Okay, so recently there has been something that really has annoyed me. Whenever we have a mission and roll an odd number of objectives my opponent places two objectives in their deployment. I am stuck with one in my deployment zone and feel like I am at a serious disadvantage (which I am). When I get to place the odd objective I put it in the middle of the field or a location that both of us can get to because I see this as more fair. When I see someone placing the odd objective in their deployment zone I suggest them putting it in the middle but some players refuse to put it anywhere that doesn't give them a large advantage. I even go as far as asking before the game if we can have 4 objectives for fairness, which sometimes doesn't work.

So I was wondering what the Dakka community thinks about opponents starting the game with more objectives on their side? When you get an odd number of objectives and you get to place the last one do you place it in your deployment zone or do you place it more in the middle where anyone can get it?

Idk, Im of the opinion of tactical deployment of your own objectives.
For fun i ALWAY place mine at the top of a giant flipping building.

 lambsandlions wrote:
Okay, so recently there has been something that really has annoyed me. Whenever we have a mission and roll an odd number of objectives my opponent places two objectives in their deployment. I am stuck with one in my deployment zone and feel like I am at a serious disadvantage (which I am). When I get to place the odd objective I put it in the middle of the field or a location that both of us can get to because I see this as more fair. When I see someone placing the odd objective in their deployment zone I suggest them putting it in the middle but some players refuse to put it anywhere that doesn't give them a large advantage. I even go as far as asking before the game if we can have 4 objectives for fairness, which sometimes doesn't work.

So I was wondering what the Dakka community thinks about opponents starting the game with more objectives on their side? When you get an odd number of objectives and you get to place the last one do you place it in your deployment zone or do you place it more in the middle where anyone can get it?

Not sure what the problem is. They get to place one more than you... so they get to place one more than you (ie: you don't get input, its their's to place, so leave them alone already). I tend to enjoy a challenge, and as I know the possibility of being down an objective is there, I build my lists accordingly. If you're not, you should.

I actually tend to place at least one of my objective(s) on their side... most of my lists are designed to get to the other guy's side and wreck face, so it actually hurts me to leave one behind. By the same token, if I'm playing Tau and you're Orks and you want me to place my odd objective in the middle... you'll probably think I'm rude when I laugh out loud at you.

 lambsandlions wrote:
So I was wondering what the Dakka community thinks about opponents starting the game with more objectives on their side?

They're playing the game exactly how it is meant to be played. The missions are deliberately designed to have asymmetrical objectives with each player placing theirs in whatever spot gives them the biggest advantage.

When you get an odd number of objectives and you get to place the last one do you place it in your deployment zone or do you place it more in the middle where anyone can get it?

I place it in whatever location I feel gives me the best chance of winning (usually in my deployment zone, but I might put one in the middle if I expect to have a unit there to claim it at the end of the game).

I always place one in my deployment zone and the rest out on the field. This is actually done to my advantage, since I don't play a gunline. My Tyranid lists are designed to be played very aggressively, so having all of my own objectives in my deployment zone is actually a burden. I like to have one back there in cover being babysat by some Termagants, however. Sitting in my deployment zone waiting for my opponent to come to me just isn't my style of play.

But my friends and I all play the game with a 'don't be a dick' mentality when it comes to things like objectives and terrain placement. While we'll place to our advantage, we won't place anything to be entirely detrimental to the other player. The game should be fun for both sides, afterall.

All in all, it sounds like an issue with your opponents. Do you simply play random pick up games, or do you play with a close circle of friends?

I usually place objectives with my opponent before choosing table edges/ deployment zones. I find this more fun and fair.

orkybenji wrote:
I usually place objectives with my opponent before choosing table edges/ deployment zones. I find this more fun and fair.

Same here!! It makes things waaaay more even

orkybenji wrote:
I usually place objectives with my opponent before choosing table edges/ deployment zones. I find this more fun and fair.

This is also how we play it.

Wolfnid420 wrote:
Same here!! It makes things waaaay more even

Being even isn't the goal. Objectives are asymmetrical for a very good reason: so that you can't build an army that just camps on its half of the "fair" objectives and ignores the other half. You have to build your army with the ability to win objective games even when they're distributed in an "unfair" way. Making objectives symmetrical breaks this requirement and gives a significant advantage to gunline armies.

It's called playing in challenge mode.

If you didn't like the idea of a single die roll having such a huge strategic impact on the game, then you should seriously question why you're playing 40k at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wolfnid420 wrote:
Same here!! It makes things waaaay more even

Being even isn't the goal.

It is if that's what the people playing want. House ruling something neither party likes is not new.

My friends and I play a variation of what they suggested - we shift terrain around until were happy with it, then put down objectives after deployment. We simply do not like the terrain placement rules (because we don't think there should be 'rules' for it at all), so we do our own thing.

Why worry about objectives when you can just table the guy?

 -Loki- wrote:
It is if that's what the people playing want. House ruling something neither party likes is not new.

Of course you can house rule stuff. But this house rule makes about as much sense as house ruling that bolters are STR 10 because tactical squads have a hard time killing vehicles.

My friends and I play a variation of what they suggested - we shift terrain around until were happy with it, then put down objectives after deployment. We simply do not like the terrain placement rules (because we don't think there should be 'rules' for it at all), so we do our own thing.

That's not a house rule at all. In fact the rulebook encourages you to cooperate and set up an appealing table, the alternating terrain placement method is only used when you can't agree on a good way to do that.

 Lobukia wrote:


I actually tend to place at least one of my objective(s) on their side... most of my lists are designed to get to the other guy's side and wreck face, so it actually hurts me to leave one behind. By the same token, if I'm playing Tau and you're Orks and you want me to place my odd objective in the middle... you'll probably think I'm rude when I laugh out loud at you.

yeah but If you play tau and I play IG , then there is little sense in playing the game unless I get very lucky on rolls and you unlucky with yours.

Makumba wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:


I actually tend to place at least one of my objective(s) on their side... most of my lists are designed to get to the other guy's side and wreck face, so it actually hurts me to leave one behind. By the same token, if I'm playing Tau and you're Orks and you want me to place my odd objective in the middle... you'll probably think I'm rude when I laugh out loud at you.

yeah but If you play tau and I play IG , then there is little sense in playing the game unless I get very lucky on rolls and you unlucky with yours.

...or the person who thought to have a plan for taking an objective on the other side of the map is rewarded occasionally and the linear camper gets punished occasionally for playing a one-dimensional list. Both Tau and IG have several good options for grabbing an objective late game. Ignoring that part of the game and of list development should have a downside.

 Peregrine wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
It is if that's what the people playing want. House ruling something neither party likes is not new.

Of course you can house rule stuff. But this house rule makes about as much sense as house ruling that bolters are STR 10 because tactical squads have a hard time killing vehicles.

I think I'm going to bow out if you're going to start making claims like that. Telling someone to not be a dick with objective placement is not the same as altering the stats of a basic rifle to 10, and you know it.

 -Loki- wrote:
Telling someone to not be a dick with objective placement is not the same as altering the stats of a basic rifle to 10, and you know it.

And the point is that placing objectives to your advantage is not "being a dick", it's playing the mission exactly as it's meant to be played.

You can ultimately do whatever you and your opponent agree to.

On that note the rules are written that way as some armies are much better in the middle of the table than others. As was pointed out if this were how objectives were required to be done orks/tyranid/daemons etc. would never loose a single objective game to Tau/IG some armies just cannot advance effectively and some armies just have to advance to be effective.

I also have stopped using the terrain rolling as it is much faster and better to just place the terrain so you are both happy.

If the majority of objectives are in deployment zones, I think it makes for a boring game. I like to put them where there's some chance for either of us. It encourages us to all go for them which opens up more interesting combat opportunities. If I'm playing shooty, it lures the opponent out. If I'm playing assaulty, then he's going to have to come out and meet me allowing me to charge (or since I'm SW, get charged) more quickly. The latter is usually the case for me as I like smash mouth lists. I just don't see the fun in camping an objective and just waiting for the opponent to come to you.

We set up the board to look like a real place as much as possible. Rivers, roads, trees that sort of thing. After thats done we check with everybody to see if there's any objections "so far there hasn't been any". Then we do the same thing with objectives. After that's done we roll for teams/sides and deploy as normal from there. This has limited the shenanigans greatly.

That aside, as an ork player I would love it if you put your objectives on your side. In fact I'd probly toss mine over there too and hope for some sabatoge action to happen. After all I'm gunna be over there shortly anyway. So nice of you to warm up the objective for me.

I put mine inside neutral bastions *Evil smirk*

Then I blow them up when my enemies go inside.

Muwahaha

You place them dependant on your army. An ork army, is likely to place them further forward, because that's where he is likely to be late game. A shooting army, is likely to place it far back, because that is where they are likely to be.

No point in putting them in the middle, if you don't intend to move to the middle, and a shooting army is silly if it -forces- itself to move closer to an assault army, and vice versa.

He gets to place the objective following the rules, and I (and subsequently you) get to live with the placement he chooses.
Simple as that.

I place one in my DZ, and if I get another, I place it out in the open somewhere nice for my Immortals to VoD onto during endgame. If I get a third then I usually place it in some obscure place simply to deny it. If I can claim it then all the better, but it's doubtful I'll be able to, so I might as well deny my opponent the chance to grab it.

Objective placement is one 6th edition's major flaws. Nothing is more toxic to casual play than a gunline army deployed with 2 objectives behind their defense line while you only have 1 to place.

Easiest way to fix it is to place objectives before determining sides. That way players have to put them down a bit more centrally to avoid screwing themselves. That or just have symmetrical objectives with 1 in each corner of the board and 1 in the center. Or simply make objectives inside your deployment zone worth 1VP while others are worth more.

If your opponent puts more objectives in their deployment zone, GO GET THEM!

Take them away! Go get some!

Its not really unfair at all. IF you think that you need a unit of troops to hold an objective, then that is 2 units of troops that he has to use to hold both of them. if your unit moves away from it, you are no longer holding it. It forces your opponent to keep units back that might otherwise be pushing forward, and commits him to holding 2 objectives in order to win. All you have to do is contest one objective while holding your own, and you can win through achieving secondary objectives. and if you are contesting an objective in his deployment zone by the end of the game, thats 4:3 to you right there.

I find that strategic placing of objectives somewhere in the middle is a lot more effective, since it is easier for your opponent to capture an objective that isn't the other side of the board, you can in a way, force him towards it and turn it into a kill box, people will generally go for the easy 6:3 victory after all, and its simply a matter of contesting the objective and scoring points on secondary objectives just as when your opponent deploys two or more in his deployment zone.

Just remember, the more objectives your opponent has to cover his side of the board, the fewer units he has to push forward and threaten your side

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Objective placement is one 6th edition's major flaws. Nothing is more toxic to casual play than a gunline army deployed with 2 objectives behind their defense line while you only have 1 to place.

No, nothing is more toxic to casual play than a gunline army against a clueless newbie who doesn't know how to play against a gunline army.

(Hint: if they have two objectives this is good for you, you're going to be charging into their half of the table anyway so it means that you have to hold back fewer scoring units in your own half of the table.)

I don't mind the opponent placing their objectives in an advantageous spot. Being able to breach their deployment zone is part of the game in my mind. It's also not only about capturing objectives, sometimes it's simply about denying them.

What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

The book missions are very, very poor for competitive play. That is why most events make objectives equal or place the odd objective in the middle (NOVA) and other tournaments such as BAO format give you the option of placing some in your Dzone but having to place others in "no man's land"

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

In my last game, I was against tyranids. I got to place 3 objectives, my opponent 2. He hid his back next to a biovore and a unit of pooped out termagants. My 3 objectives were strategically placed in my deployment zone because I didn't want to move close to his MC (500 pt armies) and keep the VPs away from him. I won 7-6 purely because I was able to shoot him away from contesting and the edge of my deployment zone. So according to your logic, I was a dick for playing strategically and giving myself the best shot for victory. Especially, since he pooped out enough gants to make a whole extra 500 pt army of them.
Placing objectives is a strategic part of the game. Forcing say tau into the middle of the board is the real dick move. Plus isn't there another objective for getting in your opponents DZ. So get that.

 lambsandlions wrote:
Okay, so recently there has been something that really has annoyed me. Whenever we have a mission and roll an odd number of objectives my opponent places two objectives in their deployment. I am stuck with one in my deployment zone and feel like I am at a serious disadvantage (which I am). When I get to place the odd objective I put it in the middle of the field or a location that both of us can get to because I see this as more fair. When I see someone placing the odd objective in their deployment zone I suggest them putting it in the middle but some players refuse to put it anywhere that doesn't give them a large advantage. I even go as far as asking before the game if we can have 4 objectives for fairness, which sometimes doesn't work.

So I was wondering what the Dakka community thinks about opponents starting the game with more objectives on their side? When you get an odd number of objectives and you get to place the last one do you place it in your deployment zone or do you place it more in the middle where anyone can get it?

Honestly, you're only really at a huge disadvantage if you're playing a static gunline. I like to be mobile, so really I'm more likely to place the objectives out of my zone.

I generally try placing objectives evenly across the board, I'm definitely one of those people who get irked if I see an opponent placing them in advantageous places like on the top floor of a building deep in a deployment zone in a non-tournament game, but it's really more of a mindset thing and I realize that.

Ironwill wrote:
Placing objectives is a strategic part of the game. Forcing say tau into the middle of the board is the real dick move. .

As both a Tau and IG player, I'm calling shennanigans on this, if the objectives are relatively evenly spread, and there's an objective or objectives in the middle, it really shouldn't be much of an issue unless you've built an army so static as to be incapable of movement. Wait for your opponent to advance towards it to claim it and/or towards your lines (as they're likely less capable at range or want to get into CC), shoot the piss out of them (especially if they're just camping the objective), and move to claim objective after you've shot the piss out of them.

