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.

So its come up a few times i have now witnessed and I am wondering what some general consensus might be.

The imperial Bastion model has a heavy bolter on all 4 sides, and a few firing slits.

However when you make your own bastion it says "4 heavy bolters, 'usually' one on each side" This does not mean it has to be.

It says firing points "as per model"
This does not say As per GW model...

Conversions and modeling is now big part of the game, especially the rubrics for scoring painting and armies.

So is it modeling for advantage to make your own bastions. 9x9 as per the rules of medium building, 4 heavy bolters pointing forward and 4+ 5+ 6+ firing points?

No other model/entry in the game says "Equipment: as per model" A Predator tells you what you can arm it with, a dreadnought tells you what you can equip it with.

I personally see no problem with someone making there own bastion modeling with in the parameters of a medium building/bastion rules regulations.
Let the bastion have a window/firing point that wraps the whole building, 4 heavy bolters pointing where-ever, and access points all over the bottom portion. Make it with one big garage door along all the sides if you like.

What do others think? What have T.O.'s been known to say?

As soon as I saw the title I thought "Bet he wants to stick the Heavy Bolters on one side".
I won!

Do a search for "Bastion" in YMDC and you'll see dozens of posts with this exact same question.

Yeah this is a pretty common question. The simple answer is: It's definitely modelling for advantage, but it may not be against the rules based on the wording of the phrase you posted.

Generally the advice given tends to boil down to: "use the model that exists for this building, or adhere to it as closely as possible"

Just remember, Fortifications are placed before terrain, so your opponent can easily stick a large los blocking terrain right in front of the bolters.

Thank you for your opinions. But this wasnt a question for me personally. I dont use a bastion, have an army that would ever use one and frankly dont need one. Im asking because im running a 40k tourney in about a month and was wondering how i should approach or treat it.

If it were me, in a competitive setting I would only allow homemade bastions that were functionally the same as the standard one.

In that case I'd suggest asking people bringing modified bastions to treat them as if they were the stock model for any rules-relevant details. For example: Where the bolters, firing ports, and access hatch are, as well as the number of each present on the building.

If it were a fun game i wouldnt mind it being home modeled. I'd stick to the gw version for tournaments though just to avoid issues.

All the heavy bolters on one side is indeed legal. Of course, you will have people cry MFA if you difer from the stock model picture in ANY way in order to gain an advantage? This could be anything from a different number of rivets to the placement of the ornamental eagles on top or just about anything.

Get attendees to treat their bastions as if they were GW's stock model for the purpose of weapons, Firepoints etc.

Same applies to model conversions and other scratch builds which 'count as'.

Saves you as the TO a lot of hassle and still allows personalisation.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Of course, you will have people cry MFA if you difer from the stock model picture in ANY way in order to gain an advantage?

Some MFA's are much more blatant and effective than others.

 EVIL INC wrote:
All the heavy bolters on one side is indeed legal. Of course, you will have people cry MFA if you difer from the stock model picture in ANY way in order to gain an advantage? This could be anything from a different number of rivets to the placement of the ornamental eagles on top or just about anything.

Not even close to correct......

 EVIL INC wrote:
This could be anything from a different number of rivets to the placement of the ornamental eagles on top or just about anything.

You keep saying that like its fact when it's been pointed out - multiple times - it's not.
Please stop stating this as fact.

Thou dost protest too much. Been proven time and again to be true.
There will ALWAYS be some TFG who will cry MFA if a model converted purely for the cool facter is even the slightest bit different from a stock model.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Thou dost protest too much. Been proven time and again to be true.

It hasn't. You misquote and misrepresent people to pretend its true, but it's not.

There will ALWAYS be some TFG who will cry MFA if a model converted purely for the cool facter is even the slightest bit different from a stock model.

Like I said - blatant misrepresentation.

 quickfuze wrote:
Not even close to correct......

That's your opinion. I actually happen to agree it's legal. The model might have defined fire points with little bolters sticking out of the windows, but the rules options for the fortification simply says it's got 4 heavy bolters on it. It's not like a vehicle which would have pretty defined mount points for weapons. We are talking about a building here, so if there is 1 poking out a window and 3 up top all pointing the same way, well, it just makes a lot of sense to me the gun emplacements could be set up in different positions.

I also totally respect anyone who says it's gotta be one gun per wall as that's how the GW model for it looks, and I get where they are coming from, and if they were adamant about someone playing it that way, I'd acquiese without putting up a fight because I'm of the mind games are only fun if both sides bring lists designed to be competitive against each other.

Considering this has come up before, and it always degenerates into people basically shouting "You're wrong!" at each other, I think the only safe thing to assume is you should clear it with the TO.

