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.

So I brought in an Aegis defense line and quad gun in my FOC for play at my FLGS yesterday. When I told a friend of mine, who is having a lot of fun with Flying Monstrous Creature from the Chaos Daemons codex, that I needed the quad gun to deal with fliers he responded - "Yeah, but fortifications are an optional rule." Like somehow I could only take it if both players agreed.

I had to differ. They are an optional FOC choice. Much like taking an Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support choice is optional. Per 6th edition rules I am fully within my rights to take 1 fortification from the ones currently defined in the BRB as well as allies, following their optional FOC entries.

I've seen this type of attitude quite a bit from some hard core 40k players who are stubbornly hanging onto old game conventions. If they want to keep playing 5th edition, fine. But if you want to play 6th edition, complete with Flying Monstrous Creatures, well then suck it up, Buttercup!

The unfortunate thing with 6E is that is going to be ALOT of house rules regarding things like this.

Allies, 2nd FOC and Fortifications are going to be denied alot of time in friendly games as they allow a higher % chance for abusing the balance of the game.

With that said I believe that the Fortifications are in fact an option that does not require permission to use like forgeworld models etc... It is simply a part of the game now.

Allies and fortifications are both part of the game, to me the rule book makes it pretty clear that these aren't optional.


The gray are I've noticed is the 2nd FOC, the rule book makes it sound like its optional but not the kind of optional that you need permission to use

I just wonder what will happen when non-Imperium forces take fortifications, especially Tyranids. While I know they can't use the weapons emplacements, they would be one hell of a nut to crack...

Milisim wrote:The unfortunate thing with 6E is that is going to be ALOT of house rules regarding things like this.

Allies, 2nd FOC and Fortifications are going to be denied alot of time in friendly games as they allow a higher % chance for abusing the balance of the game.

With that said I believe that the Fortifications are in fact an option that does not require permission to use like forgeworld models etc... It is simply a part of the game now.

That's what I'm getting at. For example, there's this perception that the game will be broken by allies somehow even though the FAQ cleared up lots of army-specific powers that won't transfer to allies and the various levels of 'friendliness' is clear on what mods two allies can give each other.

Well, if that's the case then get rid of all the changes from 6th and just play 5th. I find a Flying Monstrous Creature pretty darn game-breaking if I have no credible way of dealing with it. It's cherry picking with no basis in experience for anyone, regardless of how 'experienced' they are since 6th just came out. Most people are knee-jerk reacting from a bad experience they had in an earlier rule set or in Apoc.

So this whole concept of mass 'house rules' on certain new rules in 6th edition is in itself cherry picking and unbalancing.

Saddly most players only read their FQA not others. So they dont know what can be used and what cant

PrimarchX wrote:

Milisim wrote:The unfortunate thing with 6E is that is going to be ALOT of house rules regarding things like this.

Allies, 2nd FOC and Fortifications are going to be denied alot of time in friendly games as they allow a higher % chance for abusing the balance of the game.

With that said I believe that the Fortifications are in fact an option that does not require permission to use like forgeworld models etc... It is simply a part of the game now.

That's what I'm getting at. For example, there's this perception that the game will be broken by allies somehow even though the FAQ cleared up lots of army-specific powers that won't transfer to allies and the various levels of 'friendliness' is clear on what mods two allies can give each other.

Well, if that's the case then get rid of all the changes from 6th and just play 5th. I find a Flying Monstrous Creature pretty darn game-breaking if I have no credible way of dealing with it. It's cherry picking with no basis in experience for anyone, regardless of how 'experienced' they are since 6th just came out. Most people are knee-jerk reacting from a bad experience they had in an earlier rule set or in Apoc.

So this whole concept of mass 'house rules' on certain new rules in 6th edition is in itself cherry picking and unbalancing.

I personally dont believe in house rules. No one likes every edition 100% of the time, got to take the good with the bad. Changing rules around is a slippery slope that doesnt lead anything useful IMO

My gaming group recently had a discussion on what 6th edition means for the yearly tourney we have any whether there was anything we didnt want to use for balance reasons and in the end everyone agreed that you play the current addition. Taking out rules is like opening pandoras box

Your opponent is wrong.
The fortification is an optional addition to the FOC, meaning that you could field one if you wish; you don't have to, but you could if you wanted.
Whether or not your opponent wants you to is irrelevant. Its not imbalanced or anything. It still counts towards the points limit.

