PDA

View Full Version : Making 40k fun: random terrain



ReveredChaplainDrake
14-08-2012, 00:31
After playing a number of games about as by the book as possible, I've finally narrowed down the one pet peeve rule that makes me hate 6th ed 40k: terrain setup. All during 5th, I held the stance that the core rules weren't as terrible as they were made out to be if they were played by the book. And so that's what I tried in 6th, and the core rules work just fine. But when played competitively (whether you're supposed to do so or not has been beaten to dead horse status, so let's just assume that competitive play holds fun for a certain subset of hobbyists), the rules for random terrain setup insist that both players place terrain in such a way as to screw the other player, killing the fun of the game before the thing even starts. In fact, in my experience, the first player to not use terrain placement to screw the other player is the one who loses, or at least the one who has a much harder time of things. For instance...

Player 1: "I put my Aegis Defense Line in this corner, with the Quad Gun right in front."
Player 2: "I put a 12", LOS-blocking section of castle wall 3" in front of your Quad Gun."
Player 1: :wtf: "...GG?"

Other scenarios occur usually when a shooty army sees an area with random terrain density 1 and fills it with the smallest, least LOS-obstructing piece of terrain available, usually stuffing it in a corner to basically turn the entire section into Planet Bowling Ball. Then there's the "tactic" of filling your opponent's deployment zone with Mysterious Woods, ensuring that your opponent must either weave around them to deploy and move forward or risk the 50% chance of their unit getting om-nom-nommed for nothing.

I've heard a lot of players praising 6th edition, which means either I'm entirely alone in thinking that GW's way is dumb, or other players simply choose to house rule the stupid parts away. Who else is noticing this, and what are some of the house rules you've come up with to rectify this? I'm looking for something that I can use in a competitive setting, such that it's balanced, but fair enough to keep the game fun.

Konovalev
14-08-2012, 00:47
With those I play with, we've houseruled terrain placement such that you divide the board in half and players can only place terrain in their half of the board. Seems to work pretty well in my experience.

unknown_lifeform
14-08-2012, 00:49
It might not be affecting a lot of people who are probably just setting up terrain the way they always have: chucking what they have down and making it look nice.

Commissar Merces
14-08-2012, 00:53
After playing a number of games about as by the book as possible, I've finally narrowed down the one pet peeve rule that makes me hate 6th ed 40k: terrain setup. All during 5th, I held the stance that the core rules weren't as terrible as they were made out to be if they were played by the book. And so that's what I tried in 6th, and the core rules work just fine. But when played competitively (whether you're supposed to do so or not has been beaten to dead horse status, so let's just assume that competitive play holds fun for a certain subset of hobbyists), the rules for random terrain setup insist that both players place terrain in such a way as to screw the other player, killing the fun of the game before the thing even starts. In fact, in my experience, the first player to not use terrain placement to screw the other player is the one who loses, or at least the one who has a much harder time of things. For instance...

Player 1: "I put my Aegis Defense Line in this corner, with the Quad Gun right in front."
Player 2: "I put a 12", LOS-blocking section of castle wall 3" in front of your Quad Gun."
Player 1: :wtf: "...GG?"

Other scenarios occur usually when a shooty army sees an area with random terrain density 1 and fills it with the smallest, least LOS-obstructing piece of terrain available, usually stuffing it in a corner to basically turn the entire section into Planet Bowling Ball. Then there's the "tactic" of filling your opponent's deployment zone with Mysterious Woods, ensuring that your opponent must either weave around them to deploy and move forward or risk the 50% chance of their unit getting om-nom-nommed for nothing.

I've heard a lot of players praising 6th edition, which means either I'm entirely alone in thinking that GW's way is dumb, or other players simply choose to house rule the stupid parts away. Who else is noticing this, and what are some of the house rules you've come up with to rectify this? I'm looking for something that I can use in a competitive setting, such that it's balanced, but fair enough to keep the game fun.

My local club has cut out

1. Warlord traits. Most of the time they are useless but other times one side gets something useless and the other gets something amazing. Until Codex's come out with faction specific ones, I am pretty much not a fan of these. *unless players agree to these rules

2. Mysterious terrain and objectives *unless players agree to these rules

3. Setting up terrain in front of anyone's fortifications.

4. If you get a psychic power you can use (like a broodlord getting a witch fire as he has no BS) you may have a reroll on the table.

