Right. But none of this says that terrain has to be range 1 apart. If it did, two barricades couldn't touch to make a longer barricade. You either mutually agree, you trust the TO, or you can place using R1.

I really don't see why this is confusing. This is only an issue if you assume crappy intent and place competitively from the start when not at a tournament. I would personally expect that most tables would have terrain within R1 of each other.

8 minutes ago, Brightguy said:

Right. But none of this says that terrain has to be range 1 apart. If it did, two barricades couldn't touch to make a longer barricade. You either mutually agree, you trust the TO, or you can place using R1.

I really don't see why this is confusing. This is only an issue if you assume crappy intent and place competitively from the start when not at a tournament. I would personally expect that most tables would have terrain within R1 of each other.

Okay, first of all, the Competitive Terrain rules do state that players take turns placing terrain beyond range 1 of all other pieces. If that isn't possible then you can place terrain pieces closer. So, if a TO at an event or two players in a friendly game choose to use these rules, that is how terrain is placed.

As for barricades, also from the RRG p. 9 under Barricades

Quote

This type of terrain is often found in multiple small segments that can be combined to form defensive lines.

I'm not sure there is any confusion going on here. I think some folks are choosing to disregard the Competitive Terrain rules as that isn't how they choose to play while other folks are choosing to use those rules as they plan on playing in a competitive setting. Those folks use the Competitive Terrain rules even in friendly games because, as they used to tell me in the Army, "you train the way you fight".

1 minute ago, NeonWolf said:

Not necessarily.

Step 3 of Setup says you can use the Competitive Terrain rules if you and your opponent choose to, not just if you disagree.

The first option is "any mutually agreeable way". So if both players are choosing, then there's no need for the rules. Because both players are in agreement. The only time the rules become relevant (as in, they become immutable laws that must be abided by) is when the players can't agree.

You CAN both choose to use the competitive terrain rules, but since you're still in the "any mutually agreeable way" option, then you and your opponent can choose to ignore any or all of the competitive terrain rules that you mutually agree on. Which makes them, not so much rules as guidelines.

The only time they really become important, is when you and your opponent CAN'T agree on what to do with the terrain.

Just now, NeonWolf said:

Those folks use the Competitive Terrain rules even in friendly games because, as they used to tell me in the Army, "you train the way you fight".

I dislike the implication that tournament games are (or should be) less "friendly" than non-tournament games.

Quote

The first option is "any mutually agreeable way". So if both players are choosing, then there's no need for the rules. Because both players are in agreement. The only time the rules become relevant (as in, they become immutable laws that must be abided by) is when the players can't agree.

You CAN both choose to use the competitive terrain rules, but since you're still in the "any mutually agreeable way" option, then you and your opponent can choose to ignore any or all of the competitive terrain rules that you mutually agree on. Which makes them, not so much rules as guidelines.

The only time they really become important, is when you and your opponent CAN'T agree on what to do with the terrain.

So your issue is with the wording of the RRG? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Quote

I dislike the implication that tournament games are (or should be) less "friendly" than non-tournament games.

I wasn't aware I was implying anything. I was making a point that someone that plans on playing Legion at a competitive level, say the Legion World Championships, will most likely use the Competitive Terrain rules for their games so that they are as prepared as possible for those high-level competitive games. Nowhere did I say that they are "unfriendly".

35 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

I'm not sure there is any confusion going on here. I think some folks are choosing to disregard the Competitive Terrain rules as that isn't how they choose to play while other folks are choosing to use those rules as they plan on playing in a competitive setting. Those folks use the Competitive Terrain rules even in friendly games because, as they used to tell me in the Army, "you train the way you fight".

I suspect a lot of competitive games will be played on boards configured by the TO to save time.

I've also found that barricades and other low cover right against buildings are sometimes not as fun as barricades with a distance of one trooper base away.

42 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

So your issue is with the wording of the RRG? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I wasn't aware I was implying anything. I was making a point that someone that plans on playing Legion at a competitive level, say the Legion World Championships, will most likely use the Competitive Terrain rules for their games so that they are as prepared as possible for those high-level competitive games. Nowhere did I say that they are "unfriendly".

The point I'm trying to make is that the competitive terrain placement rules only ever come into play if the players cannot otherwise come to a mutually agreeable solution.

Even in a competitive event, the first step to setting up terrain is to come to any mutually agreeable solution. I imagine something like World's will have terrain pre-set by the TO, rather than using the competitive terrain placement rules. But then as I've mentioned, the players can always move the terrain around if both players agree.

48 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

I wasn't aware I was implying anything.

