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, some time ago I won a FoR in a tournament. At the time, I was very excited, but I always heard the same old thing.

"It's too expensive for an immobile unit."

"You'll never make your points back."

"You're too hairy kid, get outta my pool."

So now that I've started using it again, I've begun to hear the exact opposite. I've even been accused of fielding cheese in order to make up for a lack of skills. (They were talking about the building.) It's even irritated some opponents that I usually consider unflappable. Others, however, don't seem to mind.

So what do you guys think? Maybe some cold numbers from unfeeling strangers will help give me some perspective.

FOR are at best so/so, unless you happen to stuff it with heavy weapon teams/longfangs etc.

It is expensive, huge, and inclines you towards a defensive role.

It's firepower is a bit yawnworthy for it's cost.

It is a fething deathtrap for those inside, especially if you use the new building rules in Stronghold Assault (unless you are manning it with marines or termies.

Those who have never fought one will decry it as cheesy as hell.

It dies to podded melta or dreads really easily, and heldrakes can flame the defenders off the walls (and through the firepoints) with no room to dodge or spread out (if you want to actually make use of the battlements).


That said, it looks great on the table, and can make for some fun themed games or for a static defensive list.

The only OP thing about it is how Overpoweringly annoying it is to transport.

I would say it is pretty fair for the pts cost. The fire out put of the FoR is pretty low for ~200-300 pts. What ever you put into it will become more durable to certain weapons but suddenly grenades become exponentially more deadly and if the opponent was prepared for AV14 they are definitely prepare for a FoR.

I have however seen some cheese based on the old building rules where you cannot fire at an occupied building. Some people take this as an excuse to place a bunch of barrage weapons behind their "invincible" FoR which can be very cheesing against some of the less mobile armies.

*shrug*

My Shadowsword kills it on a 2+ like any other fortification. Feel free to spend 500+ points on your fortress and units to hide inside it.

I just think it's a little ridiculous because of its size. (so I haven't voted as this would be my preferred answer)

It's probably a bit underpowered given how much it costs, but the awkwardness of deploying it and shifting half the terrain around means I have yet to see one. I have no issues with people playing it as it isn't amazing.

I have one and have played with it twice. I enjoy it and don't consider it overpowered. I voted balanced even though in some situations it does need buffing.

I have found that in all truth it is a death trap... and at first I put heavy weapons teams in it and they just melted. The second time I garrisoned it with Veterans and it held a lot better.

I've upgraded mine using the Stronghold Assault book. It has a Quad-gun on the walkway, every section has void shields and I have a couple barricades in front of it for more men.

Really the Fortress of Redemption is a distraction. Your enemies could just kill you from range if you let them so I personally hide a Deathstrike and Basilisk out of LOS behind it, forcing the enemy to have to bypass my fortress to get to them. No, your Fortress won't last long but it's fun, fluffy and changes the entire game.


Edit- points wise, mine comes to around 500pts with the upgrades

 Jimsolo wrote:
So, some time ago I won a FoR in a tournament. At the time, I was very excited, but I always heard the same old thing.

"It's too expensive for an immobile unit."

"You'll never make your points back."

"You're too hairy kid, get outta my pool."

So now that I've started using it again, I've begun to hear the exact opposite. I've even been accused of fielding cheese in order to make up for a lack of skills. (They were talking about the building.) It's even irritated some opponents that I usually consider unflappable. Others, however, don't seem to mind.

So what do you guys think? Maybe some cold numbers from unfeeling strangers will help give me some perspective.

Might be fun to plop down 3 Deathstrikes behind it.

I don't think cheesy or "under/over" powered apply. In most competitive setting I've seen it banned just because it's so physically large.

Otherwise, I don't think it does a whole lot. So maybe underpowered? I mean, it's a few meltaguns away from being a smoldering pile of debris. I unno, I think as a protective piece, a Skyshield is cheaper.

Could make a good centerline blocking ruin, though.

Yeah, buildings are MADE OF SHRAPNEL in this edition (well, and in the last one...) that are just going to get you killed.

It does block LOS, but it's also so thick through that it's going to seriously restrict your own movement over it, which rather defeats the point.

Unless you're only taking it to castle a giant pile of untargetable artillery on a couple of objectives. That, though, would put it in an entirely different league, where you have to compare it's power level to the switchblade that your opponent is using to slash your car tires when you go to the bathroom.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, buildings are MADE OF SHRAPNEL in this edition (well, and in the last one...) that are just going to get you killed.

