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.

 TheCaptain wrote:

List tailoring is generally considered a Waac behavior. When getting the win supersedes having a good all around list; especially when the flyer player has a good, untailored, all around list, is not very fair. This is because it is up to the player to decide what lists are powerful enough to tailor against, by this logic. I could claim an Ork foot-horde is too overpowered and just swap out all my flyers and tanks for manticores and basilisks.

The moral gray area around list-tailoring is why it is unacceptable generally. I always offer my opponent to adjust his list when he finds out I am fielding flyers; but doing so without permission is a cheap, dirty win. Unless you let your opponent tailor back. Which further becomes a game of "who can tailor against a specific list" rather than "who is the best player with the best list"

40k is a game of rock paper scissors. Every unit counters things, and is countered by things. It is up to a good list writer to bring the right rocks, papers, and scissors to make his list work. If you know your opponent is bringing 90% rocks, how is it fair to swap out all your scissors for papers?

It resembles cheating

List tailoring happens even for balanced lists. Unless you think bringing a list suited for your local tournament meta isn't list tailoring, or that buying a list that you know will give your local players fits when you buy a new army is boarder line cheating? Though if that is the case this is hardly a discussion worth having.

If your opponent always brings a list that is 90% one unit and he keeps crushing you with it then tailoring to beat that list should be expected. Bringing more AA from FW when your current army hasn't been fully updated for 6th might be a bit extreme, but I can see why people would do it. The same goes for beating a maxed out green tide, these are lists that will dominate in friendly games, but that will likely fall flat in competetive play for various reasons.

Absolutely. Bringing flakk to fight flyers is a smart thing to do, but when you add flakk to a list that doesn't usually bring it so that you can better handle your opponent's flyers, then take it out next game when you're fighting a foot-list, that's tailoring. My example with the manticores vs. green tide shows why tailoring is unfair if it is one-sided and not agreed upon.

Not really. If a real army knew they were fighting in an area with a low chance of air cover do you think they request an AA battery be broufght up to cover them? Likewise if they were fighting a tank swarm they would try and get as much anti-tank weaponry as possible. Now this won't always be possible in a protracted campaign (ie tournament) but in lower intensity combat (friendly play) it seems reasonable.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I am the Walrus!

No, I think you'll find that I am the Walrus.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I am the Walrus!

No, I think you'll find that I am the Walrus.

ok I guess that makes me the Eggman

sirlynchmob wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I am the Walrus!

No, I think you'll find that I am the Walrus.

ok I guess that makes me the Eggman

can we get back on topic please?

 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.

Actually, I've always thought that gunline armies required the least amount of thinking.

I've always thought that a good player is one who knows how to deal with terrain, rather than setting up a line of guns who have uninterrupted LOS to the whole field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 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?

So it's not ok for your opponent to place the terrain to give them an advantage, but it is ok for you to change terrain to give you an advantage?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:


Tailoring lists is so not-bro.

There was no assertion that Jidmah would tailor his list.

He stated that if you were going to bring a Thunderbolt, then he would be able to bring IA units as well. He then pointed out the IA units that he could bring to the table. That's not tailoring; that's merely showing what options he has available to him if he's allowed the same list building criteria that you are.

Makumba wrote:

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

and unless you can somehow live out of being sponsored playing w40k , then it isnt a sport , so sportsmanship doesnt cover w40k games.

dont play armies that require use of foritification to counter flyers . I mean your opponent may as well be whining about not getting +4 cover in 6th ed . Rules are rules and placment of big terrain in front of AA guns is legal .

LOL. Hey, to each his own. If your idea of "fun" is slavishly FOLLOWING RULES (THERE ARE RULES, DAMN IT!) instead of, you know, engaging in an enjoyable game of toy soldiers with friends, then more power to you, I guess! But please don't ask me to play with you. I find refusing to play with people awkward and uncomfortable

Take care!

