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.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Probably more of the same with tweaks.

I hope someday they do away with rerolls, and limit stratagems/special powers to a few per armies that you can show your opponent at the beginning of the game, to avoid gotcha moments.

Also Combat patrol needs to go and Boarding Actions needs to become the new 500 pts standard.

Also hope that they create a scalable system ie the more points on the table, the more streamlined the gameplay.

Oh and Alternate activations per phase please, just like Legions Imperialis.

My issue with boarding actions is the frankly insane terrain requirement compared to say spearhead or combat patrol

Hmmm regarding 10th edition, and a future 11th edition: I was going to say some stuff, but then decided not to say anything, cause like me mum said, if you cant say anything nice........

P.S. I hope its better?

Dudeface wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Probably more of the same with tweaks.

I hope someday they do away with rerolls, and limit stratagems/special powers to a few per armies that you can show your opponent at the beginning of the game, to avoid gotcha moments.

Also Combat patrol needs to go and Boarding Actions needs to become the new 500 pts standard.

Also hope that they create a scalable system ie the more points on the table, the more streamlined the gameplay.

Oh and Alternate activations per phase please, just like Legions Imperialis.

My issue with boarding actions is the frankly insane terrain requirement compared to say spearhead or combat patrol

You know you don't HAVE to use GW terrain for your boarding Action games, right?
You can make wall sections out of virtually anything. Same for the pillars & doors.
Now how skilled a modeler you are will determine what your scratch built walls look like.... but trust me, if my friend Dave can make Boarding Action walls? You can too (and they'll look better han his I'll bet )

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Probably more of the same with tweaks.

I hope someday they do away with rerolls, and limit stratagems/special powers to a few per armies that you can show your opponent at the beginning of the game, to avoid gotcha moments.

Also Combat patrol needs to go and Boarding Actions needs to become the new 500 pts standard.

Also hope that they create a scalable system ie the more points on the table, the more streamlined the gameplay.

Oh and Alternate activations per phase please, just like Legions Imperialis.

My issue with boarding actions is the frankly insane terrain requirement compared to say spearhead or combat patrol

You know you don't HAVE to use GW terrain for your boarding Action games, right?
You can make wall sections out of virtually anything. Same for the pillars & doors.
Now how skilled a modeler you are will determine what your scratch built walls look like.... but trust me, if my friend Dave can make Boarding Action walls? You can too (and they'll look better han his I'll bet )

The terrain does create an added barrier to entry though. Which is a huge shame because I'm pretty sure it would become my favorite way to play if it didn't intimidate people.

When I started this hobby, what really hooked me was playing Space Hulk, and instead of the puzzle pieces (since we often played 6 player games) we used a 3d board.

All it was is a sheet of plywood covered with 1.5" ceramic tiles with no grout between them. Then we jammed corrugated cardboard cut to different lengths don into the 1mm space between the tiles where the grout should have been. Cheap, easy and effective. Barriers to entry are for suckas!

I imagine that with the current terrain requirements for an enjoyable game making the barrier to entry for 10th already pretty high, it's unlikely that GW is likely to lean further in that direction unless they radically change how they handle terrain (eg cardboard stand-up terrain pieces, which I can't see them doing).

GW quite understandably doesn't want to try and sell a $500 army of hand-painted miniatures alongside cardboard cut-out terrain. It's the worst of both worlds: looks bad and still expensive.

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
GW quite understandably doesn't want to try and sell a $500 army of hand-painted miniatures alongside cardboard cut-out terrain. It's the worst of both worlds: looks bad and still expensive.

Agreed. Everything GW has always been expensive. People need to decide if they want to play a game or decide to be part of a hobby. The first one requires money, and lots of it. The second one requires love of the pastime and lots and lots of time, far more valuable than money.

Creating enough good-looking terrain for multiple tables is a time-consuming and incredibly rewarding endeavor.

Buying enough terrain to spray-paint and drybrush in an afternoon for multiple tables is a shallow and incredibly expensive endeavor.

