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.

I need some help here in what I call a dick move...but others are calling "taking advantage of a rule".
Ive actually seen people almost come to blows on this to.
I know in the rulebook it says fortifications go up...then terrain (makes no sense to me). So someone will place his aegis defense line...then 1/2 the time the other player will pick up the biggest piece of terrain he can find....and place it right in front of the quad gun rendering it pretty much worthless.
It doesn't make sense to me because its described as a rapidly deployable defensive position.....why would mountains suddenly appear before it.... Ive actually called gw and they said you deploy it with our army....but some of the people I know who sleep with the rulebook under their pillows will only say "well that's not what it says".
So you guys can see the dilemma here...can anyone help me out?

I'd discuss this issue with opponents or TO before playing. If it was being handled as in the book, allowing people to do that(it certainly is a dick move), then I'd use a list that didn't include the fortification. I have been waiting for someone to bring this issue up, because the way it is written really is silly for just the reasons you've pointed out. I'm not sure if this has been FAQed or not, but it should be, imo.

In the meantime, just clarify whether you're using the book rules or a house rule for placing fortifications. If they houserule it, use your fortification. If they don't, have an alternate list ready.

Yes, as the rules currently stand, you deploy fortifications before placing scenery.

Placing fortifications with your army, or after terrain but before other deployment are common house rules, particularly in tournaments where the terrain is already on the table when you get there...

Yeah and would build a bastion behind a building or 4 story ruin? I never did like that could block aegis, Sky-shield, or Bastion? We sometimes have the store owner or 3rd party set up the terrain before hand if we think there is going to be an issue.

We never use the terrain placement rules in the book. Before we even take out our armies or find out what mission were playing we set up the board to look as realistic as possible and still making sure there's the rigt amount of terrain for the board. Then we roll everything else.

Im glad im not alone on this. Some of these guys are real dicks about it to. When i told one guys that its a kick move he actually said "oh i guess your gonna tell me firing a melta at a tank is a dick move also".
I think ill call gw and ask if there's an update or a faq on this. Ill let you know when I find out.

There's no update. It is what it is.

@tanker19:
You are by no means alone.

Also, getting a response from GW (whether by phone or email) isn't going to solve the problem. The people that answer the phone aren't known for actually knowing what the rules are and usually just try to give you what they think the answer is. We have to rely on the actual rule book + any FAQs that are released. To date, no FAQ has changed the order of terrain placement.

So, RAW, as stated by insaniak, terrain is placed after fortifications.

The problem here is even a little deeper. You start with a blank table, roll for sides and the winner picks the side. But there's no point to that as there can't be any advantage to one side or the other as the table is blank.... I just get the distinct impression that when that section of the book was written it was assumed that terrain would already be on the table; then someone noticed it said nothing about terrain and they threw a dart to see where to insert it.

That said, I have yet to see anyone use the exact setup rules as defined by the book. HIWPI: Work with each other to put terrain on the table. Then roll to see who gets to pick sides and go from there.

Just so you know, the Fortification's getting placed before Terrain is only one way of setting up terrain.

The other is setting up the terrain in a narrative fashion.

Terrain placement is not a hard absolute section of the rules.

I thought that when you set the table in the alternating terrain method that you gather up a pool of terrain that you and your opponent agree upon using for your game from all of the possible terrain that's available. One solution would be not to agree to any obnoxious pieces that you feel is unfair or unbalanced to be in the pool. Another solution would be to use the thematic or campaign set up.

That being said I'm really not sure about the first method as I've only played with the thematic set up.

clively wrote:
The problem here is even a little deeper. You start with a blank table, roll for sides and the winner picks the side. But there's no point to that as there can't be any advantage to one side or the other as the table is blank.... I just get the distinct impression that when that section of the book was written it was assumed that terrain would already be on the table; then someone noticed it said nothing about terrain and they threw a dart to see where to insert it.

You pick sides before placing terrain because fortifications have to go on your side...

 insaniak wrote:

clively wrote:
The problem here is even a little deeper. You start with a blank table, roll for sides and the winner picks the side. But there's no point to that as there can't be any advantage to one side or the other as the table is blank.... I just get the distinct impression that when that section of the book was written it was assumed that terrain would already be on the table; then someone noticed it said nothing about terrain and they threw a dart to see where to insert it.

You pick sides before placing terrain because fortifications have to go on your side...

insaniak +1

We have a pretty good gaming group and no one does this kind of crap but we do have standard procedure to deal with this when we start playing with someone new. We roll for deployment map and set up terrain on our half of the map as well as half of the no man's land. If that doesn't feel quite right to the new guy we usually set up the terrain then roll for map and decide sides then have anyone with fortifications to replace a piece of terrain on his side with his fortification.

I dont remember the last time in 14 yrs of 40k where me and an opponent followed the terrain deployment rules...

in a tourney or otherwise.

the terrains either preset, (most tourneys) or we both just agree on a balanced set up before rolling for sides.

We only used the structured setup rules once before going back to narrative terrain. You know how some games are won or lost at deployment? It seemed to exacerbate that possibility.

The way we usually do things is to assemble a quarter-table's worth of terrain and distribute it one of three ways:
1. Cooperatively, both players moving stuff and considering balance
2. A neutral 3rd party sets up
3. One player sets it up, then the other automatically chooses table sides. This one is good if one player arrives before the other.

As for the situation with people exploiting the rule to screw over fortifications, I'd suggest setting up neutrally as above, and if they're not interested in that, I probably wouldn't play them. A simple "I'm not interested in using that optional rule" might get them to at least try it the other way.

 insaniak wrote:

clively wrote:
The problem here is even a little deeper. You start with a blank table, roll for sides and the winner picks the side. But there's no point to that as there can't be any advantage to one side or the other as the table is blank.... I just get the distinct impression that when that section of the book was written it was assumed that terrain would already be on the table; then someone noticed it said nothing about terrain and they threw a dart to see where to insert it.

You pick sides before placing terrain because fortifications have to go on your side...

Plus, if you use the alternating terrain placement method, the winner goes first. This can help reduce the problem of "the dick move" if you win. Choose a small (or series of small) pieces of terrain and place them in front of your ADL. Your opponent can't place terrain within 3" of that, or your ADL, plus he must obey the terrain density dice roll. It's not a solution to the problem, but it can make it less of a problem.

ADL blocking is a bigger problem if your opponent blocks your gun emplacement, which got me hunting for any rule justification that might allow the gun to be placed at deployment rather than with the ADL at fortification placement time. I couldn't, but maybe a better rules lawyer than me could find one .

Finally, RAW it is not entirely clear that the gun emplacement is a section of the ADL (as described on p114) and hence must be in contact with the wall. This has been discussed before on the forum, but further scrutiny might open up other gun deployment possibilities.

I'm not saying that there is wiggle room with the ADL/gun emplacement deployment, but if there's any hope of avoiding the problems that crop up, the answer is going to be there (unless GW FAQ it and say that ADLs can be set up after terrain )