Switch Theme:

What would be "your ideal" mission/objective design for competitive/balanced 40K?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot




Vancouver, BC

 Mezmorki wrote:
@Canadian 5th

I'm trying to figure out your angle. Your comments continue to deflect away from or change the scope of the discussion. Or perhaps you are suggesting "there is nothing to be done" or that changes aren't likely to work or can't work? Or that the game is fine how it is?

Earlier posts in this thread have thrown out all sorts of ideas for how to respond to the original post with constructive ideas. I'd love for you to respond to any of those specific ideas and how you think they could be executed better - or to share your own ideas in kind.

1) I don't think any of the changes suggested here will actually solve the issue. They're all fine and interesting ideas, but none of them address the key reasons why the game's current lethality is so high nor seem to anticipate the list-building methods that can and will be used to bypass their attempts to reduce lethality. As is common to suggestions on this site they're hopeful but not well crafted or fully thought through.
2) I don't agree that this is the area to focus on. I feel like solving the first turn issue is far more of a pressing issue than fixing lethality or short games.
3) I don't agree that many of the ideas raised address pressing issues with the game.
4) I have serious doubts that the game can be fixed, at least to the degree desired, without changing its core rules.

Debate the topic, not the poster. I will not be discussing myself in relation to debates and discussions on this forum. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Thanks for your response - that helps me better understand where you're coming from and your perspective on this topic.

FWIW, do think some of these idea raised here are worth trying out. Changing the mission and scoring structure is a relatively easy thing to play around with, because there aren't all that many other ways in which the rules hook into the raw mechanics of the scoring system. Even minor tweaks to other systems, like AP or CP are going to have a lot more ripple effects in terms of impacting dozens of rules across different codexes. In other words, tweaks to the core mechanics (your point #4) are probably harder to implement piecemeal than changing up the objectives and scoring system.

Other missions in the game (narrative ones) and from past editions are, to me, an indication that other mission designs can work and can encourage different playstyles - and they likely do play into the lethality question, even if just indirectly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 05:06:27


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer 40k: Enhanced 5th Edition... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot




Vancouver, BC

 Mezmorki wrote:
Thanks for your response - that helps me better understand where you're coming from and your perspective on this topic.

FWIW, do think some of these idea raised here are worth trying out. Changing the mission and scoring structure is a relatively easy thing to play around with, because there aren't all that many other ways in which the rules hook into the raw mechanics of the scoring system. Even minor tweaks to other systems, like AP or CP are going to have a lot more ripple effects in terms of impacting dozens of rules across different codexes. In other words, tweaks to the core mechanics (your point #4) are probably harder to implement piecemeal than changing up the objectives and scoring system.

It is a way to try to make a change, however, do you think that any number of mission changes will make Eradicators anything less than the best anti-tank choices in the Marine arsenal? Or keep players from adjusting lists to bypass attempts to slow down the game and/or reduce the lethality of offensive staples? I have serious doubts.

Other missions in the game (narrative ones) and from past editions are, to me, an indication that other mission designs can work and can encourage different playstyles - and they likely do play into the lethality question, even if just indirectly.

Most of those missions were awful and very easy to break accidentally, let alone what happened when players approached them with a mind towards optimization.

Debate the topic, not the poster. I will not be discussing myself in relation to debates and discussions on this forum. 
   
Made in gb
Irked Necron Immortal




UK

Any competitive game will have hyper-skewed games where stuff is over very quickly. It's the nature of high level, highly optimized play; sometimes stomps happen and mistakes are punished ruthlessly. Top Tekken matches can have a few rounds that are over in like 10 seconds with a Perfect. The concept of gg'ing in comp video games is one side conceding long before the actual end of the match because they realise it isn't worth fighting on.

Turn 2 GG's in competitive 40k aren't inherently an issue, especially if they aren't that common (and from my experience they actually aren't, I see a lot more games go to turn 5 now than I did in 8th). What's more important is trying to gauge the frequency of 2-3 turn stomps in casual play. Anecdotally that's something I've seen very little of either, 9th mission design and core rules are better at avoiding it than 8th was, but it's also not something we can ever really get data on either.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Some armies get a pre game GG, just by virtue of not going first.

