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.

Thank you Davou for essentially continuing my train of thought without me being here, I tip my hat to you sir
Especially since you advocate this stance despite choosing Tau as your forum rank.

So the argument being put forward by Martel and Redbeard is that their opponents and in fact themselves given their predilection to terrain "gaming" cannot be trusted but put aside their bias and create a fair, interesting and exciting battlefield and it skews the game. As said, find better opponents and *be* better opponents .

Random terrain is a crutch included for people who insist on making victory secondary to winning, you ask "why would I agree to terrain that is not beneficial to me?" which means you're already in that "disagreeable" pack of players yourself. A game of 40k is a compact between players to create an enjoyable, fun and hopefully memorable game enjoyed by all.

GW have thrown that kind of player a bone by including randomized terrain rules but it is very much secondary to the primary method and it's own little offshoot. Disagreeable players breed disagreeable players. A large 40k game can take hours to set up and play, I have no intention of wasting my time playing a game against someone who can't even put aside their desperate need to win long enough to agree on a board setup...

You say my meta means nothing to you, the feeling is mutual, from your description however I know which I'd prefer to play in. Either way however using GW's book written primary terrain deployment, assault is alive and well so the answer to the OP's question remains no.

The terrain set up has many different isuues...

At my club at least we attmept to balance it, it tends to mean there are at least a couple of pieces in each deployment zone. And quite a few in the middle to block LOS etc with little ruins scattered around to add flavour...


of course if you roll hammer and anvil deployment things get rather interesting


however at many tournamnents the terrain is set and thats it, henc ewhy the dominace of shooting armies. In 5th it encouraged the shift to mech armies, and that still partly exists now.

However other game systems do things differently, warmahordes for example doesnot have the size of terrian we deal with in 40k. You tend to get walls, trenches and the odd hedge or two (nasty suprises tend to lurk there...). Not to mention that fact that in that game at least shooting and close combat are quite well balanced- far better than any edition of 40k i've ever played.

just my humble opinion

" A game of 40k is a compact between players to create an enjoyable, fun and hopefully memorable game enjoyed by all. "

This is just not my experience with 40K at all. In any tournament setting, you will not have the luxury of designing your own board. And as I said, I have never used anything other than random. Even with "agreeable" people.

I'm not playing your smurf version of the game. It seems most other people aren't, either. That makes insights about assault based on this minority system for terrain rather suspect. "

"why would I agree to terrain that is not beneficial to me?"

Yes, this is the common attitude among the gaming community as far as I can tell. So we randomize to take this out of mix.

Martel732 wrote:
" A game of 40k is a compact between players to create an enjoyable, fun and hopefully memorable game enjoyed by all. "

This is just not my experience with 40K at all. In any tournament setting, you will not have the luxury of designing your own board. And as I said, I have never used anything other than random. Even with "agreeable" people.

I'm not playing your smurf version of the game. It seems most other people aren't, either. That makes insights about assault based on this minority system for terrain rather suspect. "

"why would I agree to terrain that is not beneficial to me?"

Yes, this is the common attitude among the gaming community as far as I can tell. So we randomize to take this out of mix.

Thats really sad to read - the whole point is its supposed to be fun - yeah proper Tournaments are different but pick up games should be fun - at our club quite often one player just checks the terrain out until we have enough for each other and we get on with it - usually no one can be bothered to move from the table edge they put their models down anyway........... We sometimes do it random for a change or if people are practising - they lay it out like a tourney set up - although I will say most of the local ones are way too open IMO ..............

Most people aren't playing my version of the game? Based on what?

It's the primary terrain deployment method, there's nothing smurf about it, it's the way the game is meant to be played. Given that doing it properly takes two people to agree and you are so dead set on randomizing and gaming the system has it not occurred to you that you are attracting the very same type of player and putting off the others and creating a vicious cycle?

No offence to you as a person but first time I saw you being the cause of randomized and gamed terrain I'd lose all interest in playing against you and I wouldn't be alone within my group.

It may be me putting on my old man hat but it tends to be the younger players who can't manage this while the older ones who perhaps have less time to play and so want to enjoy the games they have and so have no interest in such games.

Like I say, they are your models and it's your meta to play as you choose but rest assured there are groups out there who are perfectly capable of bringing very "hard" lists when they choose to but can also sit down with their opponent and build a balanced table without placing terrain for advantage and the game is made better for it.

