regarding fortifications

[Eternal Warrior]

Good day to all of the unforgiven. I am here today asking the more experienced battle brothers if bastions, aegis defence lines or even the vaunted fortress of redemption make it into any friendly/competitive lists?

 

Thank you all

[Brother dean]

Fortress of Redemption, Competitive only because it is a little overpowered defensive-wise (It's freaking 4 Landraiders worth of AV14).  But everything I brought for mobility died because there wasnt enough support because it was turtled inside.  I won the games purely because my opponents got focused on killing the fortress and not the objectives.  Anytime you are depending on your opponent to make mistakes you are conceding the initiative.  

[Onisuzume]

Well, wouldn't the fortress make a nice friendship banner bubble generator?

Just stick it in the central tower and I think most of what's standing ontop of the fortress would be affected.

It also adds that much-valued Anti-Air option...

 

That said, it would make for a pretty defensive game.

[Eternal Warrior]

And it is by far the best looking thing ever. And giving my buddy something to throw his dark eldar at seems fun.

[Master Avoghai]

Well, wouldn't the fortress make a nice friendship banner bubble generator?Just stick it in the central tower and I think most of what's standing ontop of the fortress would be affected.It also adds that much-valued Anti-Air option...That said, it would make for a pretty defensive game.

I would not put it in the tower but rather in the central corridor since it has shooting positions and would allow both the central part and the 2 lateral building to profit from the 6" bubble expansion

 

Actually I wouldn't play it without Belial so that you could get 2 DW squads counting as troops to sen in your enemy lines... Or sammael so that you could send scoring bikes at the end of the game. Because if not, you'll have trouble contesting any other objective than the one close to the fortress and could expect nothing better than a draw.

[Centurio]

I like the Firestorm Redoubt.  Its a good place to protect the Banner of Retribution from helldrakes, and comes with some great anti flyer.  I've used it a lot with my IG, and I think I'm going to try it with my Dark Angels soon.  It may be a little harder to fit in a marine list than IG however.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

I cleaned thi thread a bit . Real world has no bearing on 40K so let's stick to 40K and answer OP's question.

[Master Avoghai]

I like the Firestorm Redoubt. Its a good place to protect the Banner of Retribution from helldrakes, and comes with some great anti flyer. I've used it a lot with my IG, and I think I'm going to try it with my Dark Angels soon. It may be a little harder to fit in a marine list than IG however.

It is? Seemed to me that flamers were even more dreadful against troops in a building?

[Centurio]

 

I like the Firestorm Redoubt. Its a good place to protect the Banner of Retribution from helldrakes, and comes with some great anti flyer. I've used it a lot with my IG, and I think I'm going to try it with my Dark Angels soon. It may be a little harder to fit in a marine list than IG however.

It is? Seemed to me that flamers were even more dreadful against troops in a building?

 

 

The Helldrake would get 1d6 hits against the occupants.  You can choose which models take the hits.  So I think there is a better chance that the banner guy can survive.  Not to mention the Heldrake will take a couple of lascannon hits to the face, more than likely.   It could still roll a 5 or 6 of course, and roast everybody.

 

Now, they would be safer in a fully enclosed building, but I am talking about the general usefulness of the redoubt and I have found it to be pretty good.   The 4 twin linked shots has really been effective for me vs flyers.  I'm going to give it a try with my DAs soon.

[march10k]

I cleaned thi thread a bit . Real world has no bearing on 40K so let's stick to 40K and answer OP's question.

 

 

~sigh~  Ok, fine.  Even in 40k, bunkering inside a piece of terrain prevents you from capping objectives and surrenders the initiative to the enemy.  

[[TA]Typher]

Besides the aegis I've never played agaist or used any fortifications. I really should read up on them. I have no idea how they work.

[march10k]

??? I alluded to the lack of them???  I referenced the Maginot Line and the Great Wall of China as examples of fixed defenses that failed because the enemy chose to simply bypass them.  Anyway, I think it was clear that my point was that they're not a good idea in 40k for exactly the same reasons that they're not a good idea in the real world.  I don't think anyone was dragging the thread off-topic here.

[Centurio]

 

I cleaned thi thread a bit . Real world has no bearing on 40K so let's stick to 40K and answer OP's question.

 

 

~sigh~  Ok, fine.  Even in 40k, bunkering inside a piece of terrain prevents you from capping objectives and surrenders the initiative to the enemy.  

 

 

Well.. wouldn't you need a squad to hold near objectives anyway?  Did you know that your fortification can be deployed anywhere on your half of the board and you could occupy it with scouts?  I have often deployed it at 18" out so I could have a squad move forward and occupy the fortification on turn 1.  (usually with the Aegis Line).  Having one squad in one fortification doesn't surrender the initiative to the enemy, in fact it gives your near-objective holders protection and some anti air that DAs seem to lack.

[Eternal Warrior]

March10k, You had a great "real world" quote that was applicable and relevant but oh well. :) I am of the mind that the only thing harder to shift than a devastator squad off of a home objective is a devastator squad inside of a firestorm redoubt or fortress of redemption.

 

I feel like such an old timer because taking fortifications doesn't even enter the equation in my brain. I also need to work on that.

[march10k]

Yes, I know that if you place an objective marker in your deployment zone, you can then deploy an ADL or whatever on top of it. And I'm not totally against ADLs and the like. They're decent protection for heavy support move-or-shoot infantry. However, they still make it easy for the enemy to plan against you, and far too many people stuff them full of ALL of their fire support. Much better to use the range of your various fire support units to spread them out where they can still overlap their fires and support one another, but without making it easy for the enemy's assault units to wipe them all out in one time and place. A fortification can be an asset when you use it to provide cover where it's most needed in your fire support scheme, and if you resist the temptation to stuff it full of troops. Usually, dispersal is a better defense that bunching up behind a wall. Unfortunately, most players' thinking doesn't go beyond "I'm going to put an objective marker in my deployment zone, park an ADL on top of it, and then fill the ADL with troops. That works out great for me, it gives me a no-brainer target for my land raider rush. I'm guaranteed that the 2-3 units cowering behind the wall at the start of the game are still going to be there when my crusaders disgorge their 11 terminators on turn two, and I get to cap an objective, to boot! By choosing to spend points on a fortification, you are tempting yourself to focus on defending that fortification instead of deploying to seize objectives and eliminate threats. The smart move when you have a pair of crusaders bearing down on you is to scatter so the crusaders are tempted to split up and you increase your chances that at least some of you survive...having a wall to hide behind instead makes you think "if I move, the hurri-bolters will get me," so you stay in the false security of the ADL and wait for the hammer to fall. JMHO, YMMV.