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.
Hey all, I had an idea for a campaign I wanted to toss up and get some feed back on. So here's the idea:
The campaign itself is intended to run up to 24 weeks. I think I can count on between 3 and 5 players for the campaign. It's a map based campaign with 15 zones in the map. Each zone would have a mission associated with it. So "Hey I'm attacking the Pangea Low Lands" would mean you and your opponent would use the "Pangea Low Lands" Mission which would include the deployment map, victory conditions, and special rules for the zone. Each zone will also include a resource value of "Supply". I'll come back to this in a moment.
So, anyone who wants to take part in the campaign would need to compile a "Detachment Roster". what my thinking is that this roster will effectively be an unbound list totaling 10,000 points and is used to represent the combined assets and resources the commander brought to the Campaign. The army list used in each game would need to be made up of units from this detachment Roster. As an example, let's say a space marine player included 2 Land Raiders in their Detachment Roster. But he wants to use a formation that has 3 Land Raiders in it. Sorry. Can not do it.... unless.... yes there is an unless to this. Unless there is another Player in the campaign that has a Land Raider in their roster who's Commander is willing to work along side the Space Marine Commander during an operation (normal allies Matrix limitations apply).
It gets bit more trouble-som when it comes to squads. As I said, you would compile a list of 10,000 points to represent your detachment. As an example, we'll say our Space Marine player included 10 10-man Tactical squads in their detachment. And he deploys 6 of them in mission 1 where 2 of them are reduced by 5 members each. For each member lost, the player would roll on a campaign mission resolution chart to determine the status of those marines. There are 3 possible out comes:
1- The marine has been killed and takes no further part in the campaign.
2- The marine has been injured enough to require recuperation time and will be unavailable for D3 games.
3- The injury suffered by the marine was largely inconsequential and the marine will be fit for service in the next game.
At this point, the Space Marine player will now have 3 choices (assuming not all of the marines get a 3 on the above chart).
1- Continue to run the squads at reduced strength in future games (until any marines that rolled a 2 previously can return to service)
2- Take members from other squads to replace the lost members in these squads.
3- 'retire' one of the squads and take the members from that squad to augment the remaining squad.
Options 2 and 3 would require the Space Marine Player to make rolls on the Campaign experience chart and apply results as indicated.
So thoughts? On the one hand, using the perma-death mechanic will help to create narrative and story while forcing the players to be somewhat more cautious in using their resources. But on the other hand, this puts a considerable burden on the players to play record keeper for their armies.
I like the idea of having missions or even just special rules tied to various zones. I can totally see a campaign map being shaped by the advantages the "defender" would have thanks to a fortress or the advantages a, for instance, mechanized army would have over a non-mechanized one in a certain zone. That's really cool and makes me pleasantly nostalgic for Final Fantasy Tactics somehow. Now that said, are you really prepared to churn out 15 missions that feel appropriate for each unique zone?
If not, you might consider stealing this totally awesome idea I just made up: Rather than developing a unique mission, give each area a Terrain and Defenses characteristic. Terrain would be something like "Forested: This zone is full of vegetation large enough to hide even the bulkiest of war machines behind. All units have Stealth this game, and Kroot are always considered to have a 5+ cover save for being in trees." You could have Tundras, Wasteland, Hive Cities, etc. as other Terrain rules, and you can have more or less of a certain type based on what you want your planet to be like.
"Defenses" would be things like aegis lines, dense buildings to hide behind (represented as physical terrain your opponent could put on the table during deployment), explosive fuel vats, etc.
Note that some climates and defenses might do nothing at all. "Prairies" and "Featureless" might not modify the rules at all, for instance.
By combining these two things in each area and then just playing a normal mission, you'll cut down on the work for yourself considerably while still making each area feel unique.
The roster thing is cool but unwieldy. In your example about an extra commander cooperating, for instance, you've already left me with a few questions. Would this other commander have to use an actual detachment of some sort? An allied detachment? If so, that tank he's lending the main player can't technically be part of a formation. Does that mean the cooperating player is "unbound?" If so, that means his troops won't have objective secured. This part just needs to be cleaned up a bit.
