Are the Firestrike turret and Hammerfall Bunker to static?

[slitth]

To me the Astartes are a mobile force. Capable of digging in and holding a position one second and doing cruising attack the next.

 

But for some reason the Hammerfall Bunker and Firestrike Servo-turret seems a bit out of character for the Astartes in my opinion.

They are to static.

 

The bunker seems to permanent and more something that mortals should be hiding in.

And the Servo-turret seems impractical.

 

Perhaps if they were mobile in some way, they would seem more natural to me.

 

Or perhaps its just me.

 

What do you thing?

[Hymnblade]

The Hammerfall bunker seems to be simply an upgraded version of the Deathstorm Drop Pod, although it remains to be seen if it can literally deploy by deep strike during a game. The Firestrike turret is weirder to me.

[BluejayJunior]

They definitely fit some chapters better than others. Although I think all Space Marine forces (including BA which I play) do well with a static firebase and one or more mobile forces. A little hammer and anvil style tactics. We'll see how that plays out in the new edition though. We don't know for sure that the turrets are stationary do we? Not that I really suspect them to be able to move much. 

[Dracos]

Definitely not to my taste.

 

I am however also in the camp that superheavies, knights, custodes etc don’t belong in regular 40k. Working a d6 system really compacts the ability to simulate how vastly superior a Custodes is suppose to be to a Marine or a Marine to a Guardsman. So we have to have an abstract concept of these units.

 

If we’re going to have these units then things like Hammerfall / Fortifications are going to be part of the game. It’s 10x more playable than some of the stuff (Forge World?) put out years ago, so kudos there.

[chapter master 454]

To be honest, marines sometimes need to hold positions and I would think these additions are more in line with using tactical reserves, keeping our battle brothers is space. The codex calls this "Steel Rain"...

Ahem...quick detour aside

 

The firestrike turret is odd but marines have been getting moved from being a constant moving force to something capable of standing ground. Really, all offence and no defence isn't feasible really so likely these turrets could be used in some sort of "creeping barrage" style where marines leap frog static guns forward under the cover of one another to pressure key locations where a lightning strike isn't possible or a certain type of weapon is needed to solve the problem.

 

Kind of how we got the Land Raider Ares, Demolisher Cannon on a land raider. The lore surrounding when they showed it as a mega conversion someone made was because the defences of a city were able to mince vindicators easily but not land raider armour. Not great reasoning but it was Dark Angels and being led around by promises of finding chaos traitor people.

 

Again, I feel GW are moving marines away from being too few to stay in one warzone for too long, and moving them to being elite forces sent to key locations to hold, retake and maintain control rather than the norm of "marines kick butt, guard arrive, marines leave". Gulliman likely not approving of how slow such methods of solidifying gains is and wasteful to send another military force to purely secure when you already have one there so possible marines are needing more static guns to supplement their firepower when they need it.

[Lexington]

Kinda curious if we'll see any kind of background on the Firestrike that gives it a little bit of mobility that isn't obvious from the model itself. Maybe it also drops from orbit or Thunderhawks? Otherwise, agree that it's kinda weird.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

Would've been cool to have a unit be like the siege tanks from Starcraft where you can give up shooting for a turn or something to "un-clamp" from the ground and move around.

[Dracos]

I actually like the Firestrike model. It makes for an interesting addition/replacement to the Sentry Guns. I just don't have the points to field in in a normal game. I think it fits best in a narrative setting ... all said without seeing the rules or points of course :)

[WrathOfTheLion]

I like the firestrike turret. I don't much care for the hammerfall bunker. The firestrike looks like it wouldn't be the end of the world if it wasn't recovered. Edited July 9, 2020 by WrathOfTheLion

[tychobi]

Look great to me! My headcanon for space marines is pretty broad. A Repulsor repair tank with deployable firestorm turret and grav dozer blade might fix your issue?

 

For the Hammerfall im gonna chop it at an angle and build up a base of displaced earth to give it a dynamic feel of an imperfect landing. Possibly some glowing smoke effects!

