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.

60mm wrote:Just the fact that they cost the same points for every army despite it being far better for some than others breaks it for me.

how is it better for others? (this isnt a dig just a general question cos i really dont know.)

The guns use the BS of the unit firing them. So a SM or Tau armys fort is going to be far better than the same fort purchased by an ork army. Tyranids can only use their auto firing at BS2. If there were different forts to fit different armies it'd be cool but for now it's just another buff for shooty armies and more nerf for cc armies.

Testify wrote:You need your opponent's permission to anything, technically.
If your opponent doesn't want to play with forts, try talking to him. If he still refuses, play someone else, or don't play with forts.

I understand where you're coming from with this, but following that logic, Player B could refuse Player A's MEQ army, just because Player B wants his orks to be able to shoot stuff...
And besides, there is a counter to everything, even 5th ed's GK cheese and Driagowing.

Wrakkar wrote:

Testify wrote:You need your opponent's permission to anything, technically.
If your opponent doesn't want to play with forts, try talking to him. If he still refuses, play someone else, or don't play with forts.

I understand where you're coming from with this, but following that logic, Player B could refuse Player A's MEQ army, just because Player B wants his orks to be able to shoot stuff...
And besides, there is a counter to everything, even 5th ed's GK cheese and Driagowing.

Yeah, that's how it works. In a friendly game, there's no point in setting yourself up to get smacked around, or have to play a game you know you won't enjoy. The key to it is moderation. If you look at an opponent's list, and it's clearly tailored to beat yours, then you are well within your rights to not play, but if you refuse a game because it isn't a list that you can smack around then it makes you a dick.

Nave Senrag wrote:

Wrakkar wrote:

Testify wrote:You need your opponent's permission to anything, technically.
If your opponent doesn't want to play with forts, try talking to him. If he still refuses, play someone else, or don't play with forts.

I understand where you're coming from with this, but following that logic, Player B could refuse Player A's MEQ army, just because Player B wants his orks to be able to shoot stuff...
And besides, there is a counter to everything, even 5th ed's GK cheese and Driagowing.

Yeah, that's how it works. In a friendly game, there's no point in setting yourself up to get smacked around, or have to play a game you know you won't enjoy. The key to it is moderation. If you look at an opponent's list, and it's clearly tailored to beat yours, then you are well within your rights to not play, but if you refuse a game because it isn't a list that you can smack around then it makes you a dick.

I agree.

60mm wrote:The guns use the BS of the unit firing them. So a SM or Tau armys fort is going to be far better than the same fort purchased by an ork army. Tyranids can only use their auto firing at BS2. If there were different forts to fit different armies it'd be cool but for now it's just another buff for shooty armies and more nerf for cc armies.

It's still better for them, if they cannot hit something in the air a 5+ is still better than a 6 (or a 4+ in the orks case, they have grots with BS3!)

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

60mm wrote:The guns use the BS of the unit firing them. So a SM or Tau armys fort is going to be far better than the same fort purchased by an ork army. Tyranids can only use their auto firing at BS2. If there were different forts to fit different armies it'd be cool but for now it's just another buff for shooty armies and more nerf for cc armies.

It's still better for them, if they cannot hit something in the air a 5+ is still better than a 6 (or a 4+ in the orks case, they have grots with BS3!)

That's a terrible argument to support a deeply flawed part of 6e. That'd be like the NFL making touchdowns worth 9 points to all but 2 teams, who now score 7 and saying, "well those teams do get 1 more point now so its good for them". It is a buff to shooty armies and a nerf to everyone else, flatout.

60mm wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

60mm wrote:The guns use the BS of the unit firing them. So a SM or Tau armys fort is going to be far better than the same fort purchased by an ork army. Tyranids can only use their auto firing at BS2. If there were different forts to fit different armies it'd be cool but for now it's just another buff for shooty armies and more nerf for cc armies.

It's still better for them, if they cannot hit something in the air a 5+ is still better than a 6 (or a 4+ in the orks case, they have grots with BS3!)

That's a terrible argument to support a deeply flawed part of 6e. That'd be like the NFL making touchdowns worth 9 points to all but 2 teams, who now score 7 and saying, "well those teams do get 1 more point now so its good for them". It is a buff to shooty armies and a nerf to everyone else, flatout.