The wounded soldier rules seem like they'd be more annoying to keep track of than fun. :( Marines would have enough models to keep track of, but imagine an ork or guard army! If you want to do something to this effect, I'd say make it a unit-by-unit thing. So rather than rolling for every model lost, roll for every squad lost. While this *does* encourage death stars and large, hard-to-kill units a bit, I think it also accomplishes what you seem to be going for. Armies would still lose chunks of their forces over time, and you'd still have a sense of ongoing narrative, but you'd have like, 20 units to worry about after a few games rather than potentially hundreds. Also, is there an equivalent of this for vehicles?
I like the idea of having an apothecary or haemonculus or something surviving at the end of the fight giving you the ability to reroll 1s on the mortality chart or something, but that's adding an unneeded level of complexity to the game that doesn't benefit all armies equally. >.< Maybe make it an optional veteran ability that apothecaries, haemonculi, etc. can buy with experience? It will make things more complicated, so feel free to dismiss this suggestion based on that alone.
Regarding the experience chart, I'd just like to suggest giving the players the option to choose experience benefits rather than "rolling" for them. Gives you more of a sense of ownership of your army and lets you shape your veterans' story more.
Also, you said you'd come back to how Supply works, but either you forgot or I managed to miss it.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
What could be interesting is if an area with defenses has fortifications, or just aegis lines, but they're part of the terrain. Off to the side, equidistant from each table edge, and are usable by whatever side gets there first. Maybe that would change if the territory is already occupied, so whoever won last time has it automatically. To keep it from being a free defense, they could have to include it in their list or else it gets placed off to the side unoccupied as before, but then either player could make use of it.
4000 pts
4700+ pts
2500 pts Hive Fleet Gungnir
St. Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go. I owe my soul to GW's store.
What could be interesting is if an area with defenses has fortifications, or just aegis lines, but they're part of the terrain. Off to the side, equidistant from each table edge, and are usable by whatever side gets there first. Maybe that would change if the territory is already occupied, so whoever won last time has it automatically. To keep it from being a free defense, they could have to include it in their list or else it gets placed off to the side unoccupied as before, but then either player could make use of it.
Agreed, though I was trying to avoid making defenses always be fortifications. Maybe calling them "points of interest" would work better? So one area might have fortifications that the defender can benefit from, another area might have a coms tower that lets you reroll reserves rolls in all battles in adjacent areas, etc.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
That could work. Be interesting if it has an effect on surrounding areas too, like that comms tower. Add a little more strategy to what regions you take and how you use them.
4000 pts
4700+ pts
2500 pts Hive Fleet Gungnir
St. Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go. I owe my soul to GW's store.
Hey all, I had an idea for a campaign I wanted to toss up and get some feed back on. So here's the idea:
The campaign itself is intended to run up to 24 weeks. I think I can count on between 3 and 5 players for the campaign. It's a map based campaign with 15 zones in the map. Each zone would have a mission associated with it. So "Hey I'm attacking the Pangea Low Lands" would mean you and your opponent would use the "Pangea Low Lands" Mission which would include the deployment map, victory conditions, and special rules for the zone. Each zone will also include a resource value of "Supply". I'll come back to this in a moment.
So, anyone who wants to take part in the campaign would need to compile a "Detachment Roster". what my thinking is that this roster will effectively be an unbound list totaling 10,000 points and is used to represent the combined assets and resources the commander brought to the Campaign. The army list used in each game would need to be made up of units from this detachment Roster. As an example, let's say a space marine player included 2 Land Raiders in their Detachment Roster. But he wants to use a formation that has 3 Land Raiders in it. Sorry. Can not do it.... unless.... yes there is an unless to this. Unless there is another Player in the campaign that has a Land Raider in their roster who's Commander is willing to work along side the Space Marine Commander during an operation (normal allies Matrix limitations apply).
It gets bit more trouble-som when it comes to squads. As I said, you would compile a list of 10,000 points to represent your detachment. As an example, we'll say our Space Marine player included 10 10-man Tactical squads in their detachment. And he deploys 6 of them in mission 1 where 2 of them are reduced by 5 members each. For each member lost, the player would roll on a campaign mission resolution chart to determine the status of those marines. There are 3 possible out comes:
1- The marine has been killed and takes no further part in the campaign.
