PDA

View Full Version : Christmas Terrain Project Critique



Nabterayl
12-03-2009, 07:36 PM
Hey guys,

I'm working on a number of terrain projects to use as Christmas gifts for my gaming group, and I want to include rule sheets for some of the non-standard terrain pieces. Since these are gifts, I can't ask my gaming group for feedback on the rules, or the accompanying fluff. Anybody here want to offer their critiques?

We're a "casual" group of gamers, many of whom are primarily in this for the story or the art, so it's important to me that these rules feel cool (and hopefully the models will look cool!). At the same time, as the go-to rule guy in my group, it's important to me that the rules be clear, cover any potential questions/loopholes, and be usable in regular, Planetstrike, and Apocalypse games. I'd also like to strike some balance between "cool" and "balanced." Our general philosophy as a group is, "If I can only beat you when things are precisely balanced to a T, then I didn't really beat you anyway" - hence, for this project, if I have to choose between erring on the side of balanced and erring on the side of cool, I'd like to err on the side of cool.

So I'm up for critique that covers any or all of:
Fluff
Grammar/rules clarity
Rules balance

First up are proposed rules for a set of webway gates, which draw inspiration, but I hope are different in a cool way, from Imperial Skyshield landing pads:


ELDAR WEBWAY GATE
The Eldar Empire once ruled the galaxy. Its armies and commerce moved quickly and safely from end to end through the webway, within the Warp, but isolated from it—a triumph of interdimensional engineering. Since the Fall of the eldar race, much of the webway has been overrun by the foul spirits of Chaos, but the surviving sections of webway still form an interdimensional highway that spans the galaxy.

Many of the surviving webway portals are permanently fixed in place, whether on a planet’s surface or in the deep of space. Cunningly concealed from the lesser races, these portals provide a craftworld’s army the ability to seemingly appear from nowhere.

Some portals, however, are portable. If a farseer or autarch deems it prudent, a bonesinger may create a temporary wraithbone gate to house such a portable portal. Though revealing a portal to the lesser races risks contaminating the webway, the tactical advantage provided by these temporary webway gates is considerable.

Webway Gate Rules

Building: A webway gate is a building with an Armor Value of 13 all around. As a building, it may be attacked just like a stationary vehicle, ignoring all results on the vehicle damage table other than Destroyed. Webway gates cannot be occupied like conventional buildings—see below.

Shielded: A webway gate is built to house a portable webway portal; it is not the portal itself. The arcane psychic energies of the portal can be focused through the psychoactive wraithbone of the gate in two ways.
Shielded—in this mode, the portal is tightly focused, its energies restrained within the wraithbone. The psychic energy suffusing the webway gate gives it a 4+ invulnerable save; however, it is more difficult to enter the webway portal during the heat of battle (see Navigating the Webway below).
Open—in this mode, the portal is thrown open. The webway gate loses its 4+ invulnerable save; however, it is easier to enter the webway portal during the heat of battle (see Navigating the Webway below).
The player who placed the webway gate during setup declares in which mode it begins the game. Any eldar model (of any player) that starts its Movement phase within 2” of a webway gate may switch it from one mode to another at no cost.

Webway Portal: The webway portal housed by the webway gate has two effects:
Any eldar unit (of any player), or unit containing at least one eldar model, may start the game in Webway Reserve. A unit that makes this election makes Reserve rolls as normal, but must enter play from a webway gate (any webway gate, if there is more than one on the table) when entering from Reserve, as if the entire webway gate were a table edge. If all webway gates are destroyed, all units waiting to enter from Webway Reserve are removed from play, counting as destroyed by their opponents, as the units are forced to find another way out of the webway and miss the battle entirely. If a unit is eligible to enter play from Webway Reserve but all available webway gates are blocked by enemy units, that unit may enter play on the first turn in which a webway gate is clear.
Any unit may enter the webway using a webway gate during play. See Navigating the Webway below for the effects of doing so.
Navigating the Webway: Any unit may enter the webway using a webway gate during play. To do so, all models must be within 2” of the webway gate, and the unit must declare that it is entering the webway. Vehicles moving Flat Out may only enter a webway gate that is in Open mode. Once in the webway, a unit may exit the webway by placing its models in unit coherency within 2” of any other webway gate (even the gate it entered).

