New Apoc Terrain/Fortifications Rules - Questions

[Bigred]

This one has been running under the radar, but it may have a big impact on the game.

The New Fortifications
The new fortifications (Firestorm Redoubt, etc...) sets come with thier rules in the box!
This is a BIG DEAL, as like Privateer Press and others do - it allows the immediate insertion of a new product into the gamesystem without a new book required. It's practically revolutionary for GW.

40k vs Apoc Rulesets
The Firestorm and the Vengeance are standard fortifications and use the standard 'fortification icon' to mark their rules. So it looks like they are now in the mix for the game, alongside all the other items such as the Aegis, Bastion, Skyshield.

The Aquila has a weird "orange glowy" icon to mark it's rules, which I bet is an Apocalypse only marker. If it has a standard set of 40K fortification rules, I haven't seen them.


4345
Aquilla Strongpoint
Classification: Massive fortifications (Medium building w/battlements + Large building w/battlements) [APOCALYPSE UNIT]
Cost: 2 Land Raiders & a Rhino
AV:15
Access Points: Per model
Fire Points: Per model
Rules: Macro Cannon, or Vortex Missile Battery
Macro cannon:
-Macro Shell: 72" S: D AP:1 Primary weapon 2, Large Blast
-Quake Shell: 180" S: 10/7/5 AP:1/4/6 Primary weapon 1, Apocalypse Mega-blast, Sonic-boom
Sonic boom: (simplified: draw a line from the cannon to the center of the template, any flyers, flying monstrous creatures, gargantuan flying gargantuans on the line roll a d6, crash and burn on a 1)
OR
Vortex Missile Battery:
-Vortex Missile: Infinite range, S: D AP:1 Ordinance 1, Large blast, Vortex


4346
Firestorm Redoubt
Classification: Medium bunker [STANDARD FORTIFICATION]
Cost: 2x Thunderfire Cannons
AV: 14
Access Points: As modeled (3)
Fire Points: 1
Rules: Medium sized Bunker, and two quad lascanons. The quad lascanons are 2 shot linked Icarus lascanons. They are able to independently fire and are not target-able separate from the redoubt, however they are always fired automatically, (BS:2 CANNOT be manned) however they automatically fire at the closest flying monstrous creature or flier if one is available.


4347
Vengeance Weapons Battery
Classification: Impassable Building [STANDARD FORTIFICATION]
Cost: 1 Space Marine Scout Squad
AV: 14
Access Points: 0
Fire Points: 0
Weapon: Punisher Gatling Cannon (24" S5 Ap- Heavy 20)
Rules: Automated Fire without being occupied.
Options:
-Add another Battery for same cost as first
-Upgrade Gatling Cannon to Battle Cannon for cost of 1 Ratling sniper

Hop to it folks! Let's start to analyze those new units to see if they are worth it compared to the older ones, especially in standard games.

[dawnofthedead]

Talk to GW rep and he said there will be two sets of rules. One for Appoc and one for regular 40k.

[volrath8754]

Ok happy to help. I picked up my firestorm redoubt yesterday.

Firestorm Redoubt
Classification: Medium bunker
Cost: Not sure if a number is A ok so well just say its equivalent to 20x IG ratlings.
AV: 14
Rules: Medium sized Bunker with one fire-point, one access point, and two quad lascanons. The quad lascanons are 2 shot linked Icarus lascanons. They are able to independently fire and are not target-able separate from the redoubt, however they are always fired automatically, (bs 2 can't be maned) however they do fire at the closest monstrous creature or flier if one is available.

[MajorWesJanson]

Ok happy to help. I picked up my firestorm redoubt yesterday.

Firestorm Redoubt
Classification: Medium bunker
Cost: Not sure if a number is A ok so well just say its equivalent to 20x IG ratlings.
AV: 14
Rules: Medium sized Bunker with one fire-point, one access point, and two quad lascanons. The quad lascanons are 2 shot linked Icarus lascanons. They are able to independently fire and are not target-able separate from the redoubt, however they are always fired automatically, (bs 2 can't be maned) however they do fire at the closest monstrous creature or flier if one is available.

*Flying Monstrous Creature

1 access point? It has 3 doors!

[Bigred]

Clearly two of those doors are cunning decoys to thwart would-be attackers :)


Berzerker charger into base contact...

*tug-tug-tug*

"This door is just painted on - NOOOOO!!!"

BLAM!!!

[volrath8754]

*Flying Monstrous Creature

1 access point? It has 3 doors!

My bad you are correct it does state flying monstrous creature and access points as model.

[Mr Mystery]

J
Clearly two of those doors are cunning decoys to thwart would-be attackers :)

As originally devised by Magos Wile E Coyote?

[Bigred]

Firestorm summary fixed...

Anyone picked up a Vengeance or Aquila?

[Billyjoeray]

Vengeance Weapon Battery

Cost: 1 Space Marine Scout Squad
AV: 14
Weapon: Punisher Gatling Cannon (24" S5 Ap- Heavy 20)
No Access Points
No Fire Points
Automated Fire without being occupied
Options:
Add another for same cost as first
Upgrade Gatling Cannon to Battle Cannon for cost of 1 Ratling sniper

[Bigred]

Billyjoeray - THANK YOU SIR!!!

Come on folks, we are just down to the Aquila now. I'm sure someone can take a quick peek at just the rules...

[Kirsten]

not revolutionary, retro. GW used to do rules with models in 5th edition fantasy, possibly before too.

[Bigred]

That's cool Kirsten, I never knew they did that for Fantasy.

I can't remember them doing that for 40K ever all the way back to Rogue Trader.

[magickbk]

not revolutionary, retro. GW used to do rules with models in 5th edition fantasy, possibly before too.

I remember towards the tail end of Rogue Trader/start of 2nd Ed, they started putting the unit profiles on the back of the boxes for 40K. I have a distinct memory of a profile for a Space Wolf unit, maybe Grey Hunters, on the back of a box in the old hobby store in my hometown.

[Defenestratus]

That's cool Kirsten, I never knew they did that for Fantasy.

I can't remember them doing that for 40K ever all the way back to Rogue Trader.

I can.

My falcon box came with a datafax to use in 2nd ed.

[kier]

according to my rough back of a napkin (literally) calculations assuming a BS4 model firing an aegis quadgun and factoring in that a firestorm is twice the points, the quad gun is still a bit better when fiering at AV12. however factors of survivability, being a bunker, and not requiring a model to man it may tip the scales in the fierstorm's favor. especially for orks as they are not exactly brimming with high BS models. if anyone dose a more rigorous mathhammer analysis id love to hear what you think.

[Bigred]

I second kier's request.

As we get in the stats for these fortifications, I'll let you mathhammer wizards do the comparisons to the basic 4 in the rulebook and see what looks good.

I'm already eyeing them for my Horus Heresy Legion list... *evil grin*

[isotope99]

Aaargh, oo many variables to model everything but here are a few numbers

Versus flyers (ignoring cover saves/invuln saves which are the same for both weapons)
your odds of an explosion are much higher from any one shot (both have 4)
Firestorm : 9.3%/12.3%/15.3% (AV12/11/10)
Quad gun BS4: 2.9%/4.9%/7.4%
Quaf Gun BS2: 1.5%/3.1%/4.6%

Your odds of getting a glancing hit or better aren't that much improved though for a BS4 firer and the firestorm costs twice as much so your real benefit is a much better shot at putting them down in one go rather than just making them jink.

Versus flying daemons the odds of putting a wound on per shot are
Firestorm: 30.9%/30.9% (T6 3+5++ / T5 3+5++)
Quad gun BS4: 19.8%/24.7%
Quad gun BS2: 12.3%/15.4%

The firestorm makes a great anti-flyer weapon, particularly if you are stuck with less than BS4 shooters but for me it doesn't do enough to justify its increased points cost in smaller games versus the quad gun. I'd only take one if I knew I was likely to face a high ratio of flyers, particularly AV12 ones.

[sykozero]

Does anyone know about the options for using the Icarus quads on the Vengeance battery and using punisher / battle cannons on the Firestorm Redoubt? ie is this an Apoc only option or can it be used in regular games of 40k? Also, if an Icarus has no fliers to target, does it fire at ground targets or is it effectively useless? Cheers!

[Defenestratus]

Has anyone confirmed that the emplaced firestorm guns are BS4? Since it states in the rulebook that automated fire is at BS2.

NM just saw that they were BS2

[Bigred]

OK, got the info on the Aquila, and updates on the others.

The Firestorm and the Vengeance are standard fortifications and use the standard 'fortification icon' to mark their rules. So it looks like they are now in the mix for the game, alongside all the other items such as the Aegis, Bastion, Skyshield.

The Aquila has a weird "orange glowy" icon to mark it's rules, which I bet is an Apocalypse only marker. If it has a standard set of 40K fortification rules, I haven't seen them.

[kire]

In reguard to the vengeance turrets I suspect that the battle cannon will be the only real choice. Not only for all the reasons that it is the preferred choice on lemanruss's but also because BS2 is not as much of a problem for blast weapons. I think games workshop really botched the points cost seperating these options by only the points of a rattling.