2- The marine has been injured enough to require recuperation time and will be unavailable for D3 games.
3- The injury suffered by the marine was largely inconsequential and the marine will be fit for service in the next game.
At this point, the Space Marine player will now have 3 choices (assuming not all of the marines get a 3 on the above chart).
1- Continue to run the squads at reduced strength in future games (until any marines that rolled a 2 previously can return to service)
2- Take members from other squads to replace the lost members in these squads.
3- 'retire' one of the squads and take the members from that squad to augment the remaining squad.
Options 2 and 3 would require the Space Marine Player to make rolls on the Campaign experience chart and apply results as indicated.
So thoughts? On the one hand, using the perma-death mechanic will help to create narrative and story while forcing the players to be somewhat more cautious in using their resources. But on the other hand, this puts a considerable burden on the players to play record keeper for their armies.
So... yeah, any thoughts on the idea?
Wyldhunt wrote:I like the idea of having missions or even just special rules tied to various zones. I can totally see a campaign map being shaped by the advantages the "defender" would have thanks to a fortress or the advantages a, for instance, mechanized army would have over a non-mechanized one in a certain zone. That's really cool and makes me pleasantly nostalgic for Final Fantasy Tactics somehow. Now that said, are you really prepared to churn out 15 missions that feel appropriate for each unique zone?
Already started said churning. My intention is to provide a compiled note book of the missions, campaign experience rules, and campaign support information to each player.
Wyldhunt wrote:If not, you might consider stealing this totally awesome idea I just made up: Rather than developing a unique mission, give each area a Terrain and Defenses characteristic. Terrain would be something like "Forested: This zone is full of vegetation large enough to hide even the bulkiest of war machines behind. All units have Stealth this game, and Kroot are always considered to have a 5+ cover save for being in trees." You could have Tundras, Wasteland, Hive Cities, etc. as other Terrain rules, and you can have more or less of a certain type based on what you want your planet to be like.
"Defenses" would be things like aegis lines, dense buildings to hide behind (represented as physical terrain your opponent could put on the table during deployment), explosive fuel vats, etc.
Note that some climates and defenses might do nothing at all. "Prairies" and "Featureless" might not modify the rules at all, for instance.
By combining these two things in each area and then just playing a normal mission, you'll cut down on the work for yourself considerably while still making each area feel unique.
The roster thing is cool but unwieldy. In your example about an extra commander cooperating, for instance, you've already left me with a few questions. Would this other commander have to use an actual detachment of some sort? An allied detachment? If so, that tank he's lending the main player can't technically be part of a formation. Does that mean the cooperating player is "unbound?" If so, that means his troops won't have objective secured. This part just needs to be cleaned up a bit.
For the purposes of the campaign I was figuring such issues would be on hold. So in the example of the tank loaning, the Chaos Land Raider would be treated as a desperate ally, but would still count for the purposes of the formation and the rules conveyed by it.
Wyldhunt wrote:
The wounded soldier rules seem like they'd be more annoying to keep track of than fun. :( Marines would have enough models to keep track of, but imagine an ork or guard army! If you want to do something to this effect, I'd say make it a unit-by-unit thing. So rather than rolling for every model lost, roll for every squad lost. While this *does* encourage death stars and large, hard-to-kill units a bit, I think it also accomplishes what you seem to be going for. Armies would still lose chunks of their forces over time, and you'd still have a sense of ongoing narrative, but you'd have like, 20 units to worry about after a few games rather than potentially hundreds. Also, is there an equivalent of this for vehicles?
I like the idea of having an apothecary or haemonculus or something surviving at the end of the fight giving you the ability to reroll 1s on the mortality chart or something, but that's adding an unneeded level of complexity to the game that doesn't benefit all armies equally. >.< Maybe make it an optional veteran ability that apothecaries, haemonculi, etc. can buy with experience? It will make things more complicated, so feel free to dismiss this suggestion based on that alone.
Regarding the experience chart, I'd just like to suggest giving the players the option to choose experience benefits rather than "rolling" for them. Gives you more of a sense of ownership of your army and lets you shape your veterans' story more.
Also, you said you'd come back to how Supply works, but either you forgot or I managed to miss it.
