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.

So, we're a good 7 months into 6th edition now, and I've noticed throughout that time that I have never actually seen anyone use the rulebook rules for terrain and fortification placement. Not once. At three different tournaments, several Leagues, and playing/watching many pickup games in several different stores/cities, I've never once seen anyone use the 6th edition method of "roll off for sides, deploy fortification, alternate placing D3 terrain pieces in every 2x2' board section, set objectives, roll for warlord traits". Just about every game I see has either pre-set up tables (obvious for competitive events), or people just grab terrain and ask each other if they're ok with how the board looks, then usually roll for sides and then set out objectives, and then finally during normal army deployment they set up their fortifications, with Warlord traits rolled for at some random point during the whole process.


Do you use the rulebook format or is the method I'm seeing pretty universal, or something else altogether?

We have used the rulebook method but it's pretty meh.

The closest we get to using it normally is to doll the d3s for terrain pieces, and then use that many. But we don't take it turns or anything.

I suppose at a tournament it could be important given how important terrain is in that setting.

I still haven't played a game with by the book terrain placement. Every game it's terrain by putting a decent-looking arrangement on the table, roll for table sides and first turn, deploy army + fortifications.

I like the terrain density system they have. That provides a good amount of randomness.

Then you roll for sides and place fortifications. Now you take turns placing terrain on the board till the zones are all filled up.

This creates the least opprotunity for placing terrain to screw your opponent.


You can alternativly place terrain down as normal and place fortifications afterwards, moving terrain to accomodate. This is a little more realistic.

And allow fortifications to be within 3" of other terrain pieces.

It's all we use at my gaming club, adds an extra tactical element to the game, as well as allowing you to build a themed board, that's not just a boring mirror match of the other side.

Yesterday, I played my first game with 'by-the-book' terrain placement and pre-game matter. I did use the terrain placement in an attempt to create an advantage in-game. However, this elaborated pre-game procedure makes the game take longer. Nevertheless, it was fun.

We tried the book way, but it just doesn't make much sense. When we setup the table terrain, there's usually a reason for what is out on the board.

So our format is Terrain/Traits/Sides/Fortifications/Objectives/Deployment


Example situations we do are:
Attacking/defending a major fortification. In this case we'll have Imperial Defense pieces, a couple bastions, and possibly a defense line or two on the board to begin with.

Manufatorium: Usually has around 4 buildings, and 4 or 5 tree stands. Sometimes a few hills are included. One of the buildings will be central to the table.

Space Station: We have hallways built that allow up to a dreadnought to move about. These connect to a few rooms and a launch bay.

In all cases we make sure there is both plenty of cover. Finally, if someone wants to move an existing terrain piece slightly during fortification deployment it's usually ok.

Most of my group plays at our house, we just kind of place random bits of terrain on the board usually with some kind of narrative like the fight being on the edge of a city so part of the terrain is ruins and part is forests and natural terrain and some ruined drop pods and a crashed devilfish so it's an old Space marine vs Tau battlefield. We try to make sure both sides are balanced so neither player has a larger advantage.

We also played a series of 6 person free for all kill team games that took place in a horribly unfortunate town.

Some people at the club have used the rulebook terrain method but they quickly realised that it just encouraged everyone to be well, jerks.

The method I tend to use is:

1) Set up terrain in mutually agreeable manner.
2) Roll for mission
3) Set up objectives, unless it's Emperor's Will.
4) Roll off for table sides.
5) Deploy fortifications + Emperor's Will Objectives.
6) Roll off for Deployment 1st or Second.
7) Warlord Traits
8) Deploy


It seems to be the 'fairest' way to do it in my mind.

Placing terrain after fortifications is both illogical (I imagine hills and river were in place before an engineer came along to build a bunker in the area) and offers the chance for people to be jerks. Played a few games with a mate recently and no, we don't use the rule book deployment method.

Get terrain box.

Throw like you are scattering seed's.

Turn things the right way up and think "Hm..That looks good!"

Play

That's my method at least

Using NOVA rules at local tournaments, thus no. All forts besides ADL are banned.

 Jape wrote:
Placing terrain after fortifications is both illogical (I imagine hills and river were in place before an engineer came along to build a bunker in the area) and offers the chance for people to be jerks. Played a few games with a mate recently and no, we don't use the rule book deployment method.

Quite true, but it would be near-impossible to place the Fortress of Redemption on a board with terrain already set up on it. At least that's how I guess GW came up with the order. Generally does become a bit wierd when your 'instant fortress' (ADL) ends up facing a sheer cliff and thus has no fields of fire...

I've used both methods, depending on whichever my opponent would prefer to use, but if given the choice I'll go for setting up terrain before choosing sides as this gives the most incentive to be 'fair' when placing the terrain.

 Jape wrote:
Placing terrain after fortifications is both illogical (I imagine hills and river were in place before an engineer came along to build a bunker in the area) and offers the chance for people to be jerks. Played a few games with a mate recently and no, we don't use the rule book deployment method.

On the other hand, placing foritifications first also allows other people to be jerks (like those ******** that use a Landing Pad as a firing station for 6 vehicles...).

 Compel wrote:
Some people at the club have used the rulebook terrain method but they quickly realised that it just encouraged everyone to be well, jerks.

The method I tend to use is:

1) Set up terrain in mutually agreeable manner.
2) Roll for mission
3) Set up objectives, unless it's Emperor's Will.
4) Roll off for table sides.
5) Deploy fortifications + Emperor's Will Objectives.
6) Roll off for Deployment 1st or Second.
7) Warlord Traits
8) Deploy


It seems to be the 'fairest' way to do it in my mind.

This makes pretty good sense. If you pick a side before putting anything on the table then there really isn't a point in picking a side... I'm torn about whether your steps 3 and 4 ought to be swapped though. On the one hand having the objectives out on the table first encourages more generic objective placement; on the other hand it seems that objective placement is a strategic decision that should be made once you know where your army is coming in from...

Also, I agree with others that placing terrain after fortifications results in jerk moves. Not only that but if looking at it from a "cinematic" perspective, an army is unlikely to place a bastion in a position where it's guns can't fire because a hill completely blocking LoS. In every "real life" war scenario bunkers and fortifications are built around the terrain, not the other way around.

I've never used the rulebook method either.

I prefer setting up the board then just playing, not the book method. But I've only done the book method so far in my 6th ed games. It's OK, just time consuming.

 Sigvatr wrote:
On the other hand, placing foritifications first also allows other people to be jerks (like those ******** that use a Landing Pad as a firing station for 6 vehicles...).

How is that being a jerk? It's using the fortification exactly how it was meant to be used.

He'd probably have a fit if an Appoc Game had a titan standing on it

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
On the other hand, placing foritifications first also allows other people to be jerks (like those ******** that use a Landing Pad as a firing station for 6 vehicles...).

How is that being a jerk? It's using the fortification exactly how it was meant to be used.

When someone does this it makes me smile lots, because one of my 3 mawlocs is going to hurt them.

The wife and I just arrange terrain around and then we play. If I feel there isn't enough terrain I grab something else to place around the board. Though we are still in the early stages of the hobby and are using stupid things like tissue boxes, picture frames, and books for our terrain.

I voted book way. We're not exactly following it, but we're close. We just do the table in quarters instead of 2x2 and do fortifications after terrain (who builds an ADL facing a hill?).

I tried doing the book way a couple of times, but found it way too tedious rolling for each 2x2, and then there were shenanigans with placing terrain in front of each others fortifications (seems weird that GW chose that order). In the end went back to the way I've done it since 2nd; make a board that both players think looks fair and roll for sides.