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.

 azreal13 wrote:

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.

Yes, and a 20 inch long 4+ coversave with extra "go to ground" bonus coversave for only 50 points ISNT considered cheese in your gaminggroup? You just field this thing because you like painting it? right...

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 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."

It's legal to do many things in life, doesn't make some of those things less of a dick move if you do them. Whining "but I'm allowed to" won't alter my opinion of you one bit.

Tell you what, I'll play the game in a way that I feel is honourable, fair to my opponent and enjoyable. You play the game your way and lets leave it at that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

shogun wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

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.

Yes, and a 20 inch long 4+ coversave with extra "go to ground" bonus coversave for only 50 points ISNT considered cheese in your gaminggroup? You just field this thing because you like painting it? right...

Actually I would only field it to bring a quad gun for flyer defence. I own one but am yet to actually field it. Besides I don't consider something your opponent can negate by WALKING AROUND IT to be particularly cheesy, no.

 azreal13 wrote:

It's legal to do many things in life, doesn't make some of those things less of a dick move if you do them. Whining "but I'm allowed to" won't alter my opinion of you one bit.

Tell you what, I'll play the game in a way that I feel is honourable, fair to my opponent and enjoyable. You play the game your way and lets leave it at that.

Very well, agree to disagree. But you should lose the holier then thou attitude.

Back onto topic.

Now, knowing that an ADL can be somewhat nullified by terrain placement, AND assuming that the opponent will utilize this strategy, is it still worth it to take an ADL for the offchance of games with sparse terrain, or something similar? I was thinking about running one on a TAC list, but now knowing this I'm not so sure.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

Very well, agree to disagree. But you should lose the holier then thou attitude.

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.

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

It's legal to do many things in life, doesn't make some of those things less of a dick move if you do them. Whining "but I'm allowed to" won't alter my opinion of you one bit.

Tell you what, I'll play the game in a way that I feel is honourable, fair to my opponent and enjoyable. You play the game your way and lets leave it at that.

Very well, agree to disagree. But you should lose the holier then thou attitude.

Back onto topic.

Now, knowing that an ADL can be somewhat nullified by terrain placement, AND assuming that the opponent will utilize this strategy, is it still worth it to take an ADL for the offchance of games with sparse terrain, or something similar? I was thinking about running one on a TAC list, but now knowing this I'm not so sure.

Don't, by the sound of your gaming group you'll have a bastion in front of it, and lethal terrain behind it

 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.

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.

Firstly, going "na na, I win" is categorically the single most childish thing I can recall reading on these forums for some time, possibly ever.

Secondly, you are quite correct, you didn't call me anything directly, but by implication you certainly did.

Thirdly, I do not ignore the rule, I simply show restraint in its application, I believe that it's a dick move no matter how legal it may be. Were I to encounter someone who chose to do this, I'd take it on the chin and play the game, but you be damn sure that I wouldn't let them get away with a thing for the whole game. I probably wouldn't play them again.

But I do agree with one point, I also am done arguing, you clearly have the (subjectively) 'wrong' attitude and we're not going to see eye to eye.

trollimus_maximus wrote:I'm done arguing. You lose, good day sir.

You basically call someone a child and then you post something like this; pot calling the kettle black don't you think?

Er while i don't agree with trollimus_maximus attitude (cause hes trolling) and i think placing terrain like that is unsporting. I do think that the Defense line is worthless. After all 25pts more and you have a bastion which brings with it 4 heavy Bolters, AV14 and a good vantage point over the battle field.

 Tri wrote:
Er while i don't agree with trollimus_maximus attitude (cause hes trolling) and i think placing terrain like that is unsporting. I do think that the Defense line is worthless. After all 25pts more and you have a bastion which brings with it 4 heavy Bolters, AV14 and a good vantage point over the battle field.

Y'see, this is a point I can get on board with and discuss.

Personally I prefer the ADL as its indestructible and is a more effective cover as I move up, don't have a huge number of units that benefit from staying static, so something that could cover my advance for some distance is more appealing. Plus I find a big wall in my deployment zone reassuring!