Units may enter and exit the webway only during their turn, and may enter or exit the webway during the Assault phase if they have a rule or wargear that permits them to make a move in the Assault phase (e.g., a jetpack, star engines, or an eldar jetbike). Units may not enter or exit the webway using a consolidation move. Units in the webway need not exit the webway, though they count as destroyed if they are in the webway at the end of the game. Units may exit the webway in the same turn as they entered it.

The webway is notoriously difficult for non-eldar to navigate. Non-eldar units, and units without at least one eldar model, must roll a d6 when attempting to exit (but not enter) the webway:

1: The unit is hopelessly lost in the webway. It is removed from play, counting as destroyed. It may yet find a way out, but not before the battle is long over.
2-4: The unit is lost in the webway. It may attempt to exit the webway next turn, but may not take any further actions this turn. It may not interact with, or be acted upon by, any unit this turn.
5: The unit stumbles from the webway, merely glad to have found any exit from the alien maze. The unit is placed in unit coherency within 2” of any webway gate of the opponent’s choice, and may then continue to move as normal.
6: Whether by luck, an extraordinary feat of pathfinding, or the patronage of their gods, the unit successfully navigates the webway. The unit may exit the webway as normal.
Size: Superheavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures may not enter or exit the webway, or exit Webway Reserve, from a webway gate that does not at least match the height of the superheavy vehicle or gargantuan creature. Additionally, superheavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures may only enter or exit the webway, or exit Webway Reserve, from an Open webway gate.

Just_Me
12-03-2009, 08:44 PM
I like it, is fairly clear and very cool, it also offers the potential for cool things like using webway gates to link separate tables together. One thing, as far as I understand it if a unit successfully navigates the webway they move and act perfectly normally by basically ignoring the distance between the gates right? So they start their phase at gate A, enter it (and successfully navigate it), then exit at gate B and continue their phase exactly as if the distance between the gates did not exist and they had been at their position next the gate B all along.

If I got this then I get it and it's clear enough, though you might want to try to make it a bit clearer (maybe with an example in a side bar).

I made a webway gate myself out of poster board, wire, and costume jewels. It's a simple and effective piece, and looks very good even with my moderate terrain building skills. If I ever build a second one as I had planned, then I fully intend to borrow your rules. I feel like this would be great for themed scenarios, perhaps as the objective of the whole game, I can just see a scenario involving my Ordos Xenos force trying to capture a gate to study while the Eldar try their best to protect the gate.

Nabterayl
12-03-2009, 09:00 PM
Yes, that's exactly the way I intend it to work. A sidebar is a good idea.

Just_Me
12-03-2009, 11:02 PM
Another thing that occurs to me after thinking about it, I feel like in anything short of an Apocalypse game with boatloads of super-heavies and gargantuan creatures, there is very little incentive to open the gate at all. I don't know how significant that is, it's just a thought I had...

Nabterayl
12-03-2009, 11:08 PM
I think that's true - on the other hand, there's very little incentive to ever unfurl a Skyshield, either, and both incentives only really crop up when you have Fast transports in the game. So my thinking was that, while a gate would likely spend most games in Shielded mode, that at least is analogous to what a landing pad would do. Does that seem like a good analogy?

Any situations you can think of that the rules don't cover?

Atrotos
12-03-2009, 11:09 PM
Awesome, great to see something totally new. Fluff-wise it works well and is believable. These rules are very clearly designed with a narrative in mind.

The mechanics seem fluid enough except I doubt that the "Open" and "Closed" aspect of the rules will work well in game. I think you'll find that players forget to open or close the webway or forget to mark which state it is currently in. This will lead to the rule being ignored. My friendly suggestion would be to simply grant the building the Invulnerable save permanently and not worry about how fast things went into it.

You've made it clear that story comes first and I can't argue that these rules don't match the fluff perfectly. However, in its current iteration the Eldar player could have a unit of Jetbikes go through portal A, come out at B, shoot and return to portal A in their assault phase with no way for the opponent to retaliate. Other balance issues might include first turn assault potential on most of the board and objective contestation/killpoint denial issues that arise when a unit sits in the webway until turn 5. Making the non-eldar webway travel chart much less punishing will go along way towards fixing these problems as might having the destruction of the portal affect victory conditions so that the eldar do not hold such a huge advantage.

Hope this helps, thanks for sharing.

