The official model for the bastion looks like crap.
On a scale of 1 to 10 how butthurt would people be if i made my own using hirst art blocks?
I wanted to make a church looking building to be the bastion for my SOB army. However my plan involved putting the heavy bolters in the bell towers and mounted on top of pillars on either side of the front door.
Am i ok to position my heavy bolters where i want since im building my own bastion and the entry for it states that it has 4 heavy bolters but dose not say i must put 1 on each facing? Or is that a dickbag move?
I mean im playing sisters so its not like im going to win anyways. i just want my church bastion to look good and its hard to do that with a heavy bolter sticking out of a wall on each side.
>>46744511
>The official model for the bastion looks like crap
Shit taste detected
>>46744511
1. The official model looks pretty good. I like it. It's a portable, collapsible, military structure. It's like complaining that a modern day FOB or tent city doesn't look good.
2. Nobody gives a shit people have been making their own fortifications since the dawn of time. You should at least make it about the same size and have the same weapons and ports, but honestly who gives a shit you can even ignore that if you want to. Build a gothic skyscraper citadel if you want.
>>46744520
>he likes blocky dublo tower
>>46744638
>SoBfag thinks generic IG military shit should look like the Pope's penthouse
Sisters of Bling pls go
>>46744564
I would try to maintain the same footprint. But it will likely be a tad larger.
Would it be ok to take a home made bastion to a tourny?
While i would like it to be WYSIWYG and have the 4 heavy bolters front facing i can see people getting butthurt over that when a retributor squad shoots its 4 heavy bolters AND the 4 heavy bolters from the building using their act of faith.
Nobody is going to be butthurt if you do some custom modeling, OP. We might criticise your shit taste, but custom modeling is always welcome, even from the shittiest tasted.
>>46744520
>wants to build a church to the god emperor of mankind
>wants to make it double as a building to smite the xenos and heretics
And you think this is "shit taste"?
Im going to need to see a copy of your primer soldier. Ill also need your name and number to report to your commisar for further scrutiny.
>>46744687
The only thing that would gain an advantage from a too-tall Bastion is very large titans and flyers with very high stems, like a custom acrylic rod base for a Thunderhawk.
The only normal unit that would gain an advantage from a Bastion that's too high or wide is the Imperial Knight, who is 1" higher than the official Bastion.
Since almost all tournaments allow Void Shield Generators and very few people have the actual model, I don't think this will be a problem. Especially when the Void Shield Generator is much larger than players realized when the rules were out but the model had not been released yet, and the Void Shield is also much cheesier than a Bastion. Sisters of Battle also have an incorrect reputation of being a weak army, so players will not be eager to complain about your fortification or heavy weapons squad.
>>46744663
Your god damn right everything should be dedicated to the god emperor of mankind.
Its either of the emperor or its heresy!
>>46744801
>play SOB
>1st game of tourny get some crap ork horde build
>he is laughing as he sets up saying "HUR DUR EZ WIN FO DA ORKZ!!!"
>im playing what i call a fun build
>6 penitent engines are in this build
>3 units of seraphim with 2x dual hand flamers
>motherfucking repentia FUCK YEAH!!!!
>orkfag dose not know the fury that penitent engines can unleash
>ork fag dose not know the fury that seraphim can unleash
>orkfag thinks its a good idea to send meganobs after my repentia!
Oh god i will never forget that game. His tears were the sweetest thing i have ever tasted.
On turn 3 he was bitching about how SOB are OP as all shit and im only winning because im a richfag who shelled out for SOB.
Just picture in your mind a green tide of tightly packed ork boys with 6 untouched penitent engines moving up to within 3 inches of them then unleashing all dem heavy flamers and charging the leftovers. i still get a emperor boner over that.
>>46744970
That's fucking beautiful.
Especially the butthurt. I would have been laughing my ass off as you roasted me just for the shit luck of meeting the perfect army to table me.
>>46744511
You need to put the bolters on each facing, same as the officisl model. Did you really ask that? Concentrating them all to the same facing is akin to moving Leman Russ sponsons to the turret.
>>46745301
But the unit entry for a bastion says
>4 heavy bolters, typically one on each facing.
Typically being the key word there. Whereas sponson weapons are stated to be mounted on the side and given a page of detail to show their fire arc.
>>46745478
Nice try, faggot.
>>46745508
Know what? now im going to make my church have a small tower in each corner and im gonna mount my heavy bolter emplacements up there on turret rings just for you annon.
>oh no this building has 4 heavy bolters forward facing what do?
>i mean its not like i can just move around it or get behind it or anything!
