Fortifications in pre-set terrain turnouments

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.

**Ratliker**

Hello
Had argument with another player; and BRB is unclear, so wonder how such situations are resolved in other communities /tournaments.

So the problem is as follows:
BRB says that since fortification is terrain, other terrain must be placed no coser than 3". In normal battles, it causes no problem, since fortifications are set up first and terrain can be set around them.
Now in tournaments, terrain is often pre-set. How does the 3" limitation works in this case?
Does it:
1) disallows fortification to be placed within 3" of pre-placed terrain (making it often impossible to place the fortification where you need it)
2) 3" rule is ignored, (and if so, can aegis go through the forest, or Bastion be placed in a lake?)
3) Fortification somehow replaces terrain peace that is in the way (sounds very abusable; i.e. using Aegis to bulldoze away some terrain piece you don’t want blocking LoS in mid-field)
4) some other solution

Please help, as I am TO in my area and thus have to make as weighted and fair rulings as possible.

**B0B MaRlEy**

The rules don't tell you what to do when you don't follow them.
The 1 would be the closest to the rules, but you'd have to warn your players as it may be less useful to have fortifications in their armies.

**Steel-W0LF**

Ratliker wrote:
Hello
Had argument with another player; and BRB is unclear, so wonder how such situations are resolved in other communities /tournaments.

So the problem is as follows:
BRB says that since fortification is terrain, other terrain must be placed no coser than 3". In normal battles, it causes no problem, since fortifications are set up first and terrain can be set around them.
Now in tournaments, terrain is often pre-set. How does the 3" limitation works in this case?
Does it:
1) disallows fortification to be placed within 3" of pre-placed terrain (making it often impossible to place the fortification where you need it)
2) 3" rule is ignored, (and if so, can aegis go through the forest, or Bastion be placed in a lake?)
3) Fortification somehow replaces terrain peace that is in the way (sounds very abusable; i.e. using Aegis to bulldoze away some terrain piece you don’t want blocking LoS in mid-field)
4) some other solution

Please help, as I am TO in my area and thus have to make as weighted and fair rulings as possible.

#1 is how Feast of Blades in Denver did it.

**jeffersonian000**

My opponents and I have always nudged terrain out of the way before setting up, to our mutual agreement. Why let not enough room take away from your shared experience?

SJ

**EVIL INC**

The tournaments I have been to will usually let you fudge the 3" rule. But if there is not room to put the piece where you want it, then you ust don't get to put it there. You took the gamble when you paid the points for it and a savvy opponent will try to get a table that screws you over.

I have heard of some tourneys letting you move one terrain piece to make room. I can see that being abused though as you re-set it differently than it was set up originally so this is much more rare.

**Elric Greywolf**

Ratliker wrote:

BRB says that since fortification is terrain, other terrain must be placed no coser than 3".

This is only true using the (dumb) rules of "Alternating Terrain." Using the (far superiour) rules of "Narrative Terrain," there is no such restriction listed. Since tables are already set up when tournament players arrive, I would say this is much closer to "Narrative Terrain," since the players don't do anything even remotely like "Alternating Terrain."
So, players don't have to abide by a restriction that isn't there. Problem solved.

Also, I'm biased toward one type of setup...the one where your opponent can't be a dick.

**JinxDragon**

I can't argue there Elric,

One of the problems I have with the terrain rules is the fact you set up purchased fortifications first and this one factor makes it way to easy for Win at All Cost players to abuse the sequence of events. Because terrain is placed after fortification, it becomes very easy to place a piece of terrain large enough to cripple the effectiveness of any fortification. Unlike other units which might be inconvenienced by terrain placement, fortifications lack the ability to move to a better location so they will never over-come such a low blow. With the right piece of terrain, and the right placement of the fortification, it becomes possible to turn any fortification more complicated then a defense line as nothing more then a waste of points. Particularly those 500+ fortifications....

Of course, I could also abuse this section of the rule in response but I won't go into details about how to abuse broken rules....

**DJGietzen**

To try and be fair I see 3 potential solution you have not mentioned. Here they are in otder of personal preferance.

1) Depending on the number of players/rounds you can employ multiple table set up situations. For example in a 3 round tournament the 1st round might be with preset terrain. Players with fortifications would not be allowed to place them and would receive 1 free victory point as compensation. The 2nd round could be done with alternating terrain and each table would get 5 minutes to set up its terrain and a TO to inspect it before the game starts and the players with fortifications would set them up 1st just like the BRB says. This also gives polayers a chance to bring up any terrain related grievances but once the game starts every one has to live with it. The final round could be done with narrative set up where players place their fortifications and then a TO places the rest of the terrain.
2) Do not allow fortifications in your tournament. The fortifications, in my opinion, need to be set up before terrain to work correctly, and none of the players will be given that option if all of your tables are 'pre-set'. Informing the players before they register makes it fair.
3) Use pre-set table with one pre-defined fortification spot for each player. If the player does not have a fortification, or chooses not to place the one they did pay for, a selection of ruins or battlefield debri can be made available to that player to put in that fortification spot.

