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.

 deviantduck wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
To be fair the imperial bastion is not far from 3" radius, if you place your objective behind barricades/ ruins and don't leave enough space for a model when you place your bastion then you'll be on your objective pretty well.

Plus it's 20 wounds and t9 so a much harder prospect to remove.

The bastion footprint works well centered on the objective because enemy models can't get within 1" of the bastion without charging it.

And why shouldnt they charge it ?

 p5freak wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
To be fair the imperial bastion is not far from 3" radius, if you place your objective behind barricades/ ruins and don't leave enough space for a model when you place your bastion then you'll be on your objective pretty well.

Plus it's 20 wounds and t9 so a much harder prospect to remove.

The bastion footprint works well centered on the objective because enemy models can't get within 1" of the bastion without charging it.

And why shouldnt they charge it ?

Depends on the unit charging, overwatch, if they want to shoot next turn, etc. If it's a game ending Obj grab then sure, but the rest of the time there's a lot of variables.

 p5freak wrote:
You must be very desperate to use a LC for 25 pts. which hits FLY units on 4+, and non-FLY on 6+.

Good point, the non-FLY penalty gets worse the lower your BS is. With that in mind:

 small_gods wrote:
To be fair the imperial bastion is not far from 3" radius, if you place your objective behind barricades/ ruins and don't leave enough space for a model when you place your bastion then you'll be on your objective pretty well.

Plus it's 20 wounds and t9 so a much harder prospect to remove.

I think a bastion will probably be a better choice and won't run afoul of MFA accusations, even if I only have one. In fact, I wonder if a Plasma Obliterator would be better with the Master Artisans tactic, rerolling the one roll of 1 will cut the lost wounds down to 2 over the course of a game.

 Eipi10 wrote:
I think a bastion will probably be a better choice and won't run afoul of MFA accusations, even if I only have one. In fact, I wonder if a Plasma Obliterator would be better with the Master Artisans tactic, rerolling the one roll of 1 will cut the lost wounds down to 2 over the course of a game.

A bastion is UNALIGNED, it cannot benefit from any buffs.

 p5freak wrote:
A bastion is UNALIGNED, it cannot benefit from any buffs.

I thought that meant it could be taken as part of any army. Is unaligned just its own faction that doesn't interfere with keyword restrictions for any other army?

UNALIGNED means it can be taken with any Faction/Sub-Faction, but it also doesn't gain those Faction/Sub-Faction keywords. Anything that doesn't rely on those keywords it can use. Anything that does, it cannot.

So treat it like it's own faction for all intents and purposes. Does it interfere with doctrines or similar army-wide rules?

 p5freak wrote:
A scratch build look a like citadel model isnt a citadel model.

It'd be a model castle, a synonym of which would be "citadel miniature". It is literally a miniature of a citadel.

It only works in this specific case, RAW, because of an amusing coincidence in that "citadel" is both the miniature brand name and the object being represented by the miniature.

 Eipi10 wrote:
I got a rather devilish idea after cleaning up leftover Christmas packing material. Because there is no specified size for fortifications, I thought I could scratch-build a set of imperial bunkers with a 3in radius (or some such size), give them some custom space marine chapter tactics, and place them directly on objectives in my deployment zone. Because the model is the same size as the objective control zone, it will block my opponent from even getting in range of the objective. So this begs a few questions: is this even allowed/possible, would it be a douche move or would it be a waste of points the way fortifications usually are? The rules in the BRB seem to allow it, but I don’t know if it’s been errata’d or written over in cities or death or some such book.

I see no reason you can't do this. Many fortifications can hold objectives, and bunkers are one of them. That's basically the point of having one. However, I'd keep it in the realm of "fluffy" and not useful. A bunker is defensively identical to a Leman Russ, so it's pretty trivial to blow it up, and it won't keep them away once it's blown up. In addition, you sacrificed a whole detachment to having the bunkers, and for a little bit more you could have outright had a Leman Russ that holds the point with the same defensive profile and shoots back moderately well.

In order to be cheesy or something, it would need to be something that cannot be destroyed and cannot have models placed upon it, but to the best of my knowledge, all of those types of fortifications [like the Aegis line or the Feculent Gnarlmaw] have a clause that they don't count as friendly or enemy models once deployed.


Anyway, my take: It is permissible, it would not be "a douche move", and it would be a waste of points and detachments as fortifications usually are.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I see no reason you can't do this. Many fortifications can hold objectives, and bunkers are one of them. That's basically the point of having one. However, I'd keep it in the realm of "fluffy" and not useful. A bunker is defensively identical to a Leman Russ, so it's pretty trivial to blow it up, and it won't keep them away once it's blown up. In addition, you sacrificed a whole detachment to having the bunkers, and for a little bit more you could have outright had a Leman Russ that holds the point with the same defensive profile and shoots back moderately well.

