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.

In the rules it clearly states that fortifications are placed prior to terrain. Since the first time I saw that it's given me qualms, because if someone wants to be a jerk they can try to neutralize part of your army for free using that placement. I recently added an ADL to my army, and the first game I played the guy I was playing with tried exactly that; pulling out the tallest piece of scenery laying around and plunking it down pretty much directly in front of my quad-gun. Now, this surprised me because he's usually such a good sport and tries to avoid shenanigans like that, and when I looked at him and said "really." he promptly got a sheepish look and moved it to a less... obnoxious ... location. But, it's left me with a lingering question; is there anything in the rules I can use to prevent that sort of shenanigans? The closest thing I've found is the bit about after all terrain is placed rearranging it to fit narrative, but if someone is going to be that kind of jerk out of the box I find it difficult to see them stopping when you point to their free-negation configuration and say "my engineers aren't that big of morons."

Suggestions? (aside from packing up because I probably don't want to play with people who are that big of anti-social powergamers.)

There are two ways to place terrain. If you wish to avoid nerfing Fortifications, use Narrative Terrain placement. Narrative placement isn't a sub-set or a "rearrangement," it's a completely different (and legitimate) way of placing terrain.

This is the way my store plays it, and it's much easier all around.

silentone2k wrote:
In the rules it clearly states that fortifications are placed prior to terrain. Since the first time I saw that it's given me qualms, because if someone wants to be a jerk they can try to neutralize part of your army for free using that placement.

That's not 'being a jerk'... it's the entire point of placing terrain after fortifications.

 insaniak wrote:

silentone2k wrote:
In the rules it clearly states that fortifications are placed prior to terrain. Since the first time I saw that it's given me qualms, because if someone wants to be a jerk they can try to neutralize part of your army for free using that placement.

That's not 'being a jerk'... it's the entire point of placing terrain after fortifications.

I don't think that the intent behind placing terrain after fortifications was to prevent you from gaining any use from your fortifications. That seems kind of silly, doesn't it? Instead, I think that the order they have it laid out in just naturally has this flaw in it that people can exploit of they're feeling particularly salty.

I've only seen by-book terrain placement used when I went to the Battle Bunker in Chicago, and no one there did this. I used ADLs in two of my games there, and never had to worry about it.

At my store, we have a third party set up terrain before the game (a variant on the 'narrative terrain setup' option, I suppose) and that usually works out pretty well. In such situations, you deploy your fortifications after choosing table sides but before deployment, or at least that's how I've always seen it done. From what I've heard and seen, this seems to be the more common way to do it.

Again, I think there might be some players out there who would place towers in front of all your gun emplacements, but I think they're few and far between. I wouldn't worry about it too hard. If it becomes a problem, you may want to consider asking about some kind of alternative terrain placement system.

In any event, hope this helps!

Rule wise it can not be prevented thanks to the order of events.

The closest suggestion I have seen to trying to prevent this is to set down some 'open terrain' sort of piece. Placing down a piece of string and stating that it is open terrain would prevent people then placing terrain in that same area. If your opponent won't let you place 'open terrain' the same method can be done with a small piece of area terrain that doesn't block it. There are a ways that area terrain can be marked out, even if it does not actually contain any obscuring elements. This is because area terrain requires nothing more then a boundary marking where such terrain begins and ends for it to be valid.

This would, of course, require you to be placing the first piece of terrain or else it is moot.

Honestly, the best thing to do is talk about the order of events with your opponent and see if they will allow you to place fortifications last. It would make more sense for a fortification to be built in line with the already existing terrain, instead of terrain to be placed around a fortification. A non-jerk player should have no problem with this house rule but then you have sort of defeated the purposes with it. Such a player wouldn't be one that places terrain down to get an unfair edge over a piece of fortification in the first place. The advise still stands, talk to your opponent about how you are going to handle the placement of terrain in relation to your fortification and ensure they are not going to be jerks when it comes to placing terrain pieces.

Sadly, if your opponent wants to be one of 'those **** guys' there is nothing you can do to prevent it when it comes to abusing terrain, aside from not playing with them. I did have a sentence here that highlighted the perfect way to get back at these people but it is too mean to leave up. One thing we have to make sure, when faced against 'those **** guys' is that we don't become what we hate. No matter how much it might feel justified, if faced with such a player it might be best to considered looking for better, more friendly, players. This is just a game, and while we always should play to win, that victory should be fairly achieved to hold any meaning.

A lot of people have qualms with that.

The alternating terrain placement rules are laid out for people who can't agree on a battlefield due to them wanting the best possible advantage from terrain as they can get. The book suggests Narrative terrain placement first, and alternating placement for people who want to plop a mountain in front of your bastion.

My friends and I use Narrative placement specifically to prevent this, and my LGS (and many many others) switch(es) the order of fortification placement and terrain placement. Don't feel like you need to strictly adhere to that specific order.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't think that the intent behind placing terrain after fortifications was to prevent you from gaining any use from your fortifications. That seems kind of silly, doesn't it? Instead, I think that the order they have it laid out in just naturally has this flaw in it that people can exploit of they're feeling particularly salty.

So if not to allow players to build terrain around them if they so wsh, what purpose do you think is intended by placing the fortifications first?

It's not a space issue. If you're using the recomended 25% table coverage, there is going to be plenty of room in your half of the table to place your fortification.
It's not a tactical issue. Sure, placing terrain first would allow you to block a single potential movement avenue, but again, if you're using the right amount of terrain that's certainly not a concern.

So what am I missing? What logical reason is there for placing the fortification first, if not to give your opponent the chance to soften its effectiveness with terrain?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bojazz wrote:
The alternating terrain placement rules are laid out for people who can't agree on a battlefield due to them wanting the best possible advantage from terrain as they can get.

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

The other common viewpoint is that the game actually starts at the terrain placement step, and using this to your advantage is just a part of the strategy of the game.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

silentone2k wrote:
In the rules it clearly states that fortifications are placed prior to terrain. Since the first time I saw that it's given me qualms, because if someone wants to be a jerk they can try to neutralize part of your army for free using that placement.

That's not 'being a jerk'... it's the entire point of placing terrain after fortifications.

I don't think that the intent behind placing terrain after fortifications was to prevent you from gaining any use from your fortifications.

Yeah, blocking a gun emplacement means you get zero cover from your ADL.
Oh. Wait.

 insaniak wrote:

So what am I missing? What logical reason is there for placing the fortification first, if not to give your opponent the chance to soften its effectiveness with terrain?
...
The other common viewpoint is that the game actually starts at the terrain placement step, and using this to your advantage is just a part of the strategy of the game.

Actually, I generally agree with this assessment. I think "soften" is far to gentle a word for it, however. My (admittedly singular) experience with this would have more accurately been described as "negate" based on a single roll (for first terrain placement). There may be other places in the rules where a single dice roll can negate 100+ points of your army without you making any choices, but I don't see many of them.

Unless your opponent is placing a giant piece of circular terrain that completely surrounds your fortification and blocks it completely from view, how are they negating your fortification with a single piece of terrain...?

silentone2k wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So what am I missing? What logical reason is there for placing the fortification first, if not to give your opponent the chance to soften its effectiveness with terrain?
...
The other common viewpoint is that the game actually starts at the terrain placement step, and using this to your advantage is just a part of the strategy of the game.

Actually, I generally agree with this assessment. I think "soften" is far to gentle a word for it, however. My (admittedly singular) experience with this would have more accurately been described as "negate" based on a single roll (for first terrain placement). There may be other places in the rules where a single dice roll can negate 100+ points of your army without you making any choices, but I don't see many of them.

You don't often lose the roll to go first, do you...

The terrain density roll will prevent this 1/2 the time though.

1 piece, you're good with a 2' square of clear LOS for your gun.
2 pieces, and you go first you make sure you populate the ADL box first and you're in the clear.
2 pieces & second, or 3 pieces and then it could be an issue depending on who you're playing and if he's trying to worry more about blocking your gun or providing usefull terrain for himself.

When I was at the Chicago Battle Bunker, I saw several pieces of terrain that were more than capable of functionally blocking off a fortification from firing. At my local, where our terrain is largely homemade, there are many pieces which could be used to block off the fortification. You don't have to completely encircle it to reduce it's value to essentially nothing.

Insaniak, Rigeld, do you guys actually play like that? When you guys are down at the store playing, is this actually how you play the game? I mean, if everyone in your local community thinks that playing that way is cool, then I suppose it's just one of those things that you chalk up to differences in communities. I've just never encountered this behavior before, and haven't run into anyone who thought it was the way you were "supposed" to play the game.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Insaniak, Rigeld, do you guys actually play like that?

No. I don't play with fortification, and won't do until GW finishes their rules.


The belief that terrain building is just a part of the underlying strategy of 6th edition is certainly not uncommon, though.

I normally don't care about terrain at all and let my opponent set it up. I don't run fortifications as I can't manually fire them so it just doesn't affect me.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Insaniak, Rigeld, do you guys actually play like that?