No you didn't miss it. I forgot to post it. But it's actually worked out for the best I think. Some of the other ideas posted have made me go back and re-examine my original idea and I think I've come up with a better idea. I'll post below.
What could be interesting is if an area with defenses has fortifications, or just aegis lines, but they're part of the terrain. Off to the side, equidistant from each table edge, and are usable by whatever side gets there first. Maybe that would change if the territory is already occupied, so whoever won last time has it automatically. To keep it from being a free defense, they could have to include it in their list or else it gets placed off to the side unoccupied as before, but then either player could make use of it.
What could be interesting is if an area with defenses has fortifications, or just aegis lines, but they're part of the terrain. Off to the side, equidistant from each table edge, and are usable by whatever side gets there first. Maybe that would change if the territory is already occupied, so whoever won last time has it automatically. To keep it from being a free defense, they could have to include it in their list or else it gets placed off to the side unoccupied as before, but then either player could make use of it.
Agreed, though I was trying to avoid making defenses always be fortifications. Maybe calling them "points of interest" would work better? So one area might have fortifications that the defender can benefit from, another area might have a coms tower that lets you reroll reserves rolls in all battles in adjacent areas, etc.
So Supply. Each zone will convey Supply points to the player who controls that zone. For example sake we'll say we have 4 zones labeled "Zone 1" "Zone 2" "Zone 3" and "Zone 4" Yes I know I'm so creative with my names. Zone 1 conveys 110 points of supply, Zone 2 200, Zone 3 140, Zone 4 210.
Player 1 has control of Zones 1 and 3, while player 2 has control of 2 and 4. The points are cumulative meaning each player would have access to a pool of points based on the sum of the points collected from each zone. So in the example, player 1 would have a pool of 250 points while player 2 would have 410 points.
The players can then spend the points in one of three ways:
1- They may purchase additional/replacement troops from their codex as normal to add to their roster. They may then be purchased for their a given battle as normal.
2- They may spend the points to purchase fortifications and further defensive measures for zones they control (Basically Aegis Defense lines, Defense Lasers, Fortress of redemption, Redoubts, ect). these are tied to the zone and can not be used in other zones once purchased and deployed. These are not counted when calculating army totals for a given game. Once destroyed in a game, they are removed from the campaign unless the controlling player purchases them again.
3- The may spend the points to purchase strategic/Tactical assets. These may be things like the one-use ability to re-deploy a single enemy unit before turn 1, or conducting a orbital bombardment or equiping a unit with special weapons not normally available to it.
Would those points replenish? If, for instance, a player controls Zone 2 and spends 150 points on assets/defenses. Do they have 50 points left, or do they regain that 150 for the next battle? If they don't replenish, what if someone invades and takes the zone? Do they get 200 points, or does the zone stay 50 and just goes until it's depleted? Can previously purchased defenses be "cashed in" for some fraction of their cost to gain points to spend on something else?
4000 pts
4700+ pts
2500 pts Hive Fleet Gungnir
St. Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go. I owe my soul to GW's store.
One thing to keep in mind with any campaign asset that provides extra points or major, tangible boosts is momentum. If a person can win early on, they will begin to accrue so many bonus points that winning down the line gets easier and easier until there is very little that can be done to slow them down.
I'd remove the ability to buy more points of an army, because that can easily snowball. After all, let's say I hold any two of those zones, I'm guaranteed more or less to have a 200-400 point larger army. It is by far the best choice for using those zones compared to the other two.
KharnsRightHand wrote:Would those points replenish? If, for instance, a player controls Zone 2 and spends 150 points on assets/defenses. Do they have 50 points left, or do they regain that 150 for the next battle? If they don't replenish, what if someone invades and takes the zone? Do they get 200 points, or does the zone stay 50 and just goes until it's depleted? Can previously purchased defenses be "cashed in" for some fraction of their cost to gain points to spend on something else?
They do not replenish while in control of the zone. So in your example, player 1 controls a zone that gives him 150, he spends 100 he would have 50 left, unless he looses control of that zone (at which point the new controlling player would have 150 points) and then he later regains control of that zone.