I take an ADL in the tournaments I go to because they play with terrain density 1 on each square. Which Is flat out stupid. So I take it for the added protection. If someone slaps big terrain in front of it, I'm happy. One more large terrain piece on my side.

To reply to the original question:
ADL is worth it for most non-MEQ armies. It costs less than most dedicated transports and offer's better survivability for its cargo (especially GEQ)
All three of the add on's have their perks. But even naked, the ADL is well worth its points if you have the need for it, tanks, troops, what have you.
Of note, the ability to re-roll reserves is great for heavy outflank/deep strike armies. You can re-roll either failed or successful rolls for 20 points.

The defense line has become a common sight with my army on the field. (I play a line with a coms array, no turrets)
Thankfully the folks around here play a more casual style and terrain is almost always set by narrative or random dice roll.

ADL is great, totally use it.

That said, the arguments in this thread mirror those I had in another thread about parking 6 chimera sized vehicles ontop of a skyshield landing pad. Suffice to say, I thought that was cheese.

Legal vs fair is not the right explanation though; rather, the philosophies of playing 40k can be accurately described in the terrain set up instructions of the 6th ed rulebook.

The set up instructions in the rulebook are pretty much the best way of explaining both ways of playing 40k; if you wanna be proper legal about everything, use method 1. If you prefer to have a more interesting game, use method 2.

In the same way, 40k can be played two ways; either all in the book is allowed, or mutually agree on things that are and are not allowed. ULTIMATELY, and this is very important, if both players agree, it's as good as written.

 Shadelkan wrote:
ADL is great, totally use it.

That said, the arguments in this thread mirror those I had in another thread about parking 6 chimera sized vehicles ontop of a skyshield landing pad. Suffice to say, I thought that was cheese.

a great tip for all Tyranid players: buy 3x1 sporemine clusters and deepstrike them before deployment on top of a bastion, landingpad or behind the ADL to screw up deployment.

I know literally no one who uses the rule book terrain placement. Tournaments or casual terrain is set up 1st. The rule book way is ridiculous anyway.

As for refusing to play: I would. You're not going to have a fun game against someone who does stuff like that. Nor would that kind of person shake your hand when they inevitably lose.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Tri wrote:
Er while i don't agree with trollimus_maximus attitude (cause hes trolling) and i think placing terrain like that is unsporting. I do think that the Defense line is worthless. After all 25pts more and you have a bastion which brings with it 4 heavy Bolters, AV14 and a good vantage point over the battle field.

Y'see, this is a point I can get on board with and discuss.

Personally I prefer the ADL as its indestructible and is a more effective cover as I move up, don't have a huge number of units that benefit from staying static, so something that could cover my advance for some distance is more appealing. Plus I find a big wall in my deployment zone reassuring!

I guess i just face too many armies with flamers, or other ranged cover ignoring weapons, to see much of an advantage. Also getting a little height normally lets me negate the cover the Defense line is giving; Letting you snipe (focus fire) models that get to more then 2" from it; sure characters gets lookout sir but even then you've still negated the 4+ cover-save.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

You basically call someone a child and then you post something like this; pot calling the kettle black don't you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKG07305CBs

It's a line from a movie, I didn't mean it in a literal sense. It would be the same thing as me saying "Checkmate", "Bazinga" or any one of hundreds of phrases associated with the ending of a contest. I'm glad people around here have a sense of humor . Again, I'm not trolling, it just gives me a sick sense of amusement to play devil's advocate, even when I'm wrong. As for my name... I really couldn't think of anything else at the moment when I made this account.

 Griddlelol wrote:
I know literally no one who uses the rule book terrain placement. Tournaments or casual terrain is set up 1st. The rule book way is ridiculous anyway.

As for refusing to play: I would. You're not going to have a fun game against someone who does stuff like that. Nor would that kind of person shake your hand when they inevitably lose.

