Question in the thread title.

A lot of people are talking about how an Aegis line isn't worth taking because your opponent will just plop a building/obstruction in front of it during the terrain set up phase and completely ruin your sight line. Or put lethal terrain right behind the ADL so you can't use it.

Is an ADL a waste of points for this reason or is it still worth taking?

They are totally worth taking. If you place fortifications after terrain and move if anything is in the way.

According to the BRB, fortifications must be placed before terrain. If you are doing it any other way it's against the rules.

It's a stupid rule because the opposing player can place terrain to marginalize the effect of your fortification but it's the rules regardless.

Incorrect, there are 2 ways to place terrain according to the rules. using alternating placement, or narritive placement. Both are legal according to the rules.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
A lot of people are talking about how an Aegis line isn't worth taking because your opponent will just plop a building/obstruction in front of it during the terrain set up phase and completely ruin your sight line. Or put lethal terrain right behind the ADL so you can't use it.

That's just plain TFG behaviour, is it not? I wouldn't feel bad to just up and say "Not playing you anymore.", I wouldn't even care if he called me a rage quitter, because seriously, while that is totally legal, it's also a very crappy thing to do in a game meant to be casual fun.

On topic though, I think it all depends on your army and the list you run. My DE army is a fast moving raiders/venoms-immediately-crashing-and-everyone-on-my-side-dying-because-I-can-only-roll-terrible-for-myself army, I have nothing to camp on my side of the table behind the ADL, so it's worthless for me. But I'd say most armies could benefit from ADL, it provides a huge cover save, an AA gun, and it's reasonably cheap to bring.

I'm sorry sir, you are incorrect.

Pg 120 BRB under "Set up fortifications"

"players must place any fortifications they have in their armies before placing any other terrain."

This is before mentioning the two types of techniques for placing OTHER terrain, and in fact, under "alternating terrain" technique on the same page it says...

"Pool all of the terrain peices you have available, and that you wish to use this game. The only exceptions to this are fortifications that have been purchased as a part of the player's army - these will have already been deployed."

Baronyu wrote:

That's just plain TFG behaviour, is it not? I wouldn't feel bad to just up and say "Not playing you anymore.", I wouldn't even care if he called me a rage quitter, because seriously, while that is totally legal, it's also a very crappy thing to do in a game meant to be casual fun.

Regardless, it's legal, and I see a lot of people doing it. If not for WAAC, just for the lulz.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

Baronyu wrote:

That's just plain TFG behaviour, is it not? I wouldn't feel bad to just up and say "Not playing you anymore.", I wouldn't even care if he called me a rage quitter, because seriously, while that is totally legal, it's also a very crappy thing to do in a game meant to be casual fun.

Regardless, it's legal, and I see a lot of people doing it. If not for WAAC, just for the lulz.

Agree with trollimus. What's wrong with it if it is a legal strategy? It's like me not playing a game because I brought 1 Land Raider and see you have too many melta guns. I like how WAAC now means playing by the rules.

I personally don't take ADL's but believe they can serve a purpose for an army. If your whole strategy gets screwed up by someone placing a building in front of your fortification, maybe you should rethink it's purpose.

WAAC has always been playing by the rules, I thought... Yes, I can place a bunch of terrains on the horde player's side of the table to stop him from deploying properly, and it might be "fun" for me if I'm that kind of person, but personally, I prefer beating them on the table on even ground, and not by abusing rules to gain an advantage. But of course, I don't play in tourneys and I play against my friends, so being a TFG in that environment is social suicide!

50pts for a 4+ save, 2+ if you go to ground, really helps many races, particularly the non MEQ's.

If you're fielding the Quad Gun, Their viability depends quite a bit on what what's shooting them - but anything with bs3 and better will yeild results. A Fire Dragon exarch is just obscene, though.

In general, a fantastic piece - that chance to shoot down a flier on the turn it arrives, or at least force it to Evade so that it can only snap fire, is tremendously useful.

 Kharrak wrote:
50pts for a 4+ save, 2+ if you go to ground, really helps many races, particularly the non MEQ's.

If you're fielding the Quad Gun, Their viability depends quite a bit on what what's shooting them - but anything with bs3 and better will yeild results. A Fire Dragon exarch is just obscene, though.

In general, a fantastic piece - that chance to shoot down a flier on the turn it arrives, or at least force it to Evade so that it can only snap fire, is tremendously useful.

Too bad you can't use it if you have any kind of building/LOS blocker, or lethal terrain on the table, because your opponent will place them so that they marginalize your fortification.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 Kharrak wrote:
50pts for a 4+ save, 2+ if you go to ground, really helps many races, particularly the non MEQ's.

If you're fielding the Quad Gun, Their viability depends quite a bit on what what's shooting them - but anything with bs3 and better will yeild results. A Fire Dragon exarch is just obscene, though.

In general, a fantastic piece - that chance to shoot down a flier on the turn it arrives, or at least force it to Evade so that it can only snap fire, is tremendously useful.

Too bad you can't use it if you have any kind of building/LOS blocker, or lethal terrain on the table, because your opponent will place them so that they marginalize your fortification.

Too bad he can choose to place his army back in the box and not play the person

 Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Too bad he can choose to place his army back in the box and not play the person

If you ragequit against every opponent who does something you don't like you aren't going to have very many people to play with. Do you quit against opponents whose lists counter yours too? When you are rolling bad? Placing terrain for advantage is not only legal by the rules but encouraged.

Anyways... back to my original point. Knowing that an ADL can be marginalized by terrain, is it worth taking?

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Too bad he can choose to place his army back in the box and not play the person

If you ragequit against every opponent who does something you don't like you aren't going to have very many people to play with.

If you put giant buildings in front of every opponent that brings an ADL, you aren't going to have very many people to play with.

OT: Love your user name.

 kronk wrote:

If you put giant buildings in front of every opponent that brings an ADL, you aren't going to have very many people to play with.
OT: Love your user name.

I'll have more people to play with then someone who whines like a sissy when someone does something completely legal (and encouraged) by the rules to beat them.

As for my name, thanks. Believe it or not I'm not trolling, I just REALLY like playing devil's advocate.

Its this fictional '20” lethal terrain' piece that's ridiculous. Deploying cover or dangerous terrain near the ADL is a jerk move, but legit. Bringing a big piece of essentially impassable terrain to place inside the adl is plainly unsportsmanlike, but would also be impossible if the adl is enclosed or mostly enclosed.

A skyshield is just as bad with the 4+ invulnerable for tanks parked on top.

You also can't place anything within 3" of the ADL, or any terrain piece, so if its entirely encircled its going to be almost impossable to place something nasty inside it.

What we have here is a line between playing legal and playing fair.

If you place terrain to neutralise the ADL as talked about you have no right to take any satisfaction from any victory you may subsequently achieve.

Play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play for God's sake.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 kronk wrote:

If you put giant buildings in front of every opponent that brings an ADL, you aren't going to have very many people to play with.
OT: Love your user name.

I'll have more people to play with then someone who whines like a sissy when someone does something completely legal (and encouraged) by the rules to beat them.

As for my name, thanks. Believe it or not I'm not trolling, I just REALLY like playing devil's advocate.

"Whines like a sissy" isn't a clever or nice thing to say. I'd avoid that in the future. I'm not trolling here either, or getting upset, so dial it down a notch.

As far as "encouraged" by the rules, you're really pushing that. The rules do allow for terrain to be placed after the Aegis. You absolutely can place terrain in front of it. Knock yourself out! Congrats! You got me on that one. But if you do that every time I bring a ADL, you're not being very sporting. They paid the points, purchased the model, and painted it up for the game. Never letting them use it is certainly borderline antisocial behavior, man.

My buddies that I play with are certainly competitive, but they have class. I'm sorry if the people you play with treat each other that way. That doesn't sound fun at all to not get to use your models.

reps0l wrote:
What's wrong with it if it is a legal strategy? It's like me not playing a game because I brought 1 Land Raider and see you have too many melta guns. I like how WAAC now means playing by the rules.

This isn't like using a Landraider against too many meltas. If it were, your Landraider would not be able to move and have a very minimal arch of fire. As for your WAAC = playing by the rules, no. WAAC is abusing rules to your advantage and playing as ruthlessly as possible. The point behind placing fortifications before terrain is to ensure there is enough room for them, not so you/your opponent can cover them up. While you see this as nothing wrong as it is not against the rules, there is equally nothing wrong with your opponent flooding your deployment zone with dangerous/impassible terrain. It would be more akin to you bringing a Land raider army and your opponent using terrian to make it impossible/exceedingly difficult for those Landraiders to leave your deployment zone while they pelted you with barrage.

If you truly believe WAAC means "playing by the rules" you will quickly find yourself only playing against others like yourself; the players who believe fun can only be obtained by winning, or more importantly, beating your opponent as completely as possible. Don't bother telling me how you like a challenging opponent instead of a pushover. WAAC play-style dictates you make your opponent as much of a pushover as possible. If you like a challenge, you would not cover your opponent's fortification, use terrain placement to your distinct advantage or only use tournament-grade net-lists/codices. You would instead strive to set up an even board, try unproven lists and have a good match. Just think about that one kid who always beat you hands down in that one game. Wasn't much fun was it? Chances are you loathed playing against him/her and otherwise avoided doing so. Yep, WAAC does that.

Historically, GW's terrain rules are often disregarded. In casual play people just put stuff till it feels good. In tournament play, the TO places the terrain first and then allows players to skootch stuff to allow Fortifications to fit.

And I don't know anybody that uses their terrain generator in Fantesy all the time. I used it once, it didn't work so well.

There's already an existing thread on this matter which can be found here.

 kronk wrote:


"Whines like a sissy" isn't a clever or nice thing to say. I'd avoid that in the future. I'm not trolling here either, or getting upset, so dial it down a notch.

As far as "encouraged" by the rules, you're really pushing that. The rules do allow for terrain to be placed after the Aegis. You absolutely can place terrain in front of it. Knock yourself out! Congrats! You got me on that one. But if you do that every time I bring a ADL, you're not being very sporting. They paid the points, purchased the model, and painted it up for the game. Never letting them use it is certainly borderline antisocial behavior, man.

My buddies that I play with are certainly competitive, but they have class. I'm sorry if the people you play with treat each other that way. That doesn't sound fun at all to not get to use your models.

I wasn't referring to you when I said "whines like a sissy". Please accept my apologies if it seemed that way.

But I certainly would call someone that if they wouldn't play me because of something (completely legal according to the rules) I did to win. I play to have fun, someone who quits at the first sign of adversity is not fun. I will not cheat, I will be gracious in victory and humble in defeat, but I will do everything within my power and within the rules to win. Such is the nature of the sportsman and how I play the game.

Calling someone a "cheeser" or "unsportsman" for utilizing something within the system to win is like a 12 year old on COD screaming about "noobs" and "campers".

Your avatar needs more cowbell.

If only I knew how to add more cowbell, then I would make it so!

People are over reacting and forgetting a lot of details.

Narrative terrain is an option.

Terrain density is rolled before fortifications are placed. Drop and aegis in a 2 by 2 with a density of 1 and no further terrain pieces can be placed in that 2 by 2.

The player with the aegis has a 50/50 of being the 1st to set down terrain.

Fortifications are terrain, and terrain features must be 3" appart. Pre measure available pieces of terrain. If the piece that you don't want in front of the aegis is 4" wide place a different piece of terrain 9.5" from the aegis. Now the 4" wide terrain piece can't be placed between the terrain piece you just placed and the aegis without being within 3" of another terrain piece. Rivers make an excellent moat when placed 8 or 9" in front of an aegis.

 kronk wrote:
If only I knew how to add more cowbell, then I would make it so!

You have DCM, add cowbell to your title?

 azreal13 wrote:
What we have here is a line between playing legal and playing fair.

If you place terrain to neutralise the ADL as talked about you have no right to take any satisfaction from any victory you may subsequently achieve.

Play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play for God's sake.

No, simply no.

Dont buy the ADL if its useless against every opponent with half a brain. Better yet, try to make the best of it en play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play. I play to win and thats fun for me. Thats why I play against others that feel the same. its like chess to me. If my opponent makes the right moves and beat me I got a great game and try to learn from it. If an opponent whines about the fact that its 50 point defense line got blocked, he should be ashamed of himself.

shogun wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
What we have here is a line between playing legal and playing fair.

If you place terrain to neutralise the ADL as talked about you have no right to take any satisfaction from any victory you may subsequently achieve.

Play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play for God's sake.

No, simply no.

Dont buy the ADL if its useless against every opponent with half a brain. Better yet, try to make the best of it en play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play. I play to win and thats fun for me. Thats why I play against others that feel the same. its like chess to me. If my opponent makes the right moves and beat me I got a great game and try to learn from it. If an opponent whines about the fact that its 50 point defense line got blocked, he should be ashamed of himself.

Wow...

You clearly lucked out with your gaming group, as with my group that attitude would have you sat in a corner by yourself within a week. There is a line between competitive and cheese, and you and I seem to be on different sides of it.

I know arguing realism or logic is always a shaky thing to do with 40k, but what force would ever build an replacements on top of a lava pit or or behind a hill?

Hanith wrote:
While you see this as nothing wrong as it is not against the rules, there is equally nothing wrong with your opponent flooding your deployment zone with dangerous/impassible terrain.

This is where terrain density comes in. If every piece of terrain is fortress bastion sized, both players are to blame.

 azreal13 wrote:

Wow...

You clearly lucked out with your gaming group, as with my group that attitude would have you sat in a corner by yourself within a week. There is a line between competitive and cheese, and you and I seem to be on different sides of it.

I know arguing realism or logic is always a shaky thing to do with 40k, but what force would ever build an replacements on top of a lava pit or or behind a hill?

How is playing to win within the rules "cheese"? Again, I find myself reminded of 12 year olds on COD screaming "noob camper! that's not fair!".

It's like the guy said earlier in the thread. If your strategy is nullified by someone plonking down a building in front of your fortification you need to seriously rethink how you play.

If it's legal, it's a fair move. IMO Anyone who says that's "unsportsmanlike" is simply a whiner trying to justify their own lack of ability to deal with the situation. "Unsportsmanlike" is when I punch you if I lose... or laugh in your face if I win. "Unsportsmanlike" is NOT: playing the game within the rulesets given to us by GW.

If you want to blame someone, blame GW for writing horrible rules. "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Cant you adjust terrain pieces around at the end of terrain placement so long as both players agree?
Obviously if you couldn't come to some sort of compromise about the final placement than looks like you'll be looking for a different opponent rather quickly.

 azreal13 wrote:

shogun wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
What we have here is a line between playing legal and playing fair.

If you place terrain to neutralise the ADL as talked about you have no right to take any satisfaction from any victory you may subsequently achieve.

Play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play for God's sake.

No, simply no.

Dont buy the ADL if its useless against every opponent with half a brain. Better yet, try to make the best of it en play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play. I play to win and thats fun for me. Thats why I play against others that feel the same. its like chess to me. If my opponent makes the right moves and beat me I got a great game and try to learn from it. If an opponent whines about the fact that its 50 point defense line got blocked, he should be ashamed of himself.

Wow...

You clearly lucked out with your gaming group, as with my group that attitude would have you sat in a corner by yourself within a week. There is a line between competitive and cheese, and you and I seem to be on different sides of it.

Yes, and a 20 inch long 4+ coversave with extra "go to ground" bonus coversave for only 50 points ISNT considered cheese in your gaminggroup? You just field this thing because you like painting it? right...

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Wow...

You clearly lucked out with your gaming group, as with my group that attitude would have you sat in a corner by yourself within a week. There is a line between competitive and cheese, and you and I seem to be on different sides of it.

I know arguing realism or logic is always a shaky thing to do with 40k, but what force would ever build an replacements on top of a lava pit or or behind a hill?

How is playing to win within the rules "cheese"? Again, I find myself reminded of 12 year olds on COD screaming "noob camper! that's not fair!".

It's like the guy said earlier in the thread. If your strategy is nullified by someone plonking down a building in front of your fortification you need to seriously rethink how you play.

If it's legal, it's a fair move. IMO Anyone who says that's "unsportsmanlike" is simply a whiner trying to justify their own lack of ability to deal with the situation. "Unsportsmanlike" is when I punch you if I lose... or laugh in your face if I win. "Unsportsmanlike" is NOT: playing the game within the rulesets given to us by GW.

If you want to blame someone, blame GW for writing horrible rules. "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

It's legal to do many things in life, doesn't make some of those things less of a dick move if you do them. Whining "but I'm allowed to" won't alter my opinion of you one bit.

Tell you what, I'll play the game in a way that I feel is honourable, fair to my opponent and enjoyable. You play the game your way and lets leave it at that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

shogun wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

shogun wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
What we have here is a line between playing legal and playing fair.

If you place terrain to neutralise the ADL as talked about you have no right to take any satisfaction from any victory you may subsequently achieve.

Play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play for God's sake.

No, simply no.

Dont buy the ADL if its useless against every opponent with half a brain. Better yet, try to make the best of it en play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play. I play to win and thats fun for me. Thats why I play against others that feel the same. its like chess to me. If my opponent makes the right moves and beat me I got a great game and try to learn from it. If an opponent whines about the fact that its 50 point defense line got blocked, he should be ashamed of himself.

Wow...

You clearly lucked out with your gaming group, as with my group that attitude would have you sat in a corner by yourself within a week. There is a line between competitive and cheese, and you and I seem to be on different sides of it.

Yes, and a 20 inch long 4+ coversave with extra "go to ground" bonus coversave for only 50 points ISNT considered cheese in your gaminggroup? You just field this thing because you like painting it? right...

Actually I would only field it to bring a quad gun for flyer defence. I own one but am yet to actually field it. Besides I don't consider something your opponent can negate by WALKING AROUND IT to be particularly cheesy, no.

 azreal13 wrote:

It's legal to do many things in life, doesn't make some of those things less of a dick move if you do them. Whining "but I'm allowed to" won't alter my opinion of you one bit.

Tell you what, I'll play the game in a way that I feel is honourable, fair to my opponent and enjoyable. You play the game your way and lets leave it at that.

Very well, agree to disagree. But you should lose the holier then thou attitude.

Back onto topic.

Now, knowing that an ADL can be somewhat nullified by terrain placement, AND assuming that the opponent will utilize this strategy, is it still worth it to take an ADL for the offchance of games with sparse terrain, or something similar? I was thinking about running one on a TAC list, but now knowing this I'm not so sure.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

Very well, agree to disagree. But you should lose the holier then thou attitude.

By virtue of what you've posted and the opinions I've expressed, you have likened me to a 12 year old COD player and implied I'm a whiner for finding this sort of gaming a bit distasteful.

If you feel you've copped some attitude, there may be a reason why.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

It's legal to do many things in life, doesn't make some of those things less of a dick move if you do them. Whining "but I'm allowed to" won't alter my opinion of you one bit.