Nabterayl
12-03-2009, 11:52 PM
The mechanics seem fluid enough except I doubt that the "Open" and "Closed" aspect of the rules will work well in game. I think you'll find that players forget to open or close the webway or forget to mark which state it is currently in. This will lead to the rule being ignored. My friendly suggestion would be to simply grant the building the Invulnerable save permanently and not worry about how fast things went into it.
Thanks for this suggestion. I am hoping to be able to mimic the air-distortion effect in this picture (http://www.wargamer.com/files/articles/2660/20090225100147.jpg) with some clear plastic and a heat gun. If I can do that, I was thinking I could make two air distortions per gate - one large, one small - to denote whether a gate is "open" or "closed." If I could pull that off, do you think it would be enough of a play aid to help people remember?

If I can't pull it off, I think you may be right that it would be best to drop the open/closed distinction.


You've made it clear that story comes first and I can't argue that these rules don't match the fluff perfectly. However, in its current iteration the Eldar player could have a unit of Jetbikes go through portal A, come out at B, shoot and return to portal A in their assault phase with no way for the opponent to retaliate.
There would be no way to retaliate short of destroying the gate, anyway, which might be enough. I suppose if you clustered, say, three gates around an objective, though, that could be pretty hard to crack. What do folks think about requiring you to enter or leave the webway during the Movement phase? I'd be interested to get others' sense of the severity of the balance problem here.


Other balance issues might include first turn assault potential on most of the board and objective contestation/killpoint denial issues that arise when a unit sits in the webway until turn 5. Making the non-eldar webway travel chart much less punishing will go along way towards fixing these problems as might having the destruction of the portal affect victory conditions so that the eldar do not hold such a huge advantage.
These I personally feel less concerned about. It's true you could potentially get a turn 1 assault, but in Planetstrike, the attacker is starting in reserve, and you could potentially take these things out with Firestorm attacks, which feels like a reasonable balance to me. And in regular and Apocalypse games board set-up is mutual.

Objective denial is certainly a concern, but I feel like that ought to be part of what a webway gate does. And if a player is really that concerned about it, the gate is still just sitting out there, no harder to destroy than a Hammerhead from the front.

I mention these points just to keep the dialogue going - anybody else have thoughts, or thoughts on my thoughts?

Just_Me
12-04-2009, 12:14 AM
I'm not sure I have a problem with the idea that this would imbalance the Eldar, in my opinion Eldar with webway access should be unbalanced, and you should have to alter your thinking to deal with it. I just adds an incentive to destroy them (not that hard), and by contrast an incentive for the Eldar to protect them.

I do like the idea of making them more objective centric, perhaps you could rule that in any game with objectives functioning gates must be an objective. That would require you to make difficult choices, do you destroy the gates and deny the Eldar their advantage even though in doing so you limit your own objective taking options? Or do you weather the Swordwind and try to take the objectives? I feel that on any battlefield that contains webway gates they should be the dominant feature of the on the field, and their presence should drastically effect the flow of the battle. From a fluff perspective there is just no way they wouldn't.

Nabterayl
12-04-2009, 12:22 AM
I definitely agree that they ought to be a major factor in any game they appear. And from a purely real-world standpoint, I'd feel bad if I gave one of my eldar-playing friends some terrain for a Christmas gift that wasn't important, when I'm giving some of my other friends things like scratch-built bastions.

I like the idea of making them mandatory objectives. That also limits the incentives for the eldar player to just throw them in your face or spread them out to zone an entire Planetstrike board, and it doesn't seem like eldar would deliberately set up webway gates in indefensible positions.

I lean against making them destroyable objectives, though. That's an interesting dynamic in tournament scenarios, I think, but ordinarily, objectives are points in space rather than physical objects. Additionally, most races I think would value a webway gate even if it was shot to pieces. Even other eldar might value reclaiming the wraithbone and any spirit stones that survived. I certainly can't imagine an Imperial force destroying a webway gate and then saying, "Damn! All we have is this huge pile of alien technology, when we wanted a webway portal. Oh well. Move on, men - nothing important here!"

Just_Me
12-04-2009, 12:44 AM
I will grant that even a destroyed gate would be a boon to anyone who held it, but an intact one is infinitely more valuable. Again, while it is true that objectives are normally points in space rather than things, there is precedent; in the Apocalypse book the special scenario centered around the 13th Black Crusade had the survival or death of characters as objectives.

