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.

Hello Dakka

I was thinking on how to tune a Sisters of Battle army without goying to mainstream. So i found this over the Bastion:

Emplacement Weapons
4 Heavy Bolters, usually one on each side

So, the "usually" means a sugestion, not a rule. I can model my bastion to have 2 Heavy bolter on 2 faces, and them have practically 4 Heavy Bolter on the same side. Im serious thinking to blend that with 8 Retributors armed with 4 Heavy Bolters, firing 27 shoots per round at 36" (pretty long range for sisters), with 2 rounds of rending included per game (Act of faith).

Cheesy? No, it would be cheesy if modeled my own version of the bastion, triangular in shape, with a face filled in Heavy Bolters and shooting points. Hm, that give me ideias.

ideias?

I would have o problem even if you ere to magnetize them so that they could be placed differently from game to game. I would only ask that when you placed them at the beginning of the battle, they not move after that. one per side, you can usally bet that on average, 3 of them are wasted every turn.

The model should be static but you don't have to use GW's kit unless you are in an gaming environment that requires that. You can build your own Imperial Bastion model as long as it is a medium building and has 4 heavy bolters.

Its as modelled, obviously in a 'real' environment a Bastion could realistically be expected to have a gun covering all approach angles, in game I find mounting them on the roof gives a 360 angle of fire for all four

i dont have the rulebook to hand but im sure they all have to shoot at the same unit anyway (having typed that im not so certain)

There is nothing specifically stating the positions of the guns on the bastion.

There are advantages and disadvantages on facing so as long as they are static in position all is well.

If you put it all on one face, you have no backup on infiltrators.

For bonus points: if you can make it look good and have all guns on one face that is impressive all by itself (and not look twin linked!)

I'm very open when it comes to terrain, even fortifications purchased by the opponent, so I see no reason not to play it 'as modeled' when it comes to the guns, firing points, access points and other such details. I only ask that the model be designed so it fits the army better then the boring old imperial designed structures and that it doesn't try and abuse this flexibility by changing the design too much. The location of the guns it begins with is a minor thing in the bigger scheme and something a fortified position would of been built around in a lot of cases. I am more worried about that case we had a while back where the access point was tempered with to disallow the bastion, it's battlement occupied, from being entered and other such things.

Moving the guns to small turrets located on the corners of the building would double the dakka to all sides... just a thought.

I saw someone mentioned mounting them for a 60 degree fire arc. What is the general consensus on this?
I have thebasic one with oneon each side but I have a spare one unassembled as wel that I may convert.

JinxDragon wrote:
I'm very open when it comes to terrain, even fortifications purchased by the opponent, so I see no reason not to play it 'as modeled' when it comes to the guns, firing points, access points and other such details

Except, you know, the RAW...

Maybe you can assist then?

I am clearly seeing 'as modeled' when it comes to calculating how many, and the locations, of any fire/access points the Bastion possess. These details can be found on page 116 of the basic rule book, where it gives us the profile this terrain piece uses. There it also informs me that this piece of terrain has a standard of four emplaced heavy bolters, with a suggestion that one is placed on each facing. This suggestion is incapable of being a rule requiring placement for said weapons thanks to the inclusion of the word typically which indicates it is one of many possible layouts. So if you can quote for me the page which it informs me to completely ignore what is on the physical model, or profile, I will appreciate it.

JinxDragon wrote:
Point me to the page I am over-looking then, as I am seeing 'as modeled' when it comes to calculating firepowers and accesses which the Bastion possess on page 116. There it also informs me that this piece of terrain has four emplaced heavy bolters, with a suggestion they face one every way but no rule requirement for them to do so. So if you can quote for me the page which it informs me to completely ignore what is on the model, I will appreciate it.

Because the model (Model as in miniature, not model as in 40k defined model because the bastion is not a model it is terrain.) of a bastion has one HB on each side.

Anything else is MFA.


(Okay, Technically it is not the RAW per say that is stopping you, but MFA surely will if you get an opponent that wants to use citadel models, like the tell you in the RAW).

The 'citadel models only' argument can render list-legal armies unplayable, so I don't consider it very valuable an argument. Besides I did post stating that I, personally, had no problem with non-standard Bastions which shows it is a personal view and therefore of no real surprise my post wouldn't take into consideration an argument that I have no personal faith in. If you want to try, at the table, to make the argument that the Bastion must be played to citadel instructions then go ahead and try that. I would rather let them have a unique fortification, even one that was modeled to be a little bit unfair, then see another gray block of an imperial structure.

And besides, if they really where trying to model this building in a clear 'that ******* guy' way, there are dirty anti-fortification tricks that I can easily pull to negate it....