Tell you what, I'll play the game in a way that I feel is honourable, fair to my opponent and enjoyable. You play the game your way and lets leave it at that.

Very well, agree to disagree. But you should lose the holier then thou attitude.

Back onto topic.

Now, knowing that an ADL can be somewhat nullified by terrain placement, AND assuming that the opponent will utilize this strategy, is it still worth it to take an ADL for the offchance of games with sparse terrain, or something similar? I was thinking about running one on a TAC list, but now knowing this I'm not so sure.

Don't, by the sound of your gaming group you'll have a bastion in front of it, and lethal terrain behind it

 azreal13 wrote:

By virtue of what you've posted and the opinions I've expressed, you have likened me to a 12 year old COD player and implied I'm a whiner for finding this sort of gaming a bit distasteful.

If you feel you've copped some attitude, there may be a reason why.

Ignoring certain rules of a game because you personally believe they are unfair, and then condemning me as "unsportsmanlike" because I don't share the same opinion, and implying that everyone else feels the same way as you do certainly does strike me as the behavior of a child.

But if you want to get technical I never called you any of those things. I simply remarked on how similar your arguments were.

I'm done arguing. You lose, good day sir.

 Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Don't, by the sound of your gaming group you'll have a bastion in front of it, and lethal terrain behind it

An answer finally, thank you. I was thinking the same thing... but there is always the off chance that we will roll sparse terrain, or I'll play someone less competitive.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

By virtue of what you've posted and the opinions I've expressed, you have likened me to a 12 year old COD player and implied I'm a whiner for finding this sort of gaming a bit distasteful.

If you feel you've copped some attitude, there may be a reason why.

Ignoring certain rules of a game because you personally believe they are unfair, and then condemning me as "unsportsmanlike" because I don't share the same opinion, and implying that everyone else feels the same way as you do certainly does strike me as the behavior of a child.

But if you want to get technical I never called you any of those things. I simply remarked on how similar your arguments were.

I'm done arguing. You lose, good day sir.

Firstly, going "na na, I win" is categorically the single most childish thing I can recall reading on these forums for some time, possibly ever.

Secondly, you are quite correct, you didn't call me anything directly, but by implication you certainly did.

Thirdly, I do not ignore the rule, I simply show restraint in its application, I believe that it's a dick move no matter how legal it may be. Were I to encounter someone who chose to do this, I'd take it on the chin and play the game, but you be damn sure that I wouldn't let them get away with a thing for the whole game. I probably wouldn't play them again.

But I do agree with one point, I also am done arguing, you clearly have the (subjectively) 'wrong' attitude and we're not going to see eye to eye.

trollimus_maximus wrote:I'm done arguing. You lose, good day sir.

You basically call someone a child and then you post something like this; pot calling the kettle black don't you think?

Er while i don't agree with trollimus_maximus attitude (cause hes trolling) and i think placing terrain like that is unsporting. I do think that the Defense line is worthless. After all 25pts more and you have a bastion which brings with it 4 heavy Bolters, AV14 and a good vantage point over the battle field.

 Tri wrote:
Er while i don't agree with trollimus_maximus attitude (cause hes trolling) and i think placing terrain like that is unsporting. I do think that the Defense line is worthless. After all 25pts more and you have a bastion which brings with it 4 heavy Bolters, AV14 and a good vantage point over the battle field.

Y'see, this is a point I can get on board with and discuss.

Personally I prefer the ADL as its indestructible and is a more effective cover as I move up, don't have a huge number of units that benefit from staying static, so something that could cover my advance for some distance is more appealing. Plus I find a big wall in my deployment zone reassuring!

I take an ADL in the tournaments I go to because they play with terrain density 1 on each square. Which Is flat out stupid. So I take it for the added protection. If someone slaps big terrain in front of it, I'm happy. One more large terrain piece on my side.

To reply to the original question:
ADL is worth it for most non-MEQ armies. It costs less than most dedicated transports and offer's better survivability for its cargo (especially GEQ)
All three of the add on's have their perks. But even naked, the ADL is well worth its points if you have the need for it, tanks, troops, what have you.
Of note, the ability to re-roll reserves is great for heavy outflank/deep strike armies. You can re-roll either failed or successful rolls for 20 points.

The defense line has become a common sight with my army on the field. (I play a line with a coms array, no turrets)
Thankfully the folks around here play a more casual style and terrain is almost always set by narrative or random dice roll.

ADL is great, totally use it.

That said, the arguments in this thread mirror those I had in another thread about parking 6 chimera sized vehicles ontop of a skyshield landing pad. Suffice to say, I thought that was cheese.

Legal vs fair is not the right explanation though; rather, the philosophies of playing 40k can be accurately described in the terrain set up instructions of the 6th ed rulebook.

The set up instructions in the rulebook are pretty much the best way of explaining both ways of playing 40k; if you wanna be proper legal about everything, use method 1. If you prefer to have a more interesting game, use method 2.

In the same way, 40k can be played two ways; either all in the book is allowed, or mutually agree on things that are and are not allowed. ULTIMATELY, and this is very important, if both players agree, it's as good as written.

 Shadelkan wrote:
ADL is great, totally use it.

That said, the arguments in this thread mirror those I had in another thread about parking 6 chimera sized vehicles ontop of a skyshield landing pad. Suffice to say, I thought that was cheese.

a great tip for all Tyranid players: buy 3x1 sporemine clusters and deepstrike them before deployment on top of a bastion, landingpad or behind the ADL to screw up deployment.

I know literally no one who uses the rule book terrain placement. Tournaments or casual terrain is set up 1st. The rule book way is ridiculous anyway.

As for refusing to play: I would. You're not going to have a fun game against someone who does stuff like that. Nor would that kind of person shake your hand when they inevitably lose.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Tri wrote:
Er while i don't agree with trollimus_maximus attitude (cause hes trolling) and i think placing terrain like that is unsporting. I do think that the Defense line is worthless. After all 25pts more and you have a bastion which brings with it 4 heavy Bolters, AV14 and a good vantage point over the battle field.

Y'see, this is a point I can get on board with and discuss.

Personally I prefer the ADL as its indestructible and is a more effective cover as I move up, don't have a huge number of units that benefit from staying static, so something that could cover my advance for some distance is more appealing. Plus I find a big wall in my deployment zone reassuring!

I guess i just face too many armies with flamers, or other ranged cover ignoring weapons, to see much of an advantage. Also getting a little height normally lets me negate the cover the Defense line is giving; Letting you snipe (focus fire) models that get to more then 2" from it; sure characters gets lookout sir but even then you've still negated the 4+ cover-save.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

You basically call someone a child and then you post something like this; pot calling the kettle black don't you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKG07305CBs

It's a line from a movie, I didn't mean it in a literal sense. It would be the same thing as me saying "Checkmate", "Bazinga" or any one of hundreds of phrases associated with the ending of a contest. I'm glad people around here have a sense of humor . Again, I'm not trolling, it just gives me a sick sense of amusement to play devil's advocate, even when I'm wrong. As for my name... I really couldn't think of anything else at the moment when I made this account.

 Griddlelol wrote:
I know literally no one who uses the rule book terrain placement. Tournaments or casual terrain is set up 1st. The rule book way is ridiculous anyway.

As for refusing to play: I would. You're not going to have a fun game against someone who does stuff like that. Nor would that kind of person shake your hand when they inevitably lose.

As I made the same argument to the man before you, just because the rules are stupid doesn't mean you can ignore them. The people at my FLGS follow the rules to the letter and I intend to as well. Why have rules otherwise? If I feel like all shooting attacks should automatically hit should I be allowed to play this way in a competitive environment? What makes that argument any less valid then yours? Even if you are doing narrative placement the fortifications have to be on the board first, that's the rules. If your tournament is doing it otherwise then it's an illegal tournament, the same way a tournament that houseruled "all shooting attacks automatically hit" would be.

Hyperbole aside. I certainly would use terrain placement to block your ADL, and I certainly would shake your hand if I lost. Just as I would play against someone who spammed 3 squadrons of manticores on top of a skyshield pad with a smile, because that's the game my friend, and taking your army men and going home because you don't like it is not the right answer to a list/tactic you can't beat IMO.

The argument that someone shouldn't put a building in front of your ADL because "that's stupid" isn't going to fly here. I'm making the assumption that both players are doing everything in their power to win within the rules, as in any competitive gaming environment.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
As I made the same argument to the man before you, just because the rules are stupid doesn't mean you can ignore them.

No, but when the game completely breaks because of the rules it means you can ignore them. If we use the book rules your entire deployment zone is going to be lethal terrain. Every fortification you bring will be placed inside a bucket where it can't do anything. Still think it's even worth unpacking your models?

The simple fact is that as-written the terrain rules are nothing more than a race to see who can be a complete TFG first and break the game. Either you make house rules to avoid them, or you have to settle for unwritten social rules that you never actually play according to RAW. I know which one I think is the better choice.

 Peregrine wrote:

but when the game completely breaks because of the rules it means you can ignore them.

If I really wanted to be a jerk, I could argue all day that no, you can't ignore them even if they break the game. If GW wanted to fix it they would release a FAQ fixing it. As of right now it seems the rules are working as intended.

But it seems I'm not convincing anyone so I'm going to stop trying. I don't understand how people can houserule this so lightly. It would be different if the rules didn't dictate how terrain was supposed to be set up, but they do.

Back on topic again: Is an ADL worth it if an opponent is just going to put a building in front of it to block LOS?

trollimus_maximus wrote:
But it seems I'm not convincing anyone so I'm going to stop trying. I don't understand how people can houserule this so lightly. It would be different if the rules didn't dictate how terrain was supposed to be set up, but they do.

Because you can't play the game otherwise.

What part of "if you don't house rule it I'm going to make your entire deployment zone lethal terrain" is so hard to understand? The choices are either change the rules, or reduce the game to a contest of who can come up with best TFG exploits with custom-built terrain dedicated to breaking the game.

The ONLY reason the system is "working" is because most people have an unwritten rule that you don't play it by the book. And when there's a unanimous unwritten rule to do something it's time to just make it an official policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Back on topic again: Is an ADL worth it if an opponent is just going to put a building in front of it to block LOS?

No, because the ADL is going to be sitting inside an upside down bucket.

 Peregrine wrote:

What part of "if you don't house rule it I'm going to make your entire deployment zone lethal terrain" is so hard to understand? The choices are either change the rules, or reduce the game to a contest of who can come up with best TFG exploits with custom-built terrain dedicated to breaking the game.

Then that's the game until GW decides to fix it.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, because the ADL is going to be sitting inside an upside down bucket.

Thank you.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Then that's the game until GW decides to fix it.

Or until everyone ignores people like you and changes the game to something more sensible. Which, in my experience, is what everyone does. Every game of 6th I've played or seen played has been with 5th edition style terrain setup.

 Peregrine wrote:

Or until everyone ignores people like you and changes the game to something more sensible. Which, in my experience, is what everyone does. Every game of 6th I've played or seen played has been with 5th edition style terrain setup.

Again with the bashing... I don't understand why people are treating me like hitler for wanting to follow the rules as they were written. If you don't want to that's fine. But don't condemn me or "lol I'm not playing you" because I want to actually play the game how it was intended. If you don't like the rules, find someone who will agree with your house rules or don't play the game, and don't shun people for actually doing what's written in the rulebook.

Personally I belive if your going to place a piece of terrain like that in front of someones ADL then thats just unsportsman like and I dont personally agree with it, but in saying that if thats going to totally ruin your game plan then you really dont have a good game plan do you? sorry btw i havnt read any comments since the first like 7

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Or until everyone ignores people like you and changes the game to something more sensible. Which, in my experience, is what everyone does. Every game of 6th I've played or seen played has been with 5th edition style terrain setup.

Again with the bashing... I don't understand why people are treating me like hitler for wanting to follow the rules as they were written. If you don't want to that's fine. But don't condemn me or "lol I'm not playing you" because I want to actually play the game how it was intended.

There was no bashing in that post; did you even read it? Also, you said it yourself in your other threads trollimus; you're new to 40k. I think that's a defining factor in our choosing which side of this argument to be on.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
If you don't like the rules, find someone who will agree with your house rules or don't play the game

This is precisely what everyone has been already been doing/saying they're doing. Peregrine even explicitly said it. It's possible you just aren't paying attention to what were saying.

Additionally, we don't shun people who use the rules, that's not our point; our point is that given the choice of playing or not against someone who is unsportsmanlike, we will choose not, as will many others; eventually, the unsportsmanlike player will be left with no one to play, unless he's learned to play differently. It doesn't matter if you believe that is unfair; it's a game, and short of tournaments, we can very easily not play people if we don't want to. "You're being TFG who only plays people can demolish," is a stupid counter point by the way.

PS: There's a hundred players who'd rather smudge or ignore rules for every player who wants to play with unsportsmanlike methods. Don't start spouting that we, the "deniers" will run out of people to play in turn, as it's unlikely.

it would be a genuine pleasure to play against you 40k needs more people like you sir

Once you and your opponent accept that Games Workshop rules writers are basically incompetent at writing rules, you end up having a far more enjoyable time playing with your toy sodjers

thats not true, we wouldnt even have a game without them. tell me whats so bad with GW's rules? im honestly over people complaining about the people that invented the game that we play and without those very people we wouldnt have it, infact this whole website wouldnt exist now would it?

There's two versions of the rules for setting up terrain in the BRB. One, is the aforementioned process where you roll for terrain density and take turns placing, the other is a 'narrative' setup where the opponents just set up terrain and agree beforehand... they could literally agree on anything.

So it is not in the rules that you have to set up terrain only one way. If you play with someone that needs to do it the first way because they thing they need to put terrain in front of a fortification, well that is just dumb. It is also against the spirit in which GW wrote those rules.

@ Shadelkan

Saying that players should "ignore people like you" certainly is bashing,

Yes, I'm new to the 40k tabletop game (but not to the lore). Very new in fact, I've only played 1 game with my friend's space marines. I will be the first to admit I lack experience in gameplay tactics and strategies. Perhaps this is coloring my opinion on this. It doesn't help that I am a hardcore stickler for the rules in ANY game I play not just this one. I'd honestly rather not play then bend the rules, but that's a personal philosophy.

"Unsportsmanlike" is a relative term. Placing terrain to neutralize the advantage of a fortification doesn't strike me as unsportsmanlike, merely competitive.

My point wasn't calling other people TFGs for not playing someone they can't beat. I was calling them quitters because packing up your models and going home is a childish way of dealing with someone who ruthlessly plays to win. You either come to a compromise with him, or beat him at his own game. Placing terrain for advantage isn't nessecarily "unsportsmanlike". Socially stigmatizing people who happen to have different gameplay philosophies IS certainly "unsportsmanlike".

The fact that there are "hundred players who'd rather smudge or ignore rules" is very disturbing to me. You might as well throw the rulebook out the window if you are going to be so cavalier. Again, maybe it is my inexperience speaking on these matters, but I have presented my viewpoint to the best of my ability and have gotten nothing except unexplained hostility, and counter-arguments backed by "that's just how I feel, and it's how everyone feels" in return.

If GW didn't want the game to be played in this way they would fix their rules.

 Meade wrote:
There's two versions of the rules for setting up terrain in the BRB. One, is the aforementioned process where you roll for terrain density and take turns placing, the other is a 'narrative' setup where the opponents just set up terrain and agree beforehand... they could literally agree on anything.

So it is not in the rules that you have to set up terrain only one way. If you play with someone that needs to do it the first way because they thing they need to put terrain in front of a fortification, well that is just dumb. It is also against the spirit in which GW wrote those rules.

Doesn't matter. In both terrain setup options fortifications must be on the table first. BRB p120

I fail to see why anyone needs to follow the rules to the letter. This game isn't anyone's lively hood, it doesn't matter that much. I've allowed friends to ignore the fact I've shot their death star to pieces on the 1st turn of the game simply because I want them to have fun. Remember, it's a friendly game that relies on randomness. 40k is too random to be competitive, and that's how it will remain with GW's design.

This thread was over when it was created, no one follows those rules and anyone who abuses an obviously broken mechanic will be left with no one to play. It's not childish to not play a jackass, it's the same reason I don't talk to someone I don't like.

well actually they do say over and over again, if both players agree on one thing, then they may play that way. but you are right it is unfair just to pack up and leave because someone is competitive, personally i would find a comprimise and smash his army to bits for being an unsportsmanlike jerk. yes i do belive doing stuff like that is just not what you do in a friendly game ya know?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
that was at the guy before you Griddlelol

 Griddlelol wrote:
It's not childish to not play a jackass, it's the same reason I don't talk to someone I don't like.

Incorrect analogy. Not initiating conversation with someone you don't like isn't immature. Purposely ignoring/avoiding them is, and it is what people are suggesting doing to "unsportsmanlike" players.

Saying the whole thread is pointless because "only jerks will take advantage of this gameplay mechanic, and nobody plays jerks" is not a valid or logical response to the subject at hand.

If your opponent is going to block your LOS with terrain, is it worth it to take an ADL?

 Jake-the Guardsman wrote:
well actually they do say over and over again, if both players agree on one thing, then they may play that way. but you are right it is unfair just to pack up and leave because someone is competitive, personally i would find a comprimise and smash his army to bits for being an unsportsmanlike jerk. yes i do belive doing stuff like that is just not what you do in a friendly game ya know?

I feel you, and I'm glad someone is at least acknowledging the logic behind what I am saying.

Unless I'm playing with friends, it's not a friendly game . Especially if I want to play in tournaments.

Something I'm noticing. People who argue that you still have to place fortifications first in narrative terrain are failing to see the point of narrative terrain. It doesn't matter when you place any one piece of terrain in the narrative placement, because the battlefield while represent an "actual" battlefield in the 40k universe. Therefore making it imposible for there to be Los blocking terrain right in front of any fort.

As for the ADL, it sounds like, with your gaming group, you shouldn't take it. A bastion might be worth it though.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Unless I'm playing with friends, it's not a friendly game .

Noted. I'm only glad I don't have to deal with you or anyone like you in my 40k group.

You seem to be upset that people don't want to play against you because your either too unsportsmanlike or too competitive (depending on who you ask). I mentioned your newness to 40k, because I suppose one lesson of playing 40k is that you will lose people to play against if you are either one of those two things. Only by finding people equally unsportsmanlike/competitive (or desperate), will you have any games at all. It is a fundamental element of 40k, that if a player can't handle the stress/heat of competitive play, he's going to avoid it; if that is all he has, he will quit 40k. Childish? Not at all. Why play a game you're not able to enjoy, because it's too stressful?

 Shadelkan wrote:

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Unless I'm playing with friends, it's not a friendly game .

Noted. I'm only glad I don't have to deal with you or anyone like you in my 40k group.

Quoted for truth.

If my opponent is going to pull childish tactics in an attempt to WAAC, there's no point in playing them. I disagree that not talking to people is different to not playing them. The game is a form of social interaction and theory. If you see it as anything more than that you're not playing 40k.

Yeah. If someone did that to me on a good day, I'd refuse to play him. If he did it on a bad day, I would forcibly insert my Leman Russ column into his rectum. Width-wise.

 Griddlelol wrote:
This thread was over when it was created, no one follows those rules and anyone who abuses an obviously broken mechanic will be left with no one to play. It's not childish to not play a jackass, it's the same reason I don't talk to someone I don't like.

My only issue with this is how to define what mechanics are "broken"? I personally think fortifications are silly, but this is my opinion. Would you think I'm a jackass if I refuse to play a game with you if you bring an ADL? It is well within rules for you to have one. In my sense, I feel being able to carry bastions, fortresses, configurable cover etc with your army brings a "broken" mechanic.

If everyone just follows the rules, it's all good. The max density for a 2'x2' section is 3, fortifications count towards this. An ADL provides 28" of cover (according to GW). If someone can put 2 pieces terrain (3" away from each other) that completely blocks the usefulness of your ADL, you probably have too many monster pieces of terrain which I mentioned earlier.

Again, following the rules, we alternate terrain placement (after fortification placement). I am a dick, I put a large bastion sized thing in front of your ADL. Your turn, just put something small in that same 2'x2' area...this section is full. If your ADL is that jacked up, you have a terrible gameplan. You should still have plenty of room to use behind it.

All that assumes a terrain density of 3. If it is 1 or 2, nothing really to fear. Pg 120 for everyone that wants to follow along with TFG.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

By virtue of what you've posted and the opinions I've expressed, you have likened me to a 12 year old COD player and implied I'm a whiner for finding this sort of gaming a bit distasteful.

If you feel you've copped some attitude, there may be a reason why.

Ignoring certain rules of a game because you personally believe they are unfair, and then condemning me as "unsportsmanlike" because I don't share the same opinion, and implying that everyone else feels the same way as you do certainly does strike me as the behavior of a child.

But if you want to get technical I never called you any of those things. I simply remarked on how similar your arguments were.

I'm done arguing. You lose, good day sir.

 Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Don't, by the sound of your gaming group you'll have a bastion in front of it, and lethal terrain behind it

An answer finally, thank you. I was thinking the same thing... but there is always the off chance that we will roll sparse terrain, or I'll play someone less competitive.

true, in a non-argumentive way, Id say if you have the spare points for the quad gun (or just the adl) bring one. even if they put terrain in front of it, put your objective close to it in reply

There seems to be two different things being argued.

Placing a big piece of lethal terrain (something I've never even agreed to put on the table, compared to difficult, dangerous, and mysterious) or LOS blocking terrain IN FRONT of the Aegis line reduces the advantage of the line to your guys behind it. Placing a big piece of lethal/impassible terrain BEHIND the Aegis line to prevent your opponent from deploying there at all (or partly prevent them) is much different.

I don't believe in WAAC as a pejorative term, the point of playing the game is to win and it's not like you are gouging your opponent's eyes and using loaded dice to win, you are juat playing the game. But realistically there is a gentleman's agreement between the two players to use roughly equal levels of cutthroat play.

For the Aegis line, the solution is to curve it back on itself so there is no bigger than a 6" gap in the rear, and prevent any terrain from being deployed inside the perimeter, or to make the gentleman's agreement to limit "offensively used" terrain. I'm a pretty competitive player, but I still place terrain to create an interesting battlefield, not to take away all my opponent's cover and maximize my own.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

Doesn't matter. In both terrain setup options fortifications must be on the table first. BRB p120

In the narrative format you have to set up the terrain in a 'mutually agreeable' manner. That means if you don't like the way the terrain is being set up as it puts your army at an extreme disadvantage, you don't have to go along with it. Yes, this happens after fortifications, that's irrelevant to the conversation we're having.

If you and your opponent can't agree on a terrain setup before the game that is fair to both players, you shouldn't be playing the game in the first place. And this is not the way they do things in truly competitive games anyway, in a real tournament you almost always have preset terrain and you lay down your fortification afterwards.

 Shadelkan wrote:

Noted. I'm only glad I don't have to deal with you or anyone like you in my 40k group.

You seem to be upset that people don't want to play against you because your either too unsportsmanlike or too competitive (depending on who you ask). I mentioned your newness to 40k, because I suppose one lesson of playing 40k is that you will lose people to play against if you are either one of those two things. Only by finding people equally unsportsmanlike/competitive (or desperate), will you have any games at all. It is a fundamental element of 40k, that if a player can't handle the stress/heat of competitive play, he's going to avoid it; if that is all he has, he will quit 40k. Childish? Not at all. Why play a game you're not able to enjoy, because it's too stressful?

I think its obvious we both have very different ideas of what's fun when we play 40k. You prefer a laid back, more casual, beer-and-pretzels style of play. I prefer the bleeding edge competitiveness, like playing chess with plastic army men. I play to win because playing to win is fun for me, even if I lose.

I can accept this. What I can't accept is why you think this makes you better then me.

I would be perfectly willing to water down a list to play a fluffy/non-competitive build, play a casual game, or to buy a round of drinks for me whoever I'm playing, and any observers. I am not prepared to fudge the rules, ignore dice rolls etc... much the same as I wouldn't let someone cheat against me or take back moves in a game of chess. So long as the rules are followed I don't care who I'm playing, if I win or lose, or even if I like the person, and I certainly wouldn't refuse to play against someone because I didn't like their list or because of how competitive/not competitive they are. Why you think you can, and have the gall to believe you have taken the moral high ground by doing so is beyond me.

I realize this is getting heated, and I just want to say I don't mean any personal offense by my arguments. I just don't understand the irrational hatred that some players seem to have against a competitive playstyle.

@ Meade

Re-reading the section in question it seems you are correct. So long as the fortifications are placed on the table first, the rest of the terrain can be placed to both player's satisfaction. However, if the two players cannot agree on a setup, then the alternating terrain placement method will be needed.

Fortifications must be placed first. I know tournaments have set tables, but technically this is illegal according to the rulebook.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
I know tournaments have set tables, but technically this is illegal according to the rulebook.

It's just an extension of the Narrative Terrain setup.

reps0l wrote:

trollimus_maximus wrote:
I know tournaments have set tables, but technically this is illegal according to the rulebook.

It's just an extension of the Narrative Terrain setup.

Even in a narrative terrain setup, fortifications must be placed first, and that affects how other terrain pieces are placed because no terrain piece can be placed closer then 3" to another piece. So, you can't make the argument that it's basically the same thing unless they allow you to move terrain to place your fortifications.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Even in a narrative terrain setup, fortifications must be placed first, and that affects how other terrain pieces are placed because no terrain piece can be placed closer then 3" to another piece. So, you can't make the argument that it's basically the same thing unless they allow you to move terrain to place your fortifications.

Alright dude, you're on your own on this one. How about tournaments are creating custom scenarios then.

reps0l wrote:

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Even in a narrative terrain setup, fortifications must be placed first, and that affects how other terrain pieces are placed because no terrain piece can be placed closer then 3" to another piece. So, you can't make the argument that it's basically the same thing unless they allow you to move terrain to place your fortifications.

Alright dude, you're on your own on this one. How about tournaments are creating custom scenarios then.

So long as they follow the rules for creating custom scenarios outlined by the rulebook I am fine with it

trollimus_maximus wrote:

@ Meade

Re-reading the section in question it seems you are correct. So long as the fortifications are placed on the table first, the rest of the terrain can be placed to both player's satisfaction. However, if the two players cannot agree on a setup, then the alternating terrain placement method will be needed.

Fortifications must be placed first. I know tournaments have set tables, but technically this is illegal according to the rulebook.

I mentioned this because you are focused on a competitive game. The ultimate goal of competitive play is to go to a tournament, and they do the terrain that way at the tournament for a reason... because the "alternating terrain" system as GW designed it breaks down at high levels of competitive play. When I play at the club and I play someone who is using a list designed to win, it is usually because they are prepping for a tournament and they would rather play with NOVA format or whatever. GW has been very clear that their system is based on a mutual understanding between the players and it's not a chess-type competitive game. It's really closer to an RPG in their eyes.

I can see how some people might have fun using the alternating terrain system, it adds another dimension of competition and control over the game. But if people are so cutthroat that they will do things to totally block fortifications, depending on the terrain you both agree to use (is it a lot of terrain? is there dangerous terrain and so on?), people will simply not use fortifications. So spending x amount of time and money on a fortification will be useless to them. That's why it's okay to use this system, but both players need to have a basic understanding of sportsmanship in order to do it.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
. I prefer the bleeding edge competitiveness, like playing chess with plastic army men. I play to win because playing to win is fun for me, even if I lose.

40k is not, nor ever will be this. Sorry to tell you, but dice stop real competitiveness. You're playing the wrong game if you want that. You could design the perfect list, have the perfect tactics, but if you're rolling ones, you're going to lose.

It's clear you've not played a lot of 40k if you think like this, and I'm telling you, you're going to be sorely disappointed with the game.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Yes, I'm new to the 40k tabletop game (but not to the lore). Very new in fact, I've only played 1 game with my friend's space marines.

Exactly. You have no clue how broken 40k can be if you don't allow for a certain degree of house rules and/or not exploiting every loophole you can find. And I don't mean "broken" as in someone gains an advantage and wins, I mean broken as in you can't even play the game.

My point wasn't calling other people TFGs for not playing someone they can't beat. I was calling them quitters because packing up your models and going home is a childish way of dealing with someone who ruthlessly plays to win.

Sorry, but this goes way beyond ruthlessly playing to win. If I place a 2'x4' block of lethal terrain to cover your entire deployment zone I instantly win the game because you are forced to deploy your models into the lethal terrain, at which point they immediately die. If you win the roll to go first and get to place terrain first, you do the same to me and instantly win. The entire complex game of 40k is reduced to "each player rolls a D6, the player who rolls highest wins".

And that's just one example. I can think of other ways in which using the book terrain rules as-written reduces the game to little more than a question of who can build the most abusive terrain piece and use it to win the game before it even begins.

I think we should take this guy's user name at face value and all walk away.

Play a few more games then get involved in discussions about 'bleeding edge' competition.

 azreal13 wrote:
I think we should take this guy's user name at face value and all walk away.

Right on.

 Griddlelol wrote:

40k is not, nor ever will be this. Sorry to tell you, but dice stop real competitiveness. You're playing the wrong game if you want that. You could design the perfect list, have the perfect tactics, but if you're rolling ones, you're going to lose.

It's clear you've not played a lot of 40k if you think like this, and I'm telling you, you're going to be sorely disappointed with the game.

What? All games have an element of randomness to them, like poker. I don't mind it, hell I actually like it, it makes the games exciting. Sometimes you don't get good cards, and so you don't win no matter how well you play. Unless you are telling me that the randomness is so bad that no truly competitive system can be based off of it... in which case I am baffled as why there are TOURNAMENTS based off of such a system.

The game I played seemed decently randomized. I had some good rolls and some bad rolls. It was all very tactical (1,000 pnt game) and I was very pleased with my first foray into the system.

I think I understand what you are getting at... that the rulebook is more of a "guidebook" for a system to have fun with, then an actual competitive tactical battle system.

What I am saying is... can't it be both? I came into this game under the impression that it was both.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sorry, but this goes way beyond ruthlessly playing to win. If I place a 2'x4' block of lethal terrain to cover your entire deployment zone I instantly win the game because you are forced to deploy your models into the lethal terrain, at which point they immediately die. If you win the roll to go first and get to place terrain first, you do the same to me and instantly win. The entire complex game of 40k is reduced to "each player rolls a D6, the player who rolls highest wins".

And that's just one example. I can think of other ways in which using the book terrain rules as-written reduces the game to little more than a question of who can build the most abusive terrain piece and use it to win the game before it even begins.

Then GW need to fix their rules. I agree, its a stupid horrendous rule. But GW haven't fixed it yet and that tells me that it's either working as intended or they haven't got around to it yet. Either way, rules are rules unless something changes... that includes auto-loses described in your situation above. Yes I'm serious. No I'm not trolling. I am THAT much of a stickler for following rules.

 azreal13 wrote:
I think we should take this guy's user name at face value and all walk away.

Play a few more games then get involved in discussions about 'bleeding edge' competition.

Ad-hominems with no argument behind them...

It's one thing to get fired up while defending your position (as I admit I have done), but you have done nothing except consistently insult me since the beginning of this thread, and most of the time not even in the context of arguing a position.

I'm not trolling, but I think YOU are flaming.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

What? All games have an element of randomness to them, like poker.

Chess doesn't.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Then GW need to fix their rules. I agree, its a stupid horrendous rule. But GW haven't fixed it yet and that tells me that it's either working as intended or they haven't got around to it yet. Either way, rules are rules unless something changes... that includes auto-loses described in your situation above. Yes I'm serious. No I'm not trolling. I am THAT much of a stickler for following rules.

That's your right, but surely the number of opposite views expressed in this thread are telling you this is a minority view, potentially even among competitive players?

 azreal13 wrote:
I think we should take this guy's user name at face value and all walk away.

Play a few more games then get involved in discussions about 'bleeding edge' competition.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Ad-hominems with no argument behind them...

It's one thing to get fired up while defending your position (as I admit I have done), but you have done nothing except consistently insult me since the beginning of this thread, and most of the time not even in the context of arguing a position.

I'm not trolling, but I think YOU are flaming.

I've not once attacked you, I have expressed a view that is pretty much diametrically opposed to yours and perhaps you've mistaken attacks on your viewpoint with attacks on your person. As a vet of some 20 years service, you shouldn't be surprised if implications of childish behaviour or whining on my part are met with similarly strongly worded responses.

Equally I'm not the only person in this thread to suggest your behaviour is trollish.

As it goes I think you're a wet behind the ears noob who doesn't have enough experience to have an informed opinion, but isn't letting that get in the way of his arguing with people who, frankly, know better than you.

You can call that flaming if you like.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
just because the rules are stupid doesn't mean you can ignore them.

Not placing terrain in front/behind a ADL is not ignoring the rules, it is common sense and as legal as placing it in front/behind the ADL, yet i could bring an 6 to 2 feet big lava lake, place that on your deployment zone, it would be completely legal and you would lose the game automatically, but no one does it because that is just plain stupid to do.

I am not saying i would quit playing you if you did this to me, but if you made something that I paid points for useless with something that didn't cost you any points, you will have a bad time playing me, because i will not allow you to move anything even more than an micrometer to much, because the rules say you can move up to 2" an not even a tiny bit more, same with the scatter dice, you scatter EXACTLY in the same direction, and i will not allow you to place the blast marker even the smallest distance away from that point, and i will do every thing to utterly destroy your army.

yet if you do something like placing spore mines behind my ADL, i would agree with it, because you payed points for them, heck even if you placed something like a forest right behind my line, and it turns out that it is a carnivorous jungle i would not complain, because there would only be a 50% chance that the forest would make my line "useless"

but on topic, if the people in your FLGS pull of s**t like this i would say that it is not worth taking

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Then GW need to fix their rules. I agree, its a stupid horrendous rule. But GW haven't fixed it yet and that tells me that it's either working as intended or they haven't got around to it yet. Either way, rules are rules unless something changes... that includes auto-loses described in your situation above. Yes I'm serious. No I'm not trolling. I am THAT much of a stickler for following rules.

Fortunately you are a minority, and most people are not going to stubbornly follow the rules just for the sake of following the rules even when the game is literally impossible to play if you don't change the rules. Have fun playing 40k by yourself while everyone else is busy having fun.

 Peregrine wrote:
Have fun playing 40k by yourself while everyone else is busy having fun.

Careful, he takes this kind of comment as an insult to his person. It's been tried.

 azreal13 wrote:

trollimus_maximus wrote:

What? All games have an element of randomness to them, like poker.

Chess doesn't.

I stand corrected. 'Most' games have an element of randomness to them.

 azreal13 wrote:

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Then GW need to fix their rules. I agree, its a stupid horrendous rule. But GW haven't fixed it yet and that tells me that it's either working as intended or they haven't got around to it yet. Either way, rules are rules unless something changes... that includes auto-loses described in your situation above. Yes I'm serious. No I'm not trolling. I am THAT much of a stickler for following rules.

That's your right, but surely the number of opposite views expressed in this thread are telling you this is a minority view, potentially even among competitive players?

Probably. Again, I don't have a problem with your views apart from a sizeable reluctance to play a game with nonstandard rules. Other people seem to have a problem with mine, and have outright said something along the lines of "I wouldn't play someone like you because people like you are assh*les". I don't understand the hostility and frankly it shocks me. If I took an ADL and an opponent placed a building in front of it to block LOS, I wouldn't be angry at all. He is playing to win like me, and I would probably congratulate him on his ingenious use of terrain placement.

 azreal13 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I think we should take this guy's user name at face value and all walk away.

Play a few more games then get involved in discussions about 'bleeding edge' competition.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Ad-hominems with no argument behind them...

It's one thing to get fired up while defending your position (as I admit I have done), but you have done nothing except consistently insult me since the beginning of this thread, and most of the time not even in the context of arguing a position.

I'm not trolling, but I think YOU are flaming.

I've not once attacked you, I have expressed a view that is pretty much diametrically opposed to yours and perhaps you've mistaken attacks on your viewpoint with attacks on your person. As a vet of some 20 years service, you shouldn't be surprised if implications of childish behaviour or whining on my part are met with similarly strongly worded responses.

Equally I'm not the only person in this thread to suggest your behaviour is trollish.

As it goes I think you're a wet behind the ears noob who doesn't have enough experience to have an informed opinion, but isn't letting that get in the way of his arguing with people who, frankly, know better than you.

You can call that flaming if you like.

Yes, in retrospect some on my responses were quite strongly worded and I probably could have been more politic. Looking back, you have indeed not insulted me directly, apart from implying I'm trolling and calling me a 'noob'. Consider my statement about you attacking me personally, retracted, and accept my apologies for making it.

Yes, I am a wet behind the ears noob. I don't deny it. Is it coloring my opinion in this discussion? Probably. Does it make my arguments any less valid? No. I still maintain that refusing to play an opponent simply because you don't like the person or the way they approach playing, rude at best, and downright despicable at worst. It doesn't take 20 years of playing to see that.

 Shadelkan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Have fun playing 40k by yourself while everyone else is busy having fun.

Careful, he takes this kind of comment as an insult to his person. It's been tried.

Yes I do. I have no idea why actually following the rules will cause people to not play me . Aside from the argument that "the rules aren't fun".

trollimus, your not alone in this!

