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.

Have you even played Clue? You know how the corner rooms have secret passages to the opposite corner?

Lets do that in 40K.

Using 3" makers like Blast templates or the old Vortex Grenade half-spheres/ Webway portals, I propose we can place 2 of such markers within 6" of opposite corners of the table.

In game, these would use the Embark/Disembark rules.
Meaning that a unit could move within 3", be taken off the table and instantly reappear within 3" of the opposite portal.
No further move could be made after this "disembark", and possibly no charge allowed either.

Thoughts?

 Galef wrote:
Have you even played Clue? You know how the corner rooms have secret passages to the opposite corner?

Lets do that in 40K.

Using 3" makers like Blast templates or the old Vortex Grenade half-spheres/ Webway portals, I propose we can place 2 of such markers within 6" of opposite corners of the table.

In game, these would use the Embark/Disembark rules.
Meaning that a unit could move within 3", be taken off the table and instantly reappear within 3" of the opposite portal.
No further move could be made after this "disembark", and possibly no charge allowed either.

Thoughts?

It can be fun - I used it quite a bit in my Soul Arena game (Dark Eldar arena fun) Its also used in AOS a bit.

I'm doing up some scenario rules for Eldar to deploy via actual Webway portals which can be purchased with points (maybe stratagems, etc.). If I ever get around to buying the models, I'll let you know how it works.

I'm 100% behind active terrain though - we often play with bridges that can be raised, equipment needing to be lifted/carried/penalizing the user, and doors which open shut using movement costs, etc. An active battlefield makes the game much more interesting.

Such an option decreases the value of high-movement models, as slow models can jump to the other side of the board in one go.

It similarly makes placing objectives easier for slower units, as normally slow moving units have a hard time spreading out to capture objectives in all corners of the board.

On the whole, it decreases the value of fast units. As a Guard player, I'm all for it. Moar Icing! on the cake.

 greatbigtree wrote:

It similarly makes placing objectives easier for slower units, as normally slow moving units have a hard time spreading out to capture objectives in all corners of the board.

I would definitely do it as more of a custom scenario in which the position of objectives affects the location of the portals.

S'all good. Just saying how I'd try to break it for advantage.

Agreed on the value of fast unit. Conversely, it could also be easy to surround the portals to prevent their use entirely.

But, yes this would be for custom scenarios. I'm mainly going to try them out at home on a 4x4 table with very small games as a fun extra layer.

Galef proposing Warp Pipes? How ironic

Would be interesting for a scenario, as would tunnel systems (sewers/subways, tyranid tunnels, mole transport shafts, Viet Cong/Catechan tunnels, etc) with set "emergence points" on the surface.