Guest Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 Can't seem to find this in the rulebook, but I've seen it several places online without any sourcing, as well as in conversation with a local player, but again, no clue where the rule in question is found. I know chapter approved did some updates on fortifications for OPEN play, but I'm not aware of any changes for matched play. Is this a 40k rule or an ITC thing? Or just remembered rules from last edition? By score, I mean hold objectives. I even found one post claiming that bought unaligned fortifications could be captured by enemy units, and become part of the enemy army, though again, no sourcing. Is this somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 Pretty sure those are all things from the 6th-7th Ed Rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 2 hours ago, WestRider said: Pretty sure those are all things from the 6th-7th Ed Rules. That's how I see it, but then this sort of article is online: http://www.3plusplus.net/2017/06/hold-line-imperial-fortifications-8th-edition-40k/ In the very start, they explain the 8e downsides to forts in that they can be captured and that they don't score, amoungst others. But I can't figure out how they came to that conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 That article was posted more than two weeks before 8th Ed was actually released, based on leaks that Matt apparently hadn't read thoroughly enough. It's just plain wrong on those points. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 27 minutes ago, WestRider said: That article was posted more than two weeks before 8th Ed was actually released, based on leaks that Matt apparently hadn't read thoroughly enough. It's just plain wrong on those points. Ah, so that's it. That site, 3++, is usually accurate so It didn't occur to me that it was pre-release info. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 Yeah, 3++ is usually pretty good. But this is one case where things weren't corrected later when better info became available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.