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've been slowly getting into 40K over the last few years (I've been mainly painting up a few different armies, not playing very much yet) and one of the things that I dislike about the new 6th Ed. rules is the ability to buy terrain pieces as part of your army.

It just feels a bit wrong to me. IMO the terrain should be part of the game board - ready to be exploited by either side. Buying a piece of it and dropping it on the table seems stupid.

Does anyone else feel the same about this addition to the rules or do people feel it was a good addition to the game? I'm genuinely interested.

I think the Aegis Defense Line is fine, but find that the Fortress of Redemption is silly in it's bigness.

Yeah, I think I can agree with that. I don't have a problem with anything that an army could theoretically put down to fortify their position, it's just this "Hey, Let's magically assume that this giant landing pad appeared in the middle of our jungle death world scenario" that bothers me.

Fair enough if the landing pad was somehow written into the scenario that you're playing over, but to bring it as part of your army just doesn't sit right with me.

I play Tyranids, I don't get any of your fancy terrain, so I have to play it like a man!!!!

*Strikes pose*

*Holds pose*

*Face breaks*

*Starts sobbing*

*Curls into a ball and cries*

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.

Definitely agreed... it's nowhere near fleshed out enough, and the ADL feels way too cheap for what it can do for *SO* many armies. Right now it feels like AegisDefenceLineHammer. I'm lucky in that where we have the model in our local group, it's used as normal terrain pieces instead.

 Dakkamite wrote:
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.

But why would GW do that when they don't make expensive models for them?

I think it should be encouraged except in extreme cases. Just like making your own objectives, terrain should also make sense. Too many times I've played on a grey slate board with desert ruins, jungles, and warhammer fantasy terrain next to a bastion.

I also hate the deployment of bought terrain happening before terrain set up. What intelligent commander decides to play a line he is going to defend prior to looking if there is any terrain in the way.

"Sir! That Aegis you had us set up?"

"Yes?"

"There is a 4 story building right in front of the quad gun. Would you like us to redeploy it before the orks arrive?"

"No, and I think I shall have you executed for questioning my judgement. commissar, come here."

Personally, I love purchased terrain! I hate a gaming board where we're both fighting over nothing in the middle of nowhere. I love being able to feel like my army has some investment in the combat.

I grant that the large pieces make it seem like the person who bought it is definitely in a fortified position, but I think that I'm a creative enough guy to forge a mental narrative to explain it.

 ADustyMan wrote:
I think it should be encouraged except in extreme cases. Just like making your own objectives, terrain should also make sense. Too many times I've played on a grey slate board with desert ruins, jungles, and warhammer fantasy terrain next to a bastion.

I also hate the deployment of bought terrain happening before terrain set up. What intelligent commander decides to play a line he is going to defend prior to looking if there is any terrain in the way.

"Sir! That Aegis you had us set up?"

"Yes?"

"There is a 4 story building right in front of the quad gun. Would you like us to redeploy it before the orks arrive?"

"No, and I think I shall have you executed for questioning my judgement. commissar, come here."

At my local we have a third party set up the terrain, and then set up our fortifications afterwards. I recently travelled to a GW Battle Bunker where they did it the way the book recommends, but no one was this nasty to me with my ADL. I don't know any one who is this much of a weiner. I hope this is just one of those horror stories that you joke about, but isn't actually true!

 Kain wrote:
I play Tyranids, I don't get any of your fancy terrain, so I have to play it like a man!!!!

Can Tyranids not take the fortifications? Or is it just that they don't look Tyranid-y? You could probably make some really cool looking Spawning Pit terrain for one of the fortifications if you were so inclined.

 Jimsolo wrote:


Can Tyranids not take the fortifications? Or is it just that they don't look Tyranid-y? You could probably make some really cool looking Spawning Pit terrain for one of the fortifications if you were so inclined.

They can take it but they cant use the quad or anything.

How come? Most of them have a ballistic skill. Why wouldn't they be able to shoot it? Not trying to be argumentative, I just don't understand.

 Jimsolo wrote:
How come? Most of them have a ballistic skill. Why wouldn't they be able to shoot it? Not trying to be argumentative, I just don't understand.

Because GW released an "FAQ" that said "no, even though nothing in the rules even makes the slightest hint that Tyranids can't use gun emplacements, they can't use gun emplacements". Yes, it's that stupid.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
How come? Most of them have a ballistic skill. Why wouldn't they be able to shoot it? Not trying to be argumentative, I just don't understand.

Because GW released an "FAQ" that said "no, even though nothing in the rules even makes the slightest hint that Tyranids can't use gun emplacements, they can't use gun emplacements". Yes, it's that stupid.

They ain't got no fingers to work them!!!!

The Tyranid FAQ says tyranid models cannot use weapon emplacements/ manual fire emplaced weapons. As such, the FoR has no real value to nids, bastions aren't great, Ageis line would be great except Nids generally are moving forward, and the Skyshield would be nice if the rules weren't so poorly written.

I have mixed feelings about including terrain in armies. On the one hand, it helps skyfireless armies kill fliers, and can be really cool looking. The flipside is that (ageis line aside) it is too big to be convenient, and there is only imperial terrain. It really just feels like GW put the rules there so that people would actually buy the things.

_e

Edit: ninja'd

 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.

You do know that Fortifications don't go in your Deployment zone, they go in your table half.

ADLs are fine, I can see some scratch barricades going up. Plus... for a good while there it was the only AA for Templar

Bastions and FoR I've only ever seen in Planetstrike. I'd be a bit ticked vs a FoR in a normal game.

I also don't understand the "place fortifications prior to terrain" set up rules. Thankfully where I play, everyone places the ADL(s) post terrain set up

Fortifications are half baked IMO. I don't like how they're options in the core rules, they should have been expansions or context sensitive to specific mission types IE attack/defend scenarios. Forgeworld has done that in their books with narrative scenarios.

As others have said before me, the aegis is undercosted and benefits just about every army so there's almost no point in not taking one in a list unless you're talking very very low point level play. The downside of this it encourages static/gunline play in an edition that is already heavily favoring shooting over close combat.

The aegis is annoying from an los perspective, I very much would have preferred something like the pegasus sand bags because they're flat and as such things don't get as bogged down when it comes to which models have los and which ones don't. I don't mind the idea if low cover but it would make a lot more sense if it was optional purchase for narrative play and not something in the core game.

The landing pad is silly and I've never seen a game where it was used to actually land a unit on it, more often you just see absurd ground vehicles being placed on it to get an invul save. It needs less abstract rules, when it comes to moving on to or off of it. It again is something that might be interesting for a narrative game, but it feels silly in the core rules.

The bastion isn't too bad, at least doesn't take up a lot of room. Again, probably better in a context heavy attack/defend/narrative scenario.

The fortress of redemption or as I like to call it "libera's parliament" is just completely absurd. 6th ed is breeding some very entitled players, I see comments on blogs to the effect of "it's not a real 40k tournament if I can't bring my fortress of redemption". That just makes me sad, 40k worked fine before we were forcing our opponents to endure a gi joe mega fortress on the board.

I think even the biggest 6th ed fanboys will at least agree that even with their enthusiasm over fortifications, they were/are at best half baked.





I think it goes to some of the issues with 6th in general, there’s a lot of cool stuff in the book that should have been optional or saved for an expansion but instead was enshrined in the core rules. I find pickup games have greatly suffered because of that.

It’s like the debate over the 40k official forge world stuff, there’s a lot of entitlement out there that always smacks into the reality that people can refuse to play you for any reason. Rather than collectively discussing what kind of game you want to have or what you’re into with prospective new opponent (perhaps in a pickup game context), if you’re immediately hit with some obnoxious “it’s in the rules, you can’t say no to it” it’s probably not the best time to play a new opponent or a pickup game.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You do know that Fortifications don't go in your Deployment zone, they go in your table half.

It doesnt help you right away in the center of the table. Because Nids frequently need to get to the opponent's half, the issue is that wherever you put it, you probably won't be staying there, and you can be slowed down trying to mover over/around an ageis line.

_e

I like all the Fort options.

I esp like the Fortress b/c it so big an opposing. Meh and bah to your bastion good sir.

What is funny Nids can't man a gun on an aegis line but they can work the com to call down reinforcements.

 erick99 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You do know that Fortifications don't go in your Deployment zone, they go in your table half.

It doesnt help you right away in the center of the table. Because Nids frequently need to get to the opponent's half, the issue is that wherever you put it, you probably won't be staying there, and you can be slowed down trying to mover over/around an ageis line.

_e

Pretty much this. Short of a 10 man Gant squad way in the backlines holding a home objective, Tyranids need to be engaging the enemy. Which generally means they're going for the guys sitting in their own fortifications on their own side of the table. Tyranids need to be moving forward, which means even if you put your own Fortification in your own table half, it's not going to be doing what you need it to (protect you).

Basically, the BRB fortifications, even if Tyranids could man them, wouldn't be particuarly helpful to Tyranids. They need their own 'Fortifications' that help their style of play.

If your opponent brought an amazingly well painted and converted Fortress (with attendant 4++ PFG bubble and Standard) would you still complain?

I dunno, I think giving a Baneblade a 4++ is pretty good times.

We decided we'd get a Titan and put one foot each in a Skyshield to give it a 4++

ANTICS!

My warhound fits on one quite comfortably.

 Grey Templar wrote:
My warhound fits on one quite comfortably.

Reaver, baby!

Or dream big....

 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.

There are rules for all of these though, you just can't buy them as part of your army. If you make them though, you can bring it to the table.

I disagree with the OP.

It's made explicit that your general has chosen at least somewhat advantageous terrain to fight on. It's why you no longer roll to see which side of the board you get after you're done putting down terrain, and it's why you get pretty explicit control over how to put terrain down for your advantage.

As such, it only makes sense that your general would be much more interested in holding an aegis, than trying to hold a piece of ground further off that doesnt' have an aegis in it.

Like most things in 6th ed, it was a fantastic idea that gave an extra dimension to gaming.. But poorly exucuted by lack of research and less testing... Another casualty to the current "just get it out there" mentality..

I dont like the fortification rules because I think 6th is cluttered with unneeded rules that slow the game down. I also dont like the way that having fortifications basically changes deployment rules. I think objectives and terrain should be down before rolling for sides.

JWhex wrote:
I dont like the fortification rules because I think 6th is cluttered with unneeded rules that slow the game down. I also dont like the way that having fortifications basically changes deployment rules. I think objectives and terrain should be down before rolling for sides.

I couldn't agree more. Fortifications require a lot of agreement, especially in the context of the i go you go terrain setup. Even if you have a large terrain collection where you play, the more important terrain pieces for balance (big los blockers) suddenly become a contentious tool for blocking off your opponent. That and you end up with really ugly boards.

I think the game is just better when one or both players take some time to make a good looking board that rewards movement and tactical play while also looking good or as good as possible. Or in case of tournaments, a to or volunteer or both.