Acceptance for Stronghold Assault

[Gleipnir]

One thing I never seem to see a lot of in player lists yet is many of the new options made available from Stronghold Assault particularly the Fortification options and Battlement/Battlefield debris, is it still not widely accepted or are players just holding their breath refusing it exists until it may/may not be added to a new rulebook that is rumored?

[Tyrendian]

in my neck of the woods it's mainly lack of appeal, with a bit of lack of appropriate models for the things that do appeal (Voids) sprinkled in...

[Charon]

In my opinion stronghold assault suffers from a few problems:

1) Some of the stuff doesnt have a model or even a description.
2) D-Weapon
3) Makes gunlines even stronger (throwing barbed wire everywhere)

[Blood Shadow]

I quite like the concept of the Stronghold Assault/ Planet strike games, but something about the delivery of it puts me off.

It's partly due to the complexity in Army Lists nowadays, but it's also due to points values. In 5th if one's used to playing games at 1750 or 1850 you'd have your regular lists, then in 6th you'd have to find space for a allies, formations, knights, Inquisitors etc.

I think it could work better if you had a separate points pool for fortifications/ Lords of War, this way you're encouraged to take stuff in compliment to your normal stuff without breaching either the 2000point threshold for double force org craziness or having to fit a large expensive unit into your regular list.

[Daemionhunter]

I bought the big box of forts and a pile other stuff at the Boxing Day sales (only time Down under to get world competitive prices).

The army list below is designed to make maximum use of models painted since Xmas. The Vostroyans and Tigurius are the only older ones.


Ultramarines w Guard 2000
Guard
HQ w MoO and Regt Std 95
Platoon Command w 3 Flamer 45
Squad w Grenade Launcher and Lascannon 75
Squad w Grenade Launcher and Lascannon 75
Heavy Weapons w 3 HB 75
2 Earthshaker Platforms 150
Firestorm Redoubt w Quad Lascannon, Punisher Gatling Cannon, Magos Machine Spirit, Escape Hatch and Void Shield 280
2 Vengeance Weapons Batteries: 1 Battle Cannon and Quad Lascannon 160
Emplacement 40
Imperial Defence Line 80
Imperial Bunker 55
Total 1130
Ultramarine Allies
Tigurius 165
3 Assault Centurions, 2 with Twin Linked Melta-gun and Hurricane Bolters, Sergeant with Twin Linked Flamer and Frag Assault Launchers
200
5 Scouts w Shotguns, Sergeant with Combi-melta and Melta Bombs and Land Speeder Storm with Heavy Flamer and Cerberus Launcher
115
5 Scouts w Shotguns, Sergeant with Combi-melta and Melta Bombs and Land Speeder Storm with Heavy Flamer and Cerberus Launcher
115
Caestus Assault Ram 275
Total 870
TOTAL 2000

[Denzark]

I like 'em. the building rules make more sense and the formations add character. Also there are some cheeky tricks in there to negate some of the nastier power lists.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm all in favour of it.

Sadly, it's fallen foul of mouth breathers who feel it has upset the meta.

Specifically mouth breathers, on account they seem to have failed to grasp that EVERY release upsets and changes the meta, whether they like or not. That's where they get their frankly bizarre and completely arbitrary 'tiers' from.

Though to be clear, not all of those who follow the meta are mouth breathers of this sort. Most are perfectly normal human beings, on account they understand every release shifts the meta :)

[Anggul]

I've never heard anyone complain about stronghold assault. I think it's more that people are more interested in spending their points on cool units from the army they chose rather than generic buildings.

Great for narrative campaigns though.

[Charon]

How does Stronghold Assault change the meta? It reinforces the meta PLUS make the game more stationary and shooty.
Hiding your Taudar Gunline behind Barbed Wire and voidshields does not change anything.

[Mr Mystery]

Voidshields do.

Honking great Macro-cannons do.

Multiple sets of fortifications do.

They provide additional AA opportunities, of particular use to armies with no current dedicated AA units.