Both of them lead to the same result, someplace to play with your overpriced pieces of plastic and your (hopefully) friends, and have fun.

Everyone has to decide what level of involvement they'd like to have.

Just jumping in here so not sure if it's already been discussed.

I'd like to see less emphasis on the whole "simplification" aspect of the game. This whole notion that everything needs to be simpler for some banal reason. Bring back some old mechanics like scatter, environmental effects and boards which aren't just a symmetrical array of L-shaped ruins.

It won't happen without index, but dial back some power creep again, but to like 3rd/4th ed levels please.

An assault marine having 3 attacks s4 no ap in any way etc. was the norm. Whereas now 4 attacks s4 ap-1 d1 is considered bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Probably more of the same with tweaks.

I hope someday they do away with rerolls, and limit stratagems/special powers to a few per armies that you can show your opponent at the beginning of the game, to avoid gotcha moments.

Also Combat patrol needs to go and Boarding Actions needs to become the new 500 pts standard.

Also hope that they create a scalable system ie the more points on the table, the more streamlined the gameplay.

Oh and Alternate activations per phase please, just like Legions Imperialis.

My issue with boarding actions is the frankly insane terrain requirement compared to say spearhead or combat patrol

You know you don't HAVE to use GW terrain for your boarding Action games, right?
You can make wall sections out of virtually anything. Same for the pillars & doors.
Now how skilled a modeler you are will determine what your scratch built walls look like.... but trust me, if my friend Dave can make Boarding Action walls? You can too (and they'll look better han his I'll bet )

I didn't say I wanted GW terrain, I also don't want to make my own ass looking cobbled together board to play the entry level game. Hell, lots of people never make or buy terrain and of those that do it often never gets painted.

Dudeface wrote:
It won't happen without index, but dial back some power creep again, but to like 3rd/4th ed levels please.

An assault marine having 3 attacks s4 no ap in any way etc. was the norm. Whereas now 4 attacks s4 ap-1 d1 is considered bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Probably more of the same with tweaks.

I hope someday they do away with rerolls, and limit stratagems/special powers to a few per armies that you can show your opponent at the beginning of the game, to avoid gotcha moments.

Also Combat patrol needs to go and Boarding Actions needs to become the new 500 pts standard.

Also hope that they create a scalable system ie the more points on the table, the more streamlined the gameplay.

Oh and Alternate activations per phase please, just like Legions Imperialis.

My issue with boarding actions is the frankly insane terrain requirement compared to say spearhead or combat patrol

You know you don't HAVE to use GW terrain for your boarding Action games, right?
You can make wall sections out of virtually anything. Same for the pillars & doors.
Now how skilled a modeler you are will determine what your scratch built walls look like.... but trust me, if my friend Dave can make Boarding Action walls? You can too (and they'll look better han his I'll bet )

I didn't say I wanted GW terrain, I also don't want to make my own ass looking cobbled together board to play the entry level game. Hell, lots of people never make or buy terrain and of those that do it often never gets painted.

Oh, so you're just bitching about a game mode that you'll never play (unless someone else provides the terrain).
MY point was that if your interested in playing Boarding Action? You've got options besides GWs overpriced wall sections.

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It won't happen without index, but dial back some power creep again, but to like 3rd/4th ed levels please.

An assault marine having 3 attacks s4 no ap in any way etc. was the norm. Whereas now 4 attacks s4 ap-1 d1 is considered bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Probably more of the same with tweaks.

I hope someday they do away with rerolls, and limit stratagems/special powers to a few per armies that you can show your opponent at the beginning of the game, to avoid gotcha moments.

Also Combat patrol needs to go and Boarding Actions needs to become the new 500 pts standard.

Also hope that they create a scalable system ie the more points on the table, the more streamlined the gameplay.

Oh and Alternate activations per phase please, just like Legions Imperialis.