I had not considered cashing in previously purchased defenses, but now that I'm thinking about it yes. What would you say to a 66% return rate (rounding up)? So buy a defense item for 100 points, cash it in get 66 points back.
curran12 wrote:One thing to keep in mind with any campaign asset that provides extra points or major, tangible boosts is momentum. If a person can win early on, they will begin to accrue so many bonus points that winning down the line gets easier and easier until there is very little that can be done to slow themi down.
I'd remove the ability to buy more points of an army, because that can easily snowball. After all, let's say I hold any two of those zones, I'm guaranteed more or less to have a 200-400 point larger army. It is by far the best choice for using those zones compared to the other two.
I'm not sure I follow. The purchased unit/s would go toward the detachment roster, not the mission army. So, again using this mythical space marine player for the example, well say he has his 10,000 detachment roster. He's lost we'll say 4 tactical squads since the start of the campaign. He uses his cumulated supply points to buy 4 replacement squads. That doesn't mean he gets to run 4 extra tactical squads in his next game in addition to the 1500 point list. It just means he has 4 additional tactical squads to choose from for that 1500 point list.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/22 16:20:51
The "snow ball" effect is still a concern in the late game though. At some point, you'll reach a point where player A has basically his full roster alive thanks to all the points he's been obtaining while his opponent will be struggling to put a list together. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Your system means that most games will be pretty even until one player finally has too little left in his roster to bring a full army, and at that point, the campaign should probably start winding down anyway.
I'm not a fan on "cashing in" defenses. Being able to make use of defenses your opponent (in their foolishness!) purchased and you reobtained is fun. If it starts to look like your defenses will be overrun, players will just selectively cash in defenses to deny them to their opponent. It also makes purchasing defenses less of a choice.
"Hmm. Should I really invest all these resources into extra defenses? Oh right, I'll only be losing like, a third of those points if I change my mind later. Might as well buy them just in case!"
As opposed to the decision to build defenses feeling like it has more weight and permanence.
Also, a cash-in option adds slightly more complexity to an already fairly-complex system, so be aware of that.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Wyldhunt wrote: I'm not a fan on "cashing in" defenses. Being able to make use of defenses your opponent (in their foolishness!) purchased and you reobtained is fun. If it starts to look like your defenses will be overrun, players will just selectively cash in defenses to deny them to their opponent. It also makes purchasing defenses less of a choice.
I assume you can't cash in mid-game, so it shouldn't be a problem, and if someone does it before the game out of fear of losing the territory then hey, they don't get it either.
4000 pts
4700+ pts
2500 pts Hive Fleet Gungnir
St. Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go. I owe my soul to GW's store.
KharnsRightHand wrote: I assume you can't cash in mid-game, so it shouldn't be a problem, and if someone does it before the game out of fear of losing the territory then hey, they don't get it either.
no, never intended for it to be possible to cash in the defenses mid-game.
Okay so working on the campaign and I've hit a bit of a creative stump. I'm writing up the missions for each zone and I'm just kind of stuck where I am right now. So I'm hoping I can spark some discussion and feed back on what I have and that will in turn help me clear my mental log jam.
So what do I have so far? I have a map:
I have a list of territories that coincide with the numbers on the map with some notes for fluff and missions for the zones.
1 Arigas Highlands
Fluff snippet: A mountainous region that is the ringed by a series of volcanoes spawned by the crashing tectonic plates. While difficult to reach, the mineral wealth in the region make the Arigas Highland highly sought after by any forces setting foot on Iioris.
Mission notes: Active Volcanoes. Starting with turn 2, roll a D6. If the result is a 6 apply the following effects: Night fighting is used starting with the next game turn and from then on until the end of the game. Until the conclusion of the present turn all ground is counted as difficult On
2 Fengeris Forrests
Fluff Snippet:Bordered in the north by the volcanoes of the Arigas Highlands, and in the south by the volcanic activities of the Corrinthior peaks, the Fengeris Forrests are a sort of hidden oaisis as they abundance of volcanic ash provides an incredibly fertile growing planes allowing the trees in the region to grow to massive heights. So massive and well nourished are the trees that they now dominate the region, their branches long ago intertwined with one another creating a dense forest canopy that blocks out the sky and sunlight.