Which by the way, at least in my opinion, is indicative of something being seriously wrong with the system right now. No idea if it is just the going first thing, or going first and the type of scoring w40k has in 9th, but armies shouldn't have a 20%+ spread in win rates between going first and second.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





I agree that the scoring is a little TOO progressive at the moment. While I surely don't want to see thing like the old Eternal War missions, I think that at the end of turn 5 there should be an additional scoring of primaries. Similar to what happens with Rise the Banners High. This will also help with the first turn advantage, since this double scoring is dominated by the second player.

Also, I do like more variety in mission objectives, but the competitive community doesn't like it. At the end of 8th, we had a really good mission set with the last CA, well balanced, well designed and with a lot of variety. Did the competitive community adopt it? No, because variety is bad and the ITC ultra repetitive and standard mission design was considered better. It was unacceptable that the outcome of a match was somehow affected by the mission rolled. This obviously carried a lot of issues with ITC meta being extremely easy to solve as we all now, but it was still prefered.
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




How do we feel about the change in the new FAQ where, on turn 5, player 1 still scores in the command phase, but player 2 scores end of turn?

I like it in principle as it at least (finally) is an acknowledgment of the issue on GW's part after a lot of oblique deflection of the issue, but since games so rarely get to turn 5, I'm not sure how much it solves?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 18:41:24


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Could be enough.

The difference between going first and going second is a difference of 8 points in the primary score, according to the data.

8 point is definitely the average of what you can score in a turn, so this could actually be enough.

Sure, sometimes the games don't go to turn 5, but in that case the game was usually one sided and who went first didn't really matter.

It is turn 5 that originates the disparity between going first and second. The first player moves first on the objectives and since the second player has only 3 turns to score (2,3 and 4) he is forced to over commit and rush those objectives. Now that he has an additional turn to score, he can take it easier.
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




Could be enough.

The difference between going first and going second is a difference of 8 points in the primary score, according to the data.

8 point is definitely the average of what you can score in a turn, so this could actually be enough.

Sure, sometimes the games don't go to turn 5, but in that case the game was usually one sided and who went first didn't really matter.


I should look at the tourney data again and specifically for that stat. I know our groups games almost never went to turn 5 (and yes, we have the recommended amount of terrain and the recommended amount of obscuring in the recommended places etc, etc, etc) even when they were close games at the point where one player got tabled.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

I would wrap terrain and a 'first-turn bid' into army building.

Terrain would be brought by the players, not just including fortifications, but craters, ruins, and even blank, open ground. The first turn bid in army-building would be the player with fewer points in their army would automatically get the first turn, meaning if you spent 1605pts on your army and 395pts on terrain vs an opponent that spent more on their army and less on terrain then you would automatically get the first turn.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 20:14:20


   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Tycho wrote:
Could be enough.

The difference between going first and going second is a difference of 8 points in the primary score, according to the data.

8 point is definitely the average of what you can score in a turn, so this could actually be enough.

Sure, sometimes the games don't go to turn 5, but in that case the game was usually one sided and who went first didn't really matter.


I should look at the tourney data again and specifically for that stat. I know our groups games almost never went to turn 5 (and yes, we have the recommended amount of terrain and the recommended amount of obscuring in the recommended places etc, etc, etc) even when they were close games at the point where one player got tabled.


It was said in one of those impossibly long essays of goonhammer.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




The reason why a game being decided turn 2 is that, in theory, the game is 5 turns long. A game shouldn't continue to be played after it is decided, that's just bad design.
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




It was said in one of those impossibly long essays of goonhammer.


Thanks! I'll go check that out!

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Tycho wrote:
It was said in one of those impossibly long essays of goonhammer.


Thanks! I'll go check that out!


Was checking for something else while I happened to stumble upon it XD

It was said in the November meta review https://www.goonhammer.com/the-november-2020-40k-meta-review/

Actually I was mistaken, it wasn't 8 points, but 5-6.

Could we actually see player 2 having the advantage now?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/09 11:41:52


 
   
Made in no
Regular Dakkanaut




I want there to be different missions that have different objectives, not only points on a map like now but rather killing the enemies Warlord or kill their most expensive unit while protecting your own. So some missions that hold points like now, some that are based on killing, some on holding quarters, some on crossing the battlefield. Some on preserving your forces etc. Some that score over time and some that only cares about end of the game.

