Fortifications slot

[deaddice]

I not sure where to put this question but i was just wondering since there are no official 6th ed codexes out what do you think the chances are of seeing army specific fortifications coming out with 6th ed codexes ?

Just seems to make sense to me, of course i have no actually idea if GW will do this or not, the only other avenue for players i see is getting one in a WD.

[eldargal]

Hopefully GWs thinking runs like this:

1) Introduce fortificatiosn to BRB to sell our current scenery.
2) Introduce race specific fortifications with the codices, with kits
3) People will buy those kits
4) Profit!

[deaddice]

yea i would hope for the same thing since i dont see how it would be to any one's detriment and to every ones benefit esp those who can do some crazy conversions.

[Tannarak]

Tyranids come to mind. I don't have the 6th Edition rulebook. I would find it tough to believe that Tyranids would want to build a bastion nearby...

If they don't make a kit, hopefully there's rules now that will tell you the maximum size, otherwise somebody's terrain just me be "table size"...

[eldargal]

Some giant sac thing as a counts as bastion would be fine, I'm drawing up plans for Eldar terrain matching each of the BRB pieces in size and effect. Webway portal platform for skyshield, little wraithbone shield generator wall things for aegis lines, a big bastion thing bases on the buildings in DoW2 and so forth.

[Chaoschrist]

Tyranids come to mind. I don't have the 6th Edition rulebook. I would find it tough to believe that Tyranids would want to build a bastion nearby...

If they don't make a kit, hopefully there's rules now that will tell you the maximum size, otherwise somebody's terrain just me be "table size"...

That's something I've been wondering... fortifications that are being scratchbuilt... what are the rules on that how big can it be? Is there a rule for entrypoints? A rule for where the guns are?

But besides that I'm not to thrilled since quite a lot of tables I play(ed) at were already scenery full (as in roads/craters/buildings... just under what's acceptable for city fighting), now people will bring scenery of their own in the mix... I don't even know if there's room on the tables for that. And to be honest, playing on a blank table never really was a big interest of mine either way.

Besides; the entire logistics issue comes to mind. I can imagine GW stores don't want to borrow their scenery/fortifications out and expect people to bring their own. That in general isn't weird... but since I travel by public transport hauling around a big box or a 2nd/3rd minicase just for the sake of the need of the fortress of redemption is quite silly. So if I use fortifications I'll likely use them at home, which is a place I'll play more now I guess, and in the end doesn't profit from impulse sales I might have had in that way. But meh... minor rant I guess. Move along people... nothing to see here.

[eldargal]

I'm going with similar footprint, similar height, similar profile so its physical effect in terms of position, LOS etc are much the same. But no official word on such things.

[isotope99]

A few quick questions on the fortress if I may as my book is in the post still and I can't find them elsewhere:


Are its base weapons included (lascannon, missile silo, 2 H Bolters) in its 220pt pricetag?
How much is the comm relay upgrade?
Can the lascannon and missile silo be manned like the separate interceptor guns to fire at higher BS?

[Tynskel]

That's something I've been wondering... fortifications that are being scratchbuilt... what are the rules on that how big can it be? Is there a rule for entrypoints? A rule for where the guns are?

But besides that I'm not to thrilled since quite a lot of tables I play(ed) at were already scenery full (as in roads/craters/buildings... just under what's acceptable for city fighting), now people will bring scenery of their own in the mix... I don't even know if there's room on the tables for that. And to be honest, playing on a blank table never really was a big interest of mine either way.

Besides; the entire logistics issue comes to mind. I can imagine GW stores don't want to borrow their scenery/fortifications out and expect people to bring their own. That in general isn't weird... but since I travel by public transport hauling around a big box or a 2nd/3rd minicase just for the sake of the need of the fortress of redemption is quite silly. So if I use fortifications I'll likely use them at home, which is a place I'll play more now I guess, and in the end doesn't profit from impulse sales I might have had in that way. But meh... minor rant I guess. Move along people... nothing to see here.

No room on tables!?!?!? Since when? Most tables have NO terrain.

[Chaoschrist]

No room on tables!?!?!? Since when? Most tables have NO terrain.

Most tables I play at, in stores, have pretty scenic tables. A store I used to frequent only had a single wargaming table full of trenches.

Yes, one can argue if they should have offered a more "simple" table instead of one that has trenches, debris and all glued and painted "in" it, but that in general isn't the case for a fair share of tables I used in stores.

GW stores itself... they clearly use the realm of whatever it's called set they sell themselves, but that's not really the nearest store for me.

Also; I'm not to fond of "empty" tables myself, I personally prefer full tables myself so there's enough cover, difficult terrain and stuff like that, on top of the fact that I rather have buildings, basing and other random things blend well together, instead of having a desert world and someone bringing a pink fortress of redemption.

Also; I can just imagine playing apocalypse and everyone bringing a few fortress of redemption, now that they are an actual choice one can buy to enhance their armylist. I'll bring 10... teehee, no room for your tanks. Yes.. .clearly I deserve a douchebag award for such behaviour, but not everyone awards those and I can see at least someone bringing an all fortification list for an apoc battle.

Might be just me that hates Tzeentch... err... change a bit. Maybe I should give it some time to see how this is going to work out, see how many people actually bring fortifications and how 6th ed actually works out.

[Gir]

A few quick questions on the fortress if I may as my book is in the post still and I can't find them elsewhere:


Are its base weapons included (lascannon, missile silo, 2 H Bolters) in its 220pt pricetag?
How much is the comm relay upgrade?
Can the lascannon and missile silo be manned like the separate interceptor guns to fire at higher BS?