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

Not all codices can cross an entire board. Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so. The book missions are bad and so many folks, especially in the competitive scene, simply don't bother playing them at all.

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based?

Learn to play.

If your list is incapable of handling one of the random missions that you know you could be getting, then you screwed up pretty hard at the list building stage. Placing and capturing objectives is one of the tactical considerations of the mission. Wanting my opponent to go easy on me because it's 'fair' seems like you're asking for a handicap.

LValx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

Not all codices can cross an entire board. Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so. The book missions are bad and so many folks, especially in the competitive scene, simply don't bother playing them at all.

You named the 3 codices that have Skimmers as dedicated transports. They have the easiest time crossing the board.

And no, the book missions arn't bad by any streach of the imagination.

I never asked for anyone to go easy on me haha. If your going to play book missions, I agree, youve gotta be prepared for it. But the book missions are pretty poor. Starting the game at a large disadvantage is not good for the game, which is why I support 5 objective missions with all objectives placed symmetrically.

LValx wrote:
Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so.

Ha, no.

I really mean it this time, learn to play. Dark Eldar have trouble crossing the board? What are you smoking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LValx wrote:
ut the book missions are pretty poor.

Citation needed, because all your posts so far have demonstrated a rather weak understanding of how the game works.

Too fragile. They will be almost completely destroyed because their troops are weak. Why do you not see DE competitively? Lack of durability. They might be fast but they folk like wet towels.

Most xenos armies have weak troops, makes it hard to withstand a bunch of firepower while trying to contest/capture.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uhh, sort of hard to quantify badness of book missions but look at us GTs they dont abide by book missions. They either modify them or almost fully rewrite (NOVA, BFS, BAO, INDY). If the book missions were well balanced TOs wouldnt feel a need to modify them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

LValx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

Not all codices can cross an entire board. Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so. The book missions are bad and so many folks, especially in the competitive scene, simply don't bother playing them at all.

You named the 3 codices that have Skimmers as dedicated transports. They have the easiest time crossing the board.

And no, the book missions arn't bad by any streach of the imagination.

I named three codices with fragile troops that cant make it across to capture and survive. Marines, Orks, IG and nids have much better chances of absorbing firepower and living long enough to capture/contest, but they are mostly slower. Speed doesnt matter if you are super fragile, considering the fact that you must leave a transport to capture nowadays.

More that people are too fond of their 3+ armour to learn to play DE properly

I do just fine competitively with my DE. I don't play the major tournaments because the Gakhead quotient is too high, and my funds and time are too low, but the codex is still quite capable of kicking butt.

Thing is, DE aren't MEANT to be durable. That's sort of the point.

The way to win with DE is to leave nothing near the objective alive, then strut over to it I tend to win to boardwipe as much as to objective wins.

If you're trying to camp DE in the open on an objective like you would Marines, then yes they will die easy.

Posting only an image or video with no text from yourself is considered spam on Dakka. edited MT11

LValx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

Not all codices can cross an entire board. Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so. The book missions are bad and so many folks, especially in the competitive scene, simply don't bother playing them at all.

Dude, I play DE and I can assure you that I never have a problem getting to any point of the board I want to be at by the end of turn 1. It's only a 4' wide board. My raiders have a 12" move + 36" Flat Out which gives a 48" total movement range. When Flat Out I get a 4+ jink, which makes the raiders amazingly survivable. By turn two I have splinter rifles, haywire grenades and klaivex weapons in their face. In a 1500 pt game that means 3 raiders plus 2 venoms full to the brim with damage potential, while keeping my own objective troops safely in reserve to come out later. God help them if I go first as they will be playing defensively for the entire game. And yes, I have been known to place an objective very close to my opponents side of the table just to encourage them to stay there.

The short of it is that taking my opponents objectives from them when I want is not a problem. Keeping them afterwards simply involves making sure the enemy is no longer there. Considering the armies I play against, it's only the top fliers (heldrake, storm raven and the 'scythe) that I'm still figuring out how to deal with.


If they go first, then the situation is slightly different as I just need to hide that initial player turn. With good tables that's not too difficult to do. Tables with close to zero terrain is a different story.

That said, ALL codexes have a means to cross 48" of space. Whether it involves bikes, skimmers or even deep striking units like spores/drop pods/whatever.

Scouring is imbalanced. One person can easily end up with all the high point objectives in their deployment. Relic obviously favors armies with strong durable troops. Big Guns and the other D3 mission are imbalanced because one person can easily end up with 2 objectives on their table edge. First blood is a bit silly because it favors lists that have nothing but durable targets to shoot at, or it favors armies that can bring a strong alpha strike.

Show me DE armies that win competitively that don't abuse Eldar psychic shenanigans to win (Invis Beastpack/Seers).

The book missions just aren't designed for competitive play. I think the major re-formatting by big tournaments helps support that idea. But hell, YMMV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:

LValx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

Not all codices can cross an entire board. Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so. The book missions are bad and so many folks, especially in the competitive scene, simply don't bother playing them at all.

Dude, I play DE and I can assure you that I never have a problem getting to any point of the board I want to be at by the end of turn 1. It's only a 4' wide board. My raiders have a 12" move + 36" Flat Out which gives a 48" total movement range. When Flat Out I get a 4+ jink, which makes the raiders amazingly survivable. By turn two I have splinter rifles, haywire grenades and klaivex weapons in their face. In a 1500 pt game that means 3 raiders plus 2 venoms full to the brim with damage potential. God help them if I go first as they will be playing defensively for the entire game. And yes, I have been known to place an objective very close to my opponents side of the table just to encourage them to stay there.

The short of it is that taking my opponents objectives from them when I want is not a problem. Keeping them afterwards simply involves making sure the enemy is no longer there.

That said, ALL codexes have a means to cross 48" of space. Whether it involves bikes, skimmers or even deep striking units.

Sure, take your DE to the next big GT coming up and prove that they can do well, DE skimmers are a joke in 6th with 2HP, regardless of 4+ cover. With newer codices having high rate of fire Str.7 I doubt you'll do very well. Necrons are just a better version of DE because Night Scythes make Venoms/Raiders look like a joke.

LValx wrote:
Scouring is imbalanced. One person can easily end up with all the high point objectives in their deployment. Relic obviously favors armies with strong durable troops. Big Guns and the other D3 mission are imbalanced because one person can easily end up with 2 objectives on their table edge. First blood is a bit silly because it favors lists that have nothing but durable targets to shoot at, or it favors armies that can bring a strong alpha strike.

Show me DE armies that win competitively that don't abuse Eldar psychic shenanigans to win (Invis Beastpack/Seers).

The book missions just aren't designed for competitive play. I think the major re-formatting by big tournaments helps support that idea. But hell, YMMV.

Well FYI DE came third on the Norwegian championship this year.

phatonic wrote:

LValx wrote:
Scouring is imbalanced. One person can easily end up with all the high point objectives in their deployment. Relic obviously favors armies with strong durable troops. Big Guns and the other D3 mission are imbalanced because one person can easily end up with 2 objectives on their table edge. First blood is a bit silly because it favors lists that have nothing but durable targets to shoot at, or it favors armies that can bring a strong alpha strike.

Show me DE armies that win competitively that don't abuse Eldar psychic shenanigans to win (Invis Beastpack/Seers).

The book missions just aren't designed for competitive play. I think the major re-formatting by big tournaments helps support that idea. But hell, YMMV.

Well FYI DE came third on the Norwegian championship this year.

Didn't come in first though? Look at current Adepticon, 1 DE army, but I know for a fact he heavily abuses Eldar psychic powers and eschews Skimmers. DE work best as an ally or a vehicle for psychic powers. The Skimmer build isn't what it was in 5th (where I think it was actually quite competitive).

Like I said, hard to objectively prove that one mission scenario is less balanced, but I think if you play a NOVA format game and you play the book missions, you'll see that the NOVA format gives both players a better opportunity to win.

First off - i play tau - and a lot of the time I would place in the opponents zone or close to his side. This works for many reasons:

1- I like to play mobile. One of the ways to get points is Linebreaker. If you have to cross to get them anyway, the LB will be easier.

2-In order for your opponent to get LB, they have to move a unit out of place late game (if not sooner)

Now, where I place things also REALLY depends on what I am playing against - I will place the objectives based on what the enemy can do, how I see them moving, how I think the opponent will react to different placements....etc...

The reason for objective placement, is to ensure you can't rely on one specific thing for every game. A static gunline, suffer's if they can't move forward to get objectives. Likewise, an all out assault army suffer's if it can't also hold the backfield without making melee unit's redundant.

It's about making a list, that can adapt to any situation. If you simply spam a unit you like, that can only win games if the objectives go your way, you kind of deserve to lose those games.

To see this, you need to look at the missions.

The scouring? Randomly deploy's objectives of different values, so you don't know before the game, if you are going to be "attacking" or "Defending". Your army need's to be able to adapt to do both, or it will only win half of the scouring games you play.

The relic? You need to support your relic grabber's with either counter assaulters, or firepower, and you need a unit quick enough to grab the relic and resillient enough to get away once it has it.

And so on. The missions promote lists that can adapt. If you can't adapt, you can't win every missions. In fact, you can only win a select few.

LValx wrote:

Sure, take your DE to the next big GT coming up and prove that they can do well, DE skimmers are a joke in 6th with 2HP, regardless of 4+ cover. With newer codices having high rate of fire Str.7 I doubt you'll do very well. Necrons are just a better version of DE because Night Scythes make Venoms/Raiders look like a joke.

You're looking at it wrong. Raiders are just a delivery mechanism. Kind of like deep striking a unit. A DS unit might mishap; my raiders might explode. The difference being that I pay 60 points per unit to make sure they end up exactly where I want them, no scatter. Meaning, at worst, I'm paying to make sure you are worried about your back field, not mine. At best, they survive for an extra round or two while hurting you.

Last weekend I played a fairly large game 1500 points per person with 4 players divided in two teams (so, 3k per side). My opponents were CSM and SM and came with a ton of vehicles. They had to deploy first and they put all those rhinos/preds/razorbacks right up on the deployment line. While their objective ( 1 per side) was as close to the back edge as legally allowed. I had vect and easily stole the initiative. My Turn 1: Raiders right next to their objective. Their Turn 1: everything turns around to shoot; that 4+ allowed exactly 1 glance through. My turn 2: 30 warriors with rifles kill everything on and near the objective. Trueborn took out a pred while my Warlord killing unit - Incubi - killed vulkan and his unit. So, turn 2 I had Slay the Warlord, First Blood and was deep behind their lines. Did those units end up living? Nope. By turn 4 they were gone; but so was our opponents ability to even tie the game.

DE aren't about keeping your guys alive. They are about throwing themselves into the grinder and causing enough mayhem as fast as possible so that your opponents lose focus and, ultimately, the game. DE is a very tough army to learn and they do NOT play like marines. Per fluff, they don't have the concept of making sure everyone gets home safe so why play them that way?

LValx wrote:

phatonic wrote:

LValx wrote:
Scouring is imbalanced. One person can easily end up with all the high point objectives in their deployment. Relic obviously favors armies with strong durable troops. Big Guns and the other D3 mission are imbalanced because one person can easily end up with 2 objectives on their table edge. First blood is a bit silly because it favors lists that have nothing but durable targets to shoot at, or it favors armies that can bring a strong alpha strike.

Show me DE armies that win competitively that don't abuse Eldar psychic shenanigans to win (Invis Beastpack/Seers).

The book missions just aren't designed for competitive play. I think the major re-formatting by big tournaments helps support that idea. But hell, YMMV.

Well FYI DE came third on the Norwegian championship this year.

Didn't come in first though? Look at current Adepticon, 1 DE army, but I know for a fact he heavily abuses Eldar psychic powers and eschews Skimmers. DE work best as an ally or a vehicle for psychic powers. The Skimmer build isn't what it was in 5th (where I think it was actually quite competitive).

Like I said, hard to objectively prove that one mission scenario is less balanced, but I think if you play a NOVA format game and you play the book missions, you'll see that the NOVA format gives both players a better opportunity to win.

Wait, so your point is because DE aren't a top top tear army and they don't win major GTs, where almost none of the missions involve capturing more objectives on the other side of the map... That means you're right that in casual play they can't win games where you do capture objectives in the enemy DZ? ...wow. -1 Cast down (opposite of exalting).

clively wrote:

LValx wrote:

Sure, take your DE to the next big GT coming up and prove that they can do well, DE skimmers are a joke in 6th with 2HP, regardless of 4+ cover. With newer codices having high rate of fire Str.7 I doubt you'll do very well. Necrons are just a better version of DE because Night Scythes make Venoms/Raiders look like a joke.

You're looking at it wrong. Raiders are just a delivery mechanism. Kind of like deep striking a unit. A DS unit might mishap; my raiders might explode. The difference being that I pay 60 points per unit to make sure they end up exactly where I want them, no scatter. Meaning, at worst, I'm paying to make sure you are worried about your back field, not mine. At best, they survive for an extra round or two while hurting you.

Last weekend I played a fairly large game 1500 points per person with 4 players divided in two teams (so, 3k per side). My opponents were CSM and SM and came with a ton of vehicles. They had to deploy first and they put all those rhinos/preds/razorbacks right up on the deployment line. While their objective ( 1 per side) was as close to the back edge as legally allowed. I had vect and easily stole the initiative. My Turn 1: Raiders right next to their objective. Their Turn 1: everything turns around to shoot; that 4+ allowed exactly 1 glance through. My turn 2: 30 warriors with rifles kill everything on and near the objective. Trueborn took out a pred while my Warlord killing unit - Incubi - killed vulkan and his unit. So, turn 2 I had Slay the Warlord, First Blood and was deep behind their lines. Did those units end up living? Nope. By turn 4 they were gone; but so was our opponents ability to even tie the game.