Then also have the ability to suddenly end the game upon meeting a certain criteria. Game lasts for 5 or 6 rounds at most but if you have a mission to slay the warlord and your warlord personally kills the enemy warlord the game just ends. Or if you manage to move half your army from your deployment and out of the opponents table edge on a mission that rewards that.

Vastly different deployment types as well. Not just 24" away but in different weird angles that sometimes are a bit messy to mark up on the table times 9.

Could have maybe 10 different missions and 2 slight variations of each for a total of 20 missions. Perhaps some arent that well balanced at first and would need extra tweaks later or the community notices that a few of them punishes some armies a bit too much and wont show up at a competitive event but it is no problem since you still might have 10-15 lists that are together rather well rounded and could make up the mission pack for an event.

Obviously some balancing would need to be done on lethality and movement. With current rules some armies are too mobile and too lethal to work under some of the potential scenarios I proposed earlier.

I wont say that the Lotr scenarios are perfectly balanced or would work at all in 40k but I love some of the ideas from them. They are played on a board that is 4x4 in size. Some armies can have as little as a handful of models or 80+ but most fall in the bracket of 20-50 depending a bit on point levels. You have multiple warbands that are about 0-18 normal models lead by a hero.

There are 12 main missions in the rule book and they have another 6 in a supplement.

Mission 1 Domination
5 objectives
24" deep deployment zones so you can deploy 1" away from the opponent. Game ends when one force is below 25% models. Score points for objectives, wounding/killing the opponents leader and if you have killed 50%+.

Mission 2 To the Death!
Standard 12" deploy. Game ends when a force is quartered. Get points for wounding/killing leader, half their number, stay above 50%, quartering them and having Banners while they dont.

Mission 3 Hold Ground
Objective in the middle. Game randomly ends on a d6 roll of 1 or 2 at end of each turn after a force have been broken/halved. Points for holding objective, wounding/killing leader and breaking enemy(sub 50) while not being broken yourself. Maelstrom Deployment/Random deployment so you roll for each warband to see which of the 4 table edges it gets to move in from. There are rules and resources/might(kinda like CP) that can modify the result.

Mission 4 Lord of Battle
24" deep deployment. At least 1" away from enemy. Game randomly ends on a d6 roll of 1 or 2 at end of each turn after a force have been broken/halved. Gets points for number of wounds you make relative to opponent, wounding/killing leader and breaking them. Extra rule to restore resources for heroes that kill other heroes in melee.

Mission 5 Reconnoitre
Models move on from their respective table edges but you roll a die each turn to see if your warband even shows up that turn(can be modified). Games ends when a force have been quartered. You get points for moving more models of the table on the opposite side than the opponent, Wounding/killing leader and breaking them.

Mission 6 A Clash by Moonlight
Night fight so you cant normaly(thus no shooting or magic) see over 12" but shooting gets +1 to wound. 12" deploy. Game ends when quartered. Points for wounding/killing leader, breaking them and having more heroes alive than the opponent.

Mission 7 Seize the prize
12" deploy. Artifact in the middle. Game ends when force is quartered or artifact is off the table. Points for taking the artifact and moving it off the table, wounding/killing leader and breaking them.

Mission 8 Contest of Champions
Table split in half and the respective leaders must deploy within 3" from the middle. Ends when a force is quartered. Points for your leader kill total relative to opponents, your leader wounding/killing their leader and for breaking them. Heroes get resources for killing multi wound models. All the other scenarios so far make you want to protect your leader and rather have him be a support character and not a front line fighter. This is one is the complete opposite. If you have a weak leader who cant stall for time and the opponent have Sauron or the Balrog you are in deep trouble here.

Mission 9 Capture and Control
5 objectives. Semi random 12-24" deep deployment. Game randomly ends on a d6 roll of 1 or 2 at end of each turn after a force have been broken/halved. Points for objectives, wound/kill leader and breaking them.

Mission 10 Heirloom of Ages Past
6 objective markers that you flip. One is the Heirloom and it can be moved. Maelstrom/Random deployment. Ends when a force is quartered. Points for holding relic, wounding/killing leader, breaking them and having banners.

Mission 11 Fog of War
12" Deploy. Game randomly ends on a d6 roll of 1 or 2 at end of each turn after a force have been broken/halved. You write down in secret a hero of your own to protect, one of the opponents to kill and a terrain piece on their half to hold. Unless only having 1 hero(very very rare) the leader cant be chosen. Points for completing your tasks while preventing theirs and for breaking them.

