Tourney Q: Are we allowing the new fortifications?

[Sir_Prometheus]

i dont have my brb in front of me but i'm pretty sure it does say how many firing points on each facing of a bastion.

the emplaced heavy bolts have alway been a loophole because it says something like "4 emplaced heavy bolters, GENERALLY one on each facing". Every one i've seen in a tournament has been the intended one on each facing but i'm guessing chase must of ran into "that guy" who kit bashed his to have all 4 on one side thus prompting this house rule

It doesn't specify firing points, it says "as the model" by which, obviously they mean the GW model.  Now it's a little funny, because you actually have a few different options in how to assemble the GW bastion, so it's not exactly fixed which sides get what fire points, but regardless you can only get 3 firepoints on a side, and I think you can only make that happen for one side. 

But trying to use another model with significantly different characteristics is silly WAAC nonsense, and it also means you're kinda jerk, I would recommend not playing with those people. 

NOVA has a fairly sensible modeling for advantage policy: basically mad conversions are fine, but you're to use the worst of EITHER the original model or your mad conversion.  (height, etc).  FOr instance if you converted a demon prince to be double height, that's fine, but you'd draw LOS as if you were the original model, but could be shot at as if your current full height. 

I thought BG followed something like that.  If they don't, they should, it covers most situations. 

[Typhus]

By the rulebook, a Bastion is a "Medium Building" with access and fire points "as per model".  Per the Building size chart, a Medium Building is a "Up to 9"x 9" building".  There is nothing in 6th edition that prohibits one from finding a building that fits those dimensions and calling it a "bastion" and having 80 billion access points/fire points per side.

[Sir_Prometheus]

That is one interpretation of what they said.....I think they meant the actual GW model.  Guess what?  GW is often unclear with their language. 

Regardless, if you don't limit it to roughly the same physical properties as the GW model, things get stupid fast.  As apparently has been shown.  Ipso Facto, you have to say that you're going to play the model based upon what the original GW model has in terms of both number of position of guns, firing points, etc. 

And again, I thought that was already well-established policy. 

[andalucien]

It is a policy originally adopted when I asked in the 6th edition rulings thread a year ago (when 6th first came out) if it was OK to make a custom bastion with different configurations for fire points etc.  Sam said no, everything basically has to be exactly where it would be if you used the GW kit to build it.   Great ruling.  But of course, nobody reads that thread.   

Battleground FAQ needed.  (preferably piggybacking on the work of others)

[Benjamin]

To answer your question directly, we DO plan to allow the new fortifications in our events (except for the Apocalypse thing, I forget what it's called).  So the fortifications that aren't allowed will be:  Fortress of Redemption, new Apoc thing, and sometimes the Skyshield Landing Pad.

That's fine. I think the Skyshield is actually okay, but it's not a make-or-break fortification.

4 heavy bolters on the front side of your bastion, regardless of what the rules may suggest, will not be allowed.

Only a complete dickhead would put all 4 heavy bolters on one side of the bastion.

[Grimwulfe]

4 heavy bolters on the front side of your bastion, regardless of what the rules may suggest, will not be allowed.

I thought that was the rule already?  No one allows 4 heavy bolters one one side.  That's just silly.  By the same logic I could give a Bastion 27 firing points just by drilling holes in it.

I thought so too, but apparently it was more than a non-issue this past weekend.

Maybe like 2 tournies ago I played "someone" I think who had all 4 bolters on the same side.  Wont name anybody but yall know who you are!

[andalucien]

I don't think it's a TOTAL dickhead move, just a little dickish not to ask permission in advance, unless you're knowingly violating a pre-existing ruling.  The rulebook itself implies pretty strongly that you are allowed to move the bolters around.  It says "typically 1 per side".  "Typically" means, usually, but not always.  Like, in the rule for bolters, which never change, it doesn't say that they are "typically" strength 4, it says that they are strength 4. 

That being said, I agree that the game is better off if we stricten up the rule for fortifications a bit.  Seems silly (though only about a 1 out of 10 on the gamebreaking scale) to allow people to design these bastions that are totally optmized for efficiency on tabletop (like what if you could build these giant fan wings out to the side to block LOS to stuff, etc)

[Typhus]

That's fine. I think the Skyshield is actually okay, but it's not a make-or-break fortification.

Eeeeh.  Depends.  They've FAQ'd it so that in order for you to bring the shield down, you actually need to now be on top (and not just touching).  Putting Wraithkngihts or Riptides up there for a 4+ invul save pretty much removes their only real flaw.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I dunno, it was legal at NOVA, but I never saw it, did you?  I barely saw any fortifications, really, just an occasional aegis. 

[Typhus]

i totally saw it.  Dude put 2 riptides, Pathfinders, and an Eldar Weapons battery on it.