Even when they are points in space those points are not arbitrary, they would be selected because something about them makes them strategically, tactically, or otherwise important. I really can't imagine that the general or inquisitor who orders the gates to be captured would just say "oops, those silly fellows blew them up, boys will be boys I suppose, well, this rubble ain't going to sift itself gents..." I feel like there would be some yelling, a court-martial or three, and maybe the odd firing squad :D. The bottom line being there should be a real in game incentive to take them in one piece, otherwise as the enemy player you could just fry them all and then sit on the craters while the Eldar cried about the mean Mon'Keigh that broke their favorite toys :p.

Nabterayl
12-04-2009, 12:59 AM
That's true, but I wonder if it's more true of a webway gate than any other objective? I mean, obviously an intact webway gate is more valuable than an intact wounded Imperial Guardsman. But is an intact webway gate more valuable than an intact archaeotech site, or something of that nature? I definitely think you have a point, but I wonder if it belongs more in scenario rules than the rules for the terrain feature itself.

Just_Me
12-04-2009, 12:53 PM
Well, any comparison is of course relative, but I would say that in the long term an intact webway gate is considerably more valuable than, say, a bombed out building, secure fire point with good coverage, high ground, or ammo dump. These are the sorts of things that in my opinion would make up most of the objectives fought over on a 40k battlefield, the commander on the ground might not see it that way (to them the immediate tactical advantage is going to seem most important), but the overall commanders probably would. However, you may be right that such concerns are more suited to scenario rules instead of those for the terrain features themselves.

It also occurs to me that if the webway gates are meant to be rough equivalents to the Skyshield, then perhaps you could consider rules for larger webway "hubs" as well, something that is more durable and could be upgraded with integral defenses as an equivalent to strong points and bastions. That's probably more than you really want to worry about for this Christmas project, but it might be something to keep in mind for the future.

Nabterayl
12-04-2009, 01:00 PM
Oh, I definitely have plans for webway gate-based indomitable fortresses :D But that will have to wait for another day. And besides, the smaller ones should make a good test run project.

So, after looking at this feedback, I've decided to add the following:
In missions that use objectives, webway gates always count as an objective.
If I can't model an easy-to-use, visually distinctive way to differentiate an open from a closed webway gate, I'm going to drop the open distinction.

Nabterayl
12-04-2009, 01:17 PM
Here's another piece I'd like your guys' feedback on. This is my take on a tyranid bastion and comms array. I thought about some kind of spore mine launcher, or a hive mound bristling with devourers and a venom cannon, but ultimately it felt more "tyranid" to me to go in a different direction:


TYRANID SWARM NEST
Whenever the tyranid swarm touches a planet for any length of time, microscopic tyranid spores begin to “tyrannoform” the surface. Flora of all kinds are warped and mutated in the image of the swarm. One of the strangest products of tyrannoformation is the so-called “brood nest.” Though they may appear to be a simple network of tunnels and caverns, a brood nest is actually a tyranid organism that gestates tyranid beasts directly on a planet’s surface. Cunningly concealed amidst the overgrown plants that accompany the swarm, a brood nest may be overlooked by an enemy until the very ground seems to erupt with tyranids fresh from their birthing sacs.

Some brood nests are small enough and penetrate the planet’s surface superficially enough that they may be killed by small arms fire (flamers tend to be particularly effective). Others are so extensive that, though living organisms, they may as well be subterranean cavern networks. These nests, sometimes nicknamed “swarm nests” by those unfortunates who have encountered them, can birth even the largest tyranid monstrosities, and are extremely difficult to kill—even sustained artillery fire usually does little more than kill the surface layers and bury them. Swarm nests are often accompanied by pulsing brain-like hive nodes, which seem to serve as a kind of psychic beacon that draws distant tyranids to the nest’s defense.

Swarm Nest Rules
Building: A swarm nest is a building with an Armour Value of 14 all around. As a building, it may be attacked just like a stationary vehicle. However, a swarm nest ignores all results on the vehicle damage table other than Destroyed, including Crew Shaken and Crew Stunned. A swarm nest may hold a single unit of any size of infantry, beasts, or monstrous creatures. A swarm nest may hold a gargantuan creature if the gargantuan creature’s unit will physically fit within the footprint of the swarm nest.

Access Points: The entire swarm nest functions as a single access point. This includes the surface of the swarm nest itself.

Fire Points: The entire swarm nest functions as a single fire point that can accommodate any number of models.

It’s Alive!: Models may stand upon a swarm nest (including models that have just disembarked from the nest itself). A swarm nest counts as clear terrain to tyranid units belonging to the player who placed the nest during setup. To all other units, the swarm nest counts as Dangerous Terrain, so riddled is the ground with exit canals, shifting musculature, and bizarre epidermal defenses.

