Protecting Against Scout

 by Kirby

 

With White Scars being everyone's favorite bandwagon to jump on currently, let's look at Scout protection and why you might need this.
Scouts for individual units is great at helping them put pressure on an opponent or get them into a slightly better position. Scouts for entire armies magnifies the pressure they can put on an opponent – particularly if they are fast. White Scars are obviously fast and combined with natural Hit and Run – this means they can effectively take away entire shooting phases from large parts of your army Turn 2 onwards. It's therefore damn important to know how to stop or restrict this – they are a fast army so they're likely to get into combat with you at some point or running shooting circles around you but you want dictate how they do that as much as physically possible.

The first and most obvious answer here is using infiltrators and bubble-wraps. Bubble-wraps are no longer as powerful as they were in 5th edition however; they can still limit the engagement opportunities for opponents using an aggressive Scout based list (remember, not just White Scars have this option but so do Raven Guard, Khorne Dogs, Grey Knights, etc.) which puts you back into the controlling seat of what's unfolding on the battlefield. You can't always stop an opponent from doing something but if they're doing it the way you want, it's a lot easier to win a game. Then there's infiltrating units – one of the core restrictions of Scouting is you cannot end within 12″ of an opposing unit. This is obviously a great way to push Scouting units back by simply extending the presence of your army outside of your own deployment zone. Although the bigger the unit here, the more area you can keep Scouting units away from, even a token Infiltrator can assist in giving you that extra turn of space.

Taking this further and we combine the two concepts – an infiltrating bubble-wrap. Kroot are the most obvious example here where not only are they acting as a bubble-wrap but by infiltrating, they are providing Tau with more space to utilise their own movement and tactical options to win the game. Not only is the unit protecting your army but it's also keeping Scouting units away from the area you wish to control and its often part of the army to begin with anyway. Given the rise in these type of armies recently, I'd be looking very hard at having some sort of infiltrating unit – it doesn't have to be big or expensive but expanding the range of your ability to push Scouts away from this:

 

to this:

is massive. It might not seem like much (6″ linear) but it takes a lot more of the board away from your opponent – particularly if you have a bigger unit or multiple small uits to create larger board coverage. If you can infiltrate out of LoS as well, they effectively cannot get closer to you. That's massive x2. That being said, you want to make sure the unit can otherwise add something to your army and isn't a huge useless lobbie otherwise (oh hi Mandrakes!) but given the strong push for these armies currently, that change is game-changing. Remember as well, this concept can be used against podding or deepstriking armies though the aura effect is replaced by simple bodies in the way.

Be very careful if your opponent has their own Infiltrators however; as this means they can effectively push back your infiltrators and give their Scout units the free reign they wish. That being said – many Scouting armies won't bring something like this as it's only a 50/50 chance for it to work and it's not always going to be worth the points investment given that many players won't bring anything with this rule – I imagine this will increase though and for often the paltry cost of 75 points (i.e. Sniper Scouts), armies like this are going to be advantaged by bringing them. The same goes for opposing Scouting units – it can push forth the bubble which they cannot move into however; your opponent has an opportunity to win a 50/50 roll-off here which means you're not always going to get what you want so it's not the most reliable defense.
There are other methods to eliminate and reduce Scouting threats for some armies such as Servo Skulls. Although these wargear pieces are not common, Allies opens this up massively to anyone who may or may not be struggling with Scouts (and off the top of my head, I cannot think of other anti-Scouting wargear pieces currently…).

But what happens if you cannot access such wargear or don't have your own Scouts/Infiltrators? Well first – consider your army list and see if this is a change which can be made which isn't going to negatively impact its ability to wage tiny D6 war. If not – Scouts offers movement options to the opponent before the game starts which either involves getting into better firing positions or aggressive positions. The above options look to take that away outside of your normal deployment but it doesn't restrict opponents from actually getting benefits – they still can; it's just you're attempting to control some of that yourself. Regardless, you want to try and minimise what they are aiming to do. If they're trying to get Gargoyles, Hounds, Bikes, whatever into your main army as fast as possible to stop them shooting and bog them in place, put your main army somewhere where they are difficult to get to. Terrain, bubble-wrap units, impassable objects, open table between units, etc.