Okay than, the non-shooting armies get Nothing to attempt to deal flyers. I mean I kinda hope xenos gets specific fortifications with their lists with their codex's or White Dwarf but hey, I'd rather have "Something" than "Nothing" to begin wit to deal with flyers.

You're argument makes sense that it is a buff to shooty armies, the problem is it sounds like you advocate it just as if you didn't want xenos to have access to it at all.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

60mm wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

60mm wrote:The guns use the BS of the unit firing them. So a SM or Tau armys fort is going to be far better than the same fort purchased by an ork army. Tyranids can only use their auto firing at BS2. If there were different forts to fit different armies it'd be cool but for now it's just another buff for shooty armies and more nerf for cc armies.

It's still better for them, if they cannot hit something in the air a 5+ is still better than a 6 (or a 4+ in the orks case, they have grots with BS3!)

That's a terrible argument to support a deeply flawed part of 6e. That'd be like the NFL making touchdowns worth 9 points to all but 2 teams, who now score 7 and saying, "well those teams do get 1 more point now so its good for them". It is a buff to shooty armies and a nerf to everyone else, flatout.

Okay than, the non-shooting armies get Nothing to attempt to deal flyers. I mean I kinda hope xenos gets specific fortifications with their lists with their codex's or White Dwarf but hey, I'd rather have "Something" than "Nothing" to begin wit to deal with flyers.

You're argument makes sense that it is a buff to shooty armies, the problem is it sounds like you advocate it just as if you didn't want xenos to have access to it at all.

If forts are gonna be in 40k, then they should be available to everyone and ,most importantly, equally. These a pretty massive game changers.

Psienesis wrote:Which kind of makes sense if you think about it. If you've got a fortress, and this fortress has guys on the wall who are hard-pressed to hit the broad side of a barn, they're not going to be any better with the "built in" weapons than they would be with their regular weapons, while the same fortress staffed with a bunch of snipers and marksmen is something you're going to want to destroy with artillery from very far away.

That is an excellent way to look at it, and i for one salute the way you put that. Could not have said it any better myself.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

60mm wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

60mm wrote:The guns use the BS of the unit firing them. So a SM or Tau armys fort is going to be far better than the same fort purchased by an ork army. Tyranids can only use their auto firing at BS2. If there were different forts to fit different armies it'd be cool but for now it's just another buff for shooty armies and more nerf for cc armies.

It's still better for them, if they cannot hit something in the air a 5+ is still better than a 6 (or a 4+ in the orks case, they have grots with BS3!)

That's a terrible argument to support a deeply flawed part of 6e. That'd be like the NFL making touchdowns worth 9 points to all but 2 teams, who now score 7 and saying, "well those teams do get 1 more point now so its good for them". It is a buff to shooty armies and a nerf to everyone else, flatout.

Okay than, the non-shooting armies get Nothing to attempt to deal flyers. I mean I kinda hope xenos gets specific fortifications with their lists with their codex's or White Dwarf but hey, I'd rather have "Something" than "Nothing" to begin wit to deal with flyers.

You're argument makes sense that it is a buff to shooty armies, the problem is it sounds like you advocate it just as if you didn't want xenos to have access to it at all.

That's and interesting idea.

A lot of codices have hit their redundancy limit - they really can't introduce new units because they have everything. This is likely the reason for the introduction of fortifications and flyers with 6th edition. Say Tyranids, who can't man the rulebook fortifications. They need AA. The best they can muster is a flyrant with devourers. However, the Harpy might be a dual kit with a more dogfighting variant for the 6th edition codex, and a few Tyranid specific fortifications. That would give GW the models they need to release alongside the book.

60mm wrote:
If forts are gonna be in 40k, then they should be available to everyone and ,most importantly, equally. These a pretty massive game changers.

While I agree that there should be forts available to everyone

I disagree that they need to be equals

How should I explain this...

Ork and Tau are not equals, but are balanced

Orks normaly shoots at BS 2
Marines Normally shoots at BS4

Both shoots at BS1 against flyer, but marines paid more points for "wasted" bs; how is it fair?

