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.

Question in the thread title.

A lot of people are talking about how an Aegis line isn't worth taking because your opponent will just plop a building/obstruction in front of it during the terrain set up phase and completely ruin your sight line. Or put lethal terrain right behind the ADL so you can't use it.

Is an ADL a waste of points for this reason or is it still worth taking?

They are totally worth taking. If you place fortifications after terrain and move if anything is in the way.

According to the BRB, fortifications must be placed before terrain. If you are doing it any other way it's against the rules.

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.

Incorrect, there are 2 ways to place terrain according to the rules. using alternating placement, or narritive placement. Both are legal according to the rules.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
A lot of people are talking about how an Aegis line isn't worth taking because your opponent will just plop a building/obstruction in front of it during the terrain set up phase and completely ruin your sight line. Or put lethal terrain right behind the ADL so you can't use it.

That's just plain TFG behaviour, is it not? I wouldn't feel bad to just up and say "Not playing you anymore.", I wouldn't even care if he called me a rage quitter, because seriously, while that is totally legal, it's also a very crappy thing to do in a game meant to be casual fun.

On topic though, I think it all depends on your army and the list you run. My DE army is a fast moving raiders/venoms-immediately-crashing-and-everyone-on-my-side-dying-because-I-can-only-roll-terrible-for-myself army, I have nothing to camp on my side of the table behind the ADL, so it's worthless for me. But I'd say most armies could benefit from ADL, it provides a huge cover save, an AA gun, and it's reasonably cheap to bring.

I'm sorry sir, you are incorrect.

Pg 120 BRB under "Set up fortifications"

"players must place any fortifications they have in their armies before placing any other terrain."

This is before mentioning the two types of techniques for placing OTHER terrain, and in fact, under "alternating terrain" technique on the same page it says...

"Pool all of the terrain peices you have available, and that you wish to use this game. The only exceptions to this are fortifications that have been purchased as a part of the player's army - these will have already been deployed."

Baronyu wrote:

That's just plain TFG behaviour, is it not? I wouldn't feel bad to just up and say "Not playing you anymore.", I wouldn't even care if he called me a rage quitter, because seriously, while that is totally legal, it's also a very crappy thing to do in a game meant to be casual fun.

Regardless, it's legal, and I see a lot of people doing it. If not for WAAC, just for the lulz.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

Baronyu wrote:

That's just plain TFG behaviour, is it not? I wouldn't feel bad to just up and say "Not playing you anymore.", I wouldn't even care if he called me a rage quitter, because seriously, while that is totally legal, it's also a very crappy thing to do in a game meant to be casual fun.

Regardless, it's legal, and I see a lot of people doing it. If not for WAAC, just for the lulz.

Agree with trollimus. What's wrong with it if it is a legal strategy? It's like me not playing a game because I brought 1 Land Raider and see you have too many melta guns. I like how WAAC now means playing by the rules.

I personally don't take ADL's but believe they can serve a purpose for an army. If your whole strategy gets screwed up by someone placing a building in front of your fortification, maybe you should rethink it's purpose.

WAAC has always been playing by the rules, I thought... Yes, I can place a bunch of terrains on the horde player's side of the table to stop him from deploying properly, and it might be "fun" for me if I'm that kind of person, but personally, I prefer beating them on the table on even ground, and not by abusing rules to gain an advantage. But of course, I don't play in tourneys and I play against my friends, so being a TFG in that environment is social suicide!

50pts for a 4+ save, 2+ if you go to ground, really helps many races, particularly the non MEQ's.

If you're fielding the Quad Gun, Their viability depends quite a bit on what what's shooting them - but anything with bs3 and better will yeild results. A Fire Dragon exarch is just obscene, though.

In general, a fantastic piece - that chance to shoot down a flier on the turn it arrives, or at least force it to Evade so that it can only snap fire, is tremendously useful.

 Kharrak wrote:
50pts for a 4+ save, 2+ if you go to ground, really helps many races, particularly the non MEQ's.

If you're fielding the Quad Gun, Their viability depends quite a bit on what what's shooting them - but anything with bs3 and better will yeild results. A Fire Dragon exarch is just obscene, though.

In general, a fantastic piece - that chance to shoot down a flier on the turn it arrives, or at least force it to Evade so that it can only snap fire, is tremendously useful.

Too bad you can't use it if you have any kind of building/LOS blocker, or lethal terrain on the table, because your opponent will place them so that they marginalize your fortification.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 Kharrak wrote:
50pts for a 4+ save, 2+ if you go to ground, really helps many races, particularly the non MEQ's.

If you're fielding the Quad Gun, Their viability depends quite a bit on what what's shooting them - but anything with bs3 and better will yeild results. A Fire Dragon exarch is just obscene, though.

In general, a fantastic piece - that chance to shoot down a flier on the turn it arrives, or at least force it to Evade so that it can only snap fire, is tremendously useful.