[Charon]

Voidshields dont change the meta. They just make your gunline even more stable.
Macro-cannons dont change the meta. They just add a D-Weapon to gunlines. While it is true that the Macro-cannon can really ruin that Jetseers, Screamerstars,... day, it also kills every other unit without too much thought.
Multiple sets of fortification dont change the meta. They add more defensive bonuses and "bang" to shooty armies while slowing down everything that tries to close the gap.
Yes, they provide additional AA opportunities. Which either leads to armies with underwhelming flyers not taking them anymore or armies wit good flyers to take more of these. Also no change in the meta.

The problem we face here is that more options do not equal "more diverse armies", sadly its exactly the other way round. The more options your opponent has the tighter your options get.
Yes you will sometimes "suprise" somebody by bringing a Lord of War, Knight army, Formation or Fortification he didnt take into consideration but when the dust settles down its the same lists over and over again.

[Mr Mystery]

If you're a slave to the meta.

If not, more options does indeed mean more variety.

And that's the thing. Meta is entirely self fulfilling. It only impacts things if both players are playing to it. And soon or later, the meta is tipped on it's head, whether by a new Codex release, or an update to the core rules.

If you ask me, whilst it does have some uses, it's ultimately a mugs game. You can't win just by playing the meta!

[Lord Asterion]

Meta meta meta. As if it was enshrined in stone and not spurious opinions entirely based on a few peoples perceptions of a few games played. None of which used stronghold assault anyway.

If the tournament players weren't so scared of all the changes, because they make the game unpredictable and less about writing one list that uses one unit can beat everything and instead forces you to play the game, and allowed them, you'd see that the threat of a D weapon does "change the meta" why invest in a jetseer unit that can be wiped with one shot? You'd find more sensible uses for your points.

[Auticus]

This is why i ignore competitive play and tournaments. These are the events that tend to be "slaves to the meta".

I like Stronghold Assault. I like the options it brings. We use it in campaigns.

[Lord Asterion]

Its great fun and lends itself really well to a narrative

[Charon]

Meta meta meta. As if it was enshrined in stone and not spurious opinions entirely based on a few peoples perceptions of a few games played. None of which used stronghold assault anyway.

If the tournament players weren't so scared of all the changes, because they make the game unpredictable and less about writing one list that uses one unit can beat everything and instead forces you to play the game, and allowed them, you'd see that the threat of a D weapon does "change the meta" why invest in a jetseer unit that can be wiped with one shot? You'd find more sensible uses for your points.

They are not "scared" because it makes the game unpredictable.
It makes the games even more predictable as they just become a game of stone/paper/scissors when you write your army list.
In environment where your army list is supposed to deal with Tau, Eldar, Space Marines, Necrons, Daemons, Orks,... you have to plan carefully ahead. You can adjust the power to be better against Eldar but less efficient vs Daemons for example but at the end of the day you try to create an all-comers list.
Now your next opponent is an Imperial Knights player. The moment he drops the list on you, is the moment you lose. As 80 - 90% of your army is totally useless against knights. He won just by bringing his army. There is no need to play that out.
The same goes for D weapons in a normal 40k game. While it is true that D weapons just negate the investment of jetseers, it also negates ANY investment. See that landraider? BOOM! That fluffy Iyanden army? BOOM! The totally underpowered and overpriced terminator squad over there? BOOM!

Breaking an established metagame is always good. But things like this brake the entire game mode, not just the meta.
It is fine in campains or in games where you both agree to this ruleset.
But dropping a macrocannon and a ton of barbed wire on an unsuspecting orc player is not exactly a good thing.

[Mr Mystery]

Lord Asterion is correct though.

Stuff gets shunned because it does a good job of wrecking any given one trick pony that people should be invincible.

And the Meta remains fleeting. It's a crutch. Not necessarily something that only bad players or poor sports rely on, but a crutch nonetheless.

How do you beat any given 'meta' themed list? Go two steps ahead of it in the meta. Every list has a natural counter. That's unavoidable. But why would I want to play the meta? All it does is let my opponent know what I'm likely to field. Puts me on the back foot.