Fortication shooting with Models BS somehow balance this

rand2810 wrote:Orks normaly shoots at BS 2
Marines Normally shoots at BS4

Both shoots at BS1 against flyer, but marines paid more points for "wasted" bs; how is it fair?

Fortication shooting with Models BS somehow balance this

You just topped my list of stupid arguments because I have a feeling you think that logic makes sense. Wow.

Well, since they're making fortifications a big part of the game: as many have said, it's the only option for some armies to deal with flyer. The least they could do is make one unique fortification for each army.

A good nids-themed fort could be some kinda infested structure, spore cloud that could serve as AA, also double as a spore mine launcher for anti-surface or something. May be they aren't as massive as the Imperium ones, but could be bought as an "unit" of 3, providing covers along the way as the nids move up, and more AA shooting. To balance the coverage, they could reduce the range of the spore cloud!

I'm not even a tabletop game designer and I could come up with something for an army I do not play within a little less than 10mins, I'm sure a bunch of professional tabletop game designers could well come up with something unique and fun for each army.

But at the moment, it just feels lazy, and you can't help but say that GW favours the Imperium despite that idea being completely insane... It just feels as though "xenos will just use imperium's structures" is an afterthought "Oh hey, we have xenos armies too!"...

Baronyu wrote:Well, since they're making fortifications a big part of the game: as many have said, it's the only option for some armies to deal with flyer. The least they could do is make one unique fortification for each army.

A good nids-themed fort could be some kinda infested structure, spore cloud that could serve as AA, also double as a spore mine launcher for anti-surface or something. May be they aren't as massive as the Imperium ones, but could be bought as an "unit" of 3, providing covers along the way as the nids move up, and more AA shooting. To balance the coverage, they could reduce the range of the spore cloud!

I'm not even a tabletop game designer and I could come up with something for an army I do not play within a little less than 10mins, I'm sure a bunch of professional tabletop game designers could well come up with something unique and fun for each army.

But at the moment, it just feels lazy, and you can't help but say that GW favours the Imperium despite that idea being completely insane... It just feels as though "xenos will just use imperium's structures" is an afterthought "Oh hey, we have xenos armies too!"...

Or, you know, there'll be fortifications in the Codices... but no, GW are obviously stupid and need to be punished!

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Baronyu wrote:Well, since they're making fortifications a big part of the game: as many have said, it's the only option for some armies to deal with flyer. The least they could do is make one unique fortification for each army.

A good nids-themed fort could be some kinda infested structure, spore cloud that could serve as AA, also double as a spore mine launcher for anti-surface or something. May be they aren't as massive as the Imperium ones, but could be bought as an "unit" of 3, providing covers along the way as the nids move up, and more AA shooting. To balance the coverage, they could reduce the range of the spore cloud!

I'm not even a tabletop game designer and I could come up with something for an army I do not play within a little less than 10mins, I'm sure a bunch of professional tabletop game designers could well come up with something unique and fun for each army.

But at the moment, it just feels lazy, and you can't help but say that GW favours the Imperium despite that idea being completely insane... It just feels as though "xenos will just use imperium's structures" is an afterthought "Oh hey, we have xenos armies too!"...

Or, you know, there'll be fortifications in the Codices... but no, GW are obviously stupid and need to be punished!

Well, no, but if you want to be childish about something that doesn't harm you, feel free.

All I'm saying is that if they want to push fortifications, make it balanced and interesting. May be some people prefer to go fluffy and use a DE fort, but there is none, they can homebrew some rules and build their own, but they can't then use it anywhere else outside their gaming group. Or may be, for balancing reasons, make some sorta nids-themed fortification, may be they'll still have pathetic BS, but is offset by some other means that benefit the nids. Nids players will then be happy to buy more nids models(as their army isn't being shatted on as much), and they can get some cool forts and join the cool kids.

It's just that at the moment, there is only Imperium fortifications? It'd be like if they made flyers rules, but only Imperium gets them, and then tell the non-Imperium armies to just buy the Imperium flyers, use them as the same point cost but with penalty in other stats....