DE aren't about keeping your guys alive. They are about throwing themselves into the grinder and causing enough mayhem as fast as possible so that your opponents lose focus and, ultimately, the game. DE is a very tough army to learn and they do NOT play like marines. Per fluff, they don't have the concept of making sure everyone gets home safe so why play them that way?

The problem is, when a venom or raider blows up, which it is actually fairly likely to do, a lot of models die in the process. Low LD results in a fair amount of pinning as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:

LValx wrote:

phatonic wrote:

LValx wrote:
Scouring is imbalanced. One person can easily end up with all the high point objectives in their deployment. Relic obviously favors armies with strong durable troops. Big Guns and the other D3 mission are imbalanced because one person can easily end up with 2 objectives on their table edge. First blood is a bit silly because it favors lists that have nothing but durable targets to shoot at, or it favors armies that can bring a strong alpha strike.

Show me DE armies that win competitively that don't abuse Eldar psychic shenanigans to win (Invis Beastpack/Seers).

The book missions just aren't designed for competitive play. I think the major re-formatting by big tournaments helps support that idea. But hell, YMMV.

Well FYI DE came third on the Norwegian championship this year.

Didn't come in first though? Look at current Adepticon, 1 DE army, but I know for a fact he heavily abuses Eldar psychic powers and eschews Skimmers. DE work best as an ally or a vehicle for psychic powers. The Skimmer build isn't what it was in 5th (where I think it was actually quite competitive).

Like I said, hard to objectively prove that one mission scenario is less balanced, but I think if you play a NOVA format game and you play the book missions, you'll see that the NOVA format gives both players a better opportunity to win.

Wait, so your point is because DE aren't a top top tear army and they don't win major GTs, where almost none of the missions involve capturing more objectives on the other side of the map... That means you're right that in casual play they can't win games where you do capture objectives in the enemy DZ? ...wow. -1 Cast down (opposite of exalting).

Uhh... NOVA format definitely requires being able to capture objectives all over the board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Middle objective tends to be paramount though. Which is why you see lots of Blobs led by Marine characters at big events now. Those units are durable enough to capture and hold as well as push upfield to the middle or the enemy's deployment zone.

DE can get where ever they'd like, that fact does not elude me, the bigger worry is surviving an average of 6 game turns. I don't trust flimsy vehicles and mediocre troops to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I only find DE viable if they choose to ally with a Seer council or Wraithguard deathstar, or if they take a big Beastpack deathstar. Both lists are unlikely to devote many points to transports or mech.

If you need to capture an objective with flimsy troops, don't make your move until turn 5. Or, support the little suckers and make the opponent take it back at his peril.

It's been years since I went to a GT and I rarely get to a two day event, but I play all the locals that do, and my 5th Ed Tau do just fine getting objectives "over there" (haven't played enough 6th Ed Tau to say). I don't have DE, but a play against them enough. Making dashes to contest/take late game objectives and capping objectives near cover works very well for them.

LValx wrote:
The book missions are very, very poor for competitive play. That is why most events make objectives equal or place the odd objective in the middle (NOVA) and other tournaments such as BAO format give you the option of placing some in your Dzone but having to place others in "no man's land"

Pretty much. Competitive play sorts this out with different missions and formats, plus the tournament regulars are all good players who know how to win. Casual play is where imbalanced (CINEMATIC) missions cause problems. We tournament players either don't struggle or care to come out on top in an unbalanced scenario in pickup play. Little Timmy, on the other hand, doesn't know what to do and just gets frustrated. I've seen in happen all too often and it is disheartening.

Since I play Draigo/Paladins I tend to post my objective middle board as I advance to that area naturally. I isn't too bad for my opponent either as they are not forced to charge into my deployment zone to claim them.

Something you have to keep in mind here though. If they are placing them in their deployment they are also making those objectives more valuable to you since they are a combo obj/line breaker position. Granted they may be harder to grab, but you also get a greater reward.

 Portugal Jones wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based?

Learn to play.

If your list is incapable of handling one of the random missions that you know you could be getting, then you screwed up pretty hard at the list building stage. Placing and capturing objectives is one of the tactical considerations of the mission. Wanting my opponent to go easy on me because it's 'fair' seems like you're asking for a handicap.

it is not a learn to play problem , nor a tactical one . If both our armies are shoting and his doesnt have to move and my has [losing fire power] then am losing on both fronts.Not only am I doing less damge to him , because I have to move , but I also take more damge in return , because am getting closer to him and my lower fire power means he has his for a longer time . It may not be a problem for meq armies which can do assaults and shoting at the same time and have good resiliance [comparing to IG at least] , but for IG it is .

Makumba wrote:
It may not be a problem for meq armies which can do assaults and shoting at the same time and have good resiliance [comparing to IG at least] , but for IG it is .

So IG don't have tanks, Vendetta troops, allies, outflanking Harker/Al'rahem/Creed units, or enough artillery to just smash your opponent's scoring units from across the table? The problem isn't the mission with asymmetrical objectives, it's that you failed to bring a good IG list and would rather change the mission to compensate than fix your list. The rules shouldn't reward one-dimensional gunlines, and you shouldn't act like your opponent is TFG or the mission is broken because the game isn't favorable to your one-dimensional gunline.

Makumba wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based?

Learn to play.

If your list is incapable of handling one of the random missions that you know you could be getting, then you screwed up pretty hard at the list building stage. Placing and capturing objectives is one of the tactical considerations of the mission. Wanting my opponent to go easy on me because it's 'fair' seems like you're asking for a handicap.

it is not a learn to play problem , nor a tactical one . If both our armies are shoting and his doesnt have to move and my has [losing fire power] then am losing on both fronts.Not only am I doing less damge to him , because I have to move , but I also take more damge in return , because am getting closer to him and my lower fire power means he has his for a longer time . It may not be a problem for meq armies which can do assaults and shoting at the same time and have good resiliance [comparing to IG at least] , but for IG it is .

...you've just broken the code for why static gunlines aren't the easy button people think they are... its may not be a learn to play (but it is, learn to run an army that won't lose if down an objective) or a tactical one (you think planning on how to take an objective isn't tactical?!), but it is a list construction/preparation one. After deployment I usually know whether or not I will win the game. If you are getting that feeling, make a different list.

But IG doesnt have any units which can take objectives from a power armored class army without almost shoting the army off the board.

how long will a unit of vets droped from a vendetta surive near the opposing army , lets say even two , the opponent would have to be without any AA and already beaten and without any form of flamers . How am I suppose to remove an army of shoty orks that have parked all their shoty units , which also happen to be ok at melee against IG , from 2 objectives while at the same time I have to fight off two nob biker squads with warlords .

Same with a SW gunline which has 2-3 LF squad on home objectivs 2-3 GH squads siting to score and 1-2 drop pods melting my stuff.

If you can show me a 1500 IG list that can be mobile and have fire power enough to beat other gunlines and meq swarms at the same time I would realy like to see it , because it would be awesome to play with one.

First of all, you're confusing "this is a difficult matchup" with "I can't win". You aren't supposed to win easily against every army in every mission type, if you did the game would be completely broken. Sometimes you'll just find yourself in a situation where you have an uphill battle. Sometimes you'll even find yourself in a situation where you can't see an obvious route to victory and have to hope you can get lucky and find an opportunity to exploit. That's just part of the game, and you have to deal with it.

Makumba wrote:
But IG doesnt have any units which can take objectives from a power armored class army without almost shoting the army off the board.

Congratulations, you discovered the IG solution to asymmetrical objectives: cripple their army with your overwhelming shooting, then use your outflanking and/or Vendetta units to capture the relatively unprotected objectives.

how long will a unit of vets droped from a vendetta surive near the opposing army

Who cares? Objectives don't count until the end of the game, so the vets don't have to disembark until turn 5 when your opponent's army has been properly crippled.

How am I suppose to remove an army of shoty orks that have parked all their shoty units , which also happen to be ok at melee against IG , from 2 objectives while at the same time I have to fight off two nob biker squads with warlords .

Let me get this straight: you're playing against orks, an army that has essentially zero firepower at long range, and you can't figure out how to win the game if your opponent holds back large parts of their army where all they can do is sit on the objective? Don't you bring Manticores/Griffons/etc?

Also, nob bikers are garbage against IG. They're massive overkill, and extremely vulnerable to tarpit units.

Same with a SW gunline which has 2-3 LF squad on home objectivs 2-3 GH squads siting to score and 1-2 drop pods melting my stuff.

How do you kill a SW gunline? Out-shoot it and then move scoring units onto objectives at the end of the game. And then thank your opponent for keeping their GH (a mid-range unit that is wasted camping on objectives at the back of the table) away from anything useful. SW aren't a gunline army, and someone trying to play them as one is probably a sign that it's going to be an easy win.

 Peregrine wrote:

Same with a SW gunline which has 2-3 LF squad on home objectivs 2-3 GH squads siting to score and 1-2 drop pods melting my stuff.

How do you kill a SW gunline? Out-shoot it and then move scoring units onto objectives at the end of the game. And then thank your opponent for keeping their GH (a mid-range unit that is wasted camping on objectives at the back of the table) away from anything useful. SW aren't a gunline army, and someone trying to play them as one is probably a sign that it's going to be an easy win.

This is exactly correct. This is exactly what happened during my first game with my SW against Eldar. Stupidly, and stubbornly, I camped my GH on two objectives, while he sat just outside of bolter range and picked me off. Thankfully it taught the lesson quickly. PA or not, we can be shot to bits, especially with the volume of fire and at the range you'll have as IG.

Since when is war fair? It's the way the mission is played. You're supposed to build your army with this in mind. Simple as that.

This is what the book missions do. Thyey discorage win-button builds. A purely static shooting army, will lose a lot of book missions. A purely grey knight paladin army, will lose most book missions. Because they can't adapt, they are not flexible.

Imperial guard do have fast unit's, and do have the tools to score objectives out of their own zone. Vendetta's with dropping units, is a fantastic solution that a lot of armies don't have. So say, you are playing the scouring, and your opponent get's the 4 point objective. Focus all your long range firepower on taking out anything on that objective, and on turn 5, drop something out of a flyer onto it. They might have to survive a turn, but that's why you focussed on killing anything that might cause them trouble holding the objective.

Have foresight, have a plan, don't just sit back, shoot, and hope for the best, because it just doesn't work in the book missions.

I find it sad that tournament's don't use the book missions, because they don't promote "Competetive play". They do, but just not in the sense that you can bring an army that only does one thing. BOok missions, require armies that can fulfill multiple roles, and -every- army has ways of doing this. But competitive player's don't seem to like it when they find one unit they like, spam it, and then cry that it can't fulfill every role they could need.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Objective placement is one 6th edition's major flaws. Nothing is more toxic to casual play than a gunline army deployed with 2 objectives behind their defense line while you only have 1 to place.

No, nothing is more toxic to casual play than a gunline army against a clueless newbie who doesn't know how to play against a gunline army.

(Hint: if they have two objectives this is good for you, you're going to be charging into their half of the table anyway so it means that you have to hold back fewer scoring units in your own half of the table.)

Guard vs Guard, one player is a full-on gunline, the other is a mixed list with a strong gunline element plus an "objective grabber" force designed to move up the table.

Scenario 1: Pure gunline guy gets two objectives and puts both in his deployment zone. Mixed-gunline guy now has to advance into the enemy deployment zone and shift a blob off an objective, fighting his opponent's whole army with only a portion of his.

Scenario 2; Mixed-gunline guy gets two objectives and puts both in his deployment zone. Pure gunline guy now has to advance into the enemy deployment zone and shift a blog off an objective, fighting his opponent's whole army with only a portion of his, with the added disadvantage that none of his units are purposed for that task.

So, yes, it's worse for the guy who brings a static, one-trick-pony list, but even if you do bring an objective grabbing element you're still pitting less than 50% of your army against almost 100% of theirs, in a situation which already favours them by virtue of their composition.

It's no different than the tossers who put a ruin or a hill down in front of an opponent's ADL to prevent it from shooting anything; it's technically allowed, but it's still a d***-move in every possible way. It makes far more sense to begin by placing the terrain to create a plausible landscape, then place the objectives into that landscape in a plausible way, and then finally roll off for table edges - THAT is a test of the player's army and their ability to adapt to the circumstances of the battle, using the terrain and objective placement systems as they exist to stack the deck in your favour is the opposite.

ive actually played games where ive placed all my objectives in the other guys deployment zone. for 2 reasons...

1. i usually play VERY agressive, and dont like to sit back and "camp" or "castle" im a very in your face, come get you type player, and therefore i intend my entire army to be on his half of the table. thus, if all the objectives are where i want to go, it makes it easier to claim them.

2. it makes the other guy SERIOUSLY reconsider his strategy. sometimes they ignore them and castle up in one spot, fearing my attack, other times they spread out and try to claim them all from turn one. either way, it gives me an edge as i can deploy and attack based on how he deploys. it also puts them on the defensive IMMEDIATLY, even before the first turn. likewise i also let the other guy take first turn whenever i can. i like to see their opening ,moves, so i can react and attack his weak points. it also gives me the last move, and allows me to perform that last turn objective grab or contest etc. obviously this only works for certain people and certain styles. and ymmv... but its won my last 20 or so games in a row for me. so i must be doing SOMETHING right.

 Evileyes wrote:
This is what the book missions do. Thyey discorage win-button builds. A purely static shooting army, will lose a lot of book missions. A purely grey knight paladin army, will lose most book missions. Because they can't adapt, they are not flexible.

