The epic trench rules allow one unit per 4cm. I'm thinking of having trenches where the interior is 20mm wide and infantry on 10x40mm bases. Could I declare my wide trench is in game terms actually two trenches next to each? I could then have two stands of touching infantry per 4cm of trench.

Forge World model their Death Korps in two rows in their trenches, so this would match what they do and be better tactically for FF support. It would need a quick explanation at the start of a game but would anyone object to this?

It would make trenches a more usable choice BUT it is definitely against the intention of the trench rules.

There is nothing stopping you from setting up your trenches in 2 parallel lines next to each other but there would have to be 2 separate trench lines and the obvious space that the trenches takes up would space things apart a little more.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Would there, why? It agree it's not what the rules were intending, but nothing in the rules specifies trenches have to be modelled with two sides or have a gap inbetween them.

Some players use defence lines to count as trenches and two one sided defence line pieces backed up against each other could achieve the same thing.

I'll be interested to see what others think as I'm probably going to go ahead and do this trench idea (I'm thinking of putting a large order for trenches in any day). If I really have to I'll just cut the 20mm wide trenches down the middle so that there are literally two lines of (half) trench there.

I should add that my main motivation is aesthetics here, with the small game boost being a welcome side effect. Parallell trench lines immediately next to each (say 1mm of 6mm earth wall between trenches) are legal and good in game terms, but stupid looking and nonsensical in real world trench placement.

Interesting, I haven't thought about this or played with fortifications. Is there a limitation in the rules in how closely spaced trench lines you can have?

Fortifications are purchased in groups - 80cm of trenches (that you can split up as desired) and 4 bunkers in the Krieg list for example. It all needs to be in 5cm coherency, like with regular units, but there's no limitation on how close they can be.

Well then it's really simple. I'd just use the count as rule. "I'm placing my trenches next to each other, two by two, I use this model to represent that".

If it's 40cm in length I don't think I'd care

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

On a somewhat related note, can some infantry really hole up in a bunker completely safe from harm from a Bloodthirster? The last bit of this FAQ from the TP suggests so but it seems silly:

Q:If a vehicle attacks a unit in a trench in CC does the fact it has attacked me in CC mean it has to take a test?
A:If the vehicle contacts part of the stand that is within cover it has to take a dangerous terrain test, if it contacts a part of the stand that is not within cover (say the unit is half within a wood) it would not and finally if the stand were within a bunker, building or other feature impassable to the vehicle it would not be able to enter CC at all.

Why does that seem silly? If the big toothy claws can't get into the building, then it can't get to those trapped teenagers^H^H^H^H troops in the building. So they stay inside and shoot, knowing if they step out they become breakfast.

Just hope no one says, "Cease fire! I think it's gone...."

(Visions of soooo many horror movies....)

-Allen McCarley

With a large building I could understand troops being able to hide away in the middle and be safe. I hadn't realised AV/WE couldn't attack those on the edge of a building or a bunker though and it seems an implausible oddity of the rules. Anyone house rule it not to be the case?

A Bloodthirster is strong and angry and should be able to smash it's 15 foot axe through the wall rather than standing around impotently. My Reaver Titan with 2 close combat weapons (that I'm out in the gloriously sunny garden working on) is more limited in it's use than I'd realised and I wonder how pure WE Knightworld armies cope with buildings or city fights.

It depends upon how you see the building, I suppose. An typical Ork's mud building would crumble under a rolling tank, or under the solid butt of a rifle, and a Bloodthirster would just kick it over and grab the meaty bits inside. However if the building is a bunker built to withstand months of dedicated artillery barrage, or even orbital strikes, I could easily believe it giving troops protection from a gunless daemon.

You could easily write up some stats to give buildings armor saves and damage capacity if you wanted. I'd be nervous to do it for general use in all my games. I remember in 2nd edition when buildings were death traps rather than cover, and I sometimes even rubbled my own buildings before letting my infantry enter them. But special building rules for designed scenarios could be fun.

By the way, I love the looks of reavers with two CC weapons. Please show us pics?



If I were taking such an army into an urban setting, I'd try to select my forces with an eye towards firefights, and flamethrowers. WE's already get to use their dice for FF or CC hits, regardless how they are armed. Thus you can park a WE next to the bunker and throw heaps of shells/kick lots of rocks at all the gunports and windows. Or, if you know you are entering an urban landscape and you are already using the rules that allow custom titan load-outs, grab a flame weapon and use it to ignore the bunker's cover save.

-S'Cipio

Thought it used to be one unit be 50mm of trench?

True, but the trench rules are absolutely terrible.

If you go back enough in time through my own posts on Taccomm you'll see there was a period where I was posting list ideas with trenches in them, building some and paying points to add them to my Death Korps army.

That was before I saw just how awful trenches are in a game that emphasizes clipping assaults. It's so easy to clip a formation using trench rules for defence that they might as well have 'kick me' written on them

I did have some practical suggestions for the trench rules (allow them to extend the FF range of occupying units / allow units to deploy as they fit, as per any terrain) but I don't think it's an area of rules important enough or in frequent enough use to be worth the effort of reaching a consensus on and pushing through a change.

And I am not just saying this either, by coincidence last week I turned all my old trenches into terrain pieces for a tournament.




On the bright side, new terrain pieces

Umm, trenches have always been relatively good for defending against frontal assaults, and crap for defending against flank assaults. They also impose constraints on troop density, which is why you need several lines, and in turn why placing concentric lines up the side of a hill or slope is so much more effective. So, to answer the original question, I believe there should be a minimum gap between trenches.

However, I agree that the current rules do not work well with E:A. Here are some thoughts / suggestions

1. Impose a minimum gap between parallel trenchlines (5cm?)
2. Reduce the FF range of units attacking trenches / fortifications (to 5 cm?), to the point where people can lob grenades etc.
3. Increase the coherency of formations in trenches and fortifications (to 10cm?). This would mean that the DKoK formation could be put in two or more rings of mutually supporting trenches.
   

Me too. Wouldn't care.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter