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.

I got a rather devilish idea after cleaning up leftover Christmas packing material. Because there is no specified size for fortifications, I thought I could scratch-build a set of imperial bunkers with a 3in radius (or some such size), give them some custom space marine chapter tactics, and place them directly on objectives in my deployment zone. Because the model is the same size as the objective control zone, it will block my opponent from even getting in range of the objective. So this begs a few questions: is this even allowed/possible, would it be a douche move or would it be a waste of points the way fortifications usually are? The rules in the BRB seem to allow it, but I don’t know if it’s been errata’d or written over in cities or death or some such book.

Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned IIRC. But apparently playing by the rules won't win you any friends if most of Dakka is to be believed.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned IIRC. But apparently playing by the rules won't win you any friends if most of Dakka is to be believed.

Technically you can not use scratch-built things, you can only use Citadel Miniatures, so it is not legal as far as the rules are concerned.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned IIRC. But apparently playing by the rules won't win you any friends if most of Dakka is to be believed.

Well, let's be clear. There are no rules on scratch-built models at all, as far as my memory serves. So custom-making a fortification that can completely block out an objective marker is no more "playing by the rules" as it is "playing against them". It's arguably against the spirit of the game to model for advantage like that, which may or may not be a concern for some.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned IIRC. But apparently playing by the rules won't win you any friends if most of Dakka is to be believed.

Technically you can not use scratch-built things, you can only use Citadel Miniatures, so it is not legal as far as the rules are concerned.

Can you give a citation for that?

 Larks wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned IIRC. But apparently playing by the rules won't win you any friends if most of Dakka is to be believed.

Technically you can not use scratch-built things, you can only use Citadel Miniatures, so it is not legal as far as the rules are concerned.

Can you give a citation for that?

A citation that there are not rules allowing Scratch builds? the whole rulebook, as there is not a rule that states that scratch-built things are allowed, so they are not.

As for the Citadel Mini's part, they are allowed due to the Battle Primer Page 2 " The core rules on these pages contain the foundation for playing games of Warhammer 40,000 with your Citadel Miniatures collection..."

There is permission to use Citadel Miniatures.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned IIRC. But apparently playing by the rules won't win you any friends if most of Dakka is to be believed.

That's good to know. It still seems like it will either be OP or downright bad, I've never seen fortifications used in match play, but this isn't a tactics thread. Is there even a tactics thread for fortifications?

 Larks wrote:
Well, let's be clear. There are no rules on scratch-built models at all, as far as my memory serves. So custom-making a fortification that can completely block out an objective marker is no more "playing by the rules" as it is "playing against them". It's arguably against the spirit of the game to model for advantage like that, which may or may not be a concern for some.

That's what I'm worried about. At the same time, fortifications seem to be really bad if you are even trying to make a quarter-competitive list. I hope this will either balance out, but it may take on the worst of both worlds. An imperial bunker is a 125 point model at T8 and 12 wounds (like a LR) with a lascannon at a 5+ BS. The whole thing gets removed when it is destroyed. It can't be the most OP thing in the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Technically you can not use scratch-built things, you can only use Citadel Miniatures, so it is not legal as far as the rules are concerned.

So no deodorant grav tanks?

 Eipi10 wrote:
So no deodorant grav tanks?

Not any more, sadly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Eipi10 wrote:
So no deodorant grav tanks?

Not any more, sadly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Eipi10 wrote:
So no deodorant grav tanks?

Not any more, sadly.

Yea, not currently.

If they release some VDR* then well anything goes lol!

*VDR = Vehicle Design Rules (They had these a few editions ago, hopefully they can make a comeback).

 Eipi10 wrote:
An imperial bunker is a 125 point model at T8 and 12 wounds (like a LR) with a lascannon at a 5+ BS. The whole thing gets removed when it is destroyed. It can't be the most OP thing in the game.

The bunker is 100 pts. You can play it without a gun.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned IIRC. But apparently playing by the rules won't win you any friends if most of Dakka is to be believed.

Ignoring the silly soapboxing in the second half of this, I agree. Fortifications in real life are designed to help hold strategic points, and it just so happens the 40K rules support that neatly!