Imperial guard do have fast unit's, and do have the tools to score objectives out of their own zone. Vendetta's with dropping units, is a fantastic solution that a lot of armies don't have. So say, you are playing the scouring, and your opponent get's the 4 point objective. Focus all your long range firepower on taking out anything on that objective, and on turn 5, drop something out of a flyer onto it. They might have to survive a turn, but that's why you focussed on killing anything that might cause them trouble holding the objective.

Have foresight, have a plan, don't just sit back, shoot, and hope for the best, because it just doesn't work in the book missions.

I find it sad that tournament's don't use the book missions, because they don't promote "Competetive play". They do, but just not in the sense that you can bring an army that only does one thing. BOok missions, require armies that can fulfill multiple roles, and -every- army has ways of doing this. But competitive player's don't seem to like it when they find one unit they like, spam it, and then cry that it can't fulfill every role they could need.

No they don't promote competitive play. I guess you understand competition more than all TOs? The idea of a good mission is to provide both players the same even ability to win, regardless of army composition. Scouring/Odd objective book missions often do not give both players the same chance to win. Good players can over come this, sure. But the field of battle, IMO, should be completely even. It is the same reason I support specific terrain layouts.

First of all, I'm freaking out, as I've agreed with most of Peregrine's posts for about 4 days straight.

Second, the whining from players that they don't have a sure thing road to victory, or that they occasionally have a greater challenge than their opponent. WTFrak! Go play chutes and ladders or just roll off a die each.

Then, the follow up is to complain that their top tier codex, with the most broken rapid deployment transport in game, that can packed with cheap AP 2/3 weapons can't contest/take objectives late game.

Folks, only one logical conclusion: its a troll.

I've always used my objectives to try to lure my opponent to specific areas of the board. For example, with Tau I'll never place an objective in cover, always out in the open. Force the opponent to decide on something 1) go sit on it and get shot to hell, 2) ignore it to stay safe or attack. It works fairly well to make my opponent think about whether to throw everything at my army, or leave some back for the objectives. Usually my placed objectives won't be back in my DZ, I don't need to give extra motivation to come at me. Similarly, my DE like cover, and don't stick around my DZ, so objective deployment is completely different.

However, if my opponent is foolish and brings a list without troops that can get around, then of course I'm not going to hand them an objective. If he loses because his troops can't move well, then he beat himself. He should have brought a balanced list that can play the game rather than a list just designed to kill stuff. Everyone has to come up with a way to get those objectives in order to win, some pay attention to it during list building, others don't think about it till turn 4.

If I wanted a game that was the same every time I played I would have stuck with Starcraft, but I find that mind-numbing and boring.
IMO, one of the things I like most about this game is the fact that you get thrown a curveball every once in a while. Sometimes the terrain isn't ideal. Sometimes the Codexes aren't balanced. Sometimes the mission sucks and the objectives are difficult to achieve. Sometimes you are matched against a Mech list and you just replaced some of your meltas with flamers.
But can you still pull out a win despite all that?

 Lobukia wrote:


...you've just broken the code for why static gunlines aren't the easy button people think they are... its may not be a learn to play (but it is, learn to run an army that won't lose if down an objective) or a tactical one (you think planning on how to take an objective isn't tactical?!), but it is a list construction/preparation one. After deployment I usually know whether or not I will win the game. If you are getting that feeling, make a different list.

I use 3 vendetta a mantiore and 2 lemman Russ in my army and when I play against another gunline and it has 2 objectives , then he has the upper edge . Even If I drop vets on the objectives late game , for which my vendettas have to be alive in late game , they are still geq and die from any form of assault a unit armed with a flamer or two can kill them in a single turn . I dont understand the list preparation part we dont tailor lists and most people own one army to play with and dont switch depanding on what they face .

Makumba wrote:

Even If I drop vets on the objectives late game , for which my vendettas have to be alive in late game , they are still geq and die from any form of assault a unit armed with a flamer or two can kill them in a single turn.

The point is you would have played poorly here. Why did you drop troops in an area they were vulnerable to assault? Why did you not focus down flamers if you knew this was going to be a tactic? Guard have superior fire power that could have cleared an area to prevent this.
Also placing a Vendetta between your vets and the assault unit would entirely stop that assault (what bubble wrapping troops with vehicles? Heresy!)

The point that list building can be used to do this is that if you create an army that takes into account anti-symmetrical objective distribution.

 Badger_Bhoy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Same with a SW gunline which has 2-3 LF squad on home objectivs 2-3 GH squads siting to score and 1-2 drop pods melting my stuff.

How do you kill a SW gunline? Out-shoot it and then move scoring units onto objectives at the end of the game. And then thank your opponent for keeping their GH (a mid-range unit that is wasted camping on objectives at the back of the table) away from anything useful. SW aren't a gunline army, and someone trying to play them as one is probably a sign that it's going to be an easy win.

This is exactly correct. This is exactly what happened during my first game with my SW against Eldar. Stupidly, and stubbornly, I camped my GH on two objectives, while he sat just outside of bolter range and picked me off. Thankfully it taught the lesson quickly. PA or not, we can be shot to bits, especially with the volume of fire and at the range you'll have as IG.

I dont get the out shot part . If my opponent keeps 3 LF units in a bastion it aint that easy to blown them all up in one turn and if he gets the first turn , then I have to deal with 2 drop pods at point blank range , he gets first blood my vets wont claim his objectives because the LF will kill them he will kill the troops near my . he will get line breaker , I probably wont , and his LF squads give him better chance for slay the warlord , then me slaying his RP .

Congratulations, you discovered the IG solution to asymmetrical objectives: cripple their army with your overwhelming shooting, then use your outflanking and/or Vendetta units to capture the relatively unprotected objectives.

how do I do that against other gunlines ? unless they are bad , I would have to always get first turn and better terrain and LoS . If that happens and my opponent doesnt shot back then I win , but I kind of a know that a non shoting gunline loses.

Who cares? Objectives don't count until the end of the game, so the vets don't have to disembark until turn 5 when your opponent's army has been properly crippled.

I have yet to see my vendettas survive up to turn 5 . everyone here is either runing 2 flyers minium and the necron are runing 3-4 .

Let me get this straight: you're playing against orks, an army that has essentially zero firepower at long range, and you can't figure out how to win the game if your opponent holds back large parts of their army where all they can do is sit on the objective? Don't you bring Manticores/Griffons/etc?

Lootaz . 2-3 vendettas with veterans that is what the orc players use here , the other one uses lootaz and necron all making my turns night fight and his not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Griddlelol wrote:


The point is you would have played poorly here. Why did you drop troops in an area they were vulnerable to assault? Why did you not focus down flamers if you knew this was going to be a tactic? Guard have superior fire power that could have cleared an area to prevent this.
Also placing a Vendetta between your vets and the assault unit would entirely stop that assault (what bubble wrapping troops with vehicles? Heresy!)

The point that list building can be used to do this is that if you create an army that takes into account anti-symmetrical objective distribution.

aha so I am suppose to drop my vets away from the objectives to give my opponent the ability to shot the vets more . I again dont understand the superior fire power of IG argument . tau , necron , SW can all make good gunlines and they offten take IG as ally to get cheap vendetta . I dont see how a pure IG is suppose to always be superior .
as the focus down goes . I dont expect my opponent to be stupid , If he cant hide a unit of flamers near an objective he placed , then am probably not going to have problems with what will happen , if I drop my vets near .

As the vedetta goes . you do know you can go under flyers as long as you dont end your movement within 1" of the flyer base ?

Makumba wrote:

aha so I am suppose to drop my vets away from the objectives to give my opponent the ability to shot the vets more.

That's disingenuous to make out that's what I was saying. My point was that the area around the objective that you're placing your troops should have been cleared.

I again dont understand the superior fire power of IG argument . tau , necron , SW can all make good gunlines and they offten take IG as ally to get cheap vendetta . I dont see how a pure IG is suppose to always be superior .

It's superior in the way it's long range and generally ignores LoS.

as the focus down goes . I dont expect my opponent to be stupid , If he cant hide a unit of flamers near an objective he placed , then am probably not going to have problems with what will happen , if I drop my vets near .

And so if your opponent does hide them, 3 plasma guns, 6 lasguns and 3 TL lascannons should take care of them. You know, the unit you're dropping isn't carrying nothing.

As the vedetta goes . you do know you can go under flyers as long as you dont end your movement within 1" of the flyer base ?

Did you know the vendetta can hover? Why on earth would you continue flying on turn 5 if you want to cap an objective? You not only get superior disembarking, you also get movement blocking.

I've never had a problem with this. For some armies, I think that odd objectives might be a disadvantage (if you got fewer and you run a primarily shooting army) but if you run a primarily assault army, you're better served to have more objectives on your opponent's side. I run a drop pod army, and always try to stack as many objectives on their end as I can.

If they wanted perfect balance with the objectives, you would place them at set points. (One dead center, one twelve inches to the right, one twelve inches to the left, etc.) Personally, I think that by putting objective placement in the hands of the players, it shows a clear intent for objective placement to be part of the tactical aspect of the game.

If you think objective or terrain placement is unfair when players are involved, have a third party set the table up for you. That's what our club does for terrain, and while I don't always love the setups, I can't say that they're unfair. I think having the table setter also do the objectives would be a fair way to do things, and I certainly wouldn't object if my opponent asked to do it that way.

LValx wrote:
The idea of a good mission is to provide both players the same even ability to win, regardless of army composition.

No, that is NOT the goal of a good mission. A good mission does NOT give you equal chances to win no matter how terrible your list is. It is entirely appropriate (and even desirable) to punish people who bring one-dimensional lists and leave out things like mobile scoring units that can claim objectives on the other side of the table.

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
The idea of a good mission is to provide both players the same even ability to win, regardless of army composition.

No, that is NOT the goal of a good mission. A good mission does NOT give you equal chances to win no matter how terrible your list is. It is entirely appropriate (and even desirable) to punish people who bring one-dimensional lists and leave out things like mobile scoring units that can claim objectives on the other side of the table.

Misspoke. A good mission will give both players the same equal footing to begin the game. I.e. one player doesn't get to place more objectives. Or one player doesn't have higher point objectives on his side. NOVA 5x5 is, IMO, the most competitive set-up because the objectives are pre-placed equally, giving both players the same set-up. Even further, the terrain is symmetrical, giving both players the same deployment zones as well.

LValx wrote:
NOVA 5x5 is, IMO, the most competitive set-up because the objectives are pre-placed equally, giving both players the same set-up. Even further, the terrain is symmetrical, giving both players the same deployment zones as well.

So, the best game is one where you know before hand which mission you will play, how many objectives there will be, roughly where they will be, and while you will not know exactly how much terrain there will be, its a good bet there wont be much, and there will be no terrain advantage for either side. Thus, you have the ability to tailor for that mission, and that mission only, the terrain density you will have a fair idea that its not much. So its balanced, with neither side having an advantage,

Compared to: You don't know which mission you will play, how many objectives there will be, where they will be, you don't know how much terrain there will be,m or where it will be. So you cannot tailor specifically for the mission, you have to build a BALANCED army list, one that can take as well as hold objectives, and one that can perform regardless of which mission you are playing. The games aren't balanced, and they may provide an advantage to one player or the other, again, you are forced to anticipate that fact and factor it into your army selection.

Since both players know that the missions are random, and the number of objectives are random, and there is a chance that their opponent could have more objectives to place than them. there is NO advantage to either party. you both have to anticipate it. If you bring a one trick pony to a game, and find you can't play some of the missions because your army is so limited, well, learn to play better, pick a better army, and don't blame the missions.

Agree with all of the above, I don't think of the scouring as 6 objectives, I think of it as a randomly decided attack or defend mission. Half of the scouring games, you will need to defend from an enemy approach, the other half, you will have to attack the enemy while they defend.

Having an army that can only do one of these things, is bad army design.

Playing the game in a predictable manner, with predictable objectives in predictable placement's, is pointless, as it just means basically, who could squeeze the most hitting power into their army. It's not strategic. It's just roll to see if you can kill/outlast your opponent, if you do, you win, if you don't, you lose.

When you play like that, in such a predictable manner, you might as well say "Well, choosing all these unit's is too unpredictable, the enemy might bring thing's I cant deal with and make the game unbalanced. So in this tournament, you can only bring tactical squads with bolters from codex space marine. That way, it's more balanced.

Or else. "Well, this whole "Using armies" thing is far too unbalanced. So we all just gather around a table, and toss a coin, head's I win, tail's you win."

Uhh... The missions in NOVA vary every round. So things like FA scoring, HS scoring and what not are still used. Terrain is 25%, familiarize yourself with the format before you come to a conclusion.

Ending up with 2 objectives in your Dzone is generally an advantage, if you can't see that, I can't help you. It will often mean that you have to bear the full brunt of your opponents fire while only being able to return a fraction of yours (how much depends on how mobile, but most mech and infantry based shooting reduces on the move). Possibly ending up with all the high value objectives in one player's Dzone is an obvious advantage as well.

Those missions are more balanced, it is why the TOs use them,

Makumba wrote:
How am I suppose to remove an army of shoty orks that have parked all their shoty units , which also happen to be ok at melee against IG , from 2 objectives while at the same time I have to fight off two nob biker squads with warlords .

While this has partially been addressed, it's probably worth pointing out that if you have one of the objectives in your own deployment zone, you don't have to remove those Orks camped on the other objectives. You just need to have scoring units near enough to contest those objectives on the last turn.

Winning is not always down to how much of the enemy's army you can kill.

