Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2021/09/09 12:21:29
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk
|
More and more armies are getting fortifications, and in my gaming group more and more people are grumbling about not being able to use them properly. So, why do fortifications need fixing? Simply put, because when deploying them you need to stay 3" away from other terrain features. Most fortifications seem to be squares or circles of roughly 6" across, so to deploy any of them you need a 12" diameter of empty space on your board, something not happening regularly on good tables. And even if it does, the immobile fortification often has to be deployed in a corner where it has next to no impact. Why did GW implement this limitation? Because people were deep striking Feculent Gnarlmaw (aka "Nurgle Tree") with Denizens of the Warp to wall off parts of the board with indestructible terrain. Blocking movement paths, creating artificial choke points or long impassible walls when combined with other terrain was great utility, but clearly not in the indention of the creators. Similar shenanigans are possible with many other fortifications, especially the indestructible ones. So, how do we get fortifications back into our games? There were a couple of ideas, but none without drawbacks: 1) Keep the 3" for indestructible terrain, remove it for anything with a wounds value. Well, this obviously fixes some of the fortifications, but keeps others, like the gnarlmaw or ADL unusable. 2) Make all terrain destructible. When you can just blow up what's in the way, there should be no issue with blocking and no more need for the 3" rule. The downside is that you'd have to find useable values for terrain that doesn't have according datasheets yet and for some multi-piece fortifications like the ADL or the mek workshop this approach is rather messy. You also need a solution for what happens to units stationed on terrain like skyshields. 3) Reserve a "slot" on the board for fortifications. In a central position in your deployment zone you reserve space where you can either place fortification or your choice of ruins, industrial terrain or a forest. The drawback is that not every fortification needs or wants to be in such a position, and a free ruin in such a position might often be a better choice than a fortification costing points. There also is a huge difference in space needed between deploying an ADL or a Fortress of Redemption. So, what do you think? Other suggestions? Has anyone successfully implemented house rules to make them viable options of their corresponding armies? For me a solution doesn't have to be super competitive, being able to run them in a crusade campaign without the models being useless or auto-destroyed in most games would already be a huge step up. It should work for all kinds of fortifications though, be it an ADL, bastion, skyshield, fortress of redemption or mekboy workshop. Any solution related to not playing 9th edition of 40k is explicitly off topic for this thread. Obviously this does not apply to trying to make rules from a past editions work for 9th.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/09 12:23:12
7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. |
|
|
|
2021/09/09 12:28:51
Subject: Re:Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
House rule for your gaming group? Ignore the 3" restriction.
Alternatively, allow the fortification to remove one piece of terrain that would conflict with it's deployment.
|
|
|
|
2021/09/09 12:37:13
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Sure Space Wolves Land Raider Pilot
Somerdale, NJ, USA
|
Unless you are playing on a themed board or in a narrative campaign personally I'd be fine with replacing a piece of terrain, specifically in your own deployment zone, with a fortification.
Ex: You pay for your army to use a Bunker. From fluff, said preformed Bunker is dropped from low orbit and lands on a small Ruin. Ruin is destroyed by the impact, making a spot for the bunker.
|
"The only problem with your genepool is that there wasn't a lifeguard on duty to prevent you from swimming."
"You either die a Morty, or you live long enough to see yourself become a Rick."
- 8k /// - 5k /// - 5k /// - 6k /// - 6k /// - 4k /// - 4k /// Cust - 3k |
|
|
|
2021/09/09 12:39:42
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Bamberg / Erlangen
|
Nobody ever used fortifications in our group yet, so we didn't have to think about it.
The way I would approach is:
- Build up your battlefield as normal, decide for deployment zones.
- Set up your fortification models, removing intervening terrain where necessary.
- Rearrange the removed terrain so both deployment zones still look balanced again.
So kinda like your 3rd idea.
Which idea worked best for you so far?
|
|
|
|
|
2021/09/09 12:43:33
Subject: Re:Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
JakeSiren wrote:House rule for your gaming group? Ignore the 3" restriction.
Alternatively, allow the fortification to remove one piece of terrain that would conflict with it's deployment.
but this only helps armies with faction fortifications. On top of that there is a big difference between replacing some small pice of terrain and replacing it with the gigantic SoB stature with an additional entire building that comes with it.
|
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. |
|
|
|
2021/09/09 12:43:46
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Drop the 3" restriction, but require indestructible fortifications to be placed wholly within your deployment zone. No deep strike of any kind unless the datasheet explicitly comes with an ability that allows it.
