Hard Comp Restrictions

[Guy in Suit]

Everyone.

Calm it down or I will lock the thread.

Can't we just block the obvious offender and remove his posts? We need this thread as a place to consolidate ideas as we discuss the restrictions locally.

Pretty Please with a pie on top? :peace:

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Can't we just block the obvious offender and remove his posts? We need this thread as a place to consolidate ideas as we discuss the restrictions locally.

Pretty Please with a pie on top? :peace:

Not yet.

And I'd have to block ALL of the offenders. Looks at the Guy in Suit.

[dgraz]

Fixed crews present a Catch 22. If its a single fixed crew then all your balance issues get worse as Min-Maxed buzzsaw lists just annihilate people unless they hit theer one (if any) counter. On the other hand - lots of players only have one Master - especially when it comes to fully painted (we always give bonuses to painted crews as we have quite a few serious hobbyists here) - so requiring multiple masters/crews would cause attendance to drop off a LOT.

I'm likely going to use fixed lists when I run a 25SS 75-minute round single-elim tournament though - a format where I feel it works well.

I can certainly empathize with the problems. It's a tough situation, you want to encourage diversity but not seem like you're attacking anyone personally. All you can do is all you can do.

[Fetid Strumpet]

The other thing you could do, and forgive me if I missed it, is to heavily playtest the ever-loving stuffing out of any proposed changes in advance of the event. That way at least you'll have a working knowledge of what, at least in your local meta, your changes are actually going to do to the game.

For example I personally feel that the Dreamer, as he has worked out, is one of the strongest masters in the game, and that games against him are not very fun. I'm wondering if the only thing that might be needed to dial him back a bit might be to just change it so he doesn't get a stone for each nightmare he hires. If I were running a purely local event that wasn't open to the wider community I *might* consider adding it as part of the tourney restrictions, but only after I'd tested it out very thoroughly. But I'd have to make certain either A: no one from outside our local meta would be attending or B: the official packet was worked out months in advance so if anyone was coming into town for the event would have had ample time to get used to the oddity of the format.

I disagree with ispep's view that changing the rules for an event, "wrecks the Tournament environment" or that by doing so somehow "steals away what people paid for".

For example, looking again at CCGs, I played Legend of the Five Rings (l5r) shortly after it was first released. I remember going to a tournament in my local area where some of the tournaments had different formats. There was one where the minimum card allowance in each deck was 40 instead of 30. There was another where we did a highlander format and you couldn't have more than one copy of any card in your deck of any kind. These were fun events, and the 40/40 format was so liked it became one of the standard play environments for casual and tourney play in our area.

Eventually, and I don't think it was because of us, AEG changed the basic rules and made 40/40 the standard rule. So before they did, did our embracing of a different way to play the game "wreck" the local tourney scene? I don't think so. Were the players who bought cards expecting to play only 30/30 games cheated by the fact that now any card they put in their deck now had less of a chance of coming up because of the dilution of the card matrix? I would argue no.

If ispep's view had any binding merit to it then games companies could never change the rules to the systems they put out, ever. As soon as any rule changed it could be argued they were stealing value from models they had sold already, either by making the model they had bought less good, or by indirectly stealing value because the relative worth of the model in question would have gone down because others were made more beneficial.

[ispep]

The other thing you could do, and forgive me if I missed it, is to heavily playtest the ever-loving stuffing out of any proposed changes in advance of the event. That way at least you'll have a working knowledge of what, at least in your local meta, your changes are actually going to do to the game.

For example I personally feel that the Dreamer, as he has worked out, is one of the strongest masters in the game, and that games against him are not very fun. I'm wondering if the only thing that might be needed to dial him back a bit might be to just change it so he doesn't get a stone for each nightmare he hires. If I were running a purely local event that wasn't open to the wider community I *might* consider adding it as part of the tourney restrictions, but only after I'd tested it out very thoroughly. But I'd have to make certain either A: no one from outside our local meta would be attending or B: the official packet was worked out months in advance so if anyone was coming into town for the event would have had ample time to get used to the oddity of the format.

I disagree with ispep's view that changing the rules for an event, "wrecks the Tournament environment" or that by doing so somehow "steals away what people paid for".

