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.

"Player must place any fortifications they have in their arrnies before placing any other terrain"
-page 120 in the BRB-

So if your set up method is "alterning", there is A LOT of chances that you opponent could place an annoying terrain 3" in front of your fortification gun, breaking line of sight or giving cover to the most vulnerable part of his army.

The only ways to prevent this are:
-Have a random density limit of 1 for that part of the table (the fortification already count as 1, nothing can be added)
-roll the highest and start set-upping terrain while having a random density limit of 2 for that part of the table (you got to choose the terrain there, away from the gun)
-Your opponent doesn't takes advantage of this

What would be your house rule to prevent this lame tactic?

MrWilpon wrote:"Player must place any fortifications they have in their arrnies before placing any other terrain"
-page 120 in the BRB-

So if your set up method is "alterning", there is A LOT of chances that you opponent could place an annoying terrain 3" in front of your fortification gun, breaking line of sight or giving cover to the most vulnerable part of his army.

The only ways to prevent this are:
-Have a random density limit of 1 for that part of the table (the fortification already count as 1, nothing can be added)
-roll the highest and start set-upping terrain while having a random density limit of 2 for that part of the table (you got to choose the terrain there, away from the gun)
-Your opponent doesn't takes advantage of this

What would be your house rule to prevent this lame tactic?

Set up fortifications as part of your army deployment.

Yeah, Fortifications should be placed after terrain. And allow the player to move any 1 piece of terrain to allow room/LoS.

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, Fortifications should be placed after terrain. And allow the player to move any 1 piece of terrain to allow room/LoS.

The problem is that after placing terrain there may be no good place to put your fortifications. Honestly just follow the rulebook and follow the doctrine "don't be an asshat."

Well, surely you both have a say on how terrain is set up, or get an independent party to set it up for you.
Unless your playing a total not very nice person () it shouldn't be an issue. And if your opponent thinks there should be some LOS blocking terrain right infront of your gun, find a different opponent, that kind of person doesn't deserve your time.

I usually have my wife set up the terrain for me and my buddies on gaming night. We leave the room and come back to the table set up ready for play. There is no TFG terrain placement and since we have no idea what the board will look like it makes for a more interesting game since strategies will be changed before the game even starts. As far as fortifications I am the only one that is planning on using them and I will set them up before my wife does terrain. So I am still following the rules.

We are also currently working on terrain maps and before each game starts we added an extra 2D6 roll before the game to determine a random map set up. Stops people from being TFG when placing terrain and ruining the games.

You could also house rule that players can only place terrain in their on half of the board.

rodgers37 wrote:And if your opponent thinks there should be some LOS blocking terrain right infront of your gun, find a different opponent, that kind of person doesn't deserve your time.

I don't agree with you. You're insinuating that someone playing the game by the poorly written rules is to blame for the crappy rules.

Think of this from your opponent's perspective. By the rules, if you brought a fortification, you get to put it down wherever you want. Depending on the terrain density of the table, it may be the only terrain in that area. They have no recourse. So, if the terrain density allows them to marginalize your fortification, why shouldn't they? That's the risk you take bringing a fortification. You can't assume that, because you brought a fortification, you get the right not only to place it, but also to demand that your opponent respect an imaginary boundary around which no other terrain should be placed less they face your disapproval.

Besides, how close is "right in front"? The rules give you a three inch cushion. Is six inches too close for you? Is twelve inches?

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, Fortifications should be placed after terrain. And allow the player to move any 1 piece of terrain to allow room/LoS.

Yeah, that's brilliant. So, whenever you bring fortification terrain, you now get to adjust the other terrain in order to make it most useful. What if your opponent needed something large and LOS blocking around the table center in order to be able to advance, but you brought a fortification, so you get to move that out of your way and make them march into your guns? That's fair.

MrWilpon wrote:
The only ways to prevent this are:
-Have a random density limit of 1 for that part of the table (the fortification already count as 1, nothing can be added)
-roll the highest and start set-upping terrain while having a random density limit of 2 for that part of the table (you got to choose the terrain there, away from the gun)
-Your opponent doesn't takes advantage of this

What would be your house rule to prevent this lame tactic?

Why is this tactic lame? Seems like smart play to me. Think of it this way. The 6th ed rulebook clearly states, on page 120,

All the greatest generals carefully select the locations where they fight so that it favours their own army and hinders their opponent's.

