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.

Supplements like this will come and go, Cityfight, Cities of Death, Apoc, etc. I don't think regular 40K has anything to worry about.

Terrain has an advantage of being popular to multiple armies. Bastion - IG, Inquisitor, Space Marine. Bastion with spikes and moar skulls - Chaos and Daemons. Bastion with extra plates riveted over holes - Orks. Everyone else - defending a bastion they captured from Imperial, Chaos, or Ork forces.

While a new army would sell more product to a single gamer, it won't sell to as many gamers. GW is about the Hobby, not the Game.

I'm pretty excited that they have new terrain kits. While made for PS, they're easy enough to use with regular 40k, CoD, and APOC. And, the bastions are nice Fifth Edition terrain - big and LOS blocking.

Redbeard wrote:Throughout real-world history, people have built fortifications, and fortifications have been bypassed. This has not stopped people from attempting to make more fortifications.

A fortification, in many ways, is simply a barrier-to-entry. A fortification means that the cost of invading increases. But, no fortification can prevent invasions, all they can do is raise the cost of doing so. If someone is willing to pay the price, they will get in, it's really that simple.

Perhaps the internal logic works thusly.

It certainly worked out well for the french in '40 didn't it?

Redbeard wrote:Because that would be normal 40k.

Uhh... no. Normal 40K has Jervis-Pattern Generic Missions.

I'm talking about Attacker/Defender missions, and the use of stratagems.

Redbeard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
It doesn't make sense to build fortifications if all armies have units who can easily bypass them...

Throughout real-world history, people have built fortifications, and fortifications have been bypassed. This has not stopped people from attempting to make more fortifications.

A fortification, in many ways, is simply a barrier-to-entry. A fortification means that the cost of invading increases. But, no fortification can prevent invasions, all they can do is raise the cost of doing so. If someone is willing to pay the price, they will get in, it's really that simple.

Perhaps the internal logic works thusly.

It's true that people keep building fortifications and other people keep bypassing them, but if the fortification becomes so easy to bypass that it costs the enemy little to nothing to bypass it, then people will no longer use it.

For example, towards the end of the middle ages, the cost of taking a castle changed from a siege with catapults, rams, and ladders to a couple of bombard cannons that would pound the castle walls until they were dust. At this point, people stopped building castles. Seems to me that in an age where deep striking was so easy, walls would be absolutely useless. Towers with big guns could be useful, but the line defense sets that they were selling seem worthless.

Rules for fortifications and such are cool, but I could do without the all deep strike aspect of it.