 EVIL INC wrote:
There will ALWAYS be some TFG who will cry MFA if a model converted purely for the cool facter is even the slightest bit different from a stock model.

If that's what your local gaming scene is like, you need to move. Far away! Never go back there!
I've seriously never heard or seen of anyone being anywhere near as picky as you describe.

 EVIL INC wrote:
All the heavy bolters on one side is indeed legal. Of course, you will have people cry MFA if you differ from the stock model picture in ANY way in order to gain an advantage?

Which, completely coincidentally, also happens to be the very definition of MFA.
What was your point?

This could be anything from a different number of rivets to the placement of the ornamental eagles on top or just about anything.

Yes, that is completely what we are talking about. The placement of various pieces with no impact on the game itself is very much the entire point of this discussion.
Thank you for summing the issue up so concisely.
Now, go away.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Thou dost protest too much. Been proven time and again to be true.
There will ALWAYS be some TFG who will cry MFA if a model converted purely for the cool factor is even the slightest bit different from a stock model.

Misrepresent all you like to support your own agenda. The rest of the world Knows better. We have gone over this many times and you have lost each and every time.

there are many reasons for converting or scratch building.
1. Cool factor. The stock model just doesnt look cool enough or the modeler has a way to make it look even better.
2. The rules allow for configurations that are totally within the rules but the stock model assumes one of them (the bastion for example) and the modeler wants to make it fit the legal configuration they desire.
3. $ The modeler simply cannot afford the standard model or the numbers of the standard model they desire.
4. The standard model looks too much like another and they want to make it more obvious on the table.
5. MFA, For exmple, making the barrels of the punisher cannon 30 inches long or cutting the head off of a guard heavy weapon gunner and sticking it on a 30 inch rod to give him a super long neck and see over intervening terain with it's las cannon.
I am sure there are others, those are just a few off the top of my head I came up with.
What will TFG cry in each and every possible example or reason, MFA. This is usually because it is a simple excuse to dock sportsmnship points in a tourney or because they want to cause the player not to be able to use it in order to gain an advantage for themselves.

Edit- "Which, completely coincidentally, also happens to be the very definition of MFA.
What was your point? " The point is, it is not MFA, Now if you were extending the range of them by giving them 30 inch barrels, then it would be. It is no more modeling for advantage than putting crushing claws on a bug instead of a deathspitter. You are just using a different legal configuration that is perfectly legal.
"Yes, that is completely what we are talking about. The placement of various pieces with no impact on the game itself is very much the entire point of this discussion.
Thank you for summing the issue up so concisely.
Now, go away. " Yes conversions such as the placement of the heavy bolters is indeed what we are discussing. Reported by the way. Check this page out, it may help you...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

Seriously, you've been gaming with the wrong people.
Even at Tournaments I don't see the behaviour you're describing.

To be honest, I have rarely seen it. A few times, I've seen TFG who does that but I avoid them. It could just be the preponderance of posters on this forum who are that way that makes it appear to happen more often than in real life. You know how the internet is, it allows people to act in ways they never would towards another in "real life". lol
I only point it out to the OP because they may indeed come across someone like that. In games I dont allow people to bully me like that and if they wanna dock me points, I can return the favor. Not a big deal to me because I play for fun, not WAAC. so if I lose the tourney, I'm like "OH NO! i got to play 40k all day and enjoy the hobby with like minds! I REALLY lost out." LOL

Damn.. why an argument guys? Why cant we just state or opinions/perspectives lol...

Anyway after reading the rules and description in the book, it does say things like..

1) 4 heavy bolters, USUALLY one on each side
2) Firing points, as per model
3) Access points, as per model.

Taking into perspective the way these rules are written, the fact that the bastion model itself would not be used by every army. Tyranids would have a big puss spore, 1000 sons a pyramid, dark eldar a tower with dead bodies hanging off of it, Tau having something that looks like the seattle sky needle...

As rules per written, it seems clear you may make your own and design as you like. Yes even putting 4 heavy bolters firing forward, as long as you stick to the guidelines for a medium building.

HOWEVER, modeling for advantage DOES have an extremely strong argument against 4 heavy bolters firing forward. But Modeling for advantage is an opinion, a perspective of the person, if 99% people think its MFA and 1% does not. They are both still correct in all honesty. MFA rules and guidelines are all opinions and change as per T.O. or tournament.

Furthermore does 4 heavy bolters pointing forward really change the game that much? I mean the model can be kiddy cornered to get 2 HB facing forward. Whats another 2? Grey knights can get guys armed with HB for 10 points a model. Firing at BS 3, the building fires at BS 2 at the closest model if they are unmanned. Now yes you can put people on the HB's inside the building, but you can also give the grey knight models Prescience, you can also stick them in a chimera and put it behind and defence line. My point is, 4 heavy bolters facing forward should not change a game that much.

Furthermore: When i see a bastion i think to myself "awesome great easy KP and/or first blood"

I respect everyone's comments and decisions and views and opinions on this matter. But i also understand that either way its ruled it will not satisfy everyone.

The mere nature of an argument simply wont allow it. "I am right, therefore you must be wrong"

As a T.O., even of just 25-30 man tourneys, i will allow people to make their own bastions, putting 4 HB anywhere they want. Ill cap the access points to 2, and firing points to 4 per side. We are 40k years in the future, lets assume the engineer, tech priest, mechanicum, servitor, or mek... who built it for their army had some sort of knowledge to make it adaptable....

Thanks all for your opinions.

Tsilber, fortunately one of the mods (want to say Insaniak, but could be wrong) did an identification for bastions of the various races:
http://www.underthecouch.net/w40k/identification-please/



Edit by insaniak - new link here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Identification_Please%21_-_Non-Imperial_Bastions_in_6th_Ed_40K

Id be interested in seeing it, but that link isnt work mate

 EVIL INC wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Thou dost protest too much. Been proven time and again to be true.
There will ALWAYS be some TFG who will cry MFA if a model converted purely for the cool factor is even the slightest bit different from a stock model.

Misrepresent all you like to support your own agenda. The rest of the world Knows better. We have gone over this many times and you have lost each and every time.

No, I haven't. I've proven you're lying about what I said literally every time. I would e completely avoided posting in this thread except you continue to do so.

Edit- "Which, completely coincidentally, also happens to be the very definition of MFA.
What was your point? " The point is, it is not MFA, Now if you were extending the range of them by giving them 30 inch barrels, then it would be. It is no more modeling for advantage than putting crushing claws on a bug instead of a deathspitter. You are just using a different legal configuration that is perfectly legal.

So - wait. You said

 EVIL INC wrote:
All the heavy bolters on one side is indeed legal. Of course, you will have people cry MFA if you difer from the stock model picture in ANY way in order to gain an advantage?

Which is - quite literally - advocating building a model in a fashion different from the stock model in order to gain an advantage, and that's not modeling for advantage?

Really? Because you literally said to model for an advantage but that it's not modeling for advantage.

Accusations of trolling are, in fact, considered trolling.

Models done for 'cool conversions' or 'lack of money' can still be MFA. If you gain an in-game advantage over the stock model, regardless of your justification, it is MFA.

If you want your 'cool conversion' or 'have no money' conversion to not be MFA, then don't MFA... Make it have as minimal impact on the game as possible by being creative to make it similar or the same as the stock model for gameplay purposes or risk your models being DQ frequently.

He does have a valid point. There are players who will make that accusation purely as an excuse to dock opponents points without looking like the bad guy themselves.
I dont see anything wrong with making the bastion match the army you are using to make it look like it fits. the bastio model just does not fit my orks as it stands and I thought adding orky bits and trading the heavy bolters with more orky looking guns made it look great. Evil's right, that should not be considered MFA.

Voorn wrote:
He does have a valid point. There are players who will make that accusation purely as an excuse to dock opponents points without looking like the bad guy themselves.
I dont see anything wrong with making the bastion match the army you are using to make it look like it fits. the bastio model just does not fit my orks as it stands and I thought adding orky bits and trading the heavy bolters with more orky looking guns made it look great. Evil's right, that should not be considered MFA.

But changing the size, footprint, and LOS of firepoints or parts of it is MFA... Lots of people have made 'Orky Bastians' without impacting gameplay. It is possible and common.

The issue is when people make conversions which drastically modify the model's function and then claim to have the 'right' to all the advantages earned because they never intended to get the advantages due to <insert excuse here>.

Moving the guns doesn't fly at most tourneys I have attended. It is seen as MFA. Claiming 'I was making an Orky Bastian to be cooooooooool! so I was forced to move the guns all to one side, towards the top on a swivel to have the best possible LOS! It wasn't to gain an advantage, but since I have it, I need to play the model as it is and get the advantage.'

A conversion is a conversion, bashing my orky bastion because it is not straight out of the box claiming I am MFA is silly (not to say that you are silly, just saying your bashing of it is silly). There is no "official" set up for which side the bolters are on. The models only gives one of many possibilities. Surely you dont expect them to release a different boxed set of the bastion for each and every possibility do you? Games Workshop had a few different options for handling this. One would be releasing a separate boxed set for each possible legal configuration. Another is to release a base generic possibility with the intention of players converting it to fit the other possible legal configurations. I am glad that they chose the latter route as doing the former would have been a waste of their resources and jacked up the prices even higher than they currently are to make up for it.
this is why most tourneys and TOs have no problem with it and beat the few who complain with the figurative "dont be TFG stick" for doing so.