In order to be cheesy or something, it would need to be something that cannot be destroyed and cannot have models placed upon it, but to the best of my knowledge, all of those types of fortifications [like the Aegis line or the Feculent Gnarlmaw] have a clause that they don't count as friendly or enemy models once deployed.

Anyway, my take: It is permissible, it would not be "a douche move", and it would be a waste of points and detachments as fortifications usually are.

I had hoped bunkers would cause problems for melee armies, not a lot of melee units have the strength and AP to take out a bunker.

What about an Imperial Bastion? T9 and 20 wounds is knight territory for only 192 points. Even a shadowsword can’t reliably 1 shot it.

Couldn’t you put an objective in an unreachable area (for non-fly or slow moving units) if you put it up a 6+ inch cliff, even make one out of a fortification assuming it won’t get removed when it blows up?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A scratch build look a like citadel model isnt a citadel model.

It'd be a model castle, a synonym of which would be "citadel miniature". It is literally a miniature of a citadel.

It only works in this specific case, RAW, because of an amusing coincidence in that "citadel" is both the miniature brand name and the object being represented by the miniature.

That does not work either. What you have there is a model of a citadel, it is not a part of the "Citadel Miniatures collection"

The rulebook notes "Citadel Miniatures collection" (P.2 Battle Primer) The capitalization denotes a proper name and not just any model that is a citadel. You have a "citadel miniature" not a ""Citadel Miniature"

So no, it does not work RAW in this specific case as your reasoning was flawed.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I see no reason you can't do this. Many fortifications can hold objectives, and bunkers are one of them. That's basically the point of having one. However, I'd keep it in the realm of "fluffy" and not useful. A bunker is defensively identical to a Leman Russ, so it's pretty trivial to blow it up, and it won't keep them away once it's blown up. In addition, you sacrificed a whole detachment to having the bunkers, and for a little bit more you could have outright had a Leman Russ that holds the point with the same defensive profile and shoots back moderately well.

In order to be cheesy or something, it would need to be something that cannot be destroyed and cannot have models placed upon it, but to the best of my knowledge, all of those types of fortifications [like the Aegis line or the Feculent Gnarlmaw] have a clause that they don't count as friendly or enemy models once deployed.

Anyway, my take: It is permissible, it would not be "a douche move", and it would be a waste of points and detachments as fortifications usually are.

I had hoped bunkers would cause problems for melee armies, not a lot of melee units have the strength and AP to take out a bunker. What about an Imperial Bastion? T9 and 20 wounds is knight territory for only 192 points. Even a shadowsword can’t reliably 1 shot it.

Couldn’t you put an objective in an unreachable area (for non-fly or slow moving units) if you put it up a 6+ inch cliff, even make one out of a fortification assuming it won’t get removed when it blows up?

 Eipi10 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I see no reason you can't do this. Many fortifications can hold objectives, and bunkers are one of them. That's basically the point of having one. However, I'd keep it in the realm of "fluffy" and not useful. A bunker is defensively identical to a Leman Russ, so it's pretty trivial to blow it up, and it won't keep them away once it's blown up. In addition, you sacrificed a whole detachment to having the bunkers, and for a little bit more you could have outright had a Leman Russ that holds the point with the same defensive profile and shoots back moderately well.

In order to be cheesy or something, it would need to be something that cannot be destroyed and cannot have models placed upon it, but to the best of my knowledge, all of those types of fortifications [like the Aegis line or the Feculent Gnarlmaw] have a clause that they don't count as friendly or enemy models once deployed.

Anyway, my take: It is permissible, it would not be "a douche move", and it would be a waste of points and detachments as fortifications usually are.

I had hoped bunkers would cause problems for melee armies, not a lot of melee units have the strength and AP to take out a bunker.

What about an Imperial Bastion? T9 and 20 wounds is knight territory for only 192 points. Even a shadowsword can’t reliably 1 shot it.

Couldn’t you put an objective in an unreachable area (for non-fly or slow moving units) if you put it up a 6+ inch cliff, even make one out of a fortification assuming it won’t get removed when it blows up?

If it can wreck a Leman Russ, it can wreck a Bunker. It won't cause problems for melee armies, because if they had a chance of winning in the first place they had a means to destroy a tank, or more probably, at least a knight. [also, melee units that are S8 and multiple damage are pretty widely available]

A Bastion is more resilient, but I still don't think it's a good investment. It's a detachment and 200 points that has a total of 4 mostly ineffective heavy bolters and can still be pretty easily serviced by most armies.

Fortifications that can be blown up are removed from play just like a vehicle after their destruction [also, they're placed after objectives are place, so you can't put an objective on top of it anyway].


As for putting it on top of a 6+" cliff, that is legal in stock missions [though not in ITC missions, where objectives are always first floor]. That said, you can't bake a 6" tall piece of terrain situated exactly where you want it in your deploy area into your strategy.

