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.

Do the 4 Heavy Bolters have to face different directions, or can they all face one direction?

It is however the guns are modelled.
If you can get them all on 1 side, go for it (see below).

Ahaa, so the clever engineer slaps all 4 in the same direction then. Much appreciated.

It's an interesting idea but I'm pretty sure that would be considered modelling for advantage. You'd have to do some pretty serious modifications to the bastion as well to get the turrets all on the same facing.

The convention is 1 on each side, i suspect anything else would be seen as modelling for advantage.

D

being that you can build the bastion any way you want, even combining kits to make multi-level or odd shaped bastions (GW does this themselves) some more whiny people would cry modeling for advantage, but realistically you could, since your also hit from less "range" so to speak.

It doesn't seem like an advantage so much as a trade off. More firepower at the cost of having three sides open to attack with no recourse.

I'm making one of mine that matches my terrain and putting all four on one side. It has the disadvantage of only firing from from side and I'm already only firing at whatever my auto cannon on top is firing at.

A local guy does that and basically got shamed into using the model correctly. It's frankly a jerk thing to do, however RAW you want to argue it. Then again, he also modeled the firepoints above grenade range so that didn't help his case either.

.. if you are using the bastion rules from stronghold assault , then you better well play it as its supposed to be built!

No way I would agree to play someone with four bolters on one facing!

If you are using tha custom terrain rules from the main book, then go nuts.

Unless you went to the effort of modeling it as it being built into a hillside or something I wouldn't be happy playing against such a silly model. If you do model it as being built into the side of a hill and do it well rule of cool applies.

If a Bastion is placed along the edge of a territorial border, and the enemy is coming from only one way, why place the guns on the inside facing?
But, since there are 4 windows, and you somehow put them in the 2 windows facing the enemy, all good.
If you somehow squeeze all 4 guns in 1 window, not as good. Even if the model allows it, it could be done better. IIRC, since the fire arcs are 90 degrees (45 either way from straight out), it makes sense to cover 2 sides.

From Games Workshop: http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Imperial-Bastion:

Bastions can take the form of anything from reinforced ferrocrete bunkers to pyramidal tombs made of living metal. Bastions are typically resilient enough to withstand an orbital bombardment, and often form the cornerstone of a planet's defence network.

Modelling is part of the hobby! But as always, anyone can refuse to play with someone for whatever reason is reasonable to him.

As mentioned above.

The model GW gives you has no relevance to whether the bolters are or are not allowed on one facing. Its the Datasheet entry that determines the type of mounting.

The bastion has;
4 Emplaced heavy bolters.

Those can be placed and positioned anywhere you like, same with fire points and access points. As they are per model basis and there is nothing stating that you cannot edit or change the bastion model.

However, if someone doesn't want to play against you because you have 4 heavy bolters on one facing then that's their choice, but generally i'd not want to play someone who takes something so small as so serious; especially given the varying power levels of current dex's.

By that logic, trilas predator can have his sponsons mounted on the top of the turret. it just says there are sponsons, not where they are.

There is conversion works, and there is modeling for advantage. if you try to bring it to even a local turny, you'll be politely told to play as if the model fits the regular shape, at best.

 BoomWolf wrote:
By that logic, trilas predator can have his sponsons mounted on the top of the turret. it just says there are sponsons, not where they are.

There is conversion works, and there is modeling for advantage. if you try to bring it to even a local turny, you'll be politely told to play as if the model fits the regular shape, at best.

This guy has the measure of it.

Do you HAVE to mount them on separate sides? Technically, in the name of art, no. Although it is a clear cut case of modeling for advantage.

The issue is that you are opening up MFA, and that can and will get COMPLETELY out of hand when the flood gates open. Sponsons on top of tanks? Snipers laying down to hug cover? These could be done as cool models and conversions. What about a laying down riptide or WraithKnight?

You don't want to allow some of the really stupid stuff to be able to squeeze in 2 more heavy bolters.

 BoomWolf wrote:
By that logic, trilas predator can have his sponsons mounted on the top of the turret. it just says there are sponsons, not where they are.

There is conversion works, and there is modeling for advantage. if you try to bring it to even a local turny, you'll be politely told to play as if the model fits the regular shape, at best.

I disagree, it's not modelling for advantage because it disadvantages you at the same time. By choosing to put all 4 bolters on one side, you get the advantage on that one side BUT you disadvantage the other three sides and make it more vulnerable to flanking/ deepstriking units.

Sure, you have 4x Heavy Bolters on one facing.... so if the enemy chooses to push it from that side, they deserve to get shot in the face. I simply see it as another level of strategy in this game.

The only time I'd refuse it, is if it wasn't modelled to represent those alterations. If it has been converted/ modified to have the heavy bolters on one side... I'm fine with it.

 Carnage43 wrote:

The issue is that you are opening up MFA, and that can and will get COMPLETELY out of hand when the flood gates open. Sponsons on top of tanks? Snipers laying down to hug cover? These could be done as cool models and conversions. What about a laying down riptide or WraithKnight?

