I have talked to a decent number of the local 40k players and most seem to really like the new game modes, but what do you guys think? I have played several games with the new tactical objectives and I like how the games play out deciding if it's worth trying to take enemy out completely or to go for early victory points and take attacks when the opportunity presents itself.
Tacks another 30+ minutes onto your game and removes skilled players' ability to form strategies that require more than a single turn to implement. In essence, it's GW pandering to their intended 12 year old customer base.
It's annoying enough to have to roll a D66 multiple times at ANY point in the game, let alone 5 times in a player turn. At least when you do it on the Boon table or something like that, it's the result of a player choice. The Tactical Objectives roll just happens...
I agree Vector, not saying they are perfect or that I would play them every game but it seems like a nice change of pace game and makes people decide what objectives to go for and what objectives to pass on.
It seems like it will add a lot of replay enjoyment to the game for me. I have the ipad version so its pretty easy to just quickly roll the dice, highlight my current missions and highlight the other dumped or completed ones on the page. I can do all but the first one on that list while waiting for my opponent to do his movement phase.
I really don't think it would really add a half hour to the game, even if it does I usually don't play when a half hour would make a huge difference.
Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.
(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)
Orktavius wrote: Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.
(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)
I think owning thousands of dollars in GW product makes me a customer. I built a 3,000+ pt IG army out of tourney and escalation league winnings, so it's not as if I only have 3rd edition models.
That said, it's none of your business to tell me whether or not I'm entitled to an opinion. I've been playing 40k for 21 years. I've bought 5th edition codices for every army I play. I didn't buy 6th edition codices because they are a ripoff. And I will not be buying 7th edition codices or rulebooks because, as a capitalist consumer, I don't have to buy fething garbage.
Changing circumstances every turn on the game precludes long-term strategy. This is a fact. You cannot plan to achieve objectives you haven't received yet. Tactical Objectives make the game myopic. Was it really necessary to follow me to a completely different thread, to whine to me because my opinion isn't your opinion?
I like the idea of them, but there needs to be some changes. The objectives, 3 on your side three on theirs, is crazy. There should be more rules on making them further apart, and in no mans lands.
Also, some of the cards are dumb, and the D3 is as well, need some changes there.
I think one of the different types for objectives should be turned in at the beginning of your turn rather than end. Probably Take & Hold.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: It seems like it will add a lot of replay enjoyment to the game for me.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. The Eternal War missions were getting quite boring for me. These new missions add not only a new way to play the game, but to play it a bit differently everytime.
Maelstrom missions are easily my favorite missions already. Totally new mode to play the game in. I have already played with tertiary objectives so I like how you can use them for that purpose also.
As a huge fan of Deadzone I can't help but feel that GW ripped these straight from that game.
I personally detest the tactical objectives because of the completely random nature in which you are given them. It is entirely possible to open up with a hand of objectives that you can not score nor will you ever be able to score. Destroy an enemy flier, the opponent has no fliers, destroy a building, no buildings on the table, etc. Then your opponent can open up with a hand that scores them 3-5 VP on first turn. It is all based purely on luck and completely ignores player skill.
The idea is great, the execution, like most GW products, is terrible.
Orktavius wrote: Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.
(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)
I think owning thousands of dollars in GW product makes me a customer. I built a 3,000+ pt IG army out of tourney and escalation league winnings, so it's not as if I only have 3rd edition models.
That said, it's none of your business to tell me whether or not I'm entitled to an opinion. I've been playing 40k for 21 years. I've bought 5th edition codices for every army I play. I didn't buy 6th edition codices because they are a ripoff. And I will not be buying 7th edition codices or rulebooks because, as a capitalist consumer, I don't have to buy fething garbage.
Changing circumstances every turn on the game precludes long-term strategy. This is a fact. You cannot plan to achieve objectives you haven't received yet. Tactical Objectives make the game myopic. Was it really necessary to follow me to a completely different thread, to whine to me because my opinion isn't your opinion?
nah I came here to vote that I like the variety that maelstrom missions adds since reacting to new objectives as they come up on the battlefield generally requires someone to be skilled enough to make on the fly decisions. What's the saying No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy? I don't care that your opinion is not mine, I just like how you think you can tell me the game I love is garbage when you have zero investment in it. Frankly you've gotten 21 years of enjoyment out of a game that by your own omission you've mostly been playing with models you got for free...but the moment they change it so you don't like it you act like your entitled to demand they fix it to your standards even though you're not going to spend a dime anyway. Like I said, It's like listening to someone who doesn't vote complain about who got elected.
Indifferent. It definitely gives a player who's having a bad game a greater opportunity to stage a comeback, but they also increase your odds of just getting totally boned on the cards. Overall, not enough experience with them to say definitively.
"I hate it" is not sufficient to describe my dislike for the system. The idea might have had some value if GW's rule authors weren't complete ing idiots, but unfortunately they are and the execution of the idea is just plain awful. Having objectives that are literally impossible to complete in some situations (like "kill a flyer" if your opponent didn't bring any flyers) is so unbelievably stupid that it makes the average baby smearing paint all over the walls look like a competent game designer, and even if you house rule away the worst of the cards you're still stuck with two major problems:
1) They aren't balanced. Let's say I roll "hold objective 1-2" and "issue a challenge", while you roll "hold objective 1-2" and "destroy a flyer". Objectives 1 and 2 are both in your deployment zone, and thoroughly camped with your units. Oh, and I'm playing Tau, while you're playing gunline IG with plenty of AA to kill my flyer that's about to arrive. I'm screwed because all you have to do is continue to do what you're doing to earn easy points, while I have little hope of claiming your objectives any time soon and issuing a challenge would be suicide. Even if I'm playing better than you and therefore deserve to win you have a huge advantage simply because you rolled better objectives.
2) They change way too quickly. Asymmetrical objectives could be interesting, if they were decided once at the start of the game and never changed. Variable objectives could be interesting if they changed occasionally. But instead we get a game where the objectives change every turn with no connection to what's going on in the actual game. It completely destroys any feeling of narrative play when every turn brings new objectives: claim objective 1, now come back and claim objective 4, no wait, go back and take 1 again, now forget the objectives and kill those flyers (and no points if you killed them on a previous turn). That's not a coherent mission, it's just a bunch of random garbage. You might as well just simplify things and roll a D6 every turn to see how many VP you get.
In short: they suck, I will be very happy if I never have to use them.
I don't like the randomness of it. I like clear, logical objectives like "take that hill!" or "Secure that farmhouse!" I don't like objectives dictated by a drunk commander with tourettes.
Orktavius wrote: Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.
(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)
I think owning thousands of dollars in GW product makes me a customer. I built a 3,000+ pt IG army out of tourney and escalation league winnings, so it's not as if I only have 3rd edition models.
That said, it's none of your business to tell me whether or not I'm entitled to an opinion. I've been playing 40k for 21 years. I've bought 5th edition codices for every army I play. I didn't buy 6th edition codices because they are a ripoff. And I will not be buying 7th edition codices or rulebooks because, as a capitalist consumer, I don't have to buy fething garbage.
Changing circumstances every turn on the game precludes long-term strategy. This is a fact. You cannot plan to achieve objectives you haven't received yet. Tactical Objectives make the game myopic. Was it really necessary to follow me to a completely different thread, to whine to me because my opinion isn't your opinion?
So.. how do you plan on playing 7th or how did you play 6th? Did you go to the interwebz and 'found' the books as pdf's?
I had an interesting idea for a twist on it, though it would only work with the cards (or if you trust your opponent to make unsupervised die rolls). Basically, you would generate objectives several in advance, but they wouldn't be revealed until you could achieve them. That way you can plan ahead and set up for future maneuvers, but your opponent can't react to them until they enter play.
