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.

Primary objectives nowadays can be somewhat tricky to get, and you never know what they're going to be until the beginning of the game. Secondaries, on the other hand, are always the same, and it's possible to craft a list to handle them.

This got me thinking, is it better to just go for secondary objectives? Sure, try and get the primary if you can, of course, but there are a lot of VP out there outside of this. I mean, if you can pull a hat trick on secondaries and deny your opponent any, even if your opponent captures a relic, the game ends in a draw. Add to that the fact that there are warlord traits that can also give you VP, from making the HQ scoring, to gaining VP from winning challenges. It almost seems like it would make sense to consider the primary objectives as secondary... as it were. Especially since it's not that hard to force a draw or near-draw on some of the primary missions.

I don't know, what do you think? Should secondaries be just that - secondary, or should we build lists on purpose to have HQ snipers and linebackers, even if it means some sacrifice to holding objectives or capturing the relic, etc.?

I guess you could plan to go after and secure all the secondaries, while attempting to feign going for the primary. I guess most would try to go after it, so it'd probably help weaken any resistance at the secondaries.

As a home objective though some armies will probably hold onto it much better, which in that case the opponent would probably dictate which plan to take.

I use to aim for first blood, it's a point that or him or me are going to take anyway. and I preffer me to have it.

I don't really care about the another two, only if I can make them easily and will make me win.

Deffinatelly the First blood is priority number one. If the sc in not the kill points one or big guns never tire, it is very important to mark
one unit of the enemy, the easiest to kill and take it out round one. Mainly i think first blood is a matter of luck and focus.
Linebreaker is hard but can be done. I usually take the point in the very few 6th edition IG battles i ve given with Al' Rahems platton.
Kill the enemy warlord is viable but still depends on what army you have against you.
Overall Aliaros yes, i think it's clever to go for the second objectives, BUT be careful cause in sc's like the relic the enemy can take easily 3 points
if you are distracted in killig the warlord or moving a unit into a linebreaker position.

I field quite a bit of Drop Pods, so First Blood and Linebreaker usually isn't a problem for me. That leaves killing the enemy Warlord, which has the potential to be really tricky depending on whom you're fighting.

Well, you can plan for Linebreaker using fast-moving, drop-podding, deep-striking or outflanking units.

However, first blood can be situational. Necrons can manage to make the first round nightfight for the enemy and so may have a good chance to get first blood.

Taking down the enemy warlord is situational too. If he/she hides further back,don't care. If you find him/her in the thickest melee or exposed, go for the kill.

1st blood is a 50/50 if a list contains a lot of fragile targets (like razor spam)

I can see the point of keeping secondary objectives in mind because they are often a tiebreaker, but I don't start games playing for a tie.

 Ailaros wrote:

Spoiler:

Primary objectives nowadays can be somewhat tricky to get, and you never know what they're going to be until the beginning of the game. Secondaries, on the other hand, are always the same, and it's possible to craft a list to handle them.

This got me thinking, is it better to just go for secondary objectives? Sure, try and get the primary if you can, of course, but there are a lot of VP out there outside of this. I mean, if you can pull a hat trick on secondaries and deny your opponent any, even if your opponent captures a relic, the game ends in a draw. Add to that the fact that there are warlord traits that can also give you VP, from making the HQ scoring, to gaining VP from winning challenges. It almost seems like it would make sense to consider the primary objectives as secondary... as it were. Especially since it's not that hard to force a draw or near-draw on some of the primary missions.

I don't know, what do you think? Should secondaries be just that - secondary, or should we build lists on purpose to have HQ snipers and linebackers, even if it means some sacrifice to holding objectives or capturing the relic, etc.?

Mind you, all that follows is merely gleaned from personal experience, but every local tourney I've played since 6th dropped has included the secondaries, and even moreso, I've never heard of an opponent suggesting they not be used.

With that said, it is simple fact that they cannot be ignored. To answer your question, no, a player just can't really rely on secondaries to win; they're only 3 max, and two of the three can be earned by both players. Not to mention, a good group of the games have far more than three VP's from the primaries. Any player who has experienced a fair amount of 6th edition games though knows that they CAN however be used to tilt the game into your favour.