I've been playing this game for over 10 years and I agree with you all the way. I only play against opponents that share the same competitive gaming style and i hate those whiners that "dont find it fun to follow the rules". Indeed, go sit with your friends and play any way you like it but dont call out "cheese" because its just the way i like to play it. Oh no, did I block your 50 point barricade? Grow a pair and try to beat me with - 50 points army points difference. "yes, but i dont like the fact that the ADL became useless" than dont use it! Its not like their no other "useless" units within 40k.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Yes I do. I have no idea why actually following the rules will cause people to not play me . Aside from the argument that "the rules aren't fun".

Why is it so hard for you to understand the difference between "the rules aren't fun" and "the rules are broken"?

A complaint about the rules not being fun would be something like "I hate spam armies, and won't play against them". What we're actually looking at here is the fact that if you play strictly by the rules the game ceases to function. At best it is reduced to "roll a D6, on a 4+ you win" and there is no point in even unpacking your army. That isn't just a case of it not being fun, it's a case of the game coming to a sudden end the moment the rule is encountered. And when you have a game with that kind of fatal problem, you have two choices: you either modify the rules so they function and allow the game to proceed, or you play a different game.

Now, maybe you enjoy a version of 40k where you roll off and the winner makes the loser's entire deployment zone lethal terrain and wins without even taking their army out of the box, but most people would rather play a game.

No. I still maintain that refusing to play an opponent simply because you don't like the person or the way they approach playing, rude at best, and downright despicable at worst. It doesn't take 20 years of playing to see that.

Sorry, but no. If the game is going to be nothing more than a one-sided exercise in exploiting a broken rule then there's no point in trying to play a game. Just to take it to an extreme, would you consider someone justified in refusing to play against an opponent who was using loaded dice? After all, the rulebook doesn't say you have to use fair dice, so it's just another "way they approach playing".

 Peregrine wrote:

Sorry, but no. If the game is going to be nothing more than a one-sided exercise in exploiting a broken rule then there's no point in trying to play a game. Just to take it to an extreme, would you consider someone justified in refusing to play against an opponent who was using loaded dice? After all, the rulebook doesn't say you have to use fair dice, so it's just another "way they approach playing".

Using loaded dice is cheating... p5 BRB clearly states that only "standard six sided dice" are acceptable. If the rules allowed loaded dice, then yes, if my opponent used loaded dice I wouldn't be able to do anything to stop him. I'd probably get my own loaded dice at that point to counter his advantage, or just not play the game AT ALL until they fixed the rule... I certainly wouldn't insist that other people not do something that is clearly within the rules to do.

Using terrain placement rules to your advantage is legal, unfortunately.

Sportsmanship is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors.

Unsportsmanlike conduct is a foul or offense in many sports that is not necessarily a violation of the respective sport's rules of play, but violates the sport's generally accepted rules of sportsmanship and/or participant conduct.

(stolen from wiki so don't need to type much ^_^)

My point is something doesn't need to be wrong with rules for a move to be unsporting. In a Tournament setting (assuming there is one where you place your own terrain) you would get marked down for acting like this. A judge probably wouldn't agree with it either and i know my gaming group would laugh and then some would just the terrain around for a better game.

 Tri wrote:
Sportsmanship is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors.

Unsportsmanlike conduct is a foul or offense in many sports that is not necessarily a violation of the respective sport's rules of play, but violates the sport's generally accepted rules of sportsmanship and/or participant conduct.

(stolen from wiki so don't need to type much ^_^)

You make a good point but it's all relative.

I could technically argue that placing terrain for advantage doesn't "violates the sport's generally accepted rules of sportsmanship and/or participant conduct." especially if my opponent is doing the same thing against me.

American football has clear definitions of unsportsmanlike conduct outlined in its rules, and penalties for infringement. The BRB of warhammer 40k has no clear definition of "unsportsmanlike" conduct is in regards to "generally accepted rules"

Can you make the argument that placing terrain for advantage is "unsportsmanlike?" yes, and you would have a strong case. But the same way I could argue that it isn't and would equally have a strong case.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Can you make the argument that placing terrain for advantage is "unsportsmanlike?" yes, and you would have a strong case. But the same way I could argue that it isn't and would equally have a strong case.

Yes, because if you place terrain for advantage it is impossible for the game to ever progress beyond the "place terrain" stage. You place terrain, and then the game ends.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

It's a stupid rule because the opposing player can place terrain to marginalize the effect of your fortification but it's the rules regardless.

I find it stupid that you pick your side of the board before you place terrain. Surely if that's the case, there's no advantage to having a choice of board edge.

 somecallmeJack wrote:
I find it stupid that you pick your side of the board before you place terrain. Surely if that's the case, there's no advantage to having a choice of board edge.

Sure there is, what you do is shove the table up against the wall so only one side is easily accessible, then you force your opponent to play over there.

 Peregrine wrote:

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Can you make the argument that placing terrain for advantage is "unsportsmanlike?" yes, and you would have a strong case. But the same way I could argue that it isn't and would equally have a strong case.

Yes, because if you place terrain for advantage it is impossible for the game to ever progress beyond the "place terrain" stage. You place terrain, and then the game ends.

I really feel for your position Peregrine, I really do. I agree with it wholeheartedly in fact. The difference between you and I is that I'm not willing to bend the rules to "fix" the game. Because once you start bending one rule you lose the moral authority to challenge others for bending other rules.

For example, say we do it your way and ignore the terrain set-up rules. Halfway through the game you discover your opponent is using loaded dice. You get angry, and his response is "Why are you getting mad at me? You broke the rules too, why can't I? What is the basis for deciding on what rules we ignore and which rules we follow? Is it arbitrary? Is it decided by what's fun? If so, then I think using loaded dice is fun and who are you to say that I can't use them because you broke rules in the name of "fun" too."

The only way to counter this kind of behavior is to simply not play the person, but then who is the bad guy? Who says his version of the game is any less legitimate then yours?

Its easier if everyone just follows the rules laid out by GW, as broken as some of them can be. If what you say is true and it really does "break the game" then GW will fix it or lose customers.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Can you make the argument that placing terrain for advantage is "unsportsmanlike?" yes, and you would have a strong case. But the same way I could argue that it isn't and would equally have a strong case.

In many, if not most, gamimg groups this would get you labeled as TFG; where i play some one would just rearrange the board so it was fair for both of us. In a Tournaments (assuming there are some where you can place the terrain) i could well see judges marking you down.

For example, say we do it your way and ignore the terrain set-up rules. Halfway through the game you discover your opponent is using loaded dice. You get angry, and his response is "Why are you getting mad at me? You broke the rules too, why can't I? What is the basis for deciding on what rules we ignore and which rules we follow? Is it arbitrary? Is it decided by what's fun? If so, then I think using loaded dice is fun and who are you to say that I can't use them because you broke rules in the name of "fun" too."

Because you agreed before the game started to change the rule. It isn't breaking the rules if everyone playing the game agrees to play using a different set of rules. And it isn't exactly hard to figure out which rules you ignore and which ones you follow: you agree before the game begins, and you don't play against anyone who disagrees with your choice. Fortunately there is near-unanimous agreement that the terrain rules need to be changed, so people who want to change them have no problem finding games, while people like you will quickly discover that you're going to be playing solitaire 40k until you quit.

Seriously, why is this so complicated for you?

Its easier if everyone just follows the rules laid out by GW, as broken as some of them can be. If what you say is true and it really does "break the game" then GW will fix it or lose customers.

That's just stupid. You have two choices:

1) Adopt house rules to fix the problem.

or

2) Don't ever play 40k again because GW is probably never going to change this, since everyone has already done option #1.


Now if you want to stubbornly quit 40k because you were able to rules lawyer your way into completely breaking the game and GW didn't fix a "problem" that only exists for you, well, goodbye. You won't be missed.

Regardless of where the other guy places his terrian. The Ageis defence line is good because it allows you to deploy AAA. So far this is the only way that SM can get any Red Rope Rangers.

I think the tower is best though for air defence.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Using terrain placement rules to your advantage is legal, unfortunately.

You make it sound if it's the rules fault! "Sorry, it's in the rules that I can do this. Damn rules!"
Have fun with this little circle jerk you've started.

This is reminiscent of the Chinese and Korean badminton teams' tactics in the Olympics. They deliberately tried to lose to each other to avoid playing a better competitor in the next stage and therefore increase their chances of winning overall.

This is not against the RAW for badminton, however, both teams were disqualified due to unsportsmanlike behaviour at the discretion of the umpire/referee. It's exactly how I feel about the terrain placement rules you're advocating (I'm aware they're in the rule book too) as opposed to the de facto rules everyone else uses, including competitive tournaments.

On the idea that the game is not competitive, sure it can be, but the randomness makes it very hard to be purely competitive. You'll see that when at every point that matters in the game you roll ones, or your opponent rolls sixes. Chance is a major player, but that's just part of the game, and part of the fun. Sure it can be competitive, but only to a certain extent unlike video-games such as starcraft or bloodline champions where randomness is completely removed. These games therefore have cash prizes at tournaments and professional players.

One could argue that Starcraft has randomness. Random starting place, random map, random army if you so choose.

Blaggard wrote:
One could argue that Starcraft has randomness. Random starting place, random map, random army if you so choose.