[Son of Sacrifice]

Marines often deploy with support from other imperial forces, but not always. It makes sense that they would sometimes need defensive options like fixed gun emplacements. Although I also believe every Marine chapter must have its own paramilitary force made up of chapter serfs and the like, although it's something we don't see on the tabletop.

[Panzer]

Completely depends on the chapter, and honestly, a turret that gets dropped right in the middle of the battle is quite mobile in the grander scheme of things. :sweat:

[Chaplain Killmer]

In the older fluffs about the marine chapters (ed 1 and 2 WE articles) they were talking about that the chapter homebases have strong industrial capacities and their fleets are very well equiped and supplied. So it would not really be an issue to fire a ready made gun im placement form the battle barge on the surface - the marines would probably not even care to retrieve it - as they would pobably even leave drop pods behind.

 

I really like the new additions - as it can be interpreted as another hint that the astartes operations are closely and massively supported by starships.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Chaplain Killmer

[Helias_Tancred]

I see both units being valid tools in the overall Astartes toolbox. On a general lore level some chapters, because of their culture and fighting style, might make more use out of them than other chapters?

 

I play Blood Angels and I like both units. I can envision a wily Blood Angel commander making good use out of either based on the context of the battle. As a player I almost always use a turret to anchor either one end of my deployment zone. They put out respectable firepower supporting my forward assaults.  I'm seriously considering getting a second one.

 

I could also see the Hammerfall Bunkers being dropped forward of the assault to provide a base of fire as the assaulting units move up to it. I plan on getting one soon. 

[Karhedron]

I could also see the Hammerfall Bunkers being dropped forward of the assault to provide a base of fire as the assaulting units move up to it. I plan on getting one soon.

Unfortunately you can't drop it anywhere. It has to deploy in your Deployment Zone like any other unit and after that it cannot move out.

 

If it had rules like a Drop Pod then it would be very interesting but as it stands, it is a bit underwhelming.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

If they could drop in, they would be very Black Templar. But their current rules are a complete turn off.

[Dracos]

Hammerfall, perfect example that not all things new are better.

[Ishagu]

The model looks pretty awesome in person.

 

It's like the little Starcraft bunkers.

[Dracos]

Needs rules that are useable though. Not better per se just make it useable.

[Acebaur]

The bunker,like most fortifications is basically unplayable. Fortifications can't be deployed within 3" of any terrain features which means with smaller boards and the amount of terrain optimally used it usually can't be deployed at all, which means it's destroyed. Edited March 10, 2021 by Acebaur

[Tokugawa]

Needs rules that are useable though. Not better per se just make it useable.

Agree. If it cost less than 100pts then players would take it, without arguing whether it's style is too static or not too static.

[Brother Kraskor]

If you had three Hammerfalls, that's 9 HB shots for every unit in the opponent's army per turn pretty much, could punish MSU. And when they get close it's a lot of Flamers.

[BloodyB]

The bunker,like most fortifications is basically unplayable. Fortifications can't be deployed within 3" of any terrain features which means with smaller boards and the amount of terrain optimally used it usually can't be deployed at all, which means it's destroyed.

Personally, I think that deployment of fortifications should be allowed to alter scenery, at least to an extent. Letting my opponent replace a 3 story ruin with a bastion wouldn't be the end of the world. A hammerfall bunker wouldn't cause me any problems either.

 

The firestrike turret is quite fun, though I see no reason to take the autocannons in most cases. I still do because they look great. It adds a lot of flavour to games. I'm playing a campaign with my roommate and am having a blast playing a small number of games dedicated to a siege. The gun is great for styling a small army as a defensive cordon for my sieging force, and provides some good anti light and medium infantry fire power at range with the autocannons. Overall really liking the model too, but the 3 inch move is weird.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

If you had three Hammerfalls, that's 9 HB shots for every unit in the opponent's army per turn pretty much, could punish MSU. And when they get close it's a lot of Flamers.

Good in theory, but the map that has that much space probably isn't worth playing!

[Brother Kraskor]

 

If you had three Hammerfalls, that's 9 HB shots for every unit in the opponent's army per turn pretty much, could punish MSU. And when they get close it's a lot of Flamers.

Good in theory, but the map that has that much space probably isn't worth playing!

 

 

True!