My issue with boarding actions is the frankly insane terrain requirement compared to say spearhead or combat patrol

You know you don't HAVE to use GW terrain for your boarding Action games, right?
You can make wall sections out of virtually anything. Same for the pillars & doors.
Now how skilled a modeler you are will determine what your scratch built walls look like.... but trust me, if my friend Dave can make Boarding Action walls? You can too (and they'll look better han his I'll bet )

I didn't say I wanted GW terrain, I also don't want to make my own ass looking cobbled together board to play the entry level game. Hell, lots of people never make or buy terrain and of those that do it often never gets painted.

Oh, so you're just bitching about a game mode that you'll never play (unless someone else provides the terrain).
MY point was that if your interested in playing Boarding Action? You've got options besides GWs overpriced wall sections.

I'm bitching at the idea of making it the default small game/intro method. You're correct, right now I will never play it because I don't want to spend a load of time/money on terrain specifically for said niche small game.

I also don't expect anyone else to do it for me, neither should someone else. So maybe it's a stupid idea trying to force it on people and criticising them if they don't want it, yes?

Valkyrie wrote:Just jumping in here so not sure if it's already been discussed.

I'd like to see less emphasis on the whole "simplification" aspect of the game. This whole notion that everything needs to be simpler for some banal reason. Bring back some old mechanics like scatter, environmental effects and boards which aren't just a symmetrical array of L-shaped ruins.

Partly agree. Scatter dice can stay gone (cool as they are) because they were just kind of a bad/ambiguous mechanic. But de-emphasizing the "e-sports" feeling of the game and injecting a bit more of the narrative/flavor would be nice. Something along the lines of the asymmetrical Crusade missions, but without making people deal with the paperwork/intimidation factor of having to do a whole crusade roster/figure out how to make a crusade roster feel good playing against a non-crusade army.

The "simplification" of the game in 8th got rid of/streamlined a bunch of the clunkier mechanics, and I'm fine with a lot of those staying gone. Difficult terrain being a 2d6 take the highest roll for your movement was kind of feels bad. Explosions making you roll to see if you explode, roll to see how far you explode, roll to wound models in range, and having them roll saves was a bit too much rolling for what it did. Stuff like that can stay gone, but taking another stab at Theaters of War, skimmer movement rules, etc. would be nice.

Dudeface wrote:It won't happen without index, but dial back some power creep again, but to like 3rd/4th ed levels please.

An assault marine having 3 attacks s4 no ap in any way etc. was the norm. Whereas now 4 attacks s4 ap-1 d1 is considered bad.

Yeah. Obviously you'd need to fine-tune things a bit, especially if W2 marines remain a thing, but it definitely feels like there's room to reduce lethality a bit further. Especially if they emphasize/promote slightly smaller games. A bit less lethality with games being played at 1k-1500 feels like the sweet spot to me. Let units be good at their jobs without necessarily having to one-shot whatever they shoot at, and with few enough units that you aren't just nuking the enemy into oblivion turn 1.

I'm bitching at the idea of making it the default small game/intro method. You're correct, right now I will never play it because I don't want to spend a load of time/money on terrain specifically for said niche small game.

I also don't expect anyone else to do it for me, neither should someone else. So maybe it's a stupid idea trying to force it on people and criticising them if they don't want it, yes?

I think I agree with this? Terrain needs to come from somewhere in 40k. My gripe about BA's terrain is that, unless I'm mistaken, the missions expect you to have very specific pieces of terrain in specific places depending on the mission. So where an aspiring 40k player can cobble together some basic terrain or even just use boxes/books laying around the house or just throw the FLGS's terrain onto the table... BA makes you buy or build some precise dimensions and put them in precise places. Which seems like a lot to ask of someone just tryiing to get into the hobby.

Can we steal some of the older stuff back from HH like Dangerous Terrain and Minefields?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Can we steal some of the older stuff back from HH like Dangerous Terrain and Minefields?

This is precisely what I was on about, stuff that actually added a bit of flavour to the game rather than a lazily-written "this does D3 Mortals".