Personally, I really like them. The Eternal War missions are fine, but I've been playing missions like these since 5th Edition. 6th mixed it up a little with the Scouring and the Relic missions, but it's still the same old missions as always, fight over X objectives that don't even matter until the last turn anyway. I'm really pleased with an objective system that forces you to keep on your toes, although I wish there weren't objectives that are potentially impossible to pull off (one of them is something like "successfully manifest a psychic power," which is a great card to draw for the armies that don't use psykers).
I think with a little tweaking, like maybe just having a houserule that lets you throw out cards that you can't possibly achieve as soon as you draw them, it's a great system.
Bludbaff wrote: I had an interesting idea for a twist on it, though it would only work with the cards (or if you trust your opponent to make unsupervised die rolls). Basically, you would generate objectives several in advance, but they wouldn't be revealed until you could achieve them. That way you can plan ahead and set up for future maneuvers, but your opponent can't react to them until they enter play.
So...just roll them/draw the cards and keep them hidden from your opponent? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
The first game I played with the new edition, I must say it was really fun using the Tactical Objectives. I soon came to realize a couple things though.
1. The only semi-balanced Maelstrom of War mission is the one where you can complete eachother's objectives. Meaning, if you get a gakky hand turn one, you still have options, depending on what your opponent drew.
2. Never use Tactical Objectives while using Tyranids. They just don't have the mobility to be effective. At all.
Other than that, if you're playing a fast army, sure, they're all well and good. If you're not, stick to Eternal War missions.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Tacks another 30+ minutes onto your game and removes skilled players' ability to form strategies that require more than a single turn to implement. In essence, it's GW pandering to their intended 12 year old customer base.
Huh. I managed to say all that without moving my lips!
The cards themselves may have value but the way they've been implemented, taking no context into account they're basically useless and it's a game of "who gets the best cards".
Orktavius wrote: Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.
(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)
I think owning thousands of dollars in GW product makes me a customer. I built a 3,000+ pt IG army out of tourney and escalation league winnings, so it's not as if I only have 3rd edition models.
That said, it's none of your business to tell me whether or not I'm entitled to an opinion. I've been playing 40k for 21 years. I've bought 5th edition codices for every army I play. I didn't buy 6th edition codices because they are a ripoff. And I will not be buying 7th edition codices or rulebooks because, as a capitalist consumer, I don't have to buy fething garbage.
Changing circumstances every turn on the game precludes long-term strategy. This is a fact. You cannot plan to achieve objectives you haven't received yet. Tactical Objectives make the game myopic. Was it really necessary to follow me to a completely different thread, to whine to me because my opinion isn't your opinion?
So.. how do you plan on playing 7th or how did you play 6th? Did you go to the interwebz and 'found' the books as pdf's?
I'm pretty sure it's against Dakka rules to espouse (or admit to) piracy.
so has any of you that "liked" maelstrom missions actually PLAYED them? They are awful and completely take the players out of the game. That was my experience as well as the handful of people I have played against. They are terrible for normal everyday play.
Orktavius wrote: Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.
(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)
There are already changing game conditions in the form of what the enemy is trying to do and what the enemy is able to accomplish, in contrast with what you are able to accomplish.
In an ideal world there would be no arbitrary objectives. The rules of the game should cause 'objectives' to form naturally. These would be areas on the board that give you a distinct advantage in destroying the enemy, so one would be motivated to capture those locations and hold them, or at the very least deny them to the enemy.
40ks rule set is far from that though. All guns usually are in range of the enemy to being with, and there is no penalty for range. There is no real benefit for holding the high ground. There is no way to outflank the enemy to gain bonuses ( or give them penalties ).
Edit: All that being, I think tactical objectives are a good idea. I don't think 40k's rules will be changing anytime soon, so this added objective variant helps to shake things up.
You know what sucks? Having a different mission every turn which can be made more or less difficult to achieve based on moves I made earlier in the game because of whichever mission I was trying to achieve at that time.
You know what doesn't suck? Having one (or two) missions, determined at the start of the game, which stay the same for the duration of the game. Now I can plan a strategy, and a counter strategy (since my opponent has missions of his own). I can look at the moves my opponent is making in the first few turns to guess at what his ultimate objective is. I can plan. I can think. It would be just like the random-draw mission cards from 2nd Edition.
Oh wow...
Congratulations, 7th Edition.... you've actually made me nostalgic for 2nd Edition. In the 15+ years I've gamed since 3rd Edition was released, you are the very first thing that has made me actually wish I was playing 2nd Ed. So, yay for you, I guess.
While I like the idea of adding additional objectives and changing requirements to the game, they are simply too random, and favour certain forces.
Getting a couple of cards for the objectives you hold, while the enemy gets ones for objectives he doesn't hold (or can't possibly complete) gives you an immediate advantage - which you can then improve on because you cycle the objectives faster than your opponent, why has a limited turnover of his unachievable ones.
In addition, certain armies massively benefit from the maelstrom of war games - Eldar immediately spring to mind, having decent survivability and firepower, combined with massive manoeuvrability. Conversely shooting armies are hit hard (I'm not complaining) - as are foot assault forces (who certainly didn't need another nerf).
Orktavius wrote: Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.
(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)
There are already changing game conditions in the form of what the enemy is trying to do and what the enemy is able to accomplish, in contrast with what you are able to accomplish.
Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.
I like the concept but not the execution. We've been trying the following in our first few games.
Maelstrom Hold'em
One objective in each deployment zone. The rest evenly spaced along the center line ideally coinciding with terrain features.
Both players get dealt 2 cards. As missions are completed restore your hand to 2 cards.
Then a 5 card hand is dealt that both players try and complete missions from. As missions are completed restore this hand to 5.
At any time if a card is dealt which can in no way be completed discard it and draw a replacement.
Cards which dictate you receive D3 points award 2 if completed. Too much randomness for randoms sake IMO.
PotentiallyLethal wrote: I don't get it. If people don't like Maelstrom of War Missions and Tactical Objective cards just use the Eternal War Missions.
Well yeah, but that's kind of stating the obvious. But the poll here was asking "do you like tactical objectives", not "have tactical objectives made you ragequit".
They're a great idea and are great for mixing things up, once in a while.
On the other hand, half the cards just say, go to objective 1-6...
Not very creative. Among the rest, some are unfulfillable, which is lame, but still, all in all, it's pretty good.
Could've been done alot better, though. The maelstrom missions themselves are much too copy + paste. They could've done alot with those cards, but instead they just repeeat the same process with a few subtle changes.
I like them. Just wish the table deployments were randomized like the Eternal missions, rather than specified for each Maelstrom mission.
While it seems a bit repetitive for have 3 copies each of "control objective X" there is a reason for it. Once you score a particular tactical objective, it goes away and you can't get that mission again. Having multiples gives you the chance to get points several times for holding a particular objective, rather than say once you score that objective once, you can then abandon it because you will not be able to score on it again.
I like the addition of TacOs as an option, especially because they mitigate the I-win-button that is First Blood. When I get back from this current deployment, I will use a Texas Hold'em style of card selection. Three cards face up on turn one, then the river and flop on three and four respectively. Players claim the TacO card as they complete them.
They single handedly nerfed the tau gunline that unto itself has made me enjoy them. I feel that certain units I wouldn't of otherwise use have a place now (we'll some of them anyway). And it actually is motivating me to try mixing allies up and seeing what I get and it's making me excited to experiment in higher point games. So I'm calling these a success.
I think a better way to play them is a neutral hand of 6 that is refilled if one is completed. These cards should be face down and only discarded if they can't possibly be completed (if you pickup a card that can't be completed at all you are allowed to draw a random one from the takedown deck). This makes it more "equal" and makes you go one objective at a time.