Edit:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Thats really sad to read - the whole point is its supposed to be fun - yeah proper Tournaments are different but pick up games should be fun

I know right? Hell even tournaments should still put the fun first, you are still playing a game together at the heart, but I can at least understand them as a place you can go if you insist on treating the game that way. Odd as that meta is to me, I can't understand why on earth people would want to play 40k like that but it's a way of getting like minded players together.

But at your local club or FLGS, why?

I have no other options within travel distance. It was just like this in Cincinnati, anyway. I have no clue where you are finding people that will agree to this.

In my experience, people don't build Taudar lists to have them stuck behind LOS blocking terrain. They want clear firing lanes and will object to anything that blocks their firing lanes.

Depending on when the game starts, all the LOS blocking terrain might be taken anyway, so at that point, it doesn't matter how much terrain is used for the purposes of making assault more viable.

How is random terrain "gaming the system"?

 Dunklezahn wrote:

It's the primary terrain deployment method, there's nothing smurf about it, it's the way the game is meant to be played.

It's not the primary method, it's one of two methods. Sure, it's first in the book - because something has to be - but there's nothing to indicate that it is in any way the superior or preferred method.

Page 120 wrote:
Next, the players must set up the terrain for the battle. There are two ways you can go about this - narrative or alternating.

See, nothing says the one is preferred over the other.

Furthermore...

If you an your opponent can't agree on a narrative to help you set up the terrain, you should use this method instead.

Note, it's not "if you can't agree on the terrain placement", it's if you can't agree on a narrative. Secondly, it seems clear to me that the game designers put a whole lot more effort into the alternating method, including an entire sidebox that details why it is acceptable to use the alternating method to create a table that benefits your army.


Your entire premise seems to be that only people not worth playing with use the alternating terrain method. I think that's highly unfair. It seems to me that the rulebook gives precedence to the alternating method, and that the narrative terrain is included in case people want to tell a story.

If you an your opponent can't agree on a narrative to help you set up the terrain, you should use this method instead.

Personally I would that as:

Narrative is the standard way but if thats not going to work / your not playing a scenario - use this more formalised method to incorporate different playing and gaming styles for the player.

In my experience, people don't build Taudar lists to have them stuck behind LOS blocking terrain. They want clear firing lanes and will object to anything that blocks their firing lanes.

Surely that works both ways - People don't build a CC army to be stuck on an open plain? It just sounds like one player/s scream louder and longer that they want their way?

I think you guys are getting too hung up on the amount of LOS block terrain, when considering that since most LOS blocking terrain is also impassible then an assault unit hiding behind it is also not advancing towards the enemy, and the shooting armies have no reason to come to you.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the amount of LOS block terrain, when considering that since most LOS blocking terrain is also impassible then an assault unit hiding behind it is also not advancing towards the enemy, and the shooting armies have no reason to come to you.

Ruins and hills certainly aren't impassable, and ruins are arguably the most common LoS-blocking terrain. Furthermore, if you're hiding objectives behind them, the shooty enemy will have to do something other than sit around his deployment zone and shoot. Similarly, if you hide bikes, cavalry or something similar behind impassible terrain they'll dodge one turn's worth of shooting and still be on their merry way to the enemy.

 Mr Morden wrote:

If you an your opponent can't agree on a narrative to help you set up the terrain, you should use this method instead.

Personally I would that as:

Narrative is the standard way but if thats not going to work / your not playing a scenario - use this more formalised method to incorporate different playing and gaming styles for the player.

Well, that might be how you'd [sic] it but that's not what it actually says. It never, anywhere, says that narrative is preferred, or standard, or anything of that nature. The very first sentence establishes that there are two equally valid means of setting up terrain, and a following paragraph then adds that, should one method not be agreed upon, then the other method should be used. That's what it actually says. Anyone arguing that narrative is, by the rules, preferred is just wrong. It might yield a more enjoyable game for you and your friends, but it has no preferential status from the rulebook.

Hmm not so sure - but as I actually said in my post we don't really care that much as we use BOTH methods.......

If you are into the semantics etc and looking what you actually posted :

It starts by saying there are two methods and then says if this (the narrative) one does not work for you then use the other (random)?

Also when people start talking about the preferntial status and asking people to "prove things in the rules" thats when I feel the discussion degenerates..........

I am happy to play either way myself.........

 Redbeard wrote:
If you and your opponent can't agree on a narrative to help you set up the terrain, you should use this method instead.

That's pretty clear, if you jumped straight to randomized they wouldn't need the first part of the sentence. It implies that Narrative is the start point and Random is there for when that fails.

