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, I have a question for TOs about fortifications, that has kept me in the dark.

Most 40k tournament formats allow you to included a Bastion in your army list as an option for a fortification option. Surprisingly though, the Imperial Bunker is not included. I'm just curious as to specifically why it isn't allowed in most cases?

I'll point out the differences between the two aforementioned:

●The Bastion's base point cost is 75 pts; the Bunker is 55 pts, respectively

●The Bastion comes equipped with 4 heavy bolters; the Bunker has no default weapons

●The Bunker has "Wide fire points" special rule (4 models may use a fire point, instead of the standard 2); the Bastion does not

Otherwise, statistical they are identical (AVs, capacity, battlements, upgrades, etc...). Physical, the Bunker is longer, while the Bastion is taller. The only discretions between the two are, you pay 20 more points for the Bastion's heavy bolters, minus Wide fire points.

Is this a wide enough disparity to largely restrict Imperial Bunkers from play?

While we're on the topic. Typically, in these same formats that don't include Bunkers, they also limit fortification upgrades to only the options listed in the BRB. Is this also another huge leap in balance, warranting further restriction? I can understand the stream of thought to support their exclusion, since the 7th edition rules in the BRB were intended for a wholesale update on fortifications in general. But, otherwise is there any other reason for this limitation too?

I'm just curious to the individual rationalization on the matter among the TOs community, rather than its debate or suggestion on the issue.

Thanks in advance.

I think it mainly has to do with the fact that it was one of the three included in the rule book last edition and the other one was not