**Pyrian**

DJGietzen wrote:
The fortifications, in my opinion, need to be set up before terrain to work correctly...

I am curious how you came to this conclusion. Everybody else is dead set on fortifications only working correctly when set up after terrain (which is incidentally the only way I've seen it played since the first few months of 6th), as others above have described, with fortifications "sprouting" LoS-blocking terrain in front of them.

**CrownAxe**

Pyrian wrote:
DJGietzen wrote:
The fortifications, in my opinion, need to be set up before terrain to work correctly...
I am curious how you came to this conclusion. Everybody else is dead set on fortifications only working correctly when set up after terrain (which is incidentally the only way I've seen it played since the first few months of 6th), as others above have described, with fortifications "sprouting" LoS-blocking terrain in front of them.

The BRB says fortifications are done before terrain, thats why

The problem is pre-built tables work WAY better in every other aspect of the game

**deviantduck**

Everyone i've come across just ignores the 3" rule. Aegis can run thru a forest or dead end at a cliff, and bastions can can be in river. It really doesn't affect the rules if fortifications are close to terrain.

**Pyrian**

CrownAxe wrote:
Pyrian wrote:
DJGietzen wrote:
The fortifications, in my opinion, need to be set up before terrain to work correctly...
I am curious how you came to this conclusion. Everybody else is dead set on fortifications only working correctly when set up after terrain (which is incidentally the only way I've seen it played since the first few months of 6th), as others above have described, with fortifications "sprouting" LoS-blocking terrain in front of them.

The BRB says fortifications are done before terrain, thats why

The problem is pre-built tables work WAY better in every other aspect of the game

Um... They work WAY better in this aspect of the game, too, whether the BRB says to do it that way or not.

**Ghenghis Jon**

Here is the Fortifications FAQ I made up for the tournaments I run. The Aegis placement is agreed apon between the two players, and the TO only gets involved if they disagree. Hope this helps.

Spoiler:

**Fragile**

If your Fort will not fit, our TO will come to the table and have you set up the Fort where you want it. Then he will adjust the terrain as he sees fit to accommodate the game.

**DeathReaper**

Ghenghis Jon wrote:
no Objective can be placed within 3" of the ADL and its options.

That is a bit harsh...

Why would you not allow Objectives near an ADL?

That is a common strategy for the ADL.

**Ghenghis Jon**

DeathReaper wrote:
Ghenghis Jon wrote:
no Objective can be placed within 3" of the ADL and its options.
That is a bit harsh...
Why would you not allow Objectives near an ADL?
That is a common strategy for the ADL.

To be honest, when I wrote it, I was more concerned with players using the other Fortifications to physically block an opponent from claiming an objective, and I just kept the 3" from the ADL for consistency. I also don't think 3" is that far; easily claimed by a 1" base model in contact with the closer side of the ADL, but not the far side.

**Gravmyr**

I play in a semi regular campaign where the GM sets up terrain. He does a good job setting things up pretty evenly we play by replacing one of the terrain pieces. If I remember correctly doesn't a fortification function as one of the terrain pieces for terrain density?

**Ratliker**

Gravmyr wrote:
I play in a semi regular campaign where the GM sets up terrain. He does a good job setting things up pretty evenly we play by replacing one of the terrain pieces. If I remember correctly doesn't a fortification function as one of the terrain pieces for terrain density?

Yes, but terrain density effectively comes into play only in "alternating setting of terrain" method.

**Gravmyr**

If you play in a lot of Tourneys I would suggest that you start getting on the organizers case about fortification setup and make sure it's covered in the rules/expectations. If it isn't and the terrain is just setup on the board before you get there it can hardly be said to be narrative terrain in many cases and would fall under can't agree alternating and follow those rules....... Poor writing of expectations can spoil a tourney just as quickly as poor rules adjudication.

**Ratliker**

Gravmyr wrote:
If you play in a lot of Tourneys I would suggest that you start getting on the organizers case about fortification setup and make sure it's covered in the rules/expectations.

I AM TO at my area, and I have to make ruling on the mess, and I hope do get help from you guys (to decide what solution is the best/most fun/fair/etc).

**PanzerLeader**

I allow players to replace one piece of preset terrain with their fortification. I refuse to not allow them to play with models they have bought, assembled and often painted.

**EVIL INC**

Most tourneys use pre-set terrai. if players remove or move around terrain, the table changes for following games and future games played on that table are affected because of it being moved about.

Depending on what it moved or removed, players can alter the terrain to give them unfair advantages in thier game. While there may be a large enough space to place a bastion in thier deployment zone, allowing them to move or remove stuff to "make room" means thy can just say "I want it over here instead" and remove a large LOS blocking rock outcrop or forest or whatever is there that they dont like.

Even if players try to put it back correctly, tt will still e different. This is why most TOs disallow moving or removing terrain. All the TO needs to do is ensure that when they set up the tables that there is physically room to set up the largst fortification a player may decode to buy in each deployment zone. It does not have to be optimal or in a "prime" spot. The players are aware that they ill have to "make do" when they pay the points for the fortification and that is the risk they are taking. If they find that it doesnt work out for them, they can always decide to be more conservative for the "next time".

**Ratliker**

And the problem will become even greater in turnouments that alow hugeass fortifications like FoR or Aquila stronghold or just network of bastions.

**EVIL INC**

Are the network of bastions in the stronghold Assault supplement? If so, they likely wont be allowed in tournaments as that is an optional supplement much as escalation and apocalypse.

Stuff like aquila strongholdand fortress of redemption, the players simply should not take in a tourney where they know "space is at a premium" and theat they will not be able to place it just the way they want where they want it without altering the preset boards. If the player knows the TO will allow moving stuff about or removing it, you can BET that there will be players who will abuse that to cheat. This is why most TO, just tell the player, "you knew you couldnt move stuff around or take it away, and that there was the possibility to get hosed. So if you hosed yourself, it's your own fault because you knew about it ahead of time".

**PanzerLeader**

EVIL INC wrote:
Are the network of bastions in the stronghold Assault supplement? If so, they likely wont be allowed in tournaments as that is an optional supplement much as escalation and apocalypse.

Stuff like aquila strongholdand fortress of redemption, the players simply should not take in a tourney where they know "space is at a premium" and theat they will not be able to place it just the way they want where they want it without altering the preset boards. If the player knows the TO will allow moving stuff about or removing it, you can BET that there will be players who will abuse that to cheat. This is why most TO, just tell the player, "you knew you couldnt move stuff around or take it away, and that there was the possibility to get hosed. So if you hosed yourself, it's your own fault because you knew about it ahead of time".

I really don't think altering the pre-set boards to support a fortifcation is a big deal as long as there are simple guidelines for how it gets moved. Boards get altered all the time between rounds as people set up armies for paint judging and I find myself constantly going around the room and readjusting terrain between rounds. The important part of pre-set boards is that they are neutral to both players at the start of the round. Once sides are determined, its easy to let a player remove a single piece on his half and replace with the fortification. Most LOS stuff ends up in the middle of the table, so if he removes that he's also putting his fortification outside of his deployment zone.

**EVIL INC**

The ability to remove any piece of terrain from your deployment zone that you dont like or the ability to move any piece of terrain in your deployment zone to where you wat it is FAR too easily abused. You would see more and more players taking large and larger fortifications for the sole purpose of doing this. it simply gives you too much of an advantage.

As terrain is not moved for judging models, Thier display boards that they bring them in on and display them for judging before the game means that the actual gaming tables arent touched. if the TO is shortsighted enough to not ask for them to bring in thier display boards, it is done after the tourney is over and te tables are being cleaned up and put away anyway.

This is why most TO do as i described.It is the fairest way to handle it for everyone and prevents a whole type of cheating.
of course, there ARE TO who run it in different ways. those are few and far between and then you hear a lot of grumbling from players and an ever increasing number of players bringing the largest fortifications they can afford to buy.

**Ratliker**

EVIL INC wrote:
The ability to remove any piece of terrain from your deployment zone that you dont like or the ability to move any piece of terrain in your deployment zone to where you wat it is FAR too easily abused. You would see more and more players taking large and larger fortifications for the sole purpose of doing this. it simply gives you too much of an advantage.

As terrain is not moved for judging models, Thier display boards that they bring them in on and display them for judging before the game means that the actual gaming tables arent touched. if the TO is shortsighted enough to not ask for them to bring in thier display boards, it is done after the tourney is over and te tables are being cleaned up and put away anyway.

This is why most TO do as i described.It is the fairest way to handle it for everyone and prevents a whole type of cheating.
of course, there ARE TO who run it in different ways. those are few and far between and then you hear a lot of grumbling from players and an ever increasing number of players bringing the largest fortifications they can afford to buy.

Is 3" rule observved in turnoments you refer to (where terrain is not moved)?
If not, are players alowed to place their Bastions/ADL inside ruin/forest/lake?

**EVIL INC**

Generally, that is not enforced as a concession to the fortifications players. Of course, then the players do these sorts of things, they are hampering themselves more than anything so it is something players just dont do as they still want to do thier best to win.
In the majority of tourneys, the largest fortification you see will be the bastion. Generally only the really new and inexperienced players take the huge stuff.

**Peregrine**

Ratliker wrote:
Is 3" rule observved in turnoments you refer to (where terrain is not moved)?
If not, are players alowed to place their Bastions/ADL inside ruin/forest/lake?

Why would a rule that doesn't exist be enforced? And why wouldn't you be allowed to place your bastion/ADL/whatever inside other terrain, as long as the model fits?

**Elric Greywolf**

EVIL INC wrote:
Are the network of bastions in the stronghold Assault supplement? If so, they likely wont be allowed in tournaments as that is an optional supplement much as escalation and apocalypse.

So you're of the opinion that a Farsight Enclaves army is "an optional supplement"? Because I would say that someone playing Farsight Tau certainly DOES NOT need special permission from a TO or opponent to play that list.
Supplements ARE NOT OPTIONAL*. Escalation and Stronghold Assault are IN THE GAME. You need a special restriction to not bring them, rather than the other way 'round.

*Except for the "Updated Building Rules" (not models) in SA that explicitly state they are optional.