Of course there are more rules, it's for when the players can't be trusted to govern themselves and treat their opponent with respect.

Edit:
It occurred to me its very similar to their "Dice off when you can't agree" style ruling, something else I don't think I have ever needed in a single game in 20 years. If neither player is willing to back down and accept an unfavourable result we'll have to force one on you.

The first method is basically "see what's in your terrain box and make a cool battlefield for your armies to fight over". No rules required as at this stage the players are assumed to be trusted not to be thinking purely about the best terrain for their victory.

Sadly it requires the players to put their must win attitudes and biases aside in the name of the game. It saddens me that so many folks cannot do this, worse that some even go further and actively sabotage any attempt by players forced to use this method to build terrain like suggesting in Narrative. If this is how you start your games it's easy to predict how every single close LOS/measurement call is gonna go in the game, it's a horribly unfriendly way to play a game meant to be enjoyed by all participants.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

That's pretty clear, if you jumped straight to randomized they wouldn't need the first part of the sentence. It implies that Narrative is the start point and Random is there for when that fails.

Not at all, it offers two choices, both of which are equally valid. And, it provides the more definitive version as being the go-to method if there is a disagreement. You keep trying to draw implication where none is stated, and back this up with an ad hominem attack stating that people who like the more defined approach must be WAAC gamers who are not fun to play with.

Try again without the personal attacks and maybe we have a discussion. Otherwise, if you're just going to throw mud around, insisting that your way is the only right way and anyone who uses the rules must be a WAAC gamer, there's no point to continuing.

Dunklezahn wrote:So the argument being put forward by Martel and Redbeard is that their opponents and in fact themselves given their predilection to terrain "gaming" cannot be trusted but put aside their bias and create a fair, interesting and exciting battlefield and it skews the game... be better people.

It's possible that people who are disagreeing with you are whiny jackasses who need to learn how to be polite in public and play the game "correctly". My guess is that if you actually read what people were saying, you'd find that the arguments are more sophisticated than that.

You might find, for example, arguments about how lots of terrain can be harmful, not helpful to assault armies. Terrain gives cover, but it also always slows down infantry units, either because you're going through it, or you have to waste movement swerving around it. What you gain in cover saves, you lose in time. Meanwhile, if your opponent is playing a gunline with lots of vehicles or MCs (or units with MSM, or even infantry, who aren't likely moving, and thus aren't likely suffering from being slowed by terrain) don't care about this movement penalty. Once again, mech gunlines will actually like terrain, what with being faster already than infantry, and terrain making them even faster still. A vehicle with dozer blades can move 18", and plow over terrain that's causing assaulting infantry to move effectively D6" through. Or wave serpents that basically completely ignore the rules for cover (and so can zip over and focus-fire against mired infantry) while the other player isn't.

And LOS blocking terrain is really cool... unless your opponent brings barrage weapons, in which case they WANT LOS-blocking terrain. It makes leafblowers BETTER able to dismantle assault armies, not worse.

Your argument that you just need more terrain to make assault work isn't nearly as valid as you think, especially when you then go in and add in rules that explicitly hurt assault units with regards to terrain that don't hurt shooting at all, like needing frag grenades all the sudden, and rolling 3D6 and choosing the lowest two when assaulting into or too close to terrain.

That or everyone else is just playing the game wrong and you're just right so there. Whatever.

"That's pretty clear, if you jumped straight to randomized they wouldn't need the first part of the sentence. It implies that Narrative is the start point and Random is there for when that fails. "

Well, it fails every time in my experience.

To be fair martel, sounds like you haven't given it much chance. You seem deadset on all the players in your local being jerks who only want to win.

Try crafting a table with special interesting rules. Maybe its a spooky haunted forest that weirds out psychers, or a low gravity planet that lets infantry move 6+d3; it's really not the root cannal you're making it out to be.

As said, find better opponents and *be* better opponents .

That would require changing the country for some people . Everyone here plays all games the same way , with the same tournament lists . Terrain is set up the way it is on tournaments , specialy as most of the shops terrains are later used for local and big tournaments .

It's not that important to me, really. But the people I play with are generally interesting in testing lists out. They want the table to approximate competitive conditions. So, yeah, randomization it is.

No one in my area is going to play on a table where infantry move 6+D3. I'd give it a try, though. It's not like C:SM/BA are winning anything anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:

Dunklezahn wrote:So the argument being put forward by Martel and Redbeard is that their opponents and in fact themselves given their predilection to terrain "gaming" cannot be trusted but put aside their bias and create a fair, interesting and exciting battlefield and it skews the game... be better people.

