Guest Posted April 7, 2015 Report Share Posted April 7, 2015 http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/PRIMUS_REDOUBT.html And Rules: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/p/Primus_Redoubt.pdf So, evaluation wise, this is an option for escalation/apoc games. Large building, similar in concept to the Aquilla strongpoint, but much better thought out in terms of viability for the current edition. It doesn't remove the ability for the opponent to 1-hit them, like other buildings, but it is very strong defensively, despite this disadvantage. Building does have ranged D, but doesn't allow embarked units to fire it, instead having it's own dedicated firing crew. Rules very much support the idea of forcing the opponent to take the building, rather than having them destroy it turn 1 without effort (it can still be done). Cost in cash, it is on the cheaper end of FW D weapon options, but still very expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 Meh, seems spendy points wise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 Yeah, I think I'd rather just get a Warhound. Yeah, it's not as tough, and it can't protect Units, but it's mobile, only like 100 Points more, and has twice the firepower. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 Meh, seems spendy points wise. Aquilla is like 550pts base, has half as many hull points, no saves and so forth. For a building with the stats it has, it's pretty good for points. GW still needs to make the building damage table more balanced, but that's a whole other issue. Yeah, I think I'd rather just get a Warhound. Yeah, it's not as tough, and it can't protect Units, but it's mobile, only like 100 Points more, and has twice the firepower. Mostly agree. I think, thematically, I like this better if I'm on the defensive side. I will note that it can still take building upgrades, like void shields and has a pretty reliable AA upgrade option too. Beyond that, it does raise a question. I had been thinking that buildings couldn't get invulnerable/cover saves due to previous building rules. I'm no longer sure if this is true. Would certainly be a game changer, if I can get an invulnerable save for a different building option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 Unless specifically stated otherwise, Buildings follow the Vehicle Rules. I'm not aware of any Rule that changes things from how Vehicles get Saves. There are some things that don't work, like occasionally Tyranid Players will try to get Shrouded for a Building from a Venom/Malanthrope because they didn't read the Spore Cloud Rules thoroughly enough to see that it only applies to Tyranid Units, but in general, you can get Cover for Buildings, and things like a PFG or that 4++ Divination Power should work on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 Unless specifically stated otherwise, Buildings follow the Vehicle Rules. I'm not aware of any Rule that changes things from how Vehicles get Saves. There are some things that don't work, like occasionally Tyranid Players will try to get Shrouded for a Building from a Venom/Malanthrope because they didn't read the Spore Cloud Rules thoroughly enough to see that it only applies to Tyranid Units, but in general, you can get Cover for Buildings, and things like a PFG or that 4++ Divination Power should work on them. Last edition, for sure, Buildings couldn't benefit from things like PFG or psychic powers (or psychic hoods, for that matter). Are you sure these have changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torg Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 meh - you have to have the battle boards to really use this one right - not very positional (build into a realm of battle board) - you can only turn the square R or L… thats it. From a gamer point of view - I have already picked up the Aquilla strongpoint - for those Apoc games and other big games. It's many times more versatile and is about 50$ cheaper…. and very customizable -kit bash or even adding more of the strongpoints or wall formations. If someone likes the look of this FW fortification - you could build one out of foam and bits… or a fraction of the cost… can probably much cooler :). Although if you already use the Realm of Battle boards - I guess its a nice option. For me - its a pass with nary a side glance. -d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 meh - you have to have the battle boards to really use this one right - not very positional (build into a realm of battle board) - you can only turn the square R or L… thats it. From a gamer point of view - I have already picked up the Aquilla strongpoint - for those Apoc games and other big games. It's many times more versatile and is about 50$ cheaper…. and very customizable -kit bash or even adding more of the strongpoints or wall formations. If someone likes the look of this FW fortification - you could build one out of foam and bits… or a fraction of the cost… can probably much cooler :). Although if you already use the Realm of Battle boards - I guess its a nice option. For me - its a pass with nary a side glance. -d I've done apoc games where we had a mix of normal tables and realm of battle tables. Not an issue. You just play with that edge counting as open terrain and it doesn't block LOS or count for cover. No issues. That said, I very much agree with the scratch build approach to this one. In particular, gives me an alternate use for my armorcast warhound's arms... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torg Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 thats just silly… so if you have no Realm of Battle set up… you would purchase it to use? seems silly to me. Sure… you could use it without realm of battle boards. But based on the OP intention (imo) its just not worth the time and $ unless you already have realms of battle. Otherwise its more expensive than other options ( Aquilla standpoint or diy). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 thats just silly… so if you have no Realm of Battle set up… you would purchase it to use? seems silly to me. Sure… you could use it without realm of battle boards. But based on the OP intention (imo) its just not worth the time and $ unless you already have realms of battle. Otherwise its more expensive than other options ( Aquilla standpoint or diy). Longterm goal has been a modular table for in-home gaming for quite some time. Realm of battle is a bit spendy, but I do like the modular aspect of it. Very likely, I'd scratch build the above and the entire modular table, as excessive conversion is more up my alley. As for construction, it is basically an aquilla with a warhound arm mounted for a turret, right? Doesn't exactly seem difficult to proxy or convert. Also, given it's built into a realm of battle boards, it makes it one of the easiest FW models to determine how big it really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 Last edition, for sure, Buildings couldn't benefit from things like PFG or psychic powers (or psychic hoods, for that matter). Are you sure these have changed? It says that Buildings are treated as Vehicles unless specifically exempted, puts that in bold, and adds a couple of examples of how things that specifically affect Vehicles will affect Buildings. I can't find an exemption anywhere for the examples I gave. I think the big difference for some of those is that in 6th, a Building was considered purely a Terrain Piece, and not a Friendly Model. But in 7th, a Claimed Building counts as a Unit in the Claiming Player's Army, and so it can benefit from effects that work on "Friendly Models". The only thing is that it's still Factionless, so abilities working on a particular Faction won't apply to it, even if it's Claimed by a Unit from that Faction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 Otherwise its more expensive than other options ( Aquilla standpoint or diy). Also, aquilla is horrible. Issue is that opponent lands with a basic drop pod and disembarks a melta team of 2-4 melta guns. These roll 1-2 pens. Void shields don't really help, because they are easy to destroy with other units (like auto cannons and missile launchers which can't hurt the aquilla). Now, on the pen chart for buildings, mighty bulwark is -1, but ap1 is +2, so the melta guns net +1 on the building damage table. On the building damage with +1 to the roll, natural 6 destroys it, 2-5 forces occupied unit to snap, and 1 lowers AV on all facings. It is notable that 4-5 on the table "randomly" destroys one of the aquilla's main weapons, so stock Macrocannon Aquilla loses it's main weapon unless you buy other weapons for the building. Really, though, big issue on the building damage table is that melta guns will force it to snap on 2+, which really destroys the usefulness of a 500+pt model. A very lackluster end for a model which is 535pts base (checked, had it wrong before). Aquilla only has 5 hull points... The Primaris Redoubt, has all the strengths of the aquilla, but has a 4++ against shooting (3++ against barrage) and 10 hull points. That turbo laser even has a special rule which allows it to always fire at a fixed BS regardless of snap (or other) conditions. It also includes rules which both prevent the weapon from being destroyed via the building damage table and prevent the turbo laser from being able to be stolen by enemy which occupy the building. From a balance stance, this also means that the player can't use a character's BS and special rules to fire the weapon, unlike the aquilla which can certainly use a special character's BS and special rules to make the aquilla do unintended things. All that said, This seems like it's intended for a nice 10,000+pt army, or a specific campaign scenario. Not exactly something for normal games, or even small games of apocalypse (As west mentions, it isn't better than a warhound. Though I think it would supplement an army with a warhound or two already in tow). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 It says that Buildings are treated as Vehicles unless specifically exempted, puts that in bold, and adds a couple of examples of how things that specifically affect Vehicles will affect Buildings. I can't find an exemption anywhere for the examples I gave. I think the big difference for some of those is that in 6th, a Building was considered purely a Terrain Piece, and not a Friendly Model. But in 7th, a Claimed Building counts as a Unit in the Claiming Player's Army, and so it can benefit from effects that work on "Friendly Models". The only thing is that it's still Factionless, so abilities working on a particular Faction won't apply to it, even if it's Claimed by a Unit from that Faction. Wow...Looked up that psychic hood thing and it appears to be specifically addressed on page 26 in the psychic hood box. Look like buildings can deny the witch....Been doing that wrong since 6th, when they specifically couldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aventine Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 The real point of this fort is that it stealthily includes the missing carapace turbo-laser option for a FW Reaver titan... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 The real point of this fort is that it stealthily includes the missing carapace turbo-laser option for a FW Reaver titan... Huh...Perhaps that is the logic... By that logic, I wonder if the Apocalyptic Missile Launcher mounts on this fortification....? Does seem weird that they wouldn't advertise the connection. FW is typically better about that sort of thing than GW. 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.