Expanding on that I would add to the game:
- Scatter mechanics
- Blast markers used for effects/mechanics, not for weapons
- Terrain variety and asymmetrical boards
- FOC, so it's somewhat harder to just load up on power-units.
- Allies to a limited extent, such as taking a squad of Sternguard and their Captain with your Guard army, or a couple squads of "penal squads" with your Grey Knights. Alliances that fit more of a thematic rather than competitive mindset.


Enough of this "oh this is too much dice-rolling" mood, it's a dice-rolling game.

You absolutely dont need expensive physical terrain pieces to play boarding actions, at least when playing outside of official venues.

You need elements that can pass as walls or doors, and they can be flat, dont need to be 3d.

It can be simple cardboard flat pieces, just like in any normal board game.

I think you may have lost me now, Valkyrie.

Valkyrie wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Can we steal some of the older stuff back from HH like Dangerous Terrain and Minefields?

This is precisely what I was on about, stuff that actually added a bit of flavour to the game rather than a lazily-written "this does D3 Mortals".

Isn't dangerous terrain (roll a bunch of d6s and lose a guy for every 1 you roll) functionally pretty much the same as taking a randomized number of mortal wounds? What's the key difference to your mind?

Expanding on that I would add to the game:
- Scatter mechanics

Why? In what form? You're not using them for weapons, so just to see if deepstrikers randomly die when they try to arrive? If so, you could get similar results by just rolling to see if they get fethed over before they arrive on the table and save yourself from minor arguments over the exact angle the scatter die is pointing. I'm open to using scatter dice for something, but adding a special die back into the game just for the sake of it feels like more of a nostalgia move than a fluff thing.

- Blast markers used for effects/mechanics, not for weapons

Can you give an example? I'm picturing like, smoke grenades. In which case, blast templates are a fine way to represent that, but so are simple tokens that you measure from to define the area.

- Terrain variety and asymmetrical boards

Agreed there, but technically nothing is stopping you from using asymmetrical setups right now, and most people aren't using all the terrain types currently in the 10th edition rules.

- FOC, so it's somewhat harder to just load up on power-units.

The FOC is not and never was the answer. It creates more problems than it solves and was never actually very good at preventing people from loading up on power units. It's also just actively unfluffy for a lot of factions, so it's actively detrimental if your main goal is to add more fluff to the game. I can and will rant about this.

- Allies to a limited extent, such as taking a squad of Sternguard and their Captain with your Guard army, or a couple squads of "penal squads" with your Grey Knights. Alliances that fit more of a thematic rather than competitive mindset.

We kind of already have this. Imperial agents let you splash a wide variety of units into an imperial army. For more extensive alliances, we have more and more detachments that facilitate this while also making it easier for the designers to predict what combos they have to look out for and design things accordingly. If you want some marines splashed into your guard army, you've got Death Watch units. If you want some squishy human fodder splashed into your GK, I'm guessing there's probably an imperial agent datasheet that fits that description. (And if not, it's easier to add one than to overhaul how allies work game-wide.)

Enough of this "oh this is too much dice-rolling" mood, it's a dice-rolling game.

I think it's worth clarifying this a bit. When people talk about "simplifying the game" and "reducing dice rolling" in the same breath, they're usually talking about the mechanics that just had a lot of dice rolling for minimal effect. Such mechanics were just kind of tedious/clunky. Like the aforementioned system of having an explosion involve like, 4 dice pools to resolve whereas now it's just 2. Or having free overwatch on every unit when they get charged even if their loadout made them unlikely to do any significant damage.

You can have flavorful mechanics that are simple to resolve. Doubling the amount of time it takes to resolve a vehicle explosion doesn't innately make it more fluffy, cinematic, or satisfying. Random != fluffy.

Siegfriedfr wrote:You absolutely dont need expensive physical terrain pieces to play boarding actions, at least when playing outside of official venues.