Use your own Hit & Run, have super durable tarpits in places you don't want to actually go, etc. I so often see people setting up their defenses on objectives or choke-points between buildings – your defenses are past these points so your army can move to hold these as they need. You need to afford yourself the movement options behind what will inevitably be attacked or shot so you are giving yourself tactical options to respond to your opponent. When push comes to shove – you cannot take away all the advantages of Scout – even if you have enough Servo Skulls to stop all Scouting – Scouts can still redeploy to overcome a refused flank, reposition weapons better, rearrange units, etc. but the more you try and fight on your own terms, the less advantage your opponent may be able to gain from this.

Spam

originally posted on Total Immersion Wargaming 

 



Hmmm... Spam...

Threat saturation, redundancy, target overload, cookie cutter, copy and paste – aka spam.

From what I've read around the mighty internet over the past few years, the use of the term of spam can differ from place to place. Extreme examples are easy to spot, but is seems particularly tricky to identify the line at which spam occurs (I never thought I'd write a sentence like that with a serious face...). What seems to be limited though is an explicit detailed discussion of whether spam is useful or not (any suggestions welcome!).

This CONCEPTS: article discusses the definition of spam, and then looks at the benefits and drawbacks of the most famous of all gaming foods (ok, maybe cheese should win this title).

DEFINITION

As alluded to above, pinning down an exact definition of spam is potentially a contentious subject. For the purposes of this post I will use the following:

Spam – Taking an identical unit in multiples over and above what is commonly considered acceptable in casual games.

That's about as good as definition as I can get to. The real problem is not so much in defining the concept, but rather agreeing what counts as spam as this is appears to be highly subjective (as highlighted by Mercer's discussion on Imerius Dominatus here). Let's go into this in a little more detail to show you what I mean.

Units

Easy ones first. Filling all available slots with the largest possible number of identical models automatically qualifies as spam. For example, taking three units of three broadsides (the maximum allowed per unit) with the same load out is definitely generally accepted as spam. On the other hand one unit, even with identical options on each model, is not spam. I don't think many would argue against this as a commonly accepted starting point. Now for the large grey area in the middle.

Two identical units is borderline in some people's opinion (personally I'd say two is definitely not spam), but what about two identical units and a third unit with a different load out? What about three units of largely similar but slightly different equipment? Or even better, three units with just one model, but all with the same equipment? In the broadside example, I think many would class three units of a single broadside as spam, but the exact same number in one unit would be fine. Good huh?

Weapons

Then we have the repetition of similar weapons across different types of units. If taking 12 missiles in 3 squads of long fangs is spam, what about spreading the same number of missiles around more units? Does taking 2 units of long fangs with 2 missiles each (plus other different weapons), a couple of landspeeder typhoons (which have missiles) and a couple of cyclone missile launcher wolf guard still count? I'd guess that the latter wouldn't instantly trigger cries of spam, but it has the same number of missiles!

So given the above, I'm leaning towards the use of the term spam in relation to a combination of weapon types, rather than by unit type. So missile spam Space Wolves are in, but long fang spam is out because isn't precise enough. If a unit has only one common load out (with minor variations), then I would say using 'unit' spam ok as it is easily understandable, e.g. wave serpent spam.

Troops

So that's considering units and weapons typically the 0-3 FOC slots, but what about multiple troops choices? Would a Necron army with 4 units of 10 warriors trigger 'warrior spam'? Or maybe an army full of tactical marines should be considered 'bolter spam'? I would say no for the former but a technical yes for the latter. What about chess and it's terrible burden of 'pawn spam' (Google search this at your own risk!)?

I thought that the idea was that troops make up the majority of an armies fighting resources, and even though specialised or elite forces exist in the fluff, people seem to get offended when gamers take a large number of very common units for that army, especially when this includes multiple dedicated transports like razorbacks, venoms or night scythes.

Relative

So as you can see, pinning down an exact definition of spam that everyone can agree on isn't easy. Personally, I'd suggest that spam is relative to the number of slots available and that troops and dedicated transports have a higher threshold before gaining spam status. So for 40k, I'd say that outside of troops 3 identical or very similar units qualifies as spam but anything lower isn't. For troops I'd say at least 5 units, with similar amount for dedicated transports.

The ultimate gaming food!

PROS

What's I've completely avoided in the definition is the question of whether it's beneficial to spam anything in the first place.

