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.

Must both Batteries be upgraded, or can I have one Punisher, and one Battle Cannon?

Also, must they be placed in my deployment zone, or table half?

1) The Rule state that may replace any punisher Gatling Cannon, should they have required all the buildings with Gatling Cannons to replace them they would of used the word all within that sentence.
2) As buildings they are placed by the Rules for deploying fortifications purchased as part of Your Army, allowing them to be placed in a position ahead of the deployment zone.

awesome. Just want to make sure before I assemble them.

Seems like a great way to add cover, and cover-fire close to the lines.

Tactically;
I have not been impressed with buildings placed ahead of the Army, while there are some advantages it is also true that the disadvantages are greater as well. Two major problems exist for me, the first being the range on most Building related Weapons while the second is how it greatly increases the chance they will be primary targets at the start of the game. The first is not so much of an issue for the Vengeance Weapon Platforms, it is one of the few buildings with a decent short ranged weapon choices, but the majority of buildings have weapons that can hit the other side of the board in any case and function just as well if deployed slightly ahead of the deployment zone or to the back of it. The second is a problem for all buildings, even ones with decent Armour Values, due to the range on your enemies weapons as these forward structures are going to be in range a good deal sooner then the rest of your army assuming no drop pods or other 'get them in there' tactics.

Quite a few devastating anti-tank weapons are short of range, so thanks for bringing their primary target closer.

Actually, that is exactly why I am planning on using the Punisher version.

Smaller Priority, can provide cover for my rhinos, and intervening models granting cover wont really matter when I advance infront. The range is the issue, which is why I bring it closer to the middle of the board. If my opponent wastes shots on it, that's fine. No VP for destroying it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's another question.

Parking behind a Vengeance Weapons Battery, a 4+ cover or a 3+ cover?

A Vengeance Weapons Battery taken as part of your list is a fortification. Chart is on pg 18

Nightlord1987,
It's.... Messy.

Most people will allow a 3+ cover save because the chart within the Cover Section mentions Fortifications gaining 3+. Yet it is the only place in the book which informs of this, even though everything else is repeated throughout the Terrain section of the book. Therefore, when you get down and really look at the Rules, there is nothing solid which informs us what is and is not a fortification. There is no such thing as a 'Terrain Type: Fortification' and this section of the book was lacking last time this question was raised, in relation to the sky-shield which easily grants a 25% obscured result. There was alternative interpretations of what is a fortification, but they caused all sorts of secondary problems such as granting a defense line a 3+ and a 4+ cover save or making it so some obscuring terrain has no value to give even though the rules require one.

Personally:
I think they planned for buildings to be fortifications but they butchered that section of the book the worse.... so.... yeah.

Normally I would play anything like it as a 4+ for consistency sake, but this does seem like one of those rare exceptions to being a real 'fortification" as per the chart. It would make sense seeing this isn't a neutral terrain piece like Ruins, but purchased so maybe worth the +1, but I still rather play fair than biased. Oh well. I'll call it as I see it if it comes up in a game...

It is such an unusual Black Hole of Rules, but I too feel it is fair to give someone hiding behind a whole building a better cover save then someone hiding behind hip high wall.