Unfortunately many games may be like this because some believe taking fortifications should not be allowed this can also be said with the allies. However for me i think they make for tactical games in the previous editions.

I reckon there's a good chance both allies and fortifications will be banned from tournaments and maybe even some gaming clubs.

Allies is just something that can't really balance all that well. It's one thing to just throw together random allied forces for a quick match, but when you get to the power gaming/tournament side of things being able to cherry pick the best anti-infantry from X army and the best shock troops from Y army, the best anti-tank from Z and the best screening troops from another... it's just gonna be a tournament nightmare.

I think they should have done what they used to do with Special Characters and make them "with your opponents permission", as I can see them getting banned from tournaments and some gaming clubs as it is anyway.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I reckon there's a good chance both allies and fortifications will be banned from tournaments and maybe even some gaming clubs.

Allies is just something that can't really balance all that well. It's one thing to just throw together random allied forces for a quick match, but when you get to the power gaming/tournament side of things being able to cherry pick the best anti-infantry from X army and the best shock troops from Y army, the best anti-tank from Z and the best screening troops from another... it's just gonna be a tournament nightmare.

I think they should have done what they used to do with Special Characters and make them "with your opponents permission", as I can see them getting banned from tournaments and some gaming clubs as it is anyway.

I honestly feel allies are what will bring balance more or less to the game. Every army (except the bugs) can fill their holes with allies. Furthermore more frowned upon armies got shook to a degree rules wise they might not even need allies (I'm looking squarely at Tau and Craftworld Eldar).

My only beef with fortifications stem from it soaking up terrain density, I would rather it be in addition to terrain placement imo.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I reckon there's a good chance both allies and fortifications will be banned from tournaments and maybe even some gaming clubs.

Allies is just something that can't really balance all that well. It's one thing to just throw together random allied forces for a quick match, but when you get to the power gaming/tournament side of things being able to cherry pick the best anti-infantry from X army and the best shock troops from Y army, the best anti-tank from Z and the best screening troops from another... it's just gonna be a tournament nightmare.

I think they should have done what they used to do with Special Characters and make them "with your opponents permission", as I can see them getting banned from tournaments and some gaming clubs as it is anyway.

See, this is the 'conventional wisdom' on 6th edition.

But there's no basis on what effect there will be. The whole argument of taking the best shock troops from A and the best shooters from B holds up. But it holds up for EVERYBODY. Adapt, improvise and overcome if you want to win.

However, if we do indeed find that the system really is unbalanced, well, then I'm open to change. But taking that perspective right off the bat without even trying these rules is hidebound and reactionary.

You need your opponent's permission to anything, technically.
If your opponent doesn't want to play with forts, try talking to him. If he still refuses, play someone else, or don't play with forts.

Till some more serious FAQs come out, ill talk to my opponent before every game.

first topic will be the harlequins not mentioned in the DE FAQ but buffed in the eldar FAQ and if i can use that.

second one will be to ask if he has flyers. if he does, ill bring fortifications. if he doesnt, i probably wont.

I can see fortifications being up for debate in tourny scene since its an extra piece of terrian but dont seem many TO's saying no to allies

meneroth2 wrote:first topic will be the harlequins not mentioned in the DE FAQ but buffed in the eldar FAQ and if i can use that.

What am I missing in the Eldar FAQ that buffs Harlequins?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Allies is just something that can't really balance all that well. It's one thing to just throw together random allied forces for a quick match, but when you get to the power gaming/tournament side of things being able to cherry pick the best anti-infantry from X army and the best shock troops from Y army, the best anti-tank from Z and the best screening troops from another... it's just gonna be a tournament nightmare.

Which is why you can't do that in the first place.

ironicsilence wrote:I can see fortifications being up for debate in tourny scene since its an extra piece of terrian but dont seem many TO's saying no to allies

There will definitely need to be some consideration with respect to Fortifications in tournaments. I understand the problems that would create. Things like an Aegis Defense Line are pretty flexible and a Bastion has a footprint that's roughly Land Raider-ish. But the DA Fortress? Whoa...

See the deal with the fort option is it for people to who dont have flyers to have an option to destroy them. However if yor a nid player you cant use the weapons that cant be bought with them.

htj wrote:

meneroth2 wrote:first topic will be the harlequins not mentioned in the DE FAQ but buffed in the eldar FAQ and if i can use that.