Now, my opponent places a whopping big bastion on the table. I'm supposed to just make a frontal assault, where he expects it? That's not good generalship at all. A good general would not attack a bastion from the side where has the best lines of sight, they'd attack from a side where there are poor lines of sight.

How can you prevent them from doing this? Well, you can place terrain defensively too. If you win the roll-off, you can put something low-lying and not-LOS-blocky in front of your own fort, preventing them from putting something big and blocky in front of it. If they happen to win the roll-off, so be it, that's the risk you take playing with a fortification.

Redbeard wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, Fortifications should be placed after terrain. And allow the player to move any 1 piece of terrain to allow room/LoS.

Yeah, that's brilliant. So, whenever you bring fortification terrain, you now get to adjust the other terrain in order to make it most useful. What if your opponent needed something large and LOS blocking around the table center in order to be able to advance, but you brought a fortification, so you get to move that out of your way and make them march into your guns? That's fair.

Why is that player relying on one piece of LoS blocking terrain?

And its cinematic to march into the enemies guns

Redbeard wrote:
I don't agree with you. You're insinuating that someone playing the game by the poorly written rules is to blame for the crappy rules.

"I'm playing by the rules" is the first defence of the WAAC.
If you place a wall in front of your opponent's quad gun, that's a dick move.

Saying that implies that only dicks play by the rules.

Grey Templar wrote:Saying that implies that only dicks play by the rules.

No it doesn't.
A literal interpretation of the rules is impossible. There is only subjectivity.

You are saying that your own subjective view is objective, and somehow beyond reproach. It is not.

The only objective way to interpert the rules is in a literal sense. Any other approach becomes subjective. RAI is completely subjective and is often biased. "GW obviously meant this" or "They intended it to do this"

Everyone will have their own RAI interpertation, but there can only be one RAW. Thus a hard line reading of the rules is the only fair way to interpert them.

Redbeard wrote:
I don't agree with you. You're insinuating that someone playing the game by the poorly written rules is to blame for the crappy rules.

Think of this from your opponent's perspective. By the rules, if you brought a fortification, you get to put it down wherever you want. Depending on the terrain density of the table, it may be the only terrain in that area. They have no recourse. So, if the terrain density allows them to marginalize your fortification, why shouldn't they?

Agreed.

Players shouldnt be demonized for playing by the rules.

That being said I think that GW chose the wrong sequence for fortification placement.

The way they have sequenced it implies that apparently my force built a fortification on a barren plane and then terrain sprung up overnight?

Armies build fortifications to accentuate the strategic value of terrain or to benefit from the terrain around it. Placing BEFORE terrain placement feels counter to this fact to me.

For example: if I am going to build a bunker in a hilly area I am going to put it on top of a hill to maximize LOS and be able to control the area.

The way GW has set up the placement rules my engineers are assumed idiots (or can be made to appear so by my opponent) because they now have a bunch of hills and buildings around the bunker reducing it's effectiveness, etc.

Seems counter-intuitive to me.

I think that people could still try to exploit attacking a fortification by using an avenues of attatck that has cover, etc. as you suggest by putting terrain on their half of the table that facilitates this, but it seems wrong that an opponent can place things 3" away. I don't think a bunker would be built in such a location in the first place and that a clear kill zone would be left around it.

I assume they chose the sequence as a balance thing: as a way for opponents to lessen the impact of enemy fortifications, but are they really that powerful?

Testify wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
I don't agree with you. You're insinuating that someone playing the game by the poorly written rules is to blame for the crappy rules.

"I'm playing by the rules" is the first defence of the WAAC.
If you place a wall in front of your opponent's quad gun, that's a dick move.

Okay, so at what distance from my opponent's quad gun should I be allowed to place a wall? The rules say 3". What does the "not a dick move" committee say?

Redbeard wrote:

Testify wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
I don't agree with you. You're insinuating that someone playing the game by the poorly written rules is to blame for the crappy rules.

"I'm playing by the rules" is the first defence of the WAAC.
If you place a wall in front of your opponent's quad gun, that's a dick move.

Okay, so at what distance from my opponent's quad gun should I be allowed to place a wall? The rules say 3". What does the "not a dick move" committee say?

Testify, In this case there is NO rule ambiguity. The rules clearly state terrain can be placed 3" away.

Doing so is in no way WAAC.

If players feel the rules would work better a different way ( as I actually do) they can/should agree on a house rule, etc. But calling names solves nothing...

Somehow i don't feel bad cutting off line of sight when my opponent takes a Icarus manned by Telion so they can snipe Warlords / Sergeants / Special Weapons with a Lascannon.

(Especially considering the Icarus is the cheaper option, and Telion with a Squad only costs 125pts, and the Icarus another 85, so, 210pts for a character / special weapon sniper? >.&gt

Redbeard wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, Fortifications should be placed after terrain. And allow the player to move any 1 piece of terrain to allow room/LoS.

Yeah, that's brilliant. So, whenever you bring fortification terrain, you now get to adjust the other terrain in order to make it most useful. What if your opponent needed something large and LOS blocking around the table center in order to be able to advance, but you brought a fortification, so you get to move that out of your way and make them march into your guns? That's fair.

Actually this *IS* the best approach and I think you'll find it's the one most people use - no matter how you try to belittle him.

Redbeard wrote:

MrWilpon wrote:
The only ways to prevent this are:
-Have a random density limit of 1 for that part of the table (the fortification already count as 1, nothing can be added)
-roll the highest and start set-upping terrain while having a random density limit of 2 for that part of the table (you got to choose the terrain there, away from the gun)
-Your opponent doesn't takes advantage of this

What would be your house rule to prevent this lame tactic?

Why is this tactic lame? Seems like smart play to me. Think of it this way. The 6th ed rulebook clearly states, on page 120,

All the greatest generals carefully select the locations where they fight so that it favours their own army and hinders their opponent's.

Sure. But i guess whoever wrote the rulebook (and you) don't think "the Greatest General" has ever carefully selected the location of his fortress before he built it?
"Oh, silly me, I appear to have constructed the Planet's primary defensive fortification at the bottom of a volcano... shame our defensive guns can't see anything from here, but I guess the opposing General was a bit smarter than me when he built The ENTIRE PLANET all around my bunker, completely negating its usefulness!"

You're being a bit rediculous if you honestly think that's how it should happen.

CT GAMER wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
I don't agree with you. You're insinuating that someone playing the game by the poorly written rules is to blame for the crappy rules.

Think of this from your opponent's perspective. By the rules, if you brought a fortification, you get to put it down wherever you want. Depending on the terrain density of the table, it may be the only terrain in that area. They have no recourse. So, if the terrain density allows them to marginalize your fortification, why shouldn't they?

Agreed.

Players shouldnt be demonized for playing by the rules.

That being said I think that GW chose the wrong sequence for fortification placement.

The way they have sequenced it implies that apparently my force built a fortification on a barren plane and then terrain sprung up overnight?

Armies build fortifications to accentuate the strategic value of terrain or to benefit from the terrain around it. Placing BEFORE terrain placement feels counter to this fact to me.

For example: if I am going to build a bunker in a hilly area I am going to put it on top of a hill to maximize LOS and be able to control the area.

The way GW has set up the placement rules my engineers are assumed idiots (or can be made to appear so by my opponent) because they now have a bunch of hills and buildings around the bunker reducing it's effectiveness, etc.

Seems counter-intuitive to me.

Yes, and it seems counter-intuitive to everyone else too - except the types who must defend at all costs everything GW does.

CT GAMER wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Testify wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
I don't agree with you. You're insinuating that someone playing the game by the poorly written rules is to blame for the crappy rules.

"I'm playing by the rules" is the first defence of the WAAC.
If you place a wall in front of your opponent's quad gun, that's a dick move.

Okay, so at what distance from my opponent's quad gun should I be allowed to place a wall? The rules say 3". What does the "not a dick move" committee say?

Testify, In this case there is NO rule ambiguity. The rules clearly state terrain can be placed 3" away.

Doing so is in no way WAAC.

If players feel the rules would work better a different way ( as I actually do) they can/should agree on a house rule, etc. But calling names solves nothing...

Yes, No, Yes, Yes.
The rule is clear (no matter how wrong it is).
However, there certainly is a 'WAAC" way of abiding by it (there always is - that's the whole point of "WAAC" that some of you don't seem to grasp).
Players (and Tournament Operators) *REALLY* should try to come up with a more sensible way of setting up terrain and forts.
And name calling hasn't ever solved anything - and this includes facecious references to the ' "not a dick move" committee '.

