Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions

[Sir_Prometheus]

Honestly (as an owner of a bastion I just painted up) 3+ seems a bit much.  It's just a metal waist-high wall.  Doesn't seem like it should be much tougher than a ruin. 

I think "fortifications" the area terrain is reserved for bunkers.  Y'know, the concrete things with a firing slot. 

[Grand Master Steve]

I just read the pinned and locked Sam's rulings. I thought we figured out the Power Weapon thing? So as I read it my marines on foot cant use power axes or swords for that matter because it doesnt come on their sprue? Im a bit confused.

[Sam]

That's why I said the situation is ambiguous; there isn't a clear answer in the text. In the case of something truly ambiguous, you should agree with your opponent. If no agreement can be had, roll for it. The rules are in a state of flux right now, so a lot of stuff is going to be ambiguous. I would rather apply the first rule in the book (roll off if there's a disagreement) than have everyone in the room asking for me to arbitrarily decide on something that manifestly has no actual answer right now. A lot of this sort of problem will go away once we get a main rulebook FAQ, but for now, we have to do what we can with what we have.

[Sam]

Steve, the final power weapon ruling is in the power weapon thread. I should have a link to it on my ruling thread somewhere. Keep looking.

[Grand Master Steve]

no I think what is confusing me is we can not swap from a different set? Example the space marine Tac Squad as far as I can recall does not come with a power weapon. So I can not say, take a power weapon from the assult marine sprue you linked?

[Sir_Prometheus]

To be clear, Sam ruled in the end that a power weapon CAN be switched out to be either a sword, axe, maul or lance. You can take that bit from any set you wish.

Not that somethings, such as hellgaives, at not power weapons, but a specific type, in that case swords.

Sam, I do have to say in some ways your "clarification" thread was a little unclear, as it included some transitory rulings along the way, and at least in the power weapon case, did not include the final ruling.   

[Grand Master Steve]

Yeah when I read it I said "Wha?" Because all my Marine Sargents are definently using power weapons from other kits since the tac squad box doesnt come with them.

[andalucien]

OK, I hear you on the ambiguity Sam.  However, my take on it is that MOST of the rulings we are getting to here are necessary because the rulebook & FAQ's are ambiguous about them.  I don't see anything fundamentally different about this one.  As with other ambiguous rules like the power weapon one, even if the decision is totally arbitrary, I would prefer that the "active rule" for any given event be known in advance. 

But, if the policy should be that I will try to convince someone that it has a 3+ cover save, and they are not swayed, we'll dice off for it, well, at least that's a policy and it's better than no policy.  I just think it's weird that in one game, the bastion might be giving a 3+ save, and in the next game it might be 4+.

[Librarian]

the top of the bastion as well as many sections of the fortress greatly resemble the aegis defense lines. The defense lines have the terrain type: battlefield debris (Defense Line) which is defined as a 4+ cover save that grants +2 to your cover save when you go to ground behind it.

this is probably the easiest way to rule it till a FAQ shows up.

[Benjamin]

OK, I hear you on the ambiguity Sam.  However, my take on it is that MOST of the rulings we are getting to here are necessary because the rulebook & FAQ's are ambiguous about them.  I don't see anything fundamentally different about this one.  As with other ambiguous rules like the power weapon one, even if the decision is totally arbitrary, I would prefer that the "active rule" for any given event be known in advance.

I agree whole-heartedly. I would prefer to have a definitive ruling in place for an event, even if it is arbitrary and even it is later overturned.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Yeah, I would also prefer a ruling.  Bias will abound, since often one player will have a bstion, and the other won't.

I also don't see any reason why it should have a better save than the aegis defense line.  It shouldn't have a special "duck behind" rule, though.  Special rules are special. 

[Ian Mulligan]

The rulebook lists walls and barriers as generating a 4+ cover save. I don't see why that wouldn't be applicable here.

[andalucien]

So, what exactly is a fortification?  Can anyone post an example picture?

[Sir_Prometheus]

You know those octagonal bunkers at plainville?  Something like that. 

[Grimwulfe]

Quick questionas I am a little unsure of the wording. For GK inquisitors can a Malleus Inq Lord in TA have a Daemonblade?

In the wargear section it states he can replace bolt pistol and or chainsword with a daemon blade.

The TA secton says replaces armor bolt pistol and chainsword with TA and a daemon hammer.

So does this mean I can then replace the daemon hammer with a daemonblade for 15 points?