5. Pretty much have taken out challanges as no one ever uses them.

6. You may only place terrain on your sides of the board *unless both players agree to use the standard way of doing it.

Basically eliminating everything that makes this a gimmick edition, which is sad because if you take out all the crap, this edition is probably my favorite since a long long time ago.

flemfilms
14-08-2012, 01:04
My crew have been doing it the old way...set up the board in an agreeable fashion and then rolling to see who chooses their deployment zone. And completely ignoring random terrain, but keeping random objectives and all the other new stuff.

wanderingblade
14-08-2012, 01:18
I can sympathise with your reaction entirely, both in the events of such dickishness (if I were a Space Marine on a planet where hills suddenly grew in front of fortifications, ****** finishing the battle, I'm going to order an exterminatus on this clearly chaos ridden world), and your general belief that these things are not fun.

So much so in fact that I took one look at them and never used them. So far we've done one guy sets up, the other guy gets to pick ends.

Chem-Dog
14-08-2012, 03:44
It might not be affecting a lot of people who are probably just setting up terrain the way they always have: chucking what they have down and making it look nice.

Yup. Either set up by mutual consent or by a third party. With limited time, space and terrain it pays not to fanny about with strategic hill placement.

But be prepared to give the third party a dead arm if he thinks the middle third of the table should be littered with so many craters it looks like a titan pogo party has been through.

IcedCrow
14-08-2012, 04:21
We follow a simple rule: don't be a dick. Placing terrain in front of a fortification to block its line of sight is not intuitive. No one would build a fortification and place a gun in a place that it can't be used. If someone is that competitive that they would do something like that, that player would not be a good fit with our group.

TheDoctor
14-08-2012, 04:47
The way we play it, terrain is done as before (mutual consent, tried to be mostly symetrical, or for a more narrative game)

Fortifications remove a piece of terrain, and you stick the fortification in its place (prevents board from getting too cluttered)

Chapters Unwritten
14-08-2012, 05:06
After playing a number of games about as by the book as possible, I've finally narrowed down the one pet peeve rule that makes me hate 6th ed 40k: terrain setup. All during 5th, I held the stance that the core rules weren't as terrible as they were made out to be if they were played by the book. And so that's what I tried in 6th, and the core rules work just fine. But when played competitively (whether you're supposed to do so or not has been beaten to dead horse status, so let's just assume that competitive play holds fun for a certain subset of hobbyists), the rules for random terrain setup insist that both players place terrain in such a way as to screw the other player, killing the fun of the game before the thing even starts. In fact, in my experience, the first player to not use terrain placement to screw the other player is the one who loses, or at least the one who has a much harder time of things. For instance...

Player 1: "I put my Aegis Defense Line in this corner, with the Quad Gun right in front."
Player 2: "I put a 12", LOS-blocking section of castle wall 3" in front of your Quad Gun."
Player 1: :wtf: "...GG?"

Other scenarios occur usually when a shooty army sees an area with random terrain density 1 and fills it with the smallest, least LOS-obstructing piece of terrain available, usually stuffing it in a corner to basically turn the entire section into Planet Bowling Ball. Then there's the "tactic" of filling your opponent's deployment zone with Mysterious Woods, ensuring that your opponent must either weave around them to deploy and move forward or risk the 50% chance of their unit getting om-nom-nommed for nothing.

I've heard a lot of players praising 6th edition, which means either I'm entirely alone in thinking that GW's way is dumb, or other players simply choose to house rule the stupid parts away. Who else is noticing this, and what are some of the house rules you've come up with to rectify this? I'm looking for something that I can use in a competitive setting, such that it's balanced, but fair enough to keep the game fun.Or you can use the other terrain option, which is literally the same was as has been done since time immemorial and is identical to how it was in the previous edition which you have yourself praised. Especially since it's the "default" and that alternating terrain is the option for if you can't agree with an opponent. Also, terrain needs to be more than 3" from other terrain and you are supposed to pool the lot of it together at the start of the game so that you know what pieces are going to be involved and they can't just go whip out the best bit for screwing the opponent.

But I guess it's a lot easier to just come here and call GW dumb, though. After all, that prevents you from having to even look at the book, or know the rules.

