Are you guys playing with the recommended Alternating Terrain set up procedure?

[Cantina Fly]

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]

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]

Wouldn't rolling for table edges be needed so player's know which deployment zone to place their army's Fortification on?

[Punjoke]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It's recommended?

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

[Lord Inquisitor]

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.