LValx wrote:
Misspoke. A good mission will give both players the same equal footing to begin the game. I.e. one player doesn't get to place more objectives. Or one player doesn't have higher point objectives on his side.

Both players DO start on an equal footing. If you roll 3 objectives then each player has an equal chance of getting to place the odd objective. It's no different than the fact that one player gets to choose whether to go first or second.

NOVA 5x5 is, IMO, the most competitive set-up because the objectives are pre-placed equally, giving both players the same set-up. Even further, the terrain is symmetrical, giving both players the same deployment zones as well.

That's a good mission in the context of a tournament. Yes, sometimes you want to have an event where dozens of people are playing the exact same mission in the exact same situation and the overall winner is based purely on who played the mission the best. Asymmetrical objectives aren't bad because they're unbalanced, they're bad because they're not the same. You don't want players X and Y playing a different mission from players A and B, so that means symmetrical objectives (ideally in the same localtion on every table) and similar (or, better, identical) terrain.

That is NOT the same as that kind of mission being the best or most competitive overall. If you remove the constraints of tournament ranking and look at a game between two players then adding the potential for asymmetrical objectives improves the mission since you have to build more adaptability into your list instead of just determining the perfect solution to a specific situation.

When we have three objectives, we usually have one that we can place anywhere and another one in the middle.

We always agree on where to put the 'middle' one, since we tell a "story" behind this objective.

Giving a player a significant advantage before the game starts is terrible game design and what you would expect from the bizzare philosophy of game rules that GW follows. I am sure in their opinion its more fun.

A far better system is to place the objectives before you chose table sides.

I am not surprised a lot of 40k players like the current system because the hobby is infected with people that want to win the game without ever playing it. For example, winning by tabling someone means that for some reason you have such a huge advantage that you can utterly destroy your opponent. If you are doing this regularly you need to consider that you are playing opponents very far beneath your skill level or their is some serious flaw in the game.

I believe a symmetrical mission is the most competitive, each player knows what to expect from the get-go, so it all comes down to what happens in-game. Book missions dont allow for that.

JWhex wrote:
I am not surprised a lot of 40k players like the current system because the hobby is infected with people that want to win the game without ever playing it.

Given that under the current system your opponent is just as likely to wind up with the extra objective as you are, this statement makes no sense.

For example, winning by tabling someone means that for some reason you have such a huge advantage that you can utterly destroy your opponent. If you are doing this regularly you need to consider that you are playing opponents very far beneath your skill level or their is some serious flaw in the game.

And your example doesn't appear to actually have anything to do with the statement preceding it...

LValx wrote:
I believe a symmetrical mission is the most competitive, each player knows what to expect from the get-go, so it all comes down to what happens in-game. Book missions dont allow for that.

Of course book missions allow that. Each player has read the missions, and each player knows exactly what to expect. There's no "surprise, we're going to use D3+2 objectives today" mission that nobody knew about. If you know that the asymmetrical missions exist and fail to prepare for them it's entirely your fault.

If anything, the symmetrical mission is less competitive because it narrows the range of possible situations you could have to deal with and allows you to focus on one specific objective layout. For example, your gunline no longer has to worry about having to move up and claim objectives since you'll always have an equal share of objectives safely in your own deployment zone and the "odd" objective will always be in the middle of the table where you can easily shoot it clear.

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
I believe a symmetrical mission is the most competitive, each player knows what to expect from the get-go, so it all comes down to what happens in-game. Book missions dont allow for that.

Of course book missions allow that. Each player has read the missions, and each player knows exactly what to expect. There's no "surprise, we're going to use D3+2 objectives today" mission that nobody knew about. If you know that the asymmetrical missions exist and fail to prepare for them it's entirely your fault.

If anything, the symmetrical mission is less competitive because it narrows the range of possible situations you could have to deal with and allows you to focus on one specific objective layout. For example, your gunline no longer has to worry about having to move up and claim objectives since you'll always have an equal share of objectives safely in your own deployment zone and the "odd" objective will always be in the middle of the table where you can easily shoot it clear.

Disagree pretty strongly. Random doesn't mean you will know what the mission is. You'll know it will be random, but you don't know what that randomness is actually going to manifest itself as. You may know the different probabilities of what could happen, but you dont have certainty.

LValx wrote:
Disagree pretty strongly. Random doesn't mean you will know what the mission is. You'll know it will be random, but you don't know what that randomness is actually going to manifest itself as. You may know the different probabilities of what could happen, but you dont have certainty.

And this is a good thing for competitive play. It forces you to bring a flexible list capable of handling a wide variety of situations (including ones where you face an uphill battle) instead of tailoring one specifically to the objective placement in a single perfectly symmetrical mission, and it rewards the skilled players who can adapt to that full range of situations instead of just autopiloting their way through a completely predictable game.

LValx wrote:
Disagree pretty strongly. Random doesn't mean you will know what the mission is. You'll know it will be random, but you don't know what that randomness is actually going to manifest itself as. You may know the different probabilities of what could happen, but you dont have certainty.

Yes, that's what random means. Peregrine's point was that both players are aware of those probabilities before they even write their army lists, so are both on the same playing field. It's up to you to design a list that can deal with each of the possible missions that you might wind up playing.

There was a time when casual play largely involved just ignoring the missions... Outside of tournaments most people just played meatgrinders where the objective was to just wipe out your opponent. And the end result was a lot of very similar armies, because people just built each code for it's best strength. If you came across, for example, a Guard army that ever actually moved, it was a rare moment.

The random missions result in more variety on the tabletop, because people approach them in different ways. At least from what I have seen. YMMV.

I like the system of deploying objectives first then choosing sides.

So this is what happened today, it was SW/Daemons vs Daemons/DE, which was a 2v2.

The guys put a huge piece of terrain that blocked all LoS to them, and essnetially put 3 objectives around that area and we simply had no way to take any of those objectives.

Our lists were super balanced too at taking objectives in enemy deployments too, we had 3 drop pods, and 2 FMCs in their zone before everything was just shot to death or assaulted to death.

None of the long fangs could shoot anything since everything was out of LoS I don't know if that's "fair".

There was absolutely nothing we can do against them since Daemon would murder us in CC.

We could have played defensively but in the end we would have still lost that objective.

 Makutsu wrote:
The guys put a huge piece of terrain that blocked all LoS to them

This is your problem, not the objective system. A single piece of terrain that can block LOS for three different objectives (don't forget the limit of being at least 12" from all other objectives) is way too big. If you play with more sensible terrain you won't have this problem.

And hey, two can play that game.

If someone screws you with terrain go ahead and screw him back. Eventually he'll stop doing that.


Don't complain if someones taking advantage of the system when you are just as capable of doing the same exact thing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
The guys put a huge piece of terrain that blocked all LoS to them

This is your problem, not the objective system. A single piece of terrain that can block LOS for three different objectives (don't forget the limit of being at least 12" from all other objectives) is way too big. If you play with more sensible terrain you won't have this problem.

Well, you don't get to choose every piece of terrain if you follow the BRB rules.
Of course since he was placing objectives first so was he placing terrain.
There was one piece that could cover the entire Dark Eldar Army and 2 other smaller ones that worked out with the other terrain pieces and they deployed accordingly to have most of the stuff out of LoS.
I did place a lot of flat stuff already and my opponent could just choose the largest piece in the store and bam, no LoS for you.

Like what were we supposed to do? an insane 36" gunline army and insane CC army sitting in the back camping 3 objectives while being barricaded in, there's no way for us to deal with that properly.
Our lists could deal with anything and contest for any distanced objectives due to the grey hunter drop pods, but due to terrain placement and objective placement we lost just like that
It was soley due to the objective placement that we lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And hey, two can play that game.

If someone screws you with terrain go ahead and screw him back. Eventually he'll stop doing that.


Don't complain if someones taking advantage of the system when you are just as capable of doing the same exact thing.

Well if he barricades in with 3 objectives then what am I supposed to do?
He just waits for you to contest and blast you off the objective.
Blocking all LoS is not good when you don't have the majority of the objectives.
Hence, why a combination of terrain placement and objectives can make the mission highly unfair already.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And hey, two can play that game.

If someone screws you with terrain go ahead and screw him back. Eventually he'll stop doing that.


Don't complain if someones taking advantage of the system when you are just as capable of doing the same exact thing.

If someone thinks the system is daft because it can be exploited, telling them they should stop complaining and exploit the system is a stupid argument.

Regardless, there's already a solution that solves both problems and stops anyone exploiting anything; place both terrain and objectives first, then dice off for table edge. Problem solved. Or, you know, everyone could just get into a TFG Arms Race, being more and more d***ish to each other until it develops into genuine animosity and you end up with one fewer opponent to play, that sounds like a great plan.

Try to barricade them first. Fill his deployment zone with impassable terrain. Place the objectives you get to put down somewhere he can't get to. etc...

Seriously, all the crap he's pulling, you can do it too so there's no reason to whine about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
Disagree pretty strongly. Random doesn't mean you will know what the mission is. You'll know it will be random, but you don't know what that randomness is actually going to manifest itself as. You may know the different probabilities of what could happen, but you dont have certainty.

And this is a good thing for competitive play. It forces you to bring a flexible list capable of handling a wide variety of situations (including ones where you face an uphill battle) instead of tailoring one specifically to the objective placement in a single perfectly symmetrical mission, and it rewards the skilled players who can adapt to that full range of situations instead of just autopiloting their way through a completely predictable game.

I disagree, it is a terrible thing for competitive play. Which is exactly why most TOs of bigger GTs are removing it. List has nothing to do with playing scouring and possibly ending up with all the low point objectives. You shouldnt be at a disadvantage before a game begins. Your advantages and disadvantages should come from tactical decisions, not pre-game rolls. Games with preset objectives dont result in predictable, autopiloting games. There is less randomness, which IMO is a good thing. A good game should have as equal of a playing field as possible so that player decisions determine the outcome. The book missions can put players on their backfoot before they even start playing and I think that is pretty bad for the game.

Apparently we agree to disagree, but I feel comfortable siding with the guys who spend a good bit of there spare time designing missions for the tournaments they organize. I'll also trust minds like Hulksmash and Mike Brandt who prefer that specific (NOVA) style primer, because it has more balance.

I think you are under a misapprehension that the game starts at turn 1 rather than when you rolled the first die.

The most strategic part of the actual games is terrain and objective placement just like napoleon's loss at waterloo. The right battlefield is everything. If you remove this aspect of the game 40k will become checkers with dice and you will loose a large number of people to boredom.

Post your situation in the tactics forum with as much information as possible and we can crowd source a strategy.

First of all, wh40k is not meant to be a war simulation, it is a fantasy in space game. Second of all for competitive play when discussing issues of competitiveness and fairness, what is done in the wider world of games and sports can be related to mechanics of the 40k game as context to what is considered odd, fair, competitive etc.

In this thread people have wrongly conflated preparing to play on an asymetrical battlefield with one player having a tactical advantage before the game starts by being able to place an extra objective in the most favorable possible place on the board. When an odd number of objectives is placed before the sides are chosen, this is obviously more fair than when one player gets to place the odd objective after sides have been chosen. If you cannot understand the logic in this I doubt there is any way to explain it.

In any game or sport taken seriously by people in general, there is invariably a lot of effort put into making the playing field neutral. Arranging the playing field to give one side an advantage is a very strange concept in Western civilization.

When one player receives any kind of advantage before the game starts it is called a handicap. The most common game where handicaps are calculated are in social bowling leagues because the teams have a huge amount of variation in age and skill among the members. So there is certainly precedent for giving someone an advantage at the start of the game.

The question is, do you want the meaning of your victory diluted by the fact that you have been given a handicap before the game starts?

 Makutsu wrote:
Well, you don't get to choose every piece of terrain if you follow the BRB rules.

The point is that a piece of terrain that big is not appropriate* for 40k and should not be in the terrain pool in the first place. If your opponents insist on using stupid terrain you should just place your invisible piece of lethal terrain that covers your opponent's entire deployment zone (don't forget that you can't deploy in lethal terrain), or place all of your objectives inside an upside-down bucket along with one of your scoring units. Your opponents will pretty quickly get the hint and bring more appropriate terrain.

*Outside of a special scenario game where the huge terrain is a key part of the scenario.

 ansacs wrote:
I think you are under a misapprehension that the game starts at turn 1 rather than when you rolled the first die.

The most strategic part of the actual games is terrain and objective placement just like napoleon's loss at waterloo. The right battlefield is everything. If you remove this aspect of the game 40k will become checkers with dice and you will loose a large number of people to boredom.

Post your situation in the tactics forum with as much information as possible and we can crowd source a strategy.

Objective placement wouldnt bother me as much if it wasnt set up the way it is, i.e. choose sides, then place objectives. The random amount of objectives would be much better if you didnt know what side you'd end up on.

And I think alternating terrain placement is bad. Whoever places first can, if there is one piece bigger than others, just use that piece and abuse it. I don't think having situations like that is good.

@Makumba & LValx

I know this is going to be taken as flame bait, and I really don't mean the following in any way but to better your understanding of 40k and tactical table top game in general:

You guys both have huge blind spots in your gaming intellect. Not that you aren't intelligent, competent, gamers, but veteran players that really do get this game are trying to explain fairly standard (basic) concepts to you and your tactic is to dig in and insist you know better.

Peregrine is dead on here, and insaniak is hardly someone to discount so casually.

Here is a step by step process of making a good 40k list

A) pick a codex/codices
B) understand the possible hurdles to victory:
b1) what is your local meta: ie, who will you face and what is their reasonable variety of codices and lists?
b2) what are the missions and how is your list able to handle them?
C) run a cost/benefit analysis.. what missions are you willing to be weaker at to be stronger at others? Given your local meta, maybe you can be weak in ones that you know others aren't strong in either, or you can go for the total mismatch, or try to be jack of all trades
D) build your list,
d1) trying to be flexible enough to viable in most missions
d2) knowing when you'll have to roll the dice and take some brazen risks to win
E) tweak your list with experience and as the game moves through editions and your local meta shifts

You guys are doing A & D

Your are ignoring, and flat out not grasping B, b1, b2, C, d1, d2, E. Sorry, but your just failing to get why your chosen lists are failing and then yelling the same ignorance at people trying to point out the gaps in your approach to the game. Your wanting to take lists that are all paper, but no rock or scissors, and then are getting frustrated that scissors keep beating you even though you're so good at beating rocks... and then telling us how paper should work, when you're not really even using that right.

 ansacs wrote:
I think you are under a misapprehension that the game starts at turn 1 rather than when you rolled the first die.

The most strategic part of the actual games is terrain and objective placement just like napoleon's loss at waterloo. The right battlefield is everything. If you remove this aspect of the game 40k will become checkers with dice and you will loose a large number of people to boredom.

Post your situation in the tactics forum with as much information as possible and we can crowd source a strategy.

Well, in real Warhammer they would have just ran Exterminatus on the planet.

Regardless, I know they are tactical, but how you deploy them should be what is giving you the tactical advatnage not the number of objectives you get.
And of course we placed ours in our deployment zone and bam that's 2 secured ones already.
Having that terrain advantage was even a bigger bonus, how am I supposed to get the objectives if I was bringing a TAC list?
I'd essentially have half the army up his face and half the army sitting back.
Of course their list isn't going to win 100% of the time since if we rolled relic we would have pretty much won against them.
But when missions severely benefits certain lists and armies, it feels like I might as well just roll off and see who wins.

Also, in real life you don't get to place terrain though, you can use terrain but not place it to your advantage.
If in real life I don't have terrain advantage then I'll change what I'm sending in, and again it's about using terrain not placing them there's huge difference.

LValx wrote:
Which is exactly why most TOs of bigger GTs are removing it.

I already pointed out that having a consistent objective/terrain layout for all tables at a tournament can be a good thing, but that's a factor that only applies in tournaments and has nothing to do with general game balance.

List has nothing to do with playing scouring and possibly ending up with all the low point objectives.

I agree that this mission is a problem, but that's because the gap between good luck and bad luck is potentially much larger than a single objective (and, to a lesser degree, because it's too easy to cheat). But that's a problem with the execution of the concept, not the concept itself.

Your advantages and disadvantages should come from tactical decisions, not pre-game rolls.

So how do you determine who goes first then? Or do you have both players take simultaneous turns so that you eliminate the advantage of having choice of turn order?

JWhex wrote:
When an odd number of objectives is placed before the sides are chosen, this is obviously more fair than when one player gets to place the odd objective after sides have been chosen.

This is not true at all. Both players have an equal chance of getting to place the odd objective therefore it is perfectly fair.

The question is, do you want the meaning of your victory diluted by the fact that you have been given a handicap before the game starts?

See previous comment that the game begins at list construction, not at turn 1.

 Lobukia wrote:
@Makumba & LValx

I know this is going to be taken as flame bait, and I really don't mean the following in any way but to desire to better your understanding of 40k and tactical table top game in general:

You guys both have huge blind spots in your gaming intellect. Not that you aren't intelligent, competent, gamers, but veteran players that really do get this game are trying to explain fairly standard (basic) concepts to you and your tactic is to dig in and insist you know better.

Peregrine is dead on here, and insaniak is hardly someone to discount so casually.

Here is a step by step process of making a good 40k list

A) pick a codex/codices
B) understand the possible hurdles to victory:
b1) what is your local meta: ie, who will you face and what is their reasonable variety of codices and lists?
b2) what are the missions and how is your list able to handle them?
C) run a cost/benefit analysis.. what missions are you willing to be weaker at to be stronger at others? Given your local meta, maybe you can be weak in ones that you know others aren't strong in either, or you can go for the total mismatch, or try to be jack of all trades
D) build your list,
d1) trying to be flexible enough to viable in most missions
d2) knowing when you'll have to roll the dice and take some brazen risks to win
E) tweak your list with experience and as the game moves through editions and your local meta shifts

You guys are doing A & D

Your are ignoring, and flat out not grasping B, b1, b2, C, d1, d2, E. Sorry, but your just failing to get why your chosen lists are failing and then yelling the same ignorance at people trying to point out the gaps in your approach to the game.

Go belittle someone else, you have no idea how condescending you are being.

So what credentials do you have that I should care what your opinion of my "gaming intellect" is? I know i'm pretty good at this game and i've got some results to back it up.

One player starting a game with more objectives in their Dzone is an advantage. Competition should have LEVEL PLAYING fields. One player having 3 objectives in their zone and one player having 2, is not equal. One player is at an obvious advantage starting turn 1, they have 3 objectives already. This goes for scouring as well. And IMO the Relic also.

If you don't agree, you don't agree. But don't sit there and condescend, you're hardly an authority on miniature wargaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
Which is exactly why most TOs of bigger GTs are removing it.

I already pointed out that having a consistent objective/terrain layout for all tables at a tournament can be a good thing, but that's a factor that only applies in tournaments and has nothing to do with general game balance.

List has nothing to do with playing scouring and possibly ending up with all the low point objectives.

I agree that this mission is a problem, but that's because the gap between good luck and bad luck is potentially much larger than a single objective (and, to a lesser degree, because it's too easy to cheat). But that's a problem with the execution of the concept, not the concept itself.

Your advantages and disadvantages should come from tactical decisions, not pre-game rolls.

So how do you determine who goes first then? Or do you have both players take simultaneous turns so that you eliminate the advantage of having choice of turn order?

JWhex wrote:
When an odd number of objectives is placed before the sides are chosen, this is obviously more fair than when one player gets to place the odd objective after sides have been chosen.

This is not true at all. Both players have an equal chance of getting to place the odd objective therefore it is perfectly fair.

The question is, do you want the meaning of your victory diluted by the fact that you have been given a handicap before the game starts?

See previous comment that the game begins at list construction, not at turn 1.

Well, I think terrain set-up goes a long way in mitigating the effects of who goes first or second. Good terrain lessens the advantage of alphastrike armies. Going second is a huge bonus in competitive play, but by going second you may lose out on FB. So there are ways to balance it. The problem is, you're right. Turn order is a big deal, but unfortunately you'd have to redesign the entire game, so it is a bit of necessary randomness.

I dont think the objectives need to be random, I think you can remove that element of chance while not impacting the gameplay and actually creating a more balanced, fair game for those involved.

To give an example of why asymmetrical objectives are a good thing for competitive play:

I play IG. This is an army that is great at holding a position (cheap blobs of 30+ models with 2+ cover and near-immunity to morale problems) and shooting (both with static and mobile units), but weak at moving up and taking objectives away from the enemy (low durability out in the open, especially for the only units with any real mobility). So, making a competitive list involves difficult decisions:

With the book missions I have to figure out how to deal with a situation where my opponent has an extra objective in their deployment zone. Do I go all-in with my shooting, depend on killing my opponent's scoring units, and risk a situation where I can't finish shooting them to death but have no hope of moving up to claim/contest? Do I bring more Vendetta squads, and potentially replace fragile PCS with carapace or camo veteran squads? Do I take allies and bring better objective takers at the expense of my primary strategy? And whatever the answer is how much do I want to invest in that plan?

With "fair" missions only I don't have to worry about any of that. I will always have an equal number of objectives in my own deployment zone, and any "odd" objectives will be in the middle of the table where it's easy for me to shoot anything that tries to claim them. I can just focus on sitting back with maximum firepower and never worry about trying to claim anything outside my own deployment zone.

Conclusion: the potential to have asymmetrical missions requires more complex planning and list design, so it is better for competitive play.

@ Lobukia. It's ironic about some of the claims you made about me, when you are the one making big claims without backing any of them up.

Who said I had shortcomings? All i've done is criticize the missions, you have no idea how poorly or well I may do in games playing them.. All you know is that I don't like them and then you jumped to conclusions.

I can play the book missions just fine and I can win playing them, on a competitive or casual level. That doesn't mean I think they are good, or balanced. I think tournaments, specifically, should strive to create better missions that will give both players the best chance to win. Neither player should have any board advantage. Obviously you cannot equalize everything because players build their own lists. But what is on the table (terrain) and the mission parameters should be fair for both players.

IMO, the way the book does it, pick sides, then place, is not fair and not optimal. I'd be much more open to it if you placed and then chose sides. I could see the tactical difficulty and balance in that sort of mission.

LValx wrote:
One player starting a game with more objectives in their Dzone is an advantage.

The game begins at list construction, so it is not possible for one player to start a game with more objectives in their deployment zone.

Competition should have LEVEL PLAYING fields.

40k does. The playing field is completely level, each player has exactly the same chance of getting to place the "extra" objective (if any).

 Peregrine wrote:
To give an example of why asymmetrical objectives are a good thing for competitive play:

I play IG. This is an army that is great at holding a position (cheap blobs of 30+ models with 2+ cover and near-immunity to morale problems) and shooting (both with static and mobile units), but weak at moving up and taking objectives away from the enemy (low durability out in the open, especially for the only units with any real mobility). So, making a competitive list involves difficult decisions:

With the book missions I have to figure out how to deal with a situation where my opponent has an extra objective in their deployment zone. Do I go all-in with my shooting, depend on killing my opponent's scoring units, and risk a situation where I can't finish shooting them to death but have no hope of moving up to claim/contest? Do I bring more Vendetta squads, and potentially replace fragile PCS with carapace or camo veteran squads? Do I take allies and bring better objective takers at the expense of my primary strategy? And whatever the answer is how much do I want to invest in that plan?

With "fair" missions only I don't have to worry about any of that. I will always have an equal number of objectives in my own deployment zone, and any "odd" objectives will be in the middle of the table where it's easy for me to shoot anything that tries to claim them. I can just focus on sitting back with maximum firepower and never worry about trying to claim anything outside my own deployment zone.

Conclusion: the potential to have asymmetrical missions requires more complex planning and list design, so it is better for competitive play.

The problem is, that isnt the case. The way NOVA sets things up, with adequate terrain, it discourages purely static shooting armies. So even if you wanted to sit in your dzone and attempt to just shoot the middle, it is unlikely to work. NOVA requires you to bring durable troops, mobile shooting and even incorporate assault elements. It becomes critical in that set-up to be able to capture/defend the middle of the field. So these are things to think about for all codices.

Mike Brandt did a really, really solid job of coming up with a mission primer and terrain set-up that balances things and discourages things like "leafblower" lists. Those simply don't work because you'll have blocked shooting lanes, etc that make it difficult to focus all your fire easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
One player starting a game with more objectives in their Dzone is an advantage.

The game begins at list construction, so it is not possible for one player to start a game with more objectives in their deployment zone.

Competition should have LEVEL PLAYING fields.

40k does. The playing field is completely level, each player has exactly the same chance of getting to place the "extra" objective (if any).

I'm done with this thread. We obviously disagree and won't come to see things the same way. If you find the book missions balanced, well great for you. But my mileage has varied and I don't find them to be well written.

So you admit that NOVA is deliberately trying to force players to only play a certain kind of list.

Well thats actually a bad thing. A static shooty army is a legitimate way to play, some people like that. Not me personally of course.

So NOVA tournaments are actually NOT balanced but actually tailored to a specific set of playstyles. One you happen to like.


Thats ok, but its not a level playing field. its slanted towards specific lists.

LValx wrote:
Mike Brandt did a really, really solid job of coming up with a mission primer and terrain set-up that balances things and discourages things like "leafblower" lists. Those simply don't work because you'll have blocked shooting lanes, etc that make it difficult to focus all your fire easily.

I didn't say leafblower. I'm talking about a blob IG squad that puts a hundred (or more) bodies on "home" objectives with 2+ cover saves and near-zero chance of failing a morale test and then shooting the middle clear (whether with static artillery or mobile shooting units). Since I no longer have to worry about having to move any significant presence beyond midfield I can safely focus on holding my "home" objectives and winning the middle. And I'm not the only one who thinks this way, IG blobs are really popular in tournament lists when you can guarantee that the most important part of the game will always be holding your own deployment zone.

Contrast this with the book missions where I have to plan for doing something my army hates: moving past midfield and claiming well-defended objectives in my opponent's deployment zone, with zero chance of winning if I fail to do so.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you admit that NOVA is deliberately trying to force players to only play a certain kind of list.

Well thats actually a bad thing. A static shooty army is a legitimate way to play, some people like that. Not me personally of course.

So NOVA tournaments are actually NOT balanced but actually tailored to a specific set of playstyles. One you happen to like.


Thats ok, but its not a level playing field. its slanted towards specific lists.

He said discourages particular one sided rock paper scissors lists.
If you face an army like that and they have majority of objectives you might as well shake their hand and say thank you.

Too follow up on Peregrines idea of fairness, the following scenario would be fair.

Scenario: American Football Game

Two teams flip a coin pregame, heads means you are team A, Tails means you are team B

Playing Field: Team A defends a goal 50 yards from midfield. Team B defends a goal 40 yards from midfield.

Now according to Peregine this is a perfectly fair scenario because both teams had an equal chance (coin flip) to be either team A or B. Also according to him and others it is fair because the game starts with roster building and you should be prepared for this.

Actually that is fair, its an equal chance to defend either goal post.

Balance doesn't mean things are equal. it means things are even.

JWhex wrote:
Now according to Peregine this is a perfectly fair scenario because both teams had an equal chance (coin flip) to be either team A or B.

Exactly. "Fair" just means both sides have an equal chance of winning. It doesn't mean that it will be the most fun or enjoyable version of the game.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you admit that NOVA is deliberately trying to force players to only play a certain kind of list.

Well thats actually a bad thing. A static shooty army is a legitimate way to play, some people like that. Not me personally of course.

So NOVA tournaments are actually NOT balanced but actually tailored to a specific set of playstyles. One you happen to like.


Thats ok, but its not a level playing field. its slanted towards specific lists.

Christ almighty. NOVA attempts to balance the game so that shooty armies aren't at a severe advantage. On a table with little terrain, shooting armies will generally do very well because the assault army has little chance to avoid shooting. Most assault units aren't dual purpose so on the way to assault they will likely just soak up damage. Having varied terrain with the inclusion of BLoS middle pieces allows for assault lists to take less damage, making it more viable.

Look at results from NOVA the last couple of years. Lots of variety in what folks player there. I think the variety speaks for itself. Any list can do well there.

I'd say a pure shooting force is poorly built for any mission primer because being too static is a bad thing, both in book missions and just about any tournament primer.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Well, you don't get to choose every piece of terrain if you follow the BRB rules.

The point is that a piece of terrain that big is not appropriate* for 40k and should not be in the terrain pool in the first place. If your opponents insist on using stupid terrain you should just place your invisible piece of lethal terrain that covers your opponent's entire deployment zone (don't forget that you can't deploy in lethal terrain), or place all of your objectives inside an upside-down bucket along with one of your scoring units. Your opponents will pretty quickly get the hint and bring more appropriate terrain.

*Outside of a special scenario game where the huge terrain is a key part of the scenario.

Say that to Fortress of Redemption


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Now according to Peregine this is a perfectly fair scenario because both teams had an equal chance (coin flip) to be either team A or B.

Exactly. "Fair" just means both sides have an equal chance of winning. It doesn't mean that it will be the most fun or enjoyable version of the game.

So flipping a coin and getting advantage is fair?

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
Mike Brandt did a really, really solid job of coming up with a mission primer and terrain set-up that balances things and discourages things like "leafblower" lists. Those simply don't work because you'll have blocked shooting lanes, etc that make it difficult to focus all your fire easily.

I didn't say leafblower. I'm talking about a blob IG squad that puts a hundred (or more) bodies on "home" objectives with 2+ cover saves and near-zero chance of failing a morale test and then shooting the middle clear (whether with static artillery or mobile shooting units). Since I no longer have to worry about having to move any significant presence beyond midfield I can safely focus on holding my "home" objectives and winning the middle. And I'm not the only one who thinks this way, IG blobs are really popular in tournament lists when you can guarantee that the most important part of the game will always be holding your own deployment zone.

Contrast this with the book missions where I have to plan for doing something my army hates: moving past midfield and claiming well-defended objectives in my opponent's deployment zone, with zero chance of winning if I fail to do so.

Winning the middle is pretty tough, you'll most certainly be forced to move and can't simply just GTG for a 2+ all game. The middle pieces are usually designed so that you cant score without going "over the hill/building/whatever piece of terrain."

Play at NOVA, you might not be convinced of how awesome it is until you play it. I used to abide mostly by book missions or tournament scenarios my local stores used. But NOVA, in my experience, is the best way to play.

LValx wrote:
NOVA attempts to balance the game so that shooty armies aren't at a severe advantage.

Then you're agreeing with what Grey Templar said: rather than play 40k as GW designed it (which may happen to favor shooting over assault) NOVA adds house rules with the intent of changing the game balance to a point that the people running the event find more enjoyable. You can debate all you like whether or not the NOVA metagame is more enjoyable than the standard 40k metagame, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a deliberate alteration of the game to suit the TO's preferences.

 Makutsu wrote:
Say that to Fortress of Redemption

Putting the Fortress of Redemption in standard 40k games was an incredibly stupid idea, and a blatant attempt to increase sales of their special scenario terrain.

So flipping a coin and getting advantage is fair?

Assuming it is a fair coin, yes. Both players have an equal chance of getting the advantage, so it is fair.

 Peregrine wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Now according to Peregine this is a perfectly fair scenario because both teams had an equal chance (coin flip) to be either team A or B.

Exactly. "Fair" just means both sides have an equal chance of winning. It doesn't mean that it will be the most fun or enjoyable version of the game.

I'm not sure a fair chance for both players to end up with an unfair advantage makes for a fair game.

LValx wrote:
I'm not sure a fair chance for both players to end up with an unfair advantage makes for a fair game.

Because the game begins before the advantage is granted. When the game starts both players have an equal chance of winning. During the game events happen and players gain or lose advantages. It's no different than rolling to shoot at a unit and destroying it or not, the fact that once your key vehicle explodes you have a lower chance of winning doesn't mean that the game isn't fair.

And note that "fair" does NOT mean "enjoyable". A game of "flip a coin" is completely fair, but also a complete waste of time.

And yeah, NOVA is definitely a altered version of 40k. I think everyone who has played it or is familiar with the set-up would agree with that.

But it isnt solely based off one man, or one group's preferences. Brandt used player input (keep in mind this is, I believe, the second biggest GT in the US) to modify the layouts and primer.

So it has been formed with input from competitive players. I know many big players who post on this forum, Hulksmash for example, find it to be the best format available. I just happen to agree with that, whether or not it is modified.

I'm not one to be dogmatic in adhering to anything GW writes, since I don't believe they design the game with competition in mind.

And since we are on the topic, IF you want to consider NOVA as making house-rules, then you'll have to say that for every tournament. In 6th, I haven't been to a single event, big or small that didn't modify book missions at least a little. Even if it was as simple as including secondary/tertiary missions that ran simultaneously. So pretty much all "comp" 40k is based off of a set of "house-rules."

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
NOVA attempts to balance the game so that shooty armies aren't at a severe advantage.

Then you're agreeing with what Grey Templar said: rather than play 40k as GW designed it (which may happen to favor shooting over assault) NOVA adds house rules with the intent of changing the game balance to a point that the people running the event find more enjoyable. You can debate all you like whether or not the NOVA metagame is more enjoyable than the standard 40k metagame, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a deliberate alteration of the game to suit the TO's preferences.

 Makutsu wrote:
Say that to Fortress of Redemption

Putting the Fortress of Redemption in standard 40k games was an incredibly stupid idea, and a blatant attempt to increase sales of their special scenario terrain.

So flipping a coin and getting advantage is fair?

Assuming it is a fair coin, yes. Both players have an equal chance of getting the advantage, so it is fair.

FoR is part of the game hence anything of the same size can be placed
And combined with objective placing, and GG.



The flipping coin part is fair, but giving your opponent a huge advantage isn't.
Getting that advantage means that you have 3 more points in your possession with nothing to counter balance that advantage.

On the other hand, rolling for who goes first gets balanced by who gets last turn since if I get first turn chances are I will get first blood
And if I go 2nd I can shoot someone off an objective/claim it.

There is nothing to prevent you from getting that extra 3 point bonus just by a roll.

LValx wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you admit that NOVA is deliberately trying to force players to only play a certain kind of list.

Well thats actually a bad thing. A static shooty army is a legitimate way to play, some people like that. Not me personally of course.

So NOVA tournaments are actually NOT balanced but actually tailored to a specific set of playstyles. One you happen to like.


Thats ok, but its not a level playing field. its slanted towards specific lists.

Christ almighty. NOVA attempts to balance the game so that shooty armies aren't at a severe advantage. On a table with little terrain, shooting armies will generally do very well because the assault army has little chance to avoid shooting. Most assault units aren't dual purpose so on the way to assault they will likely just soak up damage. Having varied terrain with the inclusion of BLoS middle pieces allows for assault lists to take less damage, making it more viable.

Look at results from NOVA the last couple of years. Lots of variety in what folks player there. I think the variety speaks for itself. Any list can do well there.

I'd say a pure shooting force is poorly built for any mission primer because being too static is a bad thing, both in book missions and just about any tournament primer.

Except you make it sound like they put sooo much terrain down shooty armies just aren't viable. Its too much.

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
I'm not sure a fair chance for both players to end up with an unfair advantage makes for a fair game.

Because the game begins before the advantage is granted. When the game starts both players have an equal chance of winning. During the game events happen and players gain or lose advantages. It's no different than rolling to shoot at a unit and destroying it or not, the fact that once your key vehicle explodes you have a lower chance of winning doesn't mean that the game isn't fair.

And note that "fair" does NOT mean "enjoyable". A game of "flip a coin" is completely fair, but also a complete waste of time.

I guess there may be a disconnect on when the actual game starts. For me a game starts at Turn 1 movement phase (or powers phase if you want to nitpick). All the other stuff, Warlord Traits, Objective placement, Terrain placement, is IMO pre-game. I dont think starting at a disadvantage "pre-game" is good.

If a coin flip is unnecessary, why not just remove it?

LValx wrote:
(keep in mind this is, I believe, the second biggest GT in the US)

And "people who travel to GTs" is a small minority of the overall 40k player base.

So pretty much all "comp" 40k is based off of a set of "house-rules."

Only if you restrict your definition of "competitive" to tournaments. If, instead, you use the correct definition (based on player attitudes towards the game) which includes two people playing a random single game that isn't the case anymore.

 Grey Templar wrote:

LValx wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you admit that NOVA is deliberately trying to force players to only play a certain kind of list.

Well thats actually a bad thing. A static shooty army is a legitimate way to play, some people like that. Not me personally of course.

So NOVA tournaments are actually NOT balanced but actually tailored to a specific set of playstyles. One you happen to like.


Thats ok, but its not a level playing field. its slanted towards specific lists.

Christ almighty. NOVA attempts to balance the game so that shooty armies aren't at a severe advantage. On a table with little terrain, shooting armies will generally do very well because the assault army has little chance to avoid shooting. Most assault units aren't dual purpose so on the way to assault they will likely just soak up damage. Having varied terrain with the inclusion of BLoS middle pieces allows for assault lists to take less damage, making it more viable.

Look at results from NOVA the last couple of years. Lots of variety in what folks player there. I think the variety speaks for itself. Any list can do well there.

I'd say a pure shooting force is poorly built for any mission primer because being too static is a bad thing, both in book missions and just about any tournament primer.

Except you make it sound like they put sooo much terrain down shooty armies just aren't viable. Its too much.

I never said shooty armies weren't viable. I said pure gunline isn't, which it really isn't whether you play NOVA or book missions, for reasons Peregrine himself pointed out. Playing an objective game with the mindset of "ill just shoot all my opponent's units dead" isn't a good strategy. Your list should always have the ability to be mobile, durable and IMO counter-assault.

LValx wrote:
I guess there may be a disconnect on when the actual game starts. For me a game starts at Turn 1 movement phase (or powers phase if you want to nitpick). All the other stuff, Warlord Traits, Objective placement, Terrain placement, is IMO pre-game. I dont think starting at a disadvantage "pre-game" is good.

And that's the wrong way of looking at it when you're making key decisions before turn 1 begins. List building is a huge part of the game, and then you make choices about terrain placement, how you deploy your army*, which HQ to pick as your warlord, etc. What you're talking about isn't 40k, it's an entirely different game where huge parts of 40k's strategy are removed entirely.

*Even if you want to eliminate all the other things you can't argue that deployment isn't part of the game when how you deploy your army is one of the most important choices you make.

If a coin flip is unnecessary, why not just remove it?

As I've said, the coin flip is good for the game. Including the potential to have asymmetrical objectives forces you to make interesting decisions and adds strategy to the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
(keep in mind this is, I believe, the second biggest GT in the US)

And "people who travel to GTs" is a small minority of the overall 40k player base.

So pretty much all "comp" 40k is based off of a set of "house-rules."

Only if you restrict your definition of "competitive" to tournaments. If, instead, you use the correct definition (based on player attitudes towards the game) which includes two people playing a random single game that isn't the case anymore.

I happen to think there is a competitive 40k scene, which is an entirely different discussion that i'm sure we will also disagree on.

Competitive 40k, for me, is based off of what is done at GT-level events. Just as I find the NFL the only truly competitive format for football, or UFC the only competitive format for MMA.

It's all subjective. So, "that's just like your opinion, maaaan."

Are we talking about competitive gaming in general or specifically tournament play? For competitive play in general the book missions are pretty good and do a good job of providing some variety.

Tournament play is different. The mission should be the same for everyone and so if repeated boring.

@makutsu
I would love to go into it but we would derail this thread. We also would have to go into more detail on lists and terrain both that available and what exactly was setup. As was mentioned previously this terrain would have to be 3 feet long and extremely tall to completely shield the objectives. Additionally GH with drop pods should be able to castle around one of the objectives using the drop pods as cover. Not to mention that the DP should have been able to approach the enemy without even being in LoS. This LoS blocking is exactly why gunlines are vulnerable and despite fielding a gunline from time to time I prefer it that way.

I like the variety. I mean an odd # of objectives really does make you rethink your tactics. As an example, 1 of the times I played a low point 4 objective mission. I took 1st blood and popped his razorback. The rest of the game was the two of camping on our objectives and a pillow fight between our leaders in a challenge. It was a boring game. It amounted to "I take lead, now I hold out for win.". And additional objective would have given the game a whole new dimension and it would have given my opponent an "easier" alternative to pick up the win. (cause he had no hope of winning with the way the game played out)

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
I guess there may be a disconnect on when the actual game starts. For me a game starts at Turn 1 movement phase (or powers phase if you want to nitpick). All the other stuff, Warlord Traits, Objective placement, Terrain placement, is IMO pre-game. I dont think starting at a disadvantage "pre-game" is good.