Redundancy
The primary benefit is of course redundancy, in terms of threats (offensive redundancy) or targets (defensive redundancy). I think a balanced competitive list will use the right amount of both offensive redundancy using multiple threat vectors and defensive redundancy through a focus on one aspect (e.g. light or heavy mech, infantry). I also prefer my threats to be diffused throughout the army rather than in discrete targetable units, but ideally have enough of a threat range (via weapons and mobility) to be able to concentrate on one area if I need to. This is easier said than done though!

Efficiency
If it's good and cheap, why not take lots? (see Cons below!)

Aesthetics/Theme

Some people like to take lots of something because they think it looks cool or is fluffy. Noteable examples include Deathwing and Ravenwing, but there are many more. Others might like to play a certain style afforded by spamming one aspect. When I was playing 40k at school in 2nd/3rd I always loved the idea of a mechanised space marine army because I really liked the idea of an independent strike force speeding around attacking the enemy. I didn't ever get this far but when I started playing again in 5th, vehicles had suddenly become usable and were actually really good so I was very happy! I think Mech still has a place in 6th, so I get to play with a style of army that I like in a competitive setting.



I'll pass, thanks

CONS

False economy
It's easy to spam something that really isn't that good! Imagine taking an army full of flamers and virtually nothing else. Even if they were massively discounted, they have limited range and are only really effective against certain targets. This example would be so severely hampered against most other armies that this would not be a good choice of weapon to spam. Mid-strength weapons with a decent range are a much better choice, as they can effect light vehicles and MCs, but usually come in enough numbers to have some use against infantry too. However...



TigerofMyth on DeviantArt

Too many spoons
Spam can limit your capacity to deal with a number of target types. Spamming strength 7 with good range may be a strong choice, but if it's all AP4 or worse your army will find AV13 or massed 2+ saves a challenge. Repetition can come at the cost of operational flexibility.

Predicable
Opponents won't have much difficulty working out your battle plan and can plan to play around your spam, potentially turning your strength into a weakness. For example, going first with an effective threat range of 36" will prompt most enemy generals to deploy out of range, wasting a whole turn of your shooting. Loads of static shooting units can be out-maneuvered by using cover or line of sight blocking terrain to limit your effectiveness and mobility to tackle sections of your army at a time. Being predictable isn't usually a benefit!

Opportunity Cost

If you're filling your slots and spending a large proportion of your points on the same thing, naturally there won't be the points or space to cover other important functions or tools. The basics still need to be covered if you're aiming for a balanced list.

Repetitive Gameplay and/or Aesthetics
This is the other side of the coin to aesthetics/theme. Whilst some people may love to model, paint and play a certain way, this could be torture for others. Not everyone is as motivated to spam a unit by the time they get to their 8th razorback or 100th kroot. Also, playing against the same style of army over and over can be a bit dull for opponents!

Irene Koehler on AlmostSavvy

COMP

Composition scoring (aka comp) deserves a special mention here. Not to repeat myself as I've already covered this in some depth, comp typically seeks to restrict spam, as some TOs see as spoiling the fun in the game (and of course everyone agrees with the TO's version of fun, right?).

If the most efficient choice is, say, 4 fliers but the comp limits the choice to 3, I'd suggest that there's a good chance there will be a lot of armies with 3 fliers. Players will just push to the limit of what's allowed. Added to this, some armies are better placed to get around traditional comp and still spam certain effective elements thanks to a better range of choices to select from.

I think that comp aiming to restrict spam just changes the strongest builds available, and I've yet to see it restrict all players equally due to the differences between armies.

EAT MY S***

SPAM - A FOUR LETTER WORD

I don't mind the term spam when it's used accurately, and see it as more of a description than an insult. However, I've seen or heard it used so many times as a derogatory term by players who don't like repetition, often under the guise of fluff, sportsmanship, or maybe their own made up version of the rules. I would like to respectfully point out three things.

1) Many armies, in both real life and in the gaming universe, take an efficient unit or weapon and use it in multiples because they think it gives them the best possible chance of winning the battle. Fluffy and competitive, no?

2) Using spam as an insult is deeply unfair on themed armies, as they often seek to repeat an aspect as the driving narrative behind their army (e.g. Deathwing = terminator spam, any mech army, you get the idea...).

