Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

WTF is with the new setup rules?

You role for table edges before terrain has been placed.... what's the point of this? Both sides of a table are hopefully identical prior to placing terrain
Place fortifications also before placing terrain ?!?!?! "OK Lads we've built a fortified watchtower with great lines of fire!"..."Oh hmm.... we can't see much out of our watchtower because it's in between 2 cliffs with a forest surrounding it... what a silly place to have built our watch tower :( "

This is Terribly thought out. "Forging a Narrative" says place all the terrain to give yourself a gaming advantage because the "Greatest Generals" chose their battlefield.
Wouldn't the Greatest General check if he was in the middle of the ocean before deciding to try and build a castle?!
How can you choose sides and build fortifications before placing terrain?

As far as terrain density ..... why the hell should a player be penalised on terrain cover because he spent some of his army points on a building... where his opponent might also get a building for free just by placing terrain ?!

Also...

"Terrain must be placed 3" from other terrain"

oh.... I guess Trees can't *ever* grow on a hill
No one *ever* builds a watchtower in a forest

Pretty sure I'm just going to ignore pg120 entirely

I agree with most of your points. The dumbest decision imo was placing objectives after sides are decided. Considering that in some missions there are an uneven number of objectives this just seems totally unfair.

karlosovic wrote:Wouldn't the Greatest General check if he was in the middle of the ocean before deciding to try and build a castle?!

King of Swamp Castle wrote:When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.

But otherwise I agree with the points you bring up.

Objectives got placed after sides were chosen in 5th. No different from 6th.


The reason they have you place fortifications first is so that you actually have space to put them, because of the 3" rule.

And you alternate placing terrain so you shouldn't have massive problems with terrain looking stupid.

A fortification is a decided advantage. They are much better buildings then non-purchased buildings. A purchased Bastion is AV14 and has 4 HBs. A non-purchased Bastion is AV12 and has no bolters.


Chill out man and try a few games. If you still don't like it, play 5th and stop whining on the internet.

Grey Templar wrote:
Chill out man and try a few games. If you still don't like it, play 5th and stop whining on the internet.

I get what you're saying Grey, but I think this is a little harsh. The OP made some good points. Tell me, what IS the point of rolling for table sides when the table is empty?

None, but GW has done pointless things before. Maybe I want to stand closer to the window

Grey Templar wrote:Objectives got placed after sides were chosen in 5th. No different from 6th.

You remember wrong. In Seize Ground (only mission with D+3 objectives), objectives were placed first and deployment zones decided afterwards.
This meant that you had to be pretty even about objective placement (even with odd amount of objectives) because your opponent might win the roll for deciding deployment zones.

In 5e Capture and Control both players placed single objective in their deployment zone after sides were chosen, but that situation is not comparable to 6e because C&C had fixed objective amount, not random

So in 6e, every mission with odd amount of objectives will have huge advantage for the person who places the first objective.

karlosovic wrote:You role for table edges before terrain has been placed.... what's the point of this? Both sides of a table are hopefully identical prior to placing terrain

While I agree that this is puzzling, at best...

karlosovic wrote:Place fortifications also before placing terrain ?!?!?!

... you've got to take a bottle of chill pills on this one.

Placing fortiufications first provides for the most consistent use of fortifications. As has been mentioned, if you placed them later, you might be stuck placing them where it makes even LESS sense, and where you won't be able to effectively use them at all, based on how your opponent sets up terrain. On the other hand, if your opponent isn't good at setting up terrain, you will achieve an advantage much greater than was intended, as you can now pick the absolute perfect spot for the fort.

Setting up fortifications last makes terrain setup a part of player skill which, thankfully, GW did a decent job sparing us from. I don't want my games decided before the first minis hit the table.

Furthermore, as mentioned, regular buildings are much, much worse than bastions and the like, and that's even if you have any buildings in your local terrain in the first place.

If you really, really think this completely makes fortifications utterly pointless, though, then just don't take any fortifications. It's an optional part of your FOC, not a mandatory part. It's not like you're losing something you once had in 5th ed.

ive played a few games... and a smart player can place terrain to max out his opponents deployment zone terrain density with silly little pieces, to deny any sort of cover, while literally filling up and blocking off his own zone, and creating a cluster of things to hide in.

case in point, my last game the other guy managed to place 3 ruins in one side, and only fences ended up in mine, along with my fortress. he then managed to get the warlord trait of move through cover ruins, AND the invisibility spell from telepathy.... needless to say his main unit had a 2+ cover save the whole game, and pretty much on half the table. when that unit is toughness 5 plague marines...well...

And how is it you didn't grab one of those Ruins when it was your turn to place them and put it on your side?

And it was just a fluke of chance that he had move through cover(ruins), Invisibility, and got 3 ruins in his deployment zone. Very lucky on that one.

