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.

Every time I take an Aegis Defense Line, it becomes much less useful because of alternate terrain deployment. I have to put down my AGL first, then my opponent will take a huge structure (e.g. two-story ruins, dilapidated bastion, ...) and put it exactly 3" from my gun. This gives his flyer a cover save when it comes in.

Is there a way to deploy my AGL that can minimize this problem?

Using terrain to beat a player is super-douchey.

I'd avoid players like this, because if that's the attitude they bring to the game, they're probably not a very good person, or a good player.

Anyone can out-terrain a gunline. Takes a good player to outmaneuver him.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Using terrain to beat a player is super-douchey.

I'd avoid players like this, because if that's the attitude they bring to the game, they're probably not a very good person, or a good player.

Anyone can out-terrain a gunline. Takes a good player to outmaneuver him.

Personal comment redacted by Mannahnin. My suggestion would be ask your FLGS if you can set up fortifications after terrain to avoid such ridiculous WAAC playing on your opponent's part. Ask other people in the group/store if they think this is an acceptable play style for your opponent. If he really feels no shame at negating your only anti flyer capabilities with a fething building, you should seriously consider putting him on your do-not-play-with list.

I think that you need to look at the defense line as more of a defensive structure than just the quad gun.

The line itself gives you a cover save and that's much more useful than the gun. The autocannon cannot reliably bring down even 1 av 12 flyer per turn. So hopefully you're bringing other things to shoot down flyers and not just relying on the quad gun.

Outside of that, I think it's a fair strategy from your opponent. If he blocks your defenses, block his. If he doesn't have any defenses, you still have the advantage of having more terrain on your side of the board. Bring more short range firepower in that case since your long range stuff might be blocked.

As for packing up and not playing. I don't think it's worth it to cut your night short simply because people are using all the rules in the book. It's annoying when people bring 3-4 flyers to the game too, but it's all part of the game now. There are downsides to both strategies.

I agree with the above two posters. What your opponent is doing isn't sportsmanlike at all.

I think it's just best to ignore the deploying terrain rule in the book and set up terrain before placing fortifications, before deploying armies. I've done the random terrain thing once and I really feel sorry for the tyranid player I was up against because we got one piece of terrian in every section except one which had three pieces.

You're better off doing the "narrative terrain" that the book suggests, which is essentially exactly how we all did it before.

I hate it when people pull this crap. I wouldn't tolerate it and would call foul. I like to win as much as the next guy, but I'm playing this game to have fun, not exploit loopholes to get a W in my ledger. I'd rather lose in a decent scrap then exercise such trickery. I say nip it in the bud and follow some of the other posters advice by checking with your gaming group to see if this is behavior you can curb and, if not, just find someone more sporting to play with until he wises up.

So, maybe we should start ignoring other aspects of the rules that don't fit the choices we make in our lists?

Glad none of you are at my flgs.

If you're playing with alternating terrain placement, this is part of the strategy of that system. You have two options.

A) Don't play alternating placement. Use the same terrain general terrain density, but have a neutral third party arrange the table.

B) If you're playing alternating placement, you need to accept that it is part of the game, and that players will place terrain for advantage, not for looks and having a cool battlefield. You then need to learn tactics for terrain placement.

Consider placing the gun further back, arranging the walls so that they stretch further in front of it, and block off the area immediately in front of the gun. The rules for the Aegis state that each wall segment just has to be in contact with one other wall segment. Place them in sections of two pieces, in a rough "V" shape- two pieces centered at the back, with the gun behind them. Two more pieces several inches in front of them, to the left. And two more mirroring them, to the right. Then more pieces in front of those. This way you create a big wide space in front of your gun where no other terrain can be placed, and give your gun better firing lanes.

Another tactic is when YOU have first placement (which is 50% of the time), to place something LOW, which doesn't block your gun's view, in that area in front of your Aegis. This keeps your opponent from putting a tall LOS-blocker there.

 Barksdale wrote:
So, maybe we should start ignoring other aspects of the rules that don't fit the choices we make in our lists?

Glad none of you are at my flgs.

OOOOH. You mean like how a large portion of the 40k community ignores 2k double force org? Yeah. Some of the rules are dumb. Alternating terrain placement is one of the more dumb ones. Yes, it's there, yes you can use it to your advantage; but being an ass about it is just as bad as being an ass about any of the other aspects of the game. Not to mention, the rule-book specifically gives an alternative method of terrain setup other than alternating terrain placement; chosing to do so isn't ignoring anything, it's taking the former of two choices presented. Not reading the rules too closely, eh? Glad you're not at my FLGS either.