One way to counter this in-game could also be to use that massive, over-sized terrain piece to your advantage: Hide the most juiciest unit you have behind it if you can and make the flyer flank round to get it; this really works well if it's a scoring unit on an objective hidden behind the tower as your opponent has effectively traded 50pts for 3 VPs.

Also keep in mind that if he wants to keep out of sight of that quad-gun all game he's going to have to hover eventually - leaving him vulnerable to other sources of anti-tank.

Iranna.

Complaining about it is really an excuse for being either incapable or reluctant to out-think your opponent.

The way I see it, if your opponent places a huge wall in your lines, then use it! If they throw a giant piece of terrain in front of my Aegis, then as an Imperial Guard player, I know exactly where my Manticores are going...

40k isn't a tactical simulation. It's a game. If you think of it as chess, then nothing should be construed as "douchey" unless you like losing...

 Iranna wrote:
One way to counter this in-game could also be to use that massive, over-sized terrain piece to your advantage: Hide the most juiciest unit you have behind it if you can and make the flyer flank round to get it; this really works well if it's a scoring unit on an objective hidden behind the tower as your opponent has effectively traded 50pts for 3 VPs.

Also keep in mind that if he wants to keep out of sight of that quad-gun all game he's going to have to hover eventually - leaving him vulnerable to other sources of anti-tank.

Iranna.

You're so naive! Why think of an elaborate solution / reaction when you can cry and run around yelling "WAAC! TFG! BOOHOOO!" all the time?

Well, flame war aside, the terrain system IS counter-intuitive.

Defences are as a rule set up to maximise effectiveness. It is also quite absurd to place Hills and rivers after defensive lines as said deffenses would naturaly be set up in a way to utilise these areas.

If you read the entries for the aegis and bastion you can see that they are either a) pre-fabricated stuctures, set up shortly before battle or b) long standing pre-planned and well maintained deffences.

personaly I think its just another example of porly thought out GW FUBAR, but thats just my opinion.

easy ways around it:

1) dont use fortifications, if your army needs them then theres something wrong with your list (or your codex needs updating). The only reason they are in the book at all is so GW can make more money.

2) have a third party place the terrain

3) or, my favorite, set the fortifications up after the rest of the terrain. While often un-necisary, fortifications can be fun. This way allows you to "Strategicaly" place terrain and then adapt to the terrain "Tacticaly" if you wish.

4) use narative setup

Personaly I would only ever use alternating terrain placement RAW if neither side has defences, generaly because of the amount of gripe-ing and moaning that happens when you put a 3 story basilica in front of a quad gun. Its not un-sportsman-like but it is a little cheap, maby even a little douchey.

now for those of you reading this going" yeah, its not un-sportsman-like, its strategic thinking", Its still not plessant to play against. In fact it is you who might want to think about changing your play style. If you want to think "strategicaly" then identify it as a target and try to neutralise it in a non-d'bag way.
I have seen people out played "strategicaly" when people go "oh, you put a quad gun there, I'm gunna put the bugest most Imposing piece of terrain right in front of it", this then resulted in a gunline having 3 out of 4 large terrain pieces in their deployment zone and then massacring the army sent against them since the entire army had at least a 4+ cover save.

If you want short advice, just do what you think is fun and in the spirit of the game. If something seems counter-intuitive to you have a discussion with people at your FLGS and If they concur then change the rule for your game (most people at my FLGS hate the fortication before terrain thing so 99% of the time we switch it or use narrative).

I will now end post and grab my fire-proof suit against the enevitable flaming.

 TheCaptain wrote:
The 5 flakk trukks. Assuming you don't run them now (which I'll safely assume)

I don't run them now, because Forgeworld rules are all but common in my area. If my opponent announced that he would use forgeworld models, I would definitely bring them, because of all the flyers and flying monstrous creatures everywhere, I'm almost guaranteed to meet them. You know, for the same reason everyone is packing an ADL with a quad-gun now. Unlike Hydras, flakka trukks are still of some use when not pointed at flying models, because the difference in BS2 and BS1 is not that big.

