Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: andalucien on September 05, 2013, 03:49:36 PM
-
Specifically Firestorm redoubt?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod2130100a
It's published by Games Workshop (not Forgeworld) and comes with rules for normal 40k games in the box.
-
From what I heard, they're not very good. But I honestly would rather not allow them in any case. Fortification rules are just so badly written, less complication is better.
-
There actually not that bad. They can't be manned and they have a horrible BS.
-
Well, we already allow bastions... do these introduce any complications we don't already have?
-
One: The rules aren't readily accessible without buying the model.
-
Bradpowers, you mean that it puts your opponents as a disadvantage, because they're less likely to know how it works in advance?
By the same reasoning, you can't know the rules for Eldar unless you buy the Eldar codex right? And you can't know the rules for the Farsight supplement without buying it? Think of this as a very simple supplement to which any army has access, and which comes with a free model instead of 50 pages of fluff.
-
I don't disagree with you, I'm merely pointing out that this is an argument that has been used against the inclusion of Forge World in tournaments here and elsewhere. My point is that people piss and moan about accessibility when it comes to Forgeworld, as knowing the rules for a Forgeworld unit notionally requires a purchase outside of the standard set of codices. The same is true of these, you (again, notionally) must buy the model in order to get a copy of the rules.
I don't personally have a problem with them, they're very straightforward (the only exception being the automatic fire at fliers/FMCs from the firestorm redoubt).
-
Yeah, those have always been my least favorite set of arguments against ForgeWorld. To me, the only way those arguments have any validity is if there's someone out there who actually buys every single 40k codex and supplement, yet for some reason finds difficulty in ALSO buying the Forgeworld books.
-
Damn... shouldn't have kickstarted an inevitable flamewar about forgeworld there... hehe... anyway... all... to be clear, again, these fortifications are NOT FORGEWORLD, they're GW and you can buy them from Chase :)
-
I'm glad this has come up because it's reminded me about something that came up this weekend that WILL cause a revision to be made as far as fortifications and out tournaments are concerned.
To answer your question directly, we DO plan to allow the new fortifications in our events (except for the Apocalypse thing, I forget what it's called). So the fortifications that aren't allowed will be: Fortress of Redemption, new Apoc thing, and sometimes the Skyshield Landing Pad.
The change that will be made for upcoming event posts will look something like: If you take a fortification you are doing so under the the agreement that it will be played as if it were modeled like the default version. Any and all judgement calls made by a referee will treat your fortification as if it were GW stock. Modeling for advantage will not be allowed or accepted.
4 heavy bolters on the front side of your bastion, regardless of what the rules may suggest, will not be allowed.
Also, just so I can post it up where some people might read it: When you're submitting your army to be judged for appearance, it's straight up cheating to include (or not include) ANYTHING other than exactly what is in your list. If you do that, stop doing it. :)
-
Yay! thanks chase. I may actually buy one of these things, its rules are not embarrassing and the thing just looks BOSS. Got a good idea for how to fit it in my next project
-
4 heavy bolters on the front side of your bastion, regardless of what the rules may suggest, will not be allowed.
I thought that was the rule already? No one allows 4 heavy bolters one one side. That's just silly. By the same logic I could give a Bastion 27 firing points just by drilling holes in it.
-
4 heavy bolters on the front side of your bastion, regardless of what the rules may suggest, will not be allowed.
I thought that was the rule already? No one allows 4 heavy bolters one one side. That's just silly. By the same logic I could give a Bastion 27 firing points just by drilling holes in it.
The Warhammer Fantasy tower, which by 40k BRB definition is the same building size and height as a Bastion (and as such, by the BRB is a legal fortification) has 80 billion firing points from all the windows.
-
i dont have my brb in front of me but i'm pretty sure it does say how many firing points on each facing of a bastion.
the emplaced heavy bolts have alway been a loophole because it says something like "4 emplaced heavy bolters, GENERALLY one on each facing". Every one i've seen in a tournament has been the intended one on each facing but i'm guessing chase must of ran into "that guy" who kit bashed his to have all 4 on one side thus prompting this house rule
-
4 heavy bolters on the front side of your bastion, regardless of what the rules may suggest, will not be allowed.
I thought that was the rule already? No one allows 4 heavy bolters one one side. That's just silly. By the same logic I could give a Bastion 27 firing points just by drilling holes in it.
I thought so too, but apparently it was more than a non-issue this past weekend.