3) Spam is entirely legal and supported by the rules. GW, or whoever wrote the game, have specifically stated how much of a certain unit an army can contain. GW in particular are well known for their aversion to competitive gaming in preference of forging a narrative (selling models is apparently mutually exclusive from good tight rules and random is supposedly fun too...), and could very easily have further restricted the available options.

If players wish to introduce house rules or comp to control spam, that's completely ok and their choice, but this is not standard gameplay and everyone else should not be expected to play a different version of the game to suit another's preferences by default. As I've mentioned before, I politely suggest finding like-minded gamers and enjoying the type of game you prefer, rather than trying to impose your own expectations on others (this applies to both casual and competitive games alike!).



WikiHow

CONCLUSION
Spam can be effective when units/weapons are taken that provide offensive redundancy and/or target saturation whilst being points efficient and still covering all the required tools/battlefield roles. However, spam can also be limiting by reducing an armies capacity to deal with a wide range of threats and by being predictable.

I don't have a problem with spam, either on competitive or fluff grounds, but I understand that not everybody feels the same. However, there can be a lot of factors to consider when choosing what to spam, taking into account the pros and cons discussed above.

Now I need to go and have a snack...

Eldar Seer Council on Jetbikes

original post by Reece Robbins 

The much maligned Warlocks are actually a powerhouse unit when used correctly. Read on for more info!

The Deer Council

by: Grant Theft Auto from the Road to the Las Vgeas Open blog

Edited by Reecius from Frontline Gaming

Are you tired of your failing seer council? Are you frustrated with the randomness of the warlock powers you roll? Well, there is still hope and I’m going to tell you why! So grab your popcorn, put some new shorts on and go dust off those old warlocks because the whole band is back together and they’re better than ever.

Now before I start, this is my only warning; this is an extremely strong and competitive tournament build. This is the kind of build that makes your friends want to flip the table when they lose two riptides and a fire warrior squad in a multi-charge turn 2 and put the middle finger up at you indicating that you, sir, are no longer their punching bag!

Now what is the Deer council? If you haven’t seen any of my video battle reports at Frontline Gaming, or battle reports on Dakka or you haven’t played against someone who runs one then it’s a brand new concept to you. The Deer council is essentially a mix of the big three; Farseers, Warlocks, and the Baron. This synergy between the big three is essential to giving this death star its super strength. I’m going to explain the big three and tell you their weaknesses and strengths not because I want to ultimately ruin my run at tournament dominance but to help people understand why the council can be so dominating if played by the right person. So, first off every good death star needs a good start and without the Farseers nothing else would matter.

Lets start with the ones that lead the pack; the Farseers.

Starting from the top:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Stats are decent

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Comes with witchblade/ shuriken, ghost helm, fleet and automatically level 3 physic

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Has access to powers from Runes of Fate, Divination, Telepathy

Not bad choice for an HQ. Now when you upgrade him you get lots of options some notables are:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Singing Spear, Jetbike

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Runes of Warding, Runes of Witnessing

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Remnants of Glory

Now when I run my Farseers I run two, both on Jetbikes, both have Runes of Witnessing but each one has different weapons. First off my warlord always switches out his shuriken for the Shard of Anaris. This makes the Farseer a real threat in a challenge against monstrous creatures and strong HQ’s. The next thing is extremely important, the shard makes the entire council fearless. My next Farseer is equipped with the Fire Sabre, the only AP3 weapon that the Farseers can get. I put them both on jetbikes which is essential because it adds mobility plus it gives them a 3+ save and makes them T4.

Now when rolling for powers at the beginning, your first goal is to get fortune. Sadly without fortune your council has to be played a little bit more fragilely. Between the two Farseers you should get it once. The point of having two Farseers is to up your chances of getting fortune. There is always that one game when you will not get it and things suddenly are a whole lot tougher. After you’ve rolled fortune then it’s up to you to roll on the other charts. I usually go for Telepathy because I’m a huge fan of puppet master and terrify because the ability to take away a unit’s fearlessness is huge when considering assaulting it. Also the ability to take over your opponents the vehicle, riptide, or wraith knight and to destroy his own units is always priceless.

So now that we have the Farseers, now we need the bulk of the council. That’s where the warlocks come in.