No. I don't play with fortification, and won't do until GW finishes their rules.


The belief that terrain building is just a part of the underlying strategy of 6th edition is certainly not uncommon, though.

So if you come up against an opponent who has a fortification in his list, do you refuse to play him? Or were you just saying that you don't play with fortifications meaning you don't take them? Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, just trying to figure out how people apply this discussion in a real-world situation.



Thanks rigeld! That gives some nice perspective into your answers on this topic.

 Jimsolo wrote:
So if you come up against an opponent who has a fortification in his list, do you refuse to play him?

The only time that's going to happen is in a tournament. And the tournaments hereabout have the terrain set up first, with fortifications placed at the start of army deployment.

The group I play with casually, nobody has fortifications.

If someone really did something like this in a friendly game, and didn't laugh as they repositioned the large terrain piece, i would say good game, shake their hand and kick the square in the soft and dangly bits. That kind of jerk move ruins the fun of playing. Conversely, if it was as a part of a tournament, call a judge. It's their job to punish people for trying to abuse rules in such a manner. And if the judge let it stand...well I wear big shoes for a reason.

Kai wrote:
If someone really did something like this in a friendly game, and didn't laugh as they repositioned the large terrain piece, i would say good game, shake their hand and kick the square in the soft and dangly bits.

Yeah, nothing impresses the punters like threats of violence over the internet, over a game of toy soldiers.


So, again, what do you think the point is of setting the terrain up after the fortification if not to allow players to do just what is being derided in this thread?

Terrain is something I love, in general, but the sequence is very much broken.

I do agree with the statement that terrain should be a vital component in figuring out what tactics you are going to bring to the field. Many armies can be made or broken depending on how they use terrain, both in real life and on the tabletop. That alone means it is something that needs to be embraced, with tactics for both denying the enemy the use of terrain while enhancing your own use of terrain vital for success. This element is needed to highlight who has the best army build and knows how to use it, because they can adjust to a changing battlefield, to help balance the whole 'luck' element that is already in this game.

That is where we start to encounter a problem: With fortifications being placed first you are no longer designing your tactics to fit the terrain!

Instead you are now crippling your enemy through an 'act of god.' Thanks to the fact you have some insight on how they are going to plan out the battlefield, you can begin to take measures against them even before the battle has begun. Thanks to the skilled placement of some terrain, you can effectively cripple your enemy to the point that they are fighting against you using a much smaller army then you are. It no longer becomes whom is using the terrain to their advantage and starts becoming an up-hill battle as one side has to now start at a very clear disadvantage. This does not embrace the 'best tactics win' mentality, unless the winner is the person with the fort who manages to come back from this.

JinxDragon wrote:
They have no chance, a huge chunk of their point cost is now rendered obsolete even before a single model is placed on the table, and ...

Again with this idea.

Are people just playing against a lot of opponents who huddle their entire army behind a single hill, or something? What am I missing?

It is the fact these things cost a huge amount of points and are immobile.

An opponent whom spends so much of their valuable points, particularly in smaller games, will surely be using tactics based around the existence of these fortifications. If 'god' then plops down a mountain to block this line of sight, the fortification is effectively removed from play as surely as if it was destroyed. All before any opening shots have been fired, before a model has even been placed, you have ensured that their tactics have been rendered impotent.

It isn't the sign of a better strategic mind, but a weaker one, as you no longer have to plan how to overcome your enemies forces....

JinxDragon wrote:
An opponent whom spends so much of their valuable points, particularly in smaller games, are going to use tactics based around the existence of these fortifications.

Ok. If my opponent spends a huge whack of points on Devastators with Multimeltas, am I being shady by staying more than 24" away from them?

Part of the 'tactical' part of tactics involves accounting for the limitations of your available units. It's not up to your opponent to play into your chosen plan. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

Given that these structures are unable to move, period, they need to have line of sight over the battle in order to play a part. If 'god' then plops down a mountain to block this line of sight, they have effectively remove the fort from play before a shot has even been fired. If done right, they can be rendered so useless they just sit there for the whole game, never even firing a shot or being shot at.

That hypothetical mountain is not going to block LOS to the entire table, though. So, again, unless your opponent is spending the entire game huddling behind it, (which ultimately just lays him open to all sorts of other nastiness, in which case your fortification is serving a valuable function after all) where is the problem...?

 insaniak wrote:

So, again, what do you think the point is of setting the terrain up after the fortification if not to allow players to do just what is being derided in this thread?

