Do you use asymmetrical table and how ?

In our meta, typically all tables are distinctly asymmetrical - and with that I mean the most symmetrical tables we have are randomly placed when they are of the more easily transportable kind such as the Mototronica style terrain or simple wooden blocks dressed in camo nets. Generally speaking we don't include sniper nests at all because some feel they can become far too dominant (even too large buildings you have to infiltrate to get to gets house ruled as being inaccessible - mostly because that can lead to snipers able to operate with impunity when even Climbing+ need to spend too many orders getting there).
Personally I try to design my own table providing a mix of walkways, sniper nests, open paths that TAGs can navigate and the odd tight passage that bikes can't get past. It's difficult to fit every design element, especially since "open areas" is one of them, but the sniper nests I try to make as awkward and trade-offish as possible with the stairs leading to them on the "wrong" side or forcing you to walk further up the board to actually gain cover. At one point I'll have to make a bunch of ads and billboards that don't break as easily as the few I've bought so far so I can block off sniper line of fire from vantage points.

 

For what it's worth, using the Elevator rules should make big building rooftops a lot more accessible.

 

It should, but also depends on the building. It's often awkward enough to dig around in the interior of a building that it's not uncommon for people to avoid them, but specifically in this case it's a construction crane without anything resembling an elevator and in another case it was a large piece of rock most easily described as resembling the Azur Window (about half-sized, so still a very large structure) in an alien-slime covered landscape.
The latter is being reconstructed for accessibility (and decreased risk of impromptu earth quakes) I am told.

 

We always use asymmetrical tables both a the FLGS as well as in all the tournaments I've been to local or in other cities.

The key for what makes a good table I have found is a few things:
- No major clear LoF from one deployment to the other
- Few/no table crossing fire lanes
- Sniper nests are not able to cover the whole table
- Objectives should not be fully visible from more than 2 angles if possible
- Room for bikes and TAGs to move around

That seems to make games a decent balance between long range and close up fighting with neither dominating the game. Deployment zone choice is important since depending on your force one side or the other might complement the tools you brought.

 

Not especially. Tables tend to end up somewhat asymmetrical naturally. Going second is often an already attractive proposition without weighted board edges.

 

This is all really good advice. I try to set up a few large billboards on Central buildings to break lof between tall buildings in deployment zones, or to break lof on some pathways/approaches accross the board.

I see people complain all day long about mutts being too good, and lamenting that small order count lists are too weak.

If you over density your board so it is a mutt or chasseurs playground you get what you should expect. Stronger pieces are more powerful when they can leverage better stats and equipment.

I also strongly agree there should be deployment zone to deployment zone lof. Peeps should be able to hide behind buildings on top of them, prone behind scatter etc,. Forcing shorter fire lines just degrades the power of strong guns while propping up jammers and chain rifles.

That being said, every gun deserves places to shine. Have a shipping yard with lots of cargo containers etc, just don't cover the whole board with it.

What you need to avoid is a board shapped like a bowl with the talest buildings on the edges and the lowest ones in the center. That can quickly degrade into who has the best gun, instead of requiring to use maneuver to use them.

When setting up asymmetric I have more/better (i.e. parapets or taller) buildings on one side. Also the side may have better vantage to objectives on the other side of the board.

 

+1000

 

This. A thousand times this. Hell, a million times this.

As to the OP question, well, we tend to make tables that look good and tell a story, which naturally ends up being asymmetric. We also tend to make taller tables, with longer sightlines up on the roofs and very short down low, barring a few places where long guns can reach down to street level (we do lots of urban tables, it helps when you have someone that's spent a serious chunk of change on buildings).

In order to prevent the midfield kill zone on the rooftops, you need to use lots of scatter up high. Billboards are particularly useful for this, as are the other 'rooftop scatter' items like air ducts and air conditioning machinery. Solar Panels also work for this, and if you are decorating an apartment building or multistory house you can include clothes lines. Scatter down low is usually better as boxes, trash cans, parked cars, etc. Planter boxes can work either down low in a park or up high.

 

Well, the starting options is not "going first vs choosing deployment", but "choosing turn order vs choosing deployment".
You may argue that choosing deployment order is still quite strong though...

 

You need to be careful with assymetrynin tables.

Especially given so many mission already favour second turn.

In general its better to design tables with a better first turn side and a better second turn side. Than it is to design them with a "better and worse" side.

This is because going second usually actually comes out as the dominant choice in most its circumstances

 

Also shameless plug. But theres a stickied thread up the top thats worth a read

 

Definitely.

 

Yes, always use asymmetric.
Don't stack all your tall stuff around the edges, you need a mix.

And its not even about the two DZs having a good one and a bad one, or a clear advantage on one side. It's just about them being different.
Different terrain suits different armies, you know?

 

I'm starting to think many tournaments are not in fact the best measure in how the game should be played as people like to think. Sometimes the answer to the point "well this is how it worked out in the big tournaments" is "they did it wrong".

 

Quoted because I have but one like to give.

I do admit that tournaments can have trouble getting enough terrain, Infinity is painfully terrain heavy compared to most other games. But I've also heard that no matter what game you're playing, whether 40k, WarmaHordes, Fantasy/Sigmar, Flames of War, etc ad nauseam, you're going to spend about $500 on a 'pretty' table. I mean, I have over $100 just in nice trees, and a good $300 in cars.

 

A lot of those things get really cheap with a 3d printer.

 

I'm of a different opinion. I'm increasingly starting to think that games at tournaments are more accurate (to a point, the notorious early Interplanetario is on the extreme end) because it prevents over-crowded tables. I do think that CB should give some proper guidelines for table setup, since the ones they have printed are inadequate. Stuff that needs answering is mostly along the lines of how many templates worth clear of terrain should a table have at most and at least.
Measuring in number of circular templates makes sense because both it prevents overcrowding in an asymmetric sort of way due to them being round when most buildings are square, and it also specifies the number of choices that an AD3+ trooper should have and what they are designed for.

 

Im wiht maht, Tournie tables add far more variation that club or private tables, and they are cushioned against group think

 

I know it's a small distinction, but I try to balance my table sides so there is a Good side and a Great side, rather than a Good side and a Bad side.

I've been at a tournament where one table barely gave you enough to deploy 10 s2 troopers on one side in total cover.