PDA

View Full Version : Are you guys playing with the recommended Alternating Terrain set up procedure?



Balerion
16-07-2012, 19:21
After playing my first game of 6th on the weekend, it was this change that struck both me and my opponent as one of the biggest and most interesting changes in the new system that we didn't pick up on until actually seeing it work in practice (unlike all of the more obvious game-changers like hull points, allies, etc.).

It used to be that you would try to set up a maximally advantageous board because you didn't know which edge would be your deployment zone, and you weren't certain from which position you'd be approaching the terrain that you wanted to utilize. So maybe you'd put lots of terrain along the edges if you were playing a gunline, or lots of cover in the middle of the board if you were playing an assaulty list, or other things like that. Or other times you would typically enlist a third party to set up the board and try to make it neutrally advantageous (or advantageous for neither player).

Now terrain is set up after you've picked your side. The terrain density limit restricts how many pieces can go into each area of the board. So you quickly become engaged in a back-and-forth with your opponent in which you're trying to place useful terrain in your own table half before he exhausts the limit of those sections, but also putting useless or dangerous terrain in his half before he exhausts those sections with terrain that is helpful to his list.

So how any people have actually decided to follow this procedure as opposed to the narrative board-building option, and what do you think of it?

Is there any chance this gets used in tournaments, or are they forever stuck into pre-set boards?

Mr Zoat
16-07-2012, 19:25
Haven't used it, don't think that I will. Too much of a hassle.

IcedCrow
16-07-2012, 19:35
I prefer this method.

Theocracity
16-07-2012, 19:36
I used it the last game I played and thought it worked out rather well. You're right that it was a bit of a minigame to set up some pieces that benefited me but not my opponent (for example, I wanted to place a LOS blocker in a position so my objective grabbers could scamper behind it) while still trying to prevent him from crowding my deployment or setting up his own advantages. It definitely took some time but I liked it.

Ace Rimmer
16-07-2012, 19:41
The only thing that changed for us is that we decided to have the Landing Pad in the middle of the board as a free piece of terrain, but still using it's special rules. Otherwise, we still just set-up our terrain in a way that looked nice.

PrivateLucky
16-07-2012, 21:53
I like this new set up style. I suggested this with some of my opponents back in 5th with a slightly different rule set and some people agreed to do it. It was a lot of fun tactically trying to set up for maximum tactical advantage while trying to deny your opponent any advantage. One thing that I would have added myself (and which I used when my opponent agreed to set up alternating in 5th) is that you are allowed to remove any ONE piece of terrain when setting up instead of placing a piece of terrain (or skip your turn to place a piece to remove a piece). I am loving 6th edition so far and I'd have to say the alternating set up may take 5 min longer but it gives the game more tactical depth.

hobojebus
16-07-2012, 23:48
Used in in the one game i've had so far it seems like a fine system the board does not get too cluttered and no one can complain whoever set up the board was biased.

AndrewGPaul
16-07-2012, 23:52
I doubt I'll be changing from my usual practise of setting up the board ahead of time then rolling for deployment zones afterwards. It's more convenient because I can get the board ready before my opponent shows up, and it also means we end up with something that looks like a plausible battlefield, not a paintball arena.

Vaktathi
17-07-2012, 00:35
I haven't seen anyone use the terrain placement rules yet, people pretty much are just carrying on as normal, throwing terrain on the board, asking their opponent "look good or not?", adjusting as needed and starting as normal, or just using whatever was on the table to start with :p

Lord Inquisitor
17-07-2012, 00:53
I'm not going to vote as I've not tried it yet. Placing terrain and objectives after choosing table side seems quite strange, but I'm going to give it a few goes to see how I like it before I pass judgement. Up 'till now I've been using the old "throw terrain on the board until it looks alright" method, which I suspect will still be the default. I didn't even notice until yesterday that you're meant to roll for board edge before placing objectives!

Eldoriath
17-07-2012, 00:56
Tried it and liked it. Makes the placing of the terrain more fun and a bit tactical in some regards. How many terrain pieces may I have? What/how should I place them?

Leeman Russ
17-07-2012, 08:08
One thing I don't understand is why the hassle of rolling for board edge at all given that there's not meant to be any terrain on it - are we playing for an environmental advantage (ie: Attacking with the sun behind us) or something? If it's just a roll-off to decide who places terrain first/goes first then why don't they call it that instead?

