Let's spitball. How would you standardize fortifications. I'm not proposing changing Baran, Mossinian, or Kreig, but I think it's important to have a discussion on how to make fortifications work going forward.

Which structures should be terrain features? Which should be units? Are there any special rules that would be appropriate? Is there an effective way to genericise certain fortifications to be used by any race? (I'm thinking the "Heavy Weapons APx/ATx" route here so Eldar and Imperials can use the same set of rules) Should units transported in Fortifications be immune to fire, or should they simply get a cover save? (e.g. a rule that would specify unit capacity and save, so bunkers (as units) would get a Fortification (3+, 3 units) rule) Would Fortifications as units without weapons be able to activate (i.e. STM's 'Passive' Rule).

Discuss.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

In general, I think fortifications should be terrain features. The terrain rules are fairly straightforward and if they have to be adapted, it's usually an intuitive process. That's a big mechanical plus in my book.

Many fortifications are inherently neutral like terrain features - minefields, razorwire, trenches, etc.. While bunkers and gun emplacements may not be omni-directional, I think it's within the realm of acceptable abstraction to have them work as normal, neutral terrain.

So, for most fortifications, all that would be needed is a standard list of terrain effects, possibly coupled with specific special rules. We could have a "NetEA recommended" set of standards, but leave it up to the specific scenario or army list.

For example, razorwire and other anti-personnel defenses are dangerous terrain for infantry; minefields are dangerous terrain for everything and moving cautiously is the only possible reroll (i.e. Walker doesn't work on minefields).

And as an example of a situation-specific variation, we might have the NetEA recommendations say most bunkers should count as buildings for purposes of terrain, impassable to vehicles, but the Baran list specifically lists their bunkers as dangerous terrain for vehicles.


For mounted guns and armed bunkers and such, it gets more complicated. I don't like the idea of something like a building being entirely destroyed. Maybe it's just a bad taste in my mouth from the SM/TL days but bringing buildings down mid-game bothers me.

It seems to me that giving DC or an armor save or whatever to a bunker/building/whatever shouldn't mean the "unit" is removed but that it stops functioning as a unit. A DC3 armed bunker could shoot or even Engage in FF, but would remain in play as a normal bunker after it is "killed." I don't think this should be especially difficult. There was a period where War Engines remaining on the board when killed was a common house rule. This is basically the same thing, just that the WE is immobile.

Firing ports are easy enough to designate using current conventions, e.g. "Up to X units may shoot and use FF from inside the bunker."

The WE Transport rules could work as-is if you treat bunkers and similar emplacements as WEs. Boarding troops have to move onto the WE under their own power, i.e. going into the bunker. You would still want the "can't activate later in the turn" to apply to bunker-WEs, because you wouldn't want them to do something like move troops into the bunker, then initiate a FF with all the troops that already activated to get inside getting a double-activation.

Just a thought, but for bunkers, emplacements etc, could they be given a "safe" entrance if approached from one side while being "dangerous" or "impassable" if approached from anywhere else?