People often aren't. It's subtle things, like referring to casual games as friendly (by distinction then, competitive games must not be as friendly) or referring to casual games as training. I'm not picking on your personally or your use of language, I just hate it when people bounce from tournament to tournament, and only treat non-tournament games as practice for the next tournament. Then every game feels like a tournament game, and I don't like tournament games as much as other styles of game. So when I see that vibe pop up, I like to address it so that if nothing else, people will make a conscious choice about how they view the divide between casual and competitive games.

2 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

Even in a competitive event, the first step to setting up terrain is to come to any mutually agreeable solution. I imagine something like World's will have terrain pre-set by the TO, rather than using the competitive terrain placement rules. But then as I've mentioned, the players can always move the terrain around if both players agree.

Incorrect. Re-read the tournament regulations on Step 1 and moving terrain around. I do, however, concur that an event like Worlds will have pre-set terrain. I pre-set the terrain on the tables I used in a non-competitve event recently but I did use the Competitive Terrain rules when I did so. You can see the images earlier in this thread.

2 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

I'm not picking on your personally or your use of language, I just hate it when people bounce from tournament to tournament, and only treat non-tournament games as practice for the next tournament. Then every game feels like a tournament game, and I don't like tournament games as much as other styles of game. So when I see that vibe pop up, I like to address it so that if nothing else, people will make a conscious choice about how they view the divide between casual and competitive games.

You are entitled to your opinion, that does not invalidate my statement about certain players treating every game as a tournament game, nor does my statement imply that I, personally, feel that way.

I am merely pointing out that someone who intends to compete at a World Championship level will most likely play most, if not all, of their games as training games for that event.

All that aside, there are rules on how much terrain to use on a table that have been furnished by FFG. Whether you choose to follow those rules in your games, outside of competitive events, is a personal decision. Since the topic of this thread is referring to using enough terrain, I felt I should reiterate this point.

3 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

I suspect a lot of competitive games will be played on boards configured by the TO to save time.

I've also found that barricades and other low cover right against buildings are sometimes not as fun as barricades with a distance of one trooper base away.

I suspect your are correct, as it also eliminates possible contention about fairness of terrain placement from one round to the next.

I have not tried placing barricades, etc, right next to buildings myself, although I have been tempted to place them right next to area terrain. A map consisting of craters and barricades could be an ugly slug-fest depending on the Objective, however that type of board would be more for scenario play since the terrain rules specify including LoS blocking pieces on the board.

9 hours ago, shmitty said:

Speaking of woods. While I love the Gale Force 9 woods terrain, they aren't currently making them. Anyone have other good sources of trees for miniature gaming?

Most hobby shops sell trees with little bases on them. Scene-A-Rama is one company that makes trees, both pre-built and ones you have to assemble.

Their trees have little bases which you can glue small coins or washers underneath to make them stand on their own. The ones you assemble yourself are pretty cheap too. usually you get a bag or box of 20-30 trees for $20 or so. All you need is a little glue to stick the foliage on.

On 5/20/2018 at 7:41 PM, SFC Snuffy said:

Infinity is a natural comparison due to the futuristic and/or sci-fi feel of the setting, but I'd rather hear from from some Dust: Warfare players as the Legion ruleset owes a lot to that game. What's an average Dust: Warfare table look like?

As a Dust player (and Infinity, and...) here are some examples of our average tables, taking into account the walkers need room to maneuver. Most terrain is within movement distance of the infantry, so pretty much 1/4 to 1/3 of the table.

Cheers!

20 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

The first option is "any mutually agreeable way". So if both players are choosing, then there's no need for the rules. Because both players are in agreement. The only time the rules become relevant (as in, they become immutable laws that must be abided by) is when the players can't agree.

You CAN both choose to use the competitive terrain rules, but since you're still in the "any mutually agreeable way" option, then you and your opponent can choose to ignore any or all of the competitive terrain rules that you mutually agree on. Which makes them, not so much rules as guidelines.

The only time they really become important, is when you and your opponent CAN'T agree on what to do with the terrain.

I dislike the implication that tournament games are (or should be) less "friendly" than non-tournament games.

Where are you getting this idea that players can disregard the rules? Obviously you can do whatever you want in a casual game, but the competitive terrain is quite clear terrain is placed at range 1 of each other, and players should agree on what each piece does.

I don't think your argument has merit because it hinges on you and your opponent agreeing not to use the rules. At which point, I can just say all terrain grants heavy cover, I can move barricades with my soldiers, and nothing it difficult terrain. And my troopers get 5 red dice per mini, because we can make up the rules since we agree.

The moment I say no to any rule modification, the real rules come back into play. And I'm going to say no if you think you can move terrain I placed, or try some other crazy rule for some terrain.

