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.

I have seen this strategy talked about before, but it has not appeared in my games until recently.

A player we often game against has begun to use his scenery to make an inaccessible box in the corner of the board, with no line of sight of method to get in except flyers/jetpack units. He then proceeds to stick barrage weapons, or an objective and a scoring unit behind it.
The box will be fully filled through unit spacing, to prevent any enemy models from being able to enter. This tactic is easy enough to deal with if you have your own indirect weapons, but if you don't then there is no viable method to remove them/ get the objective.

Is this a sound strategy? Or is it cheating? Does your game group include any house rules to prevent this?

I am currently considering changing the scenery and putting holes in the walls large enough for models to pass though, just to prevent this. Of course, the same effect can be achieved through taking the fortress fortification however.

Alternatively I have thought of creating a house rule that prevents you from deploying your scenery within 3 inches of the board edge.

Any thoughts on this?

It's legal as per the rules thus it's not cheating. It is, on the other hand, a very good sign for you to look for other people to play with.

We just use the "Don't be a dick." houserule.
If your opponent thinks your terrain placement is dickish, he can move it until both parties are satisfied.

Couple things...

First off.. if you are taking turns placing terrain per the rulebook (alternating terrain)... it does state that the terrain pieces must be at least 3" away from each other... pg 120 (step 3 under alternating terrain)

Secondly, if you are using the alternating method... and you have the chance to go first... place very mundane pieces in the corners of his deployment zone, as you can place stuff anywhere. Then he cannot place anything within 3" of that... So basically get the good spots before he does and this could eliminate this cheese.

Thirdly, if using the alternating terrain approach pay close attention to the terrain density limit, and what counts as a single piece of terrain. With the 3" apart rule and density, it should be fairly difficult for your opponent to make this little nest.

Finally, I recommend the narrative approach. Set up the table with terrain way before you know your table sides and this tends to eliminate most of these ticky tack tactics.

What he's doing is legal, it's just a result of someone exploiting the poorly written setup section in the rulebook. Most players tend to set up terrain before either player knows which side they will be on, therefor you tend to have a more balanced table. (Narrative Terrain)

This is an early opportunity for a typical TFG to ruin the game for the participants.... we have found in our playing group that having a third party set up the terrain before the game starts is the most fair. Someone without a vested interest in the winner. Terrain should always be agreed upon before a game IMHO otherwise it will not be an enjoyable experience.

I had this pulled on me in a doubles tournament with a fortress of redemption full of guardsmen. Idea was they would disembark last turn behind it on an objective. It was the most dickish thing I have seen pulled in a while. We still beat them it was just boring doping next to nothing the first 2 turns of the game while he was turtles and in reserves.

Just play the rest of the mission objectives I suppose or have a polite discussion on how it is very unfun to play against. If he doesn't come around I would suggest having a neutral 3rd party set the terrain up first. If that fails, well, I hope there are others to play with

We've been setting up terrain (and objectives) before determining table side. Mitigates a lot of this behavior.

This is why my group doesn't use alternating terrain. In our opinion, terrain placement normally isn't under a general's control so it's a bit silly to be able to make tactical decisions on it.

So, whenever we set a board up we make sure it's as balanced for both sides as possible, and try to prevent anything from being too easy to abuse.

rigeld2 wrote:
We just use the "Don't be a dick." houserule.
If your opponent thinks your terrain placement is dickish, he can move it until both parties are satisfied.

Pretty much this.

Its technically legal, but in the "That guy" category of tactics

If you want to avoid houserules and go by the rulebook, then these are the two things to focus on.

1. Terrain setup is done before rolling for deployment side, and players alternate placing pieces.

2. Terrain pieces must be at least 3" away from each other.

 Icculus wrote:

1. Terrain setup is done before rolling for deployment side, and players alternate placing pieces.

2. Terrain pieces must be at least 3" away from each other.

All of the above is good, but I VERY much support the bolded part.

I think anytime someone says jump pack units aren't good enough they should link this thread.

Always do narrative terrain. Drop your terrain on the table, quickly make it look good, agree with your opponent.

Much faster
very funnier
so wow

Buying a fortification is a bit different as i see it, i mean if you are paying a landraiders points cost for a bit of terrain hiding in it just makes sense as does using it to block LOS. If you can't deal with it then you need to buy some more melta, lance or armourbane weapons.

but just taking big L shaped piece of terrain and fully blocking a corner is a looser move, if its a big problem then saw up the terrain or make it smaller.

you don't want a shooting gallery and its fine to have some good LOS blockers to force gun line armies to take forward units but walling off an entire area so even melee units cant get in is stupid

We try to solve this problem by endeavoring to always have a neutral third party set up the terrain. I agree, dick move.

 Rismonite wrote:
I think anytime someone says jump pack units aren't good enough they should link this thread.

In one of the games where this happened, I was playing CD and had a LoC. However due to the small space and the density of his models there was no possible way to place the model, even though I could move over the wall. So whilst jump troops might sometimes be viable, it won't always be so.

Thanks for the advice, I think we'll have to have a change the way we are placing the terrain, then if that fails it will be time to add some "battle damage" to the walls.

Stronghold assault has fixed the untargetable building loop hole. If they put down a fortress of redemption blow it up or play the mission.

You cannot place terrain within 3" of each other so they shouldn't be able to box a section off otherwise.

Place a piece of lethal terrain that covers their entire deployment zone. They should get the point and stop using special terrain to give themselves an advantage.

It's easy. Just place terrain before determining sides and deployment type. Like everyone does.

As for placing an objective behind it. The book also states that objectives must be placed 6" from any board edge. This should change this. I doubt he could develop a corner castle large enough to actually place an objective within it. Possibly through use of fortifications, but those are easily destroyed.