Mission 12 Storm the Camp
Deploy 12" in from opposite quarters. Ends when a force is quartered. Points for having their deployment and defending yours, wounding/killing leader and breaking them.

The amount of points you get for each primary/secondary varies between the missions. Only 1 player can usually gain VP from the primary objective and if they do get the max amount the other player can only draw if he scores fully on the secondaries while the player who scored the primary didnt score any secondary. So even if there are kill secondaries on all the missions they arent giving that many points.

Lots of different things to take into consideration on these missions. You want heroes you can protect but also some that can do work on their own. You want numbers but not pointless numbers that just give up VPs. You want some speed(heroes with march, cavalry etc) for some of the missions or they can end without a single model dying. You dont want unbalanced warbands if getting random deployment. You want some expensive banners(A model with banner can cost up to 10% of the total points). Models with rules or might(CP) that can help with either reducing randomness of some of the deployments. And then the usual things for making a list in MESBG. You cant really build one list that excels in only one or two of the missions since they vary so much. Pure shooting is really bad in some of these but its great in others. 1-5 model lists cant stop people from escaping off their board edge but they have a huge advantage when it comes to relative kills. The pure horde lists are the reverse of that.

I really wish we had some of these things above in 40k so you dont tailor the list for the only mission we have. Capture 4-6 objectives in the middle of the table and hold them while we duke it out in melee in the center until one force is left standing.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/09 18:14:56


 
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran





I just read three missions from the BRB yesterday; I'm getting closer to my first Crusade game, so I wanted to familiarize myself with the Combat Patrol missions from the Crusade section of the BRB.

Just in those three missions, the WAS a Kill the Warlord mission that ended the game as soon as the objective was achieved. I only read three, and one of them turned out to be one of the things you are asking for and insisting we don't have.

I will say, as a Crusade player, I have far less skin in the mission game than you Matched play types; secondaries for me just earn experience for units, not victory points for my army, so they don't interact with mission parameters in the same way that they do in Matched play. The difference between winning and losing a Crusade game often comes down to a single Requisition Point, so you're unlikely to fall so far behind that you aren't having fun anymore; even if you do, you have Crusade Blessings to help offset the impact of fielding a smaller force. Finally, my focus tends to be on the overall health of my army rather than the results of any given battle.

I know that "Just play Crusade" isn't a viable solution for everyone- some people live in remote areas and can only find games by playing one off games in stores with strangers or whatever.

But honestly, playing Crusade with friends and family rather than Matched with strangers would solve 80-90% of the "problems" that I read about in the forums.


   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant




San Jose, CA

PenitentJake wrote:

But honestly, playing Crusade with friends and family rather than Matched with strangers would solve 80-90% of the "problems" that I read about in the forums.


Dingdingdingding.

It just really sucks if you can't do it.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

PenitentJake wrote:
I know that "Just play Crusade" isn't a viable solution for everyone- some people live in remote areas and can only find games by playing one off games in stores with strangers or whatever.

But honestly, playing Crusade with friends and family rather than Matched with strangers would solve 80-90% of the "problems" that I read about in the forums.


I second this. Crusade really feels like The Way It Was Meant To Be Played, but you need a group.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
Was checking for something else while I happened to stumble upon it XD

It was said in the November meta review https://www.goonhammer.com/the-november-2020-40k-meta-review/

Actually I was mistaken, it wasn't 8 points, but 5-6.

Could we actually see player 2 having the advantage now?


It would be interesting to see the stats after say 5-6 weeks.
While hoping to be wrong, I doubt that player 2 will have an advantage.

When the average game where player 1 wins see's them score 17.5 more points on the primary than player 2, its often not going to make a huge difference. Its going to be close games where the swing occurs.

Unfortunately from the Goonhammer statistics I don't think we have a clear percentage on how many games would qualify.

Really again, as per their article and playing, I think the issue is that player 1 (with a mobile army) gets to put player 2 effectively "in check" before they get a go. They have to instantly respond, or player 1 walks away on the primary. Certain armies are bad at doing this - and all armies can bounce. I'm not sure changing turn 5 is going to change this dynamic. I think its good because it makes the last turn matter - but the game has to have got the point where it matters to begin with.
Edit-Edit.
To be fair, it alters player 2's turn 4, since they can spend it entirely denying player 1 scoring in turn 5, and *then* spend their turn 5 to get on to objectives. So its a bit earlier than I implied above (although not by much.) But I still think you'd see a lot of "player 1 wins" are games where they start ahead and just get further ahead so hurting their turn 5 scoring is still probably not that critical.

