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.

Just having a conversation today with some of my 40K buddies and the topic of fortifications with list building came up. We all we’re perplexed with the thought of placing Forge World fortifications down like the Primus Redoubt. Considering it’s a 2x2 footprint. Is that EVEN legal for a tournament like an ITC event? What happens if you bring one and are at an event that the terrain is pre-set? SOL? Has this happened to anyone here on the boards?

Fortifications are models in your army, and they are placed in your deployment zone. If the fortification can't be placed in your deployment zone, you can't use it.

There's another thread about a similar topic. GW really needs to get their fortification rules in order.

I think GW imagines that all player use the realm of battle boards so can easily swap out 2x2 sections of the board for terrain as needed. Unless it's been FAQ'ed, deployment doesn't say the models have to be wholly within their deployment zone, so I guess it no biggie unless the TO has different ideas. RAW it will deny 1/6th of the board to your opponent until it is destroyed. But I've only ever seen fortifications used in narrative games (not even casual matched play) so I don't think it's much of a problem until you meet a crazy person like me with too much leftover Christmas packaging and a 250 point hole in his army.

In a proper tournament it will usually be impossible to place these due to terrain.

 Eipi10 wrote:
There's another thread about a similar topic. GW really needs to get their fortification rules in order.

I think GW imagines that all player use the realm of battle boards so can easily swap out 2x2 sections of the board for terrain as needed. Unless it's been FAQ'ed, deployment doesn't say the models have to be wholly within their deployment zone, so I guess it no biggie unless the TO has different ideas. RAW it will deny 1/6th of the board to your opponent until it is destroyed. But I've only ever seen fortifications used in narrative games (not even casual matched play) so I don't think it's much of a problem until you meet a crazy person like me with too much leftover Christmas packaging and a 250 point hole in his army.

Units must be deployed wholly within your deployment zone. This has been changed more than 12 months ago, I think. Cant check, because I am on my mobile.

Essentially, this particular model cannot really be used except by consent between players.

Due to how terrain usually works in tournaments, it will be generally impossible to deploy it. If you really want to use it though, you can always reach out to the organisers and see what they say.

Otherwise look at it as something for casual/narrative play.

 Eipi10 wrote:
There's another thread about a similar topic. GW really needs to get their fortification rules in order.

I think GW imagines that all player use the realm of battle boards so can easily swap out 2x2 sections of the board for terrain as needed. Unless it's been FAQ'ed, deployment doesn't say the models have to be wholly within their deployment zone, so I guess it no biggie unless the TO has different ideas. RAW it will deny 1/6th of the board to your opponent until it is destroyed. But I've only ever seen fortifications used in narrative games (not even casual matched play) so I don't think it's much of a problem until you meet a crazy person like me with too much leftover Christmas packaging and a 250 point hole in his army.

I wonder if there was a way to detach it from said 2x2 board section and use the actual footprint. I’d imagine it would be easier to deploy thus saving a TO ruling.

It’s built into the board, so you have to get good with a knife and saw. And even then, the model would be huge because the designers took liberty with the 2x2 space. If you get a turbo laser destructor for a warhound, you might be able to build yourself a primus redoubt of an appropriate size. There are no rules on how big a model has to be and you can’t run afoul of the proxy police as long as most of it is GW.

 Eipi10 wrote:
It’s built into the board, so you have to get good with a knife and saw. And even then, the model would be huge because the designers took liberty with the 2x2 space. If you get a turbo laser destructor for a warhound, you might be able to build yourself a primus redoubt of an appropriate size. There are no rules on how big a model has to be and you can’t run afoul of the proxy police as long as most of it is GW.

There are actually no rules which allow you to modify a models size either. In the end it all comes down to taking pictures and sending it to the TO to get permission to use it. Also people are confused on what is a "Proxy" vs a "counts-as" seeming to feel that if it's a GW model with some bitz swapped it's a "counts-as" model which it isn't always.

Example if you take a Valkyrie, swap some guns, and call it a Vulture = Proxy. It looks just like a Valkyrie. If I buy a 3rd party model that looks like a centurion = counts-as. And ITC allows "counts-as" but they do not allow Proxy. Which has nothing to do with GW bitz % and everything to do with what the model looks like. Again it all boils down to taking pictures, and sending it to the TO.

To be fair, proxy and counts as are not game terms, they're community terms. So some confusion or disagreement on definition is to be expected.

Covered before. It’s a unique piece that will only ever crop up in a friendly. Discuss with your opponent. It’s not worth salt spreading over, and isn’t new.