A swarm nest may be occupied by any unit, subject to its normal transport capacity restrictions. However, models occupying a swarm nest other than tyranid models belonging to the player who placed the nest suffer a single wound (with normal saves allowed) on a d6 roll of 1 at the beginning of every turn. Units occupying a swarm nest may attack it in close combat whilst inside the nest. If they do so, the swarm nest’s Armor Value counts as 10, and rolls on the vehicle damage table receive a +2 bonus.

It’s … Huge: A single swarm nest can gestate a huge number and variety of tyranid creatures in a network of vile alien wombs that extends much farther than the above-ground portion of the nest suggests. Any tyranid unit belonging to the player who placed the nest during setup may treat the swarm nest as any table edge when entering play. Units that enter play through a swarm nest are assumed to have entered play within the nest itself. Note that while any number of units could enter play from a single swarm nest in a single turn in this manner, the swarm nest would have to be empty (or the unit entering play could not enter the nest) and each unit would have to vacate the nest to make room for the unit following.

If the swarm nest is occupied by a hostile unit when a unit attempts to enter the nest from off the board, the occupying unit is immediately assaulted by the unit attempting to enter the nest in this manner. In that turn’s Assault phase, the two units will fight a close combat, with all units (including any attached Independent Characters) counting as engaged with all other units, and neither unit counting as charging or moving through Difficult Terrain. The unit occupying the swarm nest also counts as engaged with the swarm nest itself. Units fighting within a swarm nest in this manner count as Fearless whilst fighting within the nest. Whilst a unit occupying a swarm nest is engaged with a unit attempting to enter play through that swarm nest, no other unit may attempt to enter play through that swarm nest (though it may attempt to enter play through another swarm nest, if more than one is on the table).

Units fighting within a swarm nest in this manner may not move until one or the other unit or the swarm nest itself is destroyed (note that the swarm nest itself may still be targeted by shooting attacks, and the occupying unit may attack the nest in close combat even whilst fighting the unit attempting to enter play through it). If the swarm nest is destroyed whilst a unit is attempting to enter play through that nest, the unit attempting to enter play is destroyed—still alive, perhaps, but buried beneath layers of rubble or dead tissue for the duration of the battle. The unit occupying the swarm nest when it is destroyed is treated normally.

Objective: In missions that use objectives, a swarm nest always counts as an objective.

Hive Node Rules
Creature: A hive node is treated as impassable terrain. However, it may be attacked like an infantry model. Units hit a hive node automatically in close combat, and do not become locked in combat after assaulting it. It has the following profile:

T5 W3 Sv5+

Psyker: A hive node is a psyker. It has the Synapse Creature psychic power.

Comms Array: So long as it is alive, a hive node allows the player who placed it to re-roll any and all Reserve rolls.

A few notes about my design decisions for this one. First, I decided to make the nest a building rather than an immobile creature with high Toughness and lots of Wounds because of the problem of sniper rifles. Even if I made the swarm nest T10 W10, heavy sniper fire could bring it down. I didn't like the idea of this vast, subterranean bulk being put out of action by thirty sniper bullets.

Second, as I said, I wanted to make the nest serve the "bastion" role without giving it any powerful guns, as that just didn't feel right to me. This is the main reason the nest ignores Crew Shaken and Crew Stunned - a tyranid player can, if he wants to, load it up with shooty bugs (or even a shooty carnifex) and produce a reasonably shooty building.

Third, I included the hive node comms array because I think a building like this would be much more flexible if you have greater control over your Reserves - particularly in Planetstrike, if your entire army is on the table on Turn 2, it doesn't much matter that new bugs can come in through the nest (unless you play using lots of Without Number gaunts, which not everybody does). However, I didn't like the idea of using a regular comms array, since it seems very un-tyranid-like to me to have some bugs sit back and man the radio (even if that radio is a pulsating alien brain). This way the hive node doesn't have to be manned, which feels more tyranid to me - but it's also an advantage, so I tried to compensate by allowing it to be destroyed, unlike a regular comms array. I'm not sure if I've struck the correct balance between making the hive node tough enough that a tyranid player can get some good use out of it, but fragile enough to balance out the advantage of an autonomous comms array.