-Loki-
17-07-2012, 08:36
We use the method we've always used. We all just grab terrain bits and throw them on the table and shift it a around (sometimes shifting a piece someone else put down) until we're happy with the result. We've never followed the 'Rules' in any edition for placing terrain.

Brother Valten
17-07-2012, 08:36
We've been doing this at my local GW since 6th Edition dropped, and really enjoyed it. The ability to get a least some of the terrain in your favour adds a lot to the game.

However, four of us are going to the Throne of Skulls event in October and I just got an email back from the Events Team telling me that they're going to use pre-determined terrain setups for their tables. So I guess this means that we'll be going back to pre-setup terrain in store, because what is the point in playing using a cool idea if GW itself isn't doing the same!

MiyamatoMusashi
17-07-2012, 09:05
We've currently settled on alternating (though I accidentally voted narrative somehow, oops) but that is subject to review... it's created some reasonable battlefields, but there's an itching sense in the back of my mind at least that it's all just a bit silly.

First: dice-off to see who gets which table edge! Wait, what? Is this to see who gets the position of honour closest to the bathroom for emergency toilet breaks, or something? Who cares what table edge you have when there's no terrain on the board yet? (True, you get to place terrain you know will favour you... but why not just pick, instead of dicing off?)

Next: place fortifications! Wait, what? In no sane world do you build a castle then look at where the hills are. You find a hill and build a castle on top of it. In game terms, my opponent can place his Aegis Defence Line... and I can then place a lava flow running right along it, meaning that if he wants to use the ADL, he loses all his models to Lethal Terrain. Or he can put a huge piece of LOS-blocking terrain in front of my Bastion so I can't shoot out of it, or whatever. So, the rules are supposedly designed to give a balanced battlefield... but rely on both players not being jerks.

And so on, and so forth. It sort of works, just about, and is better guidance than the 5th Ed suggestion of "put terrain on the board. Somehow!". But I'm not sure that we'll stick with it, or if we do, we may tweak it (like in Warhammer, we've written our own terrain tables to match our scenery collection and theme the battlefield, as the one in the rulebook is just far too random).

MasterDecoy
17-07-2012, 09:29
my opponent can place his Aegis Defence Line... and I can then place a lava flow running right along it, meaning that if he wants to use the ADL, he loses all his models to Lethal Terrain. Or he can put a huge piece of LOS-blocking terrain in front of my Bastion so I can't shoot out of it, or whatever.

or you know, follow the rules stating terrain has to be at least 3" away from all other terrain......

Hendarion
17-07-2012, 09:38
We're placing it fairly and random using the rule of cool.

Tarax
17-07-2012, 09:52
Next: place fortifications! Wait, what?

I'm suprised the OP didn't mention this. It was one of the first things I noted when reading the rules for playing a battle.

As for the placing of terrain, we'll probably just place terrain and THEN roll for deployment, etc.

IJW
17-07-2012, 10:49
what is the point in playing using a cool idea if GW itself isn't doing the same!

Because there isn't time for it in a tournament but there is outside a tournament? ;)

mughi3
17-07-2012, 12:37
Nope, we set up the table ahead of time with a generally even smattering of terrain and terrain types, its up to the general to make the best use of it once the mission is rolled up.

Aluinn
17-07-2012, 17:51
The alternating placement procedure is a really bad idea in my book, and most people I play with agree. I think we've all known people to be hosed badly by it, and it pretty much prohibits having a large central terrain piece, unless you're trusting someone to place it somewhere that "makes sense" rather than for advantage ... but in that case why wouldn't you be using another method anyway?

What we use for semi-competitive pickup games is usually this: One person (whoever is ready to do it first :)) usually sets up terrain in a roughly symmetrical manner. If the other thinks there is something wrong with the setup, we talk about it, and compromise; there is usually little to no argument. I can't call this either narrative or "other"; it is partially narrative because we do try to place things in a way that looks somewhat "natural" and use matching pieces to whatever extent possible, but also not because it's meant to balance the cover/buildings available to each player at the beginning of the game, but it's something in between.