-
i dont have my brb in front of me but i'm pretty sure it does say how many firing points on each facing of a bastion.
the emplaced heavy bolts have alway been a loophole because it says something like "4 emplaced heavy bolters, GENERALLY one on each facing". Every one i've seen in a tournament has been the intended one on each facing but i'm guessing chase must of ran into "that guy" who kit bashed his to have all 4 on one side thus prompting this house rule
It doesn't specify firing points, it says "as the model" by which, obviously they mean the GW model. Now it's a little funny, because you actually have a few different options in how to assemble the GW bastion, so it's not exactly fixed which sides get what fire points, but regardless you can only get 3 firepoints on a side, and I think you can only make that happen for one side.
But trying to use another model with significantly different characteristics is silly WAAC nonsense, and it also means you're kinda jerk, I would recommend not playing with those people.
NOVA has a fairly sensible modeling for advantage policy: basically mad conversions are fine, but you're to use the worst of EITHER the original model or your mad conversion. (height, etc). FOr instance if you converted a demon prince to be double height, that's fine, but you'd draw LOS as if you were the original model, but could be shot at as if your current full height.
I thought BG followed something like that. If they don't, they should, it covers most situations.
-
By the rulebook, a Bastion is a "Medium Building" with access and fire points "as per model". Per the Building size chart, a Medium Building is a "Up to 9"x 9" building". There is nothing in 6th edition that prohibits one from finding a building that fits those dimensions and calling it a "bastion" and having 80 billion access points/fire points per side.
-
That is one interpretation of what they said.....I think they meant the actual GW model. Guess what? GW is often unclear with their language.
Regardless, if you don't limit it to roughly the same physical properties as the GW model, things get stupid fast. As apparently has been shown. Ipso Facto, you have to say that you're going to play the model based upon what the original GW model has in terms of both number of position of guns, firing points, etc.
And again, I thought that was already well-established policy.
-
It is a policy originally adopted when I asked in the 6th edition rulings thread a year ago (when 6th first came out) if it was OK to make a custom bastion with different configurations for fire points etc. Sam said no, everything basically has to be exactly where it would be if you used the GW kit to build it. Great ruling. But of course, nobody reads that thread.
Battleground FAQ needed. (preferably piggybacking on the work of others)
-
To answer your question directly, we DO plan to allow the new fortifications in our events (except for the Apocalypse thing, I forget what it's called). So the fortifications that aren't allowed will be: Fortress of Redemption, new Apoc thing, and sometimes the Skyshield Landing Pad.
That's fine. I think the Skyshield is actually okay, but it's not a make-or-break fortification.
4 heavy bolters on the front side of your bastion, regardless of what the rules may suggest, will not be allowed.
Only a complete dickhead would put all 4 heavy bolters on one side of the bastion.
-
4 heavy bolters on the front side of your bastion, regardless of what the rules may suggest, will not be allowed.
I thought that was the rule already? No one allows 4 heavy bolters one one side. That's just silly. By the same logic I could give a Bastion 27 firing points just by drilling holes in it.
I thought so too, but apparently it was more than a non-issue this past weekend.
Maybe like 2 tournies ago I played "someone" I think who had all 4 bolters on the same side. Wont name anybody but yall know who you are!
-
I don't think it's a TOTAL dickhead move, just a little dickish not to ask permission in advance, unless you're knowingly violating a pre-existing ruling. The rulebook itself implies pretty strongly that you are allowed to move the bolters around. It says "typically 1 per side". "Typically" means, usually, but not always. Like, in the rule for bolters, which never change, it doesn't say that they are "typically" strength 4, it says that they are strength 4.
That being said, I agree that the game is better off if we stricten up the rule for fortifications a bit. Seems silly (though only about a 1 out of 10 on the gamebreaking scale) to allow people to design these bastions that are totally optmized for efficiency on tabletop (like what if you could build these giant fan wings out to the side to block LOS to stuff, etc)
-
That's fine. I think the Skyshield is actually okay, but it's not a make-or-break fortification.
Eeeeh. Depends. They've FAQ'd it so that in order for you to bring the shield down, you actually need to now be on top (and not just touching). Putting Wraithkngihts or Riptides up there for a 4+ invul save pretty much removes their only real flaw.
-
I dunno, it was legal at NOVA, but I never saw it, did you? I barely saw any fortifications, really, just an occasional aegis.
-
i totally saw it. Dude put 2 riptides, Pathfinders, and an Eldar Weapons battery on it.