>>46744757
>ACTIVELY CLAIMING THE STANDARD PLAN EMPEROR APPROVED IMPERIAL GUARD BASTION IS TERRIBLE
Heretic detected
>>46745560
Not even the guy you were talking to, I just enjoy proving morons who don't read the books wrong on /tg/.
You can do whatever you want, but I'm glad you admit you're actively cheating now instead of trying to hide your nefarious scheme behind a veil of false innocence and misrepresentation of the rules.
>>46745616
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?349964-Bastion-Tactica
>Sharp-eyed readers of the Bastion rules will notice, however, that the “one heavy bolter per facing” is not a rule, just a suggestion.
Is from 2012. I was unaware the rules were updated to specify 1 on each side.
I tend to not take snipits of rules people post here too seriously. A little bit of time in photo shop and i could have a rule saying i get 10 heavy bolters.
>>46745616
The dataslate on the Bastion doesn't actually specify the locations of the Bastion, simply stating "four emplaced heavy bolters"
Along with that, in "Access Points and Fire Points" it says "As per model." so the rules definitely allow for varying Bastion designs, even though GW only sells the one Bastion model. This means that you're free to model your bastion any way you like, so long as your opponent is okay with it and recognizes it as a bastion.
Conclusion: Check with your opponent, but you're probably good.
And the segment you posted >>46745508 is from the 5E rulebook, whereas the dataslate I'm pulling this from is from Stronghold Assault, which is several years more recent.
>>46744511
Where are all the skulls...? Not a single flying buttress?
40K is dead.
>>46745868
The as per model shows precedence the four bolters should be located per facing. It also puts the gun emplacements "box C" on the diagram on each facing and on the top. They don't put all four C boxes for the bolters on one facing.
>>46745868
>And the segment you posted >>46745508 (You) is from the 5E rulebook
It's from the 7E rulebook you dumb faggot. 5E rulebook doesn't even have a digital format. Bastions didn't even exist in 5E outside of the Planetstrike expansion.
>>46745868
>I'm pulling this from is from Stronghold Assault
Which doesn't say "typically one on each facing", Mr. "Typically being the key word here" faglord.
Don't try to argue your way out of this one, because unlike you, I actually read the fucking rulebooks just to prove you wrong because I knew you were wrong from the beginning. Go find me where it says "typically".
>>46746033
>Go find me where it says "typically".
Its been a while since a read the rulebook forgive me for not being able to quote the exact wording of every rule by heart.
But i do not recall any rule stating that a bastion has 4 heavy bolters and must have one on each facing.
Then again i may be confused. I have been playing this game longer then most of its current player base has been alive.
>>46746129
>Its been a while since a read the rulebook forgive me for not being able to quote the exact wording of every rule by heart.
You don't have to do that, you just have to not make up bullshit and say "the rulebook says typically!" when you don't even remember what the rulebook said.
Nobody asked you to recite the rules perfectly, we're telling you not to pull shit out of your ass, doubly so if you're not even confident about it. It's not an outrageous demand. But then again, I'm talking to Mr. Can't Not Cheat over here.
I think fortifications would be more fun if you could give them infiltrate
>>46746129
Dont feed them annon. The anti fun police thrive on telling others how to play with their little army men well beyond what is normal.
Its kind of like those assholes who play historical games and bash other peoples paint jobs for being the wrong shade of green on a uniform.
>>46746283
>breaking the rules and cheating is the same as painting your army the way you want
I'd post that stick figure image of the tic tac toe guy scribbling shit all over the grid like a retard but I'm too lazy.
>>46746283
It's ironic that OP is the rules lawyer here as he's trying to game the rules to allow quadruple the firepower on his fortification. Is that irony? Oh wait I think that's just you being retarded.
>>46744823
This faithful gets it
>>46746283
from my experience historic wargamers fall into one of two catagories
>friendly but lonely history buffs who will painstakingly recreate their favorite historical battles and love more than anything when someone shows interest in their game
>people who want a army wargame but won't play 40k or KoW
the former generally provides the models themselves for both sides and would gladly explain and demo the rules if only anyone at all showed interest in history
while the latter are usually bitter angry people who chase away potential players and then complain they have nobody to play against
>>46746283
People would have a similar reaction if you shoved all your tanks sponson weapons on a single, central turret.
Modelling for advantage is a thing, and custom proxies are notorious for it. Don't be a dipshit and people won't give you guff.
>>46744511
>On a scale of 1 to 10 how butthurt would people be if i made my own using hirst art blocks?
... They wouldnt?
Isnt that the point of modeling the 40k units? That you can make whatever you want?
>>46746486
people model their riptides in a prone position so they can get cover saves behind fire warriors
>>46744511
I say you can make your own but you can't change the placement of the heavy bolters. It seems very obvious to me that the heavy bolters should have the same placement as the official model, and changing the placement is basically TFG behavior.