There seems to be 3 camps on this topic:
1) People who think everything on page 120 was written by the dumbest of short-bus-riding numpties that the lunch lady at GW could sneak in through the back door (possibly Matt Ward)
2) People who think page 120 is stupid but can't be bothered making a fuss over it and so just put up with it or quietly play a house rule
3) People who feel compelled to defend *everything* GW does

karlosovic wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, Fortifications should be placed after terrain. And allow the player to move any 1 piece of terrain to allow room/LoS.

Yeah, that's brilliant. So, whenever you bring fortification terrain, you now get to adjust the other terrain in order to make it most useful. What if your opponent needed something large and LOS blocking around the table center in order to be able to advance, but you brought a fortification, so you get to move that out of your way and make them march into your guns? That's fair.

Actually this *IS* the best approach and I think you'll find it's the one most people use - no matter how you try to belittle him.

I simply do not agree with you that the proposed method is the best available. It makes fortifications infinitely more useful, as now you are not limited to placing them and giving your opponent an opportunity to counter them, but you get the added benefit of being able to use them to remove another piece of terrain that you find inconvenient.

I watched tonight as two friends played a game. One took an aegis line, a techmarine to reinforce it, and, as they happened to roll-up the kill point game, proceeded to sit in a 3+ bunker all game. Yeah, that's fun for his opponent.

They used the alternating method of terrain deployment, but the guy with the aegis put it in a quarter with a terrain density of one, ensuring nothing could be placed in front of it. He then also blocked out much of the additional surrounding area with low-lying craters, while his opponent scrambled to get a few piece in his zone to provide any cover.

That aegis line covers a lot of ground. It's powerful for 50 points. There should be some drawback and risk associated with its use.

Redbeard wrote:
Why is this tactic lame? Seems like smart play to me. Think of it this way. The 6th ed rulebook clearly states, on page 120,

All the greatest generals carefully select the locations where they fight so that it favours their own army and hinders their opponent's.

Sure. But i guess whoever wrote the rulebook (and you) don't think "the Greatest General" has ever carefully selected the location of his fortress before he built it?
"Oh, silly me, I appear to have constructed the Planet's primary defensive fortification at the bottom of a volcano... shame our defensive guns can't see anything from here, but I guess the opposing General was a bit smarter than me when he built The ENTIRE PLANET all around my bunker, completely negating its usefulness!"

You're being a bit rediculous if you honestly think that's how it should happen.

I think that you can justify a lot. If you have a fortification, you're probably defending something of value. So when I put a big building next to your fort, maybe the building is the reason the fort exists.

The real point is, I don't think it really matters how 'realistic' it is, I think that alternating terrain in this manner allows a player to negate some of the huge advantages that come with being allowed to bring your own forts to games.

]Yes, and it seems counter-intuitive to everyone else too - except the types who must defend at all costs everything GW does.

Now you're attacking the person, rather than the argument. Perhaps you should try the search feature before you accuse people of "defending everything GW does" - you'll find that I'm pretty critical of most of 6th ed. I think that alternating terrain, in general, is a horrible decision, as is the fact that you set up the terrain after knowing which side you'll be on. I've said as much in at least two other threads. The only redeeming factor to the alternating terrain method is that it provides some counter to how powerful fortifications are. Interceptor lascannons with 96" range being fired by Telion, basically being allowed to snipe out any model they want on the table. And you're going to whine that I put a building down to block the LOS of this weapon? If you think it's a "dick move" to stop your interceptor weapons from destroying my planes before I ever get to use them, well, I think it's a dick move to bring an interceptor gun if you know I've got a plane.

Somehow me using the rules to stop your gun from working is wrong, but you using the rules to take a gun and stop my plane from working isn't.

Players (and Tournament Operators) *REALLY* should try to come up with a more sensible way of setting up terrain and forts.

Players and Tournament Organizers shouldn't have to. Players should return the 6th ed rulebook as defective. For all the fuss people make over a little bubble in a finecast mini, the gaping holes in the rulebook are far more egregious. I shouldn't have to resculpt my minis - I also shouldn't have to re-write my rules. However, these are the rules we have. They've clearly been written to sell a lot of fortification kits, because they're seriously underpriced for what they do. But that doesn't mean that we, as players, need to let the fortification rules run all over our games, especially since we've got a mechanism in the rules to limit them.

Well that guy cheated as Bolster was FAQ'd to specifically not allow you to buff purchased terrain.

