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.

Not too long ago, I was thinking about getting an Imperial Bastion because AV14+Skyfire=Good. But then I realized:

If I wanted an AV14 building, I could just bring one. I didn't need to pay points for it. And if I'm worried about my opponent getting it instead of me, then I can just bring two, and it'll be nice and fair.

So more recently I was thinking about just getting an Aegis Defense Line for cheaper skyfire (points wise). But then I realized:

I can bring quad guns as part of regular terrain, too.

So, other than making sure you have something and your opponent doesn't, is there really any point to fortifications, since they can be brought as regular terrain anyway?

Keep in mind what I say is without the codex (left it at home for safekeeping) but I believe that unless you pay for it... it becomes simply ruins with no other utility.

Non-purchased Bastions aren't AV14. Page 96, Fortifications and Dilapidation.

The regular terrain version has an AV of 13 not 14. It also does not normally have a working gun.

This is not to mention that due to its terrain nature there is a certain level of necessary agreement between you and your opponent. If you lug 2 bastions to each game then most people won't mind as they will get 1. If you lug 1 bastion to each game expect your opponent to call you a TFG when you get it.

The Imperial Bastion itself is somewhat worthless as terrain. But there are actual AV14 buildings one can bring.

The fact that one can bring two buildings and ensure that each player has one is a good thing. I, for example, always endeavor to have balanced terrain, which is how I came to wonder about the usefulness of fortifications. Any terrain I want in order to help my army out, I could theoretically just bring for free, and then give one to my opponent as well to keep things fair. So, I'm just not seeing the point of fortifications.

 ansacs wrote:
The regular terrain version has an AV of 13 not 14. It also does not normally have a working gun.

This is not to mention that due to its terrain nature there is a certain level of necessary agreement between you and your opponent. If you lug 2 bastions to each game then most people won't mind as they will get 1. If you lug 1 bastion to each game expect your opponent to call you a TFG when you get it.

Not AV13. AV12. Dilapidation is -2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reaper with no name wrote:
The Imperial Bastion itself is somewhat worthless as terrain. But there are actual AV14 buildings one can bring.

The fact that one can bring two buildings and ensure that each player has one is a good thing. I, for example, always endeavor to have balanced terrain, which is how I came to wonder about the usefulness of fortifications. Any terrain I want in order to help my army out, I could theoretically just bring for free, and then give one to my opponent as well to keep things fair. So, I'm just not seeing the point of fortifications.

There are no AV14 Buildings you can bring, as not being purchased makes them by default Dilapidated. This caps their AV at 12, and with no working guns. If you want an AV14 building, you have to pay the points for it.

Only fortifications are affected by the dilapidation rule.

reaper with no name wrote:
Only fortifications are affected by the dilapidation rule.

Then your difficulty is going to be getting your opponent to accept that you should get an AV14 building for free. And there's no reason for him to accept that outside of narrative games, as you've obviously designed your army around your free building, while he hasn't and may not have any use for your consolation prize building.

Unless, of course, your metagame already has buildings.

I don't think at the end of the day that you are unbalancing the game by having a fortification - you pay for it - it becomes part of your army , not the terrain set you have. That's why I think they are reasonable.

And, as said before, all fortifications not owned by a player suffer from a -2 penalty on all armour facings. I guess you could still plonk a Flakk gun in the centre of the board or something, but is it really worth losing troops to get to it rather than spending your points on a 100 point Ageis with Quad Cannon?

I've had great success with Aegis Defense Lines, and highly recommend them. I own a Fortress of Redemption, and while it is very useful, it's really only points effective (in my opinion) in games over 2500 points. Still, fun to have.

You can do this, but just remember three things:

1) Your opponent has to agree to your choice of terrain. If you're using the narrative method your opponent has to agree to everything before you can start the game, so if you put fortifications in your half of the table and not in your opponent's half you're not going to be playing a game. If you're using alternating terrain your opponent has to agree to the terrain pool, so if they don't want fortifications in the terrain you're not getting any (which isn't a problem if you paid the points for your own ADL).

2) Your opponent might get to use your fortification. Are you going to be happy if they get to place the first piece of terrain and put your "fortification" in their deployment zone and leave you nothing? I don't think so. And of course if you include an even number of "fortifications" you're conceding that your opponent will always get to have just as many as you do (plus any they paid points for).

3) You might be starting an arms race you won't win. Once you make it acceptable to create and bring terrain designed to be part of your army you allow your opponents to do the exact same thing.

General Annoyance wrote:
I guess you could still plonk a Flakk gun in the centre of the board or something, but is it really worth losing troops to get to it rather than spending your points on a 100 point Ageis with Quad Cannon?