I figured that melee AT units would have to spend time moving between my bunkers and other vehicles where ranged AT units wound not. Dispersed armor would be more of a challenge for them. But then again I suppose they must have tricks to counter it.

In a basic damage in to damage out analysis (ignoring mobility, targeting, model capacity, fireports, etc.) the bastion is only better than a land raider prometheus (8 heavy bolters on a LR) if you value durability 4 times more than firepower. A bastion is 2/3rd the price for a quarter the firepower and ~20% more durability. Meanwhile the bunker, compared to its nearest competitor, the lascannon wielding hunter, is completely worthless. In fact most fortifications don’t fair well in this kind of comparison, worse than the bastion. And that one only seems to be worth considering if you absolutely need a T9 model.

You never NEED a T9 model anyway, especially with poor firepower.

Fortifications, as a general rule, are not worth it. For casual/narrative games sure. But from an optimisation standpoint for the most part there really isnt a niche.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A scratch build look a like citadel model isnt a citadel model.

It'd be a model castle, a synonym of which would be "citadel miniature". It is literally a miniature of a citadel.

It only works in this specific case, RAW, because of an amusing coincidence in that "citadel" is both the miniature brand name and the object being represented by the miniature.

That does not work either. What you have there is a model of a citadel, it is not a part of the "Citadel Miniatures collection"

The rulebook notes "Citadel Miniatures collection" (P.2 Battle Primer) The capitalization denotes a proper name and not just any model that is a citadel. You have a "citadel miniature" not a ""Citadel Miniature"

So no, it does not work RAW in this specific case as your reasoning was flawed.

RAW they never define exactly what a "Citadel Miniature" is. If I make a bunch of my miniature castles, it is now a collection of citadel miniatures, and I'm arrogant and haughty enough to refer to all my possessions with capital letters.

You can't argue RAW and then chicken out halfway through.

Given the context, "Citadel Miniature" is defined. "But where do you find datasheets? Well, when you buy a box of Citadel Miniatures they’ll be in the box with them, and they are also present in codexes." P. 13 40k Battle Primer

But they don't need to define what a "Citadel Miniature" is, just like they do not need to define that a D6 consists of a dice with 6 sides numbered 1-6, or that a tape measure has units in proper inches marked upon them. We know what a "Citadel Miniature" just like we know to use dice numbered 1-6 and tape measures divided into inches.

Referring to all your possessions with capital letters, does not make them "Citadel Miniatures"

 Stux wrote:
You never NEED a T9 model anyway, especially with poor firepower.

Fortifications, as a general rule, are not worth it. For casual/narrative games sure. But from an optimisation standpoint for the most part there really isnt a niche.

If you opponent only has S8 AT? But yeah, it’s a shame that they seem to have no value no matter what situation they are put in. They can’t even deny objectives well like I had hoped because they lack an invuln or equivalent to keep them around. I don’t know what could help them, an across the board 25% points drop? BS 4+ and a better automated weapons rule?

 Eipi10 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
You never NEED a T9 model anyway, especially with poor firepower.

Fortifications, as a general rule, are not worth it. For casual/narrative games sure. But from an optimisation standpoint for the most part there really isnt a niche.

If you opponent only has S8 AT? But yeah, it’s a shame that they seem to have no value no matter what situation they are put in. They can’t even deny objectives well like I had hoped because they lack an invuln or equivalent to keep them around. I don’t know what could help them, an across the board 25% points drop? BS 4+ and a better automated weapons rule?

Units inside fortifications are essentially immune to damage while being able to shoot out of it without any penalties?

Reapers in bastion comes to mind.

They are very niche applications but doesn't mean they're (completely) useless?

 skchsan wrote:
Units inside fortifications are essentially immune to damage while being able to shoot out of it without any penalties?

Reapers in bastion comes to mind.

They are very niche applications but doesn't mean they're (completely) useless?

Units inside fortifications are immune to anything. Your -3 to hit ? I dont care. You are reflecting a MW back onto me ? I dont care. Your unit cant be targeted ? I dont care. Your character isnt the closest enemy, visible unit ? I dont care.

Transports
Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any
way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities
that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst
the unit that has the ability is embarked.

I wouldnt play it that way, but it can create ridiculous situations.

So fortifications turn every unit into a sniper? I don't know if the whole not being targeted if under 10 wounds thing is an ability, I think it's just a "natural state" in the game. But the rest of it could be powerful, if it weren't for how rare they are. Except minuses to hit, they are common but movement is so important that it's a small thing in comparison, people voluntarily take minuses to hit when moving heavy weapons. And why ignore minuses to hit on a devastator squad when you could just bring another squad for the price of a bunker?

If you play RAW fortifications create absurd, game breaking situations. The character protection rule would affect an embarked unit in any way, which would break the transport rule.

Would you say a saving throw affects an embarked unit in any way? A wound roll?

Not this bad hot take again... give it a break, p5...