Yeh, "Bolster" *has* been FAQed out, but Leman Russes can still buy camo netting and sit in 3++, which I agree is a bit cheese.

You made some more reasonable arguments that time Redbeard (rather than your facecious comments previously), but 2 things remain that just don't (and probably never will) sit well with me:
1) The placement order doesn't make sense
2) Everything else in your army that you paid points for - you get to deploy *after* terrain.

As far as players having to rewrite the rulebook - Yeh sure, they *shouldn't* have to. But what's more practical? Demanding GW rewrite the bits you don't like and expecting them to actually do it? Or rewriting the the rule in a way you and your gaming group find more acceptable?

karlosovic wrote:Yeh, "Bolster" *has* been FAQed out, but Leman Russes can still buy camo netting and sit in 3++, which I agree is a bit cheese.

Didn't know that about bolster. I'll have to let the guy who's running this know.

You made some more reasonable arguments that time Redbeard (rather than your facecious comments previously), but 2 things remain that just don't (and probably never will) sit well with me:
1) The placement order doesn't make sense

In what way? The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that you put all the terrain down after you know which side you will be on. It's practically designed to encourage you to screw over your opponent. I've got a large variety of terrain in my collection, enough to comfortably fill a 10x10 apoc table. And yet, while playing 6th ed games, when it comes to picking terrain to put on the table, the guys with shooty armies are just putting down craters that don't block LOS at all, and only provide a 5+ cover save. It's not that there are no other choices, it's that if you're a shooty army, you really don't want to see LOS blocking stuff. And they've learned that you can stick a crater in the corner of a Terrain Density 1 area and create a big empty killing field, usually on your opponent's side of the table.

The order that would make more sense is if you would put down the terrain before you know which side each player has. At least then there would be an incentive to make a fair table, because you wouldn't know which side you'd get stuck with. Same with objective placement.

But they can't do that and still sell their fortification kits. You can't have a fortification if you don't know where you'll be. Game design as a sales tool is never going to produce a quality game, just one that makes people buy the unbalanced stuff.

2) Everything else in your army that you paid points for - you get to deploy *after* terrain.

Right, but there's no way ensure that Timmy can play with his Fortress of Redemption in every game unless you ensure that there's space for it, and so it has to go down first. Because, as I mentioned before, the ramifications of allowing people to spend 50 points to be able to relocate any piece of terrain they find inconvenient is also a really bad decision.

As far as players having to rewrite the rulebook - Yeh sure, they *shouldn't* have to. But what's more practical? Demanding GW rewrite the bits you don't like and expecting them to actually do it? Or rewriting the the rule in a way you and your gaming group find more acceptable?

That all depends on the gaming group. The guy who bought the Fortress of Redemption has a different goal in the rewrite than the guy who didn't buy any fortification kits. A player with a handful of flyers has an incentive to ensure that cheap interceptor guns don't get to kill them before they hit the table. A player with no other flyer defense has an incentive to ensure that his interceptor gun gets LoS on the table. How do you get these two to agree on the best rewrite? There is no solution that works for both of them.

On the other hand, as dumb as it seems, at least the version in the book has a bit of randomization and a bit of skill involved. A player with a fort can always hope for a Density 1 area to put it in, knowing that they'll have at least some area around it clear. And a player with a flyer can at least put down something that blocks some LOS and allows his aeroplane a corridor to fly onto the table.

Redbeard wrote:
Okay, so at what distance from my opponent's quad gun should I be allowed to place a wall? The rules say 3". What does the "not a dick move" committee say?

Use your own common sense.

CT GAMER wrote:
Testify, In this case there is NO rule ambiguity. The rules clearly state terrain can be placed 3" away.

Doing so is in no way WAAC.

If players feel the rules would work better a different way ( as I actually do) they can/should agree on a house rule, etc. But calling names solves nothing...

The rules allow lots of things.
If you stick a wall in front of your friend's quad gun, you've just invalidated 100 points of his army. It would be no different to having a 1600 point list and your opponant having 1500 - it's just that the former is legally allowable.
If putting your opponant at a 100 point disadvantage before the game has even started isn't WAAC...then that's fine. I would say it was.

Redbeard wrote:

You made some more reasonable arguments that time Redbeard (rather than your facecious comments previously), but 2 things remain that just don't (and probably never will) sit well with me:
1) The placement order doesn't make sense

In what way?