To tailor your army to win secondary objectives is a bit silly, but to take them into account when list-building; that is what a savvy player would do.

Different armies have to approach these objectives differently, as some are more "available" than others depending on your army's playstyle.

A footslogging choppy army like orks is going to have a lot of trouble getting first blood before his opponent does, and in the same vein a gunline won't be having much luck getting linebreaker traditionally.

It's no secret you play foot guard, as do I, and my solutions to approaching these secondaries without eating up too much list space towards one VP are as follows:

Slay the Warlord: Most armies have it pretty easy here; turns out sniping isn't as good as we all feared, and just about every army but guard has some powerful HQ with a multitude of saves of all kinds, and excellent wargear/special rules that allow them to smack face. Challenges just aren't very scary to them. Not to mention, a lot of them are auto-include in competitive armies (I'm looking at you Draigo, Logan, and all the badass Necron HQ's). When it comes down to it, guard CCS's just don't stack up. No matter how you kit out a Company Commander, if he faces any character worth challenging you with, he'll probably crumple unless your dice are blessed. Not to mention, it's not too tough to shoot a CCS to bits. So for foot-guard, Slay The Warlord becomes a secondary we don't chase, but instead focus on keeping the enemy from attaining. Hide them behind a chimera, toss a bodyguard or two in to LoS the occasional sniper, and just otherwise keep your enemy Choppy warlord-killers out of reach. Then, heck, if you manage to pick up a kill on their warlord, that's the gravy.

Linebreaker: This is an interesting one, because footguard isn't very mobile at all, but we do have some cool options to help such a thing. You've used stormies to great effect in seizing this objective; they're perhaps one of the best. I've taken personally to flying a fireball PCS in on a Valk turn 5, dropping some MRP pie-plates and letting them flame up the stragglers. Pretty much the same effect, but the squad I'm dropping in is a bit cheaper and already included as a mandatory for my blob. I know you hate playing a gunline, but having at least a gunline element in backfield is a great way to keep (or at least ward) enemy units from taking linebreaker as well. Not a guaranteed deterrent, but it sure helps.

First blood: Well damn, if there's one thing IG is good at, it's taking first blood. Any respectable foot-list has enough Autocannons, lascannons, and pie-plates to make absolutely sure you can kill something in your first salvo. I've found a lot of luck just keeping enough autocannons on the board at deployment where I can be sure to pop a dread, transport, or other low AV. Your list, however, is very susceptible to losing this VP since it's MSU guard; 10 man infantry squads being a pretty easy kill. The only way to reliably keep this out of your opponent's hands is to either hide them turn 1, throw your infantry in reserve, or blob 'em up. You could also give in to Aegishammer and throw them behind that; 100points to give them all a 2+ GTG save will make first blood rough to grab for your opponent.

I like the addition of secondaries; I think it makes the player consider a lot more factors when building an effective list, because if you don't, you're giving your opponent free VP's and effectively crippling yourself. But yeah, I wouldn't throw points (or at least that many) at solely winning them; it's more just something everyone has to adjust their play-style to accommodate to.

-TheCaptain

You can't win only with secondaries. They must be seen for what they are, tie breakers. They cannot be ignored, but you also can't plan to win only using them.

I think the main issue for this stratagy is the half the missions, there are alot more point for holding objectives then there are for killing stuff...

TheCaptain and Armadeus have it right - deliberately going for secondary objectives won't win you games. They should be considered as important as the name implies - secondary. Apart from the difference in points being an obvious downside, it's much tougher to hold one objective than multiple, so the chances of you getting all the secondary objectives without any being contested or taken from you is very slim.

Also consider that you're playing into the hands of certain lists, such as DoA Blood Angels, Deathwing, Ravenwing, GK Paladins... anything small but hard-hitting. By going after secondaries you're forcing yourself to spread out, probably as early as deployment, so the enemy can concentrate on you piecemeal around one objective at a time.

