Fortification Placement

[Lord Krungharr]

I was reading about Fortifications in the new BRB and apparently we set them up along with our army now? But I didn't notice it saying if that means in our own deployment zone or in the table half?

I got myself a Skyshield Pad, gotta know where it goes!

[Monkey Tom]

It says on page 130 of the main rulebook that "it is set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as the other models". It goes on to say "If you decide to use the fortification as a piece of neutral scenery, then it is set up during this step. Each fortification has a fortification datasheet that describes how it is used in the game." If you don't have it then grab a copy of Stronghold Assault, it's got all the datasheets for fortifications in there.

So if you have bought it for your army and included it your army list then you deploy it just like the rest of your army inside your deployment zone. It is part of your army afterall. :D

[John Bower]

Yep it even says so somewhere in the BRB. It used to be in your half, but they changed that in 7th and now any fortification purchased as part of your army goes wholly in your deployment zone, which can make a WoM defence network really difficult to do.

[Caitsidhe]

Restricting Fortifications to your deployment zone rather than your half did make quite a few of them largely pointless.

[Rissan4ever]

Aside from the Aegis Defense Line and various gun emplacements, I agree. The big forts are better used as part of an attacker/defender scenario, where the defender has plenty of space to set up a fortified base.

[John Bower]

Restricting Fortifications to your deployment zone rather than your half did make quite a few of them largely pointless.

Yes and no, it kind of restricts the most dangerous ones to there original place; Apocalypse where you have the room. And now of course Planetstrike. :)

[Caitsidhe]

Yes and no, it kind of restricts the most dangerous ones to there original place; Apocalypse where you have the room. And now of course Planetstrike. :)

In the case of the Skyshield, whose ostensible "fluffy" use is to deep strike without error, being restricted to your own deployment zone is a death sentence. If your deep strike units, already delayed by coming in from reserves, now also are delayed by two additional turns (if they are lucky) to then travel across the board, they will be rendered moot. Thus, the only "fluffy" reason for the Skyshield is gone. It now exists only as an a building no one can kill (has the battlefield debris status) and allows you to start a plane on the board. In essence it is just a firebase now.

[Lord Krungharr]

Thanks everybody. I pretty much was planning on using it as a firebase, but I remembered the suggestion of Infiltrating jump infantry to the top of one near the table half mark (which I really wanted to try :) ) Oh well, c'est la guerre. It will be nice to have my Deathstrikes and Wyverns up there, or Soul Grinders with Cursed Earth !

[John Bower]

In the case of the Skyshield, whose ostensible "fluffy" use is to deep strike without error, being restricted to your own deployment zone is a death sentence. If your deep strike units, already delayed by coming in from reserves, now also are delayed by two additional turns (if they are lucky) to then travel across the board, they will be rendered moot. Thus, the only "fluffy" reason for the Skyshield is gone. It now exists only as an a building no one can kill (has the battlefield debris status) and allows you to start a plane on the board. In essence it is just a firebase now.

Never really use the Skyshield except in Planetstrike games, I've only got 2 hover flyers anyway, and I don't use much DS infantry now because I was finding it got shot to pieces all too often before it had much chance to perform other than in Planetstrike where they can assault right off the bat.

[Caitsidhe]

Never really use the Skyshield except in Planetstrike games, I've only got 2 hover flyers anyway, and I don't use much DS infantry now because I was finding it got shot to pieces all too often before it had much chance to perform other than in Planetstrike where they can assault right off the bat.

I used to use it as a forward anchor head from which I would launch offensive, i.e. assaults using infiltrated assault troops. This was actually quite effective. It made certain Warlord traits (and thus certain Warlords) really worth taking. I think it was a poor choice to relegate them to Deployment zone without at least allowing an upgrade to table half.

[dwez]

It now exists only as an a building no one can kill (has the battlefield debris status) and allows you to start a plane on the board. In essence it is just a firebase now.

Which is nothing to be sniffed at. Killing buildings is a bit easier than vehicles now, so having it 'indestructable' is a major bonus. Additionally the 4+ Invulnerable save is fantastic with so many 'ignores cover' weapons. Not mention you can still take a cover save, from the walls and legs which will take benefit from any cover enhancing items - night fight, Venomthrope etc.

Personally I never used it for deep strike, and the new deployment hurts but I think it has major benefits above a Bastion, for durability. It's help to have weapon emplacement too but that's just wishlisting.

[Caitsidhe]

Which is nothing to be sniffed at. Killing buildings is a bit easier than vehicles now, so having it 'indestructable' is a major bonus. Additionally the 4+ Invulnerable save is fantastic with so many 'ignores cover' weapons. Not mention you can still take a cover save, from the walls and legs which will take benefit from any cover enhancing items - night fight, Venomthrope etc.

Personally I never used it for deep strike, and the new deployment hurts but I think it has major benefits above a Bastion, for durability. It's help to have weapon emplacement too but that's just wishlisting.

Technically you can put weapons on it depending on how you build your army. Since it is just battlefield debris, you can stick any weapon emplacement up on it that you get from another such unit. I'm not belittling the Skyshield. It is still one of only two Fortifications I ever see on the board competitively. Nobody wants to the useless deathtraps. I'm just saying it is sad that they nuked the only "fluff" option it had. :D I rarely see anything but an Aegis or a Skyshield. With Unbound and more flexible Battle Forged designs, nothing prevents you from sticking a Quad Gun or an Icarus up on it if you have it in your army. Moreover, nothing prevents you from purchasing walls/barricades and putting them on top either so your guys can benefit from the 4+ Invulnerable save AND an improved cover save (if available to them) if that works better. In typical Games Workshop style they have created a list of Fortification wherein only a pair are ever worth taking.

[Tynskel]

Technically you can put weapons on it depending on how you build your army. Since it is just battlefield debris, you can stick any weapon emplacement up on it that you get from another such unit. I'm not belittling the Skyshield. It is still one of only two Fortifications I ever see on the board competitively. Nobody wants to the useless deathtraps. I'm just saying it is sad that they nuked the only "fluff" option it had. :D I rarely see anything but an Aegis or a Skyshield. With Unbound and more flexible Battle Forged designs, nothing prevents you from sticking a Quad Gun or an Icarus up on it if you have it in your army. Moreover, nothing prevents you from purchasing walls/barricades and putting them on top either so your guys can benefit from the 4+ Invulnerable save AND an improved cover save (if available to them) if that works better. In typical Games Workshop style they have created a list of Fortification wherein only a pair are ever worth taking.

Nothing but your opponent.

[Caitsidhe]

Nothing but your opponent.

You say that but in my experience that just doesn't happen all that often. Most people I run into play the game rather than debating how they think my army should or shouldn't be designed. And at tournaments (where I see far more games played than pick up games these days) you don't get a say in what your opponent puts on the table at all. If you want to play in the tournament you are agreeing to whatever terms the TO set.

For my own part, I consider it largely poor sportsmanship to insist on wanting to rewrite my opponent's lists to fit my own preferences. Since I have to assume my potential opponent also wants to play, chose his/her units based on their own preferences and what they think is cool, and designed their army within the rules set, it would be a bit hypocritical for me to feel entitled to demand changes. That is just me. Most of the time it is me (myself) who chooses to rewrite my list when I see my opponent come to the table with a woefully inept army which will not be able to protect itself from me. Sometimes this is due to the current Codex. Sometimes it is due to the player's poor choices. For example, when I come to the table and my opponent has a bug army (all small bugs) hoping to swarm me and I have 2+ Helldrakes in my list... I often just drop one and throw something else in. This is my own choice and not mandatory. Would I do it if someone asked me before I had a chance to cull it myself? Sure. I still would think it ill-mannered. I don't do that to other people, so I don't like it when they do it to me.

In general, we all buy the models we want to use. We put them in our armies because it appeals to us (for whatever reason). Potential opponents who come to the table expecting me to rewrite my list to please them (and almost always to their advantage and my disadvantage) are simply poor sports. I think the buck stops with the individual. Personal responsibility has to come into it somewhere and expecting other people to cater to you at the table is just spoiled.

[Tynskel]

You say that but in my experience that just doesn't happen all that often. Most people I run into play the game rather than debating how they think my army should or shouldn't be designed. And at tournaments (where I see far more games played than pick up games these days) you don't get a say in what your opponent puts on the table at all. If you want to play in the tournament you are agreeing to whatever terms the TO set.

For my own part, I consider it largely poor sportsmanship to insist on wanting to rewrite my opponent's lists to fit my own preferences. Since I have to assume my potential opponent also wants to play, chose his/her units based on their own preferences and what they think is cool, and designed their army within the rules set, it would be a bit hypocritical for me to feel entitled to demand changes. That is just me. Most of the time it is me (myself) who chooses to rewrite my list when I see my opponent come to the table with a woefully inept army which will not be able to protect itself from me. Sometimes this is due to the current Codex. Sometimes it is due to the player's poor choices. For example, when I come to the table and my opponent has a bug army (all small bugs) hoping to swarm me and I have 2+ Helldrakes in my list... I often just drop one and throw something else in. This is my own choice and not mandatory. Would I do it if someone asked me before I had a chance to cull it myself? Sure. I still would think it ill-mannered. I don't do that to other people, so I don't like it when they do it to me.

In general, we all buy the models we want to use. We put them in our armies because it appeals to us (for whatever reason). Potential opponents who come to the table expecting me to rewrite my list to please them (and almost always to their advantage and my disadvantage) are simply poor sports. I think the buck stops with the individual. Personal responsibility has to come into it somewhere and expecting other people to cater to you at the table is just spoiled.

Haha!
Talking about sportsmanship, but you are talking about putting a turret on a Landing Platform...

[Path Walker]

Its not poor sportsmanship at all, if you see that your opponent has something in their army that you'd have no hope of going against or that their list wouldn't be fun at all for you to play against, asking them to change it isn't unsporting, in fact, given those circumstances not changing it would be poor sportsmanship.

[Caitsidhe]

Haha!
Talking about sportsmanship, but you are talking about putting a turret on a Landing Platform...

Yes, I am. The rules state it is treated as open ground. Putting a gun up there is no different than sticking a tank up there or filling it up with Fire Warriors or any of a the countless other different ways people use it. I am talking about doing something entirely within the rules. As to it being a "landing platform" I will believe that when I see it actually used for that purpose. In two years, I've never seen it once.

- - - Updated - - -


Its not poor sportsmanship at all, if you see that your opponent has something in their army that you'd have no hope of going against or that their list wouldn't be fun at all for you to play against, asking them to change it isn't unsporting, in fact, given those circumstances not changing it would be poor sportsmanship.

We will have to agree to disagree. The notion of entitlement that you get to demand changes based on the fact that you came to the table with an inept army is strange to me. Where is your personal accountability in that situation? Shouldn't you have considered the various things you are going to face and prepared for them? If your army has no hope against me, whose fault is that?

[Path Walker]

Yes, I am. The rules state it is treated as open ground. Putting a gun up there is no different than sticking a tank up there or filling it up with Fire Warriors or any of a the countless other different ways people use it. I am talking about doing something entirely within the rules. As to it being a "landing platform" I will believe that when I see it actually used for that purpose. In two years, I've never seen it once.

- - - Updated - - -


Well, there is a small clue to it being a landing pad in the name...




We will have to agree to disagree. The notion of entitlement that you get to demand changes based on the fact that you came to the table with an inept army is strange to me. Where is your personal accountability in that situation? Shouldn't you have considered the various things you are going to face and prepared for them? If your army has no hope against me, whose fault is that?

Except the rules state you should discuss what you're thinking for your army with your opponent. Its not about entitlement, but, everyone is entitled to enjoy their hobby.
And they also talk about respecting the spirit of the game as a fun experience for all players, if someone doesn't think they will enjoy the next 2 hours of their life, who are you to not try and make changes to let them enjoy their hobby just because you want to win a game? What gives you that right?

[Caitsidhe]

Well, there is a small clue to it being a landing pad in the name...

So you and Tynskel are making the argument that no unit other than a Flyer or Deep Striker should ever be up there? :D If so, you are insisting that 90% of players currently using the Skyshield are indulging in something inappropriate.