In every way, which leads me to:

Redbeard wrote:The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that you put all the terrain down after you know which side you will be on.

Like I said... the whole of page 120 is crap. I think you and I agree on this issue to a large extent, and we're about as close to it as it going to happen, so I'll leave it at that.

I'm just a little surprised they didn't just say 'placing your fortification may be done instead of placing a piece of terrain (generally 1).'

Obviously then the onus would be on the owning player to place the fortification before all the terrain allocation had been 'used up' for his side, but it would allow greater comntrol over what terrain could be placed near of it. the only tricky one would be the multi-part fort but as that counts as 3 bits, you could just place it and then have the opponent place 3 in a row (and if you placed it sensible, he wouldn't be able to place anything withing 3").

I think the rules as writ as okay, even if thedo sometimes result in bizarre los blocking (but even that can quite often be mitigates with a bit of thought). And even if your interceptor emplacement is shielded by a huge building 3" away, it does have the advantage that the blocked los works both ways. It's very rare that an emplaced weapon can be rendered entirely useless by terrain placement anyway -- unless the initial placement has been made carelessly.

The rule could be better though, I agree. But I like the principle of the alternating/random density system a lot.

Most of the time we set up fortifications AFTER terrain, because we dont want to re arrange terrain again. But you have to be a jerk to place a terrain infront of the gun, if you do that, you have no confidence in yourself.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Most of the time we set up fortifications AFTER terrain, because we dont want to re arrange terrain again. But you have to be a jerk to place a terrain infront of the gun, if you do that, you have no confidence in yourself.

Either that or you don't want to get shot at by an under-priced, powerful weapon without some kind of cover or limit to line of sight.

Underpriced?

50 points for a model that needs another model to even shoot?

When flyers are forced to come onto the table from reserves, and interceptor fire can easily down AV10 plane before the plane gets a chance to do anything, yes, that's 50 points that is undercosted. So what if it needs another model to fire it, that other model was likely not contributing a whole lot (or the person who designed the army screwed up) and is befitting from the cover bonus too.

Sup yall!? *duck's a flying german suplex* AAUUUGH! Way to go guys! You use that internet! Put your stamp right there! You tell 'em!...(Bwahahaha, I'm so silly!)

Emperor damn peeps. They need to make that warning bigger on the lead page. It's not just heated...It's on FIIIAAAAAH! (Translation: 'Fiah', noun, A super heated combustion reaction of unreal levels of awesomeness.)

Okay, I'm done. I promise. Maybe. It's just a keyboard. And we're photons on screens...as far as anyone cares.

So, I have -at the moment- no oppinion to offer. Instead I bring you something better: a QUESTION! Don't lie to me through the fiber optic cables between us, I know your excited. Go on with our bad selves!

So here is my game changing question(See what I did there? I'm hilarious, I know): Barring reality from the equation and the cluster mess that it is. (SCREW REALITY! YEAH!) How do engineers fit into all this? As in the guys who built the fortification? If we take Marines for example, you mean to tell me that they wouldn't use that bulldozer of a siege shield to literally clear away blocking terrain? How did they level the ground for construction in the first place? All those explosives and they never thought to blast that rock face away? I mean come on right? The races of the game might be dumb in a lot of ways, but they have ingenuity and common sense and all that stuff. We can hope they do at least. There's a lot of funky power sources around that have to have outlets somewhere for cute baby space marines to play with. Shouldn't the rules account for engineers having done something to the environment for maximum efficacy of the structure? Not that you couldn't interpret it that they put them up against walls to protect 'the rear' and your opponent has made an encircling maneuver of some sort.

Space Marine walks down a dark hallway, spots electrical outlet: "Eh?"
Believing it to be a revolver for bolter rounds that has run out of ammo, pulls out three bolt shells and begins trying to load the outlet. "Ah-ha!"
The bolter rounds stay 'loaded' until his buddy, Imperial Guardsmen Man, walks by and flips the light switch. "Hehe!"
BOOM! BOOM! "Aww."
Believing the Machine Spirit angry, they pray to the socket and fast for twenty four hours for their failure. "Sowwy!" ,
Then post a sign that all 'revolvers' on board the battle barge should be loaded with armor-piercing, high explosive, nerve gas rounds. To appease the machine spirit. "Yup!"
An hour latter, the Battle Barge Mind of the Emperor exploded for unknown reasons....