Secondary is only worth 3 points,
It's worth trying for but not worth wasting your entire time on it...

Except the Scouring having random points, all the other ones are 3 points having one is equivalent to all 3 of those Secondary ones.

Armadeus wrote:
You can't win only with secondaries. They must be seen for what they are, tie breakers. They cannot be ignored, but you also can't plan to win only using them.

If the tie breaks in your favor, you can win with them.

The last game I played was a team game with the relic scenario. As there is only one objective, the secondaries become much more important. To ensure first blood, we rolled a pair of rhinos way far forward to snap-fire storm bolters and spotlight targets, so the rest of our army could pour on fire without having to deal with the night fighting rules.

As the game ended with the relic on the ground (multiple squads attempting to hold it were blown to hamburger) the secondary objectives were what decided the game. We won 3-1. The only reason they didn't get the warlord point was the fact that ours was St. Celestine. We put ourselves in a bad tactical position (overextending ourselves) for a strategic gain (the first blood VP) It helped give us the game.

The more primary objectives there are the less important the secondary ones become. But in single objective games (like the relic) they are critical. As in every game with victory conditions, the person who pays close attention to what they are, has an advantage.

Yes, in relic games they mean alot.

But in a game with 4-5 objectives to hold scattered around? they are not worth much any more.

Nobody said you should ignore them, but you cant relay on them to win you the game, more often then not a solid objective holding power is out-preform a linebraker unit.

But they are a good thing to keep in mind when building a list.

For example, a MM dread in a drop pod helps ensure first blood, in addition to popping a tank. The fact that it's not on the table at the start of the game makes it harder for your opponent to get blood. Is it as generally useful as a rifleman dread? Not really, but the secondary objectives make it a bit more attractive.

Buying a tac squad a pod rather then a rhino is another example. Once again, starting off the table denies an easy target for first blood. It makes for an effective line breaker unit, even if it is not needed to seize an objective.

I'm not saying sacrifice everything to get them, but they need to be kept in mind, both when constructing lists and on the table.

Right.

You can't make them your primary goal, but you should always try to get them, and you should build your list taking them into account, because they do regularly turn ties into wins.

You really should build your army with the intent to have something get into the enemy DZ and survive, and with the intent to have no easy First Blood VPs starting on the table unless they can be easily hidden. If you're going second, your light vehicles (and any other units which you think your opponent stands a good chance of wiping out in one round of focused shooting) should either be in Reserve or hidden behind terrain or other units. You should make a point of targeting something fragile like a transport to grab First Blood yourself whenever you possibly can.

I've had a bunch of 6th ed games come down to the tiebreaker secondaries, and have won or drawn all those games, because I've made it a point to aim for them.

Secondary objectives' importance changes depending on the mission. As has been said, in The Relic they're very important since the relic holder can be shot down on the last turn and suddenly they're the only winning criteria left. In others though, they're probably not going to be a big deal. I say take them into consideration and go for them, but I'm not sure I'd have specific units in my army entirely dedicated to getting first blood, linebreaker and slay the warlord.

I don't really think about it. When am I not going to try to take out an enemy squad, or an enemy IC?

Linebreaker is the exception, there are times when it makes sense to simply dash into the enemy's DZ. It's irritating as hell when the enemy does this with a Land Raider. "Oh sup I just got a VP".

Since night fighting on the first turn happens somewhat often now, with all the Nigh fighting negating in my Tau, I can normally get first blood.

Any army that has the commander barreling down towards me I'll try to take out for Slay the Warlord.

If any Devilfishes are still around by turn 5 and it's not the Scouring or purge the alien, they jump into the enemy deployment and block LoS to the gundrones that pop off for linebreaker.

Secondary objectives can help make a tie into a win, but if you had to choose between taking a primary objective( which can also Negate one of the opponent's VP in the process in the objective games) or slaying the warlord, the warlord will be there next turn, take the objective and get better control over the field.

of course if it's Purge the alien and you have a shot at the warlord without exposing your army too much, go for it.

This is also completely from a Tau perspective. YMMV.