Starting from the top:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->For a command add on unit they have a good stat line, notables are WS4, I5, BS4, fleet but only LD8

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->They come with a witchblade/shuriken, 4++, and are Level 1 Physic

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Can access powers from the Runes of Battle

Can be upgraded with:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Singing Spears and Jetbikes only

When you construct this unit, your primary goals is to increase your chances of getting the powers you want but also to increase the amount of bodies to soak up fire and perils of the warp. Keeping this in mind, I usually take a minimum size. if I’m going to include one in my list then I always include at least 8 warlocks. I then go ahead and upgrade them all to ride on jetbikes, this is the upgrade that makes this unit amazingly versatile and tough to take down. Just like the Farseers the warlocks gain a 3+ save and become T4. Now let’s talk about the one thing the council have benefited most from this new codex, the introduction of their own unique physic powers.

When you’re rolling for power at the beginning of the game the council’s powers become a huge role in how you run it. When I roll for powers, I always try to get some key powers that benefit the council. One important one is the Protect/Jinx power. This power is huge it makes your council a 2+ save, or it -1 save to an enemy within 18 inches. I once rolled four of these in a single game and made a riptide a 6+ save. Don’t underestimate this power; it makes your witch blades become extremely deadly against terminator like enemies. The rest of the powers are nice and they complement your council nicely, some notable ones are Empower/Enervate which gives you an extra punch in against vehicles or on your Hammer of Wrath hits. Another is Embolden/Horrify, this is a huge one that helps win multi assaults or paired with Terrify from the Telepathy chart helps you run an enemy off the board. Recently I used this combo on Aun’Va and a castling Tau player to get rid of the LD10 stubborn bubble that the army uses. I cast Horrify on him twice, which then dropped him down to LD4 stubborn and cast Terrify on him to make him run off the board edge. This is also effective against Demons and their instability check when assaulting them, you can eliminate more of them through a LD test then potentially the combat itself. The next power I’m a huge fan of is Destructor/Renewer, this power is huge it allows you to put down a S5 AP4 soul blaze template or revive a wound to anyone wounded within 18 inches. When I get two of these I usually put my Farseers in front to tanks wounds from smaller strength weaponry. The last power and the second most important power is Conceal/Reveal, this gives the council Shrouding or take away Stealth and Shrouding to an enemy within 18 inches. I always have at least two or three of these in my council, depending on who I’m playing. Every time the council moves an inch they get a 5+ jink save, now when the Barron is in the council they gain the Stealth bonus from his special rule bringing them up to a 4+ cover save. Lastly when you cast conceal on the council they gains shrouding which brings their save up to a 2+ cover save. Now when you have eight to ten warlocks rolling for powers at the beginning of games the odds of getting all the powers that you want go up. Now you’re starting to get the picture of how the Deer Council works, but don’t forget the last piece that makes this whole death star work; the Baron.

The Baron is the single most important unit to making this whole thing work, without him everything crushes inward from the lack of special abilities that the council has. Let’s show you why.

Starting from the top:

• Dirt cheap point wise
• Decent statline for a Dark Eldar HQ S4 from Hellglave, T3, LD10, A4, Power for pain, Skyboard
• 2++ Shadow field
• Give units he’s joined with; defensive and offensive grenades
• Stealth
• Gain +2 Strength on the charge with his skyboard
• With new GW FAQ, he adds +1 to your roll for determining who goes first
• Hit and Run

The Barron is a huge gain for all the amazing things he gives to the council and did I mention he is a real bargain at a little over a hundred points. First off when you’re rolling for who goes first he gives you a tiny bonus of +1 to that roll. Going first is huge with the council it allows your precious Warlocks and Farseers not to get alpha strike by your opponents big guns before your council can get their powers up. Next up, even though the Barron can’t turbo like the rest of the council he still keeps up with the back of the council with his 12 inch movement on his sky board. One key thing about the skyboard is that he doesn’t lose his fleet while on it because the rest of the council has fleet also. Now in the rule book it says you can’t run on bikes, but if everyone in the squad still has the fleet special rule then you can use it to reroll your charge distances when getting into those long multi assaults. Next thing that the Baron gives to your squad after they’re in close combat is the ability to Hit and Run away from the combat to bounce off to a weaker unit or set yourself up for a bigger multi charge so that you can wipe out multiple enemies. I have used this plenty of times to hit multiple weak units that are suddenly unprotected by their screen or counter assault units.