I saw in my local gw the manager uses servitors with heavy bolters to represent the emplaced weapons, they don't move mid game obviously

JinxDragon wrote:
The 'citadel models only' argument can render list-legal armies unplayable, so I don't consider it very valuable an argument.

Not really. The practical effect is that, since virtually everyone agrees on a house rule to use reasonable counts-as/proxies/etc for those "missing" models, you're allowed to play your full army list and the only restriction is that MFA is not allowed. And what you're talking about is textbook MFA. You aren't doing your best to build a bastion model in the absence of a GW kit, you're deliberately ignoring GW's example of a bastion and changing the layout of the guns so you can gain an in-game advantage.

If you want to try, at the table, to make the argument that the Bastion must be played to citadel instructions then go ahead and try that.

That's exactly what I'm going to do, just like you'd make that argument if I modified my LRBTs to give the hull lascannons a turret mount because I don't like having my guns be out of arc.

I would rather let them have a unique fortification, even one that was modeled to be a little bit unfair, then see another gray block of an imperial structure.

That's what "counts as" rules are for. If my opponent brought a unique fortification I'd expect them to play by the same rules as the standard bastion, including weapon arcs. If the HBs aren't modeled appropriately then we can just pretend that they are and draw range/LOS from the point on the model where they should be. But I'm under no obligation to accept a special bastion with improved gun arcs just because someone was building their custom model and decided to improve the guns while they were at it.

If your local gaming group has a house rule that all Bastions are played to the same format as imperial guard Bastions, then so be it. This is not a rule found I can find in the books though, outside of the poor Rule argument of non-citadel of course, as the page I quoted tells us to play the Bastion as modeled for access and fire points. It also goes on to inform us there are four standard weapons but that is sadly followed by a section with the damned word 'typical,' a word which should never be used in rule writing because it turns a sentence into a suggestion, when it comes to placing them. The only way to obey these rules would be to allow people to put down non-standard Bastions and play them exactly as modeled unless they violate any not-as-poorly worded restriction on before mentioned page, because that is what the player has modeled and placed on the table. Unless it has more guns then the profile allows, or somehow has two of the one only choices, then it technically hasn't broken any rule granted to it by the profile.

However it is perfectly fine if your group changes this section of the book via a house rule because they have that ability, forcing all players to use the Imperial Guard design because of a conception that they are 'standard' would be a house rule but not a bad one. But something to keep in mind; the one picture in the main rule book is not 'standard' but simply the one selected to be put beside the only profile we have for a Bastion. That profile is fairly badly written but the only one we have, so players look at that picture as 'standard' because of familiarity with seeing it beside the profile they had to check up a few times when they first put together the list. The issue is the one in the pictured is clearly designed for a single faction, the imperial Guard Bastion is a better name for it, and just because no other official designs for anything else have been forth coming doesn't make it the only design used on the battlefield, let alone the standard for even one faction that has many non-standard off shoots over several codex's. On top of that is the fact Humans are not the only faction in the game and you have to really ask 'what is standard' when you take a look at a non-Citadel built model. As most of the written rules we have for it use flowery words like typically and as modeled I think holding people only to the profile and not the picture is far more fitting to a Rules as Written and a sportsmanship, as I do not come across Bastions often let alone the not-gray-box variety, sadly...

However falling back to 'it is not Citadel' from a Rule As Written point of view means the armies that use non-citadel produced models are illegal, so can not be played, not that you have permission to play 'as is.'

Sorry Jinx, but simply accusing the other side of using a house rule doesn't make it so. This is a permissive rule set - if you want to use a model that isn't the standard, you're playing by house rules.

What you're suggesting is modeling for advantage - pure and simple. It's just as bad as someone that models their Dreadnoughts lying down so they are easier to hide, or changing a vehicle's sponson weapons to be modeled on top so they have 360 firing arc or making a giant sized land raider so it blocks the entire army's line of sight.

The only real issue I would ever have with it is if you made it two feet tall and twice as wide. That said I have build myself a bastion using the kits that is about twice the normal height and I have never had an opponent call cheese. I do play in a kind of laid back group but I couldn't see you having to much trouble as long as you are not abusive. Generally that is when people start getting nitpicky is after you start getting abusive with the trick.

I agree, but hiwpi and the rules are two different things. You want to model something so it's cooler, great. But if you're just blantantly remodeling for advantage, well...

Ate my post, but let see if I can recreate it.

Permission to include a model in your army list comes from being able to select it as part of the force organization chart and the limitations set forth in it's profile, in this case found on page 116. This profile inform us that a bastion is legal if it has Access Points, Fire Points, four Heavy Bolter and a few other things. As long as the model representing it on the table has these things, and is paid for of course, it would have permission to fill that slot in the list. From this point of view I can not see any problem with a 'non-standard' Bastion because it meets all the requirements to be played along side the other pieces purchased by matching their unit profiles at list creation.

Now this rule does go on to suggest they be one on each facing, which is sensible suggestion for four weapons designed for a four sided building. Sadly it is but still a suggestion, thanks to that pesky word 'typically' which does inform us that other designs are legal. I don't like seeing such words in any written rules, sadly Game workshop doesn't care so much, but this word is currently there so I can't ignore it easily as some other people want to. Anything that does ignore this word's existence is a house rule even if it is one done with good intention and is actually a house rule that I easily agree with. I just don't think it is Rule as Written supported as some other people think it is.

That is just about the guns: What if someone plays a Bastion that has four doors but the guns are in the right place?

There is the page 2 argument to consider but putting aside a few other problems, largest being no 'count as' exception just out right banning, there is one interesting one I keep pondering on: Terrain is not a model. Going by a Rule as Written mentality we would have to consider this argument from the perspective of 'what is a model' and 'will it apply to this page's reasoning.' I feel that Fortifications are still only terrain and therefore not considered models from a rule as written standpoint, it is one of the reasons they are so broken and greatly a headache that should be written away via errata. As page 2 appears to be limited to just models in the rule sense, it would be more difficult to enforce on any terrain piece which would include buildings of the fortification description.

If I have read incorrectly into what you are saying then what is the Rules as Written justification for binding a 'non-standard' Bastion to the Imperial Guard format of Citadel's?

I also have a problem with the idea of binding even one piece of terrain to the idea of a standardized design without detailed instructions on how to go about making these designed structures. Maybe if they released a book of fortifications, or better yet all sorts of new terrain, as a supplement and errata I would have less issue with the idea of something 'standard'. However for the time being I don't like the idea of any terrain being 'standard' when all we have is one picture to try and make the case on and a handful of flimsy rules at best. As someone that wants to make terrain one day, it seems shame that we would be restricted to the very few designs that Citadel graces us with and not the option to have a interesting battlefield that comes from serious design consideration to terrain pieces.

Besides, as before mentioned: If someone wanted to try and use my generosity against me, I can legally take it away without trying to claim what they are fielding is suddenly illegal. If someone comes forth with a clear 'Modeling For Advantage Bastion' then I can find ways to prevent them from using it effectively that are below the belt but this time called for. For example: Fortification are placed before terrain. Make yourself a few terrain pieces designed to take advantage of the terrain placement rules, including a 'fortification shied' designed as a ruin, one that you can use to block line of sight to and from these 'terrifying' Bastions.

*I do not use Bastions because they are problematic for many reasons!

just to point out, the bastion is an imperial model (except for the cha version of course). if you go strictly by the provided citadel model, then some would say that non imperial/chaos armies could not use them at all as they are not modeled for their army. if you start disallowing conversions for coolness sake (as this conversion would be), you start on the slippery slope where you need to draw a line somewhere and where will your gaming group agree the line is. of course, when modeling for coolness like this,your also on a slippery slope where the line needs to be drawn.

Kinda a dilemma isn't it? the point is, you will not find the answer here, you will only get the opinions of those who post and as you have seen "opinions are like A.."you know the rest of the quote lol. the people youneed to have the serious discussion with are the members of your gaming group and your local TO. Anything you see here, wil need to be taken with a grain of salt.

And some would be ignoring the fact that they are an option for any army.(Pretty much)

Hopefully the new Stronghold Assault will give clearer guidance, doubt it though

 EVIL INC wrote:
just to point out, the bastion is an imperial model (except for the cha version of course). if you go strictly by the provided citadel model, then some would say that non imperial/chaos armies could not use them at all as they are not modeled for their army.

This is not true, it could be an imperial fortification that was just taken over by a non imperial army...

I used multiple kits of bastions to make what looks like a Fortress of Redemption. Not sure how that would mess with anyone (8 HB's since one in each facing).

I made a double height bastion with lascannons in each of the bolter holes at the 3rd level, which that exchange was allowed.

I made a half height bastion (bottom and top attached, no middle) with HB's mounted at each corner with an automated pintle mount look (possible arc improvement).

All was an attempt to be true to the model shape so modeling for advantage would be interesting to define. All I wanted was some variation of "check-point", "bastion", "citadel" and "fortress".

So would any of the above be an issue?

Just my 2 cents but if you aren't increasing the fire arc from a mathematical point of view you could argue you aren't modelling for advantage.

RAW does not appear to stop you putting 2+ bolters on one side. The picture on the box is not a rule. Also Ricter lying a dreadnought down is a hindrance as much as help with true LOS. Also changing a weapons side sponsons is not the same as usually they are defined as side/turret mounted in one way or another.

Personally it doesn't seem very sportsman like but i see now clear rule that stops you doing this.