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.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rig,

There are more fortifications then a defense line, and the terrain trick is more likely to be pulled out on those that cost 100 points or more after gun encampment upgrades are purchased. That is a whole squad you could of taken, a squad you wouldn't have to deploy until you knew how the battlefield was going to be laid out. That is far more point effective then something which could be rendered impotent by a 0 point piece of terrain.

You have some massive terrain if its blocking Bastions from firing - and the FoR well... Lets just say I won't cry over that.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about hiding in the fortification or the defensive benefits. The line of sight blocking trick is used to prevent the fortifications gun encampments from firing, as Tzu has said far better that the best thing to do with an enemy cowering in fortifications is to leave them there. The only real use I can see for a fortification is the gun encampments which your side will start in possession of and have a firing platform that, outside of this blocking trick, would ensure a line of sight over much of the battlefield.

Tzu doesn't always apply in a wargame. And if that's the only way you see fortifications you're pretty short sighted.

Hell, if I wanted to cower in a building I would simply plop one down as terrain and use that... for free.

Amusingly you can do both - interesting concept, that.

One of us has a very low opinion of Games Workshop then, Insaniak. Although to be honest, I'm not really sure if it's you or me!

I have seen such terrain before, mostly because terrain is often home made. Some people really do want to have the 'cluttered city' feel when they design their ruins, standing them four or even five floors tall. I am one of them actually, I like the aesthetic appeal that comes with a battlefield designed to actually look as if we are fighting over something worth a damn. The large ruined city has a lot more narrative then a few small disconnected bombed out structures and a bunch of trees. If I ever get things sorted out, I'm going to build quite a few boards with preexisting terrain which embraces the very same narrative.


I know I will regret this but I feel the need to point it out:
Being able to simply do the same with a building piece, for free, sort of renders the whole concept of pay-to-use-and-likely-crippled-by-terrain fortifications irrelevant doesn't it?

The only thing you are paying for, when you purchase fortifications, is the ability to start with the gun upgrades on top of the fortification in question! Not only can you mimic the defensive capabilities by using buildings but you can even get the same advantage of defense lines and their gun encampments. In fact, when it comes to defense lines and gun emplacements you get three of the things for each single terrain piece. As long a your perfectly fine with the guns being three or more inches behind the defense line, there is no conflicts in the rules you need to worry about. As an extra bonus, not only do you get the advantage of these fortifications for free, but they are also taking up terrain slots so there is less chance for the enemy to simply 'terrain block' you.

You won't make any friends doing it, just like you won't make friends terrain blocking someones fortification, but it is perfectly legal for you to simply use terrain to get the very same effect as a fortification and it costs you nothing to do....

rigeld2 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

Thanks rigeld! That gives some nice perspective into your answers on this topic.

I'm not sure how to take that but ... you're welcome?

Seriously, your 50 point investment having some of its LoS blocked isn't the end of the world.

Don't worry, no sarcasm. It was a legitimate compliment. I like seeing the difference between how people approach the game in the YMDC forums and in real life. It gives some background to what they're saying.

 insaniak wrote:

silentone2k wrote:
In the rules it clearly states that fortifications are placed prior to terrain. Since the first time I saw that it's given me qualms, because if someone wants to be a jerk they can try to neutralize part of your army for free using that placement.

That's not 'being a jerk'... it's the entire point of placing terrain after fortifications.

This, a thousand times.

Placing fortifications before terrain seems to be a sloppy way of handling limited board real estate. As in, it ensures that there is a place that any fortification (remember, the fortress of redemption is pretty big) will actually physically fit. I honestly don't think the order of events was intended as a point of strategy.

 insaniak wrote:
Unless you're opponent is placing a giant piece of circular terrain that completely surrounds your fortification and blocks it completely from view, how are they negating your fortification with a single piece of terrain...?

In this case, dumping a spare bastion 3” in front of my ADL. Sure, the quad gun can now cover my rear- and that’s obviously what I need a skyfire/interceptor weapon with range to covers most of the board for…

rigeld2 wrote:

silentone2k wrote:
You don't often lose the roll to go first, do you...

About 50% of the time assuming everyone has fair dice…

For all the people asking why you’d put fortifications before terrain, this is what I assumed the first time I read the rule;

jmswargaming wrote:
Placing fortifications before terrain seems to be a sloppy way of handling limited board real estate. As in, it ensures that there is a place that any fortification (remember, the fortress of redemption is pretty big) will actually physically fit. I honestly don't think the order of events was intended as a point of strategy.

jmswargaming wrote:
Placing fortifications before terrain seems to be a sloppy way of handling limited board real estate. As in, it ensures that there is a place that any fortification (remember, the fortress of redemption is pretty big) will actually physically fit. I honestly don't think the order of events was intended as a point of strategy.

Placing fortifications last, and allowing you to swap the fortification with a piece of existing terrain would have accomplished that, if it were the actual aim.

JinxDragon wrote:

Being able to simply do the same with a building piece, for free, sort of renders the whole concept of pay-to-use-and-likely-crippled-by-terrain fortifications irrelevant doesn't it?

You're not paying for an AV14 building instead of an AV12 building? And seriously - stop with the exaggerating. If you buy the fortification with the express purpose of getting a free gun you're doing it wrong. Nothing is "crippled", its just not as useful.

Just to put my 2 cents in, I have at least one issue with this rule. It's mostly based of fluff, but here is the 1st one: Fortifications are built with terrain in mind. Why then would it even make sense to set up fortifications AFTER terrain?

Secondly, ever since I have started playing, at every store I have ever played at (Including GW stores) either the terrain was set up on the board before the game by other players (And always has been this way in tournaments, including 'Ard Boys) or we just set up terrain to both of our liking prior to even choosing what armies we wanted to play.

I have never seen terrain being placed as described earlier, and if I ever come across it, I probably wouldn't play the person. I play for the fun of the game, win or lose.

sirlynchmob wrote:
The terrain density roll will prevent this 1/2 the time though.

1 piece, you're good with a 2' square of clear LOS for your gun.
2 pieces, and you go first you make sure you populate the ADL box first and you're in the clear.
2 pieces & second, or 3 pieces and then it could be an issue depending on who you're playing and if he's trying to worry more about blocking your gun or providing usefull terrain for himself.

This pretty much, and if you do get the 3 peice one you can place a long flat peice of terrain like razor wire or something in front of your ADL to prevent your opponent for putting the mountain there.

We typically have a pool of matching terrain to select from otherwise the table looks stupid after random terrain.

This is why it bothers me:

1) An aegis line is some armies only defense vs flyers.

2) An Aegis is suppose a quickly erected defense piece. A mobile barrier. Who in the heck sets up a mobile barrier w/ and anti air defense gun behind a mountain or 3 story ruin. Some officer is getting demoted.

3) I really don't think that was intended by GW. There shouldn't be a way to just nullify points off anyone list. I use flyrants and that quad gun is a big deal vs me especially if I use a Harpy or 2 with them. I have never blocked it from my opponents use. It is a dirty move.


but... on the funny side in one tournament a large ruin was placed right in front of my bastion when I was playing my GKs and it only hurt my opponent b/c I had a Purg squad squad w/ a Inq w/ a Conversion Beamer I placed inside. He was a guard player w/ a parking lot. It was so funny. Now I have 10-1 blast in a 14 av building that gets a cover save and couldn't be hit by about half his parking lot. So what if my las cannon couldn't shoot at some of his parked vehicles now lol. What even better is the inquisitor rolled ignores cover for his psychic power. I had been waiting all day to get that.

I have yet to play a game where we follow the "normal" rules of placing fortifications before terrain; no one I've run into likes it.

Mainly because the whole concept of picking sides before terrain is placed is pointless. Let's see, do I want this side of the completely blank table or that side... The reason for forts before terrain appears to be there simply to allow the FoR to be dropped down as pretty much everything else can be put on a table without thinking too hard.

Either way, I prefer the way that appears to be more "real". Namely that the terrain is there first. Then you pick sides, drop the forts and move on.

The Terrian rules are messed up, but IMO they do make the setup part of the stratetgy(sp) of the game. Is it worth blocking the ADL Gun with a Large Building/Ruin or do I want LOS blocking terrian on my side to protect my Hive Tyrant from First round shooting, et al. I've never seen a piece of terrian that would block 100% of a FoR.

And if you wanted to get really silly, Quad Guns and Iccrius Las Cannons are Battlefield Debris, and you get to place 3 which counts as 1 terrian piece.

Tell me again, how blocking the ADL gun is overpowered.

 insaniak wrote:

jmswargaming wrote:
Placing fortifications before terrain seems to be a sloppy way of handling limited board real estate. As in, it ensures that there is a place that any fortification (remember, the fortress of redemption is pretty big) will actually physically fit. I honestly don't think the order of events was intended as a point of strategy.