Baronyu wrote:
It's just that at the moment, there is only Imperium fortifications? It'd be like if they made flyers rules, but only Imperium gets them, and then tell the non-Imperium armies to just buy the Imperium flyers, use them as the same point cost but with penalty in other stats....

How's anyone recieving a penalty to stats by buying a fortification?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Baronyu wrote:
It's just that at the moment, there is only Imperium fortifications? It'd be like if they made flyers rules, but only Imperium gets them, and then tell the non-Imperium armies to just buy the Imperium flyers, use them as the same point cost but with penalty in other stats....

How's anyone recieving a penalty to stats by buying a fortification?

It's a point to usage comparison really, a shooty army, say kabal DE using fortification can get more usage out of it than say, a nids army: The DE army would get cover saves for all the shooty units lined up behind the walls, will do so for as long as the walls stand, and guess what? They totally would do that, because they can do serious damage from afar... you know, being gunners and all. And they get to use their own BS4 for the AA guns as well. While a nids army wouldn't benefit as much from the covers provided by the fortification, being that they need to charge out of it to do their damage, but not only that, they are using BS2 for AA as well. So for the same point cost, nids are getting the much shorter end. I'm not even using an imperium army in my example, and it's still obvious that some armies don't get as much out of the same point cost as other armies do. Isn't that a bit unfair?

Or hell, just read the arguments above.

And for the record, I play DE and I don't care about the fluff, so I totally benefit from whatever Imperium fortifications they want me to buy. But I just think, as a player, an artist and an amateur game maker, I'd rather see more interesting designs for fortifications rather than just a lazy one-cost-for-all one-design-for-all fortification rule.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or, you know, there'll be fortifications in the Codices... but no, GW are obviously stupid and need to be punished!

Oh yeah, most everyone gets useable forts but Tyranid players just need to wait 2-3 years. That's a great solution.

i see nothing wrong with forts. if you want to spend 50-300 pts of your army in a static structure, that you cant place an objeective in, and cant move - go for it. yea it benefits gunlines more, but the objective game, wich is everything makes it kind of counter productive. stay in your fort and survive, or leave it and try to win. the firepower they put out is .... well minimal really. cover saves are nice, but in the big sceme they dont replace the 300 pts spent or sacrificed. you could get alot more units for 300 pts, and those units could very well break said fort, and win the game.

to me, this is just another case of "i dont know how to beat this - so it must be overpoweredbrokencheesyunfairness and gw hates my army syndrome."

change tatics. adapt to the new changes - and everything will be fine.

Baronyu wrote:
All I'm saying is that if they want to push fortifications, make it balanced and interesting. May be some people prefer to go fluffy and use a DE fort, but there is none,.

And the silly arguments continue....

"Fluffy" and "Dark Eldar fort" in the same sentence? They're fething piratical raiders! DE are NEVER on the defensive, it's been right there since their inception. In any mission with attackers and defenders, DE were always the attacker. In what universe do DE have fortifications?

yea.. i'm not a fan of fortifications being a blanket cost.. i mostly am an ork player and realize I can take gretchin for bs3 but i still pay the same cost for the fort as another army te can fire at bs 4

yes i am manning it with lower cost models but grot blastas are so terrible i might as well just say i am just paying 40 of my points for manning a fortification

take that against a scout squad manning the same fort the sarg gets on the aa gun and the scounts get thier 4 sniper shots at bs4 ... hell of a deal for 35 mroe points

60mm wrote:

rand2810 wrote:Orks normaly shoots at BS 2
Marines Normally shoots at BS4

Both shoots at BS1 against flyer, but marines paid more points for "wasted" bs; how is it fair?

Fortication shooting with Models BS somehow balance this

You just topped my list of stupid arguments because I have a feeling you think that logic makes sense. Wow.

It is worth pointing out (since I've not noticed it discussed elsewhere) that - ignoring the fortifications context - that 6th edition's rules for overwatch and firing on flyers do seem to more greatly benefit (or less strongly penalise) armies with higher model counts (and correspondingly lower-BS troops); given that points costs have not changed, this does strike me as less than favourable inclined to game balance as a whole.