You need elements that can pass as walls or doors, and they can be flat, dont need to be 3d.

It can be simple cardboard flat pieces, just like in any normal board game.

But do you need to make sure they're the right dimensions to line up with the map of the mission you're playing? That creates this whole homework assignment someone has to do before you can play the game. "Go create this many pieces of terrain with these exact dimensions." Not a huge ask, but a big enough one to be inconvenient for would-be players.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Enough of this "oh this is too much dice-rolling" mood, it's a dice-rolling game.

It's a dice-rolling game that I want to resolve in a reasonable amount of time, where I want more of that time spent making fun decisions than tediously resolving the effects of those decisions. Rolling dice to see what happens is fun, but rolling dozens of dice for every model removed off the table is incredibly excessive and bogs down the game. This is not a necessarily evil for depth, it's just inelegant design- other games on the market accomplish more gameplay depth with more player interaction and less dice-rolling.

Rolling dice is a means to an end, not the point of the activity. If you want to roll dice for the sake of rolling dice you want Yahtzee.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Expanding on that I would add to the game:
- Scatter mechanics

Why? In what form? You're not using them for weapons, so just to see if deepstrikers randomly die when they try to arrive? If so, you could get similar results by just rolling to see if they get fethed over before they arrive on the table and save yourself from minor arguments over the exact angle the scatter die is pointing. I'm open to using scatter dice for something, but adding a special die back into the game just for the sake of it feels like more of a nostalgia move than a fluff thing.

I'm not going to try to know what Valkyrie was meaning here, but one thing that springs to mind is that by having units which Deep Strike having to scatter, it removes some of that "perfect control" feeling that's come in since 8th - we're talking postage stamp battlefields here, having to actually think about where you're going to deep strike because your troops won't land on the right pinhead would be a small improvement IMO

 Dysartes wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Expanding on that I would add to the game:
- Scatter mechanics

Why? In what form? You're not using them for weapons, so just to see if deepstrikers randomly die when they try to arrive? If so, you could get similar results by just rolling to see if they get fethed over before they arrive on the table and save yourself from minor arguments over the exact angle the scatter die is pointing. I'm open to using scatter dice for something, but adding a special die back into the game just for the sake of it feels like more of a nostalgia move than a fluff thing.

I'm not going to try to know what Valkyrie was meaning here, but one thing that springs to mind is that by having units which Deep Strike having to scatter, it removes some of that "perfect control" feeling that's come in since 8th - we're talking postage stamp battlefields here, having to actually think about where you're going to deep strike because your troops won't land on the right pinhead would be a small improvement IMO

See, even in that case we could use something more along the lines of the Nachmund Crusade Tactical Deepstrike rules to avoid the ambiguities that come with scatter dice.

There's also probably a debate to be had over whether or not precisely delivering deepstrikers is a good/bad thing. A lot of units would become a lot less valuable if they had a chance to not deliver their sucker punch out of reserves or had a chance of not being within charge range after they arrived or had a chance of not landing on an objective.

"I'll deepstrike this squad into your backfield to get Behind Enemy Lines."
"Actually, you scattered badly. Time to roll on the mishap table. Oh look, your unit got destroyed before you could deploy it, so now you're basically playing a 1300 point army versus my 1500 point army. How thrilling!"

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Expanding on that I would add to the game:
- Scatter mechanics

Why? In what form? You're not using them for weapons, so just to see if deepstrikers randomly die when they try to arrive? If so, you could get similar results by just rolling to see if they get fethed over before they arrive on the table and save yourself from minor arguments over the exact angle the scatter die is pointing. I'm open to using scatter dice for something, but adding a special die back into the game just for the sake of it feels like more of a nostalgia move than a fluff thing.

I'm not going to try to know what Valkyrie was meaning here, but one thing that springs to mind is that by having units which Deep Strike having to scatter, it removes some of that "perfect control" feeling that's come in since 8th - we're talking postage stamp battlefields here, having to actually think about where you're going to deep strike because your troops won't land on the right pinhead would be a small improvement IMO

See, even in that case we could use something more along the lines of the Nachmund Crusade Tactical Deepstrike rules to avoid the ambiguities that come with scatter dice.