King ChucaBoBo
17-07-2012, 19:23
The alternating method worked great on my table at home. I liked the random terrain density we had some 2X2 areas that had 3 pieces of scenery and others that had only 1. I have a large collection of modular scenery and use a felt battle mat so the picking of table sides was pointless on my home table. A place that uses the scenery tiles with built in features like at the local GW battle bunker may still offer some advantage for picking a side before placing additional terrain. That being said I don't see this method working outside of a friendly one off game. In any sort of tournament the tables are going to be pre set.

badguyshaveallthefun
17-07-2012, 23:06
I'm actually loving the alternating terrain method. It's a game-within-a-game really. Do I hurry and snatch up the ruins for myself before my opponent, or do I try and clog his deployment zone with tank-traps and razor-wire, while at the same time trying to prevent him from doing the same things. It's a lot of fun, which is why I play this game and what I feel it's all about.

Azazel
17-07-2012, 23:15
My group uses the Alternating Terrain set up, I really like it. Mainly because I can set up a lot of defences in my deployment without feeling as if I'm cheating by making a biast table of terrain.

Dwane Diblie
18-07-2012, 00:55
One thing I don't understand is why the hassle of rolling for board edge at all given that there's not meant to be any terrain on it - are we playing for an environmental advantage (ie: Attacking with the sun behind us) or something? If it's just a roll-off to decide who places terrain first/goes first then why don't they call it that instead?


First: dice-off to see who gets which table edge! Wait, what? Is this to see who gets the position of honour closest to the bathroom for emergency toilet breaks, or something? Who cares what table edge you have when there's no terrain on the board yet? (True, you get to place terrain you know will favour you... but why not just pick, instead of dicing off?)

I would assume that this is included for those situations where some or all terrain is preset before you get there and therefor takes away the need for extra rulings in this area.

Personaly my home gaming group realy enjoys this method of setting up. But, unfortunatly due to rules at my local GW store we can not choose to remove terrain from the tables so are stuck with whats on them. That and most people there just want to get in as many games as they can befor the store closes so most just leave it as it is or do very little adjustments.

At home we have created a chart with all out terrain on it and have allocation allowance points for each piece or set of pieces. Extra Large ones are worth 2 Allocation points and if they stradle multipule zones then instead of choosing they count as 1 point in each. We also have sets of 2 pieces and sets of 3 pieces as well as one piece allocations. One of our extra large buildings is very long and one side is compleatly open. This piece generaly makes it on to the board as ether an advantage piece or a disadvantage piece. Its greate.

triplare
18-07-2012, 04:27
I haven't got a 6th edition game in yet and I was wondering about what method to use, so it's good to see a thread about various preferences and experiences with terrain/scenery. I game at home with friends so I'm not worried about tournaments or unknown opponents. I have a sizable, wide variety or terrain to mess with. My gut is wanting to just go 'narrative' as it's just fun to set up the field as you envision it, especially with Fortification options available to us now. 6th looks to be pretty bold, so it seems fitting that the table setting should be bold as well. But 'alternate' certainly seems more fair and neutral, if not a bit generic though. But hey, we'll see what we all decide on when we get together next time...

Carlosophy
18-07-2012, 17:25
TBH it just gets in the way of playing. If my friend is en route for a game I will do it myself, let them choose a board edge then get on with deployment ASAP.

Radium
18-07-2012, 17:45
I voted 'other'.

We just set up a table both players agree upon and THEN roll for deployment type, zone etc.

Lord Inquisitor
18-07-2012, 18:44
Having tried it... Some things I don't get

- why do you roll for table side on an empty board? What is it, roll to see who gets to stand near the fan or the fridge?
- why do you place fortifications first? I place my defence line, you place a huge big mountain or building in front of the AA gun. Mmm.

The whole thing seems silly. If there's an odd number of objectives, one player gets a distinct advantage as he can place one extra objective deep in his deployment zone. Both deployment zones seem to be filled with heavily defensible positions with an objective in the middle.

While this seems okay for the "capture and control" scenario, it feels like all objective scenarios are similar now. There's no reason not to put "your" objectives anywhere but deep in your zone and heavily guarded with beneficial terrain.

Nope, this was a cute idea and it sounded interesting on paper but the proper deployment order should be 1) set up terrain 2) roll for scenario and set up objectives, 3) roll for deployment zone and deploy fortifications and 4) deploy armies.

IcedCrow
18-07-2012, 18:54
I like that order of things actually. I will give it some thought for our future events...

Dangersaurus
18-07-2012, 19:12
- why do you roll for table side on an empty board? What is it, roll to see who gets to stand near the fan or the fridge?

If you're using a modular board (such as the official handy-dandy Realm of Battle™®© board and playset) it makes a difference. Otherwise it is just who gets the comfy chair, mini-fridge, or the side facing the girls dorms.