For example, looking again at CCGs, I played Legend of the Five Rings (l5r) shortly after it was first released. I remember going to a tournament in my local area where some of the tournaments had different formats. There was one where the minimum card allowance in each deck was 40 instead of 30. There was another where we did a highlander format and you couldn't have more than one copy of any card in your deck of any kind. These were fun events, and the 40/40 format was so liked it became one of the standard play environments for casual and tourney play in our area.

Eventually, and I don't think it was because of us, AEG changed the basic rules and made 40/40 the standard rule. So before they did, did our embracing of a different way to play the game "wreck" the local tourney scene? I don't think so. Were the players who bought cards expecting to play only 30/30 games cheated by the fact that now any card they put in their deck now had less of a chance of coming up because of the dilution of the card matrix? I would argue no.

If ispep's view had any binding merit to it then games companies could never change the rules to the systems they put out, ever. As soon as any rule changed it could be argued they were stealing value from models they had sold already, either by making the model they had bought less good, or by indirectly stealing value because the relative worth of the model in question would have gone down because others were made more beneficial.

There is ZERO comparison to CCGs in this case. How many hours did you spend painting your L5R card? If I buy a crew that works out to exactly whatever number of soulstones, and it is completely legal according to the rule book, I should be able to play it. If the game manufacturer decides that something needs to change, then they will make that change. If some dude gets his ass handed to him every week by certain crews and goes out of his way to make sure someone can't play that crew, then that is petty and unfair.

I'm perfectly fine with house rules that shake things up for everyone. I'm not fine with picking on certain crews/players because you don't like the way they play.

@Guy just because you don't like what I have to say, doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'm sure plenty of people agree with me, they just worry that some one on the internet isn't going to like them. I don't care. I am a Jerk. Deal with it, I'm not going to sugar coat my posts to make other people happy.

Edited September 12, 2011 by WEiRD sKeTCH
Cursing

[demkoenig]

Perhaps another way of modifying competition that didn't involve restricting models would be to come up with some new strategies/schemes?

That way more crews have more ways to earn more points.

If you make it so that players have to make smarter choices than "Kill all your dudes," then the game might be more interesting.

(I know there are already a bunch of strategies/schemes that don't revolve around killing everything; however, Distract almost always leads to the opposing side killing the master. So instead modify Distract so that you only get 4 VP if the master is not on your half of the table AND alive; changes like that may make the game more fun and competitive).

The biggest problem with crew restrictions is that you'll have to draw the line somewhere and no matter where you draw that line, there will be a SUPER competitive master that looks like it can beat any other master. I know one player who can dominate almost anybody with almost any strategy and any scheme with only using Kirai. Honestly, if you vary the prize structure so that winning games is only part of your tournament points, that may do more than restricting crews.

[Guy in Suit]

@Guy just because you don't like what I have to say, doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'm sure plenty of people agree with me, they just worry that some one on the internet isn't going to like them. I don't care. I am a Jerk. Deal with it, I'm not going to sugar coat my posts to make other people happy.

Am I really as bad as this guy?

Anywho - I don't think charging an extra stone for an Alp or a Stitched is that big of change. You can drop your standard Net-list Dreamer from 4 Alps to 3... thats it. You still get to play, and honestly have no excuse not for winning.

Same with the other masters... slightly smaller cache. Not the end of the world. I can't honestly think of any lists that would be invalidated by any of these changes... Worst case you play with less than 8SS cache or one less Alp...

[Guy in Suit]

For example I personally feel that the Dreamer, as he has worked out, is one of the strongest masters in the game, and that games against him are not very fun. I'm wondering if the only thing that might be needed to dial him back a bit might be to just change it so he doesn't get a stone for each nightmare he hires.

I really like this change - He definitely does not deserve to effectively pay LESS than other NB masters for the models he synergizes best with.

However I am not sure how to address the prevalence of Neverborn outside the Dreamer if this was the only change made. Then again simply adding this to the list of restrictions would be possible - would need to test it a lot though - as we have lots of regular Dreamer players.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I'm sorry but the analogy to CCGs is perfectly valid. We are discussing rules and how they affect the game. From a purely mechanical perspective, which is what this discussion has been about, the appearance of your models means nothing, so your remark about how long I painted my L5R cards is irrelevant. Please use examples germane to the topic under discussion if you wish to use them to back up your points.