The_Klobb_Maniac
14-08-2012, 05:20
We do a mix here, usually rolling off to see:
-If we'll play with mysterious objectives
-If we'll play with mysterious terrain
-If we'll use "narrative placement" or "strategic placement" (or w/e)
etc..

This way we get more variety from the game and everyone is happy at some point. I still think "narrative" and then rolling off for board sides like in 5th is fun; but occasionally I like the idea of two generals picking a battlefield that suits them best.

Noserider
14-08-2012, 07:33
I like the way it works. Only thing we change is that fortification placement occurs at the end of terrain placement. Makes sense as they would on the whole be the last thing built.

Radium
14-08-2012, 08:32
We just set up a table before rolling for everything, and just roll off for the deployment zone AFTER terrain's been set up. Just like it was in every edition of the game before 6th.

Tarax
14-08-2012, 08:50
In the couple of games I've played:
-We set up terrain before rolling for sides or mission.
-We didn't use mysterious terrain.
-We DID use mysterious objectives. (Though one game we played the Relic, so nothing mysterious.)
-We could re-roll Warlord trait, but will probably ignore that next time(s).

AndrewGPaul
14-08-2012, 08:50
I like the way it works. Only thing we change is that fortification placement occurs at the end of terrain placement. Makes sense as they would on the whole be the last thing built.

Why would you assume that the order in which you set up the terrain is somehow representative of the order in whcih it would form if it were real? Do you always set up hills before rivers before vegetation and buildings?

The reason why you place fortifications first is because they tend to be large and awkward terrain pieces (especially the Skyshield and the Fortress). If you waited until the other terrain was palced, there might not be rooom for them. Easier to place them first than to set up the rest of the terrain and then shuffle hills, woods and rivers out the way to get them in.

Tarax
14-08-2012, 09:22
Or...


Fortifications remove a piece of terrain, and you stick the fortification in its place (prevents board from getting too cluttered)

Better now?

Chapters Unwritten
14-08-2012, 14:46
We just set up a table before rolling for everything, and just roll off for the deployment zone AFTER terrain's been set up. Just like it was in every edition of the game before 6th.And how it STILL is in 6th. Narrative setup, the first one that you are presented with, is the same as the old setup rules. Does anyone read this book?

King ChucaBoBo
14-08-2012, 17:09
Been using the random terrain by the book and have yet to run into any problems. For one thing as already pointed out terrain must be 3" apart, which helps cut down on totally blocking up an area. There is some strategy to the way you place your terrain pieces especially fortifications. If you put your defense line in a 2X2 area that has rolled a 3 for terrain density then of course you will get LOS blocked. Put it in a 2X2 area that rolled a 1 for density and you are fine. If all of the areas have terrain density of 3 then you are going to be on a pretty crowded table anyway. Also if you spend all of your turns placing terrain to screw over your opponent then you are not placing terrain pieces that you might want in your deployment area that are favorable to you. All in all it's been pretty well balanced in my experience.

Lord Damocles
14-08-2012, 19:33
Does anyone read this book?
I rolled on a randomised table to see which pages I'd read.

ReveredChaplainDrake
14-08-2012, 20:11
But I guess it's a lot easier to just come here and call GW dumb, though. After all, that prevents you from having to even look at the book, or know the rules.
Actually, based on both playing experience and researching others' opinions, reading and playing by the rules as they are written may in fact be the problem. This thread, while not giving the kinds of concrete answers I was looking for, gives a rather eye-opening look as to how most people can look at the train wreck of 6th and claim it's good with a straight face: if a rule is dumb, ignore it. Heck, if a rule even so much as looks dumb, ignore it, even if it does work in practice (e.g. mysterious objectives; never roll a 1 when not fielding power armor and it's nothing but win). When you have to close your eyes, cover your ears and hum a happy tune to get through so much of the rulebook, that's not the sign of a good rules set.

IcedCrow
14-08-2012, 21:30
That's all entirely opinion-based though. What is and is not a good ruleset. If one doesn't like the ruleset, either change it, or go play something else. Problem solved for everyone.

koran
14-08-2012, 22:26
I like the way it works. Only thing we change is that fortification placement occurs at the end of terrain placement. Makes sense as they would on the whole be the last thing built.

QFT.