In the case of fortifications, yes, given that low-BS troops pay less for their heavy weapons, there should probably be a small points reduction in their cost for armies with a low overall BS.

In the past terrain was purely incidental to the advantageous placement and table side selection... now some of the "imbalance" created by the advantage of terrain carries a point cost. So when you way the "imbalance" you have to consider that to a degree you are paying for something you used to get for free.

Here is why its one value... a fort is a fort, no matter who is using it. The BS is incidental to who is in the fort which can change between games for the same army or even over the course of a game. The fortifications are more useful for some, but the assumption of imbalance asserts an absolutist perspective on fairness, when the plain reality is that there is wiggle room. This wiggle room is something that the Grey Knight's codex takes plenty advantage of in a fluffy sort of way. Even the extremes of "imbalance" don't occur that often. For example if both players use fortification while playing similar armies does it really matter?-The fact that 60% of the armies in the game are MEQ mean the vast majority of the time the issue is moot.

This is the baseline game, but there is every implication that GW will consider army specific terrain kits with the release of new codices, so it boils down to what its always boiled down to, we need to wait for the respective codex updates to see how GW attempts to retain something resembling "balance."

These rules change the game, plain and simple. If you don't like the way the game plays as a result thats one thing but I believe GW's handled these fortifications very well. If you play enough games with them you can realize how quickly they can be countered or mitigated just by virtue of their static nature and that the placement of other terrain occurs after their placement. The basic rock-paper-scissors premise has had one more option thrown in.

G00fySmiley wrote:yea.. i'm not a fan of fortifications being a blanket cost.. i mostly am an ork player and realize I can take gretchin for bs3 but i still pay the same cost for the fort as another army te can fire at bs 4

yes i am manning it with lower cost models but grot blastas are so terrible i might as well just say i am just paying 40 of my points for manning a fortification

take that against a scout squad manning the same fort the sarg gets on the aa gun and the scounts get thier 4 sniper shots at bs4 ... hell of a deal for 35 mroe points

If you took a Quad-gun with the Bastion, that's be decent anti-air with 4 shots at BS 3. But then I guess an Aegis Defense Lines does it cheaper.

"Fluffy" and "Dark Eldar fort" in the same sentence? They're fething piratical raiders! DE are NEVER on the defensive, it's been right there since their inception. In any mission with attackers and defenders, DE were always the attacker. In what universe do DE have fortifications?

Their own universe? They have some at their home after all which they were using when the Space Marines suddenly showed up dead smack in the middle of their main city.

Essentially your opponent does not want you to have the ability to kill his fmc.

As buildings etc are not with opponents permission just tell him he cant use his fmc

Grimtuff wrote:

Baronyu wrote:
All I'm saying is that if they want to push fortifications, make it balanced and interesting. May be some people prefer to go fluffy and use a DE fort, but there is none,.

And the silly arguments continue....

"Fluffy" and "Dark Eldar fort" in the same sentence? They're fething piratical raiders! DE are NEVER on the defensive, it's been right there since their inception. In any mission with attackers and defenders, DE were always the attacker. In what universe do DE have fortifications?

You've obviously never heard of the attacks on Commorragh by the Salamanders, Silver Skulls and Howling Griffins in M35... that would be the 40k universe btw. Incidentally, there was a second incursion also by the Salamanders in Firedrake, in order to rescue one of their Chaplains. I think the latter one occurred sometime in M41

clively wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:

Baronyu wrote:
All I'm saying is that if they want to push fortifications, make it balanced and interesting. May be some people prefer to go fluffy and use a DE fort, but there is none,.

And the silly arguments continue....

"Fluffy" and "Dark Eldar fort" in the same sentence? They're fething piratical raiders! DE are NEVER on the defensive, it's been right there since their inception. In any mission with attackers and defenders, DE were always the attacker. In what universe do DE have fortifications?

You've obviously never heard of the attacks on Commorragh by the Salamanders, Silver Skulls and Howling Griffins... that would be the 40k universe btw.

And to bring up the fact, that sometimes if they feel they can get more slaves they'll often bunker down and wait out in secret for a team to check up on the fort, so they'll occupy a previous area and use it's own weapons against someone else.