Lord Anubis
12-04-2009, 02:01 PM
As has been suggested before, I'd also lose the open/ closed rule for the webway. It is nice and fuffy, but so are a lot of the other rules. This one just seems like a bit ofovercomplication, and I agree with Atrotos that it'll probably just be the rule that gets forgotten anyway. Lose the rule and give the gate a 5+ save all the time.

For movement, what if you said models cannot enter and leave the webway in the same phase?

For the swarm nest... two things.

One, rather than altering the way access points and fire points work, why not just make the swam nest open topped? You're counting it as a building/immobile vehicle with armor 14, so the open-topped rule would be clear out those two issues while also giving a nod to the fact that it's organic, not a land raider...;)

Second, it seems very odd to have it switch over to being a creature with toughness and wounds in assault, especially such low ones compared to its armor value (a barehanded Guard infantry platoon could probably destroy it in one assault phase). Why not just have it stay an armor 14 building/ immobile vehicle that people need powerfists, thunderhammers, and the like to take apart?

Nabterayl
12-04-2009, 02:15 PM
As has been suggested before, I'd also lose the open/ closed rule for the webway. It is nice and fuffy, but so are a lot of the other rules. This one just seems like a bit ofovercomplication, and I agree with Atrotos that it'll probably just be the rule that gets forgotten anyway. Lose the rule and give the gate a 5+ save all the time.

For movement, what if you said models cannot enter and leave the webway in the same phase?
Okay, I'll definitely re-think the open/closed thing. I'm curious, though - do people feel the same way about Skyshields? It feels like essentially the exact same rule to me, in terms of usefulness/how easy it is to remember.

As for restricting phase, the reason I'm reluctant to do that is because my group tends to play on 6'x4' boards or even slightly smaller. Given how fast eldar armies can move, I feel like restricting the mobility a gate gives you would reduce their importance - why enter the webway this turn and leave it the next when you can just jet over there conventionally?


For the swarm nest... two things.

One, rather than altering the way access points and fire points work, why not just make the swam nest open topped? You're counting it as a building/immobile vehicle with armor 14, so the open-topped rule would be clear out those two issues while also giving a nod to the fact that it's organic, not a land raider...;)
Anybody else have opinions about this? Open-topped I am definitely in favor of, but I don't want to make the thing too fragile, so I wonder if it should just be open-topped but without the +1 on the damage table. It's not a Land Raider, true, but it is tough enough to have carnifexes and potentially hierodules stomping around inside its guts.


Second, it seems very odd to have it switch over to being a creature with toughness and wounds in assault, especially such low ones compared to its armor value (a barehanded Guard infantry platoon could probably destroy it in one assault phase). Why not just have it stay an armor 14 building/ immobile vehicle that people need powerfists, thunderhammers, and the like to take apart?
The swarm nest and hive node are not supposed to be the same thing; they're two totally separate pieces of terrain (though hopefully they synergize on the tabletop). A swarm nest is still an AV14 in assault, or an AV10 building with +2 on the damage table if you're assaulting it from the inside. Speaking of which, is that too much? Should it maybe just be AV10 on the inside, period?

Atrotos
12-04-2009, 02:34 PM
Once again you show a keen understanding of the game and what rules need to be written in order for these new additions to work. You've done a good job covering as many eventualities as possible before you've gotten a chance to playtest. This fact, combined with the high believability of the units you present lend these rules an entertaining quality well worth commenting on.

The swarm nest breaks the unwritten rule of "no models should ever overlap while still functioning." This rules has never been broken by any unit in the game to my knowledge, that is, no unit is permitted to exist in the same space as another. It seems that the rules you've written cover this well but I'd keep an eye on this fact. Be prepared to chage the rules slightly if it doesn't work.

Making the swarm nest open topped, as Lord Anubis said, will make the Access and Fire Point rules unnecessary. Shorter rules are better rules.

As with the Portal I can't really guess how balanced these structures would be in game. They clearly favor one race over another but without the attendant cost in points. Regardless of what commentary you receive here I suspect it will take at least a dozen playtests before the full implications of these additions are brought to light.

Lord Anubis
12-04-2009, 02:41 PM
The swarm nest and hive node are not supposed to be the same thing; they're two totally separate pieces of terrain (though hopefully they synergize on the tabletop).

Ack! Sorry about that. I completely misread it. Ignore that comment. ;)

Just_Me
12-04-2009, 03:18 PM
I agree that simply making it open-topped is a less complex solution, you can just say "it counts as open-topped but does not suffer the associated penalties on the damage chart." This thing is buried underground, it should be damned tough to kill.

