Aegis defense line & other fortifications

[Exilyth]

Just found my Aegis Defense Line while rummaging through terrain storage.

It's been quite a while since I last used that one on the table as more than just a neutral terrain piece.

 

So, anyone used the aegis defence line in 8th edition?

What about the other fortifications like the wall of martyrs or the imperial bastion?

[STTAB]

Locally we have 2 tournament organisers, one ITC and one modified ETC, the ETC one allows a 4th detachment if it’s a fortification.

 

I played a test list ages ago with Dark Angels Plasma Inceptors starting in a bunker on the line. They disembarked within 3”, moved 10” and had a 18” range for a 32” threat range, Sammael and Talon master bringing up the rear for rerolls and Weapons of the Dark Age for damage 12d3, damage 3 plasma.

 

A bunker *might* be worth it to start a Bullgryn squad in as it would protect against those half movement stratagems (if you go second) that are everywhere and give them a little movement boost when they disembark... probably better off spending the points on more Bullgryn.

 

I was close to using a Skyshield in my 4th detachment but non fly vehichles have to start on ground level... I was gonna put 2 russes in it for the 5++ and have 2 Astropaths giving defensive buffs... I see people putting 3 Iron Hands Repulsor Executioners in

Skyshield s after the nerf :s

 

All the fortifications are way too expensive, don’t get prepared positions, you would only use them to protect a super powerful expensive infantry unit like Ryza Kataprons or Imperial fists Centurions.

 

If you want to protect dudes, you have access to Valkyries and Chimeras, both of which have a lot of use.

[duz_]

I haven't felt the need for the defence line in 8th thanks to not every thing ignoring our armour save and used the points for toys

 

Now Marines have their ap-1 back might be worth revisiting?

[MinoanFresco]

Hello Exilyth,

 

The way cover is handled in 8th is a tad bland, no? Just a +1 to SV and that's it. This leads most people into thinking, "Meh, I'll take it if it's free, but otherwise I'll just spend points on something that can actually kill." Which makes a lot of sense for the current state of the game, but not so much lore-wise, or common sense-wise... (I realize there will always be fanatics out there).

 

"Valorous s'rgeant, prayeth thee bid, wh're shalt we taketh our cov'r from the foe's bolts which assail us most wearily?" 

"Behold! first squad's assault hast did fail! hideth 'mongst their c'rpses!

 

Fanatics make great walls!

 

MY IMMERSION!

 

That being said, I might be tempted to take the imperial defense line if cover offered a little more defense against shooting (with some exceptions):

 

Let's pretend, shall we?

 

e.g.

 

Infantry units in cover treat AP -1 weapons as AP -0 if the weapon's strength is STR 4 or lower. (maybe even STR 5?)

Flamer weapons and Grenades ignore the benefit of cover and additionally gain -1 AP against Infantry units in cover, (unless the AP would already be more)

 

That way, cover would protect against small arms fire, but not against flamers, grenades, close combat troops, etc. Things which would be more capable at dislodging encamped enemy troops. (Just like in real life!) 

 

And speaking of real life, welcome back. Yeah, no, I don't take fortifications, I just take more guardsmen

 

Thoughts?

 

~MinoanFresco

Edited October 29, 2019 by MinoanFresco

[duz_]

Great insight Minoan, but let's not digress into a hypothetical rules discussions.

 

Would be a good discussion for Amicus or even email the GW faq with your suggestion :tu: