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.

Do you think tournaments and store games are going to be mainly set up ahead of time (terrain wise) or is everyone supposed to bring a big box of terrain with them? I would guess pre-set tables.

Do you think it will get to the point that people's terrain pieces they bring will be part of their strategy or would that be cheating in a way? Ex: Say I'm playing Tyranids and the box I bring for terrain has nothing but 100 tank traps to give me cover(not much I know) and prevent vehicles from driving around.

My guess is that terrain will be on the tables, but you will take turns placing it(after fortifications and table side is determined)

I guess terrain will be pre set up and you have to just deal with it, if you cant find a spot for the fortress thing then let your opponent move the terrain to make room for it.

In my opinion, the problem here isnt the terrain placement, it's the investing heavily and relying completely on one thing. People saw the fort, they went 'oooh that rocks' and because the terrain rules are in a totally different place you completely forgot that your LOS might be severly cut. It's stationary, the odds of it being able to shoot at everything that's relevant are low. The enemy isnt going to just park in sight and wait to get shot to bits either. It's not going to be able to cover all the objectives.

How about stuffing it full of things that have barrage or other things that dont require LOS (if your army has that) when the opponent blocks LOS? Or maybe a unit that boosts your other units like a psyker or an IC with an aura? The LOS blocking works in both directions. There has to be useful things in your codex to put in it when the LOS is blocked.

If there's anything wrong with ruins and fortifications, it's that ruins cant be destroyed. Why can a bunker collapse onto my troops while the broken skeleton of a house stands firm till judgement day? Why wouldnt a tank be able to ram itself through a ruin? Ruin rules seem completely outdated. Heck, i'd take a ruin as fortication if it were allowed.

edit: people are used to dealing with AV 14, there are several units that counter in any codex (well i hope there are, i dont know them all by heart). IG artillery will rip your fortication apart, without requiring LOS. Lascannons can penetrate it. Meltaguns glance it. Pretty much any vehcile with the name 'demolisher' rips it apart. Sure, there arent that many things that hurt it, but any army needs a way to deal with AV 14 in case they encounter it and the fortication cant relocate to stay out of harm. Fortification doesnt even get cover saves as far as i know. Units inside transports dont take damage as long as the transport stays alive but in fortification they do take damage. So many downsides. Ruins even provide the same cover save as the Aegis defence line (4+) if i read the rulebook correctly here. Defence line improves your go to the ground, ruins protect from blast and template (only one floor is hit). Only fortification in the book worth taking seems to be skyshield with it's inv save.

well yes that's a good point and I'd already considered talking to my group about a house rules: If/when a fortification is destroyed it becomes a ruin. Difference would be that units can't go inside it anymore (but can still go on top of it like a ruin) and any weapons may no longer be fired

Grugknuckle wrote:Tell me, what IS the point of rolling for table sides when the table is empty?

Well, once you know your table side, you can place terrain accordingly to give yourself an advantage, or penalise your opponent.

I mean, you've gotta work out somehow which side you'll play on. May as well dice for it.

Putting the fortifications down first seems a bit counter-intuitive though.

Kaldor wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:Tell me, what IS the point of rolling for table sides when the table is empty?

Well, once you know your table side, you can place terrain accordingly to give yourself an advantage, or penalise your opponent.

I mean, you've gotta work out somehow which side you'll play on. May as well dice for it.

Putting the fortifications down first seems a bit counter-intuitive though.

The new order of setup is clearly done just to allow a player who's bought a fortification to place it where he wants, uncaring of how it utterly screws the balance of the game when there are an odd number of objectives.

There are two easy ways to house rule it, one of which GW should have used, but didn't, apparently out of laziness or some other failure:

1. If there's an odd number of objectives, the first one must be placed in the center of the table.

2. If playing with fortifications, set up terrain normally, then, before the armies are deployed (and starting with the guy who chose DZ, if both players brought a Fortif.), each player may REMOVE one piece of terrain on his table half and place his fortification in that same zone, as long as it's outside 3" of other terrain. This preserves terrain density and gives fortification users free choice of placement, without boning the rest of the setup rules.

The funny part is taking turns to set up terrain is an alternative not the primary way.

the first is to set up table in a fun story way if both can not agree then take turns.

So really just agree how table should look

I just think it's funny fluffwise that two factions both happened to build hostile buildings just a stone's throw away from one anouther... Can just imagine those imperial laborors staring at the chaos slaves across the field as the each build there seperate giant-ass stupid huge fortressess. I suppose you could say they were both built by the same side, but one was taken over, but it just seems silly. "Ok, we just finished building this gluttonously large fortress, so now let's make one that looks just like it right over there." It's also silly in urban boards. Why are there bastions in the middle of the street? Oh, imperium!

But more OT, i'm in the camp of just setting it all up and letting your opponant move some stuff accordingly until you are both happy.

I love that placing terrain is actually recognized in 6th as something that has a significant impact on the game. How many times have you played on a table that was completely unhelpful? Planet bowling ball with no LOS blocking terrain? Or a super dense city terrain when you have brought a shooty list? With alternating terrain, you are free to build the table in a way that will help you.

For friendly games, who cares? Set the table up how you want.

Kaldor wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:Tell me, what IS the point of rolling for table sides when the table is empty?

Well, once you know your table side, you can place terrain accordingly to give yourself an advantage, or penalise your opponent.

Exactly. It's an added dimension of strategy. I find it fantastic.

Mannahnin wrote:There are two easy ways to house rule it, one of which GW should have used, but didn't, apparently out of laziness or some other failure:

1. If there's an odd number of objectives, the first one must be placed in the center of the table.

You know how many objectives there are before placing terrain, and if you did not win the roll-off, you can take a guess that three of five or two of three objectives are going to go in your opponent's deployment zone. Build terrain to make it easy for you to get there, or difficult for your opponent to defend.

Bastions are prefabricated structures. In Planetstrike there's even a Strategem that allows you to drop a new bastion down in the middle of the game.

They probably have special landers that can drop down and deploy a Bastion in a matter of minutes. Same with Aegis defense lines.

Grey Templar wrote:Bastions are prefabricated structures. In Planetstrike there's even a Strategem that allows you to drop a new bastion down in the middle of the game.

They probably have special landers that can drop down and deploy a Bastion in a matter of minutes. Same with Aegis defense lines.

I suppose I can believe that. Aegis defense line doesn't look that hard to set up, and bastions look sort of drop-pod shaped, or perhaps foldable. But the fortress of redemption? How does one drop that out a heavy cruiser's bomb bays?

Sure, the fortress of redemption would take a bit more setting up and construction than some prefab defenses.... but it still gets erected *after* the mountains and forests etc that make up the planet's landscape

first thing my opponent did last game, was place a mountain infront of my aegies. That one piece of terrain made the battle 1400 vs 1500 points.