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 don't understand the big hissy fit. It says "usually all on one side", which means they can be not all on one side, plus the kit itself is perfectly capable of being assembled with multiple on one side without any conversion.

RAW wise. I think that "typically one on each facing" is vague enough that I would not have an issue with them mounting them all forward if I was playing them. I would find it a bit cheesy though.

Here is a perfect example of what the OP is posting about (I know, because he and I play with the same people).

A player has a Warhammer Fantasy tower. It is roughly the size diameters written for Medium building in the BRB (which is what a Bastion is listed as). Said player has 4 HB on the same side. The Fantasy model comes with 1-2 "windows" on each side. Said player glues on Slotted Bases, and calls them fire points and wants 10 models to fire out of the bastion.

I have no problem with 4 HB on the same side. I have an issue with Slotted Bases as "Firing points" because that's not what comes stock on the model - the 1-2 windows is.

One of the local FLGS guys started putting this disclamier in his tourneys "Feel free to bring what you have converted and made to use as a "counts-as" building. However, your opponent is free to state that you must use the model as it is represented per the original" IE., go ahead and bring a Bastion with 5 windows on the side and all 4 bolters on one facing, but your opponent can point to the model in the BRB (and even on the packaging of the Bastion itself) which clearly shows 1-2 windows and 1 HB per side.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I don't understand the big hissy fit. It says "usually all on one side", which means they can be not all on one side, plus the kit itself is perfectly capable of being assembled with multiple on one side without any conversion.

We all agree that in some cases, it cold be considered cheesy. Cheesy but perfectly within the rules and easily done without it being MFA as it is an option specifically designed to be possible.
Of course, a savvy player will simply bypass that front and destroy it from a side. Not that bastions last long or that the bolters on it ever actually do anything in game anyway.

How is this model able to be assembled with all 4 HBs on one side?


It is not like a land raider who has 2 doors on the same side or a walker with two gun arms. How is 'moving the guns' so all 4 are on the same side on the stock model *NOT* MFA? And no one anywhere allows the 4HB per side in tourneys. Custom Bastions are fine as long as they are similar size but that doesn't allow you to put 10 fire ports and 4 heavy bolters on one side. I would love to hear from an actual TO who allows these all FP/HBs on one side conversions...

That is one possible option for their positioning. The book specifically worded it to allow for other options such as 4 on one side. Did you REALLY expect them to release a different version of it for each and every option. Do the math. How many different boxed sets would that be? Would you rather they have done it like they did intentionally leaving the option to convert it to fit the other legal possible options or release all those other boxed versions and not used the resources to release the eldar models or the tau models or tyranid models because of the manpower and resource expenditure going towards making official versions of what they intended for you to do on your own?

Many players will assume that that was not the intention while others will claim it is. The wording of "usually" suggests that they intend for the other options to be possible and legal otherwise, they would not have put that word there and flat out said there was one per side.
Most tournies do allow this and put down the players who complain as being unsportsmanlike.

Voorn wrote:
That is one possible option for their positioning. The book specifically worded it to allow for other options such as 4 on one side. Did you REALLY expect them to release a different version of it for each and every option. Do the math. How many different boxed sets would that be? Would you rather they have done it like they did intentionally leaving the option to convert it to fit the other legal possible options or release all those other boxed versions and not used the resources to release the eldar models or the tau models or tyranid models because of the manpower and resource expenditure going towards making official versions of what they intended for you to do on your own?

Many players will assume that that was not the intention while others will claim it is. The wording of "usually" suggests that they intend for the other options to be possible and legal otherwise, they would not have put that word there and flat out said there was one per side.
Most tournies do allow this and put down the players who complain as being unsportsmanlike.

"Usually" means you can now do whatever you want? Now who is easter egging and being TFG? This is why Indy tourneys have event FAQs and these 10 fire port/4HB bastions all on one side will never exist. No Tourneys allow them and no one puts players who 'complain' as unsportsmanlike because the models are never allowed to be used. Go to the tourney forum, make a thread and see how many TOs allow these MFA bastions. The answer is going to be none.