Too bad you can't use it if you have any kind of building/LOS blocker, or lethal terrain on the table, because your opponent will place them so that they marginalize your fortification.

Too bad he can choose to place his army back in the box and not play the person

 Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Too bad he can choose to place his army back in the box and not play the person

If you ragequit against every opponent who does something you don't like you aren't going to have very many people to play with. Do you quit against opponents whose lists counter yours too? When you are rolling bad? Placing terrain for advantage is not only legal by the rules but encouraged.

Anyways... back to my original point. Knowing that an ADL can be marginalized by terrain, is it worth taking?

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Too bad he can choose to place his army back in the box and not play the person

If you ragequit against every opponent who does something you don't like you aren't going to have very many people to play with.

If you put giant buildings in front of every opponent that brings an ADL, you aren't going to have very many people to play with.

OT: Love your user name.

 kronk wrote:

If you put giant buildings in front of every opponent that brings an ADL, you aren't going to have very many people to play with.
OT: Love your user name.

I'll have more people to play with then someone who whines like a sissy when someone does something completely legal (and encouraged) by the rules to beat them.

As for my name, thanks. Believe it or not I'm not trolling, I just REALLY like playing devil's advocate.

Its this fictional '20” lethal terrain' piece that's ridiculous. Deploying cover or dangerous terrain near the ADL is a jerk move, but legit. Bringing a big piece of essentially impassable terrain to place inside the adl is plainly unsportsmanlike, but would also be impossible if the adl is enclosed or mostly enclosed.

A skyshield is just as bad with the 4+ invulnerable for tanks parked on top.

You also can't place anything within 3" of the ADL, or any terrain piece, so if its entirely encircled its going to be almost impossable to place something nasty inside it.

What we have here is a line between playing legal and playing fair.

If you place terrain to neutralise the ADL as talked about you have no right to take any satisfaction from any victory you may subsequently achieve.

Play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play for God's sake.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 kronk wrote:

If you put giant buildings in front of every opponent that brings an ADL, you aren't going to have very many people to play with.
OT: Love your user name.

I'll have more people to play with then someone who whines like a sissy when someone does something completely legal (and encouraged) by the rules to beat them.

As for my name, thanks. Believe it or not I'm not trolling, I just REALLY like playing devil's advocate.

"Whines like a sissy" isn't a clever or nice thing to say. I'd avoid that in the future. I'm not trolling here either, or getting upset, so dial it down a notch.

As far as "encouraged" by the rules, you're really pushing that. The rules do allow for terrain to be placed after the Aegis. You absolutely can place terrain in front of it. Knock yourself out! Congrats! You got me on that one. But if you do that every time I bring a ADL, you're not being very sporting. They paid the points, purchased the model, and painted it up for the game. Never letting them use it is certainly borderline antisocial behavior, man.

My buddies that I play with are certainly competitive, but they have class. I'm sorry if the people you play with treat each other that way. That doesn't sound fun at all to not get to use your models.

reps0l wrote:
What's wrong with it if it is a legal strategy? It's like me not playing a game because I brought 1 Land Raider and see you have too many melta guns. I like how WAAC now means playing by the rules.

This isn't like using a Landraider against too many meltas. If it were, your Landraider would not be able to move and have a very minimal arch of fire. As for your WAAC = playing by the rules, no. WAAC is abusing rules to your advantage and playing as ruthlessly as possible. The point behind placing fortifications before terrain is to ensure there is enough room for them, not so you/your opponent can cover them up. While you see this as nothing wrong as it is not against the rules, there is equally nothing wrong with your opponent flooding your deployment zone with dangerous/impassible terrain. It would be more akin to you bringing a Land raider army and your opponent using terrian to make it impossible/exceedingly difficult for those Landraiders to leave your deployment zone while they pelted you with barrage.

If you truly believe WAAC means "playing by the rules" you will quickly find yourself only playing against others like yourself; the players who believe fun can only be obtained by winning, or more importantly, beating your opponent as completely as possible. Don't bother telling me how you like a challenging opponent instead of a pushover. WAAC play-style dictates you make your opponent as much of a pushover as possible. If you like a challenge, you would not cover your opponent's fortification, use terrain placement to your distinct advantage or only use tournament-grade net-lists/codices. You would instead strive to set up an even board, try unproven lists and have a good match. Just think about that one kid who always beat you hands down in that one game. Wasn't much fun was it? Chances are you loathed playing against him/her and otherwise avoided doing so. Yep, WAAC does that.

Historically, GW's terrain rules are often disregarded. In casual play people just put stuff till it feels good. In tournament play, the TO places the terrain first and then allows players to skootch stuff to allow Fortifications to fit.

And I don't know anybody that uses their terrain generator in Fantesy all the time. I used it once, it didn't work so well.

There's already an existing thread on this matter which can be found here.

 kronk wrote:


"Whines like a sissy" isn't a clever or nice thing to say. I'd avoid that in the future. I'm not trolling here either, or getting upset, so dial it down a notch.

