New Apoc Terrain/Fortifications Rules - Questions

[Haighus]

I think its a garrisonable bunker, that happens to have 2 weapons mounted on top

I really just want to know the exact wording regarding fire points, because 1 fire point on a 20 model capacity bunker restricts the firepower of the unit inside massively.

[Wolfshade]

I really just want to know the exact wording regarding fire points, because 1 fire point on a 20 model capacity bunker restricts the firepower of the unit inside massively.

I would hazard that the exact wording is in the book and providing it via this might be problematic

[Kaika87]

I would hazard that the exact wording is in the book and providing it via this might be problematic

Is that the same reason there is no clear-cut answer to whether or not the Vengeance can be crewed?

[Haighus]

I would hazard that the exact wording is in the book and providing it via this might be problematic

True, but I was just refering to the first page of the discussion really, where the aquila is described as "fire points as model" (like the bastion and fotress of redemption in the rulebook) but the firestorm redoubt is described as having 1 firepoint only. Seeing as every other fortification with a transport capacity is described differently to the redoubt, I just wanted clarification on whether it was 1 or as model on the firepoints for the redoubt.

[Haighus]

Is that the same reason there is no clear-cut answer to whether or not the Vengeance can be crewed?

Well, the vengeance is an impassable building, according to the first page descriptions, not a gun emplacement. Based on that, I would say that it cannot be crewed, and can only be fired automatically.

[Wolfshade]

Oh yes, and just for clarity I wasn't pointing fingers or anything I just want to be mindful of the ToS.

The rules for the Vengeance are in the box and are rumoured to autofire, without access points or fire points it would point to autofire mode only if the rumour mill is true.

With the firepoint again if the rumours are true it is as it is modelled so the standard pic has an acess hatch to the right and 3 or so fire points in the base

And again this is my interpritation of the rumour not definative fact based on the rules contained within the boxes

[Haighus]

Oh yes, and just for clarity I wasn't pointing fingers or anything I just want to be mindful of the ToS.

The rules for the Vengeance are in the box and are rumoured to autofire, without access points or fire points it would point to autofire mode only if the rumour mill is true.

With the firepoint again if the rumours are true it is as it is modelled so the standard pic has an acess hatch to the right and 3 or so fire points in the base

And again this is my interpritation of the rumour not definative fact based on the rules contained within the boxes

Ok thanks, this answers my question

[eldargal]

I hope they aren't able to be fired by a model, imagine a vindicare or some other character with high BS shooting it, horribly OP.

[Black1705f]

We opened up a Vengeance Weapons gun battery at the LGS just to see what if a rule set was included. At first it was like cool there's like a 6 page pamphlet inside until we looked at it closer and it had only 1 page of rules just printed in a bunch of different languages. The rules did only cover the Vengeance only and not all of the newly released kits so you'd have to collect them all to have the rules for them (Shocker). As would be expected it had either a battle cannon or a vengeance cannon and I think it was BS 2 standard with no gunner option, but I didn't look that close. A large blast ordinance weapon and a heavy 20 weapon can get by just fine at BS2.

I'm just glad people are actually talking about this as opposed to discounting my concerns for point values as either unnecessary or a silly question. I'm still holding out hope that the Wall of Martyrs that currently have no rules or point values might be fleshed out some day, but if I dare mention it I get called dumb. If you look at the models themselves you can tell they have potential to be more than just a simple trench. Metal deck floor, concrete walls with metal reinforcement, and blast shields spaced throughout. If that wasn't enough the backside wall is stacked with weapons and ammunition while the front is a grisly display of the dead (i.e. the Martyrs). Hell if nothing else it should have some rule about being haunted or something.

I'm not expecting much from GW but it would be nice if they did do something with it. Should GW do some Xenos terrain? Sure they should and I would expect similar fluff based rules. If people haven't figured it out yet terrain is beginning to take a more active role in the game not just in a random terrain, but also in a army support role. Unfortunately the focus seems to be Imperial fortifications, but hopefully that will change. If nothing else It wouldn't be too hard to mock up some Xenos versions (Tau, Ork and Necron wouldn't be too hard). Not to mention corrupting any of the terrain pieces for use with Chaos would be easy. I'll probably break down and bite the bullet and pick up a Tau aftermarket Aegis line before they get threatened by GW. Now that I think about it GW might end up spurring on a new market for alternative terrain if they continue in this direction. If there is a need for a new market then someone may jump in to fill it. Outside of some of the iconography it would be hard for GW to say they have IP on a pill box or trench section. Only time will tell.

[Haighus]

Hmm, I can see rules for the existing Wall of Martyrs sets being a possibility, but then it would be just as reasonable to be able to take 6 sections of tanglewire as a fortification too, although, oddly, tanglewire has been taken down from the webstore. I was going to say its been available for years, but not anymore. Personally, I don't think they will make rules for the defense lines and bunker, because they have had 6 months to do so, and, with the defense lines are very inflexible compared to the aegis line. When I say rules, I mean as a fortification.