Planet Strike rules...

[ThralKhan]

I don't know if I'm the only one here who feels this way, but for something that's been well over 2 years in the making, I expected more for the codex. The rules are quite vague and few and far between. There is some nice fluff and lots of pictures, but that's it.

 

My question is how others interpret the ruling of guns.

 

I have plans to make an Imdomitable Fortress, but like the bastion, it's vague on how to do it...at least fairly.

 

The fortress is divided roughly into the main tower with two or more sections and usually has four automated heavy weapons. Notice the vague words "roughly", "or more", and "usually".

 

There is no definitive rule that states the IF will have 2-4 sections with no more than X heavy weapons. So when does it become unfair? Are the "usually" 4 heavy weapons counted for each section since they're counted separately, or total for the whole IF?

 

I'm sure I'll have more questions as I make my terrain.

 

Thanks for reading

[DarkPrincess]

It says somewhere(Forgot what page, don't have a good memory), that a general rule for bastions and stuff is "Try to be fair, remember, you're not always going to be defending!" As for the fortress, I'd say depending on how you build it would depend on guns, like if you had 3 full size bastions all side by side, you'd manage to get 5 automated weapons..since each fires in a 90degree arc the ones on the sides of the bastions that face each other would in turn be useless anyway.

 

The mounted quad-gun and icarus lascannon state that you can have no more of them than there objectives(maybe bastions, again, not good at remembering), and that if they're mounted ON a fortress or bastion they become an automated weapon, but they do give it another weapon to be destroyed on the chart which may prolong the life of it. Then there's the turret mounted battlecannon you can get as a stratagem...and on that note, don't forget about all the attack stratagems..there's enough stuff that if played right would let the attacker make good headway on the 1st turn and very well turn the game on it's head no matter how well you set up.

 

Basically, it's similar to Apocalypse, feel free to do it however you want, just try to keep it fun. Sure you could put down 6 bastions, a crapload of mounted guns, and Aegis lines around all of it in a 2000 point game..but unless the attacker did well with firestorm and stratagems, the game would be over very fast and, to me, wouldn't be replayable because it'd be no fun. I guess the simplest way they could have said it in the rulebook would have been. (If in doubt, think if you were the attacker, what would you feel is fair.)

 

The biggest quarrel I have with the book is that they SHOULD have made at least a couple of point suggestions..most of the scenarios in the book appear to be apocalypse sized titanic battles on a standard table...it'd been nice to have seen a couple examples of 1500-3000pt games...

[Grey Mage]

I don't know if I'm the only one here who feels this way, but for something that's been well over 2 years in the making, I expected more for the codex. The rules are quite vague and few and far between. There is some nice fluff and lots of pictures, but that's it.

 

My question is how others interpret the ruling of guns.

 

I have plans to make an Imdomitable Fortress, but like the bastion, it's vague on how to do it...at least fairly.

 

The fortress is divided roughly into the main tower with two or more sections and usually has four automated heavy weapons. Notice the vague words "roughly", "or more", and "usually".

 

There is no definitive rule that states the IF will have 2-4 sections with no more than X heavy weapons. So when does it become unfair? Are the "usually" 4 heavy weapons counted for each section since they're counted separately, or total for the whole IF?

 

I'm sure I'll have more questions as I make my terrain.

 

Thanks for reading

Each section counts as a Bastion.

Each Bastion allows you to have 4, and only 4 heavy weapons. In addition you get the option of a dual twinlinked autocannon or a special lascannon.

 

Taking an indomitable fortress changes three things, thats it- you only need one door for the whole thing. You have access to two special weapons- the missile launcher and TLLC, and you must take them first. And lastly you can move from one bastion to the other freely.

 

Each bastion is still its own objective, each one is still going to give one strategem point.

 

The vagueness is because, should you choose, you could put extra weapons on it... the interceptor guns from other bastions or other parts of bastions. You dont get "free" access to these. You do have freedom to place them though- so if you have five sections you could put three sets of autocannons on the main fortress, a missile launcher on one, and a TLLC on another. Theyd all be interceptors, and theyd all be automated at BS 2.

 

Also note- the imdomitable fortress has a limit on the number of firepoints per section: 6. Normal bastions have no such restriction.

[Coyote]

I agree that Planetstrike could've been written much more tightly. And the fact that it wasn't indicates to me that GW intends Planetstrike games to be more about fluff than WAAC. I think that some of the vagueness that's pointed too is, therefore, deliberate. (Which is unfortunate, because I think that playing Planetstrike, with 1 game as attacker and 1 as defender using the same terrain in both, would make an extremely good competition. Especially in tournaments.)

 

That said, I think Grey Mage's interpretation (above) is about as good as it gets, for now.

[avatar8481]

I agree that Planetstrike could've been written much more tightly. And the fact that it wasn't indicates to me that GW intends Planetstrike games to be more about selling models/terrain than WAAC.

 

Fixed. I agree that trying to tie the Planetstrike rules down to firm interpretations is like wrestling jello, but Grey Mage has made it as clear as it's like to be.

[nighthawks]

I agree that Planetstrike could've been written much more tightly. And the fact that it wasn't indicates to me that GW intends Planetstrike games to be more about selling models/terrain than WAAC.

 

Fixed...

GW is in the buisness of selling models, supplies, etc... to that end, all of their products are in effect both a product with intrisic value, and a product taht encourages additional purchases. that is their business model, and while it may seem a bit more about sales than about the product at times, we cannot fault them for trying to improve their bottom line.

 

that said, the planetstrike rules are, in this mans oppinion, very nice, concise, and open for improvosation. I think that this is the route they are taking 40K GENERALLY and tournament play is going to suffer or keep adopting a weighty set of FAQs a'la adepticon as a result. if you want tight rules, play WHFB, maybe TLOTR/WOTR if that is your thing. if you like 40k, youhave to be able to deal with loose rules writing.

[DarkPrincess]

that said, the planetstrike rules are, in this mans oppinion, very nice, concise, and open for improvosation. I think that this is the route they are taking 40K GENERALLY and tournament play is going to suffer or keep adopting a weighty set of FAQs a'la adepticon as a result. if you want tight rules, play WHFB, maybe TLOTR/WOTR if that is your thing. if you like 40k, youhave to be able to deal with loose rules writing.

 

 

I don't think the Tourney play will suffer much from planetstrike, just like it didn't really get hurt too bad by apocalypse...I think GW is trying to open up more to people who CANT exactly go out to a store and play(or cant anymore because of closings and such). Planetstrike is a fun and different way of playing, it frees up the game, but not to the extent that Apocalypse does, thus giving players a framework(the scenarios and such) that they can fill in with the available options and forge their own storyline with. It's not a bad business plan in my opinion...I just think alot of players that have been in it a while are just so jaded with the price increases they can't see any good at all in GW anymore...

 

 

Also, the whole adepticon and rules thing... alot of that is misprintings and changes in codices and main rule books, not expansions(unless they're used).