2 hours ago, crx3800 said:In this game, there can be victory in defense. Get an objective. Either run with it (if you can) or hunker down near it (if you have to stay near) and enjoy ignoring your first three hits (heavy cover and a dodge).
Yes, this requires you to live long enough to claim the objective first, but I haven't seen that be much of an issue.
In due time your opponent will move around your cover and/or you'll need to use actions to not-dodge. It's not horribly imbalanced, but it's a slant towards imperials. I personally don't think Legion's imbalanced as wargames go. But heck not even chess is perfectly balanced, what do people expect?
1 hour ago, Thalandar said:Enlighten me, what is the 40k way of building a table?
It has varied over the years and will vary group to group. I don't know what Raven KS would say it is. The old general wisdom for 40k for us was, use at least one of every kind of scenery you own (cover, blocking, rough terrain, visually clear but impassable, etc.) and take turns placing 1 piece per sq foot or so. Keep taller buildings and hills near the center of the table to avoid horrible imbalances. If in doubt err on the side of more terrain. Everyone has to place at least one piece, then when someone says they think there's enough terrain, their opponent can place 2 more pieces in a row and then that's that. You do this before you know who deploys where, or what the mission is.
The other even older 40k way was, one player sets up the whole table, alone. The other player gets first pick of the deployment zones.
So a few big buildings, a few hills, a pond, an area of rubble, and about 20 fences, stacks of crates, or small ruins, that would about do you for 40k. They used to say to cover half or more the table in scenery.
Edited by TauntaunScout