And don't forget about those Grissly Trophies! Wow those things help this unit as they allow you to reroll psychic checks. Also, the warlord trait that allows them the Warlocks to test on the Farseer's ld is amazing!

This unit is a true deathstar. It can be incredibly difficult to destroy and if you get +1 armor save and Fortune, they are effectively immine to small arms fire. Even AP 2 has to get through the 4++ reroll, and if you position the Baron correctly, a 2++ reroll. Doesn't get better than that.

The unit doesn't have amazing offense but they pack a wallop with fleshbane attacks, and a lot of them. With rerolls to hit and possibly to wound, you really maximize what offense they do have, and lowering enemy armor saves can be huge, too. This unit can and will win you the game on its own, and has done so for me many times.

Be wary of massed AP 2 attacks, Mind Strike Missiles are murder (although the Farseer can use his Ghost Helm to tank a lot of the wounds if positioned correctly) and getting alpha struck on turn 1 before you get juiced up is a real threat.

Foaming Up Your Fortifications!

originally posted on Warhammer 39,9999

Here is an article on the hobby side of things. I don't post as many of these as I probable should. Most of it is pretty much common sense but if you haven't seen this yet enjoy!

 

 

I apologize if the title seems misleading. I’m not intending to actually build foam: I’ll leave that to more established professionals. Instead, this post is about tailoring foam for my buildings–or more accurately, for my fortifications.
This past week I had some people over for games (including my recent game with Jeff), where it became pretty obvious that I need to do somethign with my terrain (and with the crap lying around my garage in general). I have too many models lying around with no real rhyme or reason. Hence, my renewed interest in foam.
I say “renewed interest” because I’ve done some pretty extensive work on custom foam with my Tyranids, but apparently I’ve never come up with a post on that (despite taking pictures of it back in the day with the specific intent to do so). Oh well, maybe one day I’ll get around to doing such a post. For now, suffice it to say that this isn’t my first rodeo.





The first time around, I’d purchased the foam from JoAnn Fabrics (a U.S. based arts & craft store similar to Michael’s or Hobby Lobby). The foam there was green, and only marginally cheaper than pre-cut foam; however, I had a 40% off discount which made it relatively viable. I’ve since switched to “camper” foam from Fred Meyer’s (which is our local grocery store/department store chain, which just so happens to be a Kroger affiliate for those of you in the rest of the U.S.). The new foam comes in approximately 2′ x 6′ sections of 3″ foam. It doesn’t appear to come in any other sizes, but it’s reasonably good and the best part is the price: $20 for a sheet. Well, that was the sale price, but the standard price is only about 10% higher.
So, I went down to the store and picked up a couple of sheets for use with my fortifications.
For tubs, I used some plastic containers that we purchased when we moved houses a few years back that just haven’t found contents on their own. These particular totes are from Sterilite, and I believe are referred to as their 66 quart latch box. The official dimensions are 24 1/2″ L x 17 3/4″ W x 13 3/8″ H, but I cut the foam to 19″ x 14.5″ in order to fit in the tapered bottom. Come to think of it, I’m not 100% sure that this is the exact tote, but it seems pretty close.
Anywho, each tote holds four layers of foam. Unfortunately, many of the buildings (if not most) are in excess of 3″ tall, so they need to span multiple layers to be properly stored. Fortifications like the Aegis defense line, most of the Wall of Martyr pieces, and the Honoured Imperium stuff all fits nicely within a single slab of foam. Other pieces, like the Aquila Strongpoint, Firestorm Redoubt, Bastions, & Fortress of Redemption all need at least two layers (in the case of the Bastions, it’s really close to three).





While I was at it, I also cut out foam for my IG weapon platforms (why not, right?), and intend to cut out foam for the “chaos portals” used in this apoc game. I’ve also not actually gotten around to cutting foam for the Fortress of Redemption because I’m having trouble finding a way to do so without taking up four complete layers of foam for it. I have an idea that might let me squish it down to three layers that I’m hoping to try tonight.
Undoubtedly, the foam that I’m most proud of is the tray that contains the Skyshield Landing Pad & Aegis Defense Lines.
Wait, is it ok to be proud of foam? I certainly am.
Anywho, the foam worked out well because of the weird shape of the Skyshield itself. Since it sits just over 3″ off the ground, it won’t fit into a single foam tray. Likewise, the dimensions of it are slightly bigger than the 14.5″ width of the tray, so it overhands a tad (which itself, isn’t an issue because I put it on the top of the stack, and the sloped sides of the plastic tote allow for the variance). But after I cut four holes, I didn’t know what to do with the extra foam. It seemed like such a waste to leave it empty… but then it hit me: the Aegis lines were quite small and should fit inside perfectly. With minimal fiddling, I was able to stick two sets in comfortable. I think with some serious thought,
I could’ve worked in a third.