And ignore the dumb tangent about scratch builds too. Honestly, some folks would do well to stay on topic and remove the word “Actually....” from their vocabulary. Their contributions would be more useful and meaningful.

 JohnnyHell wrote:


And ignore the dumb tangent about scratch builds too. Honestly, some folks would do well to stay on topic and remove the word “Actually....” from their vocabulary. Their contributions would be more useful and meaningful.

?

Umm... it was not a dumb tangent, it is actually super important when the OP asked about scratch built fortifications...

I thought that objectives cannot be placed on or in buildings.
Ruins though, that'll work. Wobbly Model Syndrome may get around that.
But placement rules, without recently having read them, say you can't do this.

 Skinnereal wrote:
I thought that objectives cannot be placed on or in buildings.
Ruins though, that'll work. Wobbly Model Syndrome may get around that.
But placement rules, without recently having read them, say you can't do this.

You dont place objectives on or in buildings. You place the fortification on the marker. Just like you would place any model of your army on an objective marker, because the fortification is in a detachment of your army. It is a friendly model. Most fortifications are transports, friendly models can embark on it, and shoot in the shooting phase.

That's the bit I was wondering. Fortifications are not scenery (mostly).

 Skinnereal wrote:
I thought that objectives cannot be placed on or in buildings.
Ruins though, that'll work. Wobbly Model Syndrome may get around that.
But placement rules, without recently having read them, say you can't do this.

I know in narrative games you can have buildings/fortifications on the table before objectives are placed, I think that's what that rule is for. The order of operations means it can't apply in matched games.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ignoring the silly soapboxing in the second half of this, I agree. Fortifications in real life are designed to help hold strategic points, and it just so happens the 40K rules support that neatly!

And ignore the dumb tangent about scratch builds too. Honestly, some folks would do well to stay on topic and remove the word “Actually....” from their vocabulary. Their contributions would be more useful and meaningful.

You say that, but I can easily imagine a conversation where my opponent charges the bunker in the last turn and says "Alright, my intercessors take the objective in your bunker, I win."
I say, "They're not within 3 inches, they didn't take the objective."
"I rolled an 11 on a 6 inch charge, they should be in range and control the objective."
"They are 4 inches away from the actual objective, the bunker is in the way."
"That's just the modeling, it's not even an official Imperial Bunker™, how am I even supposed to get to the objective with the bunker in the way?"
"Destroy the bunker," "Bu-bu-but..." "it will be removed from game and you can get to the objective, just like any other model" "REEEE"

I try to not play with people like that, or make sure they know the rules before the game begins, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

 p5freak wrote:
The bunker is 100 pts. You can play it without a gun.

I would give them lascannons because I can't think of anything better to do with the points. Would I buy 5 more custodes just to add a single one to my army?

Anything scratchbuilt counts as a proxy doesn't make it illegal, it just means ask the TO.

Bottom line to be big enough to block off an objective would make it over 7" square or round whatever your fancy is. Which is HUGE for a bunker.
In short your opponent will cry foul, and the TO is going to make you finish the tournament without them.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Anything scratchbuilt counts as a proxy doesn't make it illegal, it just means ask the TO.

False, as cited the rules specifically only allow Citadel Miniatures. Anything scratchbuilt is not legal per RAW.

Tournaments may allow illegal models at their discretion though. They do not have to follow RAW if they do not want to, but that is house rules at that point.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Bottom line to be big enough to block off an objective would make it over 7" square or round whatever your fancy is. Which is HUGE for a bunker. In short your opponent will cry foul, and the TO is going to make you finish the tournament without them.

It needs to fit 10 40mm base models, which take up about a 6x6 area on their own, throw in the fortification walls and I don't think a 40-50in² bunker is out of the question. The two of them will take up less than 5% of the board, it's not a realm of battle tile.