[Black1705f]

Ok, what about the rules and point costs for all the other original "Wall of Martyrs" pieces like the bunker, defense lines and defense emplacements? I picked these up in the Wall of Martyrs box set with no rules included. Do they expect me to buy more box sets. I can pretty much figure their rules based on the BRB, but they have to have a point cost. Anyone have information on these?

[Flammenwerfer13]

Ok happy to help. I picked up my firestorm redoubt yesterday.

Firestorm Redoubt
Classification: Medium bunker
Cost: Not sure if a number is A ok so well just say its equivalent to 20x IG ratlings.
AV: 14
Rules: Medium sized Bunker with one fire-point, one access point, and two quad lascanons. The quad lascanons are 2 shot linked Icarus lascanons. They are able to independently fire and are not target-able separate from the redoubt, however they are always fired automatically, (bs 2 can't be maned) however they do fire at the closest monstrous creature or flier if one is available.


"20x IG ratlings."

200pt's? I mean is it really that hard?

[Flammenwerfer13]

Ok, what about the rules and point costs for all the other original "Wall of Martyrs" pieces like the bunker, defense lines and defense emplacements? I picked these up in the Wall of Martyrs box set with no rules included. Do they expect me to buy more box sets. I can pretty much figure their rules based on the BRB, but they have to have a point cost. Anyone have information on these?

Sadly let that ship sail :(

They had a great chance to sell models with rules but dropped the ball BIG TIME on the Wall of Martyrs. GW isn't know to un f themselves once they've made a mistake and more prone to ignore the mistake or paper it over than admit to it.

[eldargal]

How is not giving something rules that doesn't need rules dropping the ball?

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.

Wall of Martyrs is a terrain piece, rather than a fortification chosen as part of your army.

[Pssyche]

Also, how is not breaking Forum Rules by posting Points Costs and instead alluding to them wrong?

[Eberk]

Wall of Martyrs is a terrain piece, rather than a fortification chosen as part of your army.
They do need a point value... just like the (stupid looking) aegis defence line in the 40K rulebook.

[eldargal]

Use them as an aegis defense line then. See above re: not needing rules.

[Mr Mystery]

They do need a point value... just like the (stupid looking) aegis defence line in the 40K rulebook.

Again.....they're terrain, not a fortification.

One is deployed as part of your army, the other simply dressing for the table.

[Black1705f]

The Wall of Martyrs pieces are used in an Apocalypse formation called the "Grand Redoubt" so they have to have point costs. Not just the new ones but he original ones also. They clearly have intended for them to have a point values. Supposedly the new pieces have rules included in the box but what about the old ones. I haven't seen what these rules are, but if we're lucky they'll cover all Wall of Martyrs components. Maybe we should just look forward to some direct ship stealth supplement with a couple pages of rules in it for $50 that screws both retailers and customers alike.

This whole "lets just give GW a pass because they dropped the ball" attitude is ridiculous.

[Mr Mystery]

Hello Brick Wall.

My name isn't Mr Mystery, but an online Pseudonym, but it will suffice.

Did you know, the Wall of Martyrs doesn't actually do anything beyond giving a pretty standard cover save? Well, it's true!

It seems its been included in Apocalypse formations purely for aesthetic reasons. After all, any strong point would look rubbish, and indeed be rubbish with whacking great holes in it, instead of firing steps and that....

[eldargal]

The Wall of Martyrs pieces are used in an Apocalypse formation called the "Grand Redoubt" so they have to have point costs. Not just the new ones but he original ones also. They clearly have intended for them to have a point values. Supposedly the new pieces have rules included in the box but what about the old ones. I haven't seen what these rules are, but if we're lucky they'll cover all Wall of Martyrs components. Maybe we should just look forward to some direct ship stealth supplement with a couple pages of rules in it for $50 that screws both retailers and customers alike.

This whole "lets just give GW a pass because they dropped the ball" attitude is ridiculous.

So, you assume that because the new formation includes WoM sections that they will have Apocalypse rules and because of this assumption of possible Apocalypse rules you think GW should have included rules for them in regular 40k. Which they do not need. You then extrapolate some kind of failure on GWs part because of this.:rolleyes:

You know where to find 40k rules for the WoM? In the BRB under Battlefield terrain (bunker) and Battlefield Debris (trench lines). So stop whining for GW to provide you with something you already have.

[Eberk]

Use them as an aegis defense line then. See above re: not needing rules.
Reread my post... I didn't ask for rules. I asked for a point value for each of the 3 sets.

Even for apocalypse they will need a point value (everything else has...)

[Eberk]

Did you know, the Wall of Martyrs doesn't actually do anything beyond giving a pretty standard cover save? Well, it's true!

Did you know the aegis defence line also doesn't do anything beyond giving a pretty standard cover save ?? Well, it's also true!

[eldargal]

Reread my post... I didn't ask for rules. I asked for a point value for each of the 3 sets.

Terrain doesn't need point costs.


Did you know the aegis defence line also doesn't do anything beyond giving a pretty standard cover save ?? Well, it's also true!

Gosh, so it's almost like you could use them as an aegis defense line if you really want to pay for them as a fortification.

[Mr Mystery]

Did you know the aegis defence line also doesn't do anything beyond giving a pretty standard cover save ?? Well, it's also true!

That and the option to field a weapon emplacement. Oh. And the increase to your cover save should you go to ground behind an Aegis Line....

[Eberk]

Gosh, so it's almost like you could use them as an aegis defense line if you really want to pay for them as a fortification.
Yeah, that's a great idea...
I can use them as Aegis defence line and then I would have to pay 50 points and they would use up the fortification slot.

So is it so wrong to ask for a point value for these sets ?? Maybe the trench set will be only 40 points or maybe 60pt... and the bunker 75pt or something.


They can and will be used as normal terrain pieces (Aegis line also btw) but if I want to include them in my games I want a point value.

[Eberk]

Oh. And the increase to your cover save should you go to ground behind an Aegis Line....
Nope, that's just because the Aegis line is listed as a "Defence Line", has nothing to do with the Aegis line itself... That's an extra rule... something the Wall of Martyrs cannot have according to you ;-)

BTW the extra option for weapon emplacement is only because it is included in the box....

[eldargal]

Yes, it is wrong to ask for a points value because they are TERRAIN, not fortifications. How can you tell? Because they aren't in the Fortification section. Bunkers and trench lines are both in terrain section, with generic rules to accompany them. Bunkers are AV14 and trench lines give a 4+ cover save.

[Mr Mystery]

No, Aegis Line has that specific rule. On account the Aegis Line, you know, has that specific rule.... And of it didn't include the option for a quad gun or Icarus, I'm sure you'd be whining about that too. As opposed to trying to make it out as some kind of cynical marketing ploy.

[Eberk]

Yes, it is wrong to ask for a points value because they are TERRAIN, not fortifications. How can you tell? Because they aren't in the Fortification section. Bunkers and trench lines are both in terrain section, with generic rules to accompany them. Bunkers are AV14 and trench lines give a 4+ cover save.
I hope they will create new sets that will be included in the "fortification section" Even when they aren't in it when the rulebook came out. ;-) you know, like 'firestorm redoubts' and such

It's just strange that you can't include them in your army (like the aegis line and the bastion)

[eldargal]

They have, and because they aren't in the BRB GW have decided to include the rules in the boxes.

[Mr Mystery]

Can always field them as an Aegis Line if needs must.

[Eberk]

No, Aegis Line has that specific rule. On account the Aegis Line, you know, has that specific rule.... And of it didn't include the option for a quad gun or Icarus, I'm sure you'd be whining about that too. As opposed to trying to make it out as some kind of cynical marketing ploy.

Sir, you have crossed a line here... I have never, ever "whined" about something GW has produced or created. I resent you even imply that. And I have never implied a cynical marketing ploy. They just needed an AA option for all armies and that is why the Aegis defence line got a point value.

BTW on page 114 of the 40K rulebook there is no mention about a 'special rule' for the Aegis defence line. There is just a reference to a certain terrain type that has a special rule. And that extra rule is a rule for a 'terrain piece' ;-)

[Black1705f]

Does anybody ever read what anyone says when they make a post. If you take the time to read what I have written you will see that Apocalypse does include a formation in the data files for a "Grand Redoubt" which does in fact include the new Wall of Martyrs pieces as well as the three original ones which are referred to as: Imperial Defense Lines, Imperial Bunkers and Imperial Defense Emplacements. Which by the way all 3 of the aforementioned pieces can be added to the Grand Redoubt as 0+ so you can have as many as you want providing you have them. By some people's logic I guess I can add as many to the formation as I want for free, because point values are not necessary. They are more than just battlefield terrain at this point. They are purchasable terrain as listed in the Apocalypse rule book page 185 (at least in my version). So they are purchasable fortifications in fact you'll probably need some to fill out the Grand Redoubt along with at least one Aquila Strong point, if you ever want to field that formation. They're not listed in the BRB because they came out after the rule book...duh.