I find the new terrain placement is a great addition to the game. Your example of a person putting some terrain in a bard section right over to the side so it is an empty square just doesnt work because then I can place some large terrain in the board section next to it but hanging over onto that "empty" board section as the rules clearly say that terrain can go into another board section as long as there is slightly more in the one it is to be placed in. That leaves what, 10" of empty space. Thats really not so bad and you just have to work around it. That's the point in a nice tactical game, to work around the problems you face. And you're doing the same thing back. Ive found it adds an extra element to the game, not takes from it.

I do agree that having fortifications placed first is stupid. Perhaps you could look at it as the enemy attacking from a direction that gives them advantage. We found a good medium is to have the player who controls the terrain to nominate the 12" by 12" square that the fortification will go in after the amount of terrain for each section has been rolled. Then terrain is placed and finally the fortification put down. This stops the fortifications being placed somewhere that is far too good that it sways the battle overly or that it is placed somewhere where it does nothing.

williamsond
15-08-2012, 14:32
I pretty much ignore the new terrain placement rules and like always just put stuff out to make it look pretty. we then just roll to see who gets to choose sides first.

Andy089
15-08-2012, 15:39
(Sorry I haven't read the whole thread, so someone might have said that already)
I think the easiest way would be to
1) Set up terrain like mentioned in the Rulebook
2) Players choose side
3) Set up Fortifications

You can remove small terrain if your fortification is obstructing it (I can't imagine a case of "Sir, we can't build an imperial bastion here. There are some trees in the way").

You might have to tweak some rules but I think that would be a fairly good house ruling.

But then again - the easiest way really is...don't be a dick.

unknown_lifeform
15-08-2012, 16:43
Actually, based on both playing experience and researching others' opinions, reading and playing by the rules as they are written may in fact be the problem. This thread, while not giving the kinds of concrete answers I was looking for, gives a rather eye-opening look as to how most people can look at the train wreck of 6th and claim it's good with a straight face: if a rule is dumb, ignore it.

Hyperbole much? Its already been pointed out that narrative setup is an option given by the rules as written, you don't have to use the alternating terrain setup rules. As for your example of a sabotaged objective, it isn't a problem. The explosion uses the large blast but you only have to be within 3" to hold it - so just don't plonk stuff right on top of the objective marker if you don't want to get blown off it.

People not using rules for mysterious woods and objectives isn't an example of people ignoring rules which don't work, its an example of people agreeing not to use rules they might find gimicky or silly. Personally I've been using the rules for mysterious objectives but only using mysterious woods depending on campaign circumstances - if its a chaos world, world being invaded by the tyranids or a death world we use mysterious woods, otherwise we treat all woods as normal.

I really don't see much reason to justify calling 6th a "train wreck" - its no more badly written than any other set of GW rules. But as to using the rules strictly as written being a problem I'd kind of agree - GW rules aren't written like logical equations or a mathematical thesis. They are best approached in the spirit they are written and require some degree of common sense, good will and interpretation by the players. And yes, if both players don't like it and want to change it then hey, go for it.

stereynolds
20-08-2012, 17:25
I pretty much ignore the new terrain placement rules and like always just put stuff out to make it look pretty. we then just roll to see who gets to choose sides first.

Ditto - Best way of doing, haven't even bothered trying the new terrain set up rules.

arthurfallz
20-08-2012, 18:24
I don't understand why in a tournament you would have anything but terrain set up ahead of time, with specific areas as to where a Fortification is set up? Make all things equal. Terrain placement should not be "part of the strategy" in a true competitive game.

So it's a case of using a system designed to be casual, random and possibly absurd for a serious game of "two equals meet on a proving ground."

Alan
20-08-2012, 18:29
Well I encountered only one person (which calls him competitive player) who was ******** with terrain placement (almost using laser measuring to place hill in front of my fortification and then arguing about blocking LOS etc...). I dont find that kind of play interesting and fun so I just surrendered and packed my army.
Please dont consider me whining person or something else but I really hate rules tweaking and crapping around with wording in rulebook. I played fantasy for a long long time and couldnt take it anymore, so much bad persons coming into hobby and it just didnt feel fun to me anymore.
Like someone before me said dont be a ******** and try to ruin good game or do some minor tweaking (placment of fortification on the end of terrain deployment) and everything is fine.

Erwos
20-08-2012, 20:02
I always use narrative placement, usually by hauling a third party over and having them set up terrain. It usually goes fine; in fact, it's usually used as a handicap if players of varying skill level are in a game.