Mission notes: Night fighting rules are in effect for the entire game. Deep striking units that are described as dropping in from the sky may not deep strike (Such as Assault Marines)
3 Corrinthior Peaks
Fluff snippet Mission notes Special Rules
4 Muvahi Archipeligo
i. A swamp filled and water logged archipelago, stories abound about treasures and lost artifacts in the swamps and marshes of Muvahi. Many a treasure hunter has lost their lives in the regions.
ii. Mission notes
iii. Swamp land: all non-hover type tanks take a dangerous terrain each turn they are on the board. Infantry models with a save of 3+ or better treat open ground as difficult.
5 Crashed Mechanicus Cruiser
i. In centuries past the Mechanicus Cruiser “Martian Vigilance” crashed into the oceans of Iioris. Its location makes it difficult to get to and impossible to salvage. It is however a Mechanicus cruiser and because of that is abundant in rare technologies and hard to find resources, resources that only an army with access to orbital support ships would be capable of capturing. Even with another ship, getting around in the cramped corridors of the submerged vessel would prove to be dangerous as some areas are locked in total darkness, while others are under water and still others are structurally unsound and threaten to collapse at the slightest provocation.
ii. Mission notes
iii. May only use infantry type models on bases that are 40mm or smaller. Uses the Void War fare rules. May not use scouts or outflank
6 Nora’Veesta Heartland
Fluff snippet Mission notes Special Rules
7 Pansharia Coast
Fluff snippet Mission notes Special Rules
8 Rosair Floodlands
Fluff snippet Mission notes Special Rules
9 Duragor Plateau
Fluff snippet Mission notes Special Rules
10 Xurandia Plains
Fluff SnippetThe principle food production region for the eastern continent, Xurandia was heavy patrolled by security forces in the days before the invasion. Fearful of attempts to poison the food supplies, these patrols were career military giving the Plains a ready standing armed force. Following the invasion, these forces were pressed into working the fields they had previously been charged with protecting.
Mission notes: Terrain should be set up to resemble a wheat field of some sort.
[b]Special Rules?
11 Vetoriax Bay
[b]Fluff SnippetIn ages past, Vetoriax bay was the primary manufactorum of the western continent, churning out munitions and war means by the thousand. Now it is a ghostly shadow of its former glory, a city sized factory shrouded in poisonous gases, the origins of which have been lost to the views of time. If a commander were to take control of the zone they would gain increased munitions and hardware, but to do so would be difficult at best as the chocking toxic clouds would make it a death trap for any who were injured there.
Mission notes Special rules: Night fighting, all shots and attacks count as having rending. Attacks which already are rending have +1 S.
12 Xurandia Mountains
Fluff Snippet Only a narrow mountain pass would allow an armored column of any form to move through the Xurandia Mountains, and under different circumstances most commanders would simply have bypassed the mountain range entirely. However the position of the mountains effectively bisects the continent into two parts mandating control of the passage in order for an army to move from one side of the continent to the other.
Notes:Rocky terrain with lots of small spaces making the use of non-skimmer type vehicles difficult.
Special rules:Flyers may only be used in hover mode. Flying monstrous creatures may not swoop. The armies may not make use of more than 3 entities that have the ‘tank’ type. Super heavies of any form may not be used.
I was listing the to Pandorox audio novel. Short of the long, the end of the campaign referenced in that book is a sub-terrain battle. Sparked some ideas and it's something I'd like to look at doing in my campaign. Making one zone a sub-Terrain zone with according special rules. One of the things it would do is negate deep striking units entirely. Beyond that it would create issues for flying creatures and flyers. Basically if a flyer pilot isn't careful they are likely to smash into a wall or ceiling. Same thing with flying monstrous creatures. So here are my thoughts:
If a flying montrous creature moves more then 12" in a single turn it must take a grounding check at the end of the turn.
I want to have something similar for Flyers, but not exactly sure how to go about doing it.
I am going to pull the Zone Mortalis rule set and lift the moral rule from that. I don't have them in front of me, but I remember seeing something in there about if a unit fails a moral check and falls back, if it falls back through another unit that other unit must now take a moral check and so on and so forth.
4000 pts
4700+ pts
2500 pts Hive Fleet Gungnir