You don't want to allow some of the really stupid stuff to be able to squeeze in 2 more heavy bolters.

Now that's MFA simply because it doesn't disadvantage you whereas the bastion modelling does.

Its no real disadvantage, the singular HB per side provides no meaningful defense anyway, while the quad does.
You are trading 4 sides of no practical defense to three undefended side and one properly defended side of your choice (guess where that will be facing)


You can also technically say that modeling a riptide so he is lying on the ground is no advantage as he has less LOS to targets, but its just as irrelevant-as you control his actions, you easily turn that disadvantage irrelevant, and keep all the advantage of LOS blocking to him.


The mere fact you wanted to have all HBs on the same side, means it has some advantage to you. hench MFA.
Had it not been advantage, you would not care.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its no real disadvantage, the singular HB per side provides no meaningful defense anyway, while the quad does.
You are trading 4 sides of no practical defense to three undefended side and one properly defended side of your choice (guess where that will be facing)

You make a good point, but at the same time, you simply can't say that a disadvantage is NOT a disadvantage simply because the advantage outweighs it. You may get something more out of a change but a disadvantage is always a disadvantage. For example, what if you deploy first, your 4 forward facing HB's, then they deploy on your flank, seize and flatout and are now out of LoS of those 4 HB's? you are now disadvantaged irrelevant of how strong the trade off advantage was.

OP;

Buy the bastion, modify it so the HB's are all on the same side, make it look good

use the custom terrain rules, give it the same rules as the bastion and same points cost.

There is absolutely nothing RAW or RAI wrong with that. The rules for the bastion give no definition of where the guns must be emplaced, as far as i know none of the terrain datasheets ever specify where the guns go and are all per model basis. Even firing and access points are per model basis, allowing you to use custom terrain rules.

Solar Shock wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its no real disadvantage, the singular HB per side provides no meaningful defense anyway, while the quad does.
You are trading 4 sides of no practical defense to three undefended side and one properly defended side of your choice (guess where that will be facing)

You make a good point, but at the same time, you simply can't say that a disadvantage is NOT a disadvantage simply because the advantage outweighs it. You may get something more out of a change but a disadvantage is always a disadvantage. For example, what if you deploy first, your 4 forward facing HB's, then they deploy on your flank, seize and flatout and are now out of LoS of those 4 HB's? you are now disadvantaged irrelevant of how strong the trade off advantage was.

OP;

Buy the bastion, modify it so the HB's are all on the same side, make it look good

use the custom terrain rules, give it the same rules as the bastion and same points cost.

There is absolutely nothing RAW or RAI wrong with that. The rules for the bastion give no definition of where the guns must be emplaced, as far as i know none of the terrain datasheets ever specify where the guns go and are all per model basis. Even firing and access points are per model basis, allowing you to use custom terrain rules.

The issue is that the only way that they can "flank" your bastion is if you place it to one side and as far forward as possible, which if you do after taking the time to model it this way you need to learn better tactics. But then so does your opponent because if they have an army made up entirety of bikes and vehicles that can move and turbo boost then the extra heavy bolters aren't really going to be doing you much good, and you have proably gained more by them deploying on a flank, seizing and turbo boosting than they did.

Solar Shock wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its no real disadvantage, the singular HB per side provides no meaningful defense anyway, while the quad does.
You are trading 4 sides of no practical defense to three undefended side and one properly defended side of your choice (guess where that will be facing)

You make a good point, but at the same time, you simply can't say that a disadvantage is NOT a disadvantage simply because the advantage outweighs it. You may get something more out of a change but a disadvantage is always a disadvantage. For example, what if you deploy first, your 4 forward facing HB's, then they deploy on your flank, seize and flatout and are now out of LoS of those 4 HB's? you are now disadvantaged irrelevant of how strong the trade off advantage was.

OP;

Buy the bastion, modify it so the HB's are all on the same side, make it look good

use the custom terrain rules, give it the same rules as the bastion and same points cost.

There is absolutely nothing RAW or RAI wrong with that. The rules for the bastion give no definition of where the guns must be emplaced, as far as i know none of the terrain datasheets ever specify where the guns go and are all per model basis. Even firing and access points are per model basis, allowing you to use custom terrain rules.

RAW nothing tells you that I cant put my hammerhead's railgun freaking 2 feet tall to gain unlimied line of sight at the "cost" of being easier to see, and have my kroot based on 60mm bases for the ultimate bubblewrap at the "cost" that it takes more space. but I doubt you'll accept that.

There are no "custom terrain rules" for fortifications you take as part of your army, only a guildline for making neutral terrain pieces that hang around the table, the two have very little in common.

You are modeling it different than the norm, for the purpose of gaining an advantage in the way it works.its freaking definition of modeling for advantage, and I have no idea how on earth you can even attempt to deny that. the fact the advantage have a tied in disadvantage has nothing NOTHING to do with the fact you did it for the sole purpose of gaining an edge.