And FYI, this is the exact reason people discuss the rules in an assumed tournament setting. Everyone can contribute because we all have a level playing field when we all agree to follow the same rules. There is no implication tournament games are not friendly, but rather it allows us to discuss the RRG.

I'm... just gonna reiterate this.

Quote

Starting with the player whose army has the lowest total point value (if both players’ armies have the same point total, flip a coin), players take turns placing a single piece of terrain on the battlefield, beyond range 1 of all other pieces of terrain. If terrain cannot be placed beyond range 1, the player may place it anywhere on the battlefield as long as it is not touching another piece of terrain.

You have to start somewhat spread out before you start filling in, but it's not like the rule bans dense terrain.

19 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

Incorrect. Re-read the tournament regulations on Step 1 and moving terrain around.

Had a look out of curiosity, Step 1 doesn't say anything about moving terrain around.

In fact, the tournament regs don't specify any kind of terrain set-up rules. Or if they do, I missed it. It IS a 20 page document...

However, the RRG has this to say:

Quote

3. Place Terrain: Players cooperate to set up terrain in a mutually agreeable fashion. If they cannot or do not wish to, they may use the Competitive Terrain Placement rules found on page 9.

So, unless the tournament specifically states otherwise.

I would suggest that players simply... follow the rules and attempt to come to a mutually agreeable decision.

33 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

Had a look out of curiosity, Step 1 doesn't say anything about moving terrain around.

That was my point. ?

I guess it depends on whether you interpret:

Before the tournament begins, the organizer must set up tables suitable for tournament play.

To also mean setting up terrain. To me that just means making sure the terrain is there to be used, the tables are the appropriate width and length and there is room to put all your stuff. And then players would use the terrain placement rules to set the terrain up.

Other tournaments I've played in where terrain placement is part of the game (more or less) follow that system. The TO gets everything there ready to use, and the players set the terrain up themselves.

Top right corner of the battlefield. Got tired of cropping to make it fit, but the rest of the battlefield has similar amounts of terrain. Guess I took this thread to heart.

On 5/20/2018 at 11:13 PM, Zrob314 said:

Holy crap this was eye opening.

Allright, the picture below is an average amount of terrain I use in a game (on the green mat)

The mat is only 3 square feet.

A 3x6 800 point game should be using 4.5 square feet of terrain. I've only been using 2/3 of the terrain I should be using.

This picture includes:

Bunker (Battle Kiwi)

2 Landing pad stands (Battle Kiwi)

2 plasma generators (Battle Kiwi)

Shield Generator/Turbolaser stand (Battle Kiwi)

Scatter terrain (Battle Kiwi)

6 Barricades (FFG)

3 Moisture Vaparators (Imperial Terrain)

7 cargo containers (various type) (Imperial Terrain)

4 types of cargo pallet (Imperial Terrain)

Golan Arms Turret (Imperial Terrain)

Power Generator (Thingaverse)

Scatter Crates (dunno bought them for IA)

Is that mat 3ftx3ft? If so, your math is off. 3 foot by 3 foot is 9 square feet.

On 5/23/2018 at 1:21 PM, KiltedWolf said:

As a Dust player (and Infinity, and...) here are some examples of our average tables, taking into account the walkers need room to maneuver. Most terrain is within movement distance of the infantry, so pretty much 1/4 to 1/3 of the table.

Cheers!

In some of these pictures the terrain is definitely more than 1/3rd of the play area...

3 hours ago, SoonerTed said:

In some of these pictures the terrain is definitely more than 1/3rd of the play area...

But some of that terrain is just big flat surfaces, which really shouldn't count as terrain at all.

On 5/21/2018 at 2:41 PM, Lord Cedric said:

I'd prefer having more terrain than less. But I also prefer aesthetics and making sure that terrain "fits" thematically, makes sense the way it's layed out as well as a balance for both sides. Here are some snap shots of my average tables:

Which buildings are these again or where can i get them?

9 hours ago, SoonerTed said:

Is that mat 3ftx3ft? If so, your math is off. 3 foot by 3 foot is 9 square feet.

no, the mat is not 3x3, it's more like 2.5x2.5

4 hours ago, buckero0 said:

Which buildings are these again or where can i get them?

Cheers! These are all from Imperial Terrain. You can get them here: Imperial Terrain

2 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

no, the mat is not 3x3, it's more like 2.5x2.5

Then you're probably fine - 2.1x2.1 square is about 4.5 square feet - which is 25% of the 6x3 area.

2 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

no, the mat is not 3x3, it's more like 2.5x2.5

2.5x2.5 is 6.25 square feet, which is 35% of 18 square feet (6 ft by 3 ft).

Plenty of terrain by the recommendations, right?