I think I'm going to enjoy 40k a lot more in 7th than I will in 6th. 6th was shaping up to be a real ---- show and I was dreading playing regularly under 6th rules because my local meta had a serious problem with eldar seal clubbing builds and helldrake spam. With 7th I feel my problems are much mote distant as nobody really plays chaos daemons here and there are even some fun whacky builds. So I am going to be happier than a cat in a shoebox, thanks gw!
Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.
I agree with this . Playing against a good player is awesome . Even playing against a medicore player , but with a list build around powerful combos is good , because it helps with learning the game . Losing because your opponent got a better starting hand or because GW decided that your army won't be able to do half the missions , while your opponents does all of them , is a HUGE problem.
This is our second weekend of playing 7th and I see a patern come up. If I get objectives based around assault/psychic powers on my starting hand, I lose the game . If any of non Tau or AM opponents get , extra scoring points for dominating objectives cards on their hands they win . And there is nothing I can do about it. AM can't melee , they don't have fast and tough scoring troops and with just two psykers I don't have enough power dice to cast anything and have big problems with stoping other armies which seem to have around 13 or more power dice.
My only wins in two weeks were to tau and nid players , and only because the nid player didn't know he can't charge after flying and the tau player has a list with eldar ally which no longer are BB and the riptide nerf doesn't help him either.
Also, unfulfillable objectives aren't much of a problem, you can just redraw those at the end of turn. It's a set back, but not a crippling one.
only if your opponents army can't do objectives too . Otherwise what your saying is that your opponent getting a free turn isn't crippling. If my opponent gains 8-9VP on his turn , then I get non on my because I can't do any of the missions or doing them would risk me losing my army on next turns and then on my opponents turn 2 he has a new set of cards which he can now use and I only discarded one , then am in some deep trouble .
Getting 3 objectives you can't complete in your hand means being quite unlucky AND having some issues with list building. Also if you read my post i actually said that for competitive scenarios you NEED to put some derandomizer stuff in the cards, like mulligan which would solve the problem you just mentioned.
Sure a 1 VP setback is not a good thing, but it's far from game deciding.
Spoletta wrote: Getting 3 objectives you can't complete in your hand means being quite unlucky AND having some issues with list building. Also if you read my post i actually said that for competitive scenarios you NEED to put some derandomizer stuff in the cards, like mulligan which would solve the problem you just mentioned. Sure a 1 VP setback is not a good thing, but it's far from game deciding.
It's not all that much against the odds to get "secure objective x" where x is the objective deepest in the enemy zone, along with "kill a psyker" when you're playing against necrons, and "kill a unit in assault phase" when you're playing a shooty list. It wouldn't be SO terrible if you could drop the whole hand at the end of your turn, but no, you have to slowly discard these ridiculous objectives 1 at a time and hope that your 1 new draw the next turn is something a bit more realistic.
Here's my attempt at a better maelstrom mission:
New Orders
-Before starting this mission, remove any "secure objective x" cards from any tactical objective decks, or reroll them if using the table to generate them.
-Each player uses their own deck of tactical objectives. (Or their own chart, independent of what their opponent rolls.)
-Both players start with no tactical objectives. (hereafter shorted to "tacO's")
-At the end of any turn in which a player holds an objective, he may generate a new tacO for each objective he holds. These tacO's can not be claimed until the end of the player's NEXT turn, immediately before generating new tacO's for that turn. There is no maximum hand size for the tacO cards in this mission. TacO's that are impossible for a player to complete are discarded, and a new one immediately generated.
-At the end of the game, each player receives 1 VP for each 3 tacO's that have been generated, but not completed. The objectives themselves, however, do NOT award any VP in this mission.
Tactical Objectives were a brilliant answer to a number of problems plaguing the game. Armies that turtle, ignore transports for the sake of more guns, are comprised of only a few units for the sake expensive deathstars or Lords of War, are unbound, or start mostly in reserve are all hamstrung by MoW TacOs. They require a radical rethink of list building and play, so of course the initial reaction is going to have some strong negativity. Accommodating for an MoW game is going to take some time as we all figure out which units and strategies work best in them. No longer is list building about damage output vs survivability - mobility and objective denial have to figure in the mix as well.
The complaints about randomness are fair - as no one likes to lose having otherwise played a perfect game - but I feel like that was mitigated by the saturation of "objective X" cards, the ability to discard and the very different rules for TacOs in each mission. Can you get a really pisspoor draw? Sure. Can you lose a game because your opponent had consistently better draws? Yeah. But anyone who thinks that any 12 year old player can luck out and win any game because of it hasn't considered how much list building is going to affect not only how you obtain your nearly impossible objectives, but how well it does at denying your opponent his lucky ones.
I, for one, can't wait to see what this does to the overall meta for the folks who use them.
Asymmetric objectives (like Deadzone as mentioned) is a great idea - having them change every turn so you can't plan strategies in a strategy game is silly. The chance of adding the occasional additional objective would be fine. The current system is ridiculous and there's no way I'm playing them as is. There may be a way to modify them to be usable, but I haven't seen any good suggestions yet.
Theoretically the idea of being ready to adapt to changing circumstances sounds like a good idea - it is at a basic level. When it comes at the cost of overall strategic gameplay it's definitely not worth it.
Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.
I agree with this . Playing against a good player is awesome . Even playing against a medicore player , but with a list build around powerful combos is good , because it helps with learning the game . Losing because your opponent got a better starting hand or because GW decided that your army won't be able to do half the missions , while your opponents does all of them , is a HUGE problem.
If winning is the only thing a player is interested in, I can see it being a bit frustrating sometimes. Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges. Sure some of these challenges will be impossibgle to acvhieve, but you can give it a shot and see what happens
Flinty wrote: Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.
So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*
2. Never use Tactical Objectives while using Tyranids. They just don't have the mobility to be effective. At all.
What? Nids are just top dogs when it comes to tactial objectives. As long as you don't play nidzilla.
Well, I dunno. The only game I tried using Tyranids and Tactical Objectives was against Dark Eldar and he started off with a phenomenal hand, as opposed to my hand…..so I guess it wasn't really a fair assessment.
For those of you who have clearly explained why you don't like them, I can definitely see where you're coming from, and too much randomness is a concern of mine. But overall, I really like the random objectives. So far I've only played one game of 7th, but I really enjoyed it. The cards have made me get out of my comfort zone and try things that I wouldn't have done otherwise. I don't think it really ruins long-term strategy planning over the course of the game. It becomes part of your long term strategy to be flexible and keep your options open. I agree that some of them feel a little too random, and I don't like D3 rolls for determining victory points, but for the most part, I like what random objectives have done for the game.
Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.
I agree with this . Playing against a good player is awesome . Even playing against a medicore player , but with a list build around powerful combos is good , because it helps with learning the game . Losing because your opponent got a better starting hand or because GW decided that your army won't be able to do half the missions , while your opponents does all of them , is a HUGE problem.
If winning is the only thing a player is interested in, I can see it being a bit frustrating sometimes.
See this really pisses me off. No matter how many times actual objections are explained, the very next post someone will repeat their assumption that people are upset because they're not "winning." It's like there's some actual mental block. Which critic anywhere in this thread has expressed that the problem is losing? My post? Re-read it more carefully this time. The problem as clearly stated is not losing - both scenarios I list involve that so if you apply a little logic you'll see this cannot be the issue. No the problem is that the outcome (winning or losing) is not the result of skill.
The other chief objection is that they negate actual pre-game strategy or turn-to-turn planning.
And yet everytime someone complains about balance, unclear or poor rules, lack of tactical or strategic range in the game, someone leaps in with a vaguely superior-sounding comment about "if you only care about winning" or similar.
I wrote a comment that did not say or imply I only cared about winning. Somone else wrote that they agreed with me and again didn't at all express that the problem was losing. And then you reply about people only caring about winning.
STOP CHARACTERISING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH AND READ WHY THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNHAPPY, INSTEAD OF MAKING LITTLE JABS ABOUT THEM ONLY CARING ABOUT WINNING. IT IS RUDE.
STOP CHARACTERISING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH AND READ WHY THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNHAPPY, INSTEAD OF MAKING LITTLE JABS ABOUT THEM ONLY CARING ABOUT WINNING. IT IS RUDE.
Isn't it the normal thing to do . Any group always tells that other groups are non human canibals that eat their babies , who are at best using up oxygen for other people. It has worked like that since the dawn of time and it probably be such till the end days.
It is a perfect argument . Talking about what rules are bad or if they are bad or if they could be better could end up with someone winning or losing. But if you accuse someone of not realy being a human , you automaticly win the whole argument , because any given by non people are void. That is also why terms like WAAC are used. Why explain anything , while calling something a WAAC wins the argument in your favor.
If winning is the only thing a player is interested in, I can see it being a bit frustrating sometimes. Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges. Sure some of these challenges will be impossibgle to acvhieve, but you can give it a shot and see what happens
Forging the narrative is not possible unless you can somehow force everyone to play a bad army or at least write the army lists for them , probably re-rolling or re-playing any accidental too bad or too good rolls . Aside for someone doing this while playing by himself , the only time when I can imagine someone pulling that of is either a pre build store game at a GW or a store owner enforcing his will on a whole community.
An AM army in 6th ed had nothing to forge against eldar or tau , unless the eldar build a melee list and the tau a vespid spam . Ah and by melee I mean a banshee list , not the melee deathstar with baron eldar did make in 6th.
Flinty wrote: Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.
So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*
Hey, it seems you understand 'forging the narrative' just right.
Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.
I agree with this . Playing against a good player is awesome . Even playing against a medicore player , but with a list build around powerful combos is good , because it helps with learning the game . Losing because your opponent got a better starting hand or because GW decided that your army won't be able to do half the missions , while your opponents does all of them , is a HUGE problem.
If winning is the only thing a player is interested in, I can see it being a bit frustrating sometimes.
See this really pisses me off. No matter how many times actual objections are explained, the very next post someone will repeat their assumption that people are upset because they're not "winning." It's like there's some actual mental block. Which critic anywhere in this thread has expressed that the problem is losing? My post? Re-read it more carefully this time. The problem as clearly stated is not losing - both scenarios I list involve that so if you apply a little logic you'll see this cannot be the issue. No the problem is that the outcome (winning or losing) is not the result of skill.
The other chief objection is that they negate actual pre-game strategy or turn-to-turn planning.
And yet everytime someone complains about balance, unclear or poor rules, lack of tactical or strategic range in the game, someone leaps in with a vaguely superior-sounding comment about "if you only care about winning" or similar.
I wrote a comment that did not say or imply I only cared about winning. Somone else wrote that they agreed with me and again didn't at all express that the problem was losing. And then you reply about people only caring about winning.
STOP CHARACTERISING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH AND READ WHY THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNHAPPY, INSTEAD OF MAKING LITTLE JABS ABOUT THEM ONLY CARING ABOUT WINNING. IT IS RUDE.
A small fix will clear all the angst about Tactical Objectives:
Just allow player re-draw his full hand at the start of every turn instead of just 1, and no-more "unachievable objective hand".
Probably full hand or 41 card, not as many cards as you want, so people don't cherry-pick that much and use this option if situation really sucks, like mulligan in MTG.
Flinty wrote: Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.
So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*
Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.
I agree with this . Playing against a good player is awesome . Even playing against a medicore player , but with a list build around powerful combos is good , because it helps with learning the game . Losing because your opponent got a better starting hand or because GW decided that your army won't be able to do half the missions , while your opponents does all of them , is a HUGE problem.
If winning is the only thing a player is interested in, I can see it being a bit frustrating sometimes.
See this really pisses me off. No matter how many times actual objections are explained, the very next post someone will repeat their assumption that people are upset because they're not "winning." It's like there's some actual mental block. Which critic anywhere in this thread has expressed that the problem is losing? My post? Re-read it more carefully this time. The problem as clearly stated is not losing - both scenarios I list involve that so if you apply a little logic you'll see this cannot be the issue. No the problem is that the outcome (winning or losing) is not the result of skill.
The other chief objection is that they negate actual pre-game strategy or turn-to-turn planning.
And yet everytime someone complains about balance, unclear or poor rules, lack of tactical or strategic range in the game, someone leaps in with a vaguely superior-sounding comment about "if you only care about winning" or similar.
I wrote a comment that did not say or imply I only cared about winning. Somone else wrote that they agreed with me and again didn't at all express that the problem was losing. And then you reply about people only caring about winning.
STOP CHARACTERISING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH AND READ WHY THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNHAPPY, INSTEAD OF MAKING LITTLE JABS ABOUT THEM ONLY CARING ABOUT WINNING. IT IS RUDE.
I like them. I think that having the cards makes a big difference to playability and it is exciting to have differing objectives come up.
Having said that we have modified the use of them - each player has two hidden objectives and there is a pool of 4 face up objectives which either player can achieve.
a) At the start of the game, each player receives 2 missions, which are their secret ones.
b) At the start of the first player turn, 2 objectives are dealt face up into the pool.
c) At the start of the second player turn, the pool is increased to the full four missions.
d) Any impossible objectives are discarded and the player can replace immediately.
We are thinking of combining this with a relic mission as well to see what happens.
Having played using the cards once they were released, its awesome having these in the game.
One question though, didn't see a rule for a objective limit for each player so say we draw 3 objectives turn and god forbid can't do any of em, in theory we could have like 15 cards in hand?
Flinty wrote: Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.
So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*
hahaha good way to describe how it felt in my narrative two weeks ago! Seriously, the maelstrom missions are terrible in practice.
STOP CHARACTERISING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH AND READ WHY THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNHAPPY, INSTEAD OF MAKING LITTLE JABS ABOUT THEM ONLY CARING ABOUT WINNING. IT IS RUDE.
Isn't it the normal thing to do . Any group always tells that other groups are non human canibals that eat their babies , who are at best using up oxygen for other people. It has worked like that since the dawn of time and it probably be such till the end days. It is a perfect argument . Talking about what rules are bad or if they are bad or if they could be better could end up with someone winning or losing. But if you accuse someone of not realy being a human , you automaticly win the whole argument , because any given by non people are void. That is also why terms like WAAC are used. Why explain anything , while calling something a WAAC wins the argument in your favor.
It might seem so, however the people like myself who are against random cards and Allies, Unbound, etc on the whole do not wish to deny these to the people who might like them. We merely wish them not to be compulsory for everyone.
In my case there is also an element of wanting GW to do their job but that is a separate thing and not a reflection or comment on any players.
To be honest, I'm looking through the objectives now and they don't seem like a bad idea, just I don't like that they are totally random as if you draw/roll really well you can get easy VP. I like the concept, but I dislike the execution. Also it would be a simple change IMO to allow an immediate discard or re-roll if you draw something that isn't appropriate (e.g. the destroy flyer card when your opponent has no flyers).
I personally loved the old 2nd Edition Mission Cards, and I think that's what these objectives should have been. I get that they want to allow for more than just "kill the enemy" kinds of things and give your army a reason to be on the battlefield, but the randomness is a bit too much.
