Making 40k fun: random terrain

[IcedCrow]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.