I would also say that your opinion of the situation in this instance is also a gross mischaracterization of the situation. Now I'll be the first to admit I could be wrong about the OP's intentions, but to me it sounded like he was introducing a player packet which would help encourage list diversity. After reading his proposed changes for his event I'm not certain that the changes were because

...some dude gets his ass handed to him every week by certain crews and goes out of his way to make sure someone can't play that crew...

. Overall the changes he proposed seemed very restrained compared to what I've heard some people demand on these forums.

But that is not the point. There is no "RIGHT" way to play this game. You do not have a right to be able to use your models exactly according to the rule book in all situations. You could be said to have a reasonable expectation to it, but not an ingrained right. If this was the case there could never be any house rules or variant tournaments, because if the rules of the tourney in anyway differed from the rule book the tourney would be invalid.

If his changes are accepted in his local community and embraced they are every bit as correct to use as the official rules. His community is not having "WrongBadFun" that is in someway less acceptable. What we are playing is a game, a social activity that requires a set of rules that both players agree at the start to abide by. If at the start of the game, or in this case the tourney, I agree to use those rules, those are what are going to be used. The best way to demonstrate I disagree with them, don't play. The OP will find out very quickly how willing his local players are to try or accept the variants he is proposing by the number that sign up for his tourney.

Wyrd has it's official rules set and that set is what they are going to base their design choices on. Since I would imagine that a good portion of the people who post on here are somewhat competitive and interested in traveling to other locals to play in tournaments, we can only examine the rules that we can ALL agree to use, and that is often going to be them as they are presented in the RM because that is what we all have access to. We can also only have any kind of meaningful discussion on the game by following that criteria in general because otherwise it descends into a mire of "I can't beat this one crew" "Really? What crew and what are ALL the special circumstances of your group?"

[nix]

I really like this change - He definitely does not deserve to effectively pay LESS than other NB masters for the models he synergizes best with.

I think this is a fair bit inaccurate. Dreamer/LCB builds his cache by purchasing nightmares. If you remove this ability would you prefer to give him a simple standard cache? Lilith has a cache of 4, Zoraida and Pandora a cache of 5 each. Dreamer has a cache that scales, and goes from a potential 0 up to the same as 2 of the other 3 NB masters.

I think the argument that he effectively pays less for the models needs to be applied to everything if your going to use that argument. Especially when its being pointed to as unbalanced.

[Fetid Strumpet]

However I am not sure how to address the prevalence of Neverborn outside the Dreamer if this was the only change made. Then again simply adding this to the list of restrictions would be possible - would need to test it a lot though - as we have lots of regular Dreamer players.

Is this a stated goal of the Tourney? If you are trying for Variety I'd recommend a more general shakeup to the rules than trying to manipulate who plays what. There are perfectly good reasons to play NB other than their power level. You certainly can try to manipulate it, but I think that from what you have stated a better way to achieve what was your posted goal would be to do something like demkoenig suggested and change some of the VP conditions around. Or perhaps introduce a wide sweeping change like: Highlander tourney! There can only be One...of any model. All models in this tourney gain the Rare 1 trait. Or all models that are not insignificant gain rare 1. I caution you to think about it before hand though because in ny situation like this it is going to make certain masters unplayable and certain crew combinations (coughKINcough) better.

[Buhallin]

I'm sorry but the analogy to CCGs is perfectly valid. We are discussing rules and how they affect the game. From a purely mechanical perspective, which is what this discussion has been about, the appearance of your models means nothing, so your remark about how long I painted my L5R cards is irrelevant. Please use examples germane to the topic under discussion if you wish to use them to back up your points.

I feel like I need to clean my brain with an icepick for saying this, but I see ispep's point on this <shudder>

If you ban a card in a CCG, the real value of that card is minimal, so the actual loss to the customer/player/gamer is minimal. Yes, you've zero'ed whatever effort they put in to getting it, but especially in the modern internet era that's not too much.

If you ban a master, or simply errata them to uselessness, there's a much bigger impact to the customer/player/gamer. The models are dramatically more expensive, and there's often hours upon hours of preparation work which goes into assembly and painting. There's a much greater emotional investment, as well - I have no doubt there are some out there, but I've never met anyone who was as proud of a card as they were of a paintjob.

I'm not going to go anywhere near the argument of whether this is good or not, but I have to <shudder> agree with ispep - the investment people put into their models makes forcing changes on them a much bigger deal than with CCGs.

Now, where did I leave that icepick...?