Nope, this was a cute idea and it sounded interesting on paper but the proper deployment order should be 1) set up terrain 2) roll for scenario and set up objectives, 3) roll for deployment zone and deploy fortifications and 4) deploy armies.

That works well too.

In every edition I've played (haven't played 3rd or 4th) I've always thought the "rules" for setting up battles were worded as suggestions anyways.

Easy E
18-07-2012, 20:29
I have used pretty much all methods of terrain placement. Really, it doesn't matter that much as long as the method you choose matches the style of play you and your opponent enjoy.

Typically, we have done narrative because that's how we like to play; with special missions and what not.

If time is an issue, we will have a third party set it up before we even get there.

All are good methods.

When we are feeling particularly competitive, like a grudge match, we use the method the rulebook describes.

If we are int eh mood for crazy and zany, we actually completely randomize terrain set-up.

AndrewGPaul
18-07-2012, 20:36
No matter what the game, I don't think I've ever bothered following the official rules for setting up the board. Our usual method is for whoever gets there first to set up the board, and then to roll a dice to see which player gets to choose a side. Works for 40k, Warhammer, Infinity, Warmachine, Malifaux, ...

I'm not entirely sure why they didn't just write "set up the battlefield in whatever manner is mutually acceptable to all players." and leave it at that.

Caitsidhe
18-07-2012, 22:48
Having tried it... Some things I don't get

- why do you roll for table side on an empty board? What is it, roll to see who gets to stand near the fan or the fridge?
- why do you place fortifications first? I place my defence line, you place a huge big mountain or building in front of the AA gun. Mmm.

The whole thing seems silly. If there's an odd number of objectives, one player gets a distinct advantage as he can place one extra objective deep in his deployment zone. Both deployment zones seem to be filled with heavily defensible positions with an objective in the middle.

While this seems okay for the "capture and control" scenario, it feels like all objective scenarios are similar now. There's no reason not to put "your" objectives anywhere but deep in your zone and heavily guarded with beneficial terrain.

Nope, this was a cute idea and it sounded interesting on paper but the proper deployment order should be 1) set up terrain 2) roll for scenario and set up objectives, 3) roll for deployment zone and deploy fortifications and 4) deploy armies.

That is how we do it. We read the rules in the book for setting up terrain and there was a lot of loud laughter. It never really was even discussed, just skipped and life moved on.

Gaargod
18-07-2012, 22:53
As others have said, the weirdest rule is the placement of fortifications before terrain. It makes no sense at all, surely you would build fortifications to cover weak points in the battlefield as you have it?

Further, Aegis Defence Lines with emplaced guns are particularly vulnerable - they're usually low and not that large, and even placing terrain 3" away, some of the larger ruins will usually block them. Although saying that, you are then giving them a large piece of terrain...


To be honest, we're still doing old way of place terrain, choose sides, stick down fortifications. Makes more sense. Except for practising for tournaments, where we'll probably use the new, odd, way.

Nurgling Chieftain
18-07-2012, 23:16
Nope, this was a cute idea and it sounded interesting on paper but the proper deployment order should be 1) set up terrain 2) roll for scenario and set up objectives, 3) roll for deployment zone and deploy fortifications and 4) deploy armies.I second (well, more like fourth or so) this notion.

Lord Inquisitor
19-07-2012, 04:03
As others have said, the weirdest rule is the placement of fortifications before terrain. It makes no sense at all, surely you would build fortifications to cover weak points in the battlefield as you have it?
Yeah that's what I was thinking. After all, the fortifications are built on the terrain, not the other way around! You'd build your bunker, landing pad, defence line in an advantageous position relative to the pre-existing terrain.


Except for practising for tournaments, where we'll probably use the new, odd, way.
Tournaments typically use pre-set terrain and I doubt 6th ed will change that. I didn't see any WFB tournaments changing to the terrain table in the WFB rulebook! (Or anyone else using it for that matter, stupid table.)

It'll be interesting to see how tournaments adapt to choosing sides and objective placement however.

Weazel
19-07-2012, 08:01
Nope, this was a cute idea and it sounded interesting on paper but the proper deployment order should be 1) set up terrain 2) roll for scenario and set up objectives, 3) roll for deployment zone and deploy fortifications and 4) deploy armies.