There's also probably a debate to be had over whether or not precisely delivering deepstrikers is a good/bad thing. A lot of units would become a lot less valuable if they had a chance to not deliver their sucker punch out of reserves or had a chance of not being within charge range after they arrived or had a chance of not landing on an objective.

"I'll deepstrike this squad into your backfield to get Behind Enemy Lines."
"Actually, you scattered badly. Time to roll on the mishap table. Oh look, your unit got destroyed before you could deploy it, so now you're basically playing a 1300 point army versus my 1500 point army. How thrilling!"

As opposed to your auto successful DS where you promptly wiping out the other guys 200 pts of stuff via shooting + charge?

If you don't want to risk dying during Deep Strike.... Don't Deep Strike.

Random deep strike would also help drop pod sales, as they were a “safe” was to DS close.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Expanding on that I would add to the game:
- Scatter mechanics

Why? In what form? You're not using them for weapons, so just to see if deepstrikers randomly die when they try to arrive? If so, you could get similar results by just rolling to see if they get fethed over before they arrive on the table and save yourself from minor arguments over the exact angle the scatter die is pointing. I'm open to using scatter dice for something, but adding a special die back into the game just for the sake of it feels like more of a nostalgia move than a fluff thing.

I'm not going to try to know what Valkyrie was meaning here, but one thing that springs to mind is that by having units which Deep Strike having to scatter, it removes some of that "perfect control" feeling that's come in since 8th - we're talking postage stamp battlefields here, having to actually think about where you're going to deep strike because your troops won't land on the right pinhead would be a small improvement IMO

See, even in that case we could use something more along the lines of the Nachmund Crusade Tactical Deepstrike rules to avoid the ambiguities that come with scatter dice.

There's also probably a debate to be had over whether or not precisely delivering deepstrikers is a good/bad thing. A lot of units would become a lot less valuable if they had a chance to not deliver their sucker punch out of reserves or had a chance of not being within charge range after they arrived or had a chance of not landing on an objective.

"I'll deepstrike this squad into your backfield to get Behind Enemy Lines."
"Actually, you scattered badly. Time to roll on the mishap table. Oh look, your unit got destroyed before you could deploy it, so now you're basically playing a 1300 point army versus my 1500 point army. How thrilling!"

Could this not be at least partially solved with a more forgiving mishap table? One where your dudes are never auto-destroyed, but instead either end up back in reserve or just in a worse spot on the table.

(Though it was hilarious when one of my ill-tempered friends flipped out after losing Draigo and an entire entourage of Terminators to a deep strike mishap. )

ccs wrote:

As opposed to your auto successful DS where you promptly wiping out the other guys 200 pts of stuff via shooting + charge?

If you don't want to risk dying during Deep Strike.... Don't Deep Strike.

Sort of. Think about it. When we're talking about deepstriking units that are picking up 200 points of enemies, we're generally talking about deepstrikers with short-ranged guns (or melee units). With the current system, there's counterplay involved. If my opponent wants to deepstrike something near one of my expensive units, I can screen them out with cheaper units or units that are a bad target for the deepstrikers. Which in turn actually adds value to units that aren't particularly durable or lethal.

Under the old system, you had a pretty narrow band of positions you could place that short-ranged shooting unit while still being within range of your target. You chose the location that was least likely to screw you over while still being able to hit your target, and then it was out of your hands. A die roll with no interaction could just decide to scatter you 10" straight into an enemy or off the table, and you'd either be delayed (having to do the same thing next turn), or you'd be destroyed outright, or you'd be placed by your opponent so that you were either irrelevant for the rest of the game or else were sitting there waiting for your opponent to come collect their free kill on the following turn.