I'd love for terrain as a whole to be malleable, but frankly thats a scope of change that's going to have massive knock-on effects and shouldn't just be stapled on to make a small number of useless datasheets slightly less useless.
|
|
|
|
2021/09/09 13:33:21
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Never Forget Isstvan!
|
They need to add classifications to fortifications.
a:Instillation-Instillation fortifications are deployed after the mission has been determined and objectives have been placed. You may replace one terrain feature of similar size with said fortification. Either player can enter the fortification, but only the purchasing player gets to use any weapons or extra features granted by the fortification.
b:Support-Support fortifications are deployed after the attacker and defender has been decided and deployment zones have been selected. You can place these down anywhere on your half of the table that is more than 3" from any current terrain feature or objective.
|
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG |
|
|
|
2021/09/09 13:38:58
Subject: Re:Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
Just pretend GW didn't speak & ignore the 3" rule.
Sometimes you might need to use common sense as to where something could/could not be placed.
|
|
|
|
2021/09/09 13:43:09
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba
|
typically when I want to play with fortifications, we use a houserule - "Neutral Fortifications."
Basically, neither player pays for the fortifications and we set it up somewhere on the centreline of the board at an agreed-upon location.
at the end of each battle round, we test for control of the fortification as if it were an Objective Marker, with the additional rule that embarked models count as models within 3". If neither player controls it, it does nothing.
If a player controls it, then it gains their <subfaction> keyword and acts as a part of their army in the next battle round.
|
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!" |
|
|
|
2021/09/09 15:03:11
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Borrow rule from aos3. Can't fit faction terrain? Replace existing terrain piece with 1
|
2024 painted/bought: 109/109 |
|
|
|
2021/09/09 15:07:47
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I'd have players set up the table together, each taking turns to place a single piece of terrain until both parties were satisfied with terrain density.
If you choose to set up a fortification, you've chosen your board edge. This means there's some strategy in when you deploy your fortification- do it before the table takes shape, and you've signaled your intention to your opponent. Wait too long, and you might end up without a place to put your fortification.
This probably doesn't work if you play against strangers who game for advantage, at tournaments or possibly even in stores. This is just one more reason why I rarely, if ever, do any of these things.
I realize not everyone is so fortunate.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/09 15:08:37
|
|
|
|
2021/09/09 19:57:11
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
For at least some fortifications the fix is easy; Hammerfall Bunkers have no business being fortifications in the first place. That thing is obviously a Primaris Drop Pod that someone chickened out on releasing with the original rules.
|
|
|
|
|
2021/09/10 05:46:48
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
The ITC player placed terrain rules fixed the issue, IIRC the winner of one of their tournaments used the SoB fortification. I haven't read the terrain pack but I imagine you'd be able to bring a Tesseract Vault as well, which is impossible on some of the stupidly overcrowded tournament tables.
Even with the 3" limitation bigger models are still screwed over, which is why I think all terrain should be destructible. My gaming group back in 6th or 7th honestly thought every ruin was destructible for a short while, it was great fun having to decide whether it was worth it to open a new firing lane, at the cost of your shooting and possibly letting your opponent gun you harder.
In casual games I'd just get whoever is setting up terrain make sure that both players get to play with their toys. Not that I play anything other than casual games since 9th takes no care to be balanced enough for competitive play, which this thread clearly shows with a whole battlefield role being not just underpowered but often entirely useless.
|
|
|
|
2021/09/10 05:55:58
Subject: Re:Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk
|
JakeSiren wrote:House rule for your gaming group? Ignore the 3" restriction.
ccs wrote:Just pretend GW didn't speak & ignore the 3" rule.
Sometimes you might need to use common sense as to where something could/could not be placed.
As Voltaire said, common sense isn't common at all. When you ignore the rule you still run into issues like defilers, buggies or knights being locked in one quarter of the board because a fortification piece is blocking the only path between otherwise impassible terrain pieces like ruins or containers.
The consensus in our group is that the rule in general is a good thing to have. Automatically Appended Next Post: a_typical_hero wrote:Nobody ever used fortifications in our group yet, so we didn't have to think about it.
The way I would approach is:
- Build up your battlefield as normal, decide for deployment zones.
- Set up your fortification models, removing intervening terrain where necessary.
- Rearrange the removed terrain so both deployment zones still look balanced again.
So kinda like your 3rd idea.
Which idea worked best for you so far?
Actually the first one, though it left some fortifications unusable. Destructible terrain is great fun, but you need to add a slew of extra rules to make terrain interact with close combat, as you don't want people to charge/pile-in/consolidate terrain for extra movement, have things locked in combat with terrain, etc, etc. We tried it once and it was a super silly hilarious game, but nothing that worked out of the box. If you want to have a not-so-serious fun game I suggest you try it.
We tried 3), but one player commented that while he did deploy his Noctilith Crown anyways, plonking down a ruin in that slot and having the crown destroyed would have been the superior choice for his game. Automatically Appended Next Post: Sterling191 wrote:Drop the 3" restriction, but require indestructible fortifications to be placed wholly within your deployment zone. No deep strike of any kind unless the datasheet explicitly comes with an ability that allows it.
I don't think that fixes everything, both because some fortifications can "deep strike" (nurgle trees can be planted by that snail demon), and because you can still have situations where people can wall off parts of their deployment zones to make units uncharge-able. For example a pair of ADLs can prevent a mech army from entering your deployment zone completely.
I'd love for terrain as a whole to be malleable, but frankly thats a scope of change that's going to have massive knock-on effects and shouldn't just be stapled on to make a small number of useless datasheets slightly less useless.
Yep, that was my experience as well. We gave terrain wounds based on their size (length*width/2) and toughness/armor save based on their terrain type (ruins T8/4+, industrial structures T7/3+, etc). It was great fun, but a complete mess of a game balancewise. Automatically Appended Next Post: Eihnlazer wrote:They need to add classifications to fortifications.
a:Instillation-Instillation fortifications are deployed after the mission has been determined and objectives have been placed. You may replace one terrain feature of similar size with said fortification. Either player can enter the fortification, but only the purchasing player gets to use any weapons or extra features granted by the fortification.
b:Support-Support fortifications are deployed after the attacker and defender has been decided and deployment zones have been selected. You can place these down anywhere on your half of the table that is more than 3" from any current terrain feature or objective.
I'm not sure how that solves any of the problems we are having. Care to elaborate? Automatically Appended Next Post: tneva82 wrote:Borrow rule from aos3. Can't fit faction terrain? Replace existing terrain piece with 1
How does that work in detail? It also was suggested by others, can you point me to the corresponding rule? Automatically Appended Next Post: PenitentJake wrote:I'd have players set up the table together, each taking turns to place a single piece of terrain until both parties were satisfied with terrain density.
If you choose to set up a fortification, you've chosen your board edge. This means there's some strategy in when you deploy your fortification- do it before the table takes shape, and you've signaled your intention to your opponent. Wait too long, and you might end up without a place to put your fortification.
This probably doesn't work if you play against strangers who game for advantage, at tournaments or possibly even in stores. This is just one more reason why I rarely, if ever, do any of these things.
I realize not everyone is so fortunate.
I think this also might be a solution for us, I'll give it a try. Thanks for sharing.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/09/10 06:09:49
7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. |
|
|
|
2021/09/10 06:25:49
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I like the idea of replacing a piece of terrain with a fortification. But I would probably add two rules.
1. The fortification cannot be larger than the terrain piece you are replacing. Yes, this might affect some of the super huge fortifications, but they seem to be made more for special built narrative tables anyway. I mean, given the size of a skyshield landing pad... I really don't think that kind of stuff should be a regular part of every single battlefield.
2. You cannot replace a terrain piece that is in your opponent's deployment zone. So, you can set up and replace your fortification anywhere else, even in the midfield, but then you risk it getting taken over or destroyed easily. Or you can replace a terrain piece in your own deployment zone of equal or bigger size. So, you want to put down your bastion? Replace that nice ruin you had previously in your deployment zone on the table.
|
|
|
|
2021/09/10 06:47:32
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Eldenfirefly wrote:I like the idea of replacing a piece of terrain with a fortification. But I would probably add two rules.