As far as "encouraged" by the rules, you're really pushing that. The rules do allow for terrain to be placed after the Aegis. You absolutely can place terrain in front of it. Knock yourself out! Congrats! You got me on that one. But if you do that every time I bring a ADL, you're not being very sporting. They paid the points, purchased the model, and painted it up for the game. Never letting them use it is certainly borderline antisocial behavior, man.

My buddies that I play with are certainly competitive, but they have class. I'm sorry if the people you play with treat each other that way. That doesn't sound fun at all to not get to use your models.

I wasn't referring to you when I said "whines like a sissy". Please accept my apologies if it seemed that way.

But I certainly would call someone that if they wouldn't play me because of something (completely legal according to the rules) I did to win. I play to have fun, someone who quits at the first sign of adversity is not fun. I will not cheat, I will be gracious in victory and humble in defeat, but I will do everything within my power and within the rules to win. Such is the nature of the sportsman and how I play the game.

Calling someone a "cheeser" or "unsportsman" for utilizing something within the system to win is like a 12 year old on COD screaming about "noobs" and "campers".

Your avatar needs more cowbell.

If only I knew how to add more cowbell, then I would make it so!

People are over reacting and forgetting a lot of details.

Narrative terrain is an option.

Terrain density is rolled before fortifications are placed. Drop and aegis in a 2 by 2 with a density of 1 and no further terrain pieces can be placed in that 2 by 2.

The player with the aegis has a 50/50 of being the 1st to set down terrain.

Fortifications are terrain, and terrain features must be 3" appart. Pre measure available pieces of terrain. If the piece that you don't want in front of the aegis is 4" wide place a different piece of terrain 9.5" from the aegis. Now the 4" wide terrain piece can't be placed between the terrain piece you just placed and the aegis without being within 3" of another terrain piece. Rivers make an excellent moat when placed 8 or 9" in front of an aegis.

 kronk wrote:
If only I knew how to add more cowbell, then I would make it so!

You have DCM, add cowbell to your title?

 azreal13 wrote:
What we have here is a line between playing legal and playing fair.

If you place terrain to neutralise the ADL as talked about you have no right to take any satisfaction from any victory you may subsequently achieve.

Play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play for God's sake.

No, simply no.

Dont buy the ADL if its useless against every opponent with half a brain. Better yet, try to make the best of it en play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play. I play to win and thats fun for me. Thats why I play against others that feel the same. its like chess to me. If my opponent makes the right moves and beat me I got a great game and try to learn from it. If an opponent whines about the fact that its 50 point defense line got blocked, he should be ashamed of himself.

shogun wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
What we have here is a line between playing legal and playing fair.

If you place terrain to neutralise the ADL as talked about you have no right to take any satisfaction from any victory you may subsequently achieve.

Play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play for God's sake.

No, simply no.

Dont buy the ADL if its useless against every opponent with half a brain. Better yet, try to make the best of it en play with some bloody integrity and a sense of fair play. I play to win and thats fun for me. Thats why I play against others that feel the same. its like chess to me. If my opponent makes the right moves and beat me I got a great game and try to learn from it. If an opponent whines about the fact that its 50 point defense line got blocked, he should be ashamed of himself.

Wow...

You clearly lucked out with your gaming group, as with my group that attitude would have you sat in a corner by yourself within a week. There is a line between competitive and cheese, and you and I seem to be on different sides of it.

I know arguing realism or logic is always a shaky thing to do with 40k, but what force would ever build an replacements on top of a lava pit or or behind a hill?

Hanith wrote:
While you see this as nothing wrong as it is not against the rules, there is equally nothing wrong with your opponent flooding your deployment zone with dangerous/impassible terrain.

This is where terrain density comes in. If every piece of terrain is fortress bastion sized, both players are to blame.

 azreal13 wrote:

Wow...

You clearly lucked out with your gaming group, as with my group that attitude would have you sat in a corner by yourself within a week. There is a line between competitive and cheese, and you and I seem to be on different sides of it.

I know arguing realism or logic is always a shaky thing to do with 40k, but what force would ever build an replacements on top of a lava pit or or behind a hill?

How is playing to win within the rules "cheese"? Again, I find myself reminded of 12 year olds on COD screaming "noob camper! that's not fair!".

It's like the guy said earlier in the thread. If your strategy is nullified by someone plonking down a building in front of your fortification you need to seriously rethink how you play.

If it's legal, it's a fair move. IMO Anyone who says that's "unsportsmanlike" is simply a whiner trying to justify their own lack of ability to deal with the situation. "Unsportsmanlike" is when I punch you if I lose... or laugh in your face if I win. "Unsportsmanlike" is NOT: playing the game within the rulesets given to us by GW.

If you want to blame someone, blame GW for writing horrible rules. "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Cant you adjust terrain pieces around at the end of terrain placement so long as both players agree?
Obviously if you couldn't come to some sort of compromise about the final placement than looks like you'll be looking for a different opponent rather quickly.