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.

Can a fortification hold and objective? This gets silly cause the Acquilla Strongpoint has a foot print so large it can sometimes sit on 2.

Fairly certain this was FAqed somewhere to be no.

Yes?

Tyranid sporocysts can, but they are fortification monstrous creatures.

If the AS is treated as a vehicle it can hold objectives. If its a building then it cant.

It is kinda both. Its has building keyword and the transport keyword. If its is in an FaQ they cant I need to know which one as I am running an event this weekend and have several people that like to use fortification shennaigans.

 Lance845 wrote:
Fairly certain this was FAqed somewhere to be no.

You're thinking of Sudden Death I believe.

I checked the FAQs (though I might have missed it) and there is no mention of Fortifications not being able to claim objectives.

None of the Take and Hold objectives in the missions, nor the errata that added "Unless otherwise stated, a player controls an objective marker if they have more models within 3" of the centre of it than their opponent" denies fortifications the ability to hold and contest objectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Duncan2474 wrote:
It is kinda both. Its has building keyword and the transport keyword. If its is in an FaQ they cant I need to know which one as I am running an event this weekend and have several people that like to use fortification shennaigans.

Your Event, Your House Rules. Simply make a call that Fortifications of any kind cannot contest objectives if that is what you want, since GW seems to have forgotten to do that.

The rulebook doesn't seem to limit fortifications from claiming objectives, but since its only 1 model, bringing 2 models near the objective would over take the control from it.

 skchsan wrote:
The rulebook doesn't seem to limit fortifications from claiming objectives, but since its only 1 model, bringing 2 models near the objective would over take the control from it.

This is a fair point, so it's not as much of a problem as it might otherwise suggest.

Anything that limits how many markers a unit can control. Such as the strongpoint, or a mob of 30 orks...if strung out can the same unit hold both?

Duncan2474 wrote:
Anything that limits how many markers a unit can control. Such as the strongpoint, or a mob of 30 orks...if strung out can the same unit hold both?

No. No limits on how many objectives one unit can hold. Holding an objective is determined only by how many models you have nearby.

Duncan2474 wrote:
Anything that limits how many markers a unit can control. Such as the strongpoint, or a mob of 30 orks...if strung out can the same unit hold both?

No limits. A strung out unit of Boyz can control and infinite amount of objectives. And thanks to Chapter Approved they are ObjSec too!

I'd have thought a bunker would be a great way to hold a strategic battlefield point myself... maybe it's less of an oversight and more of a "well of course they can!"

Is there anything around the <unaligned> faction keyword a lot of them have? can't see anything myself

 Latro_ wrote:
Is there anything around the <unaligned> faction keyword a lot of them have? can't see anything myself

Other than UNALIGNED being ignored for what keyword your detachment has in common (i.e. models that are UNALIGNED can be included in any detachment without penalty), no.

214 BRB wrote:All of the units in a matched play army, with the exception of those that are UNALIGNED, must have at least one Faction keyword in common (e.g. IMPERIUM or CHAOS), even though they may be in different Detachments.

So I don't think they can hold "objective points" BUT in games like strong hold assault they can contest zones.

The only nerf on fortifications im aware of is

If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one player has no models on the battle field, the game ends immediately and their opponent automatically wins a crushing victory. When determining if a player has any units on the battle field, do not include any units with the Flyer Battlefield Role – these units cannot operate within a combat airspace indefinitely and they cannot hold territory without ground support. Furthermore, do not include any units with the Fortification Battlefield Role unless they have a unit embarked inside – even the most formidable bastion requires a garrison if it is to pose a threat.’

so they are treated like any other model with respect to objective control

Well, if it's not being treated as a unit on the battlefield if there's nobody inside, then it seems itt wouldn't be counting as a unit/ model on the battlefield to be able to hold an objective.

It's 2 different rules. The rule you're using refers only to whether a person is "tabled" or not. There is a separate rule that states what can or can not hold an objective. That rule specifically says that flyers may not hold objectives. It is silent as to fortress models. Since the fortresses are not excluded from holding objectives they must be able to do just that.

To be honest there is actually precedent they count as friendly models since the defence line specifically states that it isnt.

plonking on on top of an actual objective is a bit 'off' imo.

 Latro_ wrote:
plonking on on top of an actual objective is a bit 'off' imo.

But precisely what people will do if they are considered able to hold objectives.

Which they are, as nothing tells us otherwise.

Still loving this idea that people think fortifications shouldn't be able to hold a strategic point... the thing fortifications are quite literally built to do.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Which they are, as nothing tells us otherwise.

Still loving this idea that people think fortifications shouldn't be able to hold a strategic point... the thing fortifications are quite literally built to do.

This, a fortification sat on top of an objective essentially becomes the objective.

It also counts as a single model, and its not a troop choice, so unless it is literally big enough to keep other units away its not hard to take from it given IIRC embarked units wouldn't count.

Plus they can be destroyed, not seeing the problem really, if you're opponent shows up with a bastion or three when you drop objectives down make sure you put a few where they cannot have a tower or whatever plonked on top of it.

Given how sodding expensive most fortifications are you’d be doing your opponent a favour by taking one. They aren’t that hard to kill, have no worthwhile shooting, can’t move and are hit automatically in assault, and only count as one model for contesting objectives.

I could see myself using one as a firebase for a shooty unit, maybe..., but the enemy just has to saunter over to a fortification and ignore its guns to claim the objective if there isn’t a decently shooty (read expensive) unit in there. If the enemy has a -1 or -2 to hit (easy to get in 8th) the fortification isn’t going to hit jack.

Some can be destroyed some can't. It's possible in 8th to bring a Aegis Defense Line, make it your Warlord, and then stick it on an objective.

Just saying.

From now on, my warlord will be a deep-striking nurgle tree.

There's DEFINITELY a rule somewhere that says they can't hold an objective - I'm going to dig through the BRB now but I can literally picture the bit of the page in my mind, it says something along the lines of "Remember, a fortification can never hold an objective without models inside it - even the most impressive fortress cannot hold territory with noone to man it". Going to look now.

EDIT: I am catastrophically wrong. Apparently you can just throw down an unmanned defence line or some trees and hold the objective. What the gakk, GW?

.. pretty sure defence lines and trees become terrain when deployed and can't contest anything.
Buildings on the other hand

It can be your warlord as it counts as a modrl in your army till deployment. At that point it becomes terrain and while it remains your warlord it is no longer in your army and cant hokd an objective

Both the tree and the ADL are neither friendly nor enemy models after deploying them, so no capturing objectives.

The gun emplacement of the ADL and any other destructible fortification is one friendly model near an objective for all intends and purposes.

 Jidmah wrote:
From now on, my warlord will be a deep-striking nurgle tree.

Here I am searching for what type of terrain rules my Feculent Gnarlmaw is supposed to abide by, and all of a sudden I have an invulnerable warlord?
edit: actually just tell me what type of terrain this tree is, dammit.

It's just "terrain" you can go up and over it by RAW, tho it'll usually be easier to go around .
Yes you can make it your immortal warlord, but you probably shouldn't if you want any opponents.