Instead of passing along an uniformed opinion please read what is written and stop falling back on the "stop whining" bulls@it followed by a smiley face like I'm 10 years old again. It gets really old that any time someone has a problem with something GW does we're supposed to shut up and not have a dissenting opinion. I have faith the problem will be rectified sooner or later, but I don't need to be placated by snobbish responses to suck it up. Please don't respond back to my post unless you've actually have the new Apocalypse book in front of you and you've actually looked at page 187. For those of us who actually play the Apocalypse we kind of need those things called point values. Maybe even a definitive, "this thing confers a +4 cover save..." and "this bunker has a AV whatever..." but, apparently that's too much to ask according to the peanut gallery.

Let me reiterate in hopes that the principle of recency will keep it stuck in someone's head before the have to respond back in an uninformed manner. For the third time ALL of the Wall of Martyr components can be purchased in an Apocalypse Formation under the Fortification section on page 185 of the Apocalypse rule book...so what might all of those point values be?

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I'd assume that those which have points values have points values, and those which don't, don't. It's not like the trench line comes with a gun or anything.So when you purchase the Redoubt, you pay the points for all the bits which need you to pay the points (yer Macro Cannons and whatnot) and don't sweat the rest. It doesn't do anything special, it's just a trench/bunker.

Also, this is Apocalypse. Points values are just for rough comparisons. Nobody's going to take your toys away if you somehow contrive to Do It Wrong.

[eldargal]

Let me reiterate in hopes that the principle of recency will keep it stuck in someone's head before the have to respond back in an uninformed manner. For the third time ALL of the Wall of Martyr components can be purchased in an Apocalypse Formation under the Fortification section on page 185 of the Apocalypse rule book...so what might all of those point values be?
It should say in the Apoc rulebook. The box rules are, except for the Aquila, for adding the kits as fortifications to standard games of 40k. The original WoM kit are not fortifications in regular games, they are terrain, so they do not need points cost. If they become a fortification in Apoc then the Apoc rules needs to provide a points cost for them.

The fact remains that complaining that there is no need for the WoM set to have rules in the box because they aren't fortifications in regular 40k games.

[Gir]

They are free in Apoc. It says you can take the, but doesn't have a point value.

[Black1705f]

If they become a fortification in Apoc then the Apoc rules needs to provide a points cost for them.


They are fortifications in Apocalypse and no there are no point values listed in the book. Apocalypse and 40k are not that far apart from each other and it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that Wall of Martyr components could be added to your 40k game as fortifications provided you know their basic rules like current fortifications (ie Aegis, Skyshield, etc). Any fortification purchased or otherwise can be used as terrain if you want to add them to your game. Just because the items aren't in the BRB doesn't mean they can't be added later as actual purchasable fortification items. Maybe they never will tell us and without specific rules or defining them as "fortifications" in 40k they can only be terrain. However, Apocalypse is setting the precedent that these items can indeed be added to your army as a fortification on page 185 and again on page 270 under the "Imperial Stronghold". If they do take the time to establish point costs and possibly some unique rules then maybe they could be added to your regular 40k games as shocking as that may sound.

This reminds me of, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". If you can find a point cost for the WoM items in the Apocalypse book please illuminate me instead of discounting my legitimate question as not worthy of being asked.

[Black1705f]

They are free in Apoc. It says you can take the, but doesn't have a point value.

Wow, so you'd have no problem if I bought that formation and laid down several feet of 4+ cover that didn't cost me anything? When can we play a game?

[Alqualonde]

Reread my post... I didn't ask for rules. I asked for a point value for each of the 3 sets.

Even for apocalypse they will need a point value (everything else has...)

Damn - just realised there are no points costs for woods either. GW you are letting us down.

[Black1705f]

If I could buy woods for my Kroot I would. I would hardly try to draw a comparison between a naturally growing patch of vegetation or hill formed by tectonic shifts and erosion to a structure built by sentient beings for the purpose of protection. Please look at the Apocalypse rule book and you'll see why he is requesting to see point costs for these fortification items.

[eldargal]

Damn - just realised there are no points costs for woods either. GW you are letting us down.
I know right? What about those handy kills and buildings which offer LoS over intervening terrain, no cost to them either. What a disaster. EVERY sodding game you lay out terrain, piece by piece, and if you don't use it to give yourself an advantage you're a cretin. It's a vital part of the game, like deployment.

As far as I'm concerned this attitude represents the worst of the hobby, the need to be spoonfed everything by GW.

Black, he isn't requiring points costs, he was accusing GW of failing by not providing them in the box, ignoring the fact the box rules are for the new FORTIFICATIONS not for their use as terrain.

As to laying down many feet of WoM without paying for them, no I wouldn't have a problem with that because I could do the same bloody thing. It's Apocalypse for gods sake.

There is also a certain irony to people who seem to require GW to spoonfeed them everything accusing others of defending GW.

[Gir]

Wow, so you'd have no problem if I bought that formation and laid down several feet of 4+ cover that didn't cost me anything? When can we play a game?

Of course not, why would I?

[Mr Mystery]

In Apocalypse? Got for it. Got plenty wants of clearing them out....

In 40k? Board is set up by mutual consent....

[Eberk]

Black, he isn't requiring points costs, he was accusing GW of failing by not providing them in the box, ignoring the fact the box rules are for the new FORTIFICATIONS not for their use as terrain.
Could you please show me my post where I accused GW for failing to include it in their box.

[eldargal]

Right, that was flammenwossname not you, sorry. The fact remains they don't need points costs for regular games of 40k unlike the new kits because they are terrain not fortifications.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Wow, so you'd have no problem if I bought that formation and laid down several feet of 4+ cover that didn't cost me anything? When can we play a game?

For sure! Sounds like an awesome scenario where one side is trying to storm a well-planned line of defences. Balance it out by giving the attacking side some of the artillery-barrage style Strategic Assets - the Big Push is always going to be started off by a creeping barrage and smoke shells, after all.

Are you guys playing the same game I am? I wonder sometimes.

[Gir]

Gotta remember that all those trench lines will fill your deployment zone with difficult terrain.

[Black1705f]

Well, get back to me when you actually take the time to look at the apocalypse rule book. I don't know what some people are talking about as far as GW including rules in the box. I never suggested it was necessary or that I wanted it, but I have acknowledged the fact that they are doing it for some items such as the new Wall of Martyr pieces. I guess I'm stupid for asking about rules/points for the first 3 terrain pieces which are also referred to as Wall of Martyrs...wow. These new Wall of Martyrs are just new and improved and ignore those old ones because they don't have their own guns. So if I'm inquiring about point values its an expectation of spoon feeding, but if GW puts rules in the box on their own I bet you'll applaud them. You've got to be some of the biggest fan boys I've ever seen. Not to mention I've never seen someone skirt a question so much as the few of you. I know it means nothing to most of you but I've been playing this game since the Rogue Trader days and I've never experienced a situation of being talked down to in such a condescending manner, but that is what the internet is for I guess. I think I'll go seek out a more helpful forum with some more insightful people that are so snobbish.

Just keep ignoring the fact that these pieces of 40k terrain can be purchased as fortifications in Apocalypse and I would like to know the point values of those items since they are an option now. Instead you want to argue about their inclusion in 40k. Do any of you have the Apocalypse rule book in your possession because I can tell you don't. Is it an oversight that GW hasn't provided a list of those points yet...yes? Will they fix it sooner or later...probably? Will you people ignore it when they do and continue to think your right with your smug attitude...most likely?

Some of us like to ask legitimate questions on forums like these with the expectation of some positive feedback and it is so off putting when the self proclaimed forum elitist dismiss what you say as not even being a valid question. I wouldn't call expecting some point costs for something I can clearly buy (in apocalypse) as spoon feeding. If you think so, then keep eating those shovels full of whatever it is you're being fed.

I'll include a picture of an example of what I'm talking about because the written language does not seem to work. So I digress what might be the point costs of the items circled?
4356

[isotope99]

I think people are saying that just because they are in the formation list doesn't mean that they necessarily have points values.

An example with a formation I just made up:

Watchtower:

1 Hill
1 Bastion with Comm relay

Deployment: the bastion must be deployed on top of the hill.

Co-ordinate fire: Barrage weapons scatter only D6" when targeted at one nominated enemy unit per turn within LOS of the watchtower.

Doesn't mean that the hill has a points value just because it is listed in the formation. i.e. the points value is zero until GW publishes rules that say otherwise.

[Eberk]

Right, that was flammenwossname not you, sorry.
No problem, that can happen


The fact remains they don't need points costs for regular games of 40k unlike the new kits because they are terrain not fortifications.
I totally agree... You do not NEED a point value. Exactly like when I used a Bastion or Landing pad as terrain pieces we didn't use their point values (they just happend to be the complex we were fighting over). So fortifications CAN also be used as simple terrain, set up together with all the other terrain.

But I would also like the option of (for example when playing a scenario where something has to be defended) to take the Wall of Martyrs sets as 'Fortification' and thus they need a point value.


