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.

Any ideas fellas?

How about an eldar defense platform that combines the wave field generator and the skyshield defense platform...
i.e. you could release the field to generate d6+1 shots on a turrett at 72" at str 7 ap - but units do not gain the 4+ invulnerable save that turn...

Same points as imperial version and same dep strike rules.


C&C welcome..

Well a Neron Aegis would probably use a twinlinked Tesla Destructor.

An Ork one would use a twinlinked Flakkadakka gun.

A tau one...hrmmm...HYMPs?

Not sure on Tyranids or either variety of Eldar.

I think for Tyranids you could have their spires give a cover save to anything within 18"(12?) and possibly synapse as well. It's hard to say because the wrong rule could make it extremely OP or extremely underpowered. Tyranids seem to have a bigger problem with that than other armies,

Yeah, tyranids are not fortification type armies. Tyranids are supposed to be advancing, which leaves fortifications behind. Given that, cover save for spore towers works and you can place them at the edge of deployment. Basically like purchasing unkillable venomthropes.

Considering that forting up isn't a tyranids real strategy ,considering their lack of long range weapons, I think something that allows a bonus on reserve rolls, reroll scatter for deep strike, or even bonus warp points each round would suite them better.

I was thinking you could use them to better protect troops moving forward/

xenos fortifications are a good idea. I was hoping that they would be added into 6th edition codexes but sadly not....

jamin484 wrote:
xenos fortifications are a good idea. I was hoping that they would be added into 6th edition codexes but sadly not....

That's what happens when you don't worship a golden carcass.

I'd say use Tyranid fortifications offensively. Spires erupting from the ground under the enemy, tunnel systems allowing you rapid (or simply safe) transit from one part of the board to the other, and stuff like that

jamin484 wrote:
xenos fortifications are a good idea. I was hoping that they would be added into 6th edition codexes but sadly not....

Well the Necrons did get a fortification.

Albeit one that's incredibly large and expensive both real money and points wise.

So if that would be the case... +1 to rolls to hit against enemy units within 12"(less?) maybe only 6" so the enemy wouldn't be screwed for 2 turns.

As a tau player, tau should not have fortifications.

Fluff-wise its a fighting retreat army, we don't even bother trying to hold positions, just do enough damage while out of each to force you to give up.

That said, the 40K table is not nearly big enough to make it into a valid tactic.

 BoomWolf wrote:
As a tau player, tau should not have fortifications.

Fluff-wise its a fighting retreat army, we don't even bother trying to hold positions, just do enough damage while out of each to force you to give up.

That said, the 40K table is not nearly big enough to make it into a valid tactic.

Yeah, this is one part of the game that is unfixable. Understandable if put in the context that the table area is a valuable area and retreating from it isn't considered an option. But it does make fighting retreats not as workable as they should be.

Then again, I would love to see artillery not be on table part of the game. More like orbital strikes that SM can call in. Pay the points for the units and fire them each round. But that will never happen as it would kill off some of GW's miniatures. But there is so much you could do rule wise for having forward spotters and counter battery fire. Ah well.

 BoomWolf wrote:
As a tau player, tau should not have fortifications.

Fluff-wise its a fighting retreat army, we don't even bother trying to hold positions, just do enough damage while out of each to force you to give up.

That said, the 40K table is not nearly big enough to make it into a valid tactic.

They do have 'fortifications' though, they are not manned defenses but perimeter drones in the form of sentry turrets and sensor towers and pretty accuratley in my opinion represents how the Tau would defend their holdings.

On the Tyranid front, you could easily have hormagaunt eggs to represent part of a vanguard brood. Perhaps something like roll a d6, if the result is less than or equal to the turn number, remove the hormagaunt eggs and replace them with 3d6 hormgaunts.

True, but these sentry defenses are in IA3 already, and they are even pretty decent.
Even if only the sensors are named "fortifications" and the gun turrets themselves are named "troops".


(Though it might make for an interesting mini-supplement for a specialized army list, some sort of "command center" drone for HQ, then the rest are drone squad, heavy drones, drone turrets, sensor towers, etc.)

Rumbleguts wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
As a tau player, tau should not have fortifications.

Fluff-wise its a fighting retreat army, we don't even bother trying to hold positions, just do enough damage while out of each to force you to give up.

That said, the 40K table is not nearly big enough to make it into a valid tactic.

Yeah, this is one part of the game that is unfixable. Understandable if put in the context that the table area is a valuable area and retreating from it isn't considered an option. But it does make fighting retreats not as workable as they should be.

Then again, I would love to see artillery not be on table part of the game. More like orbital strikes that SM can call in. Pay the points for the units and fire them each round. But that will never happen as it would kill off some of GW's miniatures. But there is so much you could do rule wise for having forward spotters and counter battery fire. Ah well.

This would be awesome but then there is no way of destroying the artillery unless you kill the spotter?

I think GW not including xenos fortifications in the codexes is a huge oversight. It would have been cool for each race to get 1-2 unique fortifications as well as (or instead of maybe) the rulebook ones.

Webway Portal: May be taken by an Eldar or Dark Eldar army.

50pts

The Webway Portal counts as impassible terrain. In addition, any friendly models from Eldar or Dark Eldar detachments may move on from Reserves through the Webway Portal, exactly as if it was the owning players table edge. However, if an opposing model moves into contact with the Portal, it will automatically shut down to protect it's secrets.

I just like the idea of an orky aegis defense line using a little tower, with a shouta holding a megaphone on top of it as the comms tower.

Shas'o_Longshot wrote:
Webway Portal: May be taken by an Eldar or Dark Eldar army.

50pts

The Webway Portal counts as impassible terrain. In addition, any friendly models from Eldar or Dark Eldar detachments may move on from Reserves through the Webway Portal, exactly as if it was the owning players table edge. However, if an opposing model moves into contact with the Portal, it will automatically shut down to protect it's secrets.

Thats a good idea.....mind if we playtest it?