Placing fortifications last, and allowing you to swap the fortification with a piece of existing terrain would have accomplished that, if it were the actual aim.

Hence, "sloppy." I think it's clear in 6th edition that GW tried their best to encourage non-highly competitive play, why would they wittingly introduce a mechanic that can be so readily exploited in such a way? Hanlon's razor and all that...

It is OP b/c how else can I place terrain and take 50pts off your list. Might as well set up your whole army then let me place terrain.

Bottom line is terrain shouldn't block any point expenditure what so ever.

It feels like the put fortifications in just to sell models and didn't both with them afterwards.

clively wrote:
I have yet to play a game where we follow the "normal" rules of placing fortifications before terrain; no one I've run into likes it.

Mainly because the whole concept of picking sides before terrain is placed is pointless. Let's see, do I want this side of the completely blank table or that side...

You pick sides before terrain because your fortification has to go in your half of the board. Which you couldn't do if you didn't know which half of the board was yours until after placing terrain...

Reg,

There are buildings with AV 14 which you can place for free, all you simply need to do is declare it is a bunker after all. There is no rules for what a bunker needs to look like, so you can make a tower bunker should you want all the benefits of a bastion with none of the cost. This isn't a ridiculous concept either, world war 2 saw the construction of some military bunkers that where also towers, all built to withstand large scale aerial bombings. There is nothing preventing you from having a bunker, or a complex of bunkers, with a lot more fire points and more defensive capability then a fortification begins with.

This is just to highlight how crippled fortifications are even before you take terrain blocking into account. The only thing fortifications do which terrain can not do is the ability to place the gun on top of a bastion or starting with two built into the redemption. If terrain blocking was a desired tactic that they meant for you to be able to use, then you have a big problem. That one major benefit is crippled, almost completely flushing the 'point worth' of a fortification down the toilet. It simply becomes something to try and scare the enemy out of approaching an area, which I feel is far better done by any mobile unit that has the same point cost.

There is no good reason to ever waste the points on fortifications.

JinxDragon wrote:
Reg,

There are buildings with AV 14 which you can place for free, all you simply need to do is declare it is a bunker. There is no rules for what a bunker needs to look like, so you can make a tower bunker if you want. This isn't a credulous concept either, world war 2 saw the construction of some military bunkers that where also towers, built to withstand bombings just like every other bunker.

You should probably read page 96, lower right corner. If you don't buy it, it's not AV14. Yay for actual rules!

I am just highlighting how crippled fortifications are to begin with, because they cost you points to do something you can easily do for free. The only thing fortifications do which terrain can not do is the ability to place the gun on top of a bastion or starting with two built into the redemption. When you take the 'terrain block' tactic into account it becomes even less desirable to ever use a fortification.

... And? That's like saying every codex selection should be equally viable. Let me cry while my Pyrovores are useless against Paladins.

There is no valid reason to ever waste the points on fortifications when you can get the same benefits for free.

Sure - but there's literally no way to get the same benefits "for free" if you use actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Reg,

There are buildings with AV 14 which you can place for free, all you simply need to do is declare it is a bunker. There is no rules for what a bunker needs to look like, so you can make a tower bunker if you want. This isn't a credulous concept either, world war 2 saw the construction of some military bunkers that where also towers, built to withstand bombings just like every other bunker.

You should probably read page 96, lower right corner. If you don't buy it, it's not AV14. Yay for actual rules!

To be fair, that is just for the fortifications in the BRB If you build a bunker yourself you can make it AV14 if you and your opponent agree. Or you can build it so it is just cover (2 stories high) and dub it a fortification so it has a 3+ cover save.

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
There is no valid reason to ever waste the points on fortifications when you can get the same benefits for free.

Sure - but there's literally no way to get the same benefits "for free" if you use actual rules.

For certain aspects there are.

You can have an AV 14 building on a battlefield. Only Fortifications in the BRB become dilapidated. Other buildings can have whatever AV you set, even 15 or 16 if you are so inclined to have an AV that high.

You can also get a cluster of up to 3 pieces of Battlefield Debris as a single terrain feature This includes walls and Gun Emplacements, so you can have a wall with 2 gun emplacements as a single element of terrain.

