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 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.