[PaD]

I've only played one Stronghold game so far; I got massacred, but it was great fun!

I think it would get played more often if there were some Xenos versions of the scenery t.b.h.

[Gleipnir]

I agree that Xenos Scenery especially in a boxset bundle would likely sell, fast if they offered it as a limited set

Creating a chaos conversion sprue for the Wall of Martyrs stuff would be fairly simple as a lot of the components with aquilas are glued on seperatly.

[Lord Asterion]

They are not "scared" because it makes the game unpredictable.
It makes the games even more predictable as they just become a game of stone/paper/scissors when you write your army list.
In environment where your army list is supposed to deal with Tau, Eldar, Space Marines, Necrons, Daemons, Orks,... you have to plan carefully ahead. You can adjust the power to be better against Eldar but less efficient vs Daemons for example but at the end of the day you try to create an all-comers list.
Now your next opponent is an Imperial Knights player. The moment he drops the list on you, is the moment you lose. As 80 - 90% of your army is totally useless against knights. He won just by bringing his army. There is no need to play that out.
The same goes for D weapons in a normal 40k game. While it is true that D weapons just negate the investment of jetseers, it also negates ANY investment. See that landraider? BOOM! That fluffy Iyanden army? BOOM! The totally underpowered and overpriced terminator squad over there? BOOM!

Breaking an established metagame is always good. But things like this brake the entire game mode, not just the meta.
It is fine in campains or in games where you both agree to this ruleset.
But dropping a macrocannon and a ton of barbed wire on an unsuspecting orc player is not exactly a good thing.


Except the guy with the Knights can beat the Orks, or Tau, there is something that means he can't win all the games. So its more effective as a threat than as a weapon. The threat that you might meet D Weapons that will massacre you means you avoid taking Death Stars, thats how it works, even if you never see a Macro Cannon or a Knight list, the fact you had that threat means you avoided Jetseers and took a more varied list.

D weapons are A Bombs, as long as they exist, they change the game and force people to use different tactics, but actually using them is self-defeating.

[Chumbalaya]

Man, a lot of people don't get tournament play. It's equal parts entertaining and sad.

Stronghold is a neat addition. Super-forts, void shields and Str D are full retard, but the majority of it is nice. My main complaint with stronghold is that it's a paid errata. Stronghold fixes a lot of the problems with forts in the BRB, but you can only use the updated rules if you fork out the cash for it. If Stronghold's release was immediately followed by an online errata that updated the forts in the BRB, I'd be ok with it.

[Charon]

Except the guy with the Knights can beat the Orks, or Tau, there is something that means he can't win all the games.

Which completely defeats the purpose of the game mode. If your glorious "change in the meta" is nothing but a "ok you won the tournament because you didnt have to play vs the knights", then you didnt break the meta. You just broke the game mode.


The threat that you might meet D Weapons that will massacre you means you avoid taking Death Stars, thats how it works, even if you never see a Macro Cannon or a Knight list, the fact you had that threat means you avoided Jetseers and took a more varied list.

Lets play with that idea for a moment. While the statement is correct (Deathstars WILL be avoided) there is a danger to it. You think that it produces more vartiety. That is not the case. It is true that it does let deathstars vanish but also EVERY OTHER HIGH POINT COST UNIT IN THE GAME. Fancy to field that Warp Talons? Congratz D Weapon eats them. Want to see Terminators? D Weapon eats them. Chaos Spawn? D Weapon eats them. Leman Russ Squadron? D Weapon eats them.
Everything that kills a Deathstar in one single blast also kills every other unit in one blast. Cheap MSU are meta. Guess what: D Weapon blasts reinforce that as you cant afford to have any big unit in a game with a D Weapon.
Lits dont get more variety. They just have to take a different (optimal) approach.


D weapons are A Bombs, as long as they exist, they change the game and force people to use different tactics, but actually using them is self-defeating.