And you 'claim' it gives permission, but not to alter the stock model... So Imperial people have no option to modify the stock model.

And FYI: they did make an official option for every codex... it is called 'the imperial bastion'. That is the official model for every codex.

Usually have them on 4 seperate sides does not mean anything goes. You cant then put on vanqisher cannons or titan chainsaws, However, it was intentionall worded that way to encourage players to put them on different facings if they so chose to.
If you disagree or have issues, feel free to contact Games workshop and tell them they are doing it wrong. You might convince them to alter the rules.
just as with many other units that they have but do not have models for, We as players are encouraged to convert the models that are provided to create them.
This is why most tournies and TOs have no problems with this and discourage players from complaining about it.

I am cool with them putting 4 heavy bolters on one side.

I will just put a wall in front of those bolters

Voorn wrote:
Usually have them on 4 seperate sides does not mean anything goes. You cant then put on vanqisher cannons or titan chainsaws, However, it was intentionall worded that way to encourage players to put them on different facings if they so chose to.

Evidence?
And of course you can't put other weapons on - you don't have permission to.

This is why most tournies and TOs have no problems with this and discourage players from complaining about it.

Factually incorrect.

Voorn wrote:
However, it was intentionall worded that way to encourage players to put them on different facings if they so chose to.

No, it's not encouragement at all. It says that it's typically done one way. What this says to me is that it's theoretically possible to have some other arrangement (for example, you're making a round Tau bastion) and the game will still function, but you'd better have a pretty good reason for not bringing a typical bastion. And no, "I kill stuff more effectively if I have 10 fire points and all of the HBs on one side" isn't a very compelling reason.

And no, I don't think very many people are going to let you bring your custom bastion, at least without bringing their own custom bastion that makes your entire deployment zone lethal terrain.

How about "My Guardsmen are smart enough to build their bastion with the guns pointing at the enemy instead of their own army"?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
How about "My Guardsmen are smart enough to build their bastion with the guns pointing at the enemy instead of their own army"?

How about "fortifications are designed to be effective against attacks from multiple directions, not just the arbitrary 6x4 box that the game is being played in".

No, that's more of a reason to bring a typical bastion, the exercise here is giving a reason for other arrangements.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
No, that's more of a reason to bring a typical bastion, the exercise here is giving a reason for other arrangements.

How about "don't". It's the only reason you need.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
How about "My Guardsmen are smart enough to build their bastion with the guns pointing at the enemy instead of their own army"?

Sure, if you randomize which direction they point.

Or do all attacks happen as expected in your world?

They often do. Just take WWII trench works for example. Normandy pill boxes etc.

They often used to.
Normandy was a special case, and still had attackers behind the pill boxes.

And those structures were there to defend what was perceived as a weak point in the defenses. There is not reason to think this might not also occur on some world in the future. With the advent of technology, static defenses were proven to be mostly useless.

-----------------------B------------------------

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

If B represents my Bastion, and M represents my military base, I'm fairly certain I can rule out at least one direction in which that Bastion should have a gun pointed towards.

We're getting off topic, but with Drop Pods in the game I don't agree.

And you're assuming ll battles take place near a military base. Lots of assumptions to make your point. And why would the Imperials deviate from an STC?

No chance of getting a drop pod in there, they'd land on a rat or something and spontaneously explode.
Besides, do I need to explain the stupidity of surrounding your base with guns pointing at it?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
-----------------------B------------------------

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

If B represents my Bastion, and M represents my military base, I'm fairly certain I can rule out at least one direction in which that Bastion should have a gun pointed towards.

-----------------------B------------------------

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Then, when T (for Tyranids) show up in the rear, you will seriously regret that being the case.

Bastions are effectively STC portable outposts. You generally have the weapons all round just in case the worse happens.

Maybe my narrative is being forged differently.

I do like how the people who advocate 'usually' being used to justify abusive modeling have this to say about point limits:

An editorial an editor put into the book as an aside that has nothing to do with the actual rule in order to fill page space is nothing to hang your hat on when trying to justify spending over the limits willy nilly because you can get away with it.

