Tourney Q: Are we allowing the new fortifications?

[andalucien]

Specifically Firestorm redoubt?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod2130100a

It's published by Games Workshop (not Forgeworld) and comes with rules for normal 40k games in the box. 

[Sir_Prometheus]

From what I heard, they're not very good.  But I honestly would rather not allow them in any case.  Fortification rules are just so badly written, less complication is better. 

[jhobin]

There actually not that bad. They can't be manned and they have a horrible BS.

[andalucien]

Well, we already allow bastions... do these introduce any complications we don't already have?

[bradpowers]

One:  The rules aren't readily accessible without buying the model.

[andalucien]

Bradpowers, you mean that it puts your opponents as a disadvantage, because they're less likely to know how it works in advance?

By the same reasoning, you can't know the rules for Eldar unless you buy the Eldar codex right?  And you can't know the rules for the Farsight supplement without buying it?  Think of this as a very simple supplement to which any army has access, and which comes with a free model instead of 50 pages of fluff.

[bradpowers]

 I don't disagree with you, I'm merely pointing out that this is an argument that has been used against the inclusion of Forge World in tournaments here and elsewhere.  My point is that people piss and moan about accessibility when it comes to Forgeworld, as knowing the rules for a Forgeworld unit notionally requires a purchase outside of the standard set of codices.  The same is true of these, you (again, notionally) must buy the model in order to get a copy of the rules.

I don't personally have a problem with them, they're very straightforward (the only exception being the automatic fire at fliers/FMCs from the firestorm redoubt).

[andalucien]

Yeah, those have always been my least favorite set of arguments against ForgeWorld.   To me, the only way those arguments have any validity is if there's someone out there who actually buys every single 40k codex and supplement, yet for some reason finds difficulty in ALSO buying the Forgeworld books.

[andalucien]

Damn... shouldn't have kickstarted an inevitable flamewar about forgeworld there... hehe... anyway...  all... to be clear, again, these fortifications are NOT FORGEWORLD, they're GW and you can buy them from Chase

[Chase]

I'm glad this has come up because it's reminded me about something that came up this weekend that WILL cause a revision to be made as far as fortifications and out tournaments are concerned.

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.


The change that will be made for upcoming event posts will look something like:  If you take a fortification you are doing so under the the agreement that it will be played as if it were modeled like the default version.  Any and all judgement calls made by a referee will treat your fortification as if it were GW stock.  Modeling for advantage will not be allowed or accepted.

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

Also, just so I can post it up where some people might read it:  When you're submitting your army to be judged for appearance, it's straight up cheating to include (or not include) ANYTHING other than exactly what is in your list.  If you do that, stop doing it. 

[andalucien]

Yay!  thanks chase.  I may actually buy one of these things, its rules are not embarrassing and the thing just looks BOSS.  Got a good idea for how to fit it in my next project

[Sir_Prometheus]

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. 

[Typhus]

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.

The Warhammer Fantasy tower, which by 40k BRB definition is the same building size and height as a Bastion (and as such, by the BRB is a legal fortification) has 80 billion firing points from all the windows.

[PhoenixFire]

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

[Chase]

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.