Jump to content

Fortification Networks


AgentP

Recommended Posts

Mostly logistics. They take up a huge chunk of room on the table, are hard to make work around pre-placed Terrain, and it can be real a hassle moving them between tables, making time constraints even worse.

 

Some, like the Void Shield Network, are potentially broken, but mostly it's due to factors outside the scope of the Game itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virtually no tournament allows fortification networks.  I'm wondering why.  Are they massively broken?  I don't really see it.

They can be pretty broken.

 

In particular, the skyshield landing pad is pretty broken, but balances by occupying the fort slot. If it doesn't occupy the fort slot, it is very broken in some armies (like Tzeentch CSM).

 

Void Shield generators are also in a similar boat, not being broken if taken as the fort slot, but they get pretty irritating if taken in large numbers. Basically shuts down the shooting phase for some armies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virtually no tournament allows fortification networks.  I'm wondering why.  Are they massively broken?  I don't really see it.

 

Most of them have banned it either because "they take up too much space" (which I'm not sure why that is actually a problem- they take up too many points in your list, too, but that's an issue for the player, not a reason they can't be used) or because of the Void Relay Network (which allows you to bring up to three VSGs at once.) Having run the Relay Network before, I didn't find it overwhelmingly powerful- annoying for my opponents, sure, but once they get inside the bubble (or drop the Shields) pretty easily dealt with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other concern is that unlike last edition, where bought terrain replaces existing terrain, bought terrain in 7th must be able to fit in deployment zone. Really have to strentch the rules for things like the Fortress of Redemption, as the model doesn't fit in most standard deployment zones.

 

So for a TO, it becomes a choice of limiting fortifications by size occupied, or by allowing players to displace/remove terrain they don't want in their deployment zone.

 

I have heard of events where a predetermined zone was placed for fortifications and players could not occupy more space than that, nor did they have alternate deployment options for their fortifications. Seems like a more work for the TO, as tables would require being set up in advance with that zone labeled in addition to other set up.

 

It's difficult to balance the two table sides if players intend to bring terrain which alters the terrain balance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran the Wall of Martyrs Imperial Defence Network during last years Planetary Empires League,ran it in my Ork list as a "freshly overran" battle line,it was a lot of fun! and actually pretty effective for the Orks with all those added gun emplacements,It was against Jeff`s Dark Eldar and ended up with a very close loss for the Orks,,which would have been much more of a loss without the network I think.

 

I can see the number one reason TO`s don't want to deal with it is the space it takes up.In the case of mine,I had the minimum buildings/trenches for it and it was still very hard to fit it into the deployment zone(Vanguard strike in this case).

 

With the changes to skyfire in 7th edition I haven't considered ever running it again though...too many points put into dedicated AA units to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of them have banned it either because "they take up too much space" (which I'm not sure why that is actually a problem- they take up too many points in your list, too, but that's an issue for the player, not a reason they can't be used)

 

Why is the space they take up a problem?

 

Fixed terrain  (as in part of the board it is on).  We have some really nice tables with fixed terrain.  Work able with a single fort, not so much with an armies worth of forts.  

Need space to put unused terrain.  We let people pull terrain so they can place a single fort. Imagine if they needed to pull half the terrain off the table.  

The logistics for dealing with moving terrain (time, space, etc) is significant in a timed event.  Hell its significant simply for the beating the terrain is likely to take.

 

Then a TO has to weigh the cost to them to allow them.  The constant stream of crap from the people who see them as abusive.  The ruling issues they didn't see coming.  Etc.  All this when more then likly maybe one guy will show up with a network to begin with, and its probably the void shield generator one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logistics for dealing with moving terrain (time, space, etc) is significant in a timed event.  Hell its significant simply for the beating the terrain is likely to take.

 

If it takes a player more than five minutes to move terrain sufficiently to place their fortification, they are either stalling for time, trying to cheat, or fantastically unable to deal with basic spatial reasoning. It's really not very difficult at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It feels like something that isn't done .... because it's never been done.  I swear, gamers are so fearful of change, like a bunch of old women stuck in how things were done back "in the day"

 

While I agree in some cases, GW have a long history of making really poor decisions. I remember a ton of people defended Escalation when it came out, and that was a f***ing mess, speaking from personal experience in having played with it. Making an honest assessment of new rules is good, but part of that is also a certain level of skepticism as to how well they will function.

 

That aside, however, the Void Relay Network is the only fortification that is even close to being broken (both versions of the Aquila are pretty mediocre these days, what with Knights and Drop Melta and Scout Melta running around, not to mention Haywire and such) and even that is a pretty arguable case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It feels like something that isn't done .... because it's never been done.  I swear, gamers are so fearful of change, like a bunch of old women stuck in how things were done back "in the day"

40k Organized play fears change. The gamers will typically roll with it, if presented by a reasonable person for friendly gaming.

 

You've been asking about fortification networks in context of organized play.

 

Had an opponent that insisted on playing "blind" - which, to him, meant that you didn't get see the opponent's list, see any reserves or know the contents of transports. It was a fun game.

 

Had another game where we decided to take the 1/4 of the table in terrain and just leave all the terrain in that 1/4th of the table. Another fun game.

 

Either of these will create arguments if presented as an organized event, but they would just fine in friendly games.

 

As for broken fortifications, I think the Skyshield Landing pad is the closest of a broken set of rules. By broken, I mean the rules really just don't work very well. You've got a terrain piece with rules regarding models on top, and a large hollow area beneath, but no rules regarding the underside. You've got a 4++ which applies to any model on top, without any sort of stipulation regarding size of the model, nor any rules which prevent stacking this invulnerable with other invulnerable saves. So, in example, Any CSM with mark of Tzeentch have a 3++ on the skyshield. Likewise, a warlord titan, barely balancing on the skyshield has a 4++ in addition to void shields and a crazy number of hull points.

 

Void shields are close second, as those rules require non-GW FAQs, or they create debate in almost every game I've seen.

 

And last, would be the Vortex Aquilla, just because GW still hasn't clarified how LOS is drawn from those missiles. Not in ITC FAQ either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...