+1

(lorem ipsum more characters)

gormthegreat
19-07-2012, 09:16
At first glance the setup rules looked strange but after a number of games using the rules exactly as written it has produced excellent terrrain setups. the differing terrain density on each board section makes for a unique tactical setup as you try to determine how you army will utilise the environment. I also think choosing board edge first adds an interesting element as the rules are obviously written for the realm of battle game board so you get "free" hills before deployment. We've taken to the habit of using a scatter die to determine the board layout too. It produces some interesting battlefields that are much fairer in my opinion.

Nurgling Chieftain
19-07-2012, 17:37
At first glance the setup rules looked strange but after a number of games using the rules exactly as written it has produced excellent terrrain setups. ... We've taken to the habit of using a scatter die to determine the board layout too. It produces some interesting battlefields that are much fairer in my opinion.Okay, I lol'd. :D "Exactly as written is excellent - but scattering them makes it much fairer."

Cantina Fly
19-07-2012, 18:48
I'm not entirely sure why they didn't just write "set up the battlefield in whatever manner is mutually acceptable to all players." and leave it at that.

This really. I understand why they put the terrain placement rules in though. So if two people can't agree on placement, they have a common rule to fall back to.

Personally, if I'm playing a new opponent and we can't agree on something as simple as terrain placement (or worse, he wants to play terrain placement shenanigans and put a hill in from of my bunker, etc..) then I just saved myself 2-3hrs of misery. I can politely excuse myself and go do something I'll actually enjoy.

We do the same method as always. Host sets up the table before guests arrive. Guests get to fiddle with anything they don't like and we dice off. The only thing I see us changing for 6th is allowing some further movement of terrain in your deployment zone to allow for logical fortification placement.

Punjoke
19-07-2012, 19:16
The new terrain rules have worked well for our group so far. We skip rolling for table edges, since it's pointless, but just roll for first placement/first turn. I like it because I often play against an IG player who makes heavy use of Large Blast weaponry, and it's very nice having some control over how much of my army he'll be able to blast off of the table before I even get a turn.

But the thing I've noticed most about setting up the table this way is how much more the terrain ends up directly affecting our strategies. In 5th edition (and the first few games of 6th) we'd set things up so that they looked good and then go. This would often lead to several pieces of terrain that were completely ignored, because we never had any reason to go near them. Since we've started using the Alternating placement, however, every single piece of terrain we've placed on the board has had some sort of effect on the game, because one of us placed it there for a reason. It's made our tables much more strategically interesting.

triplare
19-07-2012, 21:26
Wouldn't rolling for table edges be needed so player's know which deployment zone to place their army's Fortification on?

Punjoke
19-07-2012, 21:33
Wouldn't rolling for table edges be needed so player's know which deployment zone to place their army's Fortification on?

Well the thing is, rolling for an empty table is pointless. Before any terrain is placed, both edges of the table are identical. So it's just as effective to say "Well I'm already standing on this side so this will be my board edge."

TheMav80
19-07-2012, 22:30
Well the thing is, rolling for an empty table is pointless. Before any terrain is placed, both edges of the table are identical. So it's just as effective to say "Well I'm already standing on this side so this will be my board edge."

That's how I choose my board edge all the time.

But I am extremely lazy like that.

AndrewGPaul
20-07-2012, 00:12
As has been said repeatedly, rolling for an empty table isn't pointless if the table isn't empty - there's plenty of people who use boards with terrain features such as hills, rock outcrops and water features already built in.

As for setting up fortifications first, that seems simple to explain. The existing fortification models are rather large compared to the size of a table; if you were to set them up after setting up other terrain features, there'd be a good chance that there would be nowhere suitable to put them. By setting them up first, you're guaranteeing here's room on the board for them. As for blocking them off with terrain, that seems like a cheap "gamey"move to me with no reasonable background justification. I wouldn't build a bunker behind a hill; it'd be on top of it instead.

Killgore
20-07-2012, 09:52
How many people are making use of battlefield debris? For example ammo dumps, tank traps, statues

Do you limit their useage or just have them available in the terrain pool for whoever wants them?

Iv just started making a few of these mounted on old cd bases, with the idea of limiting them to 1 or 2 each, and to be placed during the alternating terrain placement phase

Corvus Corone
20-07-2012, 10:24
So far I've been using the alternating, and it seems to have produced noticeably better battles. We use a little bit of common sense and don't place anything that would be silly like a building blocking a bunker or anything that just looks so incongruous as to harm the credibility of the battlefield.

Tarax
20-07-2012, 10:30
... an empty table isn't pointless if the table isn't empty ...

Isn't this an axioma? An un-empty table, like un-dead? It's empty, but not.
If a table already has immovable features in it, it isn't empty and thus justifies rolling to see which side someone want to set up in.

AndrewGPaul
20-07-2012, 11:50
Isn't this an axioma?

No, it's an oxymoron. An axiom is something which you have to just assume to be true, without being able to prove logically.

In any case, my point (and Dangersaurus') is that a table devoid of discrete terrain pieces placed upon it - can still have terrain features sculpted into it. That's why the official rules tell you to roll for deployment side before placing any additional terrain pieces.

Lord Inquisitor
20-07-2012, 17:44
As for setting up fortifications first, that seems simple to explain. The existing fortification models are rather large compared to the size of a table; if you were to set them up after setting up other terrain features, there'd be a good chance that there would be nowhere suitable to put them. By setting them up first, you're guaranteeing here's room on the board for them. As for blocking them off with terrain, that seems like a cheap "gamey"move to me with no reasonable background justification. I wouldn't build a bunker behind a hill; it'd be on top of it instead.
That's an interesting theory, the first one to give any kind of logic behind the deployment of fortifications and terrain. I still think deploying terrain first would make more sense but indeed it would potentially require some nudging of terrain to allow it to be deployed.


How many people are making use of battlefield debris? For example ammo dumps, tank traps, statues
Yeah, they're not too bad. They're much less potentially game-dominating than the magic terrain in WFB (sorcerous portals - yuck). A bit of flavour but not too game altering.

Typically I'll just deploy the terrain and assign rules afterwards. If something looks like an ammo dump then we'll use it as one.

I was very surprised at the lack of alien terrain in the tables though. I deployed a piece of terrain that looked like an Eldar wraithgate and, flicking through the book, discovered there's basically nothing but imperial terrain. You'd think you would have a few representative pieces of alien terrain in there.

Tarax
21-07-2012, 11:32
No, it's an oxymoron. An axiom is something which you have to just assume to be true, without being able to prove logically.

Sorry. English isn't my first language. The question mark was more for axioma being the right term than for the whole sentence being a question.
Thanks for clearing things up, though.


In any case, my point (and Dangersaurus') is that a table devoid of discrete terrain pieces placed upon it - can still have terrain features sculpted into it. That's why the official rules tell you to roll for deployment side before placing any additional terrain pieces.

Well, I should read the rules again to see if they imply that there are some features on the table before setting up terrain. I know they refer to the modular set somewhere, but couldn't say where or what.

Lord Inquisitor
21-07-2012, 15:28
The rules do refer to the realm of battle board in a few places, which is modular in handy 2' by 2' sections for terrain density. At least they're not trying to make the realm of battle board mandatory. ;)

itcamefromthedeep
21-07-2012, 15:40
No matter what the game, I don't think I've ever bothered following the official rules for setting up the board. Our usual method is for whoever gets there first to set up the board, and then to roll a dice to see which player gets to choose a side. Works for 40k, Warhammer, Infinity, Warmachine, Malifaux, ...It works until one side likes to have all the terrian at the edge of the table and the other side wants it all in the middle.


I'm not entirely sure why they didn't just write "set up the battlefield in whatever manner is mutually acceptable to all players." and leave it at that.The placement of terrain is critical to who will win the game. This makes it likely that players who understand terrain and are out to win will not agree on how the terrain should be placed.

Others don't need any rules at all. For them, the whole rulebook amounts to "come up with mutually agreeable rules" and that's fine for them. There's no harm in having actual rules for the rest of us.


As others have said, the weirdest rule is the placement of fortifications before terrain. It makes no sense at all, surely you would build fortifications to cover weak points in the battlefield as you have it?I tend to agree with AndrewGPaul's explanation of how that came about. I agree that there should have been a better way of doing it, such as allowing fortifications to be placed last and ignore the 3" rule.


So far I've been using the alternating, and it seems to have produced noticeably better battles.In what way? I'm not arguing, just trying to clarify

What was the problem before, if there was one?

taudau
21-07-2012, 19:30
I always use narrative terrain, set up before the game begins and we even know which armies are played. It's more fun to imagine a battle going on in "realistic" or cinematic terrain than in something that reminds me of Starcraft maps :)

Von Wibble
22-07-2012, 10:49
We have agreed a rule on the objectives - if an odd number of objectives are rolled, the first one is automatically placed in the middle of the table (as close as possible if that cant hapen) - to prevent one army automatically getting more objectives in their deployment zone than the other.