What we have now promotes positioning decisions and counterplay. What we had previously promoted some of that but was ultimately just a die roll with an X% chance of your unit being wiped out without firing a single shot. Sometimes without even being put on the table. Which sucked. It was frustrating when it happened to my units, and it was unsatisfying when it happened to my opponents'.

Charging out of deepstrike isn't ideal in the current system. It's basically an X% chance show up and do nothing, but at least you can opt to position the unit somewhere safe-ish or rapid ingress to be relevant on the next turn. I have thoughts on improving it, but that's probably a topic for Proposed Rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Could this not be at least partially solved with a more forgiving mishap table? One where your dudes are never auto-destroyed, but instead either end up back in reserve or just in a worse spot on the table.

(Though it was hilarious when one of my ill-tempered friends flipped out after losing Draigo and an entire entourage of Terminators to a deep strike mishap. )

Ehhh. That would make it less bad, but a lot of units would still be screwed. The "let your opponent deploy your unit" approach usually just meant your unit died without doing anything but with extra steps or else got shoved in a corner where they can't participate. Going back into reserves is less bad.

Without looking at the book right this moment, I think Nachmund's deepstrike mishap table has a result that basically makes you choose a new location to arrive, but it has to be at least X" away from the place you just tried to land. Which seems like a decent way to do it.

I don't really see how this makes the game "more fun". I mean sure, it produces those "remember when?" some deathstar (Terminators come to mind to me too) was insta-gibbed or put in some corner full of difficult terrain. But it sort of provokes "okay, I've lost, good game, lets go again" from your opponent. Except we probably spent an hour getting to this point so...

I mean imaghine you just said "in turn 2 roll a dice, on a 1 (or whatever) you can't deepstrike this turn". Is that fun for anyone?

The Nachtmund Gauntlet crusade actually brings back deep strike mishaps, maybe give it a try if you missed them that much
The surgical deep strike rules can be uses irrespective of whether you are playing crusade or not.

On the topic of boarding action terrain, I can really recommend battlesystems terrain. With just two of the smaller sets (40€+60€), I got enough terrain to run two regular games of boarding action or one four player game.

Even if you don't have any terrain, just drop all your ruins, walls and crates onto the battlefield and clog it up like you would for kill team. The important part is to create chokepoints and to have little to no firing lanes. Doors are fun, but not mandatory. The missions and their exact setup themselves are neither that interesting nor important to play the game mode, just playing a regular 40k mission on a board full of terrain also works.

I never read the book, how exactly do these deep strike rules vary from the regular rules for Deep Strike?

 Quixote wrote:
I never read the book, how exactly do these deep strike rules vary from the regular rules for Deep Strike?

Remaining stubbornly too lazy to look at my book rather than going from memory... You can basically deepstrike closer than normal, but you count up the number of enemy models near the location that you want to deepstrike. That number becomes a modifier to a (2d6?) roll. If you roll badly, you roll on the mishap table. The table has various results.

Tyel wrote:


I mean imaghine you just said "in turn 2 roll a dice, on a 1 (or whatever) you can't deepstrike this turn". Is that fun for anyone?

And often, it was worse than that. It was "In turn 2, roll a die, and on a one your entire unit is dead." And no, other than not deepstriking (which you pay for the ability to do), there's no way to prevent it.

Same with the stupid AF "After losing a fight, you run, but if my attackers run faster, rather than re-engaging and fighting again, you're all just dead without a roll." I think there might have been a carve out... But you guessed it: For SPace Marines only cuz YAY SPACE MARINES.

These rules were stupid, and when they died, I pissed on their graves. If they return again, I'm done.

Tyel wrote:
I don't really see how this makes the game "more fun". I mean sure, it produces those "remember when?" some deathstar (Terminators come to mind to me too) was insta-gibbed or put in some corner full of difficult terrain. But it sort of provokes "okay, I've lost, good game, lets go again" from your opponent. Except we probably spent an hour getting to this point so...

Oh I'm not defending the mechanic at all.

It was more of a 'couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy' memory.