So really, the Goonhammer guys should be able to give a reasonable guess as to the outcome by crunching games but giving player 1 5 less points (seemingly the average gain in turn 5).

To be negative, I think this could move the needle barely 1-2%. Which if we are saying player 1 tends to win 58% of the time or something, isn't enough. As said, could be wrong though.

Edit.
Actually I'll go further. Someone like say Harlequins *loves* this change. Slower armies, who are usually less good, are probably not going to benefit as much. So it will probably exacerbate faction imbalance in terms of going second win rates.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/09 20:53:40


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





I'm optimistic, but clearly I can't predict what is going to happen either.

I expect some factions to benefit more than others. In particular, those that can get to turn 5 will surely reap the benefits. So, no GSC or the factions that need to go all out.

IMHO, the effect will be minimal with current lists. If lists though get tweaked to get advantage of that, it will have a much bigger impact.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Mezmorki wrote:
Lot of discussion has transpired recently about secondaries, mission structure, mission objectives, and how all of this impacts the gameplay at both the list-building and table-play stage of the game.

As a pre-amble to this post, I was reading battle reports from a recent GT. I was struck by how many of the games were essentially *over* by turn 2. I think there is a general recognition that the game is very lethal and Turn 1 and 2 can be super decisive. I but wonder if a large part of this is a consequence not of "just the mechanics" but also partly due to the primary objectives (holding control points), the way they are scored, and the aggressive style of play they demand.

Cheers!


Yes, the progressive scoring system shifts even further weight to the early turns and makes games over by turn 2. There are a lot of things I don't like about the current missions, and they very strongly favor the first player. The stupendous difference between go first and second W/R is almost exclusively because of the missions and the way they play and are scored.

First off, deployment. The old mechanism of deployment enabled the second player to deploy with additional information about where the first player's units are, and what they're intending. This is a considerable benefit that goes a little bit of the way to making up for being on the losing side of lanchester's square law.

Second off, scoring. Scoring progressively moves weight forward in the game, to a degree that is catastrophic to the gameplay experience. Latter turns are irrelevant once you've built up a lead, and are mostly just sealing the deal. Scoring at the end of the game moves weight backwards in the game towards the end. Right now, there's basically no comeback ability.


Now, there's some positive points too:
take-and-hold scoring lends interactivity to the missions that terrible missions like maelstrom never had, so you're truly playing your opponent and not the mission. Before any player scores points, the opponent has the opportunity to oppose.
Another good point is doing away with thematic or story or narrative themed missions. Like seriously, all those random things like "in this battle, you can't use invulnerable saves" was just stupid. Forge your own narrative of your guys with your imagination, you don't need 6 scripted stories about seizing an area where force fields don't work to play out ad nauseam.


Now, if I were to redesign the missions, I'd do something like:
First player deploys all, second player deploys all.
End of Battle Round progressive scoring. I don't think we can truly go back to end-of-game scoring for basic scoring, but moving the scoring to the end of the battle round would empower the second player to offset the first player's advantage, since the second player would control the scoring. It would also encourage an attacker-defender dynamic, with the attacker having to take and hold and the defender having only to keep back the attacker.
I would also replace the secondaries [which are terrible] with an end of game scoring round that serves to lend weight to the end of the game, enable come-from-behind plays, and prevent an early lead from becoming insurmountable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/09 21:48:15


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Kill objectivs can't be double dipped. Easiest to do, give the lowest VP

Then movment capturing objectives, harder to do, maybe with a rule when you do something with a specific type of unit it gives extra VP, to entice the use of for example actual recon units to grap quarters, and not just deep striking a base of nurlgings.

The action objectives, hardest to do, with biggest VP pay off. The harder to do, the more stuff can go wrong, the higher the VP gain.

Primaris give VP between kill objectives and the movment ones, easy to do, but with progressive turn scoring. As in holding the middle for 3ed turn back to back, should give more VP, then rolling on to it turn 1, just because you won the start roll. Primaris should be build in a such a way, that they entice the players to move out of their deployment zones with something else then recon or deepstrike units

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: