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.

I have seen a lot off players but the objectives in there own deployment zone why is this. personal i prefer the objectives are more in the no man's land between the deployment zones. I find that the games are more fun that way.

it seems if the objectives are placed in your deployment zones the one with more objectives has more of a game advantage as they can just sit on there objectives to win the game .

I think this is way a lot of games are just a shooting match because of the objectives being placed in ur own deployment zones giveing players no point in leaving there zones.

What about 1 in each place? How do you like those?

Your last two points are quite correct. People typically deploy objectives in areas that will give them an advantage.

I play Dark Eldar, I usually put them in the middle, as I like to control the board. Keep my Raiders in the middle near objectives and rapid fire twin linked poison shots at whatever comes near, keep my ravagers back and hunt vehicles, and keep splinterborn in venoms back with their 36" range splinter cannons.

Put your objectives where you want your scoring units to be. Are they weak and shooty? Put the objective in a building.

Are they fast and assaulty? Put them in the board's center.


Personally I think that in 7th edition, objective deployment should be done before who gets which table side is determined. That way it is more random as you dont want to place all your objectives in comfortable spots in case the opponent ends up getting that table half!

Yeah, this is why 40k book missions are bad, among other reasons.

You can make this slightly better if, after placing objectives you roll off and whoever wins gets to choose the side of the board to deploy on, but it's only a small help.

In order to have good missions, you need to set things up whereby killing power isn't basically the only metric for determining how good a unit is. One of the reasons I've been playing respawning 40k of late.

Yeah, objectives should always be placed before players choose sides. Or be placed in specific locations by the scenario.

One step above, 40k should use asymmetrical game mission design if they choose not support factions with any form of balance. Each Codex could have a unique mission table that could be elected upon the selection of the BRB mission. Thus someone may be playing an objective grab mission (objectives scores at the last turn of the game) while someone else is playing "Last Stand" (objectives scored for each turn on them).

This way, it helps with the imbalance of armies and would allow for a greater diversity without invalidating any play styles.