[Guy in Suit]

Well then I'd argue that all NB master's should have a zero starting cache. It's good enough for outcasts, no?

[Fetid Strumpet]

think this is a fair bit inaccurate. Dreamer/LCB builds his cache by purchasing nightmares. If you remove this ability would you prefer to give him a simple standard cache? Lilith has a cache of 4, Zoraida and Pandora a cache of 5 each. Dreamer has a cache that scales, and goes from a potential 0 up to the same as 2 of the other 3 NB masters.

I respect your opinion Nix, but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. My understanding of SS cache was that it was a way to help balance masters. Very strong masters would have a smaller SS pool, thus if you wanted to be able use more SS during the game a strong master would have to bring less models. Weaker masters would have higher SS caches giving them the ability to bring more models and still have access to a ready supply of SS. Is my understanding of how Master's SS caches began in error?

If I am correct can we agree to the extent that the Dreamer is one of the strongest all around masters in the game? This being the case does he really need more SS in his starting Cache than say...Nicodem or Ramos?

I don't look at his Cache is the terms of reducing the cost of his minions, I look at it as a starting Cache of 5 because there is absolutely no reason to bring a non nightmare model with the Dreamer, and no reason to ever have less than 5 nightmares in your crew unless the SS limit you agree to play to wouldn't allow it. Given all the advantages of high movement abilities, crew movement manipulation, duel master status, and the ability to not only easily compete at pretty much all strategies and schemes he can take, but to easily deny the opponent his because of his unique abilities, can you honestly say you believe the Dreamer deserves to have the ability to start with a 5SS cache?

I think if you do than we will just have to agree we have differing expectations of what balance is and leave it at that. But enough of this thread Hijacking! Cake it's not a lie!"

Edited September 12, 2011 by Fetid Strumpet

[Fetid Strumpet]

I'm not going to go anywhere near the argument of whether this is good or not, but I have to <shudder> agree with ispep - the investment people put into their models makes forcing changes on them a much bigger deal than with CCGs.

Oh, I agree, but from a rules standpoint only there is no basis for refraining from making a change simply because of the investment people have put into their models. If a rule is too strong, or broken, and I'm not saying NB or the Dreamer, my two often quoted examples, are broken, then it needs to be corrected, period.

I think Wyrd is doing the right thing by changing things, if they need to be changed, slowly after looking at player feedback and their own playtesting, but if your argument is valid than any errata Wyrd has issued should be withdrawn.

[Buhallin]

Oh, I agree, but from a rules standpoint only there is no basis for refraining from making a change simply because of the investment people have put into their models. If a rule is too strong, or broken, and I'm not saying NB or the Dreamer, my two often quoted examples, are broken, then it needs to be corrected, period.

I think Wyrd is doing the right thing by changing things, if they need to be changed, slowly after looking at player feedback and their own playtesting, but if your argument is valid than any errata Wyrd has issued should be withdrawn.

There's a difference between fixing a problem with the game, and outright banning stuff. You can fix problems to bring powerful stuff in line without making something the players own useless. Problems certainly need to be fixed, but you cannot do that without respecting what people have invested in what you're changing.

Let's say Wyrd implemented Calmdown's "Just ban the Dreamer" preference. People will be stuck with a lot of useless models. They will be, to put it mildly, unhappy about this. Look at the Squats - they vanished almost two decades ago, and people still hate on GW for it.

Do problems need to be fixed even if people have invested in the models in question? Yes. Should those fixes be accomplished with no regard for the investment made? Not if the company wants to stay in business for very long.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I know you aren't suggesting that I said this, but I'd like to clarify I've not once said that a model should be banned.

[Justin]

I feel like I need to clean my brain with an icepick for saying this, but I see ispep's point on this <shudder>

If you ban a card in a CCG, the real value of that card is minimal, so the actual loss to the customer/player/gamer is minimal. Yes, you've zero'ed whatever effort they put in to getting it, but especially in the modern internet era that's not too much.

If you ban a master, or simply errata them to uselessness, there's a much bigger impact to the customer/player/gamer. The models are dramatically more expensive, and there's often hours upon hours of preparation work which goes into assembly and painting. There's a much greater emotional investment, as well - I have no doubt there are some out there, but I've never met anyone who was as proud of a card as they were of a paintjob.

