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.

Hi
Has anyone tried out the Hammerfall Bunker.
For me it sounds like a solid option with the heavy bolter array.
In 2k game I easily see it has 5-10 valid targets.

The biggest issue is that if you're adhering to the terrain FAQ it's effectively impossible to place.

The datasheet is alright. Not being able to move will be rough sometimes, but its got good range. I think id generally rather take a tank, the Galdiators look good.

And yeah, deploy it will sometimes be pretty difficult...

It's quite awful IMHO.
Its firepower is similar to a Predator Annihilator, paying points for more resilience but trading movement 12 for movement 0.
The resilience is fairly pointless (what good is for it to remain alive if Fortifications can't control objectives) and being unable to move makes keeping LoS to valuable targets difficult.
No interesting special rules or stratagems are the nail in the coffin.
I wish they didn't half-ass its rules, as I main Imperial Fists. But they did.

 Nora wrote:
Hi
Has anyone tried out the Hammerfall Bunker.
For me it sounds like a solid option with the heavy bolter array.
In 2k game I easily see it has 5-10 valid targets.

It depends on how much terrain you have. It'll be insane on Planet Bowling Ball, good on a few big pieces and a scattering of low walls etc cover. If you sit there with a ruler putting things in a 12" by 12" grid like some sort of city planner it's going to be dead during deployment. (Fortifications can't deploy within 3? I think it's 3" of a (non-hill?) "terrain feature" like woods, low walls, buildings, etc.

The trick is to play friendly enough games your opponent wants you to be able to bring your toys and have fun too - without going full on Planet Bowling Ball. And then make sure when you set up scenery/terrain you include several possible spots for the Bunker to land - that way you have a choice and neither of you will set up knowing there's one and only one place to put it. The first thing I thought of when I saw the datasheet was sticking three of them (you can have one Formation with 3 of the Forts per) all next to each other on your deployment edge front and center. That's the extreme. All three cover just about every objective that way plus most of the space in between. That would likely be way too much, especially against MSU "hordes".

Theres plenty of stuff that is great or borderline broken on planet bowling ball, and yeah in that scenario the Bunker is OK.

But if you're on a table with a decent amount of terrain (which, really, there should be) it'll struggle both due to limiting where you can put it and it being easier for the enemy to keep units out of firing line. You can bet any objective markers the opponent places will be out of line of sight too.

Maybe stick a tech marine next to it and pump up its ballistic skill? IDK still seems bad just like all fortifications.

 Stux wrote:
Theres plenty of stuff that is great or borderline broken on planet bowling ball, and yeah in that scenario the Bunker is OK.

But if you're on a table with a decent amount of terrain (which, really, there should be) it'll struggle both due to limiting where you can put it and it being easier for the enemy to keep units out of firing line. You can bet any objective markers the opponent places will be out of line of sight too.

Objective markers are pre-placed now.

On the tables I play on, it is very hard to have them deployed, never mind deploy them in a such a way that they have valid firing lines to control.

Karol wrote:
On the tables I play on, it is very hard to have them deployed, never mind deploy them in a such a way that they have valid firing lines to control.

And it could be we've swung too far the other way. GW suggests one terrain piece per 12" by 12" square. That means one square might have an 8" by 4" ruin, while another has a 2" by 2" Promethium Pipe. If everything is giant ruins etc you're not going to have room, if you mix and match in the small pieces, you would. Even centering the 2x2 pieces would leave an 11 by 11 hole across 4 squares.

Edit to Add: Potentially another reason Tau are struggling.

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Theres plenty of stuff that is great or borderline broken on planet bowling ball, and yeah in that scenario the Bunker is OK.

But if you're on a table with a decent amount of terrain (which, really, there should be) it'll struggle both due to limiting where you can put it and it being easier for the enemy to keep units out of firing line. You can bet any objective markers the opponent places will be out of line of sight too.

Objective markers are pre-placed now.

Right, but if the marker is the other side of a wall from your deployment zone then your bunker will never have LoS on it.

 Stux wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Theres plenty of stuff that is great or borderline broken on planet bowling ball, and yeah in that scenario the Bunker is OK.

But if you're on a table with a decent amount of terrain (which, really, there should be) it'll struggle both due to limiting where you can put it and it being easier for the enemy to keep units out of firing line. You can bet any objective markers the opponent places will be out of line of sight too.

Objective markers are pre-placed now.

Right, but if the marker is the other side of a wall from your deployment zone then your bunker will never have LoS on it.

Don't you place scenery before determining mission, which determines where the objective markers are?