Reg,

I will give you that one, but only because we could spend days arguing over what a bunker is. There are no real definition in the book which states 'this is a bunker.' You could easily state that the term is used multiple times through the fortification section, so that it shows intent. I can easily point out that there are no fortification that is titled 'bunker' and simply receiving one as part of a fortification choice doesn't mean all bunkers are a fortification choice. It would go back and forth endlessly, because there is no outright definition of what a bunker is. It is easy to simply state a building is a bunker, just like it is simple to state a defense line placed as terrain isn't a fortification but battle field debris.

In the end it is losing a single point of armor value even yielding this point, as the building can be declared to be Plascrete which gives it 13.

It does get even more ridiculous if you reduce the argument to just a basic defense line like many people want to, simply because it is suffers the least amount of damage when terrain blocked so it seems a more reasonable argument for the pro side. I could put down a defense line with two gun encampments for free, not just the one fortifications leave you with, as part of the terrain choice. That three for one on debris really kicks the fortifications while they are down, making it ridiculous to ever take a defense line to begin with unless you know you are playing on pre-built boards which also renders 'terrain blocking' moot.

So why waste even 100 points on a fortification?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Reg,

There are buildings with AV 14 which you can place for free, all you simply need to do is declare it is a bunker. There is no rules for what a bunker needs to look like, so you can make a tower bunker if you want. This isn't a credulous concept either, world war 2 saw the construction of some military bunkers that where also towers, built to withstand bombings just like every other bunker.

You should probably read page 96, lower right corner. If you don't buy it, it's not AV14. Yay for actual rules!

To be fair, that is just for the fortifications in the BRB If you build a bunker yourself you can make it AV14 if you and your opponent agree. Or you can build it so it is just cover (2 stories high) and dub it a fortification so it has a 3+ cover save.

No, it's for all fortifications that you don't pay points for. All fortifications (buildings - there's no difference in the rules) that are neutral have a -2 AV.

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
There is no valid reason to ever waste the points on fortifications when you can get the same benefits for free.

Sure - but there's literally no way to get the same benefits "for free" if you use actual rules.

For certain aspects there are.

You can have an AV 14 building on a battlefield. Only Fortifications in the BRB become dilapidated. Other buildings can have whatever AV you set, even 15 or 16 if you are so inclined to have an AV that high.

The bolded is incorrect per the BRB, page 96 as I've cited. And the rules say that both players have to agree - meaning it's not likely you'll get an AV16 bunker "for free".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Reg,

It's Rig if you're going to shorten it. It's not like it's hard to see.

I will give you that one, but only because we could spend days arguing over what a bunker is. There are no real definition in the book which states 'this is a bunker.' You could easily state that the term is used multiple times through the fortification section, so that it shows intent. I can easily point out that there are no fortification that is titled 'bunker' and simply receiving one as part of a fortification choice doesn't mean all bunkers are a fortification choice.

All buildings follow the same rules - so a building you don't pay points for is dilapidated.

It does get even more ridiculous if you reduce the argument to just a basic defense line like many people want to, simply because it is suffers the least amount of damage when terrain blocked so it seems a more reasonable argument for the pro side. I could put down a defense line with two gun encampments for free, not just the one fortifications leave you with, as part of the terrain choice. That three for one on debris really kicks the fortifications while they are down, making it ridiculous to ever take a defense line to begin with unless you know you are playing on pre-built boards which also renders 'terrain blocking' moot.

So why waste even 100 points on something that you can get completely for free?

I don't think the length of a Defense Line is cited in the rules. I'll agree to give you a single 2" wall as one of your 3 selections.
These of course can still be blocked - and I can choose to deploy the guns you brought "for free" before you if I win the roll to place first.

But go ahead - keep playing the victim card - it makes you look much better.

well since we've moved on to designing our own terrain; For the ADL, instead of laying the wall out flat in a line, why not stack the pieces 3 or 4 sections high then place the gun on top?

Take one small section and make a platform up top for a model to stand on and be in b2b with the gun.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Reg,

There are buildings with AV 14 which you can place for free, all you simply need to do is declare it is a bunker. There is no rules for what a bunker needs to look like, so you can make a tower bunker if you want. This isn't a credulous concept either, world war 2 saw the construction of some military bunkers that where also towers, built to withstand bombings just like every other bunker.

You should probably read page 96, lower right corner. If you don't buy it, it's not AV14. Yay for actual rules!

To be fair, that is just for the fortifications in the BRB If you build a bunker yourself you can make it AV14 if you and your opponent agree. Or you can build it so it is just cover (2 stories high) and dub it a fortification so it has a 3+ cover save.

No, it's for all fortifications that you don't pay points for. All fortifications (buildings - there's no difference in the rules) that are neutral have a -2 AV.

This is not true.

The quote is "In the Choosing Your Army section(pg. 108) you'll see that you can add some buildings to your army, allowing your troops to deploy in and fight from a strong position. You might also use some of the fortifications as 'neutral' buildings on the battlefield."(96)

When they say, In the Choosing Your Army section (pg. 108) you'll see that you can add some buildings to your army, clearly they are talking about the buildings you can buy out of the BRB.

Page 92 states "Bunkers and bastions have an Armour Value of 14 all around. The Armour Values of other buildings may vary between 9 and 13 (see the chart below for some examples). The players must agree at the start of the game on the Armour Value of all buildings in use"

This is clearly where you find the rules for buildings that are not able to be added to your army.

rigeld wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
There is no valid reason to ever waste the points on fortifications when you can get the same benefits for free.

Sure - but there's literally no way to get the same benefits "for free" if you use actual rules.

For certain aspects there are.

You can have an AV 14 building on a battlefield. Only Fortifications in the BRB become dilapidated. Other buildings can have whatever AV you set, even 15 or 16 if you are so inclined to have an AV that high.

The bolded is incorrect per the BRB, page 96 as I've cited. And the rules say that both players have to agree - meaning it's not likely you'll get an AV16 bunker "for free".

The bolded is really not incorrect. Page 96 is only for Buildings that could be included as a part of your Force Org chart, as noted on Page 108-109. It has no effect on regular buildings.

While true it is not likely you'll get an AV16 bunker "for free" it could happen, though 14 or less is what most opponents will play with.

Rig,

Sorry, I typo often and it is even one reason why I edit things so much, seeing I proof read only a few times before posting then a few dozen times afterwards in worry that I have miscommunicated something.

The section you quoted states it is clearly designed for fortifications. While all fortifications are buildings, not all buildings are fortifications, so we can not apply this section unless it is something clearly flagged as a fortification. If it was to be applied it would clearly indicate it is talking about all buildings, but instead that section is worded to clearly indicate it is only talking about fortifications. It would play a big part in the AV section, something along the lines of pointing out the listed values are 'starting values' and should be decreased by 2 to show the buildings are dilapidated. But your quoted section is even titled fortifications and dilapidation, and all throughout it highlights this only affects those buildings which have the fortification flag and could of otherwise been purchased are destined for dilapidation.

Also victim card?

I don't see fortifications as worth their point value, therefore terrain blocking is not something I will encounter personally. I am against terrain blocking in principle because it is clearly bad sportsmanship, nothing more, to exploit this very available loophole in order to cripple your enemy. Twice so when your doing it before the game even begins! That is the biggest problem with fortifications being placed first, you are forced to show part of your hand before units even hit the table. To then use that knowledge in a way to cripple whatever tactic your opponent is trying to play is just wrong, in my opinion, even if you have the blessing of the rules.

At the end of the day this is just a game, and a purpose of a game is for both players to have fun and I am sure no one enjoys having their hard spent points crippled before turn one even starts.

JinxDragon wrote:
Also victim card?

Yes.

JinxDragon wrote:A non-jerk player should have no problem with this house rule but then you have sort of defeated the purposes with it.

JinxDragon wrote:That is where we start to encounter a problem: With fortifications being placed first you are no longer designing your tactics to fit the terrain!

JinxDragon wrote:It is the fact these things cost a huge amount of points and are immobile.

It isn't the sign of a better strategic mind, but a weaker one, as you no longer have to plan how to overcome your enemies forces....

JinxDragon wrote:If you take it into account the only answer you have is not to deploy fortifications.With all the other problems fortifications have, they don't need this as an 'additional limitation.' It would be the final nail for most players, and probably why many players do not use fortifications because they are can so easily be crippled.

JinxDragon wrote:That is far more point effective then something which could be rendered impotent by a 0 point piece of terrain. This trick simply ensures that no one would ever want to touch a fortification with a ten foot pole as it is points being sunk into something you would never have a chance to use.

JinxDragon wrote:Being able to simply do the same with a building piece, for free, sort of renders the whole concept of pay-to-use-and-likely-crippled-by-terrain fortifications irrelevant doesn't it?

JinxDragon wrote:This is just to highlight how crippled fortifications are even before you take terrain blocking into account.

There is no good reason to ever waste the points on fortifications.

JinxDragon wrote:So why waste even 100 points on a fortification?

