This makes a lot of sense actually, thanks for taking the time for making the maps with heavy cover!! Just got my salvation kt anticipating this would eventually happen, I think GW will realise of the points u made too, and that the extra terrain from other boxes is gonna play an interesting role in map making for bheta decima in the future Anyways, great video!
I’ve used the new objective markers and used them as having the light cover rules. We did rule against them ignoring the hazardous area because you need to be more than 2” above an opponent to count as being on a vantage point for shooting purposes. However it didn’t even consider using them as terrain features for “secure vantage” I suppose the solution would be to either place the objective markers not on centre line, so you can only score them if your inside your opponents territory, or just don’t use the 3 markers with vantage and only use the 6 tall objective markers. But I found they really help 2APL teams move up the gantries onto objectives and survive long enough to score points. Will try out your scatter terrain layouts tho! Coz i did find it a shame that outside of narrative you cannot use the scatter terrain
The vantage point rules seem very silly - but I think it's important to try them out as intended. How does it change your evaluation of these if it's a deliberate decision that you can stand on an objective and see across the smog (plus score obscure vantage in your opponent's half)? You assumed that away, but the designers will have planned around it.
I have tried them out as intended, they need lotssss of house rules to make them work. I don't think the devs realised the implications of making them vantage points
I think youre misinterpreting. @@CanYouRollaCrit Vantage only takes into effect if you're above 2" above opponent. So it wouldn't ignore cover or the ocean. They had to word it that way otherwise if you're on a gantry AND on top of an Obj marker, you wouldn't technically be on a vantage. Lastly you cant score Secure Vantage on these as they have to in the opponents drop zone, which all objectives arent. I think common sense just takes priority.
The vantage objectives ignore the ocean because they're no longer on the killzone floor as per the wording of hazardous areas The objectives just need to be in your opponent's territory, not dropzone...
My Mistake! I also missed the vantage/ocean argument. Intersting they don't clarify that it still requires the 2Inches above rule, which would make sense. @@CanYouRollaCrit
This might be lost on some people, but I think GW should also confirm the pillar placement and orientation for each of the gantries. According the box art* long gantries have 3 pillars and short gantries has only 1... Pretty important LOS implications that were seemingly not thought about/not clarified
I understand argument against standing on those markers and counting them as Vantage - they should never be used is such a way. But on those quite open boards, having light cover element marker sounds reasonable.
How is map 4 “hotdog?” When you fold it along the centerline between the two players’ territories, it’s the shorter more square result. That’s the “hamburger” fold from primary school. When you fold maps 1-3 along the middle, it makes the longer “hotdog” shape.
I would prefer if failing a jump test reduced movement by 1 or 2. If operatives randomly take MW on a jump, it means that operatives with only 1 or 2 wounds remaining no longer auto-pass the jump. Or maybe a jump should auto-lose 1 or 2 from movement and the “test” can be done away with entirely.
Adding even more rules to the terrain to bandaid the already bad terrain isn't great feeling. I do appreciate adding different types of terrain to help fix the current terrain though. We should give that a go in our local. Also what harly player kicked your dog, lay off man. They are the least bad scary team. Anyone that ignores obscurity is way worse to play against.
I mean, it's just translating what they did with the Salvation missions, the killzone is much better with the heavy scatter imo Quins are still the best team on BD. Easily secure the objectives early and punish any movement towards the objectives. If you haven't played into good Quin players, especially on BD, I can see why you'd think they're not that good
It costs 4 just to climb up a gantry. But a clown gets to a midfield objective no problem. I think it's more ok for teams with 1 or 2 flyers that can exploit it. A whole team? No way, buddy. Gantries should probably be changed to a 2 inch climb instead of 4.
@@CanYouRollaCrit it's literally all they do. Any other ability other teams do better and cheaper. They nerfed the team so hard fly is all that's left. Also, you can make flying marines easy enough that are tougher and hit harder.
@@joshschoonover2645 is domino field not a thing still? Jest? Free cp? Really easy to score faction tacop? 8 3apl models? Invuln saves? Void dancers have so much to offer still. They require a good player to make them truly scary and a lesser player will lose often with them but that doesn't change the fact that those good players will absolutely dominate on tbis new terrain
This makes a lot of sense actually, thanks for taking the time for making the maps with heavy cover!!
Just got my salvation kt anticipating this would eventually happen, I think GW will realise of the points u made too, and that the extra terrain from other boxes is gonna play an interesting role in map making for bheta decima in the future
Anyways, great video!
Ah thanks dude, hope you enjoy the pack (:
What's you stance on Pathfinders being unable to Markerlight if they change "Ocean level" from Obscure to not Visible?
Good for the health of the game overall 😂
So the hunter clade have this tac op called concealed position. Does that let them deploy on objectives that are on the gantries?