I'm not going to go anywhere near the argument of whether this is good or not, but I have to <shudder> agree with ispep - the investment people put into their models makes forcing changes on them a much bigger deal than with CCGs.

Now, where did I leave that icepick...?

If I didn't know better I would think you guys hacked my brain and stole my thoughts.

[Q'iq'el]

I'll just pinch in for the last time with the left-field idea, I've been testing in my own games. It actually isn't new, I've always used it, but I needed Terraclips to make it work in Malifaux.

In short: It is perfectly possible, with minimal effort (see here) to build a table which cuts the efficiency of certain combos and lists dramatically.

Terraclips allow you to design the table not in terms of cover and shooting lanes (like the traditional terrain does), but in terms of passages and blockades. Streets can be walled and closed with gates that need (1)interact to open, objectives can be in buildings behind one or two sets of doors to beat. Shooting platforms can cover open passages (wide streets and places), while buildings can offer safe passage at the cost of opening the doors.

Since you cannot lure through closed doors and cannot move full Wk distance if you need to stop to open the doors, a lot of powerful abilities become situationally useful, rather than norm.

There's no question this game is designed to work with terrain. The very power level of the crews changes with location of the Encounter - part of the reason, why we hire the crews after learning how the table looks and what the objectives are.

Why not use the terrain as a balancing tool then? Why not offer people tables, where the most common and boring internet builds are actually not that good? I'm thinking, especially, about interiors and Malifaux city with narrow streets and small houses, with plenty of walls, doors and rooms to hide in.

[Dolomyte]

If I didn't know better I would think you guys hacked my brain and stole my thoughts.

People spend thousands of dollars buying rares for their tournament decks in competetive CCG's. for instance, EVEN after being banned, Jace sells in played (read: ugh) condition, at $62 a pop. decks normally used four of that card. I believe at its high and still legal it was selling for 180$ a pop. which is more expensive then buying the four master boxes for a faction of malifaux.

I'm not for banning anything, but i'm perfectly fine with them altering it.

[Dolomyte]

I'll just pinch in for the last time with the left-field idea, I've been testing in my own games. It actually isn't new, I've always used it, but I needed Terraclips to make it work in Malifaux.

In short: It is perfectly possible, with minimal effort (see here) to build a table which cuts the efficiency of certain combos and lists dramatically.

Terraclips allow you to design the table not in terms of cover and shooting lanes (like the traditional terrain does), but in terms of passages and blockades. Streets can be walled and closed with gates that need (1)interact to open, objectives can be in buildings behind one or two sets of doors to beat. Shooting platforms can cover open passages (wide streets and places), while buildings can offer safe passage at the cost of opening the doors.

Since you cannot lure through closed doors and cannot move full Wk distance if you need to stop to open the doors, a lot of powerful abilities become situationally useful, rather than norm.

There's no question this game is designed to work with terrain. The very power level of the crews changes with location of the Encounter - part of the reason, why we hire the crews after learning how the table looks and what the objectives are.

Why not use the terrain as a balancing tool then? Why not offer people tables, where the most common and boring internet builds are actually not that good? I'm thinking, especially, about interiors and Malifaux city with narrow streets and small houses, with plenty of walls, doors and rooms to hide in.

This is a fantastic idea. and would probably work fine in a 10 player tournament. where you only need five boards. Most events I've played in have had at LEAST 11 tables going. and the LGS's terrain does not build 11 indoor multidoor tables. Also, my LGS owner is not going to buy the terraclips required to build that many tables.

Even 5 tables could be very hard to build with terraclips (not hard, expensive.)

[Q'iq'el]

Well, it's 2 boxes per table to get decent results. 2-3 boxes of clips (preferably 3. I know from my experience 2 is not enough to use all the parts up). That clicks out at ~150$ per table.

The real question is how long would such Terrain last. I don't think it is a major problem for a club or a store to cash out for 10 or 15 such sets of Terraclips, if it would last for several years, but I suspect the sets may not be tough enough for such abuse.

On the other hand, there's nothing stopping terrain builders from taking a good look at Terraclips tables and building more sturdy terrain to match the same requirements.

If you build an indoors terrain for a large building, or if you provide enough high walls and buildings with multiple doors and gates for an outdoor encounter, you can still achieve the same result, probably for less money. Of course getting people to build the terrain is always a challenge, especially if it requires much more work than plastic cups covered in sand and airbrushed. But that's the challenge with any game requiring complex terrain.