Why would you put the gun emplacement in the middle of the table instead of safely in your own deployment zone near one of your objectives? The fact that a gun emplacement is placed using the alternating terrain method doesn't prevent you from putting it in an ideal position for your troops to use it.

@Peregrine - I'm only basing what I said on the OP - he said that he likes to balance the terrain between him and his opponent. He could either do that, or do as you said and place one in each deployment zone, but if it was me I'd just buy a bastion or ageis defence line....

reaper with no name wrote:
If I wanted an AV14 building, I could just bring one. I didn't need to pay points for it. And if I'm worried about my opponent getting it instead of me, then I can just bring two, and it'll be nice and fair.

1. And what if I wanted a building for myself, without my opponent having one?
2. Those fortifications lose AV2.
3. You can't fire the emplaced weapons.

Unless you're playing with a friend who is cool with you having a free advantage like a guaranteed AV14 building and/or gun emplacements and/or buildings with guns on them, you would purchase a fortification to guarantee that you have one while keeping the game fair by paying the points for it.

I think intact buildings and gun emplacements can be wonderful ways to shake up games. You can use weapons that you have lying around unused from kits like the IG Heavy Weapon squads, and add an additional reason to change strategies or to hold/attack different positions. It just takes two willing players to make it happen.

Kangodo wrote:

reaper with no name wrote:
If I wanted an AV14 building, I could just bring one. I didn't need to pay points for it. And if I'm worried about my opponent getting it instead of me, then I can just bring two, and it'll be nice and fair.

1. And what if I wanted a building for myself, without my opponent having one?

Then pay for it, or set up the board to give a similar advantage to your opponent that they agree with. Perhaps there could be an abandonded heavy weapon emplacement in their deployment zone designed for cracking tough buildings.

Kangodo wrote:
2. Those fortifications lose AV2.
3. You can't fire the emplaced weapons.

Only the ones you would otherwise take in the fortification slot. Custom terrain can have anything you want.

If someone did this to me and brought a fortification to the game, even if it had no weapons or was dilapidated, I wouldn't let them use it. If you want a free building, pay for it. At my FLGS, we already have bastions deployed on the table in fair locations. They are on defore we deploy, so nothing is biased. If you really want a fortification of your own, sacrafice a unit for it.

Unless you buy a building it wont be anything but ruins and any guns you put on them will be worthless.

Your opponent and you can agree that weapons can be manned, which allows for some interesting play where theres a huge cannon in the middle of the battlefield thats wide open but is strong enough to make you wanna try to get it lol

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Unless you buy a building it wont be anything but ruins and any guns you put on them will be worthless.

Again, this only applies to fortifications you could normally purchase, not for custom buildings.

This area of the rules doesn't necessarily work with most store games.

Yes, you can bring hills, buildings, ammo dumps, trenches, etc to the game. Those are added on the table during terrain setup. With the rules qualifiers as stated here by others - lower AV and no auto firing attached guns being chief amongst them. So RAW it is completely allowed when using RAW for game setup.

We do this at my house. Whatever is on the shelf is fair to throw on the table.

However, most store players aren't going to go for it. If you don't buy a quad gun, it isn't on the table. I've never seen a store have a quad gun, bastion or FoR just lying around to be used as regular "terrain".

To sum up: perfectly RAW; but almost universally unacceptable in practice.

if someone tried to get free fortifications or quad guns -even if there was a 50% chance i'd get it - then i would forcibly insert said fortification into that player's arse.

Aegises are inexpensive and give you a 4++. Just take them instead and nothing needs to be forced up anyone's rectum.

 Talore wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Unless you buy a building it wont be anything but ruins and any guns you put on them will be worthless.

Again, this only applies to fortifications you could normally purchase, not for custom buildings.

You should also note by those same custom building "rules" you can field the full wall of maryrs for free...or for that matter a nuclear missile silo. Custom buildings allows anything and everything as long as you both agree.

xruslanx wrote:
if someone tried to get free fortifications or quad guns -even if there was a 50% chance i'd get it - then i would forcibly insert said fortification into that player's arse.

Aegises are inexpensive and give you a 4++. Just take them instead and nothing needs to be forced up anyone's rectum.

Hope it's not a Chaos Bastion, then.

More expensive, and spikier.

And the image of a Forced FOR enema is something i could have done without


If my opponent brought extra scenery, i'd say thanks for bringing it, and it would get added to the pile to be deployed. If there was only one bastion (or whatever) it would get deployed in the middle of the table for both sides to squabble over.

If you want functional buildings where you want them, providing sweet sweet AV 14 bunkerness, you'd better have paid for the fethers in points in your list, unless the table setup/mission dictates that one player gets a fortified deployment zone, and the other is on the offensive (with rules to balance it).