What's the stipulation for it again?
As written, yes, there's nothing stopping it.
I’ve used the new objective markers and used them as having the light cover rules. We did rule against them ignoring the hazardous area because you need to be more than 2” above an opponent to count as being on a vantage point for shooting purposes. However it didn’t even consider using them as terrain features for “secure vantage” I suppose the solution would be to either place the objective markers not on centre line, so you can only score them if your inside your opponents territory, or just don’t use the 3 markers with vantage and only use the 6 tall objective markers.
But I found they really help 2APL teams move up the gantries onto objectives and survive long enough to score points.
Will try out your scatter terrain layouts tho! Coz i did find it a shame that outside of narrative you cannot use the scatter terrain
The scatter terrain is just so much better. The objectives are way too wonky and require so many house rules to make them work
@@CanYouRollaCrit that’s fair :) like I said, I’m excited to try your layout
Hope you like them (:
The vantage point rules seem very silly - but I think it's important to try them out as intended.
How does it change your evaluation of these if it's a deliberate decision that you can stand on an objective and see across the smog (plus score obscure vantage in your opponent's half)? You assumed that away, but the designers will have planned around it.
I have tried them out as intended, they need lotssss of house rules to make them work. I don't think the devs realised the implications of making them vantage points
I think youre misinterpreting. @@CanYouRollaCrit Vantage only takes into effect if you're above 2" above opponent. So it wouldn't ignore cover or the ocean.
They had to word it that way otherwise if you're on a gantry AND on top of an Obj marker, you wouldn't technically be on a vantage.
Lastly you cant score Secure Vantage on these as they have to in the opponents drop zone, which all objectives arent.
I think common sense just takes priority.
The vantage objectives ignore the ocean because they're no longer on the killzone floor as per the wording of hazardous areas
The objectives just need to be in your opponent's territory, not dropzone...
My Mistake! I also missed the vantage/ocean argument. Intersting they don't clarify that it still requires the 2Inches above rule, which would make sense. @@CanYouRollaCrit
This might be lost on some people, but I think GW should also confirm the pillar placement and orientation for each of the gantries.
According the box art* long gantries have 3 pillars and short gantries has only 1... Pretty important LOS implications that were seemingly not thought about/not clarified
The 2 and 3 pillar gantries are pretty self-explanatory imo, only the single ones need marking out, which is what I do in my map pack haha
I am seeing that now. Wrote my comment before finishing the video (a cardinal sin haha)@@CanYouRollaCrit
I understand argument against standing on those markers and counting them as Vantage - they should never be used is such a way.
But on those quite open boards, having light cover element marker sounds reasonable.
I would just use the heavy scatter, way better than the objectives and don't break the game
How is map 4 “hotdog?” When you fold it along the centerline between the two players’ territories, it’s the shorter more square result. That’s the “hamburger” fold from primary school.
When you fold maps 1-3 along the middle, it makes the longer “hotdog” shape.
Nah it's a big long hotdog
I would prefer if failing a jump test reduced movement by 1 or 2. If operatives randomly take MW on a jump, it means that operatives with only 1 or 2 wounds remaining no longer auto-pass the jump. Or maybe a jump should auto-lose 1 or 2 from movement and the “test” can be done away with entirely.
I think that makes it still risky but in a good way with the damage as reducing movement just makes it another traverse
Adding even more rules to the terrain to bandaid the already bad terrain isn't great feeling. I do appreciate adding different types of terrain to help fix the current terrain though. We should give that a go in our local.
Also what harly player kicked your dog, lay off man. They are the least bad scary team. Anyone that ignores obscurity is way worse to play against.
I mean, it's just translating what they did with the Salvation missions, the killzone is much better with the heavy scatter imo
Quins are still the best team on BD. Easily secure the objectives early and punish any movement towards the objectives. If you haven't played into good Quin players, especially on BD, I can see why you'd think they're not that good
It costs 4 just to climb up a gantry. But a clown gets to a midfield objective no problem. I think it's more ok for teams with 1 or 2 flyers that can exploit it. A whole team? No way, buddy.
Gantries should probably be changed to a 2 inch climb instead of 4.
Fly on single ops is fine, never should have been team wide
@@CanYouRollaCrit it's literally all they do. Any other ability other teams do better and cheaper. They nerfed the team so hard fly is all that's left. Also, you can make flying marines easy enough that are tougher and hit harder.
@@joshschoonover2645 is domino field not a thing still? Jest? Free cp? Really easy to score faction tacop? 8 3apl models? Invuln saves? Void dancers have so much to offer still. They require a good player to make them truly scary and a lesser player will lose often with them but that doesn't change the fact that those good players will absolutely dominate on tbis new terrain