And we all know how well this works. Not the existence of A bombs prevent their use, but the auto-retailation. You cant win cause if you nuke them they nuke you. That doesnt work in a turn based game. If you nuke them hard enough, there is nothing to nuke back.
If you have 1 Macro cannon at each sinde (cold war scenario) the macro cannon which goes first will probably win. In an "A Bomb" scenario both sides lose.

[Denzark]

Umm, I thought the meta was Tau/Eldar/Coteaz everywhere. Or Screamerstar. And then along comes D/Void/AAA for armies that couldn't deal with point 'n' click netlists.

And so the previously untouchables now aren't. Sounds like a change in meta to me.

[Mr Mystery]

Sounds like sour grapes, hence the push to establish the false impression the entire gaming community rejects playing with big boy's toys.

[Charon]

Umm, I thought the meta was Tau/Eldar/Coteaz everywhere. Or Screamerstar. And then along comes D/Void/AAA for armies that couldn't deal with point 'n' click netlists.

And so the previously untouchables now aren't. Sounds like a change in meta to me.

And what does prevent Tau/Eldar/Coteaz/Screamerstar from taking D/Void/AAA?
The problem in this is that the thinking stops at "D kills deathstars!". A strong army can still pick a D weapon. Jetseers are no thing anymore? Damn... oh wait let me grab this D Weapon and more Serpents!
These things are not only for armies that couldn't deal with. These things are also for armies which are also strong without them. Taudar gunline with D Weapon and movement impairing battlefield sections? Oh yes please...

[Mr Mystery]

Everyone has access to the Strongholds.

Issue?

[Charon]

According to the used line of arguments this seems to be an issue...
like this one


And then along comes D/Void/AAA for armies that couldn't deal with point 'n' click netlists.

Its not "for armies that couldnt deal...". Its for every army.
In the current edition gunlines are very powerful. Stronghold makes shooty armies (gunlines) even more powerful.
Its not that that poor underpowered melee orc player which suddenly gains more punch through strongholds. Its the Tau player who was obliterating the orc already before who got a big buff.

As my point stands Stronghold is very valuable in campains, fixed settings and consent games. Its not a thing you wanna drop on an unexpecting player (unless you are "that type" of player)

[Bigred]

Poll added - how could I resist?

[YorkNecromancer]

I love the book. My only problem is with Macro Cannon being Str D, although I imagine come the rumoured 7th ed, things will be brought in line.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/kenroster_lulz.jpg

In this picture, Ken represents Taudar, Sagat is pure Tau, Ryu is Screamerstar and Zangief? He's that one guy who brought the orks he's been playing with since 1st edition. He's not giving them up for you or anyone.

Of course, those will change. Because, yes, the meta favours gunlines ATM. Before that it was Grey Knights. Before that, Marines. Before that, Ork Nob Bikers. Before that... There is always something which rules the roost. Remember when everyone was buying up Screamers because they were the best unit in the game, just prior to the new Daemon codex? Or when Purifiers just could not be stopped? Or when T7 2+ Carnifexes were the order of the day?

40K has been going since 1987. It has NEVER been balanced. It has never even been close to balanced. The people who tell you it was? The time of 'balance' they remember was that brief moment when their codex was the best.

Just enjoy the game for what it is. It'll get there in the end. Seriously, compare now to when GKs were the only show in town. Yeah, things are unbalanced, but they aren't as bad as those days were.