Voila, that's what I think and if any of you still want to ridicule this thought with funny remarks about forest needing point values then please go ahead. But I still think my question about wanting point values is a valid one.

[Black1705f]

I think people are saying that just because they are in the formation list doesn't mean that they necessarily have points values.

An example with a formation I just made up:

Watchtower:

1 Hill
1 Bastion with Comm relay

Deployment: the bastion must be deployed on top of the hill.

Co-ordinate fire: Barrage weapons scatter only D6" when targeted at one nominated enemy unit per turn within LOS of the watchtower.

Doesn't mean that the hill has a points value just because it is listed in the formation. i.e. the points value is zero until GW publishes rules that say otherwise.

I appreciate your constructive response at least. If people are insinuating that you can lay out as much trench work as you want as part of an apocalypse game without having pay points for it then you're going to encounter a problem. I'd gladly stick a guard army or Tau gun line in trenches and wait until the enemy comes crawling out of their burnt out buildings. Do people really discount 4+ cover saves that much to feel free to let you take as much of it as you want? In all due respect I don't know if creating you're own apocalypse formation with a hill can be compared to one of GW's official publications that they wrote. I doubt they'd go so far as to create a point cost or rule for a non-man(xeno)made structure.

I'm having a hard time with people making their own interpretations based on flawed logic. By definition a bunker, trench or gun emplacement would be a fortification. The difference between a fortification and simple terrain is that it is constructed for a specific purpose by a particular group of people. Its not like eastern Europe suddenly erupted with fissures in the ground for battling armies to hide in. They built them and built them for themselves. Unfortunately sometimes the enemy manages to steal them. So the difference is a trench work as terrain in 40k or apocalypse is just an old random piece of fortification long since abandoned that can find new life in a new ensuing battle. On the other hand a purchased fortification would more likely be a newly constructed piece of terrain which is why you can place it where you want. Someone had to nominate a spot on the ground to build that Fortress. I don't know why people are so against the possibility that a trench work could actually be purchased for your army with points since it's just a scar in the earth with some reinforcements. On the other hand does a big gaudy building covered in 50ft Angels sound like a more feasible structure to plop down as part of your defense?

The sad thing is if and when they ever do FAQ the apocalypse book or 40k book with some references for the Wall of Martyr components people will not look back to this debate and admit they might have been wrong. I've never insisted that the Wall of Martyrs has to have points I just want to know if they do and if so what are they. Others insist they don't and never will, so I guess we'll see what happens in the FAQ's to come.

[Black1705f]

No problem, that can happen


I totally agree... You do not NEED a point value. Exactly like when I used a Bastion or Landing pad as terrain pieces we didn't use their point values (they just happend to be the complex we were fighting over). So fortifications CAN also be used as simple terrain, set up together with all the other terrain.

But I would also like the option of (for example when playing a scenario where something has to be defended) to take the Wall of Martyrs sets as 'Fortification' and thus they need a point value.


Voila, that's what I think and if any of you still want to ridicule this thought with funny remarks about forest needing point values then please go ahead. But I still think my question about wanting point values is a valid one.

You're right on. I guess we're ignorant for asking a simple question because GW is infallible. Has anyone taken a look at the errata/FAQ for 40k lately? Hardly infallible. And now being patronized by drawing comparisons with things that grow as being similar to structures being built.

[Mr Mystery]

So you want a points cost for one piece of terrain, and allege this is a failure on GW's behalf....but not other pieces, for seemingly arbitrary reasons?

Defence emplacements are just terrain. That's it.

Want to use them as a fortification? Use them as Aegis Lines.

[Black1705f]

So you want a points cost for one piece of terrain, and allege this is a failure on GW's behalf....but not other pieces, for seemingly arbitrary reasons?

Defence emplacements are just terrain. That's it.

Want to use them as a fortification? Use them as Aegis Lines.

Actually I think it would be 3 pieces of terrain.

Please do not be ignorant. Look at the pictures linked below and tell me their shouldn't be a point value included somewhere for the items in these Apocalypse formations. You can't possibly think you can add as many bunkers, trenches and gun emplacements as you would like do you? Please stay on point I'm still and always have been talking about Apocalypse...not this totally different game called 40k.

Simply click
VVVVVVVVV
4357
4358

[Mr Mystery]

They have no points cost.

You can have as many as you wish, within the limitations of your deployment zone.

You know, just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they don't have a copy of the rules in question.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Unless it says it has a points cost, it doesn't have a points cost. That may change later. That was basically my original answer. Why are we still here? Your question has, in fact, been answered.

I've had the Apocalypse book since release, I've known from the start exactly what you meant and answered as best I could. In return you've serially attacked people. It's not nice.

[Magpie]

Looks to me like that extract from the Apoc book shows why they have no point cost, they are designed to be part of a purchased formation in the new Apoc and not as part of a 40k Fortification purchase.

[Gir]

There are 2 ways to get the wall of martyrs trench pieces and bunker on the board.

1st: In apocalypse, take a formation that includes them. You are only limited by the amount you physically have, and your deployment zone.
2nd: Use them as terrain, deployed during the terrain setup phase and using terrain count from the board sections in your deployment zone.

Don't see why you need point costs.

[Black1705f]

Looks to me like that extract from the Apoc book shows why they have no point cost, they are designed to be part of a purchased formation in the new Apoc and not as part of a 40k Fortification purchase.

Frankly up until now no one has even attempted to come up with a viable answer to my question, but you're the closet. Most people have seemed content to just say the question is moot and not worth considering, but it should have had it's own thread started in a rules related forum not a rumor and hearsay thread where the order of the day is speculation. I commend you for your thoughs, but I do find some concerns with that theory.

I didn't want to take a whole picture of the page. The individual formations in the new apocalypse book do not have point values instead you have to purchase the minimum (up to the maximum) required units to complete the formation. If you field the formation you get the special abilities the formation grants. It used to be in the old apocalypse you'd have to pay for the formation cost along with the cost of the units to get the benefits now you don't. So with that in mind the picture shows the minimum requirements to build that formation. Where it says 0+ you can have none to as many as you want where 1+ is minimum of one to whatever and the few that are 0-1 are capped for example. Pretty standard FOC style stuff.

I assure you the formation does not by itself have a point value and the point value is based on the total of the individual components purchased between the minimum and maximum. All of the items listed on those fortification formations have individual point values except the trench work, bunker and defense emplacement. If I showed up with a fortress of Aquila and 5 feet of trench for the cost of just the fortress I'd get laughed at. If I told my opponents that I can take as many pieces of trench, bunkers and gun emplacements for free because people on the internet said so I'd get laughed out of the store.

Apocalypse is supplement so there are very few if any point costs in the book. Pretty much the only thing there are points or rules for are superheavy vehicles, titans and the Fortress Aquila and of course specific Apocalypse stratagems. If you want to field a Space Marine company formation you have to have a Space Marine codex. Apocalypse is not a stand alone game so there are no wide spread point values or rules for anything already in print elsewhere. As of right now some things have been glanced over and because they don't have points already everyone assumes they're free?

Maybe other people don't have problems with exploitation, but I've never heard of anyone gleefully allowing their opponent to take as much tailor made cover for free. What bothers me the most is if they do fix this oversight, and I believe they will, the people who were so obtuse about it won't even bother to comment let alone apologize.

[Black1705f]

There are 2 ways to get the wall of martyrs trench pieces and bunker on the board.

1st: In apocalypse, take a formation that includes them. You are only limited by the amount you physically have, and your deployment zone.
2nd: Use them as terrain, deployed during the terrain setup phase and using terrain count from the board sections in your deployment zone.

Don't see why you need point costs.

Are things really that laissez faire in Australia that you can get a bunch of fortifications for free? I'm not really a tournament player and prefer to pour my energy in to the hobby aspect, but even in a friendly game of Apocalypse if I tossed down 5' of trench strategically in my deployment zone and told them I got it for free the game would come to a screeching halt.

I'd love for some of you to skype me on this at: black1705f

I'll leave it on for a few hours

[daboarder]

they're not a fortification mate.....

How do you think a wall of martyrs is anything different to a bunch of ruins.......I mean SOMEONE has to bring the terrain right?

I mean if you show up to a game and want to drop a martyr on your side of the table, GREAT! but I'm getting at least a crap tonne of ruins to ensure their is a balance, or we're running them through both zones....

[Magpie]

Maybe other people don't have problems with exploitation, but I've never heard of anyone gleefully allowing their opponent to take as much tailor made cover for free. What bothers me the most is if they do fix this oversight, and I believe they will, the people who were so obtuse about it won't even bother to comment let alone apologize.

Well in all cases a game is played on the basis of agreement between the opponents. Turning up and pulling "there's no points cost so I'll have 400 entrenchments" isn't going to net you too many games.

I am reminded of a self professed "top player" on another website suggesting that one make a whole heap of gun emplacements and use them when "agreeing" on terrain.

You seem to say there is a maximum amount mentioned for the formation? Perhaps that is the game mechanic that evens out these items ?

[Gir]

Are things really that laissez faire in Australia that you can get a bunch of fortifications for free? I'm not really a tournament player and prefer to pour my energy in to the hobby aspect, but even in a friendly game of Apocalypse if I tossed down 5' of trench strategically in my deployment zone and told them I got it for free the game would come to a screeching halt.


If the deployment rolls allow you to place that many terrain pieces in your deployment zone, go for it. Gonna suck to have no LOS blocking terrain thought, and you will only have a maximum of 6-9 pieces depending on the deployment type.

[Black1705f]

they're not a fortification mate.....

How do you think a wall of martyrs is anything different to a bunch of ruins.......I mean SOMEONE has to bring the terrain right?

I mean if you show up to a game and want to drop a martyr on your side of the table, GREAT! but I'm getting at least a crap tonne of ruins to ensure their is a balance, or we're running them through both zones....


Don't tell me I have to start from scratch. Yes the Wall of Martyrs can be used as terrain and up to now that was the only option. Heck you can used as Monolith as terrain as long as it isn't driving around blowing stuff up and only sitting there as scenery. What you're failing to see if you haven't taken time to read any previous posts is the Wall of Martyrs components (trench, gun emplacements and bunker) can be used in an Apocalypse formation. There are no point values now or at least as of yet so most people seem to think its fine to let you add it to the formation for free.

I'll post the formation pics from the Apocalypse again. Bear in mind there is no all encompassing point value for either of these formations. The point cost is based on the amount of items you purchase and should be between the minimum requirements to make the formation and up to the maximum. In any case you have to use points from your armies allocation of points. Apocalypse is a supplement to Warhammer 40k and not a totally different game. Like other supplements such as Cities of Death and Planet Fall there is usually a change to the standard FOC's based on scenario. For Apocalypse the use of FOC's is thrown out the door which allows for a greater use of fortification. Yes I know trenches and bunkers are described under sections of the BRB along with a whole bunch of other terrain options. The difference is now Apocalypse is giving people the opportunity to purchase these terrain pieces, but a few options are missing point values. The best people can come up with is that they must be free. My theory is that it will be addressed via some sort of errata or FAQ for Apocalypse that will surely follow the book like they have for every book GW has printed.


Again look at the pictures and explain to me how I purchase the items circled...are they just free and I can take as many as I want?

4360
4361

[Black1705f]

Well in all cases a game is played on the basis of agreement between the opponents. Turning up and pulling "there's no points cost so I'll have 400 entrenchments" isn't going to net you too many games.

I am reminded of a self professed "top player" on another website suggesting that one make a whole heap of gun emplacements and use them when "agreeing" on terrain.

You seem to say there is a maximum amount mentioned for the formation? Perhaps that is the game mechanic that evens out these items ?

In the two formations I keep referring to there is no maximum. So you'd be limited by your table size and point size, but if people are insinuating 3 of the items pictures have no points than it would allow for spamming. The elements (min and max) of any formation in an apocalypse game have to be met in order to gain their special ability. It in no way means you have to field any formations in an apocalypse game because some would be difficult to put together. The incentive in doing so is some special rules the formations can give you. The formations have no point values of their on though. Like I've said previously a majority of the elements to any formation are found in their perspective codices. For the two fortification formations I keep referring to the points for the elements are listed in the BRB and the newest ones are listed on pamphlets included in the box which includes: Firestorm Redoubt, Aquila Strongpoint and Vengeance Weapon battery. Please note all of these new models are proceeded with the title "Wall of Martyrs" and they all have their rules covered in a pamphlet included in the box (written in like 6 languages). So all of these new Wall of Martyrs terrain pieces have rules in them now but none of the previous ones will? Seems short sighted, but I dare not blame GW because then I'd be whining like I've already been accused of.

[Black1705f]

If the deployment rolls allow you to place that many terrain pieces in your deployment zone, go for it. Gonna suck to have no LOS blocking terrain thought, and you will only have a maximum of 6-9 pieces depending on the deployment type.

Well the nice thing about trenches is you actually put your army inside them and you deploy them with your army. So by your logic I could effectively put my whole army (at least infantry) into 4+ cover for free during an apocalypse game if I purchase the formation in question because of those items that have no currently listed point values. It doesn't block line of sight because its only about shoulder high on your models. That would kind of suck if it were a kill point mission. You might not have a happy opponent, but according to the "no points so its free" theory it would be totally legal at least in an apocalypse game.

[Magpie]

I understand your concern I just don't see it as one that you need to really be worried about.

40k and Apoc in particular isn't about the "legalities" of things but more about the consensus, they are guidelines and inspirations for you and your mates to have some fun.

[Black1705f]

I understand your concern I just don't see it as one that you need to really be worried about.

40k and Apoc in particular isn't about the "legalities" of things but more about the consensus, they are guidelines and inspirations for you and your mates to have some fun.

It is only a concern one that I find valid and is governed by rules not just gamer consensus. We don't pick and choose which rules to disregard any more than we make up new ones. I believe it will be addressed sooner or later because an Apocalypse FAQ/Errata is sure to follow. I was perfectly content with running these terrain pieces as just that, but now the option of purchasing them as fortifications at least in Apocalypse has presented itself. I don't find it that far out of the realm of possibility that a trench network can be purchased for your army any more than a goofy tower with a 50 foot angel plastered on the side of it. I guess the popular opinion is that trenches are just randomly encountered terrain items. Maybe the Imperium of Man has lost the STC's to build trenches?

[daboarder]

wow. I would have thought the answer was obvious, yeah the items are worth 0 points in apocalypse.....take a shed load of em....but if you can't place em their not doing anything, and if your getting shot at by d-weapons their still doing nothing, and if your being assaulted their not doing anything and if you sit in your trenches on your side of the board, your not winning the game......

I fail to see how having a points cost of 0 points is a problem......


Removed for grammar trolling. See: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_termsuse

[Black1705f]

Most of our Apocalypse games take up 2 to 3 tables lengthwise which is 16' to 24' so yeah, you can put a lot of those free fortifications out there then. Don't forget you can dot the country side with Imperial Bunkers too I guess since they have no point cost either. We typically have no titans fielded and only a dozen or so Superheavy tanks. I'd gladly drop 120 guardsman inside of 4+ cover for free which will free up points for the maneuver elements to take the few objectives I don't already have fortified.

I need to scour the book to look for more free offerings because GW would never put out models without complete rules nor would they not produce models for complete rules.

[Gir]

Well the nice thing about trenches is you actually put your army inside them and you deploy them with your army. So by your logic I could effectively put my whole army (at least infantry) into 4+ cover for free during an apocalypse game if I purchase the formation in question because of those items that have no currently listed point values. It doesn't block line of sight because its only about shoulder high on your models. That would kind of suck if it were a kill point mission. You might not have a happy opponent, but according to the "no points so its free" theory it would be totally legal at least in an apocalypse game.

You could defintily do that, and you would basically be in an auto-loose situation, as you will have no deployment room for super heavies, and your terrain is useless against hellstorms and D weapons.

I think the problem is you haven't ever played apocalypse, and therefore assume 4+ cover for your infantry is awesome. This is why the pople who have played apocalypse couldn't care less that it's free.

[Gir]

Most of our Apocalypse games take up 2 to 3 tables lengthwise which is 16' to 24' so yeah, you can put a lot of those free fortifications out there then. Don't forget you can dot the country side with Imperial Bunkers too I guess since they have no point cost either. We typically have no titans fielded and only a dozen or so Superheavy tanks. I'd gladly drop 120 guardsman inside of 4+ cover for free which will free up points for the maneuver elements to take the few objectives I don't already have fortified.

I need to scour the book to look for more free offerings because GW would never put out models without complete rules nor would they not produce models for complete rules.

They're not free. They require a 500+pt aquila strongpoint.

I played a game of apoc under the old rules with a full wall of martyrs set (the big box you could buy). Ended up in one armies deployment zone (using old random deployment zone rules). It hardly helped them at all.

[Black1705f]

You could defintily do that, and you would basically be in an auto-loose situation, as you will have no deployment room for super heavies, and your terrain is useless against hellstorms and D weapons.

I think the problem is you haven't ever played apocalypse, and therefore assume 4+ cover for your infantry is awesome. This is why the pople who have played apocalypse couldn't care less that it's free.


No you've never played Apocalypse with us. A majority of the points are spent on infantry. No one fields titans and superheavy tanks are not that common. Usually by turn 3 only a few units have managed to move forward enough to get with in charge range except for those deepstriking. Its not like Superheavies or other vehicles couldn't park or drive over it as dangerous terrain at worse. Even D weapons are not auto kills any more and there may be one or two on our board and usually not for long. I guess you're going to tell me our games are wrong too despite our consensus? So yes an opportunity for free cover saves is kind of a big deal but I never implied it was awesome, but being able to get a bunch of it for free may create a balance issue. We try to play every few months but I don't know what I'm talking about because everyone's game is just like yours so you should certainly set the gold standard for all games.

[daboarder]

so your b*tching because GW didn't tailor the rules to your groups own specific way of playing to the detriment of everybody else......