It's possible that people who are disagreeing with you are whiny jackasses who need to learn how to be polite in public and play the game "correctly". My guess is that if you actually read what people were saying, you'd find that the arguments are more sophisticated than that.

You might find, for example, arguments about how lots of terrain can be harmful, not helpful to assault armies. Terrain gives cover, but it also always slows down infantry units, either because you're going through it, or you have to waste movement swerving around it. What you gain in cover saves, you lose in time. Meanwhile, if your opponent is playing a gunline with lots of vehicles or MCs (or units with MSM, or even infantry, who aren't likely moving, and thus aren't likely suffering from being slowed by terrain) don't care about this movement penalty. Once again, mech gunlines will actually like terrain, what with being faster already than infantry, and terrain making them even faster still. A vehicle with dozer blades can move 18", and plow over terrain that's causing assaulting infantry to move effectively D6" through. Or wave serpents that basically completely ignore the rules for cover (and so can zip over and focus-fire against mired infantry) while the other player isn't.

And LOS blocking terrain is really cool... unless your opponent brings barrage weapons, in which case they WANT LOS-blocking terrain. It makes leafblowers BETTER able to dismantle assault armies, not worse.

Your argument that you just need more terrain to make assault work isn't nearly as valid as you think, especially when you then go in and add in rules that explicitly hurt assault units with regards to terrain that don't hurt shooting at all, like needing frag grenades all the sudden, and rolling 3D6 and choosing the lowest two when assaulting into or too close to terrain.

That or everyone else is just playing the game wrong and you're just right so there. Whatever.

Well, there's this, too. The Wave Serpent is just criminally under-costed, and as it pointed out here ,it's dubious how much terrain actually helps against Eldar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd also like to reiterate that assault wasn't good at the end of 5th, and 6th made it even worse. In fact, it's so much worse that it's a primary reason the BA are currently the worst list in the game.

I only started around the 3rd quarter of 5th, and the only time I saw assault be very strong, was when it was used as a part of an army, rather than the over-arching theme,

 Redbeard wrote:

Not at all, it offers two choices, both of which are equally valid. And, it provides the more definitive version as being the go-to method if there is a disagreement.

It does offer two methods however it also says if Narrative fails use Random. That implies you started with Narrative or it couldn't fail in the first place.

It's not an attack, I've repeatedly said play however you want, but if you and your opponent can't agree to work together long enough to place terrain in a way that you both find acceptable that's a pretty poor way to start a game and to me it speaks of a potentially unpleasant few hours to follow.

 Redbeard wrote:
and anyone who uses the rules must be a WAAC gamer, there's no point to continuing.

Hyperbole and you know it. I suggested people who actively game the terrain deployment rules having flat ignored working with their opponent to create a balanced, thematic battlefield have more interest in winning that making the game fun is no stretch at all. You yourself have suggested using the rules to deploy terrain to favour yourself having ignore the Narrative rules that would stop you.
It's not an ad hominem attack to say I would have zero interest in playing a game like that regardless of how you take the comment.

 Ailaros wrote:

It's possible that people who are disagreeing with you are whiny jackasses who need to learn how to be polite in public and play the game "correctly". My guess is that if you actually read what people were saying, you'd find that the arguments are more sophisticated than that.

Funny how I didn't say that about anyone huh. Regardless of what theoryhammer you put together I'm telling you I play games with plenty of LOS blocking terrain and melee is still going strong. Nothing you can say makes that any less true. We covered that a page ago.

Therefore the sweeping statement that 6th is the death knell of melee is false. We aren't using weird house rules or anything so it's the game.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, it fails every time in my experience.

And I find that really sad (upsetting rather than the offensive version to clarify), despite what Redbeard and Ailaros may think that's not a personal attack, I just think you're missing out. The game really has so much more to offer when played in that spirit in my opinion.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

It's not an attack, I've repeatedly said play however you want, but if you and your opponent can't agree to work together long enough to place terrain in a way that you both find acceptable that's a pretty poor way to start a game and to me it speaks of a potentially unpleasant few hours to follow.

You're ignoring the fact that both you and your opponent could choose, voluntarily, to use the alternating method as both parties may well believe that it leads to a fairer distribution of terrain. Maybe our version of working together is to say, 'ok, let's use the random distribution rules', and get on with the gaming...

It's not an ad hominem attack to say I would have zero interest in playing a game like that regardless of how you take the comment.