I'd also like to point out that you're making assessments about my playing style based on things sprung from your imagination and then attacking me about it. I'm bringing exactly three pre-printed lists whenever I go to a store to pick up people to play. One is 1500, one 1750 and the last one 2000 points. They are all "tailored" to face any army in the game.

 Lord Commander Phyrus wrote:


3) or, my favorite, set the fortifications up after the rest of the terrain. While often un-necisary, fortifications can be fun. This way allows you to "Strategicaly" place terrain and then adapt to the terrain "Tacticaly" if you wish.

That's a MASSIVE boost to fortifications as they allow you to virtually ignore any LOS-blocking terrain..and that certainly isn't taken in regard when their point costs were calculated.

@Sigvatir: while I understand the point your trying to make, I have to disagree with you. Its not realy a 'MASSIVE' advantage to place stuff where its actualy usefull. Its like saying that putting a heavy weapons squad on elevated terrain is a MASSIVE advantage for the same reason. And while 40k is not strictly a tactical simulation there should be a certain ammount of common sense used when placing stuff (to use the example before, you generaly dont place a flak gun where it cant hit anything).

One thing that seems to have been forgotten is the ability to make special anti-fortification terrain. So what if you brought a quad gun, I brought a special "hill" that is a cylinder that fits around a quad gun* and completely blocks line of sight from it. Unfair, you say? Hardly. The book clearly states that you pool ALL available terrain, which includes my special fortification killers. Your only hope is that you get to place your terrain first, and you roll a 1 on the terrain count for your fortification's square.

Now, this might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not exactly difficult to imagine people building terrain models that are easier to use in blocking LOS from opposing fortifications. For example, putting a second floor on a ruin, boarding up the windows to block LOS, etc. The best solution is to simply deploy all terrain before anyone rolls to choose deployment zones, ensuring that both players are motivated to create a fair and balanced terrain layout.

*Don't worry, I also have special blocking terrain for any other fortification, and a nice 48" wall to put across your deployment zone. I hope you brought skimmers.

 Sigvatr wrote:
That's a MASSIVE boost to fortifications as they allow you to virtually ignore any LOS-blocking terrain..and that certainly isn't taken in regard when their point costs were calculated.

Sure it was, it was just offset by the massive point reduction given to boost sales of terrain kits.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Not really. If a real army knew they were fighting in an area with a low chance of air cover do you think they request an AA battery be broufght up to cover them? Likewise if they were fighting a tank swarm they would try and get as much anti-tank weaponry as possible. Now this won't always be possible in a protracted campaign (ie tournament) but in lower intensity combat (friendly play) it seems reasonable.

And if my flyer-heavy army knew that your AA units would be in the area, then they would hold the flyers back (or at least limit them to high-altitude attacks outside of what 40k shows) and deploy ground forces/drop pods/etc to take out the AA before the flyers arrive in the next battle. Game-wise I'd switch the flyers for tanks and laugh as your STR 7 skyfire guns fail horribly to do anything against AV 12-14. And then of course since they're no longer under threat of air attack, your army would trade its AA for something more useful. And then my army would notice that your AA is gone, and send in the aircraft...

See the point here? List tailoring strongly favors the person who gets to tailor last. Either you get an infinite cycle where neither player is willing to let the other get the last word and the game never happens, or one person has to settle for playing a standard list while the other gets to list tailor. And when you add in the problem of having models available, that advantage is going to go to the person who hauls their entire collection to the game store, has more money to buy everything in the codex to tailor a dozen different ways, etc. The only way to resolve the problem that is fair to both players (and still allows a game to happen) is for both players to bring standard all-comers lists created before knowing which opponent they will be playing against.

 Lord Commander Phyrus wrote:
Well, flame war aside, the terrain system IS counter-intuitive.