[Gleipnir]

So in standard play using the rules for Stronghold Assault you have a choice between an expensive Macro Cannon (D weapon) on a building(not a super heavy so any return D weapon fire that doesn't hit a void shield has a good chance of exploding it). A Void Shield Network of interlapping Void Shields that can absorb almost all small arms fire from outside thier 12" coverage area and help protect against D weapons, or a Fortification network to allow for more Anti Aircraft guns and cover. unless you are playing in games that permit more than 1 fortification you aren't getting all 3 abilities. To listen to folks it would seem you are getting all 3 at once if you use Stronghold Assault. It is only the overlapping Void Shield Generators combined with a Lord of War shooting a D weapons that seems overly powerful without its own easy answer apart from Deep Striking or charging under the Void Shield bubble, and as others pointed out these defensive and offensive options are available to everyone, so your opponent takes a D weapon you can put your Deathstar under a Void Generator bubble until you eliminate it with your other army options. Plus a Super-heavy packing D weapons plus a Void Shield Network isn't cheap points wise and can likely be eliminated by much less in points value Deep Striking and Fast Assault units and I personally think it just moves the meta to bringing as many Str 8 + Weapons as possible spread among as many different units as possible, rather than the current preferred version of putting as many heavy weapons in a unit as possible to take advantage of force multipliers.

[DrBored]

Stronghold Assault is fine, and in my opinion it can give many armies an answer to fliers that they might not have otherwise.

There are two problems with it...
1. It makes gunlines even stronger by adding more big guns and a place to give better cover for gunline models. This on its own isn't terrible, but it promotes a style of gameplay that isn't very interesting or fun.

2. People tend to say Stronghold Assault in the same breath as Escalation, and Escalation has a lot more hate behind it than SA does. They came out side by side, SA as a small pill to swallow, but Escalation as a huge pill to swallow. It was just a bit too much at once. I think if SA came out a few months before Escalation, we'd see more fortifications in lists.

That said, the nice thing is that you only get one fortification, so it's not like you're overpowering your gunline by giving every Fire Warrior squad or Imperial Guard platoon even more strength, and many of the fortifications have limited carrying capacity, fire points, or don't have either and require models be dedicated to firing those weapons, which is pretty much like giving a model in a unit an extra heavy weapon that can never move. That's pretty balanced.

A lot of players in my local meta don't seem to get the idea that fortifications CAN be destroyed, especially by things like Melta, and that grenades DO exist and can do FANTASTIC damage to models inside fortifications, along with things like flamers. So, benefits are balanced by detriments.

I'd like to see more lists with fortifications, but the points you spend into them take away from points you could be putting into your flying circus, or Heldrakes, or whatever Deathstar you're running, so competitive players tend not to be interested.

[Charon]

I'd like to see more lists with fortifications, but the points you spend into them take away from points you could be putting into your flying circus, or Heldrakes, or whatever Deathstar you're running, so competitive players tend not to be interested.

Not really. You dont take away points from there you cut on other units. Depending on points a macrocannon with 2 voidshields, big helcult, reroll sorc 3 drakes, lots of autocannons and a few spare cultists is perfectly possible.

Maybe Eldar would get rid of the Jetseers (you dont really need them if you have a D cannon) and squeeze another Serpent in.

[DarkLink]

What about armies with no access to deepstriking melta. Which is most everyone that isn't a Marine?

Regardless, I think the real reason is simply that people don't actually play expansions very much. For all the talk of cities of death and planet strike and spearhead and escalation and stronghold assault, I never actually see anyone playing them outside of just after their release.

[Denzark]

And what does prevent Tau/Eldar/Coteaz/Screamerstar from taking D/Void/AAA?
The problem in this is that the thinking stops at "D kills deathstars!". A strong army can still pick a D weapon. Jetseers are no thing anymore? Damn... oh wait let me grab this D Weapon and more Serpents!
These things are not only for armies that couldn't deal with. These things are also for armies which are also strong without them. Taudar gunline with D Weapon and movement impairing battlefield sections? Oh yes please...

I think you're deliberately being obtuse. Before SA, the strong codexes could pick a list of however many points and because of economies of scale and relative power balances, the weaker codexes couldn't hope to pull off a win other than by luck. No matter what units from their codex to the same points cost as the strong codexes. Now, the weaker codexes have access to stuff that levels the playing field. Anti air they might not have had before, or D. Of course the strong codexes have access to the same. But that means their winning list has to change to include such things. 1000pts of Tau behind fortifications costing 500pts is different to 1500 in the open field. The strong codex player has to choose - do I press print on what I had before or do I join the arms race because if I don't and they get first turn, I am going to get smashed.