For all of you counting, that's a double-facepalm.


To me, it's no different from a 10-flyer list. It might not be as bad, but it's the same "I don't care about you, and I don't want to play fair" attitude. If your list beats me because you put a brick in front of my gunline; you did not win that game. The brick did. You've out-terrained me. Woo. Real cool, dude. We'll grab a rematch, and you can try to out-terrain my 6-Valk, 3 Vendetta list.

Off-topic argument redacted by Mannahnin
Terrain placement is one of a short list of ways player skill interfaces directly with the game without needing to pass through dice first. Perhaps if you WANT more of player skill to need to pass through random elements of the game, then that's fine, but there's no way a competitive player can hold this argument.

bogalubov wrote:
I think that you need to look at the defense line as more of a defensive structure than just the quad gun.

This.

Alternately, you could just not take a quad gun.

If you want to, though, there are still things you can do. For example, you can set up your aegis in a T-shape with the gun at the bottom of the T. In this way, you are guaranteed that any terrain placed in front of your gun will be placed far away from the gun itself.

It still might block LOS to anything directly in front of it (depending on the terrain), but it greatly widens the field of fire. If your opponent is playing with a couple of flyers, you're probably going to be able to shoot at at least one of them.

Off topic argument redacted by Mannahnin

Terrain placement is one of a short list of ways player skill interfaces directly with the game without needing to pass through dice first. Perhaps if you WANT more of player skill to need to pass through random elements of the game, then that's fine, but there's no way a competitive player can hold this argument.

Plopping a wall in front of a gunline is skill?

Most tournaments have pre-set or judge-placed terrain, so there's a plenty of a way that a competitive player can hold this argument.

 TheCaptain wrote:

OOOOH. You mean like how a large portion of the 40k community ignores 2k double force org? Yeah. Some of the rules are dumb. Alternating terrain placement is one of the more dumb ones. Yes, it's there, yes you can use it to your advantage; but being an ass about it is just as bad as being an ass about any of the other aspects of the game. Not to mention, the rule-book specifically gives an alternative method of terrain setup other than alternating terrain placement; chosing to do so isn't ignoring anything, it's taking the former of two choices presented.

Mate, I didn't mean to give you a nerdrage attack. If you cannot win by following the rules, just improve your game. Use whatever terrain placement you want, as long as it is in the rulebook, or if you and your opponent want to use a houserule. Planting terrain in front of your quad gun is perfectly legal. What I'm saying is that if you are using alternating placement, you need to deal with it according to the rules, imho ofcourse. It will make you a better player overall.

TheCaptain wrote:Plopping a wall in front of a gunline is skill?

Placing terrain is skill. This just happens to be a no-brainer (like shooting lascannons at vehicles instead of hordes), but it's still in the realm of skill.

If the placement of terrain was not strategic, that implies that where the terrain is is not strategic. If terrain is not strategic, then where you deploy your forces has basically no strategy in it. The only thing that would matter would be other things, like weapon ranges. If where you put your models is basically non-strategic, that means that where your models are is basically non-strategic. If where your models are is non-strategic, then the movement phase isn't strategic either, as that's merely the exercise of picking models up from one non-strategic place and placing them in some other non-strategic place.

Really, the only thing left in the game, then would be the shooting phase, the results of which are determined by die rolls. Randomness is decidedly non-strategic.

TheCaptain wrote:Most tournaments have pre-set or judge-placed terrain, so there's a plenty of a way that a competitive player can hold this argument.

Next thing you're going to tell me, TOs are always right. Tournaments do a bunch of things screwy. Not all of them increase the ability for player skill.

In this case, it's clearly a case of trying to speed up games at the sacrifice of a strategic element.

 Barksdale wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

OOOOH. You mean like how a large portion of the 40k community ignores 2k double force org? Yeah. Some of the rules are dumb. Alternating terrain placement is one of the more dumb ones. Yes, it's there, yes you can use it to your advantage; but being an ass about it is just as bad as being an ass about any of the other aspects of the game. Not to mention, the rule-book specifically gives an alternative method of terrain setup other than alternating terrain placement; chosing to do so isn't ignoring anything, it's taking the former of two choices presented.