I could easily say:

An editorial an editor put into the book as an aside that has nothing to do with the actual rule in order to fill page space is nothing to hang your hat on when trying to justify moving the fire ports and guns of a bastion because you can get away with it.

"Usually" doesn't give permission, just doesn't ban GW from eventually having the option to make new models with whatever design they wish. Doesn't give permission for people to modify the stock model for advantage or make custom models for advantage.

Also the correct wording from the BRB is "Typically" not usually.
Chambers dictionary here we come....there must be a loophole.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
plus the kit itself is perfectly capable of being assembled with multiple on one side without any conversion.

That is a really bad argument and you should refrain from using it in the future.

First of all, it is simply not true.

But more importantly;
Keep in mind that the Ork Flyer can, without conversions, be assembled as both the Dakkajet, Blitza-Bommer AND the Burna-Bommer at the same time.
Also remember that the SM Devastator kit actually requires conversion if you want to be able to field all the options.

The physical nature of the various kits have zero impact on the rules. The rules are in place regardless of what the kit comes with. Please, note I am only addressing this particular part of your argument - and nothing else.


...

Ok, thing is the imperial bastion fortification has a composition of 1 imperial bastion model. That is a specific model and it is sold with assembly instructions. Those instructions do not give you the option of placing the heavy bolters anywhere but one per side. If you are using the imperial bastion fortification then you must use appropriate model instructed as assembled or else have MFA. You may not have the latest copy of the Imperial Bastion datasheet, but in the strong hold book they have removed the note about the number per facing.

You can always however, agree to use a different model, and have it have all the options of an imperial bastion and have 4 heavy bolters all on one side and have it cost the same number of points. Just keep in mind this is not an imperial bastion and you are now playing with a custom fortification approved by your gaming group. As for Fire points, its not express exactly how many the bastion has, stock model or not. It looks like an imperial bastion is supposed to have 3 at ground floor, one per facing, and another 4 at the same level as the heavy bolters, 2 per opposite facing, for a total of 7 fire points.

wow this has turned into a mess, a funny mess, but a mess.

Usually simply does not mean all the time... Lets not make it into more or some big EPIC conundrum, Usually does not mean absolute, that is is it.... Also the description says as per model for firing points and access points...

Nothing else in the game rules or models made says this. A Dakka Jet may be able to be a bomber or fighter but it specifically says what it is equipped with to make either...

I ask again, a regular bastion can be kiddy cornered to have 2 HB facing forward. Does 2 more facing forward really change the game? Really if 2 heavy bolters effects your game play as the opponent.... well then you have other concerns you should work on.

WE ARE 40k YEARS IN THE FUTURE. ASSUME the Mek, weird boy, mechanicum, servitor or whatever is smart enough to make it adaptable to its best situation. 40k years in the future, you know the battle field and how to set up an apposing attack to the best of your surroundings... A Space ship drops the bastion wherever you want it at the site of the enemy (how else would you explain 2 opponents fighting both using bastions? did they have a cease fire to give each other time to fortify their position? If so then it confirms all the more that 4 HB facing one direction would be probable) ... and please spare me the epic argument of "dont use logic to defy 40k rules"

Again i respect everyone's opinions and views both sides have a argument, but to what end or benefit?

But I also see the true problem of this game, and that is the would be overwhelming emails GW must get each day just from the twisting of views and wording... They must laugh at us thinking "Are you serious with this question..."

Sure GW rules have some concerns, but take some accountability, we make it much much much much more difficult than it has to be. And when all logic has been regarded or disregarded, we so easily say "Well thats GW for ya, not making sense and sucking ass..."

As the OP of this, i respect and am now satisfied with all the comments to help me in my decision posted back on page 1 on how to approach this as a T.O.

Alls i see now is "I am right, there fore you must be wrong" So is the nature of debate, but man we do love to have internet muscles and really bash each other, lol.

Mods can feel free to lock this is they like, or let this mess continue.

Again i appreciate everyones points of views on my topic, but we really didnt need the insults and pissing contest.

Fragile wrote:
They often do. Just take WWII trench works for example. Normandy pill boxes etc.

And the Maginot Line as well...oh, wait...