What am I missing in the Eldar FAQ that buffs Harlequins?

The fact that they accidently let eldar keep the old VoT while giving them shrouded and stealth too. Instead of replacing the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, they replaced the 2nd and 3rd sentence which only added to the rule, and took nothing away.

Dracos wrote:

htj wrote:

meneroth2 wrote:first topic will be the harlequins not mentioned in the DE FAQ but buffed in the eldar FAQ and if i can use that.

What am I missing in the Eldar FAQ that buffs Harlequins?

The fact that they accidently let eldar keep the old VoT while giving them shrouded and stealth too. Instead of replacing the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, they replaced the 2nd and 3rd sentence which only added to the rule, and took nothing away.

Heh, whoops. I'm guessing the DE one will wind up being the true one, and that'll get updated in a later FAQ. Assuming they notice it, of course.

ironicsilence wrote:I can see fortifications being up for debate in tourny scene since its an extra piece of terrian

How is that any different to taking an extra rhino, moving it into an advantageous position and just leaving it there? That's basically extra BLOS terrain, but it costs 35 points rather than 50 for a defence line.

Gorechild wrote:

ironicsilence wrote:I can see fortifications being up for debate in tourny scene since its an extra piece of terrian

How is that any different to taking an extra rhino, moving it into an advantageous position and just leaving it there? That's basically extra BLOS terrain, but it costs 35 points rather than 50 for a defence line.

few issues at play, fortifications can create some size issues as you need a place to deploy them. Also I believe your fortification is to be deployed before any terrain is placed. I can see the defense line being allowed since it gives an cheap anti air option, but am interested in how most TOs are going to deal with the 2 larger fortifications

meneroth2 wrote:
second one will be to ask if he has flyers. if he does, ill bring fortifications. if he doesnt, i probably wont.

-Edited by insaniak. Please refer to Dakka's Rule #1- Oh, I'll just ask my opponent if he's bringing lots of infantry, and if he is I'll use all my anti-infantry units, and if he's not, I probably wont.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Allies is just something that can't really balance all that well. It's one thing to just throw together random allied forces for a quick match, but when you get to the power gaming/tournament side of things being able to cherry pick the best anti-infantry from X army and the best shock troops from Y army, the best anti-tank from Z and the best screening troops from another... it's just gonna be a tournament nightmare.

Not as much as you seem to think. This is the kind of conversation that you really need to have picked up a copy of the rulebook and read the relevant rules before engaging in, as you can't just grab units from other codices, and while sloppy selection might get you a powerful unit, it might also put you in a spot where you've got something that cannot capture or contest objectives (which is much more important in this edition) and whose proximity can disrupt the functioning of your own units.

i think a problem with the fortifications is more gone be the point valeu. its alwais 220 for every army for the fortress

the probem is see is that a fortress filt with orks is gone have BS 2 one filt with ratlings is gone have BS 5 becouse all the guns and missles are emplacements and can be fired by the models in it

and thats not even talking about an assasin using it and his abilities (dont know if he can use those one the weapon)

Which kind of makes sense if you think about it. If you've got a fortress, and this fortress has guys on the wall who are hard-pressed to hit the broad side of a barn, they're not going to be any better with the "built in" weapons than they would be with their regular weapons, while the same fortress staffed with a bunch of snipers and marksmen is something you're going to want to destroy with artillery from very far away.

Flying MCs are actually not as tough as people think. You only have to hit them (not wound them) to give them a 33% change of crashing to the ground and taking a str 9 no armor save hit. Once they are on the ground your other units shoot them as normal.

As far as fortifications go I would not have a problem with someone bringing them but they could be a little depressing to certain army builds.

wel there is gone be one big fun thing about fortifications

shooting people up with there own quad gun after taking over the building

Honestly, I think one of the reasons people don't like these things is because they don't have them and are not willing to drop more money to GW. And because they don't have them, they immediately seem to think that you are getting an advantage over them. Also some people are so set with how their army is built that they are not looking to be more flexible with other options like allies.

So, I think I will buy a 2nd Aegis Defense Line and maybe another Bastion and bring it with me to try to get some of the older gamers more comfortable with these things. It's the only thing I know to do to try to curb some of this backlash.