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.

Sportsmanship is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors.

Unsportsmanlike conduct is a foul or offense in many sports that is not necessarily a violation of the respective sport's rules of play, but violates the sport's generally accepted rules of sportsmanship and/or participant conduct.

(stolen from wiki so don't need to type much ^_^)

My point is something doesn't need to be wrong with rules for a move to be unsporting. In a Tournament setting (assuming there is one where you place your own terrain) you would get marked down for acting like this. A judge probably wouldn't agree with it either and i know my gaming group would laugh and then some would just the terrain around for a better game.

 Tri wrote:
Sportsmanship is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors.

Unsportsmanlike conduct is a foul or offense in many sports that is not necessarily a violation of the respective sport's rules of play, but violates the sport's generally accepted rules of sportsmanship and/or participant conduct.

(stolen from wiki so don't need to type much ^_^)

You make a good point but it's all relative.

I could technically argue that placing terrain for advantage doesn't "violates the sport's generally accepted rules of sportsmanship and/or participant conduct." especially if my opponent is doing the same thing against me.

American football has clear definitions of unsportsmanlike conduct outlined in its rules, and penalties for infringement. The BRB of warhammer 40k has no clear definition of "unsportsmanlike" conduct is in regards to "generally accepted rules"

Can you make the argument that placing terrain for advantage is "unsportsmanlike?" yes, and you would have a strong case. But the same way I could argue that it isn't and would equally have a strong case.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Can you make the argument that placing terrain for advantage is "unsportsmanlike?" yes, and you would have a strong case. But the same way I could argue that it isn't and would equally have a strong case.

Yes, because if you place terrain for advantage it is impossible for the game to ever progress beyond the "place terrain" stage. You place terrain, and then the game ends.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

It's a stupid rule because the opposing player can place terrain to marginalize the effect of your fortification but it's the rules regardless.

I find it stupid that you pick your side of the board before you place terrain. Surely if that's the case, there's no advantage to having a choice of board edge.

 somecallmeJack wrote:
I find it stupid that you pick your side of the board before you place terrain. Surely if that's the case, there's no advantage to having a choice of board edge.

Sure there is, what you do is shove the table up against the wall so only one side is easily accessible, then you force your opponent to play over there.

 Peregrine wrote:

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Can you make the argument that placing terrain for advantage is "unsportsmanlike?" yes, and you would have a strong case. But the same way I could argue that it isn't and would equally have a strong case.

Yes, because if you place terrain for advantage it is impossible for the game to ever progress beyond the "place terrain" stage. You place terrain, and then the game ends.

I really feel for your position Peregrine, I really do. I agree with it wholeheartedly in fact. The difference between you and I is that I'm not willing to bend the rules to "fix" the game. Because once you start bending one rule you lose the moral authority to challenge others for bending other rules.

For example, say we do it your way and ignore the terrain set-up rules. Halfway through the game you discover your opponent is using loaded dice. You get angry, and his response is "Why are you getting mad at me? You broke the rules too, why can't I? What is the basis for deciding on what rules we ignore and which rules we follow? Is it arbitrary? Is it decided by what's fun? If so, then I think using loaded dice is fun and who are you to say that I can't use them because you broke rules in the name of "fun" too."

The only way to counter this kind of behavior is to simply not play the person, but then who is the bad guy? Who says his version of the game is any less legitimate then yours?

Its easier if everyone just follows the rules laid out by GW, as broken as some of them can be. If what you say is true and it really does "break the game" then GW will fix it or lose customers.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Can you make the argument that placing terrain for advantage is "unsportsmanlike?" yes, and you would have a strong case. But the same way I could argue that it isn't and would equally have a strong case.

In many, if not most, gamimg groups this would get you labeled as TFG; where i play some one would just rearrange the board so it was fair for both of us. In a Tournaments (assuming there are some where you can place the terrain) i could well see judges marking you down.

For example, say we do it your way and ignore the terrain set-up rules. Halfway through the game you discover your opponent is using loaded dice. You get angry, and his response is "Why are you getting mad at me? You broke the rules too, why can't I? What is the basis for deciding on what rules we ignore and which rules we follow? Is it arbitrary? Is it decided by what's fun? If so, then I think using loaded dice is fun and who are you to say that I can't use them because you broke rules in the name of "fun" too."

Because you agreed before the game started to change the rule. It isn't breaking the rules if everyone playing the game agrees to play using a different set of rules. And it isn't exactly hard to figure out which rules you ignore and which ones you follow: you agree before the game begins, and you don't play against anyone who disagrees with your choice. Fortunately there is near-unanimous agreement that the terrain rules need to be changed, so people who want to change them have no problem finding games, while people like you will quickly discover that you're going to be playing solitaire 40k until you quit.

Seriously, why is this so complicated for you?

Its easier if everyone just follows the rules laid out by GW, as broken as some of them can be. If what you say is true and it really does "break the game" then GW will fix it or lose customers.

