Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I agree w/ Jwhex on placing terrian and then rolling for sides and I also think Fortifications should go down last. People build those knowing the lay of the land and not allowing someone to put a ruin right in front of it.

Very much agreed. They should go last. The problem is, if you just use the rules as written and place the aegis last, you'll not have the room to do so.

The reason they are placed first is so you can choose what section of the table to use up a terrain spot in.

I find the easiest way to make it sensible would be:
"after all terrain is placed, you must remove one piece of terrain in one section to make room for your Fortification in that section."

Problem: This allows you a final say on terrain if you have a Fortification. This can make a big difference.
I still say that problem is far smaller than the problem of people building mountains infront of your aegis though.

In my group we have a third party build the table, and that third party allows for certain rearranging within reasonable limits to make room for the Fortification.

I find fortifications are a mixed bag. They've obviously been a big benefit to competitive play, since they mitigate much of the problem with bad terrain setups in tournaments. It's harder to get screwed by events with insufficient terrain when you get to bring terrain of your own for backup!

That said, the rules for a lot of fortifications are really poorly written. The default terrain deployment rules make them barely function, and the substantial rules differences between "gun emplacements" and "emplaced guns" are probably the biggest outstanding rules issue with 40k as a whole. Further, the Fortress of Redemption and Skyshield Landing Pad really don't work well at the scale of normal 40k games.

So overall I think fortifications are hard to evaluate. Have they been good for the game? Obviously yes. Could they have been done better? Without a doubt.

Thanks for all the replies everyone. It's been really good to hear what everyone thinks of the new rules. I agree with what dakkamite said - it would maybe work a bit better if there were lots of smaller options to choose from rather than a few really big kits. Sandbags, foxholes, tank traps, minefields, observation posts for example (many of which GW produce). Instead it feels (like someone else said) that it's been added to the rules to get people to buy those kits. I also agree that it's a nice way to counteract flyers (which I also dislike ) if you don't have any in your army.

I actually own an ADL already and I'd like to get some of the imperial buildings, but only because I think they look cool and I want some stuff to put down on my battlefield in the first place!

Aegis I can deal with, "my little castle" of redemption is dee-dee-dee'tarded though.

My personal opinion is that it's kinda weird, but I don't mind it. I'd rather spend the points somewhere else, but the rules for some terrain are just to good like the adl.

 -Loki- wrote:

 erick99 wrote:
Ageis line would be great except Nids generally are moving forward

This is why I don't mind at all that Tyranids cannot take Fortifications. My army is very aggressive, and by turn 3 nothing is anywhere near my deployment zone aside from maybe a squad of Termagants babysitting an objective. However, I do not need a Fortification to make them good at this. They naturally hug terrain as their Instinctive Behaviour, so putting it near or in some area terrain works without paying for an ADL.

Hopefully Tyranids get a couple of peices of terrain in their codex, being the only race that can't fully use the BRB stuff, and with the BRB stuff not benefiting them much anyway. Being able to bring a Brood Nest or Spore Chimney or Capillary tower which do different things than just provide cover and guns would be good.

I agree with this completely. To be honest, ive never felt the need for fortifications with my nids. Would be good to see some nid specific ones in a new Codex.
Maybe:
Spore Chimneys - 5+ cover to nid units with 6 or 12 inches (similar to Venomthropes). Or cover with 6 inches to nid units, and to enemy units within 6 inches maybe a toughness test with saves allowed? To represent the spores choking them. Or within 6 inches count it as difficult terrain.
Brood Nest - Could give models with 6 inches FNP?
Capillary tower - Not sure.

 Dakkamite wrote:
No problem with the Aegis, and maybe even the Bastion, but the other two are pretty slowed.

Would love to see other, minor fortification options. Barbed Wire and Sandbags and minefields sorta stuff. Its like they've just left a huge chunk of what warfare is all about out of the game.

Yeah I would like some more rules for generic Minefields, bunkers,t renches, barricaded buildings, barberd wire, sentry guns and sandbags too.

And more special stuff for each faction (espaccally Tyranids).

Spore Chimneys - 5+ cover to nid units with 6 or 12 inches (similar to Venomthropes). Or cover with 6 inches to nid units, and to enemy units within 6 inches maybe a toughness test with saves allowed? To represent the spores choking them. Or within 6 inches count it as difficult terrain.
Brood Nest - Could give models with 6 inches FNP?
Capillary tower - Not sure.

I would even say:

Spore Chimneys - 6+ cover to nid units with within 2d6, d6 S2 AP6 hits to any unit in the same range
Brood Nest - Spawns critters like the Tervigon
Capillary tower - Counts as synapse creature, all brood nests within 12" spawn +1 Critter per turn (cumulativ both ways).

 Dark Scipio wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
No problem with the Aegis, and maybe even the Bastion, but the other two are pretty slowed.

Would love to see other, minor fortification options. Barbed Wire and Sandbags and minefields sorta stuff. Its like they've just left a huge chunk of what warfare is all about out of the game.

Yeah I would like some more rules for generic Minefields, bunkers,t renches, barricaded buildings, barberd wire, sentry guns and sandbags too.

And more special stuff for each faction (espaccally Tyranids).

Spore Chimneys - 5+ cover to nid units with 6 or 12 inches (similar to Venomthropes). Or cover with 6 inches to nid units, and to enemy units within 6 inches maybe a toughness test with saves allowed? To represent the spores choking them. Or within 6 inches count it as difficult terrain.
Brood Nest - Could give models with 6 inches FNP?
Capillary tower - Not sure.

I would even say:

Spore Chimneys - 6+ cover to nid units with within 2d6, d6 S2 AP6 hits to any unit in the same range
Brood Nest - Spawns critters like the Tervigon
Capillary tower - Counts as synapse creature, all brood nests within 12" spawn +1 Critter per turn (cumulativ both ways).

Given how ridiculously easy it is to get 5+ cover a 6+ save is really lackluster, and given that the Tyranids have a more mobile source of a better cover save I'm not sure it'd see any use.