That is correct. It is an ad hominem attack to suggest that anyone who likes playing with the random terrain distribution rules is a WAAC gamer.

I play both ways, and believe there are times and places for each method. Neither is inherently superior to the other, neither is better than the other, nor given special status (explicit or implied), and to claim otherwise simply shows your bias.

Now I agree with you that both are fine but to be fair - you were equally biased if you glance back at your post?

It seems to me that the rulebook gives precedence to the alternating method, and that the narrative terrain is included in case people want to tell a story.

All the rulebook does is give more Rules for the alt method - not say its better /standard - indeed, it seems to me that the GW set out from the start to say its a narrative game and this is the rules for playing - now lots of you dont want to play that so here is alt rule set for making random terrain.

Not sure how random equates to fairer by the way - its just random.

Now there is a third way - to set out as local tournaments do it - which near me tends to be pretty open tables - which suits some of my armies and not others........... I really can't see though how the Shooty armies can complain if there is some blocking terrian - for me ideally in a tournament you would get to play on both open and cluttered boards - bit more of a challenge but its seldom the case.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Now I agree with you that both are fine but to be fair - you were equally biased if you glance back at your post?

It seems to me that the rulebook gives precedence to the alternating method, and that the narrative terrain is included in case people want to tell a story.

I stand by that, not as a bias as which I prefer, but as a statement of fact. If two gamers meet, with no knowledge of each other beforehand, and one wants to play with narrative terrain, and the other wants to play with alternating terrain, the rulebook clearly states to go with alternating.

 Redbeard wrote:

I stand by that, not as a bias as which I prefer, but as a statement of fact. If two gamers meet, with no knowledge of each other beforehand, and one wants to play with narrative terrain, and the other wants to play with alternating terrain, the rulebook clearly states to go with alternating.

Soooooo... If we play on a full-forest battlefield, I roll Scryer's Gaze for my Eldar and then I say that we should use the forests as Mysterious Forests and you are like "Hell no! My Orks would be screwed!" then I can force you to play it my way (or concede on the spot) just because it is in the rulebook? Wow...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the amount of LOS block terrain, when considering that since most LOS blocking terrain is also impassible then an assault unit hiding behind it is also not advancing towards the enemy, and the shooting armies have no reason to come to you.

Ruins and hills certainly aren't impassable, and ruins are arguably the most common LoS-blocking terrain. Furthermore, if you're hiding objectives behind them, the shooty enemy will have to do something other than sit around his deployment zone and shoot. Similarly, if you hide bikes, cavalry or something similar behind impassible terrain they'll dodge one turn's worth of shooting and still be on their merry way to the enemy.

That's true about ruins and hills, but the player has to either go the long way around to get the most out of the LoS blocking or though/over to move faster (if only slightly) and is now getting shot at

With objectives, that goes both ways. If the shooting army has more objectives on their side, then they only have to stay still and dare the assaults to come at them.

And I completely agree with the bikers and cavalry, but then those are the few assault units that actually survived as well from the transition to 6th

 Redbeard wrote:
That is correct. It is an ad hominem attack to suggest that anyone who likes playing with the random terrain distribution rules is a WAAC gamer.

Except that's not my problem, I said play however you like repeatedly as long as I don't have to play you, my problem is one of your first responses to the idea was this:

 Redbeard wrote:
You're looking at an average of 2 pieces of terrain in each of the two center 2x2 board sections. Assuming your opponent goes first, and wants a big LOS blocker in the middle of the table, he puts down something large right there. Then, you take a non-LOS blocker, like a big crater or lake, and put it 5" or so from his piece. Because he cannot place another piece within 3" from either of those two, you've got the width of your crater, plus about 5" on either side clear.

That's exactly whats wrong with the random system in a nutshell. It's gaming the terrain rules to try and tip the odds in your favour. It's far easier to game that system in favour of shooting armies so by deploying like that, shocker, you create a shooters game. Tell me that crater added anything to the theme or aesthetic. It was put there to favour the shooting troops you planned on putting to look through that gap.

Because it only takes one player to veto Narrative deployment both gamers must work together, it becomes a compromise, there are assault avenues, there are fire lanes and as a result both aspects can thrive. To me, that makes for a better game and shows a nice level of mutual respecs for each others time. In my eyes it would cut down the amount of threads and posts of people complaining about what a shooting game 6th is.