It does block LOS, but it's also so thick through that it's going to seriously restrict your own movement over it, which rather defeats the point.

Unless you're only taking it to castle a giant pile of untargetable artillery on a couple of objectives. That, though, would put it in an entirely different league, where you have to compare it's power level to the switchblade that your opponent is using to slash your car tires when you go to the bathroom.

Remember kids, according to 40k, Burnaboyz can't hurt the people riding on an open-topped Tauros despite soaking it in flaming promethium but the instant those soldiers step into a solid, meters thick bunker they're dead men when the Orks fire again.

 Kain wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, buildings are MADE OF SHRAPNEL in this edition (well, and in the last one...) that are just going to get you killed.

It does block LOS, but it's also so thick through that it's going to seriously restrict your own movement over it, which rather defeats the point.

Unless you're only taking it to castle a giant pile of untargetable artillery on a couple of objectives. That, though, would put it in an entirely different league, where you have to compare it's power level to the switchblade that your opponent is using to slash your car tires when you go to the bathroom.

Remember kids, according to 40k, Burnaboyz can't hurt the people riding on an open-topped Tauros despite soaking it in flaming promethium but the instant those soldiers step into a solid, meters thick bunker they're dead men when the Orks fire again.

Well, since flame throwers were specifically designed to winkle defenders out of trenches/fortifications, the latter part makes perfect sense. (As a player of a flamer-heavy marine army, I actually think flamers don't do enough damage to people inside a building)

I learned that there was nothing my sisters/imperial fists list (during that match) could do to it. My exorcists couldn't do anything, nor my devastator missile squads. I had never played against any fortification before minus a defense line. I truly was baffled over the building. Not voting currently because I need more battles to test the waters.

The flamer thing actually makes some sense. If you shoot a flame thrower down a hallway the fuel is essentially piped by the corridor down the hallways and the range and damage of the flamethrower will be drastically increased (not to mention setting the building interiors on fire). When you try to shoot it into a vehicles, open topped or not, you have a few problems; 1) you will usually be shooting at an upward angle which means the fuel may not even reach the inside at all, 2) you are shooting at the outside of a container, you will loose massive amount of fuel to fluid mechanics of going from an open system to a more contained one and the stuff that does get there will be highly dispersed so as to likely not have the appropriate heat intensity to damage, and 3) most vehicles meant for war are rather careful about having flammables open to being lit on fire, if you cannot light anything on fire then the damage to the occupants who would hunker down behind the side wall would be minimal at best.

You should note that there are rules for siege dreadnaughts who have a melee weapon specially designed to drill through the side wall of a vehicle and deliver flaming death to the occupants. The occupants get hit much like a building occupants would.

The rules for flamers/grenades against buildings will make sense the moment that those same rules apply to any transport with at least one fire port/is open topped.

Guardsmen in a chimera should get instantly massacred if a flamethrower pours burning fuel in through the top hatch. Instead of, you know, laughing it off because they're immune.

 Ailaros wrote:
The rules for flamers/grenades against buildings will make sense the moment that those same rules apply to any transport with at least one fire port/is open topped.

Guardsmen in a chimera should get instantly massacred if a flamethrower pours burning fuel in through the top hatch. Instead of, you know, laughing it off because they're immune.

Walk up to an APC and try to stick something into it. Then do the same to a bunker. You will find the APC is very difficult to stick anything into, even the WW2 open topped ones. Bunkers are a breeze to stick the nozzle of a flamer or drop a grenade into. It is simple physics as one is above shoulder level (APC) and the other below (Bunker).

Flamethrowers arc. They were specifically designed for trench warfare to attack targets that they couldn't see. Open top transports should have auto-hits on everybody in the transport against blast and template weapons. You shouldn't be able to fire a mortar right into the back of a pickup truck and have everybody be fine because the explosion hit the transport, but not any of the guys inches from the blast.

Meanwhile, closed-top transports with no fire ports could be exempt, but with fire ports? It's not exactly going to be difficult to throw a grenade into a hatch, or climb up onto the tank and fire that flamethrower through vision slots, etc. Especially not when guys are running around with the hatch open firing weapons out of them.

The idea that two guys can be sticking out of a chimera blasting away with plasma guns but they all the sudden hide back inside for just the right moment when you're assaulting, and then pop immediately back out and be immune to damage is dumb. Maybe throw in a rule that the hatches don't make anyone more vulnerable if nobody had shot weapons out of them the previous turn, but if they're sticking out and shooting, they should be flamer bait.