MarkCron wrote:I like them. I think that having the cards makes a big difference to playability and it is exciting to have differing objectives come up.
Having said that we have modified the use of them - each player has two hidden objectives and there is a pool of 4 face up objectives which either player can achieve.
a) At the start of the game, each player receives 2 missions, which are their secret ones.
b) At the start of the first player turn, 2 objectives are dealt face up into the pool.
c) At the start of the second player turn, the pool is increased to the full four missions.
d) Any impossible objectives are discarded and the player can replace immediately.
We are thinking of combining this with a relic mission as well to see what happens.
Makumba wrote:But that is not what the rules say , how you should be playing. I am confused.
It's a house rule to address the most glaring deficiencies.
Yonan wrote:That seems like a potentially decent fix MarkCron. Mixes things up a little but doesn't sacrifice multi-turn strategies.
Yep. And thinking about it, if you combined this with the Scouring, so that the objectives had additional VP if you had them at the end of the game, it would be really interesting.
There's a lot of comments that it takes strategy out of the game, which I don't agree with. I've played nothing but Maelstrom missions (with the ditch impossible objective house rule) and I think that they are much more strategic and tactical than the standard missions. Let's be honest, how many eternal war missions came down to First Blood?
In a Maelstrom mission, you have several layers of tactics and strategy which affect list design significantly.
Firstly, look at the sequence of play - you deploy with a view to getting as many objectives as you can. Half of these missions are "secure x" - so you need to have a way to get to all the objectives quickly. But, at the same time, you also have to move in such a way that you have set yourself up to do the same thing in the next turn....after the opponent moves. So, immediately, you have to guess what the opponent is going to do, and you don't have another 4 turns if you make a mistake. As an example I was playing Crons against a Ravenwing bike list and by end of T2 I had a handy lead with outer objectives held by non superscoring units. My superscoring units were repositioning, and due to some poor run rolls happened to be outside 3", except for a Ghost ark. T3, Domination came up and the opponent used superscoring units to secure the objectives, and it was only a couple of jink saves that prevented him from getting Dominion, which would have put him in the lead. As it was, he easily got Supremacy, and he was back in the game with a vengeance.
Second, you have to track the remaining objectives - so you can focus your diminishing forces on objectives that are likely to come up. Note that if you are rolling on the table, the remaining objectives that you have will be different to the other player - this leads to asymmetrical objectives as the game goes on. If you are using cards, both players will have the same objectives if you are only using 1 deck (which is also a good balancer btw).
Third, you need to carefully think about the use of your non superscoring units and how to protect them and the objectives you are likely to need.
Fourth, where do you allocate your firepower? Kill the psykers (a no brainer playing demons) or the superscoring units? What about if it is an SM list? When do you kill the drop pods? Do you kill their mobility first? How much do you reserve for the "assassinate" objectives, which can occur at any time?
In the deployment phase, a key question is where you put the objectives to take advantage of your list strengths or minimise the opponents. Remember, this is something that affects every game turn, not just the last one.
Overall, tactical objectives imho are far more interesting and tactically challenging than the Eternal war missions. Clearly, some tweaks are needed (eg ditch impossible ones (eg kill psyker when no psykers exist) and replace immediately).
I also think they are fluffy, because it makes perfect sense that missions change often during a battle, particularly after you have secured an objective.
MarkCron wrote: So, immediately, you have to guess what the opponent is going to do, and you don't have another 4 turns if you make a mistake.
And this is exactly the problem. You have to guess what your opponent is going to do in reaction to a random objective roll that hasn't happened yet. Depending on which objective(s) they roll their actions could be completely different, which means you can't make any kind of reasonable strategy to counter it. You just have to guess blindly and hope that you've got enough firepower in the general area to fight back. And then of course your strategy for the next turn will be completely independent of whatever is happening this turn, since both of you will have new objectives. Contrast this with a game with fixed objectives, where you know your opponent's end goal but you have to figure out a strategy that plays out over several turns. That's requires a lot more analysis and prediction than just randomly guessing "left half of the table or right" before every roll on the random objective table.
I also think they are fluffy, because it makes perfect sense that missions change often during a battle, particularly after you have secured an objective.
No, it's not fluffy at all. Read any real-world historical account of a battle, you'll notice that the overall objectives are constant and only the details of executing a strategy change in response to changing opposing strategies. If there is a sudden change of objectives in the middle of a brief skirmish (and remember, a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, not hours/days) it almost certainly won't happen more than once, and it won't be a completely random change that had absolutely nothing to do with what had been happening previously. With random objectives in 40k it's completely different, and you don't have anything remotely resembling a coherent strategy. Here's my previous attempt at the fluff involved:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*
Sure, it might be funny to tell the story of the poor guardsmen stuck under the paranoid and insane commissar, and laugh at their desperate struggle to accomplish anything of value while avoiding execution for failure. But that's only going to be funny once. When it becomes the story of every single battle it's just annoying and gets in the way of enjoying the narrative.
MarkCron wrote: So, immediately, you have to guess what the opponent is going to do, and you don't have another 4 turns if you make a mistake.
And this is exactly the problem. You have to guess what your opponent is going to do in reaction to a random objective roll that hasn't happened yet. Depending on which objective(s) they roll their actions could be completely different, which means you can't make any kind of reasonable strategy to counter it. You just have to guess blindly and hope that you've got enough firepower in the general area to fight back. And then of course your strategy for the next turn will be completely independent of whatever is happening this turn, since both of you will have new objectives. Contrast this with a game with fixed objectives, where you know your opponent's end goal but you have to figure out a strategy that plays out over several turns. That's requires a lot more analysis and prediction than just randomly guessing "left half of the table or right" before every roll on the random objective table.
I also think they are fluffy, because it makes perfect sense that missions change often during a battle, particularly after you have secured an objective.
No, it's not fluffy at all. Read any real-world historical account of a battle, you'll notice that the overall objectives are constant and only the details of executing a strategy change in response to changing opposing strategies. If there is a sudden change of objectives in the middle of a brief skirmish (and remember, a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, not hours/days) it almost certainly won't happen more than once, and it won't be a completely random change that had absolutely nothing to do with what had been happening previously. With random objectives in 40k it's completely different, and you don't have anything remotely resembling a coherent strategy. Here's my previous attempt at the fluff involved:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*
Sure, it might be funny to tell the story of the poor guardsmen stuck under the paranoid and insane commissar, and laugh at their desperate struggle to accomplish anything of value while avoiding execution for failure. But that's only going to be funny once. When it becomes the story of every single battle it's just annoying and gets in the way of enjoying the narrative.
lol I'd love to see jervi's version of operation market garden. "secure the bridges, wait, scratch that, shoot down their planes, wait, nevermind, kill something, anything, I don't care, scratch that, destroy a bunker or something or other, nevermind, go after their command and control, wait, nevermind, go secure those briges"
MarkCron wrote: So, immediately, you have to guess what the opponent is going to do, and you don't have another 4 turns if you make a mistake.
And this is exactly the problem. You have to guess what your opponent is going to do in reaction to a random objective roll that hasn't happened yet. Depending on which objective(s) they roll their actions could be completely different, which means you can't make any kind of reasonable strategy to counter it. You just have to guess blindly and hope that you've got enough firepower in the general area to fight back. And then of course your strategy for the next turn will be completely independent of whatever is happening this turn, since both of you will have new objectives. Contrast this with a game with fixed objectives, where you know your opponent's end goal but you have to figure out a strategy that plays out over several turns. That's requires a lot more analysis and prediction than just randomly guessing "left half of the table or right" before every roll on the random objective table.