And that's the wrong way of looking at it when you're making key decisions before turn 1 begins. List building is a huge part of the game, and then you make choices about terrain placement, how you deploy your army*, which HQ to pick as your warlord, etc. What you're talking about isn't 40k, it's an entirely different game where huge parts of 40k's strategy are removed entirely.

*Even if you want to eliminate all the other things you can't argue that deployment isn't part of the game when how you deploy your army is one of the most important choices you make.

If a coin flip is unnecessary, why not just remove it?

As I've said, the coin flip is good for the game. Including the potential to have asymmetrical objectives forces you to make interesting decisions and adds strategy to the game.

I think a coin flip that gives one player a distinct advantage is unnecessary.

If i'm not mistaken, you talk about MTG a lot, correct?

Well you wouldn't say a game of MTG begins at list building, would you? It begins when you've drawn you're hand

An NFL game doesn't begin at roster building, does it? It begins at kickoff.

I think a game of 40k begins when you've deployed and are going to start.

LValx wrote:
Competitive 40k, for me, is based off of what is done at GT-level events.

So your definition of competitive 40k includes only the people with the time and money to drive long distances to play in "official" competitive tournaments? No matter how hard two players are trying to win, no matter how seriously they think about their strategies, if they can't afford to go to NOVA they don't count? I think that's a pretty absurd definition.

Just as I find the NFL the only truly competitive format for football, or UFC the only competitive format for MMA.

This is only true because the time/money factor doesn't exist. If you can play football at the highest level of competition you are playing in the NFL. You don't have top-level football players stuck playing pickup games at the local park because they can't afford to drive to the NFL stadium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LValx wrote:
Well you wouldn't say a game of MTG begins at list building, would you?

Of course I would. MTG begins when you finish building your deck, and how you build your deck is one of the most important choices you make in a game of MTG.

An NFL game doesn't begin at roster building, does it? It begins at kickoff.

No, it begins with the coin flip to determine who kicks off.

I think a game of 40k begins when you've deployed and are going to start.

So deployment isn't part of 40k, even though it involves some of the most important strategic choices you make? Does that mean that you're in favor of standardized deployment setups for each army so that all units are deployed in the fairest possible way?

I ought to have said a game of 40k starts at deployment, my bad, made a silly mistake there.

And yes, to me competitive 40k is limited to the GT level, everything else in my opinion isn't the same. A game between two players at a FLGS may be a competition, just like a pick-up game of football that is two-hand tag is a competition, but I wouldn't say it is a truly competitive game.

Either way, I think we've taken this conversation about as far as it is going to go, I doubt either of us are going to have our opinions swayed. I respect your opinion, but we will also have to respectfully disagree on the subject.

 Peregrine wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Telling someone to not be a dick with objective placement is not the same as altering the stats of a basic rifle to 10, and you know it.

And the point is that placing objectives to your advantage is not "being a dick", it's playing the mission exactly as it's meant to be played.

I completely agree.

You can't play a game of chess and complain that your opponent played white, so got an unfair advantage. How can you, - even as a tau player - (who I must admit I think have a notoriously difficult time getting objectives on the other side of the board) complain about someone playing the rules exactly how they're meant to be played?

Of all the things to get uptight about...

LValx wrote:
And yes, to me competitive 40k is limited to the GT level, everything else in my opinion isn't the same. A game between two players at a FLGS may be a competition, just like a pick-up game of football that is two-hand tag is a competition, but I wouldn't say it is a truly competitive game.

And what exactly is less competitive about it? If both players are taking the game (including list construction) seriously and trying as hard as they can to win (without cheating) then how is it NOT competitive?

(Don't say that it's because of the missions, because that's just circular logic.)

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
And yes, to me competitive 40k is limited to the GT level, everything else in my opinion isn't the same. A game between two players at a FLGS may be a competition, just like a pick-up game of football that is two-hand tag is a competition, but I wouldn't say it is a truly competitive game.

And what exactly is less competitive about it? If both players are taking the game (including list construction) seriously and trying as hard as they can to win (without cheating) then how is it NOT competitive?

(Don't say that it's because of the missions, because that's just circular logic.)

Wouldn't cheating just make it more like a tournament?

 Makutsu wrote:
So flipping a coin and getting advantage is fair?

The point is that if both players have well designed lists, no particular advantage is gained. And even with more one-dimensional lists, being able to have an extra objective in your deployment zone isn't always a huge advantage for you and a disadvantage for your opponent. There have already been comments from other players in this thread that having objectives in their deployment zone is a pain, because it forces an army that relies on forward momentum to hang back. My Orks would be in that same boat... I have no units that can effectively camp on an objective... I need to be running across the paddock hitting things with pointy sticks.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Makutsu wrote:
Well, you don't get to choose every piece of terrain if you follow the BRB rules.
Of course since he was placing objectives first so was he placing terrain.
There was one piece that could cover the entire Dark Eldar Army and 2 other smaller ones that worked out with the other terrain pieces and they deployed accordingly to have most of the stuff out of LoS.
I did place a lot of flat stuff already and my opponent could just choose the largest piece in the store and bam, no LoS for you.

Terrain placement can cause some consternation if the collection is a little more eclectic. We have always got past that around here when using alternating placement by grouping the terrain into clumps of similar size. So you would place one large piece, or two smaller pieces, for example.

Come on, even chess lets one side move first... not the same, but fair. Whether that's an advantage or not, is how the players use it. I've never lost a game due to an objective being out of reach, but I have lost them due to not properly approaching the capture of said objective.

If you're making a list of things needed to balance 40k, odd objectives wouldn't even make my top 50... I'm as pleased getting it as I am not getting it... given any army I've played.

 insaniak wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
So flipping a coin and getting advantage is fair?

The point is that if both players have well designed lists, no particular advantage is gained. And even with more one-dimensional lists, being able to have an extra objective in your deployment zone isn't always a huge advantage for you and a disadvantage for your opponent. There have already been comments from other players in this thread that having objectives in their deployment zone is a pain, because it forces an army that relies on forward momentum to hang back. My Orks would be in that same boat... I have no units that can effectively camp on an objective... I need to be running across the paddock hitting things with pointy sticks.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Makutsu wrote:
Well, you don't get to choose every piece of terrain if you follow the BRB rules.
Of course since he was placing objectives first so was he placing terrain.
There was one piece that could cover the entire Dark Eldar Army and 2 other smaller ones that worked out with the other terrain pieces and they deployed accordingly to have most of the stuff out of LoS.
I did place a lot of flat stuff already and my opponent could just choose the largest piece in the store and bam, no LoS for you.

Terrain placement can cause some consternation if the collection is a little more eclectic. We have always got past that around here when using alternating placement by grouping the terrain into clumps of similar size. So you would place one large piece, or two smaller pieces, for example.

In a case of fair terrain, I think 3 objectives isn't that big of a deal if you have a good list, but keep in mind things like Fortress of Redemption exists out there and those are technically allowed, so similarly sized pieces getting put down is not abnormal.
Following normal rules, you can almost guaranteed hiding 3 objectives behind that thing.
Any list though can then just camp out in the back and wait for you to come over and shoot you to bits if even such a piece exists.

This basically happened to me today and I was not impressed by this system at all.

Before that game I was completely pro odd objectives in other person's deployment zone, now...I don't know...
This terrain placement thing really screws armies over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:
Come on, even chess lets one side move first... not the same, but fair. Whether that's an advantage or not, is how the players use it. I've never lost a game due to an objective being out of reach, but I have lost them due to not properly approaching the capture of said objective.

If you're making a list of things needed to balance 40k, odd objectives wouldn't even make my top 50... I'm as pleased getting it as I am not getting it... given any army I've played.

Going first in Chess is equivalent to going first in 40k.

Getting an objective more would be essentially having an extra line behind your king line so that they can back up another line.
OR
As a better example, having an extra line that allows you to turn pawns into special pieces

 Makutsu wrote:
Following normal rules, you can almost guaranteed hiding 3 objectives behind that thing.

How...?

They have to be more than 12" apart. The FoR isn't 3 feet across.

 insaniak wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Following normal rules, you can almost guaranteed hiding 3 objectives behind that thing.

How...?

They have to be more than 12" apart. The FoR isn't 3 feet across.

Besides the horizontal deployment, you could essentially go 24" deep in deployment.
put them in a triangle shaped and you would be able to do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it's 24" wide too, so 1 at one end, 1 in the middle and one at the other end, and if you put them in a slight triangle, you'd be able to get everything nicely tucked away.

Putting an objective a foot behind it isn't really 'hiding it behind'...

And again, against an assault-heavy army, would be as much of a help to the opponent as to the owning player.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Try to barricade them first. Fill his deployment zone with impassable terrain. Place the objectives you get to put down somewhere he can't get to. etc...

Seriously, all the crap he's pulling, you can do it too so there's no reason to whine about it.

If this is meant to be a response to me, there's a quote button for a reason.

On the assumption that it is; did you read my post at all? Again; if someone thinks exploiting the system is stupid and unsportsmanlike, then telling them "you can exploit the system too" is not an argument that has any traction at all. Further, accusing anyone with a different opinion than your own of "whining" is childish and petty, although I suppose that's unsurprising given that your advice to someone playing against a d-bag is "be a bigger d-bag"

 Makutsu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it's 24" wide too, so 1 at one end, 1 in the middle and one at the other end, and if you put them in a slight triangle, you'd be able to get everything nicely tucked away.

Yeah, math fail on my part.

Still, that results in two of the objectives being right out at the ends, so not out of sight unless you're directly the other side of it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it's 24" wide too, so 1 at one end, 1 in the middle and one at the other end, and if you put them in a slight triangle, you'd be able to get everything nicely tucked away.

Yeah, math fail on my part.

Still, that results in two of the objectives being right out at the ends, so not out of sight unless you're directly the other side of it.

But there's still other terrain blocking LoS of course.

Yeah I've attached the scenario how the game that I had today's terrain was setup and it was kinda really bad.
Circles were the long fangs, and yellow is how they deployed.
Jagged Edges means that I could see through that wall.
White circles were the objectives.
The line on the right is an indication of 48" from the long fangs.

Basically we kept trying to contest for the one that was on the right, but they had a perfect slit to just shoot whatever comes to that opening, on top of that anything that came in got charged by bloodthirsters, and everything was still out of range of the Long Fangs.
Essentially half our army ended up doing nothing.
If it was relic for an instance we would have hands down won.

Like their list was really good for the terrain that they had, and having that odd objective encourages such lists to excel at really specific ones.
I'm not saying that it's not normal to have an advantage for particular lists vs missions, but for this game it was really basically whoever had the extra objective won.

 Makutsu wrote:
Essentially half our army ended up doing nothing.

Then that would seem to be the bigger problem, rather than objective placement.

If you're only making use of half of your army, you're playing at a massive disadvantage.

Personally, for me, the fun in a game is putting myself in my warlord's shoes. I like to think of a game of 40k as a real battle, with realistic expectations, just in a fantasy/ sci-fi setting.

For example, A real-life commander would be unlikely to know the exact composition of his enemy's forces. Sure, he'll have expectations (Ie, he might expect well trained troops, back with limited armour, or he might know his army has air superiority and enemy armour will be destroyed before contact), but he wont know exactly what the enemy will throw at him in an engagement.

Like-wise, in a RL scenario, the battlefield wont be set up "fair". Chances are, to achieve his objectives, a RL commander may have to order his troops to advance across an open field to attack a dug-in enemy position. That would result in heavy casualties, and would be a difficult mission to achieve, but unfortunately these are the way things go in war.

Half the fun, for me at least, is overcoming these challenges to still come out victorious. In 40k, your not simply trying to beat your opponent, you're trying to beat the mission as well.

 insaniak wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Essentially half our army ended up doing nothing.

Then that would seem to be the bigger problem, rather than objective placement.

If you're only making use of half of your army, you're playing at a massive disadvantage.

No as you see in the thing Long Fangs had no Vision of the guys for the entire game, what are we supposed to do charge long fangs into combat?

When your long range weapons are out of LOS and/or range, charging them into combat isn't the only option...

It appears to come down to when you think the game starts. To me, I believe that board control through terrain and objective placement is an important strategy, so I favor the camp of placing to your own advantage.

I did have this discussion with one of my group's members last night, and he had informed me that they were doing objective placement before rolling for deployment choices. I guess we will have to put that to a vote on our next game night with the rest of the group.

Alternatively, this discussion gave me a somewhat clever idea of tailoring a list to a wacky terrain board.
1. Set-up some very neat/characterful terrain (Maybe a third party)
2. Set-up some objectives (Third party again)
3. Have the players both take a look at the table, agree to terrain conventions
4. Players write custom lists for that table and with the pre-knowledge of what primary force they will face

After all, a good general would demonstrate some prescience of a battlefield's terrain features and send the appropriate troops to enhance their advantages.

orkybenji wrote:
I usually place objectives with my opponent before choosing table edges/ deployment zones. I find this more fun and fair.

This is how my bro and i play it and i believe it actually is in the rules as we been reading 6th edition senerios a lot and closely as we just finished our 2nd game. It just seems logical.

Also given that i still put objectives heavy on one side when we alternate as someone will get the advantage sure... could be me or my bro... but, can be a challenge... last battle i did i had the challenge... game went well except for dealing with his attack bike squads which riped me up midway thru game and caused him to win.. otherwise i was doing well in reguards to the objectives on his side.. also, if you have a lot of Close Combat troops having objectives on enemy front i dont believe hurts as much as you should be trying to maximize your troops effectiveness and they are camping your objectives .

It depends on what army I'm playing with. When I have a shooty army, I'll place the objective on my side of the board. However, if I have an assaulty army I'll place it on my opponents side of the board. That's where I want my assaulty units to be anyways, might as well give them something to fight for.