Lascannons and missile yes, Heavy bolters are extra.
There's an upgraded missile type for the silo that costs extra
Comms realy is 20pts, but can only be taken with the bastion or defense lines
lascannon and missile silo can be manned.

[gendoikari87]

question if the table is full of terrain can you remove terrain to place your fortification?

[The AKH]

I'd say that would be up to your opponent or the TO - most tournaments that I've played at have a "don't move the scenery" policy, but when I'm playing against my friends, we usually mutually fiddle with the scenery pre-game (if we haven't set it up ourselves).

[Gir]

question if the table is full of terrain can you remove terrain to place your fortification?

Fortifications are always placed before terrain, and count towards the tables terrain coverage.

[The AKH]

However, by my reckoning the steps given for terrain placement are a bit long-winded and will probably be streamlined or ignored by most tourney organizers and/or pick-up gamers.

[Lerra]

One nice thing about fortifications is that small local tournaments and FLGSs can set up more tables with the same amount of terrain. Most of the stores around here are always short on decent terrain, so encouraging players to bring their own will help. If you're worried about transportability, the Aegis defense lines are quite compact. You might also be able to build a bastion so that it separates into two pieces for easier transport, too. The Fortress . . . good luck.

[MajorWesJanson]

One nice thing about fortifications is that small local tournaments and FLGSs can set up more tables with the same amount of terrain. Most of the stores around here are always short on decent terrain, so encouraging players to bring their own will help. If you're worried about transportability, the Aegis defense lines are quite compact. You might also be able to build a bastion so that it separates into two pieces for easier transport, too. The Fortress . . . good luck.

Actually, the Fortress of Redemption separates into 4 nice easy parts- Big tower, Missile Silo annex, Lascannon annex, walkway.

[The AKH]

It still takes up about as much space as most 1000-1500 point armies, even broken down.

[gcsmith]

Never used terrain set up rules, since GW has it's own terrain on tables. We usually just agree, but might try out the rules soon.

[Sister Rosette Soulknyt]

I already own the Fortress, and am happily converting it for my SoB, as for a Bastion, well the plan is to make a Chapel with the same rules, and for others will use the defence lines and other scenery as i go.

[gendoikari87]

Fortifications are always placed before terrain, and count towards the tables terrain coverage.

wait so you don't know if your own fortifications are in your area of deployment? That sounds stupid, or do you now pick sides, game, THEN place terrain? cause that can be abused, heavily.

[Kawauso]

wait so you don't know if your own fortifications are in your area of deployment? That sounds stupid, or do you now pick sides, game, THEN place terrain? cause that can be abused, heavily.

Place terrain.

Determine deployment, etc.

Someone has a fortification? Place it anywhere in their deployment zone. Conflicts with existing terrain? Place it anyway, have the opponent reposition the displaced terrain.

Seems a fair and simple way to sort that out.

[Darnath Lysander]

I think that Eldargal has the right idea. Follow the money. :) It would make sense that fortifications will slow creep their way into future codecs and the like. More stuff to buy, more money for GW! Remember... there is no cover save from capitalism!

[Drakkan Vael]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gendoikari87
wait so you don't know if your own fortifications are in your area of deployment? That sounds stupid, or do you now pick sides, game, THEN place terrain? cause that can be abused, heavily.

Place terrain.

Determine deployment, etc.

Someone has a fortification? Place it anywhere in their deployment zone. Conflicts with existing terrain? Place it anyway, have the opponent reposition the displaced terrain.

Seems a fair and simple way to sort that out.

Actually no.
1. Choose mission
2. Choose Deployment type
3. Select table half
4. Set up fortifications
5. Set up terrain.

It's all BRB.

[Diagnosis Ninja]

Actually no.
1. Choose mission
2. Choose Deployment type
3. Select table half
4. Set up fortifications
5. Set up terrain.

It's all BRB.
Terrain after choosing sides? Yikes. Marvel as people rush to grab all the ruins.

[Kawauso]

Actually no.
1. Choose mission
2. Choose Deployment type
3. Select table half
4. Set up fortifications
5. Set up terrain.

It's all BRB.

...Which is exactly why I offered my alternative steps.

Placing terrain after deployment zones are chosen is stupid. Even in friendly games where one tries to be fair, there's a good chance you'll subconsciously be setting terrain up for some sort of advantage.

[gcsmith]

My answer is get a random person to set the terrain up

[gendoikari87]

Actually no.
1. Choose mission
2. Choose Deployment type
3. Select table half
4. Set up fortifications
5. Set up terrain.

It's all BRB.

No, that's not abuseable AT ALL.

[DarkLink]

Why even use their terrain rules in the first place? Just keep placing 25% terrain like you always have. Assuming you always have put an adequate amount of terrain on the board. But I don't want to spend an hour rolling dice and stuff just to set up the board before I can even play.

[Drakkan Vael]

...Which is exactly why I offered my alternative steps.

Placing terrain after deployment zones are chosen is stupid. Even in friendly games where one tries to be fair, there's a good chance you'll subconsciously be setting terrain up for some sort of advantage.

In friendly games, place terrain however you want. And why not. It's allways been that way. Wait and try it before condemning it.
It's a fair process.
Six 2' by 2' areas, 1d3 pieces of terrain tops per area, including fortifications from the foc. I don't see your problem.


Why even use their terrain rules in the first place? Just keep placing 25% terrain like you always have. Assuming you always have put an adequate amount of terrain on the board. But I don't want to spend an hour rolling dice and stuff just to set up the board before I can even play.

One dice rolled for deployment type, one for the mission, six for the terrain density and one to determine who goes first takes you an hour?