[Cornelious1424]

I can certainly empathize with the problems. It's a tough situation, you want to encourage diversity but not seem like you're attacking anyone personally. All you can do is all you can do.

I propose we ban the Guild from our Oct 2nd tournament...

In all seriousness, I agree with Q that terrain changes how this game is played. I've both lost and won games due to terrain features/special events. Being forced to make (x) interact action for whatever, or having to have to climb to reach an objective can force you to take different models/masters. Unfortunately, terrain seems to be an issue for a lot of stores. Terraclips, as awesome as it is/looks is expensive, not everyone can afford to have a lot of tables with the stuff.

This thread has a plethora of crazy, wacky ideas and is starting to sound like a WHFB thread and it's great/endless comp debate. Here is mine!

It would require all of us as players to come up with a system that rates masters and puts a number on their head. "Top Tier" masters would get a lower number, or perhaps even 0 and masters that are considered weak, a higher number. Players would get comp points added to the VP, TP, or DIFF depending on the format, for taking certain masters during each game of the tournament. So, if I choose to take the Dreamer who is say a Comp 1 in all 3 games, I may only be getting +3 (1 for each game) comp points added to my total VP, TP, or DIFF depending on the format. While the guy who only has Som'er, who say is a Comp 3, would be getting +9 comp points (3 for each game) added to his VP, TP, or DIFF depending on the format. It might force players to choose different masters they may not ordinarily take, because they may need those extra points to win the tournament. People would still be able to play what they want with out feeling like they are getting too screwed by severe changes based on a master/faction biased. This would work in open faction, 1 faction, 1 master tournaments or however the OP decided to run the event. It doesn't change rules or ss costs and I think would keep the integrity of the game (somewhat).

There be my crowns worth.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I like your idea Q'iq'el, and I see alot of merits in it, however I would like to sound only a little cautionary note, which I know you've considered. It goes back to what all of us realize which is that any change Wyrd makes with their line is going to shift the guideposts of what the power crews are. For example I personally think the Dreamer is one of if not the best master and crew in the game, and I can definitely see and agree with your argument that with the right terrain many of his advantages, or as you have said any master's, advantages can be severely brought back into more manageable levels.

I have to ask therefore what terrain setup outside of there being almost no Terrain, which would be equally unfair, would you suggest for controlling or bringing into line, if she needs to be, Kirai's crew? This is a serious question because as a Kirai player I often have to beg for the minimum recommended terrain to get place precisely because of how much I need to exploit it.

[Q'iq'el]

Isn't the ability to exploit terrain precisely the sign the terrain is supposed to be a balancing factor? You get masters and models who can work around some types of terrain (flying crews in general) and you get spirits who go through any terrain.

On the contrary, the advantages those crews are supposed to have go away once you start playing with too little terrain and the abilities which are supposed to be mitigated by terrain, become too powerful.

Neverborn generally get to fly or float - especially their fastest crews (Dreamer's Alpha is done by floating Dreams and flying Dreamer, Lilith fields a flying crew even if she doesn't fly herself), you can limit their abilities by moving a part of the fight inside. Big buildings, with two-three rooms or floors, covered passages between buildings... if the objects are inside, they won't be able to abuse their flying to get them quickly or to engage the models they want to engage. A normal melee fighter put in doors of a building will stop Mature Nephilim just as well as any other model, even though the Nephilim would completely bypass him in an open field.

I'm not saying entire table should be like that - in my first tests even 1/3rd of the terrain surface being indoors, with 2 out of 5 dynamite markers being inside buildings, changed the game dramatically. It would also make Kirai more powerful, I suppose, but I balanced the terrain by offering open spaces as well as buildings (21"x12" open piazza, 2 12"x6" open and elevated terraces, 2 smaller piazas (9"x6") and two wide streets with almost no place to hide (2 doors mid-length if you want to step inside of the building). On my table Kirai would have places with great advantage for her spirits, and areas she'd be completely in the open.

I'm not sure how to explain it better - the point isn't to design a terrain which completely cuddles one master. The point is to design terrain with different set of challenges. The smarter player will drag the combat into the areas he has advantage in and the worse player will get outplayed and beaten. That is the point.

If your terrain is uniform and advantages only one type of abilities (a forested table, or one big swamp for example), you are throwing these balancing tools out of the window.