Mate, I didn't mean to give you a nerdrage attack. If you cannot win by following the rules, just improve your game. Use whatever terrain placement you want, as long as it is in the rulebook, or if you and your opponent want to use a houserule. Planting terrain in front of your quad gun is perfectly legal. What I'm saying is that if you are using alternating placement, you need to deal with it according to the rules, imho ofcourse. It will make you a better player overall.

Except the rulebook suggests using Narrative Terrain setup first, and then using Alternating only if your opponent won't agree on it.

Oh boy oh boy, actually, Entry #5 under alternating terrain says "players may wish to move or shuffle terrain around in order to make a more aesthetically pleasing battlefield."

Guess who wishes to move that obstruction to make the battlefield more aesthetically pleasing for my Quad-Gun?

Knock it off with the personal criticisms and hostility. The next rude comment I see in this thread earns a suspension.

There is no good reason for a discussion about our mutual hobby to get hostile or unpleasant. If you feel the desire to post something unfriendly, don't post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Getting back to the topic, there are two easy and mature approaches to the problem:

1. Don't use alternating placement of terrain. Use another mutually-agreeable method to create a balanced and attractive table. The rulebook puts Narrative and Alternating placement on equal footing. Both are valid.

2. If you're using alternating placement, accept the fact that it inherently makes terrain placement a competitive part of the game, and learn tactics for it.

 Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:Plopping a wall in front of a gunline is skill?

Placing terrain is skill. This just happens to be a no-brainer (like shooting lascannons at vehicles instead of hordes), but it's still in the realm of skill.

If the placement of terrain was not strategic, that implies that where the terrain is is not strategic. If terrain is not strategic, then where you deploy your forces has basically no strategy in it. The only thing that would matter would be other things, like weapon ranges. If where you put your models is basically non-strategic, that means that where your models are is basically non-strategic. If where your models are is non-strategic, then the movement phase isn't strategic either, as that's merely the exercise of picking models up from one non-strategic place and placing them in some other non-strategic place.

Really, the only thing left in the game, then would be the shooting phase, the results of which are determined by die rolls. Randomness is decidedly non-strategic.

Of course, last time I wrote this block of text you ignored it and continued your hypocritical nerdrage. I don't expect it to be any different this time...

So the terrain placement is strategic, and it has nothing to do with how you use it? You're telling me if there's a crater somewhere on the board that YOU didn't place, using it isn't strategic? Not to mention, asserting there is no strategy in phases other than shooting (Movement and Assault?) is just false.

And having this exact discussion with a TO, their reasoning behind using judge-placed terrain was so that no player gains an unfair advantage from non-list related elements.

It's already been seen that a list that depends on a gun emplacement for AA or one that depends on an ADL to present a solid gunline will suffer greatly from Player-terrain placement, while lists like DoA BA and Aircav don't bat an eye at it in a negative sense. It's a balance thing, AND a speed thing.

-TheCaptain

(If this is deemed rude, fine, slap me with that suspension. That was not my intention.)

 Mannahnin wrote:
Knock it off with the personal criticisms and hostility. The next rude comment I see in this thread earns a suspension.

There is no good reason for a discussion about our mutual hobby to get hostile or unpleasant. If you feel the desire to post something unfriendly, don't post.

Must...not...post...humorous flame... must...resist!

 Mannahnin wrote:
If you're using alternating placement, accept the fact that it inherently makes terrain placement a competitive part of the game, and learn tactics for it.

^ QFT. I really don't like the alternating placement of terrain myself, but I'm sure there's tricks and cunnings that can be done

I feel placing fortifications before terrain is a bit silly as the idea of building a fortification or a fixed gun emplacement would be to emphasize the defensive potential of existing terrain. For this reason alone I would allow an opponent to place it after all terrain is in place.

Apart from that, the rules are as they are. Being an IG player the Aegis is a valid option, but I think from now on I'll pass unless it is agreed the Aegis can be placed after terrain.

-------------------------------------------------

Solder: "Are you sure this is the spot, captain?"

Captain: "These are indeed the correct coordinates soldier. While I may agree this map seems a bit... ...ahem.. ..outdated.. ..our orders are crystal clear! I'm sure we'll all appreciate having a smoke in the shadow cast by these ancient ruins once we are done."