I don't see fortifications as worth their point value

So you don't use them and haven't ever had Telion, a Vindicaire, or other powerful character snipe Warlords out of units. They are absolutely worth their point value (in fact, the ADL is undercosted imo) without being blocked and still strong if you block the gun.

I am against terrain blocking in principle because it is clearly bad sportsmanship, nothing more, to exploit this very available loophole in order to cripple your enemy. Twice so when your doing it before the game even begins! That is the biggest problem with fortifications being placed first, you are forced to show part of your hand before units even hit the table. To then use that knowledge in a way to cripple whatever tactic your opponent is trying to play is just wrong, in my opinion, even if you have the blessing of the rules.

I know your list before your models hit the table. By the time I'm deploying I've figured out what I'm going to do to try and win. How is that bad sportsmanship?

At the end of the day this is just a game, and a purpose of a game is for both players to have fun and I am sure no one enjoys having their hard spent points crippled before turn one even starts.

Stop. Saying. Crippled.
It's not a "severe and damaging" problem. Yes, LoS is blocked in one direction. Boo frikkin Hoo.

The fact you can't see how crippling it actually is, even after so many posts, just shows I will never be able to convince you on this matter. What you fail to grasp is the fact it isn't just blocking line of sight in a single direction, say 5 percent of the battlefield, but capable of preventing line of sight to the majority of the battlefield if done right. As in blocking line of sight to more then 50% of the table, rendering what should be a serious threat to nothing more then an inconvenience even if you intend to move into the section of the board it still is capable of firing on. Something you can opt either to ignore completely, or deal with through another method while it is unable to fight back. As the fortification is not able to move to overcome this disadvantage, unlike other units, it can lead to situations where this structure doesn't even get a chance to fire for the whole of the game.

As for your list argument:
The army list is shown to you at the end of the game unless your opponent agrees to show it to you before hand. Even if you did get to see this list you still have no clue how he is going to deploy these forces, that is why going second is a tactical advantage in many cases. You might be able to form some counter-attacks around a little bit of fore knowledge, true, but you still have no exact clue as to how the enemy is going to deploy those forces and that dramatically changes what plans you are considering. In the end you still have to wait to see how the enemy is going to deploy before you can come up with any real idea on how to deal with the threat.

Fortifications, being placed on the table first, give you an insight into the enemies plans before anyone deploys and that is a huge advantage in and of itself.

It also gives you a chance to render whole chunks of that plan invalid through what is best described as 'an act of god.' Sure the weapon could be fired at things in the area around the base of the building, which isn't line of sight blocked, but it is more then likely the enemy planned to use that long range cannon to actually target your army before it rolled up to the front door. Particularly if it is an anti-armor or anti-air weapon, which has a clear purpose that wasn't designed around denying an area close to the fort itself. You can easily render these weapons invalid to shooting at the targets they where designed for and that is a problem even if you refuse to recognize it.

Not through some superior maneuvers using your own forces to neutralize them, but through something as cheap as plopping a terrain piece down in such a way you don't even have to bother planning how to over come such weapons as they can't fire as intended to begin with.

I wonder if there's a way to tempt your opponent to moving into LoS. Maybe some kind of object he has to capture...

 insaniak wrote:
Unless your opponent is placing a giant piece of circular terrain that completely surrounds your fortification and blocks it completely from view, how are they negating your fortification with a single piece of terrain...?

But putting your fortification underneath an upside down bucket is good strategy! TBH if you're playing with alternating terrain setup and you don't bring a fortification-denying bucket you're making a fundamental strategic mistake*. Therefore you should always expect your opponent to have a bucket, and never bother with fortifications since they will not be useful for anything.


*Unless you're going for the better terrain strategy of declaring the entire table outside of a small part of your deployment zone lethal terrain for the automatic win, but we'll assume that you actually want to play the game instead of just win it before it begins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Stop. Saying. Crippled.
It's not a "severe and damaging" problem. Yes, LoS is blocked in one direction. Boo frikkin Hoo.

One direction if your opponent sucks at terrain strategy. If they don't suck at terrain strategy the fortification will be blocked in all directions. Even if you don't bring a bucket to every game there is usually plenty of large terrain available to ensure that a fortification is blocked from seeing the vast majority of the table.

rigeld2 wrote:
I wonder if there's a way to tempt your opponent to moving into LoS. Maybe some kind of object he has to capture...

Yeah, because those always exist, especially in the relic and the scouring... and having a gun emplacement with a 48" or 96" range is certainly useful to cover part of your deployment zone.