Yes, it's annoying when you don't know what the enemy is going to do. But you aren't blindly guessing in a Maelstrom mission. There are 6 objectives....you have to protect and secure those ALL THE TIME. You also have to protect your key command and control assets (your warlord and psykers). That isn't uncertain or random. The main issue you seem to have is that you don't know WHEN the enemy is going to make a play for the objective (or even if they will). You have to spread your assets in such a way that you can achieve what you need (secure the objectives) and prevent the enemy from doing the same. That seems highly realistic.
A Maelstrom mission is very similar to the Scouring or Big guns, it is just that you have to control the objective every turn.
MarkCron wrote: I also think they are fluffy, because it makes perfect sense that missions change often during a battle, particularly after you have secured an objective.
No, it's not fluffy at all. Read any real-world historical account of a battle, you'll notice that the overall objectives are constant and only the details of executing a strategy change in response to changing opposing strategies. If there is a sudden change of objectives in the middle of a brief skirmish (and remember, a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, not hours/days) it almost certainly won't happen more than once, and it won't be a completely random change that had absolutely nothing to do with what had been happening previously. With random objectives in 40k it's completely different, and you don't have anything remotely resembling a coherent strategy. Here's my previous attempt at the fluff involved:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*But they do claim the objective, otherwise they can't go to the next step because you haven't got another card
Commissar: <*deleted*> WELL DONE! NOW GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen <*deleted*> leave a securing force for their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: <*deleted>THE ENEMY HAVE OVERRUN OUR BROTHERS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to <*deleted*> retake the position the enemy has overrun*
Commissar: <*deleted>KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.Fair point on this one
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*Actually, this is only a problem for AM, everyone else can skip this step
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!Fair point on this one
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*Always been a problem for AM, this
Sure, it might be funny to tell the story of the poor guardsmen stuck under the paranoid and insane commissar, and laugh at their desperate struggle to accomplish anything of value while avoiding execution for failure. But that's only going to be funny once. When it becomes the story of every single battle it's just annoying and gets in the way of enjoying the narrative.
I read that, it was funny. Partially wrong, but funny. I fixed it for you. And in reality, why can't a turn be a full day? New day, new objectives. Seems reasonable?
MarkCron wrote: The main issue you seem to have is that you don't know WHEN the enemy is going to make a play for the objective (or even if they will).
The problem is neither does your opponent, since they don't know which objective to go for until they roll on the random table. And then once they roll that objective the choice to go for it is pretty much automatic, since the way to win the mission is to cycle through objectives as fast as possible. You aren't anticipating your opponent's strategy, you're anticipating the outcome of the dice.
And in reality, why can't a turn be a full day? New day, new objectives. Seems reasonable?
Because that makes absolutely no sense in the context of the game. My Khorne berserkers are charging at you to slaughter you and harvest your skulls. Turn 1 they move 6" forward and run D6", ignoring shooting entirely in their desperate rush to get into chainsaw range. If turn 2 happens the next day then what exactly are they doing for 24 hours, camping in the middle of the field and waiting patiently until they're allowed to move again? Do my flyers just hover in midair waiting until tomorrow before moving on to the next target? Are my lascannon teams only allowed to fire once per day at a tank, while the tank generously declines to spend the day moving out of its vulnerable position before it gets shot again? The only way to even attempt to make any sense of things is to assume that a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, typically the key moment of a battle.
came up with an interesting house rule, each player draws 3 cards at the beginning of each turn, and chooses only one from what they have and puts it down before the game turn begins, face up. Both players can try and score that objective, and both players have a fair shot. So any given game turn there are 2 tactical objectives that can be achieved.
gealgain wrote: came up with an interesting house rule, each player draws 3 cards at the beginning of each turn, and chooses only one from what they have and puts it down before the game turn begins, face up. Both players can try and score that objective, and both players have a fair shot. So any given game turn there are 2 tactical objectives that can be achieved.
gealgain wrote: came up with an interesting house rule, each player draws 3 cards at the beginning of each turn, and chooses only one from what they have and puts it down before the game turn begins, face up. Both players can try and score that objective, and both players have a fair shot. So any given game turn there are 2 tactical objectives that can be achieved.
Again, not an option with pick up games.
Not everyone plays pick-up games exclusively, so what's the problem with offering an option for those of us that have a regular group?
MarkCron wrote: The main issue you seem to have is that you don't know WHEN the enemy is going to make a play for the objective (or even if they will).
The problem is neither does your opponent, since they don't know which objective to go for until they roll on the random table. And then once they roll that objective the choice to go for it is pretty much automatic, since the way to win the mission is to cycle through objectives as fast as possible. You aren't anticipating your opponent's strategy, you're anticipating the outcome of the dice.
Only if your strategy is only to secure the objectives when you have a card. You could equally have a strategy of denying the objectives all the time - which would be challenging to say the least. However, in missions where you can see the opponents objectives, that's not impossible to do. Also, remember that they only get new objectives if they achieve an active objective (in most missions). So tactically, you can get a big advantage by preventing them from reaching theirs. The question is, is that advantage worth committing a large percentage of your force, perhaps at the cost of your board positioning?
In the games I've played, a far better strategy is to leave the dedicated transports on the objectives, but move the troop units off to form a reserve (or vice versa, depending on where the better cover is). Then you use the non superscoring units to harass the enemy backfield (kill psykers etc), contest objectives which don't have superscoring troops on them (or better still, blast the superscoring troops off). This leaves your opponent having to kill the transport (or troop) in order to meet their objectives.
I find it interesting and challenging to balance my deployment of forces - depending on where the objectives were positioned you need a combo of superscoring plus firepower from non scoring units, which is positioned and mobile enough to make the lightning raid!
One thing is for sure, if you are playing anyone with fast troops (eldar jetbikes, or even ravenwing) the task gets a whole lot more complicated and challenging.
And in reality, why can't a turn be a full day? New day, new objectives. Seems reasonable?
Because that makes absolutely no sense in the context of the game. My Khorne berserkers are charging at you to slaughter you and harvest your skulls. Turn 1 they move 6" forward and run D6", ignoring shooting entirely in their desperate rush to get into chainsaw range. If turn 2 happens the next day then what exactly are they doing for 24 hours, camping in the middle of the field and waiting patiently until they're allowed to move again? Do my flyers just hover in midair waiting until tomorrow before moving on to the next target? Are my lascannon teams only allowed to fire once per day at a tank, while the tank generously declines to spend the day moving out of its vulnerable position before it gets shot again? The only way to even attempt to make any sense of things is to assume that a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, typically the key moment of a battle.
LOL! I hadn't thought of it like that - perhaps the flyers and lascannons were sucked into a temporal warp? Fair enough.
MarkCron wrote: So, immediately, you have to guess what the opponent is going to do, and you don't have another 4 turns if you make a mistake.
And this is exactly the problem. You have to guess what your opponent is going to do in reaction to a random objective roll that hasn't happened yet. Depending on which objective(s) they roll their actions could be completely different, which means you can't make any kind of reasonable strategy to counter it. You just have to guess blindly and hope that you've got enough firepower in the general area to fight back. And then of course your strategy for the next turn will be completely independent of whatever is happening this turn, since both of you will have new objectives. Contrast this with a game with fixed objectives, where you know your opponent's end goal but you have to figure out a strategy that plays out over several turns. That's requires a lot more analysis and prediction than just randomly guessing "left half of the table or right" before every roll on the random objective table.
I also think they are fluffy, because it makes perfect sense that missions change often during a battle, particularly after you have secured an objective.