DarthSpader wrote:ive played a few games... and a smart player can place terrain to max out his opponents deployment zone terrain density with silly little pieces, to deny any sort of cover, while literally filling up and blocking off his own zone, and creating a cluster of things to hide in.

case in point, my last game the other guy managed to place 3 ruins in one side, and only fences ended up in mine, along with my fortress. he then managed to get the warlord trait of move through cover ruins, AND the invisibility spell from telepathy.... needless to say his main unit had a 2+ cover save the whole game, and pretty much on half the table. when that unit is toughness 5 plague marines...well...

This is precisely why I don't play with the new terrain rules. When I set up a board for 5th Edition, I balance it out, make sure there's a roughly even number of terrain pieces across the whole board. My opponent can say "No, I don't like that," and rearrange as necessary, and all is well. With the terrain density thing, though, it's entirely possible for one side to get completely boned. I had one game of 6e where such a thing happened - one side of a dawn of war deployment got 1, 2, and 1 pieces of terrain for its three zones. The other side got 3, 2, 3. Not surprisingly, the 1/2/1 side had virtually no cover the entire game, and got ripped apart.

So you don't have to use the random terrain generator. Use the other methods GW has provided you with.

The Alternating Terrain method says you don't have to put all the terrain pieces rolled for in that section.

Come up with your own. Alternetly place terrain untill the table is good.

Locclo wrote:This is precisely why I don't play with the new terrain rules. When I set up a board for 5th Edition, I balance it out, make sure there's a roughly even number of terrain pieces across the whole board. My opponent can say "No, I don't like that," and rearrange as necessary, and all is well.

6th ed's terrain placement isn't different on these points, though. In 5th ed, you still took turns placing terrain, and both players had to agree when it was done.

The only real difference is that there is now a minimum density rule, which I'm actually glad for. Against sit-and-shoot armies, you always had to balance on the one hand having any terrain on your side of the board to hide in, and on the other preventing there from being a huge dead-zone in the middle of the board.

No more will tau players and the like be able to just push all the terrain to the very edges of the board when it's their turn to place.

At my FLGS we always set up terrain so it looked nice and was fair to both sides. OR we had a third party set up terrain which usually meant we had symmetrical boards.

I do like the alternating terrain, but you can abuse it way to easily.

the alternating method does prevent some stacking... but in the last game, (as refrenced above) we were playing short edge zones, and both my squares got a 1 for density. my fortifcation took up 1 of those, he placed first and dropped a fence in one corner along an edge. i then HAD to place stuff in the middle or his deployment area. he then went hog nuts and built up around the center and his end (wich he had 3's for and a single 2)

so that game ended up with me having a single fortifcation, and no other cover as dark eldar, while his chaos army had HUGE edge in cover. we were also playing the relic, wich made it near impossible for me to get up to the objective and get to "saftey" as anything north of center was basically a chaos havoc gun line. - needless to say i got my arse kicked.

DarthSpader wrote:the alternating method does prevent some stacking... but in the last game, (as refrenced above) we were playing short edge zones, and both my squares got a 1 for density. my fortifcation took up 1 of those, he placed first and dropped a fence in one corner along an edge. i then HAD to place stuff in the middle or his deployment area. he then went hog nuts and built up around the center and his end (wich he had 3's for and a single 2)

so that game ended up with me having a single fortifcation, and no other cover as dark eldar, while his chaos army had HUGE edge in cover. we were also playing the relic, wich made it near impossible for me to get up to the objective and get to "saftey" as anything north of center was basically a chaos havoc gun line. - needless to say i got my arse kicked.

Then your opponent cheated. See below.

Adam Troke, Jeremy Vetock, and Mat Ward wrote: Each 'piece' of terrain should be a single substantial element (such as a building, forest or ruin)or a cluster of up to three smaller pieces of terrain (such as battlefield debris).

Grey Templar wrote:None, but GW has done pointless things before. Maybe I want to stand closer to the window

Or further away from the bathroom.....

Grugknuckle wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
Chill out man and try a few games. If you still don't like it, play 5th and stop whining on the internet.

I get what you're saying Grey, but I think this is a little harsh. The OP made some good points. Tell me, what IS the point of rolling for table sides when the table is empty?

I'll tell you the point. The point is to determine who gets to control the flow of terrain first and the flow of battle. Want to place that bastion? Go for it. Enemy can try to place something to block it, but not too well. Want to prevent him from blocking your LOS on those guns easily? Place something out there first so he can't. That's why you roll off. It's more to see who goes first on everything.

Not saying I like it, but if it goes terrain/fortification placements before choosing side, what happen if the side who didn't pick the fortification picks the fortification'd side?

