into consideration, and being able to dictate where to fight and in what terrain can make the difference between victory and defeat. Take Grog's example, where he used the terrain superlatively to overcome a much larger force.
Tactical use of terrain is another one of those often overlooked elements in a battle that seperates good generals from great generals.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
- Albert Einstein.
- Albert Einstein.