Doubt if I've ever seen a more blatant and explicit case of MFA openly contemplated

Maethbalnane wrote:
Doubt if I've ever seen a more blatant and explicit case of MFA openly contemplated

Nor have I ever seen people more firmly divided on it. GW doesn't have many rules on MFA, the only one I can think of ignores wings for LOS, so it is allowed by GW, if no one else. It is a pretty cheap move that takes RAW to an extreme and it seems a lot of people don't like it for that reason. But fortifications are so bad that this kind of special move is the only way I can see them being worth a fraction of their points. That's the other camp, which views it as a valid way to play a model that otherwise has no value. What's the purpose of a fortification if not to deny objectives? They sacrifice the two most important aspects in 40k, movement and target selection, in exchange for an insulting point drop and frankly useless fireports. They need something to make them special, and having one of your objectives be uncontestable until dedicated AT firepower is directed at its way is certainly a way to do that.

If you are talking about RAW then the only thing that comes to mind is that you are only ever given rules to use with official models from the model range. Thus proxies are not allowed as they aren't official models.

This means using proxies will always be an agreed upon deviation. Be it between two players or as part of a tournament rules pack.

In my experience, using proxies in place of official models is allowed in tournaments as long as they are:

1. Clearly modeled to represent what they are (this means it fits within the rest of your army and can be explained without having to use caveats).
2. The same approximate size, and any size discrepancies are only allowed if they disadvantage you (meaning if you aren't allowed to model for your advantage).

In your case, using a large footprint would only be acceptable if the original model would also have that footprint.

From the perspective of pure RAW, you are not using Citadel miniatures so you would not be playing by the rules.

From the perspective of RAI, as your opponent I would judge that you are not playing within the spirit of the rules. You are constructing something with the express intent of gaining an advantage (compared to using a stock Citadel miniature) and removing the element of fun from the game. As such, I would refuse to play you.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


And ignore the dumb tangent about scratch builds too. Honestly, some folks would do well to stay on topic and remove the word “Actually....” from their vocabulary. Their contributions would be more useful and meaningful.

?

Umm... it was not a dumb tangent, it is actually super important when the OP asked about scratch built fortifications...

I meant the “scratch builds are illegal” which is not consensus on the rules and is one bad hot take. That seems to have dominated half the thread.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


And ignore the dumb tangent about scratch builds too. Honestly, some folks would do well to stay on topic and remove the word “Actually....” from their vocabulary. Their contributions would be more useful and meaningful.

?

Umm... it was not a dumb tangent, it is actually super important when the OP asked about scratch built fortifications...

I meant the “scratch builds are illegal” which is not consensus on the rules and is one bad hot take. That seems to have dominated half the thread.

Except they are illegal.

And if someone builds one that means the opponent has to approve of something that is not standard. Which is fine if they agree to it, but the default is no.

 Eipi10 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
The bunker is 100 pts. You can play it without a gun.

I would give them lascannons because I can't think of anything better to do with the points. Would I buy 5 more custodes just to add a single one to my army?

You must be very desperate to use a LC for 25 pts. which hits FLY units on 4+, and non-FLY on 6+.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Larks wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned IIRC. But apparently playing by the rules won't win you any friends if most of Dakka is to be believed.

Technically you can not use scratch-built things, you can only use Citadel Miniatures, so it is not legal as far as the rules are concerned.

Can you give a citation for that?

A citation that there are not rules allowing Scratch builds? the whole rulebook, as there is not a rule that states that scratch-built things are allowed, so they are not.

As for the Citadel Mini's part, they are allowed due to the Battle Primer Page 2 " The core rules on these pages contain the foundation for playing games of Warhammer 40,000 with your Citadel Miniatures collection..."

There is permission to use Citadel Miniatures.

So in other words, it's fine as long as you scratch-build your terrain to look like a fortress or keep. That'd make it a Citadel Miniature, and thus legal.

A scratch build look a like citadel model isnt a citadel model.

To be fair the imperial bastion is not far from 3" radius, if you place your objective behind barricades/ ruins and don't leave enough space for a model when you place your bastion then you'll be on your objective pretty well.

Plus it's 20 wounds and t9 so a much harder prospect to remove.

 small_gods wrote:
To be fair the imperial bastion is not far from 3" radius, if you place your objective behind barricades/ ruins and don't leave enough space for a model when you place your bastion then you'll be on your objective pretty well.

Plus it's 20 wounds and t9 so a much harder prospect to remove.

The bastion footprint works well centered on the objective because enemy models can't get within 1" of the bastion without charging it.