Now you might suggest: Terrain -> choose side -> fortifications. But then the opponent could pick a side which would make the other player having to put his fortification somewhere absurd and useless. And what if he gets to take off terrain pieces to put his fortification down? Then potentially, one player could pick the side of the table with the most covers(If he hates the idea of you getting covers), remove said covers and put his bastion down.

Either way, the game becomes even more one-sided from the get-go, at least with the current rules, you get to somewhat counter his attempt at building covers by using the "no terrain pieces within 3" of eachother" rule.

Still, I kinda prefer 5th ed, terrain -> choose side... Always funny when my friends pick the heavily covered side that I just built so I couldn't cover my DE for the 1st turn... Oh and obviously I'd roll under 6 for that seize intiative roll! :(

Baronyu wrote:Not saying I like it, but if it goes terrain/fortification placements before choosing side, what happen if the side who didn't pick the fortification picks the fortification'd side?

What do you mean by this?

DeathReaper wrote:

Baronyu wrote:Not saying I like it, but if it goes terrain/fortification placements before choosing side, what happen if the side who didn't pick the fortification picks the fortification'd side?

What do you mean by this?

Yeah, Fortifications get placed after you choose sides and get placed on your table half. Not your deployment zone, major difference there.

Grey Templar wrote:Chill out man and try a few games. If you still don't like it, play 5th and stop whining on the internet.

My new signature

The setup seems practical to me, if a little against the fluff side of the game.

Yes, forts would be built after the ground existed, nobody is arguing otherwise. However, the terrain density limit makes it imperative to place forts first.

For example: I am bringing an Aegis defense line, you a fortress of redemption. If we place terrain before forts, I will do everything I can to make you put that FOR where I want you to. Place the forts first, and we eliminate that problem.

-cgmckenzie

perhaps he did "cheat" but it was his first game, and only my 3rd with the new rules, and i also failed to catch said cheat. so its as much my fault as his.

effectivlly, i do like the setup rules, it makes for more logical placement, and terrain actually serves a decent purpose. but, those rules can also be abused and horribly exploited to make one side gain a rather large tatical advantage.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:At my FLGS we always set up terrain so it looked nice and was fair to both sides. OR we had a third party set up terrain which usually meant we had symmetrical boards.

I do like the alternating terrain, but you can abuse it way to easily.

We usually use a 3rd party now. It speeds up the game set up and helps balance out the game.

However doing alternating sides I've set the table up a few times to bait my opponent into taking a side I wanted him to take by a specific terrain placement. I had the other half of the table set up how I wanted it. Terrain placement is as important to the game as any other part.

DeathReaper wrote:

Baronyu wrote:Not saying I like it, but if it goes terrain/fortification placements before choosing side, what happen if the side who didn't pick the fortification picks the fortification'd side?

What do you mean by this?

I meant, since he's complaining that the current terrain/fortification placement is bad, what are the alternatives? If we were to place terrain/fortification before choosing a side(1 of the possible alternatives), then the side who didn't bring that fortification could potentially choose the side of the table where the fortification is placed, but what happens then? Do you switch side? Rearrange table? Either way nullify all the effort in the 1st step.

I was just saying that, seemingly, the current 6th ed terrain placement rule is the best way to go.

Ailaros wrote:Setting up fortifications last makes terrain setup a part of player skill which, thankfully, GW did a decent job sparing us from. I don't want my games decided before the first minis hit the table.

Not sure if being sarcastic, or serious. The first line sounds like sarcasm, then you said the second thing... Personally I prefer to have my games determined by skill. If I am playing someone who is worse than me, then the outcome is decided before the first minis hit the table. We play so we can learn, have fun, and if in a tournament, I can advance. I've known many people who knew which parts of my army to kill, but couldn't deploy for anything. That is a skill. Choosing your battleground is also a skill, but not very well employed in 6e warhammer 40k. Especially not when the Aegis Defense Line I just placed got a large, LOS blocking ruin placed IMMEDIATELY in front of it...

Ailaros wrote:The only real difference is that there is now a minimum density rule, which I'm actually glad for. Against sit-and-shoot armies, you always had to balance on the one hand having any terrain on your side of the board to hide in, and on the other preventing there from being a huge dead-zone in the middle of the board.

No more will tau players and the like be able to just push all the terrain to the very edges of the board when it's their turn to place.

The only Tau players who would ever do this are utter morons. If they want to do this, then fine: they will lose. Open boards are a crutch for Tau players who don't understand how the army functions, and generally a bane only to the most inexperienced or unlucky of players. Not to mention 6e allows everything to be mobile. While I prefer mobility in general, letting all armies across the board to be as mobile as each other (for the most part) lessens the diferentiation between armies, which I'm against. You shouldn't need a minimum density rule if everyone can move. Cover means less until you can get to it to improve your saves.

Radical idea - set up the board in a mutually agreable manner, put objectives down, roll for sides, put down your fortifications, juggling scenerey as appropriate.