Soldier: "But how about the hill over there with clear line of sight for miles in all directions?

Captain: "I didn't build my career on disobeying orders soldier! Get to work!"

--------------------------------------------------

place a few walls pointing directly out in front of your gun. The cant place a building there if the space is already taken up.

As for the type of terrain used, simply don't let them bring absolutely huge/tall pieces into the game. The line has to be drawn somewhere for how big is too big. I'd say four or more stories is generally out of the question if both players don't agree to it. Any judges out there agree?

That's why we set our tables before the game even starts. The battelfield is not a tactically adjustable asset, skill is.

I don't understand this rule from a logical sense. Who builds fortifications and sets up fixed AA assets in a place were the gun can't fire at an approaching enemy aircraft? Do the builders think they're on a flat plain until suddenly the rest of the world loads like some old video game?

Sorry, I am not sure if this has been brought up yet or not, however I had a similar encounter and decided to look into it. The funny thing is, technically as you don't agree with the placement, I found this.

Pg 120 of the rulebook under Alternating terrain step 5:

After all terrain has been placed, players may wish to move or shuffle terrain around a bit in order to make a more aesthetically pleasing battlefield. If both players agree, you should move any terrain you wish in order to create the best looking board possible

So, while I am sure they will disagree with you, you have every right to try and shuffle that piece of terrain to "create the best looking board possible"
Obviously if he disagrees, it is still against the rules, but it might give you an argument against it other than "Hey, don't be a complete poor sport"
Other than that, I would vote with what others said, place terrain first to avoid such douchebaggery. No one should need to win by placing terrain like that, and if they don't I am sure you didn't want to play them in the first place.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Using terrain to beat a player is super-douchey.

I'd avoid players like this, because if that's the attitude they bring to the game, they're probably not a very good person, or a good player.

Anyone can out-terrain a gunline. Takes a good player to outmaneuver him.

Buyable terrain is super-douchey to begin with. I frequently use a ADL myself and yes, it tends to get out-terrained. So what? Might be news for some people, but intelligent terrain placement is part of the game too. The game starts before any models are on the table.

This type of thing is kind of what I was wondering about a few months back here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/440493.page

It's interesting to find out other people's opinions on things (and this was back in 5th) - but since then our gaming group has pretty much decided that screwing with terrain for benefit really is TFG.

Having said that, perhaps you can experiment with barrage weaponry behind this large LOS-blocking monstrosity, presuming that your army has some of course?

It's really no different than playing at some guy's place who had his table set up before the players arrived with no impassible terrain at all when playing daemons, and huge LoS-Rocks everywhere when he played his eldar.

I will dump the biggest LoS blocking piece of terrain available in the middle of the table to get more cover for my orks every game. Alternating terrain has made the battlefield part of your tactical asset.

There are ways to keep your Quad-Gun free from a lot of terrain. It's easy to place your ALD in such a way that the quad gun can still shoot a lot of things on the board. Easiest way would be creating a long rectangle from it and then putting the gun all the way in the back. this will create quite a huge corridor for your gun to shoot. Placing low terrain in front of it when going first is another possibility.

Everything in the rules is fair game. Calling a person TFG will not increase your player skill. Finding a way around it does.

It's a flaw in the terrain system. Best way to get around it is to do what we do, roll for the terrain numbers as normal per square, and get a neutral third party to then set it up.

I have never seen so many people so upset about losing the efficiency of a 50 point gun. Is your list really that dependent on that one weapon? What happens when long ranged fire kills it during the first shooting phase? If that's your only source of anti-air, you are well and truly boned to begin with. One quad-gun won't save you from the necron flying circus, nor will it even reliably scratch the paint on a single vendetta or valkyrie.

Ya'll are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially with the wildly flying TFG accusations.

Wow. Are people always this unfriendly on dakka?

It's stupid, especially since you are arguing over a game that is no longer catering towards competitive gaming. Most the new rules are clearly there to get us all buying as many models as possible, while we all create a "cinematic experience" through rich "narratives and storylines". So stop calling each other names because your little 50 point gun doesn't do what you want it to do! ha

i'd think a skilled player would be able to adapt their strategy based on random terrain placement . However the OP's situation makes that guy sound like an ass yes to win is nice but like it was stated earlier i would rather win after a hard fight than because i placed a piece of terrain in front of the enemies only AA