AndrewGPaul
22-07-2012, 12:05
This really. I understand why they put the terrain placement rules in though. So if two people can't agree on placement, they have a common rule to fall back to.


It works until one side likes to have all the terrian at the edge of the table and the other side wants it all in the middle.

The placement of terrain is critical to who will win the game. This makes it likely that players who understand terrain and are out to win will not agree on how the terrain should be placed.

That's an angle I didn't consider - funnily enough, I've never had that problem in twenty years of gaming. :) However, if you and your opponent fail to agree on such a basic thing at the beginning of the game, it seems to me that you're not going to agree on other conflicts further down the line either.

itcamefromthedeep
22-07-2012, 12:27
That's an angle I didn't consider - funnily enough, I've never had that problem in twenty years of gaming. :) However, if you and your opponent fail to agree on such a basic thing at the beginning of the game, it seems to me that you're not going to agree on other conflicts further down the line either.Some players like a game where everyone is trying their best to win, to make it as good a game of skill as possible. They have the most fun when everyone brings their A-game. They want games that make them think and allow them to grow as a player.

This doesn't make them bad sportsmen or rules-lawyers, just competitive.

Terrain placement is a skill, in some cases the most subtle and difficult tactical and stratgic skill in a tabletop wargame. Some players will want that to be a part of the game, particularly if they want a challenge and have the most fun when the opponent brings their A-game.

Putting rules for terrain placement in the game not only gives players a framework for at least trying to make the terrain as "fair" as possible, but it allows the players who want it a chance to have more fun.

big squig
22-07-2012, 22:28
It's recommended?

Honestly, it's awful. Any system where players alternate placing terrain makes the worst boards.

Lord Inquisitor
22-07-2012, 23:23
Some players like a game where everyone is trying their best to win, to make it as good a game of skill as possible. They have the most fun when everyone brings their A-game. They want games that make them think and allow them to grow as a player.

This doesn't make them bad sportsmen or rules-lawyers, just competitive.

Terrain placement is a skill, in some cases the most subtle and difficult tactical and stratgic skill in a tabletop wargame. Some players will want that to be a part of the game, particularly if they want a challenge and have the most fun when the opponent brings their A-game.

Putting rules for terrain placement in the game not only gives players a framework for at least trying to make the terrain as "fair" as possible, but it allows the players who want it a chance to have more fun.
I don't think this is accurate. Quite aside from the fact that tournaments have pre-set terrain almost universally in every system, I find that most competitive players prefer to have a third person set up the board so as to have an impartial terrain arrangement.

I can imagine that alternating set-up can produce a mini-game during deployment that could be entertaining but I don't think it's commonly regarded as a default for competitive, fair games at all.

itcamefromthedeep
23-07-2012, 04:23
I don't think this is accurate. Quite aside from the fact that tournaments have pre-set terrain almost universally in every system, I find that most competitive players prefer to have a third person set up the board so as to have an impartial terrain arrangement.

I can imagine that alternating set-up can produce a mini-game during deployment that could be entertaining but I don't think it's commonly regarded as a default for competitive, fair games at all.If players want a method that's more concrete (and in my experience fairer) than having a third party set up terrain or just throwing it on the table they have that system. If you don't like the system, then you're perfectly free to avoid it. Suggesting as AndrewGPaul seemed to that you shouldn't have anything like it in the rulebook sounds to my ears like griping at someone for liking a food you think tastes bad.

---

Tournament terrain (and occasional lack thereof) is a significant reason why I rarely play in them. The terrain setups tend to be pretty skewed either toward my army or against it in a way that detracts from my gaming experience. For the same reason I rarely let a third party set up terrain for my games any more. It has simply led to one too many lame games.

The majority may disagree with my assessment, in which case I consider it to be one of the many cases where the majority is incorrect.

Balerion
23-07-2012, 04:47
LI, the third party system doesn't actually produce fairness in any special amount. Why would it? Either they set up narratively, in which case the advantage will depend on the narrative (eg. a crumbling city will favour the cc Tyranids, a sprawling ash waste will favour the IG gunline) or they set it up with fairness and balance as the explicit goals (in which case you might have had the players set it up themselves and make sure the third party isn't overlooking or unaware of something that would actually impact the balance).