Now there will be some who flat prefer Random, and that's fine (I still feel it's a fallback method behind narrative but lets agree to disagree on that) but I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority play it exactly as you posted, an opinion that has only been reinforced by the comments in this very thread. Setting up terrain is one of the first things the players do, introduce yourselves, shake hands maybe, then set up. If your opponents first thought is to how he can create the most unbalanced terrain features to aid his force rather than to thinking about making a fun game for all involved, I'd personally rather walk away from the table, and I feel my 40k gaming has been made better for it.

"It's far easier to game that system in favour of shooting armies so by deploying like that, shocker, you create a shooters game. "

It's not just the board set up. There have been a lot of nerfs to assault. Assault wasn't that good back in 5th with 25% terrain.

 Ailaros wrote:

Dunklezahn wrote:So the argument being put forward by Martel and Redbeard is that their opponents and in fact themselves given their predilection to terrain "gaming" cannot be trusted but put aside their bias and create a fair, interesting and exciting battlefield and it skews the game... be better people.

It's possible that people who are disagreeing with you are whiny jackasses who need to learn how to be polite in public and play the game "correctly". My guess is that if you actually read what people were saying, you'd find that the arguments are more sophisticated than that.

You might find, for example, arguments about how lots of terrain can be harmful, not helpful to assault armies. Terrain gives cover, but it also always slows down infantry units, either because you're going through it, or you have to waste movement swerving around it. What you gain in cover saves, you lose in time. Meanwhile, if your opponent is playing a gunline with lots of vehicles or MCs (or units with MSM, or even infantry, who aren't likely moving, and thus aren't likely suffering from being slowed by terrain) don't care about this movement penalty. Once again, mech gunlines will actually like terrain, what with being faster already than infantry, and terrain making them even faster still. A vehicle with dozer blades can move 18", and plow over terrain that's causing assaulting infantry to move effectively D6" through. Or wave serpents that basically completely ignore the rules for cover (and so can zip over and focus-fire against mired infantry) while the other player isn't.

And LOS blocking terrain is really cool... unless your opponent brings barrage weapons, in which case they WANT LOS-blocking terrain. It makes leafblowers BETTER able to dismantle assault armies, not worse.

Your argument that you just need more terrain to make assault work isn't nearly as valid as you think, especially when you then go in and add in rules that explicitly hurt assault units with regards to terrain that don't hurt shooting at all, like needing frag grenades all the sudden, and rolling 3D6 and choosing the lowest two when assaulting into or too close to terrain.

That or everyone else is just playing the game wrong and you're just right so there. Whatever.

It's almost as if the game requires you to weigh tactical decision, make difficult choices and adapt to changing circumstances.

Dunklezahn wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
You're looking at an average of 2 pieces of terrain in each of the two center 2x2 board sections. Assuming your opponent goes first, and wants a big LOS blocker in the middle of the table, he puts down something large right there. Then, you take a non-LOS blocker, like a big crater or lake, and put it 5" or so from his piece. Because he cannot place another piece within 3" from either of those two, you've got the width of your crater, plus about 5" on either side clear.

That's exactly whats wrong with the random system in a nutshell. It's gaming the terrain rules to try and tip the odds in your favour. It's far easier to game that system in favour of shooting armies so by deploying like that, shocker, you create a shooters game. Tell me that crater added anything to the theme or aesthetic. It was put there to favour the shooting troops you planned on putting to look through that gap.

Yes, that's correct. But, the designers know that's the way it is, and even justify it, by saying that a good general would be selecting terrain in their favour. It's all on the same page. Whether you like this or not, it is the designers intent - they even say as much. With that in mind, it's no different than random charge length or overwatch. These things all work together to create a shooters game.

... If your opponents first thought is to how he can create the most unbalanced terrain features to aid his force rather than to thinking about making a fun game for all involved, I'd personally rather walk away from the table, ...

I don't see it that way, precisely because if both players are attempting to create terrain that benefits their force, then the result is that setting up terrain becomes part of the game, not a pre-game activity. Once you accept that placing terrain is as much a skill of a general as moving soldiers, it's easier to let it be part of the game. Look at the great generals of history, and you'll see a track record of picking where they fought. The 300 at Thermopylae bottlenecked their opponents. Hannibal had a knack for pinning his opponents against the water, such as at Trebia and Trasimene. Getting there first, getting the high ground - these are common themes in military history. This is what the random terrain method is supposed to reflect. If you're a better general than your opponent, you'll get the edge in terrain placement.

Once the dice start rolling, you're not holding back to make the game easier for your opponent, are you? Why should terrain be any different - placing it is part of the game with this method.