Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I have a curly question around etiquette and/or rules when it comes to deciding on terrain when playing 40K.
I'll give you a background first.
I use an Ork Army, so great at close quarters combat but easily mowed down. My mate plays Space Marines, so full of fire-power (dakka) but cut to pieces when i get to him.
We've had terrain disputes in the past with him complaining that me using trees for cover was unfair and me saying having S12 bunkers which i couldn't shoot into would be unfair... Him claiming bunkers should have line of site across the board as 'who would build a defensive bunker if there are trees in front of them', me claiming 'people defend forests too you know'.
Also if I'm in a forest my understanding is he can't see me at all. Where as he claims he can see me in the forest so all I get is a cover save. Which is correct?
I understand that 25% of the map should be terrain (give or take), but how would we resolve what's fair and what's not? I guess its just a matter of each force having terrain that suits us best and how and where we deploy. But it seems to be an ongoing point of contention
Hope I've explained clearly enough my situation and that I've posted in the right place.
Last edited by specialasianX; April 7th, 2010 at 08:31.
To resolve the forest dispute, 5th edition now uses true line of sight which changed the area terrain rules which most forests fell into. Before if you were just standing behind or within a certain depth of area terrain their troops could not see you and you could not see out, but this has basically been taken out with the new True Line of Sight rules. All your opponent needs to see to be able to shoot a unit is be able to see part of the body of one model this includes appendages other than flags, or badges.
In order to resolve the bunker dispute you could count it as an armor 11 building, or an armor 10 building if it is a problem. You also need to keep in mind true line of sight for this too. The troops inside can only see what is visible from the fire points.
Consider trading off on who places terrain so that you both have equal say in where terrain is going and try to have fun! Don't bog your game down with too much rules disputes or then it isn't as much fun . I would also consider always having a rulebook handy though just encase a dispute gets to the point that it needs to be settled.
Always pick the terrain that benefits your army the most. There's no sense in giving yourself a disadvantage just because your opponent thinks they should have one. He can pick his favorite terrain as well.
Regardless of the terrain, each army has options for dealing with cover and bunkers... or anything else there might be for that matter.
--•-My 40K projects-•--
Thanks guys... This helps... I also realised after posting, if I get to choose which edge i play from I can negate any advantage he hoped to gain from the bunker but lose the advantage of any forests i place and vice versa.
If you're having that many disputes about it you could try getting a third person to setup the terrain for you.
The Emperor Protects
IG Best Gen 1st overall of 10 DE 4th overall of 6
Eldar 3rd Overall/Best General of 26--2nd Overall/Best General of 7--1st Overall/Best General of 11
An unbiased third person works well, and each taking turns placing and a D6 + scatter does too.
Yeah we take turns placing, but i like the Scatter idea... Will suggest this.
We are in the process of buying more terrain for our games so we can ensure there is enough terrain on the battlefield from here on in.
A related hijack, but where do you typically purchase your terrain?
Either Games Workhop or Ebay... if anyone has any other options they would be greatly appreciated... I'm looking into making some soon as well