Defences are as a rule set up to maximise effectiveness. It is also quite absurd to place Hills and rivers after defensive lines as said deffenses would naturaly be set up in a way to utilise these areas.

If you read the entries for the aegis and bastion you can see that they are either a) pre-fabricated stuctures, set up shortly before battle or b) long standing pre-planned and well maintained deffences.

personaly I think its just another example of porly thought out GW FUBAR, but thats just my opinion.

easy ways around it:

1) dont use fortifications, if your army needs them then theres something wrong with your list (or your codex needs updating). The only reason they are in the book at all is so GW can make more money.

2) have a third party place the terrain

3) or, my favorite, set the fortifications up after the rest of the terrain. While often un-necisary, fortifications can be fun. This way allows you to "Strategicaly" place terrain and then adapt to the terrain "Tacticaly" if you wish.

4) use narative setup

Personaly I would only ever use alternating terrain placement RAW if neither side has defences, generaly because of the amount of gripe-ing and moaning that happens when you put a 3 story basilica in front of a quad gun. Its not un-sportsman-like but it is a little cheap, maby even a little douchey.

now for those of you reading this going" yeah, its not un-sportsman-like, its strategic thinking", Its still not plessant to play against. In fact it is you who might want to think about changing your play style. If you want to think "strategicaly" then identify it as a target and try to neutralise it in a non-d'bag way.
I have seen people out played "strategicaly" when people go "oh, you put a quad gun there, I'm gunna put the bugest most Imposing piece of terrain right in front of it", this then resulted in a gunline having 3 out of 4 large terrain pieces in their deployment zone and then massacring the army sent against them since the entire army had at least a 4+ cover save.

If you want short advice, just do what you think is fun and in the spirit of the game. If something seems counter-intuitive to you have a discussion with people at your FLGS and If they concur then change the rule for your game (most people at my FLGS hate the fortication before terrain thing so 99% of the time we switch it or use narrative).

I will now end post and grab my fire-proof suit against the enevitable flaming.

I have no doubt that there is a rules-design reason that fortifications are set up before terrain. I don't know what it is, but i'm sure there is one, and i can probably have a guess..

Say someone pays 200+ points for a fortress of redemption. You set up the terrain first... so your oppenent scatter his terrain across your deployment zone.. Suddenly, you go to set up your fortress.. and theres no room in your half if the board for it.. you need to leave it out the game, meaning you now play with 200pts less?? Or do you start to remove the terrain you spent 20 minutes putting out?

Reallistically, the only way to prevent this, is to have the fortifications set up, and the terrain deployed around it.

It all depends on how terrain is set up. There are 3 types a to might use.

The entire discussion is an irrelevant moot point if the game is played with narrative terrain. No terrain is ever moved by players have fun with a quad gun. Many TOs will prefer narrative because it speeds a tournament up.

With by the book terrain placement odds are good that one of the 2 by 2 board sections will have a terrain density of 1. That's where the quad gun goes, it takes up the terrain density, and your opponent can't place a big piece directly in front of the quad gun. There is an 85% chance that either 1 of 3 sections is a density 1 or you get to place the 1st piece of terrain so the opportunity to drop a building in front of a quad gun should only happen in 15% of games.

Table density is the 3rd type of deployment a to might use. It's WHFB rules, streamlined for speed, and a steaming pile of gak if you're counting on an aegis. The system is a pool of terrain features on the table with no 2 by 2 density. Leave the quad gun at home if it's table density with no 2 by 2.

Narrative - mutually set up table in a balanced fashion, randomly select sides for deployment (dice off etc) and then put down your bought and paid for fortifications.

Hetelic wrote:
Say someone pays 200+ points for a fortress of redemption. You set up the terrain first... so your oppenent scatter his terrain across your deployment zone.. Suddenly, you go to set up your fortress.. and theres no room in your half if the board for it.. you need to leave it out the game, meaning you now play with 200pts less?? Or do you start to remove the terrain you spent 20 minutes putting out?