I’m content with the foam as a whole. It wasn’t very expensive (mostly because I already had the totes on hand) and didn’t take all that much effort. Suffice it to say, this certainly doesn’t save space (or money really, but at least the foam was cheap). The intent is to keep things looking nice, which is true both of the garage (neatly stacked trays are far superior to piles of models), and for the models themselves, which are sure to whether my abuse/neglect far better in plastic/foam.

So you’re taking a fortification to a Tournament?

 by Matt-Shadowlord

 

Fortifications are suddenly a hot-topic again. We’re about to get an injection of new Fortifications into the game, as several Apocalypse releases will also have 40K profiles and points-costs. Even the usually rational AbusePuppy is working on building his own extravagant fortress.
The first thing a Tournament player needs to know about the Fortification Rules is that nobody plays by the Fortification Rules.
This article has two goals. The first is to make players aware of what Tournament Organiser (TO) rulings they may have to deal with if they decide to take a fortification to a tournament. When we're talking about spending up to 290 pts on non-scoring, non-contesting, immobile terrain pieces that don't even count as part of your army it's extremely important to know what use you're actually going to be able to make of them.
The second is to take a look at rulings made at various events to hopefully filter some ideas through to TOs who are trying to decide how to handle these structures at their own future events.

 

A Tale of Five Fortifications

1) Fortifications that don’t fit will be destroyed.

Reported by Clever Handle:
“In my area you get these rules:
Terrain is adjusted by the TO's immediately prior to calling round pairings. Fortifications must be placed a minimum of 3″ away from any pre-positioned terrain piece. If your fortification can't be deployed because of the previous rule it counts as destroyed.”

2) No Fortifications are allowed

When the 6th edition rule book came out, this was expected to be the common response, and 40K sites with articles from that period are still littered with comments to that effect. The truth is that a ban on fortifications does happen, but is very rare.

3) Fortifications remove existing terrain

Reported by AbusePuppy:
“TSHFT uses a rule that ‘you have to pull one piece of terrain from your half when deploying a fortification'. Different terrain pieces are given different “values” that are supposed to roughly correspond to the terrain densities from the BRB rules, but not all of them are marked and you have to remove at pieces worth at least as much as the one you're putting on.”

4) No Fortification shall be placed within 3″ of another piece of terrain or fortification, other than an aegis defence line which can be placed in and around terrain.

This is a common ruling locally, so to show one of the most prominent (and influential) versions I have copied the following in full from the Australian Team Championship (ATC) rules pack
“1. No Fortification shall be placed within 3″ of another piece of terrain or fortification, with the exclusion of an aegis defence line which can be placed in and around terrain.
2. If the player can find no location to place the fortification that they desire they may remove 1 piece of terrain that is situated entirely in their table half, and then place the fortification approximately in that location.
3. In the case of a Fortress of Redemption a player can remove up to 2 pieces of neighbouring terrain pieces and place the Fortress of Redemption approximately in that location.”

5) No Fortification shall be placed within 3″ of another piece of terrain or fortification, including the Aegis Defence Line.

Reported by Difsta:
“Most tournaments I have seen have the terrain pre placed by the TO, so the rule is you cannot place a forification within 3″ of a piece of terrain. I know a range of tournaments with different TOs that rule that your placement of the aegis line is not legal. Not because it is in an E shape or any other shape, because you have it going through a piece of terrain.”
This was posted as a comment in response to a battle report here on 3plusplus, so it’s easy to demonstrate. Difsta’s comment was that some Tournament Organisers would rule against placement like Aegis in the bottom centre where it overlaps some trees and is near a central piece of terrain.

That's a list of five quite different ways to handle fortifications, but the eagle-eyed reader will have noticed the one thing they have in common:
None of them are according to the rule book.
The rule book’s method of placing terrain and fortifications is very impractical for Tournaments –it’s rarely even used verbatim for friendly games, since few people actually see much point to rolling off for side of the table while the table has no terrain on it.
That ends the fact-based part of this article, and I'd now like to offer an opinion which is essentially that if every method used for placing fortifications at a tournament is essentially a house-rule, we should attempt to be gentlemen about those rules.