[Black1705f]

Nope just wondering if they plan on adding some point values to a few elements listed in their newest supplement that's all. Everyone else seems to be getting bent out of shape that I dare ask for such minor things.


First it was: "Your question isn't a question because those aren't fortifications"

Then its: "Well, if they are in a formation they must be free there are not point values for them"

Then it turns into: "Go head and run all those free fortifications even though they're not fortifications as I mentioned the first time but now they must be, but now I say they are free as to not contradict my earlier statements"

Then becomes: "Well you're going to loose your game because that wouldn't work here so you don't even know how to play the game."

To finally: "You're a big dummy head because I can't stay consistent on this subject and I refuse to acknowledge the original question and I'll invoke you whining about GW"



Dang, I'm just curious if GW plans on fleshing out some rules or more importantly some point values for a few of their models and you would have thought I asked for your first born child or something. I don't demand if they do and I don't necessary expect them to. It would be nice but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

[Gir]

Nope just wondering if they plan on adding some point values to a few elements listed in their newest supplement that's all. Everyone else seems to be getting bent out of shape that I dare ask for such minor things.

I can guarantee you they will not, because it is not needed.

[Black1705f]

Can anyone provide a better answer to the base question: Why wouldn't GW ever provide points for items that can be purchased in quantity for a formation in Apocalypse.

Saying because is not an answer. First it is they're not purchasable because they're just random terrain features, but when I show you they can be purchased they must be free, when I point out the potential abuse then they must be ineffective so who cares, then its you don't even know how to play the game. Magpie was the closet one to offer any reasonable response while the two or three others are just content sweeping it because its dumb enough to ignore but important enough to chime in on apparently.


You're not highlighting anything. Those fortifications can be purchased in Apocalypse that is clearly a fact that you either are not accepting, don't care about or just refuse to acknowledge. To purchase something implies some sort of cost because free doesn't cost anything. The best answer you can come up with is because they have no point value now they never will? Is it too hard to acknowledge that you really don't know or is it a characteristic of being an internet tough guy or something?

[Black1705f]

I can guarantee you they will not, because it is not needed.

You very well could be right, but I don't necessarily agree that they aren't needed. Would there be some harm if they did?

[eldargal]

Terrain doesn't have a points cost, it doesn't need a points cost. If you think you need a points cost for terrain just because it is included in a Formation then where will it end? Before long we will be paying for every piece of terrain on the ******* board because it all gives cover saves which benefit in some way.

All the Apoc formation does is let you include the defense lines and bunker terrain with fortifications so you can set them up nicely at the same time instead of having to pick them out of the terrain pool piece by piece and take turns placing it with your opponent.

As to 'what harm would it do?' Simple:
"That trench line costs 50pts, you have to pay for that"
"No it doesn't, it's terrain. You can set some up too, it's all good"
"Nuh uh, it has a points value in Apocalypse now so you have to pay for it"
"This is just 40k, it doesn't have a points cost"
"Codex trumps BRB! and Apocalypse is sort of like a codex so you have to use the points costs!"
"**** you"

This would happen.

[Black1705f]

Terrain doesn't have a points cost, it doesn't need a points cost. If you think you need a points cost for terrain just because it is included in a Formation then where will it end? Before long we will be paying for every piece of terrain on the ******* board because it all gives cover saves which benefit in some way.

All the Apoc formation does is let you include the defense lines and bunker terrain with fortifications so you can set them up nicely at the same time instead of having to pick them out of the terrain pool piece by piece and take turns placing it with your opponent.

Are you for real. It ends with only the pieces that GW allows you to purchase as part of a formation. I didn't make up the formation they did blame them and ask them where it will end. If GW wants to add a bunch of other crap to formations that's on them. The fact still remains that in Apocalypse at least, which is a 40k supplement you can purchase terrain items that are referred to as Fortifications. Some are covered in the BRB some will have rules included in their retail packaging. Even the new ones are referred to as "Wall of Martyrs". Is paying points for a bunker to place that much different than buying a Skyshield landing pad or an Aegis Defense line.

While you're at it blame GW for adding the fortification slot to the FOC in sixth addition to begin with. They've got what like a half a dozen fortifications you can buy but adding 3 additional ones that pretty much go along with some of the others is your idea of getting out of hand. Have you seen these terrain pieces. They are built fortifications not naturally occurring. When you create a Apocalypse formation you have to buy the minimum items to create it...free is not buying. You just don't buy a formation for x points and then lay out a bunch of random terrain pieces that didn't cost anything.

First it was, "Those aren't fortifications". Then you either refuse to accept that they can be purchased in a Apocalypse formation or chose to ignore it. Now people are suggesting that since no point values are presented they must be free and you can have as many of them as you want? I was just curious about he point values and whether they'd ever have any. Half you you say they can't be purchased and the other half says you can have as many as you want for free. I was hoping for something a little more realistic in the middle. I tried to point out the potential abuse if you let people buy terrain items as fortifications in an apocalypse formation as being free and I was basically told 4+ cover saves wasn't that good and I'd loose the game anyways. Maybe you guys should argue with each other. You think they can't be purchased at all and some others think you can get as many as you want for free...incredible.

[daboarder]

you have to be trolling right?

I mean really?

[Black1705f]

you have to be trolling right?

I mean really?

Nope. Have you even read the new Apocalypse book? Its a simple question. Why are there at least 2 formations in Apocalypse that allow you to buy 3 terrain pieces (along with several others) to be used as fortifications with no currently published point values. There appear to be two schools of thought

1) You can't buy terrain ever even though it's listed right there in the formation

2) No point values listed for just those 3 items so you can have as many of them as you want for free

Both responses seem kind of extreme to me. None of you honestly know the answer and are basing it on current knowledge of the 40k game. Apocalypse is a supplement not a stand alone game and strays from the FOC requirements of which Fortifications is a slot. Likewise if you see a majority of GW's Apocalypse games there is usually a lot of fortification terrain typically on one side. Maybe they agreed on the table set up maybe they were purchased with points I don't know but both options are valid possibilities. I'm not making a case for anything in particular, but I'm not readily accepting either theory 1 or 2 as being the right answer because they are totally at odds with each other. You're loosing sight of the trees as you're getting closer to the forest, which contrary to Eldergal's believe is something I do not see as ever being purchasable as a fortification.

[eldargal]

you have to be trolling right?

I mean really?


Removed. See: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_termsuse

First of all THEY AREN'T FORTIFICATIONS! For ****s sake. They are terrain. They are terrain you can include WITH the listed fortifications as part of the formation so you can have a nice little complex set up without having to hope your opponent will play along and place the terrain where you want it to go. They don't cost anything because THEY NEITHER HAVE NOR NEED A POINTS COST!

They ARE NOT PURCHASED as part of a formation, they are included in the formation IF YOU WANT. They aren't purchased becuase THEY DO NOT HAVE A POINTS COST.

You can include the WoM terrain with your fortifications as part of a formation. You do not have to pay for them, because they have no points cost. They have no points cost because they are terrain, not fortifications. That is all.


Removed. See: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_termsuse I'm done, you're going on my ignore list.

[Black1705f]

I think he's just an idiot.

Yeah, thats it. There are no stupid questions just stupid people.

I would like to know how you would handle it. If someone showed up to an Apocalypse game and wanted to purchase either of those two formations how would you respond? Would you tell them he can't purchase 3 of the items listed because they're terrain even though they're plainly listed as options? Would you let them have as many as they want because no point value means free? You haven't even addressed the question.

Honestly how would you solve it. Would you let a guy spam the board with free terrain that was purchased for 0 points? Or tell him the book is wrong and he can't have them?

LOL...if they can't be purchased why are they listed on these formation charts if they aren't something you can buy? So there just free and take all you want? Have you even bothered to look at them. You're either an idiot or just ignorant. Explain those formations to me. You buy some items and get the rest for free. Please take note they are using the plural tenses implying more than one right. You realize 0+ and 1+ means 0 to whatever and 1 to whatever right. Ignore list...blaahahaha what do I care.

4362
4363

[Black1705f]

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_termsuse

It's just better to jump to other peoples conclusions for them, because it makes them feel special. You and anyone else's opinion of me on this forum is irrelevant and I could care less. I would however really like to know what peoples answers are to this simple question. Your buddy Eldergirl thinks you can't buy those items and you as of your last thought on the subject thought you could have as many as you want for free? Is that right, because its hard to keep up with people straying from the question and just resorting to "Because" answers. So which is it? I posed it to her how would you handle it if a guy came in with a box full of bunkers and terrain and wanted to purchase one of those GW published formations? Maybe you could resort to option 3 and suggest he is of diminished intelligence?

Everyone is about posturing but no one is about answering...but I guess that's what happens when you approach it on a forum dedicated to rumors.

Any who I'd prefer to take this conversation to a more private setting, but I imagine most of the big talkers prefer an audience, when flinging their feces. I'll be glad to entertain private discussions, but I'll probably get no takers. I'm planning on only necroing this if something major breaks like some FAQ or Errata comes out. Until then get over yourselves I'm sure you can pass your opinions off as fact somewhere else where they'll take you seriously.

