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.

Alright, I had a thought the other night, and I was wondering if people would think it was OP. We've all had that time where you could take the game if you could just get those two objectives, 12" apart, but you've only got on squad close enough to both of them, and the rules say a unit can only hold one objective. So, here's my thought. Amend the rules on Objective Secured, so that a unit with that rule can either

1) Control a single objective, even if another unit is within 3", unless they also have ObSec (as the rule currently does)

Or

2) Hold two objectives at the same time, but at the expense of ObSec (representing how thin they've spread their line).

In addition to increasing the tactical level of the game, by forcing players to make a difficult choice, I think it would encourage players to take more troops choices, instead of just viewing them as a tax. Thoughts?

It feels like you're handing advantages to things like Kroot and encouraging people to take fewer Troops because they don't need as many to hold ground.

Thated be nice.


"CALL IN THE NEXT WAVE" of conscripts

Also just Guardsman blobs would have a field day.