BUT
If you really don't like the placement of the heavy bolters and you don't want to model one on each side I'd say you could choose to remove a heavy bolter from the sides.
So you're saying that rather than four heavy bolters, one on each side you want four heavy bolters, two on the front and two on the back. I say that if you really don't like the heavy bolters on the sides then go with two heavy bolters, one on the front and one on the back. So basically you can either model the same bolter placement as the original piece of terrain or you can choose to deliberately nerf your piece of terrain for the sake of having it look the way you want it to look. It's up to you.
See, the whole point is that you should still be able to do what you want but you shouldn't be able to just double the firepower of your bastion like that. That's just ridiculous. The philosiphy behind this is that if you're going to deviate from the way things are officially, you need to deviate in a way that would compromise you more and not your opponent to be fair.
OP here.
For fucks sake ill build my church, model it how i want to and when it comes time to shoot ill just say there is a heavy bolter on each facing.
That make everyone happy?
I wanted my shit to be WYSIWYG but a gun on each side just looks bad to me.
>>46746689
>That make everyone happy?
No.
By my understanding Warhammer 40K is meant to be strict WYSIWYG, in theory. So by not modeling heavy bolters on the sides but playing the piece of terrain as though there are heavy bolters on the sides opens up a world of possibilities of opponents telling you you don't get the heavy bolters. Or forgetting the heavy bolters on the sides exist because they're not modeled there and getting mad at you when you shoot at them with nonexistent heavy bolters they can't actually see but have to pretend exist.
The best solution, is that you don't get your cake and eat it too. Either model the heavy bolters on the sides or don't, and if you don't you don't get any heavy bolters on the sides.
Because, well, Tabletop Wargaming is very serious business.
>>46746277
Would Scout do? Because you can do that with Skitarii.
>>46746920
can you scout a bunker with an escape hatch?
>>46746992
Yes, but you cannot assault out of it first turn.
>>46746994
first turn first turn or blitz brigade first turn?
Do youknow yer limitz?
>>46747004
Fuck if I remember, and my rulebook's out in the car, so I'm going to leave it as an exercise for the reader.
>>46747015
I've probably put shooty things in it anyway. More power and reliability
>>46747046
Yeah. An Imperial Bunker (Fuck the bastion, I'm not paying 20 extra points for Heavy Bolters I can't even use all of at once) with a Dev Squad in it with the reroll-1s upgrade just gets so much work done, no matter what the dev squad's packing.
>>46747061
You pay 20 extra points because the bunker looks like a retarded piece of shit.
>>46747175
And the Bastion doesn't?
>>46746661
Anon, you are the one guy in this thread that I would enjoy playing.
He's absolutely right. Changing stats and in-game performance to reflect a modelling preference should always be at the expense of your own advantage, not your opponent's.
From a fluff perspective, it takes space to man a heavy bolter. If they could realistically manage to fit two on a single wall, then surely a standatd bastion would have that already - two on each face for a total of eight....
>>46744511
>how butthurt would people be if i made my own
You must be new. So, it's a matter of practicing until you get good at it. Any geedubfags who insist you need to buy the "official" shit are
1. Suckers
2. Responsible for the death of the hobby
and
3. should be burned at the stake
itt: tourneyfags and geedubs autists get mad
>>46745508
That is the one below. Not all bastions. Not sob fag just wading in on legalese
WYSIWYG Is important and you should never model for advantage, people who do that are dicks. Also people who care about official models are idiots.
>>46747811
Participating in tournaments is not a bad thing. Neither is caring about what the rules actually say.
Man, it sucks that 7e rules removed immobile units from deep striking onto the board from reserves. No possibility of using bastions as massive drop pods.
>>46744511
Putting them all on the front is a bit of a dock move.
That's okay though, with the new geomancy powers I can just turn your bastion around and push it to the edge of the table so that it can't shoot anything.
Seriously, spread the heavy bolters out.
like everyone else said, tournaments, and a lot of people in general dislike modelling for advantage and it leaves kind of a bad impression to shove all the bolters onto one side (though technically the rules allow it).
How dick of a move is it to model a bastion like pic related (with 1 HB per side).
>>46746585
those people don't think far ahead and are a minority anyway.
Being short is a disadvantage when attacking. With 2+ save and sometimes 3++ they'll rarely actuakly make use of the easier cover. But I'll sure as hell use the fact that my chimera now blocks LoS from the riptide.
>>46746689
gun on each corner maybe?
>>46746689
What sort of a church are you looking at. If it's like a cross with a tower in the middle, why not put bolters on the tower, either one on each facing or some sort of automated defence gargoyles on the corners?