Unfortunately, the easiest solution is to simply ban the fortress. As you noticed, the physical size of the model is way too big for something that could appear in every game of 40k you play (potentially up to four of them!). Bastions and aegis lines don't have this problem, the models are small enough that you'll always be able to find space for it, even if it's not in the absolute most ideal location.

 Peregrine wrote:

Hetelic wrote:
Say someone pays 200+ points for a fortress of redemption. You set up the terrain first... so your oppenent scatter his terrain across your deployment zone.. Suddenly, you go to set up your fortress.. and theres no room in your half if the board for it.. you need to leave it out the game, meaning you now play with 200pts less?? Or do you start to remove the terrain you spent 20 minutes putting out?

Unfortunately, the easiest solution is to simply ban the fortress. As you noticed, the physical size of the model is way too big for something that could appear in every game of 40k you play (potentially up to four of them!). Bastions and aegis lines don't have this problem, the models are small enough that you'll always be able to find space for it, even if it's not in the absolute most ideal location.

Funny, I think the easiest solution is to play as the rules are written.

Gangrel767 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Hetelic wrote:
Say someone pays 200+ points for a fortress of redemption. You set up the terrain first... so your oppenent scatter his terrain across your deployment zone.. Suddenly, you go to set up your fortress.. and theres no room in your half if the board for it.. you need to leave it out the game, meaning you now play with 200pts less?? Or do you start to remove the terrain you spent 20 minutes putting out?

Unfortunately, the easiest solution is to simply ban the fortress. As you noticed, the physical size of the model is way too big for something that could appear in every game of 40k you play (potentially up to four of them!). Bastions and aegis lines don't have this problem, the models are small enough that you'll always be able to find space for it, even if it's not in the absolute most ideal location.

Funny, I think the easiest solution is to play as the rules are written.

RAW the fortress goes down before terrain, so there is always room for it.

we solve the problem of alternative terrain by having a 3rd person place the terrain for us. we just do the old 25-30% of the table terrain rule and then place aegis and then someone else places the pieces to make it narriative. It's been working ok for us

Gangrel767 wrote:
Funny, I think the easiest solution is to play as the rules are written.

Except we're already talking about NOT playing the rules as written, since the context of the statement you quoted is how to deal with the fortress when you place it after terrain. In that case the easiest solution is to just not use the huge terrain models that require you to move everything around to clear space for them.


(And of course if we're playing RAW, I get to bring my fortress-cover bucket and your fortress is useless).

Could I just point out that placing the ADL where a 1 was rolled for terrain density doesn't work. As per p120, you place the fortification, then roll for the number of pieces.

I would also point out that according to the rules that you can't place an ADL on top of a hill because it would then be within 3" of another piece of terrain.

Cheers

Andrew

real simple for me, over come, adapt and don't use terrain that cost me points. If I want to use an ADL, I steal it from my opponent.

RAW, setup terrain in several different ways, don't like one way use another.

 AndrewC wrote:
Could I just point out that placing the ADL where a 1 was rolled for terrain density doesn't work. As per p120, you place the fortification, then roll for the number of pieces.

I would also point out that according to the rules that you can't place an ADL on top of a hill because it would then be within 3" of another piece of terrain.

Cheers

Andrew

The restriction is 'not within 3" of another fortification' isn't it? Rather than 3" of a piece of terrain.

Actually, according to P120 it's both.

Cheers

Andrew

Hmm 3" rule...

Section A is 1 long and 1 short has an aegis behind it.

Section B is 9-10" in front of section A and to the left

Section C is 9-10" in front of section A and 8-9" in to the right of section B.

Terrain pieces are more than 3" wide, usually more than 4". It's now impossible to place terrain between the aegis sections, and the closest a piece of terrain can get to the aegis is 12-13" to the front of the aegis.