As I made the same argument to the man before you, just because the rules are stupid doesn't mean you can ignore them. The people at my FLGS follow the rules to the letter and I intend to as well. Why have rules otherwise? If I feel like all shooting attacks should automatically hit should I be allowed to play this way in a competitive environment? What makes that argument any less valid then yours? Even if you are doing narrative placement the fortifications have to be on the board first, that's the rules. If your tournament is doing it otherwise then it's an illegal tournament, the same way a tournament that houseruled "all shooting attacks automatically hit" would be.

Hyperbole aside. I certainly would use terrain placement to block your ADL, and I certainly would shake your hand if I lost. Just as I would play against someone who spammed 3 squadrons of manticores on top of a skyshield pad with a smile, because that's the game my friend, and taking your army men and going home because you don't like it is not the right answer to a list/tactic you can't beat IMO.

The argument that someone shouldn't put a building in front of your ADL because "that's stupid" isn't going to fly here. I'm making the assumption that both players are doing everything in their power to win within the rules, as in any competitive gaming environment.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
As I made the same argument to the man before you, just because the rules are stupid doesn't mean you can ignore them.

No, but when the game completely breaks because of the rules it means you can ignore them. If we use the book rules your entire deployment zone is going to be lethal terrain. Every fortification you bring will be placed inside a bucket where it can't do anything. Still think it's even worth unpacking your models?

The simple fact is that as-written the terrain rules are nothing more than a race to see who can be a complete TFG first and break the game. Either you make house rules to avoid them, or you have to settle for unwritten social rules that you never actually play according to RAW. I know which one I think is the better choice.

 Peregrine wrote:

but when the game completely breaks because of the rules it means you can ignore them.

If I really wanted to be a jerk, I could argue all day that no, you can't ignore them even if they break the game. If GW wanted to fix it they would release a FAQ fixing it. As of right now it seems the rules are working as intended.

But it seems I'm not convincing anyone so I'm going to stop trying. I don't understand how people can houserule this so lightly. It would be different if the rules didn't dictate how terrain was supposed to be set up, but they do.

Back on topic again: Is an ADL worth it if an opponent is just going to put a building in front of it to block LOS?

trollimus_maximus wrote:
But it seems I'm not convincing anyone so I'm going to stop trying. I don't understand how people can houserule this so lightly. It would be different if the rules didn't dictate how terrain was supposed to be set up, but they do.

Because you can't play the game otherwise.

What part of "if you don't house rule it I'm going to make your entire deployment zone lethal terrain" is so hard to understand? The choices are either change the rules, or reduce the game to a contest of who can come up with best TFG exploits with custom-built terrain dedicated to breaking the game.

The ONLY reason the system is "working" is because most people have an unwritten rule that you don't play it by the book. And when there's a unanimous unwritten rule to do something it's time to just make it an official policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Back on topic again: Is an ADL worth it if an opponent is just going to put a building in front of it to block LOS?

No, because the ADL is going to be sitting inside an upside down bucket.

 Peregrine wrote:

What part of "if you don't house rule it I'm going to make your entire deployment zone lethal terrain" is so hard to understand? The choices are either change the rules, or reduce the game to a contest of who can come up with best TFG exploits with custom-built terrain dedicated to breaking the game.

Then that's the game until GW decides to fix it.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, because the ADL is going to be sitting inside an upside down bucket.

Thank you.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
Then that's the game until GW decides to fix it.

Or until everyone ignores people like you and changes the game to something more sensible. Which, in my experience, is what everyone does. Every game of 6th I've played or seen played has been with 5th edition style terrain setup.

 Peregrine wrote:

Or until everyone ignores people like you and changes the game to something more sensible. Which, in my experience, is what everyone does. Every game of 6th I've played or seen played has been with 5th edition style terrain setup.

Again with the bashing... I don't understand why people are treating me like hitler for wanting to follow the rules as they were written. If you don't want to that's fine. But don't condemn me or "lol I'm not playing you" because I want to actually play the game how it was intended. If you don't like the rules, find someone who will agree with your house rules or don't play the game, and don't shun people for actually doing what's written in the rulebook.