1) Fortifications that don’t fit will be destroyed.

This rule is by far the worse of the lot. It goes a long way to betraying a TO’s personal views on fortifications existing in the rules. We don’t all have to like them, but the chance a player might start with a deficit of 75, 220 or even 290 pts destroys the level playing field required for a competitive event.

2) No Fortifications are allowed

As mentioned above, this is rare. I am against this because some armies rely on fortifications for their sole meagre chance at skyfire, and banning them improves flyer-based armies at their expense.
In my opinion it’s still better than Rule 1 though, since not having a fortification is a lesser evil than to thinking you have one and losing it before the game!

3) Fortifications remove existing terrain

This is a common and (in my opinion) sensible rule, except when it includes the Aegis wall. Removing a hill to place a bastion out of necessity is one thing, but allowing players to remove large amount of terrain to place a 28” long wall is very different and completely open to gaming.
You can see the effect of this in AbusePuppy's report from TSHFT where he and other players used Aegis walls to remove line-of-sight blockers and difficult terrain from the centre of the board.

If the TO gives players such power you can hardly blame them for using it, but it’s still desperately gamey and changes the balance of the game.
To give another example, in the battle report mentioned above the impassable terrain in the centre meant splitting my army in two to get the Deamons to the Tau. I’d have sacrificed a thousand Ethereals on the altar of Khorne to have a chance to remove it – and if a TO ruled I could remove it just by placing an Aegis in its location I’d be foolish not to take advantage of it. I would be taking advantage though.

4) No Fortification shall be placed within 3″ of another piece of terrain or fortification other than an aegis defence line which can be placed in and around terrain.

Most implementations of this rule do require/allow a piece of terrain to be removed with TO approval when placing a large fortification, but they essentially ignore the Aegis wall.
The Aegis is by far the most common fortification people take for good reason – it’s cheap, effective and it can fit virtually anywhere. If people put it in terrain or run it through a forest or ruin they are usually doubling-up on a cover save the wall already gave them, so opponents have little reason to complain.
Letting players just get on with it and place their walls anywhere in their table half reduces overhead for the TOs, who should then find it more easy to deal with the 1 in 10 who bring something more chunky that actually requires attention.
This is my favourite solution of the lot, and probably the one used most often.

5) No Fortification shall be placed within 3″ of another piece of terrain or fortification including the Aegis Defence Line.

This is very similar to the rule above, and at first sounds like it’s closer to the rule book, which doesn’t distinguish between the Aegis and any other fortification. However in reality by the letter of the law it is impossible for an Aegis in your own half of the table to be placed in an illegal position – it’s always the terrain that should be 3” from it rather than vice-versa.

Since that means this is just another house rule, there is very little to be gained by trying to attempt it and it is a lot less practical than just placing the Aegis. It would require terrain to be just over 6” apart, and the existing terrain would dictate the exact path the wall follows. We’re talking about a lot of hassle and weird placement for not much gain.

In conclusion:

I’ve described five different ways Fortifications are treated at tournaments, and none of them are RAW. If you take a step back from how rigid most 40K players are about the rules, the great surprise is that everyone seems to be fine with this. And so they should be -in many ways, 40K is like a game.
To Tournament Organisers I recommend using a version of “4) No Fortification shall be placed within 3″ of another piece of terrain or fortification other than an aegis defence line which can be placed in and around terrain.” It’s fairly simple, low maintenance, and a lot less vulnerable to people ‘gaming’ the system.
I can’t recommend against the rule ‘Fortifications that don't fit will be destroyed’ enough – better to ban them entirely than to gouge out a piece of someone’s army based on the random chance of which table they are assigned to and how densely populated with terrain it is.
To Players, if you plan to use anything more ambitious than the Aegis wall, I recommend checking what rules the event will be using before sending in an army list. Losing a sky shield to TO rules would be a tragedy, but losing a bastion with a quadgun or a Fortress of Redemption would be a disaster.
-Matt
PS – I listed the five I am aware of, but if anyone knows of other rules used for Fortifications at tournaments post below and I will add it to the post-script.