[Learn2Eel]

Yeah, thats it. There are no stupid questions just stupid people.

I would like to know how you would handle it. If someone showed up to an Apocalypse game and wanted to purchase either of those two formations how would you respond? Would you tell them he can't purchase 3 of the items listed because they're terrain even though they're plainly listed as options? Would you let them have as many as they want because no point value means free? You haven't even addressed the question.

Honestly how would you solve it. Would you let a guy spam the board with free terrain that was purchased for 0 points? Or tell him the book is wrong and he can't have them?

LOL...if they can't be purchased why are they listed on these formation charts if they aren't something you can buy? So there just free and take all you want? Have you even bothered to look at them. You're either an idiot or just ignorant. Explain those formations to me. You buy some items and get the rest for free. Please take note they are using the plural tenses implying more than one right. You realize 0+ and 1+ means 0 to whatever and 1 to whatever right. Ignore list...blaahahaha what do I care.

4362
4363

If someone popped up to an Apocalypse game with both formations and lots of terrain, I would just shrug my shoulders. Why? Because in a true Apocalypse game, cover doesn't matter against the sheer number of hellstorm templates and D-weapons available. From what I understand, your local Apocalypse games are Infantry driven, and that is fine. But take that to another gaming store, and I bet you anything your armies will be obliterated in the space of a few turns.

Also.....

http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/415/883/883415.gif

[Cap'nSmurfs]

You buy some items and get the rest for free.

Yes. That is how it works. This has been said several times now. The Grand Redoubt is formed from a mixture of pieces, some of which have points costs (the mandatory Aquila Strongpoint, Skyshield Landing Pads, Fortresses of Redemption) and an unlimited number of free terrain pieces (the original Wall of Martyrs stuff). The Imperial Stronghold from the Armageddon Warzone has to have one Aquila Strongpoint (which you pay for), one Firestorm Redoubt (which you pay for), one or more Vengeance Weapons Batteries (which you pay for) and at least one each of the Wall of Martyrs lines, emplacements and bunkers (which have no points cost). That's it.

The limitations on how many trench lines and bunkers you can plonk down are limitations imposed by table space and how much you're willing to spend in actual real-world currency on trenches rather than cool toys. You might also, as a group, decide to impose limits on how big you can make a trench line if someone brings that formation along.

As an aside, I've just noticed: I can't find the entry for the Vengeance Weapons Batteries in my Apocalypse book (I have the iPad version). Any idea where they are?

[Gir]

As an aside, I've just noticed: I can't find the entry for the Vengeance Weapons Batteries in my Apocalypse book (I have the iPad version). Any idea where they are?

In the box. There's no special apoc rules for them.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Okeydoke, thanks. The GW website entry suggested otherwise. Given they're just standard 40k guns on a platform, that makes sense. Cheers!

[Mr Mystery]

Yeah, thats it. There are no stupid questions just stupid people.

I would like to know how you would handle it. If someone showed up to an Apocalypse game and wanted to purchase either of those two formations how would you respond? Would you tell them he can't purchase 3 of the items listed because they're terrain even though they're plainly listed as options? Would you let them have as many as they want because no point value means free? You haven't even addressed the question.

Honestly how would you solve it. Would you let a guy spam the board with free terrain that was purchased for 0 points? Or tell him the book is wrong and he can't have them?

LOL...if they can't be purchased why are they listed on these formation charts if they aren't something you can buy? So there just free and take all you want? Have you even bothered to look at them. You're either an idiot or just ignorant. Explain those formations to me. You buy some items and get the rest for free. Please take note they are using the plural tenses implying more than one right. You realize 0+ and 1+ means 0 to whatever and 1 to whatever right. Ignore list...blaahahaha what do I care.

4362
4363

I'd say he couldn't purchase them for the same reason I can't purchase the Evening Standard on my commute home each evening. Why? Both are examples of something free. Really not sure where you're struggling with this.

However, he can field as much as he likes, as per the formation.

[Magpie]

I would like to know how you would handle it. If someone showed up to an Apocalypse game and wanted to purchase either of those two formations how would you respond? Would you tell them he can't purchase 3 of the items listed because they're terrain even though they're plainly listed as options? Would you let them have as many as they want because no point value means free? You haven't even addressed the question.

Mate honestly there isn't an issue.

Pages 90 to 107 in the rulebook cover a myriad of different terrain with a series of rules to cover them. There aren't any points mentioned either.

Page 120 details how you go about setting up your terrain, Narrative or Alternating.

The formations in the Apoc seem to be guidelines for a narrative set up (I haven't read the book), so there really isn't a need for point costs for the individual items. The items that are going to have an offensive impact on the game, i.e. the ones that shoot have points but the rest of it are simply terrain just like any other.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

It's made fairly clear in the Apocalypse book that points aren't important, except as a guideline (or unless you want to insist on playing to points totals). What they recommend is that if one side ends up with more points, to balance it out with extra Strategic Assets for their opponents.

All the Formations have a points total, but they're not really important in Apocalypse anymore.

Magpie, it is slightly different in the case of the Formations he's talking about, because you're taking terrain pieces as part of the Formation (the Wall of Martyrs stuff to be precise). The Formation is made up of a mix of Fortifications, which have a points cost, and Wall of Martyrs pieces, which don't. The cost of the whole thing is made up by adding up all the Fortifications which have a points value, plus as many as you like of the free pieces.

In answer to the question Black(numbersf) asked, I'd let them have as many as they liked. That's how the Formation works.

[rpricew]

Since there isn't a points value listed for the WoM pieces, then their "value" would be determined by the gaming group playing with them. In Black1705f's example, his group plays with mostly infantry, where the WoM pieces would make a significant difference to the survivability of the army manning them?

There are a couple of things to consider first:

- First, how many pieces is the regular joe going to purchase of the WoM set? Those things aren't cheap and if someone wants to buy, build and paint that MANY of them to bring to Apoc, then why not let them.

- Second, how would they impact the game for the rest of the players? If it's an all infantry based game and they are going to significantly improve the survivability of the army fielding them, then why not simply agree on a point value form them (or let your opponent take an appropriate amount of strategic assets to offset)?

Also, how are the WoM being allocated? Is it one person that's purchasing a Formation from Apoc and the WoM pieces are included, or is it part of the terrain that's already on the board? Both of those things effectively determine what something's value is.

@ Black1705f - it really just comes down to you talking it out with the people who you play with... I mean really, since there isn't a point value associated with it you only have two options:
1. Assign one and pay the points your group comes up with
2. or don't and just play it as terrain and build a narrative around it that everyone who's playing agrees on.

But I would like to know one question please... are you planning on buying, building, painting & using this formation/terrain for your side/army or are you afraid that someone is going to use it against you?

[Haighus]

Does Terrain placement and terrain density work the same way in apocalypse as standard 40k? If yes, then filling up your table edge with trenchlines means that there will be no other terrain on your side of the board, whereas the opposite side of the board can have a much greater variety of terrain, including LOS blocking terrain and so on. So it sort of cancels out anyway, assuming your gaming group has enough terrain to match your enormous trenchline.

[Kaika87]

Forgive me if this was buried somewhere in the wall of martyrs discussion that happened, I only skimmed through that, but can anyone tell me whether or not the Vengeance battery can be manned? The description in the first post seems to imply that it's possible to have it crewed, but I can't tell because of the fact that it lists no access or fire points. So can my bro just stand behind it and shoot away, quad-gun style?

[Haighus]

Also going back to the actual rules, is the Firestorm redoubt actually just one fire point, or is it fire points as per model like every other fortification building so far? If it is 1 fire point, then I probably wont bother getting it, because I can't modify it to have more fire points and be a useful bunker to stick things inside.

[DrLove42]

I think its a garrisonable bunker, that happens to have 2 weapons mounted on top

[Haighus]

I think its a garrisonable bunker, that happens to have 2 weapons mounted on top

I really just want to know the exact wording regarding fire points, because 1 fire point on a 20 model capacity bunker restricts the firepower of the unit inside massively.

[Wolfshade]

I really just want to know the exact wording regarding fire points, because 1 fire point on a 20 model capacity bunker restricts the firepower of the unit inside massively.

I would hazard that the exact wording is in the book and providing it via this might be problematic

[Kaika87]

I would hazard that the exact wording is in the book and providing it via this might be problematic

Is that the same reason there is no clear-cut answer to whether or not the Vengeance can be crewed?

[Haighus]

I would hazard that the exact wording is in the book and providing it via this might be problematic
True, but I was just refering to the first page of the discussion really, where the aquila is described as "fire points as model" (like the bastion and fotress of redemption in the rulebook) but the firestorm redoubt is described as having 1 firepoint only. Seeing as every other fortification with a transport capacity is described differently to the redoubt, I just wanted clarification on whether it was 1 or as model on the firepoints for the redoubt.

[Haighus]

Is that the same reason there is no clear-cut answer to whether or not the Vengeance can be crewed?

Well, the vengeance is an impassable building, according to the first page descriptions, not a gun emplacement. Based on that, I would say that it cannot be crewed, and can only be fired automatically.