Personally I belive if your going to place a piece of terrain like that in front of someones ADL then thats just unsportsman like and I dont personally agree with it, but in saying that if thats going to totally ruin your game plan then you really dont have a good game plan do you? sorry btw i havnt read any comments since the first like 7

trollimus_maximus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Or until everyone ignores people like you and changes the game to something more sensible. Which, in my experience, is what everyone does. Every game of 6th I've played or seen played has been with 5th edition style terrain setup.

Again with the bashing... I don't understand why people are treating me like hitler for wanting to follow the rules as they were written. If you don't want to that's fine. But don't condemn me or "lol I'm not playing you" because I want to actually play the game how it was intended.

There was no bashing in that post; did you even read it? Also, you said it yourself in your other threads trollimus; you're new to 40k. I think that's a defining factor in our choosing which side of this argument to be on.

trollimus_maximus wrote:
If you don't like the rules, find someone who will agree with your house rules or don't play the game

This is precisely what everyone has been already been doing/saying they're doing. Peregrine even explicitly said it. It's possible you just aren't paying attention to what were saying.

Additionally, we don't shun people who use the rules, that's not our point; our point is that given the choice of playing or not against someone who is unsportsmanlike, we will choose not, as will many others; eventually, the unsportsmanlike player will be left with no one to play, unless he's learned to play differently. It doesn't matter if you believe that is unfair; it's a game, and short of tournaments, we can very easily not play people if we don't want to. "You're being TFG who only plays people can demolish," is a stupid counter point by the way.

PS: There's a hundred players who'd rather smudge or ignore rules for every player who wants to play with unsportsmanlike methods. Don't start spouting that we, the "deniers" will run out of people to play in turn, as it's unlikely.

it would be a genuine pleasure to play against you 40k needs more people like you sir

Once you and your opponent accept that Games Workshop rules writers are basically incompetent at writing rules, you end up having a far more enjoyable time playing with your toy sodjers

thats not true, we wouldnt even have a game without them. tell me whats so bad with GW's rules? im honestly over people complaining about the people that invented the game that we play and without those very people we wouldnt have it, infact this whole website wouldnt exist now would it?

There's two versions of the rules for setting up terrain in the BRB. One, is the aforementioned process where you roll for terrain density and take turns placing, the other is a 'narrative' setup where the opponents just set up terrain and agree beforehand... they could literally agree on anything.

So it is not in the rules that you have to set up terrain only one way. If you play with someone that needs to do it the first way because they thing they need to put terrain in front of a fortification, well that is just dumb. It is also against the spirit in which GW wrote those rules.

@ Shadelkan

Saying that players should "ignore people like you" certainly is bashing,

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. I will be the first to admit I lack experience in gameplay tactics and strategies. Perhaps this is coloring my opinion on this. It doesn't help that I am a hardcore stickler for the rules in ANY game I play not just this one. I'd honestly rather not play then bend the rules, but that's a personal philosophy.

"Unsportsmanlike" is a relative term. Placing terrain to neutralize the advantage of a fortification doesn't strike me as unsportsmanlike, merely competitive.

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. You either come to a compromise with him, or beat him at his own game. Placing terrain for advantage isn't nessecarily "unsportsmanlike". Socially stigmatizing people who happen to have different gameplay philosophies IS certainly "unsportsmanlike".

The fact that there are "hundred players who'd rather smudge or ignore rules" is very disturbing to me. You might as well throw the rulebook out the window if you are going to be so cavalier. Again, maybe it is my inexperience speaking on these matters, but I have presented my viewpoint to the best of my ability and have gotten nothing except unexplained hostility, and counter-arguments backed by "that's just how I feel, and it's how everyone feels" in return.

If GW didn't want the game to be played in this way they would fix their rules.

 Meade wrote:
There's two versions of the rules for setting up terrain in the BRB. One, is the aforementioned process where you roll for terrain density and take turns placing, the other is a 'narrative' setup where the opponents just set up terrain and agree beforehand... they could literally agree on anything.

So it is not in the rules that you have to set up terrain only one way. If you play with someone that needs to do it the first way because they thing they need to put terrain in front of a fortification, well that is just dumb. It is also against the spirit in which GW wrote those rules.

Doesn't matter. In both terrain setup options fortifications must be on the table first. BRB p120