To be honest, I don't know. I'm not entirely sure that there is any intent at all for terrain placement to affect fortification deployment. I think there's a good possibility it was just a mistake on GW's part, and that it didn't occur to them that some people might try to use the order of operations there to block off their opponents' guns, or even all firing points from the fortification entirely (terrain density permitting).

Having the terrain be part of the tactics makes sense, of course, but shouldn't there be some kind of narrative flow? I mean, why would the fortification-owning army build their fort with the cannon looking directly into a brick wall? I'm not saying that the intent isn't for terrain and fortifications to interact somehow, but I can't believe they intended for the 'brick wall in front of the cannon' scenario to be the way it was supposed to work.

As has been established, this rarely comes up, so it's largely a non-issue, and I'm not going to get worked up about it.

 Jimsolo wrote:

Thanks rigeld! That gives some nice perspective into your answers on this topic.

I'm not sure how to take that but ... you're welcome?

Seriously, your 50 point investment having some of its LoS blocked isn't the end of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
It is the fact these things cost a huge amount of points and are immobile.

I was unaware that 50 points was considered huge.
Or are you saying that the terrain placement somehow negates the ADL?

It is not, because you would still have the means to make me worry about that Devastator. I would still have to design plans on how I am going to take it out. It still has the means to move towards my troops as well, putting pressure on them and more then likely killing a few once it gets in range. That one expensive unit would at least have the chance to to pay for itself. Unlike a fortification that has been blocked by terrain.

Also, how can you account for a limitation that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for someone exploiting this trick with terrain?

If you take it into account the only answer you have is not to deploy fortifications.With all the other problems fortifications have, they don't need this as an 'additional limitation.' It would be the final nail for most players, and probably why many players do not use fortifications because they are can so easily be crippled.

JinxDragon wrote:
Unlike a fortification that has been blocked by terrain.

Name a fortification that can be blocked by terrain. I'll wait.

Oh, you mean the weapon upgrades? So you still get to benefit from the fortification, you just have a near useless upgrade.
Okay. Now your argument is clear.

Rig,

There are more fortifications then a defense line, and the terrain trick is more likely to be pulled out on those that cost 100 points or more after gun encampment upgrades are purchased. That is a whole squad you could of taken, a squad you wouldn't have to deploy until you knew how the battlefield was going to be laid out. That is far more point effective then something which could be rendered impotent by a 0 point piece of terrain. This trick simply ensures that no one would ever want to touch a fortification with a ten foot pole as it is points being sunk into something you would never have a chance to use.

Added:
Yeah I wasn't talking about hiding in the fortification, or the defensive benefits, but the offensive capabilities which are being crippled. The line of sight blocking trick is used to prevent the fortifications gun encampments from firing. The only real use I can see for a fortification is the gun encampments which your side will start in possession of and have a firing platform that, outside of this blocking trick, would ensure a line of sight over much of the battlefield. If it was the defensive capability I was concerned about I would follow the words of Tzu, who highlighted that the best way to deal with an enemy in a fortification is to leave them there.

Hell, if I wanted to cower in a building I would simply plop one down as terrain and use that... for free.

I'm gonna be honest I despise the random terrain placement and would much rather set up the board for a more "cinematic" look (narrative terrain deployment rule actually comes before the random terrain rule). Put all the ruins in one part to make a fallen city and the other half of the board open ground with a few craters and trenches then pick sides deploy forts etc. If someone insists on doing random terrian I'll be an absolute dick about it. I'll place it to my advantage as much as possible and always make sure my opponent follows the 3 inch rule for terrian placement.

The number of people who say "we must play by the rules and use random terrain" and then place something so it is hugging my Aegis just baffles me.

 Jimsolo wrote:
To be honest, I don't know. I'm not entirely sure that there is any intent at all for terrain placement to affect fortification deployment. I think there's a good possibility it was just a mistake on GW's part, and that it didn't occur to them that some people might try to use the order of operations there to block off their opponents' guns, or even all firing points from the fortification entirely (terrain density permitting).

We'll have to disagree there then, because I can only see the change to rolling for sides before anything is placed on the board, and then placing fortifications before other terrain, as a very deliberate change to the way table set up is done and the impact it is intended to have on the game.

Having the terrain be part of the tactics makes sense, of course, but shouldn't there be some kind of narrative flow?

Not really. If you want narrative flow, you use the narrative terrain set up, rather than alternating placement.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Also, how can you account for a limitation that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for someone exploiting this trick with terrain?

That's sort of like asking how you account for the fact that your opponent might have tanks without knowing if your opponent is going to have tanks...



If you don't think that a fortification is going to be worth the points investment, then obviously taking it in the first place is a bad idea.