No, it's not fluffy at all. Read any real-world historical account of a battle, you'll notice that the overall objectives are constant and only the details of executing a strategy change in response to changing opposing strategies. If there is a sudden change of objectives in the middle of a brief skirmish (and remember, a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, not hours/days) it almost certainly won't happen more than once, and it won't be a completely random change that had absolutely nothing to do with what had been happening previously. With random objectives in 40k it's completely different, and you don't have anything remotely resembling a coherent strategy. Here's my previous attempt at the fluff involved:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*
Sure, it might be funny to tell the story of the poor guardsmen stuck under the paranoid and insane commissar, and laugh at their desperate struggle to accomplish anything of value while avoiding execution for failure. But that's only going to be funny once. When it becomes the story of every single battle it's just annoying and gets in the way of enjoying the narrative.
lol I'd love to see jervi's version of operation market garden. "secure the bridges, wait, scratch that, shoot down their planes, wait, nevermind, kill something, anything, I don't care, scratch that, destroy a bunker or something or other, nevermind, go after their command and control, wait, nevermind, go secure those briges"
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Operation Market Garden one of the biggest flops in British military history?
MarkCron wrote: So tactically, you can get a big advantage by preventing them from reaching theirs. The question is, is that advantage worth committing a large percentage of your force, perhaps at the cost of your board positioning?
Except random objectives makes this less interesting:
In a game with static objectives you still have to choose which objectives to defend and how much to invest into protecting them. If winning the game requires capturing more objectives than your opponent in a game with five objectives then there are lots of potential plans. You could just slaughter everything and claim one objective for a 1-0 win, you could go full defense and camp your three chosen objectives, etc. And in each of these strategies you could use any combination of the five available objectives. And you can try to conceal your strategy until it's too late. For example, you might try to make it look like the focus of your strategy is to win by claiming objectives #1 and #4, but you're actually going to contest #1 with a token unit and capture #3 to win the game. Now I have to guess which objectives to commit to opposing you on, which involves difficult choices about mobility, firepower vs. position, etc. And I simultaneously have to worry about executing my own strategy for capturing enough objectives to win the game, and avoiding your plans to stop me.
In a game with random objectives you have similar uncertainty to deal with, but instead of countering an opposing strategy you're just countering the dice. I'm not moving to attack objective #2, which you've cleverly positioned yourself to defend, because you out-maneuvered me and forced me to attack where you're strongest, I'm doing it because I rolled "claim objective #2". If I had rolled #4 instead, where your defenses are weaker because you couldn't move anything there in time, your plan would have failed because of random dice instead of me out-maneuvering you.
Really, the biggest reason to use random objectives is to help people that are bad at thinking ahead. With random objectives the poor newbie doesn't have to get overwhelmed by trying to think a step ahead of their opponent, they can just let the dice decide whether or not their positioning is good. And since success or failure is largely determined by the dice the poor newbie has a good chance of winning simply by rolling the right objectives, rather than being crushed without any hope of victory.
It depends on what the objectives are and how well the system is implemented. It's reasonable that different armies would have different objectives on a battlefield and it can give a fun game whilst trying to hide but still achieve yours and discover and deny theirs. It shouldn't be down to dice rolling as such in a proper system. Deadzone has random mission cards for each faction that you draw before the game which works well for the most part. It not working here imo is purely due to GW incompetence at rule writing.
Yonan wrote: Deadzone has random mission cards for each faction that you draw before the game which works well for the most part. It not working here imo is purely due to GW incompetence at rule writing.
This is true, in this case it's not really the randomness that's the problem, it's the constant re-rolling of new objectives. A system with static objectives assigned randomly at the beginning would work, as long as both players always get objectives of equal difficulty.
If your objectives change at random every turn you are not strategising you are hoping for the chance to attack targets of opportunity. The problem with that is that it can lead to severe imbalance and occasional boredom, which is not a good thing in a game IMO.
First up, we should have the ability to discard immediately any drawn (or rolled for) objective that is impossible to perform. For example, shooting flyers when the opponent never brought a flyer. Alternatively, we should simply remove those impossible cards from the deck prior to objectives being placed.
Second, most of the time these should be hidden until the action has been performed at which point you reveal them. Having your opponent know your targets most of the game gives them too much intelligence. So I'd rather that be limited to just the mission where you can complete the same objectives as your opponent.
Also, because drop pods are now Objective Secured units, I'd rather the maelstrom missions be modified such that vehicles can never be OS. It's too easy for a marine player to secure or deny all of the numbered objectives T1 and get pretty far ahead with the points.
I played my first 7th games over the weekend. I really did not like the Maelstrom of War effect on the game.
It took any concept of mutli-turn strategy out of the game. Instead of thinking ahead where men needed to be, the only real approach was to take highly mobile units that could be anywhere they needed to be on a moment's notice.
I had a unit of eldar jetbikes, and my opponent did not. I won something like 16-6.
This was not really reflective of how the game was going. Instead, I just had a unit that could hop from one place to another quickly, allowing me to cycle through cards much faster than my opponent. Realistically, our game was decided on turn 2, at which point I had seen and scored five cards to his 2. His remaining cards were all either objectives well across a hammer&anvil deployment, or things that were unlikely (declare a challenge, when neither of us were fielding particularly assaulty lists),and he could only discard one/turn.
Meanwhile, I was consistently able to score 2-3 a turn, thanks to the mobility my bikes provided, and he couldn't even plan in advance to contest where they'd go, because I didn't draw new ones until the beginning of my turn. It was more like solitaire than a wargame. At the beginning of my turn, I'd see where I needed to move my unit, move it, and score points, all without interaction from my opponent.
We discussed this after the game, and came up with some ideas to make these more fun and interactive.
1) You may immediately discard and replace any card that is impossible to achieve. (Destroy a fortification if your opponent did not bring one). Not ones that are hard, or unlikely, but truly impossible.
2) All mission objective cards are to remain hidden until scored. Because bluffing is fun, and you shouldn't know what your enemy's plans are ahead of time.
3) You can choose to keep or replace an objective when you score it. Because while requirements in war may change, your commander is not so schizophrenic as to require you to advance 20 yards, and then turn around and retreat 20 yards.
4) For all 'Secure Objective X' cards, replace with the following:
"Reveal this card when one of your units gains control of Objective X. Score 1 Victory Point if you control Objective X at the beginning of your turn. Score 1 Victory Point if you control Objective X at the end of the game."
This makes the process far more interactive, as now scoring a point isn't simply a matter of putting a fast unit there, you have to work to ensure that the unit can remain there, and your opponent has an opportunity to prevent you earning the point.
Jancoran wrote: Played another Maelstrom mission. Again: Awesome.
That's been my experience as well. All of the Maelstrom games I've played thus far have been fun, and most of them have been close, coming down to the last turn with both sides tied.
I'm a huge fan of how they eliminate the last turn objective grabbing that is typical of many of the Eternal War missions.
Flinty wrote: Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.
So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*
You do realize that actual war is full of situations where objectives and goals shift, sometimes with great speed? Minus the part about casting 'space magic', your little conversation doesn't really sound that farfetched. For example: Hamburger Hill (Hill 937) in Vietnam, lives were spent taking some random hill that had little strategic value, only for the hill to be abandoned a few days after the battle. For me, the randomness of the Tactical Objectives is a good stand in for the Fog of War.
My games of 7E using Maelstrom missions have been among the more enjoyable of games I've played recently. I think some tweaks are in order, such as allowing people to discard objectives that are impossible to achieve, but I like the dynamic in general.
undertow wrote: You do realize that actual war is full of situations where objectives and goals shift, sometimes with great speed? Minus the part about casting 'space magic', your little conversation doesn't really sound that farfetched. For example: Hamburger Hill (Hill 937) in Vietnam, lives were spent taking some random hill that had little strategic value, only for the hill to be abandoned a few days after the battle. For me, the randomness of the Tactical Objectives is a good stand in for the Fog of War.