1. The fortification cannot be larger than the terrain piece you are replacing. Yes, this might affect some of the super huge fortifications, but they seem to be made more for special built narrative tables anyway. I mean, given the size of a skyshield landing pad... I really don't think that kind of stuff should be a regular part of every single battlefield.
2. You cannot replace a terrain piece that is in your opponent's deployment zone. So, you can set up and replace your fortification anywhere else, even in the midfield, but then you risk it getting taken over or destroyed easily. Or you can replace a terrain piece in your own deployment zone of equal or bigger size. So, you want to put down your bastion? Replace that nice ruin you had previously in your deployment zone on the table.
Regarding #2 that's the AOS style. You still need to replace terrain piece that allows you to put faction terrain where it can be placed. As you deploy faction terrain to your territory...
|
2024 painted/bought: 109/109 |
|
|
|
2021/09/10 06:59:54
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk
|
Eldenfirefly wrote:I like the idea of replacing a piece of terrain with a fortification. But I would probably add two rules. 1. The fortification cannot be larger than the terrain piece you are replacing. Yes, this might affect some of the super huge fortifications, but they seem to be made more for special built narrative tables anyway. I mean, given the size of a skyshield landing pad... I really don't think that kind of stuff should be a regular part of every single battlefield. 2. You cannot replace a terrain piece that is in your opponent's deployment zone. So, you can set up and replace your fortification anywhere else, even in the midfield, but then you risk it getting taken over or destroyed easily. Or you can replace a terrain piece in your own deployment zone of equal or bigger size. So, you want to put down your bastion? Replace that nice ruin you had previously in your deployment zone on the table. I really like those rules, especially the part about the deployment zones. I'd probably change it like this: 1) Keep the 3" rule as is. 2) If you deploy inside your own deployment zone you can remove any number of terrain pieces to fit your fortification. 3) If you deploy outside of your own deployment zone, you can remove a single piece of terrain to fit your fortification. @tneva what kinds of terrain cannot be replaced in AOS?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/10 07:00:29
7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. |
|
|
|
2021/09/10 12:52:24
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Lord of the Fleet
|
I'd also add a rule for automated weapons, where a unit embarked can use it's BS on a fixed weapon at the cost of it's own shooting. Bit ridiculous when you pay the points for an Icarus Lascannon or Tidewall Railgun and it still only hits on 5+
|
|
|
|
2021/09/10 22:02:19
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba
|
If someone told me my defiler couldn't leave 1/4 of the board because he can't touch terrain, I'd just look him in the eye while walking his little magnetized legs around the terrain like nothing in the rules say I can't do.
|
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!" |
|
|
|
2021/09/10 22:55:49
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
the_scotsman wrote:If someone told me my defiler couldn't leave 1/4 of the board because he can't touch terrain, I'd just look him in the eye while walking his little magnetized legs around the terrain like nothing in the rules say I can't do.
You better remember to be paying the movement to move those pieces of the model while you do. And do it with a smile, mister.
|
|
|
|
2021/09/11 20:57:09
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter
|
the_scotsman wrote:If someone told me my defiler couldn't leave 1/4 of the board because he can't touch terrain, I'd just look him in the eye while walking his little magnetized legs around the terrain like nothing in the rules say I can't do.
Vehicles and units can move through terrain if they actually fit [so like, craters and the edges of forests]. You cannot move through objects that you can't actually get through.
|
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! |
|
|
|
2021/09/11 21:26:55
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk
|
Well, if your fortification is an obstacle, you can move across it by spending sufficient movement to move up one side and down the other, but that usually is the same as not being able to move across.
Other terrain, like the ADL and the mek workshop's scrap heaps, have unstable position and difficult terrain, which has a very similar effect - your reduced movement is not sufficient to move across and you are not allowed to end your move on top of them.
|
7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. |
|
|
|
2021/09/13 00:37:58
Subject: Fixing fortifications in 9th
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Personally, I think the 3 inch should just be changed to 3 inch from an objective marker.
Then during deployment, if you have any terrain that has the building keyword (like a Bastion) you can swap that building with ruin/building currently in your deployment zone.
If your terrain is barricades (like the Aegis Defence Line) then it can be placed anywhere as long as it's 3 inch away from an objective.
|
|
|
|
|