That's just stupid. You have two choices:

1) Adopt house rules to fix the problem.

or

2) Don't ever play 40k again because GW is probably never going to change this, since everyone has already done option #1.


Now if you want to stubbornly quit 40k because you were able to rules lawyer your way into completely breaking the game and GW didn't fix a "problem" that only exists for you, well, goodbye. You won't be missed.

Regardless of where the other guy places his terrian. The Ageis defence line is good because it allows you to deploy AAA. So far this is the only way that SM can get any Red Rope Rangers.

I think the tower is best though for air defence.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Using terrain placement rules to your advantage is legal, unfortunately.

You make it sound if it's the rules fault! "Sorry, it's in the rules that I can do this. Damn rules!"
Have fun with this little circle jerk you've started.

This is reminiscent of the Chinese and Korean badminton teams' tactics in the Olympics. They deliberately tried to lose to each other to avoid playing a better competitor in the next stage and therefore increase their chances of winning overall.

This is not against the RAW for badminton, however, both teams were disqualified due to unsportsmanlike behaviour at the discretion of the umpire/referee. It's exactly how I feel about the terrain placement rules you're advocating (I'm aware they're in the rule book too) as opposed to the de facto rules everyone else uses, including competitive tournaments.

On the idea that the game is not competitive, sure it can be, but the randomness makes it very hard to be purely competitive. You'll see that when at every point that matters in the game you roll ones, or your opponent rolls sixes. Chance is a major player, but that's just part of the game, and part of the fun. Sure it can be competitive, but only to a certain extent unlike video-games such as starcraft or bloodline champions where randomness is completely removed. These games therefore have cash prizes at tournaments and professional players.

One could argue that Starcraft has randomness. Random starting place, random map, random army if you so choose.

Blaggard wrote:
One could argue that Starcraft has randomness. Random starting place, random map, random army if you so choose.

Off topic, but yes, it has a very minimal amount of randomness to keep it from getting stale. The core mechanics of the game are not random.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because you agreed before the game started to change the rule. It isn't breaking the rules if everyone playing the game agrees to play using a different set of rules. And it isn't exactly hard to figure out which rules you ignore and which ones you follow: you agree before the game begins, and you don't play against anyone who disagrees with your choice. Fortunately there is near-unanimous agreement that the terrain rules need to be changed, so people who want to change them have no problem finding games, while people like you will quickly discover that you're going to be playing solitaire 40k until you quit.

Seriously, why is this so complicated for you?

Because in your system, the only way to avoid clashing with other people over what's allowed in a game and what isn't (when people don't agree), is to be an assh*t by saying "I'm not playing you then, screw you guys I'm going home".

You will have thousands of different variants of 40k, each one at each different FLGS will be a little bit different. If you can't see why that is bad for the establishment of a competitive game then I can't help you.

 Peregrine wrote:

That's just stupid. You have two choices:

1) Adopt house rules to fix the problem.

or

2) Don't ever play 40k again because GW is probably never going to change this, since everyone has already done option #1.

Why is the onus on the players to fix a broken system with houserules. Why can't the rules be written properly? I don't understand this...

trollimus_maximus wrote:

Why is the onus on the players to fix a broken system with houserules. Why can't the rules be written properly? I don't understand this...

You should ask Matt Ward that. I'm sure you'll get the intelligent and logical answer you're hoping for.

 Griddlelol wrote:

trollimus_maximus wrote:

Why is the onus on the players to fix a broken system with houserules. Why can't the rules be written properly? I don't understand this...

You should ask Matt Ward that. I'm sure you'll get the intelligent and logical answer you're hoping for.

Made me lol. I hope he does the next Imperial guard codex. Looking forward to 10 point stormtroopers with ap 2 hellguns and power armor.

And 55 point leman russes as dedicated transports, pickable by *everything*. It'll be so cash.

I gave some constructive advice a couple of pages ago that pointed out how when using gw rules terrain placement it's actually quite difficult to negate an aegis. It was promptly ignored and you guys went into hyperbole with 1 side screaming about 864 square inch pieces of dangerous terrain and how fortifications are 100% always auto lose useless, and the other side being condescending and basicly saying IFL2P nub.

If you use all the gw rules and gw terrain or terrain similar in size to gw terrain like battlefield in a box the rules and the 50 point cost of an aegis balance out well. Just go back to the fundamentals of terrain density and the 3" rule.

 schadenfreude wrote:
Just go back to the fundamentals of terrain density and the 3" rule.

But then nobody could yell at each other about a self created problem?!?! That's no fun!

 schadenfreude wrote:
I gave some constructive advice a couple of pages ago that pointed out how when using gw rules terrain placement it's actually quite difficult to negate an aegis. It was promptly ignored and you guys went into hyperbole with 1 side screaming about 864 square inch pieces of dangerous terrain and how fortifications are 100% always auto lose useless, and the other side being condescending and basicly saying IFL2P nub.

If you use all the gw rules and gw terrain or terrain similar in size to gw terrain like battlefield in a box the rules and the 50 point cost of an aegis balance out well. Just go back to the fundamentals of terrain density and the 3" rule.