It is a leveller.

Not only that, it is intended to be such. I overheard my local blueshirt telling another customer that at the UK national managers convention recently, a question was asked 'What do we tell our customers who ask 'how do I deal with Seerstars?' The answer he recounted was 'tell them to use D weapons'.

[Charon]

In my eyes its no leveller, its a crutch.
If a bully beats up a weaker kid the "fight" doesnt get more even if you tell them "you can take baseball bats!"
The conversation you hear reinforces that. "We made grave design mistakes now lets sell a product which will take care of this problem and creates new ones."

Stronger codices are not strong because of one "unbeatable unit". They are strong because they are well written (as any codex should be) and have very few "useless" units.
An Eldar Army without Seerstar is still very strong, same game for Tau.

If everybody started to play escalation or stronghold (I guess the price barrier is keeping many people out) the next question would be "How do I prevent a D weapon destroying my best unit(s) on turn 1?"

[DarkLink]

Str D is more gamebreaking than the deathstars are. Using it as a 'leveler' is a terrible, terrible idea. It quickly becomes a game where the only thing that matters is how much D you've got.

[Eldar_Atog]

I think you're deliberately being obtuse. Before SA, the strong codexes could pick a list of however many points and because of economies of scale and relative power balances, the weaker codexes couldn't hope to pull off a win other than by luck. No matter what units from their codex to the same points cost as the strong codexes. Now, the weaker codexes have access to stuff that levels the playing field. Anti air they might not have had before, or D. Of course the strong codexes have access to the same. But that means their winning list has to change to include such things. 1000pts of Tau behind fortifications costing 500pts is different to 1500 in the open field. The strong codex player has to choose - do I press print on what I had before or do I join the arms race because if I don't and they get first turn, I am going to get smashed.

It is a leveller.

I would disagree. I would say that the weaker codex player is less likely to start using the Stronghold rules. If they are still doggedly playing an army like orks then they are more worried about the fluff/modelling and not winning/lossing. I've been watching the posts my warhammer group posts to facebook and it's been the bandwagoners and WAAC's that have been talking up the stronghold rules. The people with weaker codexes just talk about rumors about new codexes or perhaps their latest paint job.

I guess it is a leveler... It's a tool the bandwagoner/WAAC player can use to completely flatten their weaker opponent so that they can enjoy a smooth, luxurious drive across the table.

[Maelstorm]

I believe releasing Stronghold Assault alongside Escalation is what kicked it in the dangly bits.

GW is desperate to get us to buy more and more expensive toys - along with an every-increasing library of books - they rapid-fired the two releases and sunk them both.

[Gleipnir]

What about armies with no access to deepstriking melta. Which is most everyone that isn't a Marine?

Regardless, I think the real reason is simply that people don't actually play expansions very much. For all the talk of cities of death and planet strike and spearhead and escalation and stronghold assault, I never actually see anyone playing them outside of just after their release.

Unlike Kill Team, Planetstrike, Cities of Death, Spearhead and Apocalypse though Death from the Skies, Stronghold Assault, Escalation and Altar of War are supplements of the Standard gameplay rather than an alternate ruleset, making them no different than the Vehicles, Psykers and Characters Advanced rulesets presented in the BRB, only difference being they are in a separate book.

Which makes it like saying you can play using the Chaos Space Marine Codex but don't you dare use the Crimson Slaughter Supplement.

[Denzark]

Str D is more gamebreaking than the deathstars are. Using it as a 'leveler' is a terrible, terrible idea. It quickly becomes a game where the only thing that matters is how much D you've got.

This is true, it is in many cases all certain codexes can rely on.

The good codexes are strong because they are well-written to some extent - but what it really boils down to is lots of aspects which can warp the normal flow of play by doing exceptions to the rules. Ignoring cover, multiple overwatch, re-rollable invulns are all examples. Where armies can't do this - and their 'thing' is negated by these, they can only really take the nuclear option...