Enjoy.

you know its more of a suggestion, not the gospel

Honestly I don't see why setting up your forts after terrain is in any fashion unbalanced or unfair. It would have to be a rather dense board for your opponant to manage to shut down your fortifications, even with the 3" rule. I don't have that much terrain in my house. Enough to cover my board well, to be sure, but not to Catachan Jungle Fighters' standards.

Baronyu wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Baronyu wrote:Not saying I like it, but if it goes terrain/fortification placements before choosing side, what happen if the side who didn't pick the fortification picks the fortification'd side?

What do you mean by this?

I meant, since he's complaining that the current terrain/fortification placement is bad, what are the alternatives? If we were to place terrain/fortification before choosing a side(1 of the possible alternatives), then the side who didn't bring that fortification could potentially choose the side of the table where the fortification is placed, but what happens then? Do you switch side? Rearrange table? Either way nullify all the effort in the 1st step.

I was just saying that, seemingly, the current 6th ed terrain placement rule is the best way to go.

You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to place your 220 point Fortress before you knew which side of the table was yours. Obviously Choosing a Side would need to come before Place Fortifications

Grey Templar wrote:The reason they have you place fortifications first is so that you actually have space to put them, because of the 3" rule.

Not buying it.
a) I think you'd still have room
b) the 3" rule is also on pg 120 and we've already established that the entire page is garbage. Or do you agree that a forest can't grow even partially *on* a hill?

Grey Templar wrote:A fortification is a decided advantage.

3 Land Raiders would also constitute a "decided advantage"..... what's your point?

Grey Templar wrote:They are much better buildings then non-purchased buildings. A purchased Bastion is AV14 and has 4 HBs. A non-purchased Bastion is AV12 and has no bolters.

A purchased Land Raider is also AV14 and has 4 Lascannons and 2 Heavy Bolters. Again... what's your point? That they'll only give you AV12 for free? Chill out man....and stop whining on the internet.

Ailaros wrote:Placing fortiufications first provides for the most consistent use of fortifications. As has been mentioned, if you placed them later, you might be stuck placing them where it makes even LESS sense, and where you won't be able to effectively use them at all, based on how your opponent sets up terrain. On the other hand, if your opponent isn't good at setting up terrain, you will achieve an advantage much greater than was intended, as you can now pick the absolute perfect spot for the fort.

If you place Fortifications first, there's a good chance your oponent could completely negate its usefulness by placing other terrain to block it or otherwise interfere with it. This would make no sense. My point was that a good general (hell, even a really bad General) would try to build his fortifications in the best spot available AFTER having seen the lay of the land. No one builds watchtowers at the *bottom* of cliffs, do they? An Aegis Defense Line is exactly the sort of temporary line of cover one might place to bolster a vulnerable position, or cover an obvious line of advance - but how would you know where those positions are until all the other terrain exists?!
You wouldn't deploy your IG Lascannon HWT before you'd seen the terrain, so why build your forts before looking at the terrain?

Nagashek wrote:Choosing your battleground is also a skill, but not very well employed in 6e warhammer 40k. Especially not when the Aegis Defense Line I just placed got a large, LOS blocking ruin placed IMMEDIATELY in front of it...

Yes this was exactly my point and the main reason I think the new terrain rules are so rediculously badly thought out. You cannot possibly know where is the best place to build your fortifications until you have seen the lay of the land.

Next thing you people will be suggesting we should deploy our whole army before placing terrain too - or at least you'll all be clammoring about what a great idea it is when Mat Ward writes it (afterall, this would provide for the most consistent use of armies)

Phototoxin wrote:Radical idea - set up the board in a mutually agreable manner, put objectives down, roll for sides, put down your fortifications, juggling scenerey as appropriate.

Enjoy.

you know its more of a suggestion, not the gospel

Now was that so hard?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
1. Roll off to place the first piece of terrain (if you *really* think this needs to be rolled for)
2. Alternate placing a piece of terrain. Use the terrain density rules *only* if you really can't be trusted without them
3. Delete any reference to the 3" rule
4. Once all terrain has been placed... roll for deployment.
Winner gets to either pick a side on which they will deploy first OR let their opponent do so.
4.a) Place objectives
4.b) The player who picked their side of the table deploys their fortification (if any), and then the other players deploys his fortifications
4.c) The player who picked their side of the table deploys their army, and then the other players deploys his army.

This method helps encourage players to set up a balanced battlefield as no one knows yet who will get which side. It also means there's a tactical decision between picking the best terrain OR deploying with the element of surprise

It also means that players are able to make a sensible decision about where to build the fortifications they PAID FOR (just like they would be allowed to do with the *rest* of their army)

biggest issue with that....some fortifications are HUGE (see fortress of redemption) and dont easilly fit where other terrain might be set up.