I'm very willing to be proved wrong.

Ok. I'm proved wrong. Opps.

At least you're gracious about it.

On 6/13/2018 at 5:32 PM, svelok said:

Keep in mind you can Rapid Reinforcements your turrets in from orbit.

Just a shame you can’t drop it on enemy units for damage

On 6/13/2018 at 10:35 AM, C3POFETT said:

I understand the setup order but looking across the table a player can see your troops and adjust accordingly.

They can if they're a cheater who wants to win more than they want friends...

12 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

They can if they're a cheater who wants to win more than they want friends...

Once you've started placing models, your list is public information.

3 hours ago, Squark said:

Once you've started placing models, your list is public information.

Once you've started placing models, they aren't allowed to start moving terrain around to counter your list.

2 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

Once you've started placing models, they aren't allowed to start moving terrain around to counter your list.

Sorry, the quote was missing context. I thought you were only talking about deployment.

As for tailoring terrain setup to an opponent's list... Most tournaments have their terrain set in advance to save time, so that's not an issue. Against a familiar opponent... Competitive terrain setup can produce some weirdness. Setting up against the exact composition of your opponent's list isn't kosher, certainly, but knowing roughly what sort of enemy force you're likely to face and setting up accordingly is just the other side of the coin compared to setting up terrain that favors your own list, no?

(For the record, I don't actually use competitive terrain setup. I prefer more of a consensus approach).

9 hours ago, Squark said:

Sorry, the quote was missing context. I thought you were only talking about deployment.

As for tailoring terrain setup to an opponent's list... Most tournaments have their terrain set in advance to save time, so that's not an issue. Against a familiar opponent... Competitive terrain setup can produce some weirdness. Setting up against the exact composition of your opponent's list isn't kosher, certainly, but knowing roughly what sort of enemy force you're likely to face and setting up accordingly is just the other side of the coin compared to setting up terrain that favors your own list, no?

(For the record, I don't actually use competitive terrain setup. I prefer more of a consensus approach).

I like to make it as even/fair as possible, especially considering that I don't know who's going to be the Blue player and which side of the table they will choose. I think trying to pick or set up terrain that screws your opponent for a friendly game is the opposite of friendly. Now, if there were rules for bringing and setting up terrain in a competitive way I could possibly get behind that.

Quote

COMPETITIVE TERRAIN
To simulate two armies attempting to choose the optimal location for combat, the players may place terrain in such a way that they believe they will have an advantage.

1. The players set aside an even number of terrain pieces that cover roughly a quarter of the battlefield, choosing some pieces that will block line of sight and some that will simply provide cover.

2. 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.

3. After players have finished setting up terrain, proceed
to step 4 of setup.

Source: Page 9 of the RRG.

The last event I played in, my opponent had 1. We had breakthrough as the objective. He pretty much kept me from playing that side of the board, and shot down several speeder bikes with it. Mt AtSt traded the favor on the other side of the board, but the gun had an effect. Even if it was just to keep my army from that side of the board.

On 11/5/2018 at 5:23 AM, Squark said:

Source: Page 9 of the RRG.

Good catch, that needs to be addressed as it conflicts with the "non competitive"

"2. 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.

4. Select Player Color and Sides: The player whose army has the lowest point total chooses to be either the red player or the blue player. Then, the blue player chooses one of the long table edges and sets their army near that edge. The red player takes the other long table edge. If both players’ armies have the same point total, roll a die or flip a coin to determine which player chooses to be red or blue."

Of course, I don't like to use competitive because everything has to be 6 inches away from everything else until nothing can be there which makes for an ugly, non-tehematic board that is basically just blobs of los blocker.

Imperial Terrain landing bay is 8+ pieces that could technically never be built in a game with competitive terrain placement. By the time the board was full enough that you could start joining pieces together the spots where they would go would have been taken up or the sections would have been cannibalized for other places on the map.

Battle Kiwi landing pad is 2 to 11 (including pillars and ladder) pieces that would never come together, same reason

Battle Kiwi shield generator is 1-3 pieces.