Off topic, but yes, it has a very minimal amount of randomness to keep it from getting stale. The core mechanics of the game are not random.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because you agreed before the game started to change the rule. It isn't breaking the rules if everyone playing the game agrees to play using a different set of rules. And it isn't exactly hard to figure out which rules you ignore and which ones you follow: you agree before the game begins, and you don't play against anyone who disagrees with your choice. Fortunately there is near-unanimous agreement that the terrain rules need to be changed, so people who want to change them have no problem finding games, while people like you will quickly discover that you're going to be playing solitaire 40k until you quit.

Seriously, why is this so complicated for you?

Because in your system, the only way to avoid clashing with other people over what's allowed in a game and what isn't (when people don't agree), is to be an assh*t by saying "I'm not playing you then, screw you guys I'm going home".

You will have thousands of different variants of 40k, each one at each different FLGS will be a little bit different. If you can't see why that is bad for the establishment of a competitive game then I can't help you.

 Peregrine wrote:

That's just stupid. You have two choices:

1) Adopt house rules to fix the problem.

or

2) Don't ever play 40k again because GW is probably never going to change this, since everyone has already done option #1.

Why is the onus on the players to fix a broken system with houserules. Why can't the rules be written properly? I don't understand this...

trollimus_maximus wrote:

Why is the onus on the players to fix a broken system with houserules. Why can't the rules be written properly? I don't understand this...

You should ask Matt Ward that. I'm sure you'll get the intelligent and logical answer you're hoping for.

 Griddlelol wrote:

trollimus_maximus wrote:

Why is the onus on the players to fix a broken system with houserules. Why can't the rules be written properly? I don't understand this...

You should ask Matt Ward that. I'm sure you'll get the intelligent and logical answer you're hoping for.

Made me lol. I hope he does the next Imperial guard codex. Looking forward to 10 point stormtroopers with ap 2 hellguns and power armor.

And 55 point leman russes as dedicated transports, pickable by *everything*. It'll be so cash.

I gave some constructive advice a couple of pages ago that pointed out how when using gw rules terrain placement it's actually quite difficult to negate an aegis. It was promptly ignored and you guys went into hyperbole with 1 side screaming about 864 square inch pieces of dangerous terrain and how fortifications are 100% always auto lose useless, and the other side being condescending and basicly saying IFL2P nub.

If you use all the gw rules and gw terrain or terrain similar in size to gw terrain like battlefield in a box the rules and the 50 point cost of an aegis balance out well. Just go back to the fundamentals of terrain density and the 3" rule.

 schadenfreude wrote:
Just go back to the fundamentals of terrain density and the 3" rule.

But then nobody could yell at each other about a self created problem?!?! That's no fun!

 schadenfreude wrote:
I gave some constructive advice a couple of pages ago that pointed out how when using gw rules terrain placement it's actually quite difficult to negate an aegis. It was promptly ignored and you guys went into hyperbole with 1 side screaming about 864 square inch pieces of dangerous terrain and how fortifications are 100% always auto lose useless, and the other side being condescending and basicly saying IFL2P nub.

If you use all the gw rules and gw terrain or terrain similar in size to gw terrain like battlefield in a box the rules and the 50 point cost of an aegis balance out well. Just go back to the fundamentals of terrain density and the 3" rule.

A big enough building in front of a Aegis line, 3" isn't going to matter, it's still going to block LOS.

You may not be able to put lethal terrain DIRECTLY behind an ADL, but you can make it so that they have hard time utilizing it.

 alarmingrick wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
Just go back to the fundamentals of terrain density and the 3" rule.

But then nobody could yell at each other about a self created problem?!?! That's no fun!

Anymore fun and some mod with no sense of humor will...

Anyhow back on topic water features are the perfect piece to dump ahead of the aegis, preferably a river. Battlefield in a box makes a good river. Also since IG players seem to like the aegis so much the river goes great with chimera.

Right here's my two cents both used from a perspective of GW event. At my local GW terrain is set up impartially before all deployment by a thrid party, at GW tournaments all terrain is pre set and any you bring is enabled to be placed due to agreed shuffling by event organisers. Finally at my FLGS the current tournament we play in we use the terrain limits in each quarter but none of us feel the need to deploy insta win terrain. I may happen to place a corner wall L-shape piece fluch with the board edge but both me and my opponent found that a) funny and b) we didn't care as he already had 2 fortifications and 2 ruins on his side. This reallly is a non issue especially in competitive tournament play and even more so in friendly play.

OK so from the sound of it the OP is new to the game, and has little to no experience with it so let me try to explain a few reasons why the terrain placement is often not done.

Initially it starts with tournaments.

Tournaments are often played with limited time in rounds so taking time to place terrain takes away from time available to play games. As the rules say to only use Alternating deployment when you cannot agree on narrative placement this make it even tougher, because it could literally eat up 1/2 of the round placing terrain and deploying.

Tournaments in general also seek to minimize the effect that playing on different boards has on the game so that all players are playing relatively the same mission. This makes the tournament more evaluative of who is the best player, rather than who got to play on a board where there was terrain that best suited their army.

Alternating placement due to the density roll would leave some tables with far more of the terrain provided than others (unless you take out this roll at which point .

Due to this most tournaments opt for pre-placed terrain for ease of running the event.

Due to this often people want to play test under similar circumstances, so they also play preset terrain.


As for your insistence that if GW wanted to change things they would have, you are new so you don't know that generally speaking it takes them a long time to do this if they do it at all. Furthermore, they don't have a problem with it because when they don't play in a way in which someone would block off a quad gun with terrain, because the game is not competitive for them. They just want to "forge the narrative.

As for your question, Sure I would bring a ADL with gun, and then only play you using Narrative placement, and not agree to a set up where you place a hindrance to my Quad gun or ADL because it is not reasonable in a narrative that my troops would set up a gun that could not see or a barrier around the lava. There is no requirement that we ever use alternating placement (the rule book simply says we should, not we must). If you are unwilling to play unless you can hamper my Fortification we will argue about it until one of us concedes the game and goes home, or we agree that it makes little sense from a narrative standpoint that I would place the terrain in such a way as to screw my own army.

I have been playing since the 90's (tho' I did take nine years off 2003-11) and have always laid out terrain before rolling for sides. I never even bothered to read the "Terrain Placement" rules when I picked up 6th Ed, because I would simply never play that way.

I don't know anyone who plays the terrain rules. Generally, I set up the board before my opponant arrives since it's at my house. I'll have perhaps woods on the left, some ruins on the right and maybe a risky chokepoint down the center. Once i'm happy with the layout and have checked to ensure landraiders and large stuff will fit, I let my opponant choose which side he wants. That way I make the deployment zones as balanced as I can. My opponant is the type of person who would put a frigging tower in front of my ADL if I took them. It always goes the same way though. He pulls some really annoying stunt, I moan a lot, he refuses to remove it and I decide i'm going to go ahead and crush him regardless. It's been good practise to be honest because I find out about some of the cheese before heading down to the FLGS so i'm not caught off guard.

The Aegis defense line with Quad gun has found a good niche in my BA army. It establishes a good fire base. I keep 2 5 man dev squads wih ML and a plasma Tac squad wih attached apothecary behind it. It's done very well. The rest of my army is deep striking terminators, deep striking assault marines and an 8 man death co. In a drop pod.

Isn't agreeing on which terrain pieces to use beforehand also part of the rules?, if we select the pool and i see a huge block of 9" tall 9" wide on the pool I can just say nop, I don't want that there and we need to come to an agreement, if you say yes and i say no to it what goes? roll a die and see if it stays on the pool maybe?, giving it 50% chance of going away? and then if it stays i got a 50% chance that i can place it first away from the ADL

The terrain argument is also null and void in tournaments where the terrain is fixed!

How many gt are not using narrative terrain?

It's hard enough to finish a 1750 to 2k game in 135 minutes without spending time on terrain placement.

Just put it on your own side, use them as the center of a fire base and/or to protect an objective. Good choice if you have no skyfire. Also, my guardians really get a boost with a 3+ cover save.

Trollimus, trust us when we say that if you play by the strict rules the game does not function. There are plenty of rules where it is strongly implied, and if you read it you would not think twice about what it was supposed to do, however by strict wording it does not work. Cant remember any specifics off the top of my head but I am sure some people could list a few.


Also aegis is a no brainer in all of my lists.

Baronyu wrote:

That's just plain TFG behaviour, is it not? I wouldn't feel bad to just up and say "Not playing you anymore.", I wouldn't even care if he called me a rage quitter, because seriously, while that is totally legal, it's also a very crappy thing to do in a game meant to be casual fun.

Just so that you know, the entire term "rage quitter" is 100% a trolling attempt.

And considering the dude you quoted's name is "TrollimusMaximus," well...

You should never, ever take anyone who calls you a "rage quitter" seriously. Just saying.

On topic, I think any cheap scoring unit with a low armor save and no wargear would be a great unit to place inside of a ADL with a Quadgun.

I don't see the terrain issue being as significant as people make it out to be. AGLs can be useful regardless of how someone plans to use terrain.

On the one hand, this is probably a non-issue 99% of the time. When I set up terrain on the board, the goal is to give my units useful fortifications that help my battle strategy. I can't think of a game where someone set up terrain specifically to deny the use of one of my units or how this would really advance what I am looking to do with my army. If anything, placing terrain where it can't be used would be a waste.

On the other hand, the main reason I choose an ADL is for the Quad Gun, which is a cheap option for anti-air for my Chaos army. Typically, there is something blocking it's visibility, at least partially. I don't think the value of a Quad Gun goes down when there are some limits to what it can shoot at, in fact, having a building in front of it likely means my opponent is going to forget about it when moving his units. I could see obstructions as an advantage in certain situations.