Its certaintly something to keep in mind, especially in missions where you have a feeling its going to be a tie on mission objectives.

Old school CnC mission, almost always a tie. Now there are 3 points up for grabs in addition to that.

 Testify wrote:
Linebreaker is the exception, there are times when it makes sense to simply dash into the enemy's DZ. It's irritating as hell when the enemy does this with a Land Raider. "Oh sup I just got a VP".

And then you laugh at them, because Land Raiders are not scoring or denial units (except if taken as HS, in The Big Guns Never Tire).

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Linebreaker is the exception, there are times when it makes sense to simply dash into the enemy's DZ. It's irritating as hell when the enemy does this with a Land Raider. "Oh sup I just got a VP".

And then you laugh at them, because Land Raiders are not scoring or denial units (except if taken as HS, in The Big Guns Never Tire).

They can still get linebreaker, anything can.

"At least one model from one or more scoring or denial units".

When someone tells you you're getting a rule wrong, you might want to look it up before you repeat your mistake.

I don't have the rulebook, we only have the one in our gaming group.

Cheers for the clarification though.

You're welcome! I try not to make definitive statements about the rules unless I am very sure. Then, if someone contradicts me, I make a point of checking the text to see if I'm genuinely screwed up or they are.

Hard to really learn a game without a rulebook.

I'd agree that secondary objectives are absolutely vital. In my templar list, the only think i start on the table are my land raiders (everything else is either inside the raiders, or deep striking. I run 2 crusaders and 1 Godhammer (standard pattern), and I tend to find that its difficult to get first blood against these. If i'm fighting a gak ton of deep striking Melta, i'll just deploy the terminators so that my Land raiders can't be meltad - generally this has worked, but on rare occasions the weight of fire can bring a termie unit down.

The double las land raider can sometimes pop a Rhino or something for first blood which is nice, but generally for me that deployment is all about the denial. The other cool thing about secondary objectives, is if you play a mission say where you can tie the points (i.e. the emperor's will, or you having more points in the scouring), that the enemy HAS to change their plan and come at you - this can play into your hands if you want to go for warlord points. Sure it gives them a chance at linebreaker, but it means that they are dancing to your tune, and not the other way around.

In short, I LOVE secondaries!

 liam0404 wrote:
1 Godhammer (standard pattern)

The Land Raider is a Phobos. Godhammer is the lascannon pattern.

Armadeus wrote:

 liam0404 wrote:
1 Godhammer (standard pattern)

The Land Raider is a Phobos. Godhammer is the lascannon pattern.

But "Godhammer" sounds much more awesome. It's not like referring to tanks by their armament pattern is that odd. Sorry if this is a pet peeve of yours, but from a rule of cool standpoint, the stock LR variant is always a Godhammer to me. Even if, from a technical standpoint, you are correct.

No, it is not a pet peeve. Some people really like calling there tanks by there fluff name, and some of those people actually think that it is called godhammer. I just wish to help those who want to refer to it by it's pattern name. If you wish to call it the Jellybeen (I have a friend who named there crusader this, really), then I will not stop you

Armadeus wrote:
No, it is not a pet peeve. Some people really like calling there tanks by there fluff name, and some of those people actually think that it is called godhammer. I just wish to help those who want to refer to it by it's pattern name. If you wish to call it the Jellybeen (I have a friend who named there crusader this, really), then I will not stop you

I mean, it's not stupid to call it by it's weapon system at all actually. Many real-world military weapon systems experience this.

The M107 Self-Propelled Gun is frequently referred to as "The 175" or "The 175-mil"

If a ground-strike aircraft is delivering a payload of Tomahawk missiles; they're more likely to tell the ground-element that they've got Tomahawks incoming than whatever plane variant they happen to be mounted on.

Referring to the vehicle by weapon loadout gives a more accurate readout of the threat-range and where the application of available force is best fit for the weaponry at hand.

If I just said "I've got a Land Raider coming in for support" it'd be absolute chaos.

But to say "Godhammer Land Raider" or "Land Raider Phobos", both situations will make it very clear what weapons are entering play.

Either way is good