I bet the Tau and Eldar would appreciate there finally being an advantage to having no fire points. The Devilfish even used to a have a special rule reflecting its sealed passenger compartment that did absolutely nothing other than point out that it had no fire points.

Plus, it wouldn't be that unprecedented. Only two editions ago, using fire ports made the vehicle count as open topped in your opponent's next turn to give it +1 to his damage roll against the vehicle.

You know, back when you needed to actually think about how to use transports and weigh their pros and cons, rather than just always showing up with a mech list.

 Kain wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, buildings are MADE OF SHRAPNEL in this edition (well, and in the last one...) that are just going to get you killed.

It does block LOS, but it's also so thick through that it's going to seriously restrict your own movement over it, which rather defeats the point.

Unless you're only taking it to castle a giant pile of untargetable artillery on a couple of objectives. That, though, would put it in an entirely different league, where you have to compare it's power level to the switchblade that your opponent is using to slash your car tires when you go to the bathroom.

Remember kids, according to 40k, Burnaboyz can't hurt the people riding on an open-topped Tauros despite soaking it in flaming promethium but the instant those soldiers step into a solid, meters thick bunker they're dead men when the Orks fire again.

I'm so glad that somebody else finds this as annoying and ridiculous as I do. I put my vote firmly behind any recommendation that unifies the mechanics between embarking in vehicles and buildings, especially if it cures the "flat bed truck" problem.

Whilst I use and like it. I think it has many design flaws.

1. The building with the highest unit capacity, 20 men in the tower... has no fire points.

2. The side with the entrance/exit, has no fire points.

3. For a 'Fortress', it's not tough and/or shooty enough.

Imo, it should have been designed kinda like a horse-shoe. With the entrance in the middle of the curve, so the two sides could cover the entrance. Also the tower should have fire-points. That would improve it a lot.

 dementedwombat wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, buildings are MADE OF SHRAPNEL in this edition (well, and in the last one...) that are just going to get you killed.

It does block LOS, but it's also so thick through that it's going to seriously restrict your own movement over it, which rather defeats the point.

Unless you're only taking it to castle a giant pile of untargetable artillery on a couple of objectives. That, though, would put it in an entirely different league, where you have to compare it's power level to the switchblade that your opponent is using to slash your car tires when you go to the bathroom.

Remember kids, according to 40k, Burnaboyz can't hurt the people riding on an open-topped Tauros despite soaking it in flaming promethium but the instant those soldiers step into a solid, meters thick bunker they're dead men when the Orks fire again.

I'm so glad that somebody else finds this as annoying and ridiculous as I do. I put my vote firmly behind any recommendation that unifies the mechanics between embarking in vehicles and buildings, especially if it cures the "flat bed truck" problem.

And Emperor forbid that they have grenades.

There's a guy at our club who uses a fortress of redemption with his dark eldar. it seems to be surprisingly effective, as his main army hides behind it for the first turn, and then starts jumping over and wreaking havoc. as soon as the transports start coming out, you start to ignore the fortress, and the fortress starts to make its points with the krakstorm missiles and lascannon destroying vehicles & infantry left right & centre. then he jumps out on the 5th-6th turn to grab the objective he hid behind.
I've not face him yet, but since he started using it he's won half the games he's played, and that's in a competitive environment with eldar and tau's involved.

 some bloke wrote:
There's a guy at our club who uses a fortress of redemption with his dark eldar. it seems to be surprisingly effective, as his main army hides behind it for the first turn, and then starts jumping over and wreaking havoc. as soon as the transports start coming out, you start to ignore the fortress, and the fortress starts to make its points with the krakstorm missiles and lascannon destroying vehicles & infantry left right & centre. then he jumps out on the 5th-6th turn to grab the objective he hid behind.
I've not face him yet, but since he started using it he's won half the games he's played, and that's in a competitive environment with eldar and tau's involved.

That's pretty much the way I use it. I also take a haemmy and staff the thing with Wracks, since they're one of the cheapest troop squads in the game.

Rules-wise, I'm neutral on the FoR. I just wish it wasn't plastered with Dark Angels specific elements on every piece. I never got further than primed because of that, and it's currently loaned to the store terrain collection at my FLGS.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Rules-wise, I'm neutral on the FoR. I just wish it wasn't plastered with Dark Angels specific elements on every piece. I never got further than primed because of that, and it's currently loaned to the store terrain collection at my FLGS.

I spent hours chiseling away all the DA chapter symbols. The robed death figure icons I can live with, as well as the swords-and-shields. Those are nice and gothic. But I agree, those DA chapter icons were irritating.