Except the rules state you should discuss what you're thinking for your army with your opponent. Its not about entitlement, but, everyone is entitled to enjoy their hobby.
And they also talk about respecting the spirit of the game as a fun experience for all players, if someone doesn't think they will enjoy the next 2 hours of their life, who are you to not try and make changes to let them enjoy their hobby just because you want to win a game? What gives you that right?

We will continue to agree to disagree. I expect a certain degree of politeness and accountability from the people I play. I expect them to come to the table ready to play and take responsibility for their own building skills. I in turn will be polite, friendly, and play whatever they brought. If I am totally unable to deal with something it is because I did not avail myself of the ample options. In the current edition nobody can ever claim they don't have access to tools. I don't feel comfortable demanding people cater to me. You clearly do. We come from different worlds. I accept my failures on the battlefield are all on ME. I also get my fun from the contest and struggle, not from long discussions about how I want my opponent to change his/her list.

[Tynskel]

So you and Tynskel are making the argument that no unit other than a Flyer or Deep Striker should ever be up there? :D If so, you are insisting that 90% of players currently using the Skyshield are indulging in something inappropriate.



We will continue to agree to disagree. I expect a certain degree of politeness and accountability from the people I play. I expect them to come to the table ready to play and take responsibility for their own building skills. I in turn will be polite, friendly, and play whatever they brought. If I am totally unable to deal with something it is because I did not avail myself of the ample options. In the current edition nobody can ever claim they don't have access to tools. I don't feel comfortable demanding people cater to me. You clearly do. We come from different worlds. I accept my failures on the battlefield are all on ME. I also get my fun from the contest and struggle, not from long discussions about how I want my opponent to change his/her list.

It doesn't matter what players are doing with it. It is still a form of cheating, whether it is legal or not.

Landing Pads are for planes.
Aegis walls are for guns.

If you want to 'mount a gun on it'—then make it a scenario, where a Thunderfire Cannon was being offloaded/onloaded, and they were caught with their pants down.
aka—start with your flyer on the board off/on loading the artillery.

[This Dave]

Haha!
Talking about sportsmanship, but you are talking about putting a turret on a Landing Platform...

I don't see a problem fluff wise with that really. If you know an enemy is coming to attack your landing platform and you don't have a pressing need to land things on it why not both fortify it and make it impossible for the enemy to land an aircraft on it?

[Tynskel]

I don't see a problem fluff wise with that really. If you know an enemy is coming to attack your landing platform and you don't have a pressing need to land things on it why not both fortify it and make it impossible for the enemy to land an aircraft on it?

well, yeah, taht's called putting guns *around* the pad.

[This Dave]

well, yeah, taht's called putting guns *around* the pad.

But since the thing gives cover and a save to whatever's on it if you're planning to defend it why would you NOT put the defenses on the thing? That's like standing outside a fortress walls to hold off a besieging army.

[Caitsidhe]

It doesn't matter what players are doing with it. It is still a form of cheating, whether it is legal or not.

No. Language is a precise medium. There is such a thing as mutually exclusive meanings. It is either against the rule or it is not. It is either cheating or it is not. Your opinion is beside the point. It isn't against the rules and thus it is not cheating.


Landing Pads are for planes.
Aegis walls are for guns.

And yet the rules allow non-planes to get a benefit and land there. The Skyshield has two parts. It is a big pad and it is a shield. Most people don't bother with the landing pad aspect. Let me rephrase that, nobody bothers with the landing pad aspect. The closest anyone comes is choosing to start a plane there. Nobody comes in for a landing. :D The Skyshield is used for the shield. I don't have an opinion; I'm stating a fact. I am the one who stated I think it was sad they locked it into the deployment zone because that all but assures it can NEVER be used as a landing pad with any practicality.

You should be aware that in the novels, such pads are used for far more than planes. Most things brought planetside get a "drop" so to speak in various ways and the Skyshield is the target. More to the point, as Dave pointed out, most beings are not idiots. They use whatever resources they have to the best potential and Marines (not even Orks) are going to stand outside the force field because "dat'ting iz fer planz".

[Path Walker]

Great, i just dislocated an optic nerve from rolling my eyes so hard. Thanks a lot.

- - - Updated - - -


No. Language is a precise medium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_true_homonyms