A big enough building in front of a Aegis line, 3" isn't going to matter, it's still going to block LOS.

You may not be able to put lethal terrain DIRECTLY behind an ADL, but you can make it so that they have hard time utilizing it.

 alarmingrick wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
Just go back to the fundamentals of terrain density and the 3" rule.

But then nobody could yell at each other about a self created problem?!?! That's no fun!

Anymore fun and some mod with no sense of humor will...

Anyhow back on topic water features are the perfect piece to dump ahead of the aegis, preferably a river. Battlefield in a box makes a good river. Also since IG players seem to like the aegis so much the river goes great with chimera.

Right here's my two cents both used from a perspective of GW event. At my local GW terrain is set up impartially before all deployment by a thrid party, at GW tournaments all terrain is pre set and any you bring is enabled to be placed due to agreed shuffling by event organisers. Finally at my FLGS the current tournament we play in we use the terrain limits in each quarter but none of us feel the need to deploy insta win terrain. I may happen to place a corner wall L-shape piece fluch with the board edge but both me and my opponent found that a) funny and b) we didn't care as he already had 2 fortifications and 2 ruins on his side. This reallly is a non issue especially in competitive tournament play and even more so in friendly play.

OK so from the sound of it the OP is new to the game, and has little to no experience with it so let me try to explain a few reasons why the terrain placement is often not done.

Initially it starts with tournaments.

Tournaments are often played with limited time in rounds so taking time to place terrain takes away from time available to play games. As the rules say to only use Alternating deployment when you cannot agree on narrative placement this make it even tougher, because it could literally eat up 1/2 of the round placing terrain and deploying.

Tournaments in general also seek to minimize the effect that playing on different boards has on the game so that all players are playing relatively the same mission. This makes the tournament more evaluative of who is the best player, rather than who got to play on a board where there was terrain that best suited their army.

Alternating placement due to the density roll would leave some tables with far more of the terrain provided than others (unless you take out this roll at which point .

Due to this most tournaments opt for pre-placed terrain for ease of running the event.

Due to this often people want to play test under similar circumstances, so they also play preset terrain.


As for your insistence that if GW wanted to change things they would have, you are new so you don't know that generally speaking it takes them a long time to do this if they do it at all. Furthermore, they don't have a problem with it because when they don't play in a way in which someone would block off a quad gun with terrain, because the game is not competitive for them. They just want to "forge the narrative.

As for your question, Sure I would bring a ADL with gun, and then only play you using Narrative placement, and not agree to a set up where you place a hindrance to my Quad gun or ADL because it is not reasonable in a narrative that my troops would set up a gun that could not see or a barrier around the lava. There is no requirement that we ever use alternating placement (the rule book simply says we should, not we must). If you are unwilling to play unless you can hamper my Fortification we will argue about it until one of us concedes the game and goes home, or we agree that it makes little sense from a narrative standpoint that I would place the terrain in such a way as to screw my own army.

I have been playing since the 90's (tho' I did take nine years off 2003-11) and have always laid out terrain before rolling for sides. I never even bothered to read the "Terrain Placement" rules when I picked up 6th Ed, because I would simply never play that way.

I don't know anyone who plays the terrain rules. Generally, I set up the board before my opponant arrives since it's at my house. I'll have perhaps woods on the left, some ruins on the right and maybe a risky chokepoint down the center. Once i'm happy with the layout and have checked to ensure landraiders and large stuff will fit, I let my opponant choose which side he wants. That way I make the deployment zones as balanced as I can. My opponant is the type of person who would put a frigging tower in front of my ADL if I took them. It always goes the same way though. He pulls some really annoying stunt, I moan a lot, he refuses to remove it and I decide i'm going to go ahead and crush him regardless. It's been good practise to be honest because I find out about some of the cheese before heading down to the FLGS so i'm not caught off guard.

The Aegis defense line with Quad gun has found a good niche in my BA army. It establishes a good fire base. I keep 2 5 man dev squads wih ML and a plasma Tac squad wih attached apothecary behind it. It's done very well. The rest of my army is deep striking terminators, deep striking assault marines and an 8 man death co. In a drop pod.

Isn't agreeing on which terrain pieces to use beforehand also part of the rules?, if we select the pool and i see a huge block of 9" tall 9" wide on the pool I can just say nop, I don't want that there and we need to come to an agreement, if you say yes and i say no to it what goes? roll a die and see if it stays on the pool maybe?, giving it 50% chance of going away? and then if it stays i got a 50% chance that i can place it first away from the ADL

The terrain argument is also null and void in tournaments where the terrain is fixed!

How many gt are not using narrative terrain?

It's hard enough to finish a 1750 to 2k game in 135 minutes without spending time on terrain placement.

Just put it on your own side, use them as the center of a fire base and/or to protect an objective. Good choice if you have no skyfire. Also, my guardians really get a boost with a 3+ cover save.