[Wolfshade]

Oh yes, and just for clarity I wasn't pointing fingers or anything I just want to be mindful of the ToS.

The rules for the Vengeance are in the box and are rumoured to autofire, without access points or fire points it would point to autofire mode only if the rumour mill is true.

With the firepoint again if the rumours are true it is as it is modelled so the standard pic has an acess hatch to the right and 3 or so fire points in the base

And again this is my interpritation of the rumour not definative fact based on the rules contained within the boxes :)

[Haighus]

Oh yes, and just for clarity I wasn't pointing fingers or anything I just want to be mindful of the ToS.

The rules for the Vengeance are in the box and are rumoured to autofire, without access points or fire points it would point to autofire mode only if the rumour mill is true.

With the firepoint again if the rumours are true it is as it is modelled so the standard pic has an acess hatch to the right and 3 or so fire points in the base

And again this is my interpritation of the rumour not definative fact based on the rules contained within the boxes :)
Ok thanks, this answers my question :)

[eldargal]

I hope they aren't able to be fired by a model, imagine a vindicare or some other character with high BS shooting it, horribly OP.

[Black1705f]

We opened up a Vengeance Weapons gun battery at the LGS just to see what if a rule set was included. At first it was like cool there's like a 6 page pamphlet inside until we looked at it closer and it had only 1 page of rules just printed in a bunch of different languages. The rules did only cover the Vengeance only and not all of the newly released kits so you'd have to collect them all to have the rules for them (Shocker). As would be expected it had either a battle cannon or a vengeance cannon and I think it was BS 2 standard with no gunner option, but I didn't look that close. A large blast ordinance weapon and a heavy 20 weapon can get by just fine at BS2.

I'm just glad people are actually talking about this as opposed to discounting my concerns for point values as either unnecessary or a silly question. I'm still holding out hope that the Wall of Martyrs that currently have no rules or point values might be fleshed out some day, but if I dare mention it I get called dumb. If you look at the models themselves you can tell they have potential to be more than just a simple trench. Metal deck floor, concrete walls with metal reinforcement, and blast shields spaced throughout. If that wasn't enough the backside wall is stacked with weapons and ammunition while the front is a grisly display of the dead (i.e. the Martyrs). Hell if nothing else it should have some rule about being haunted or something.

I'm not expecting much from GW but it would be nice if they did do something with it. Should GW do some Xenos terrain? Sure they should and I would expect similar fluff based rules. If people haven't figured it out yet terrain is beginning to take a more active role in the game not just in a random terrain, but also in a army support role. Unfortunately the focus seems to be Imperial fortifications, but hopefully that will change. If nothing else It wouldn't be too hard to mock up some Xenos versions (Tau, Ork and Necron wouldn't be too hard). Not to mention corrupting any of the terrain pieces for use with Chaos would be easy. I'll probably break down and bite the bullet and pick up a Tau aftermarket Aegis line before they get threatened by GW. Now that I think about it GW might end up spurring on a new market for alternative terrain if they continue in this direction. If there is a need for a new market then someone may jump in to fill it. Outside of some of the iconography it would be hard for GW to say they have IP on a pill box or trench section. Only time will tell.

[Haighus]

Hmm, I can see rules for the existing Wall of Martyrs sets being a possibility, but then it would be just as reasonable to be able to take 6 sections of tanglewire as a fortification too, although, oddly, tanglewire has been taken down from the webstore. I was going to say its been available for years, but not anymore. Personally, I don't think they will make rules for the defense lines and bunker, because they have had 6 months to do so, and, with the defense lines are very inflexible compared to the aegis line. When I say rules, I mean as a fortification.

[Black1705f]

Hmm, I can see rules for the existing Wall of Martyrs sets being a possibility, but then it would be just as reasonable to be able to take 6 sections of tanglewire as a fortification too, although, oddly, tanglewire has been taken down from the webstore. I was going to say its been available for years, but not anymore. Personally, I don't think they will make rules for the defense lines and bunker, because they have had 6 months to do so, and, with the defense lines are very inflexible compared to the aegis line. When I say rules, I mean as a fortification.

I think it was some editions back but I thought at one point they had rules for purchasing things like concertina/barb/tangle wire or minefields. Can't remember if it was just mission or scenario based or as a part of some specific supplement. An earlier incarnation of the Whirlwind also had those missiles that could disperse minefields. I don't recall them being game changing and only had a limited effect in denying areas and slowing or channeling enemy movement.

[Wolfshade]

They were special missions in 5th, you could have mine-sweeping grotz, throw a grot in the minefield, he runs round until he explodes a mine, remove the model and mine from play.

It is a subtle difference and I do see where you are coming from but with the wall of matyrs it is terrain so if you are using it then if you deploy scenary as per the rule book you both take turns putting it down so both have access to it. Now if you are running a narrative game and have it as a formation then there might be an argument for it, but it does seem strange that I could model a similiar trench system (or had done previously) set it up indentically but not have to pay for it as it is just terrain, in a similiar vein to not having to pay for a hill or forest that I set up.

I see where you are coming from but I think in the big scheme of apocalypse then a couple of extra points really doesn't make too much difference

[Black1705f]

They were special missions in 5th, you could have mine-sweeping grotz, throw a grot in the minefield, he runs round until he explodes a mine, remove the model and mine from play.

It is a subtle difference and I do see where you are coming from but with the wall of matyrs it is terrain so if you are using it then if you deploy scenary as per the rule book you both take turns putting it down so both have access to it. Now if you are running a narrative game and have it as a formation then there might be an argument for it, but it does seem strange that I could model a similiar trench system (or had done previously) set it up indentically but not have to pay for it as it is just terrain, in a similiar vein to not having to pay for a hill or forest that I set up.

I see where you are coming from but I think in the big scheme of apocalypse then a couple of extra points really doesn't make too much difference


For right now I would not run the Apocalypse formations using those pieces in them. The Wall of Martyrs along with just about any other piece of potential scenery can always be used as neutral terrain during a game setup. Its the agreement on terrain placement that is one of the biggest social contracts in the game. I think we all know that one person that seems to take it upon themselves to set up terrain in their own favor. We typically just set it up and if you want to make changes or raise concerns you do.

I just found it interesting that in the Apocalypse book there are over 100 formations listed and each one has multiple requirement units drawn from just about every codex currently published. Despite that I find it hard to believe that I happened upon 3 particular items that have no point value and may never will. I just thought it to be an oversight on GW's part just like a typo in the text somewhere. It would be nice if they could explain the use of those terrain items or possibly give them a generic point value. It's not like GW won't put out an FAQ/Errata for Apocalypse since they have with every other book.

I was rather surprised at some of the negative feedback and condemnation for even attempting to question GW's judgement. After all 40k is a game governed by rules while guidelines and agreements are not always readily enforceable. I was totally content on using my Wall of Martyrs as simple setup terrain, but when the new Apocalypse book came out and the news that the newer Wall of Martyr components were including rules inside it made me wonder if GW was planning on updating the older pieces with an actual profile and point value. I'm not interested in gaming it or trying to get something by. I just thought it was a valid question, but apparently I was wrong. In the mean time I don't plan on holding my breath in hopes that GW will address the anomaly.

At any rate I do appreciate your understanding and views on the subject.

[Wolfshade]

One of the beauties of apocalypse is that you can give it a points value if you felt that the controlling player had an advantage, or say you wanted to have it brought and deployed by one person like an aegis line say.

If you run infantry heavy apoc games then certainly trench systems are very useful, heck you could even give them HP and an armour value and have destructible scenery. That would be kinda cool.

There does seem to be slightly more sharp comments over the last month or so, which isn't cool.

[Gir]

Its the agreement on terrain placement that is one of the biggest social contracts in the game. I think we all know that one person that seems to take it upon themselves to set up terrain in their own favor. We typically just set it up and if you want to make changes or raise concerns you do.

Or you can follow the rules for terrain placement and not have this issue :)

[Black1705f]

Or you can follow the rules for terrain placement and not have this issue :)

We seldom or never use that method of setting up terrain. A lot of times a third party sets it up or we just agree to modify a previous tables terrain set up. We're fortunate that the LGS we play at has a large quantity of terrain primarily buildings, ruins and other battlefield debris, but not a lot of woods. We never have issues for the most part because you're not guaranteed to get the side of the table you want and there is also the 3 different deployment setups. We find the book method just takes a little too much time. Likewise a majority of tournaments I've been to have had preset terrain and they're usually symmetrical with neither side getting an advantage.

One flaw I've heard of in regards to the book method of setting up terrain is that it purchased fortifications get set up prior to regular terrain. Even though your fortification counts towards terrain density it could by possible your opponent can sit a big piece of LOS blocking terrain right in front of your Aegis Defense Line. You'd think it would be the opposite way around since the hills, trees and ruins would have been there long before a recently constructed fortification would get built. Who would put up an ADL behind a mountain anyways. Like I said our tables are usually set up first and then we go about the rest of the game and fortunately to the best of my knowledge no one has ever complained or questioned it.