Except that:
1) The change in objectives happened days later, while 40k games represent a few minutes of combat. The random objective system has you cycling through 5-10 different sets of orders in the space of a few minutes, with no connection between them. And there's no way that makes any sense.
2) The change in objectives happened once. They didn't decide, the day after abandoning the hill, that they should go back and re-take it, and then halfway through that battle decide that they wanted to go somewhere else instead, and then reject the whole idea of occupying territory in favor of camping around the AA guns hoping a plane would show up. But that's exactly what you can get with random objectives.
Orktavius wrote: Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.
(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)
There are already changing game conditions in the form of what the enemy is trying to do and what the enemy is able to accomplish, in contrast with what you are able to accomplish.
In an ideal world there would be no arbitrary objectives. The rules of the game should cause 'objectives' to form naturally. These would be areas on the board that give you a distinct advantage in destroying the enemy, so one would be motivated to capture those locations and hold them, or at the very least deny them to the enemy.
40ks rule set is far from that though. All guns usually are in range of the enemy to being with, and there is no penalty for range. There is no real benefit for holding the high ground. There is no way to outflank the enemy to gain bonuses ( or give them penalties ).
Edit: All that being, I think tactical objectives are a good idea. I don't think 40k's rules will be changing anytime soon, so this added objective variant helps to shake things up.
Sounds like fantasy would be perfect for tou. +1 combat res for charging over high ground. -1 penalty to shooting at over half weapon range. Boneses for flanking and charging the rear. The ability to flee when charged to drow the.enemy out. The almost complete lack of objectives other then the watchtower.
Jancoran wrote: Played another Maelstrom mission. Again: Awesome.
That's been my experience as well. All of the Maelstrom games I've played thus far have been fun, and most of them have been close, coming down to the last turn with both sides tied.
I'm a huge fan of how they eliminate the last turn objective grabbing that is typical of many of the Eternal War missions.
Flinty wrote: Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.
So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*
You do realize that actual war is full of situations where objectives and goals shift, sometimes with great speed? Minus the part about casting 'space magic', your little conversation doesn't really sound that farfetched. For example: Hamburger Hill (Hill 937) in Vietnam, lives were spent taking some random hill that had little strategic value, only for the hill to be abandoned a few days after the battle. For me, the randomness of the Tactical Objectives is a good stand in for the Fog of War.
My games of 7E using Maelstrom missions have been among the more enjoyable of games I've played recently. I think some tweaks are in order, such as allowing people to discard objectives that are impossible to achieve, but I like the dynamic in general.
As someone who's actually been to war, No. Just no. The chaos of battle doesn't come from random, pointless crap. Take your Hamburger Hill example. The objective was "Take the hill." It's clear, it makes sense and its a definite goal to work for. In actual battle there's an objective. The chaos comes from all the things you have to do to reach that objective. For example in a 40k battle it could be, take and hold a ruin. Maybe there's a wounded Imperial Guard general there that must be rescued and the DE want to capture him and get info out of him. That's far more narrative and exciting than "random meaningless objectives."
Redbeard wrote: I played my first 7th games over the weekend. I really did not like the Maelstrom of War effect on the game.
It took any concept of mutli-turn strategy out of the game. Instead of thinking ahead where men needed to be, the only real approach was to take highly mobile units that could be anywhere they needed to be on a moment's notice.
I had a unit of eldar jetbikes, and my opponent did not. I won something like 16-6.
This was not really reflective of how the game was going. Instead, I just had a unit that could hop from one place to another quickly, allowing me to cycle through cards much faster than my opponent. Realistically, our game was decided on turn 2, at which point I had seen and scored five cards to his 2. His remaining cards were all either objectives well across a hammer&anvil deployment, or things that were unlikely (declare a challenge, when neither of us were fielding particularly assaulty lists),and he could only discard one/turn.
Meanwhile, I was consistently able to score 2-3 a turn, thanks to the mobility my bikes provided, and he couldn't even plan in advance to contest where they'd go, because I didn't draw new ones until the beginning of my turn. It was more like solitaire than a wargame. At the beginning of my turn, I'd see where I needed to move my unit, move it, and score points, all without interaction from my opponent.
We discussed this after the game, and came up with some ideas to make these more fun and interactive.
1) You may immediately discard and replace any card that is impossible to achieve. (Destroy a fortification if your opponent did not bring one). Not ones that are hard, or unlikely, but truly impossible.
2) All mission objective cards are to remain hidden until scored. Because bluffing is fun, and you shouldn't know what your enemy's plans are ahead of time.
3) You can choose to keep or replace an objective when you score it. Because while requirements in war may change, your commander is not so schizophrenic as to require you to advance 20 yards, and then turn around and retreat 20 yards.
4) For all 'Secure Objective X' cards, replace with the following:
"Reveal this card when one of your units gains control of Objective X. Score 1 Victory Point if you control Objective X at the beginning of your turn. Score 1 Victory Point if you control Objective X at the end of the game."
This makes the process far more interactive, as now scoring a point isn't simply a matter of putting a fast unit there, you have to work to ensure that the unit can remain there, and your opponent has an opportunity to prevent you earning the point.
This pretty much sums up my experience, except I was on the receiving end of it when my Chaos marines took on Eldar.
Not only were they both tougher and shootier than me, they could also grab objectives with impunity, while I couldn't get anywhere near them. It didn't help that the initial card draw gave them two objectives they already had - while the same draw gave me three in enemy territory.
In the end I scored a single victory point to their 16 or so - I don't mind losing fair and square, but I do mind losing when I feel I had no chance whatsoever of winning, which was the case here.
One suggestion I'd make is to change it so that you need to hold an objective until the end of the enemy turn - this at least gives people a chance to knock their opponent off the objective, and it means that super-fast scoring units are not an auto-win - they also need to hold that ground for at least a small period of time.
Eldarain wrote: I really like Redbeard's suggestion of playing the card on your turn but only getting the points if you still hold it at the start of your next turn.
It would make you actually commit to holding it rather than just throwing a 3 man jetbike unit at it and scoring the points immediately.
Will be trying that out with our communal hand approach.
I don't think that's enough honestly. I'm much more partial to at the very least, determining objectives before the game which don't change which are counted at the end. Then *maybe* adding (or optionally swapping out if you realize you can't achieve one after all) once at turn 3 or 4, something like that.
Eldarain wrote: I really like Redbeard's suggestion of playing the card on your turn but only getting the points if you still hold it at the start of your next turn.
It would make you actually commit to holding it rather than just throwing a 3 man jetbike unit at it and scoring the points immediately.
Will be trying that out with our communal hand approach.
I don't think that's enough honestly. I'm much more partial to at the very least, determining objectives before the game which don't change which are counted at the end. Then *maybe* adding (or optionally swapping out if you realize you can't achieve one after all) once at turn 3 or 4, something like that.
I can understand your being partial to a hybridized system. I just really loathe the "Musical Chairs" objective system which overly favours the insanely mobile. (Eldar Jetbikes Nightscythe embarked Necrons etc.)
ing idiots, but unfortunately they are and the execution of the idea is just plain awful. Having objectives that are literally impossible to complete in some situations (like "kill a flyer" if your opponent didn't bring any flyers) is so unbelievably stupid that it makes the average baby smearing paint all over the walls look like a competent game designer, and even if you house rule away the worst of the cards you're still stuck with two major problems:
Isn't it the normal thing to do . Any group always tells that other groups are non human canibals that eat their babies , who are at best using up oxygen for other people. It has worked like that since the dawn of time and it probably be such till the end days.