By contrast I think the vulnerabilities when attacked from the inside make sense, it would be much easier to destroy from within. This is also an incentive to accept the risks associated with going inside. As a final point, it is very flavorful, the image of a hard-bitten team of daring specialists entering the bowels of the vile alien hive in order to destroy it is a powerful piece of classic sci-fi horror that fits very well with the Tyranids.

Nabterayl
12-04-2009, 03:42 PM
Open-topped it is. I'm not going to include the +1 to damage rolls, though - my hope is that, if folks like this, it can become the standard for tyranid "bastions" in our group, and I feel like a bastion with no guns whatsoever deserves to be tough to kill, even if it does have other cool abilities. My biggest concern is a Planetstrike one, as Firestorm attacks are effectively S10 - I don't want these things to be killed in the Firestorm too often. I'll keep an open mind about it during play tests, though.

Nabterayl
12-08-2009, 01:25 PM
Here's another one I'd appreciate some help with. This is my attempt to build a Tau landing pad complex. This is sort of a tricky one because modeling-wise I'm already committed to this project, but rules-wise, Planetstrike landing pads are built around the idea of Fast transports, and the Tau don't have any. So I attempted to come up with something that still feels like a landing pad/air traffic control center (because the model looks like a landing pad/air traffic control center), but might still have some relevance to the way the Empire plays in 5th edition. Critique welcome:


TAU LANDING PAD AND CONTROL TOWER

The Tau Empire are the masters of coordinated action, both between different sectors of civilian society or between different branches of the Empire’s military. In war, the air caste works closely with the fire caste to multiply the effectiveness of the Empire’s ground forces. Indeed, many hunter cadres are permanently paired with an air cadre, the better to improve the coordination between cadres. To the enemies of the Empire, the most visible examples of this coordination are often close support air strikes by Barracuda or Tiger Shark fighters, or the transportation of entire hunter cadres by Manta. However, air caste personnel also serve as air traffic controllers and spotters at Tau bases, using their expertise to coordinate the deployment of a hunter cadre’s forces.

Landing Pad Rules
Building: A landing pad is a building with an Armor Value of 13 all around. As a building, it may be attacked just like a stationary vehicle, ignoring all results on the vehicle damage table other than Destroyed. Landing pads cannot be occupied like conventional buildings—see below.

Access Points: 1.

Landing Pad: The top of a landing pad counts as clear terrain. Units may stand on the top of a landing pad just like any other clear terrain. Similarly, a landing pad does not count as Difficult Terrain for purposes such as jump infantry movement, skimmer movement, jetbike movement, or Deep Strike. Units may move from the top of the landing pad to the bottom by making a Difficult Terrain test and rolling at least 3”, which counts as the unit’s entire move during its Movement phase. Units belonging to the player who placed the landing pad during setup may Deep Strike directly onto the landing pad with no risk of scatter.

Shielded: Tau landing pads contain sophisticated shield generators similar to those that protect Manta drop ships. Though the shields are intended to protect these vital installations, resourceful fire warriors whose bases have come under attack have been known to use the shields to turn landing pads into powerful fire bases. This tactic is particularly favored by shas'vre who pilot XV88 battlesuits. The landing pad and any unit on it receives a 4+ invulnerable save.

Control Tower Rules
Building: Attached to many landing pads are control towers crewed by air caste personnel. A control tower is a building with an Armor Value of 13 all around. As a building, it may be attacked just like a stationary vehicle, treating Damaged results on the vehicle damage table as Crew Stunned. Control towers can hold a single infantry unit of no more than twelve models. They cannot hold battlesuit models.

Access Points: 1.

Fire Points: 4. Up to two models may fire from each fire point, but all models in the occupying unit must fire at the same target, as per the normal rules for fire points.

Control Tower: A control tower allows the player who placed it during setup to re-roll any and all scatter dice. A control tower need not be occupied to confer this bonus, as the air caste controllers are not separate from the tower for gameplay purposes. However, if a control tower is ever occupied by a unit hostile to the player who placed it during setup, it loses this ability for the rest of the game, as the controllers are slaughtered by the invaders.

Atrotos
12-08-2009, 05:03 PM
Another good addition to this set of rules. I would change the rules only slightly by automatically placing this in the center of the table equidistant from both players in games of regular 40k. This will reward bolder players for and act as a quasi-objective but also you won't have to worry about it giving any one player an advantage over the others.