[Gleipnir]

I believe they are trying to say that the nuclear D weapon option by default becomes the best option for everyone, and the army that can bring the best ones or shoot first wins, Void Shields mitigate this slightly but not enough to save the armies that lack the often very expensive Forgeworld models packing D weapons, which makes the game pay to win. That said i'd rather include it and house rule the rules for D weapons as necessary than take the position that the books shouldn't be included. A D-weapon that ignores all saves(is a good foil for deathstars), a D weapon that ignores all saves and instant destroys any model that isn't a super-heavy it hits is good against everything.

Would have been better if it was Str 10 ignore saves as a middling effect for a roll of 2-5 and only leaving a greasy stain on a 6, than the current version which I always felt was more about speeding up games of Apocalypse.

[John Bower]

I love it, for one thing it has rules for stuff that didn't have points costs before. It makes the idea of Planetstrike awesome sauce, because now the defender buys his gunlines instead of getting them for nothing.
yeah, it's got the dreaded 'D' word in there, but that's up to you, you don't have to use the Aquila or allow it. The new rules make gaming against fortifications much more narrative and cinematic (you should see what happens when 8 ork boyz chuck stikk bomms into a bunker lol) so that's a defo plus in my book.

I now have 2 lists at each points value for all the armies in my campaign (1500, 2000, 1750, PS and Apoc). They are attack and defence lists, in the defence you can spend what you like on SA buildings but unless it's going to be 3k or > aka Apocalypse then no Aquilas or Supers. And so far it's working rather well, there is a balance between defenders winning/losing and even a draw so far. I've got a PS to do probably tonight, and that will show any issues with a 2k defending force with forts vs a 1500 attacker using PS rules. (But remember PS had no limits on buildings and this imposes them by virtue of you must spend 500+ of your 2k on SA stuff) and then you still have to take the compulsory stuff.

[deinol]

I'd be curious to see this poll redone with three options:

Yes, Everything Including "D"
Yes, but no "D"
No.

Because it's clear people have said yes to fortifications, but unclear they are universally accepting "D" cannons into their games.

[Maelstorm]

I'd be curious to see this poll redone with three options:

Yes, Everything Including "D"
Yes, but no "D"
No.

Because it's clear people have said yes to fortifications, but unclear they are universally accepting "D" cannons into their games.

Agreed...

[John Bower]

The only D cannons which are stupidly OP are the ones that use the 15" template, they can in theory wipe out an entire mob of Boyz or gants/gaunts with one fell swoop. Other than that D weapons still only use either a single hit or the large blast, in which case you die on a 2 still. They are still a definite 'no' for me unless there is a bloody good reason narratively to use them (and believe me I can't think of one yet). I played a Planetstrike this evening, Chaos had 1500 points (minus a rhino which I forgot they had) and the defenders had 2k, most of which was SA stuff, 3 bastions, aegis line, the Vengeance battery, 3 sets of trenches and emplacements with a few obstacles, the bastions of which 2 had magos spirit and of those 1 each of Icarus and quad gun. the other had comms array. Two had escape hatches which were for the most part unused. One had ammo store and another had booby traps. Finally a Skyshield. Five veteran squads (it's an independent army that hasn't been worked on and all mantic troops bar for the command and 1 squad of vets), Command squad with Company commander and finally a Scions squad. Now in the event Chaos with 2 X berzerkers, a normal squad of marines, Lord in Power with claws, Warp Talons, Termies and a Helbrute. Like I say they should've had Rhino but forgot to use it, well they wiped the floor with the guardsmen, finished up by holding 3 of the 5 objectives while the guard held 2. The 2 Vengeance guns were dead in the water, one was a total the other just lost its weapon.

But it proves that SA is not unassailable, even if you did have the Aquila I reckon you could still do it with the right stuff. And anyhow, that's a huge point sink 500 + points to get a stationary D weapon that can be dealt with by any bod with a meltagun or similar or elder with their lances, or of course the dreaded Necron scarabs.