Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orthogonal?

Sorry, genuinely not sure what that means here.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Every single battle requiring that I send a few dozen precious space elves to go stand out in the open

Asking because this came up in another thread: was there ever anything in the ACTUAL RULES that insisted those circles be out in the open?

OR was it something in a tournament guideline pack, like the L shaped terrain layout that everyone claims are actual rules, even though we all know that objectively and factually, they aren't.

OR was it player choice, for reasons of perceived simplicity or perceived fairness?

Because otherwise, I think it always would have been better to put the circles in an area of cover from both deployment zones... And the change to "Ooooh, objectives are now terrain and not circles" may be functionally just that- putting the circle in cover from both deployment zones.

Kinda like people LOVED the fact that you only got 6 strats in 10th instead of two-four pages in 9th... While I screamed from the rooftop that you had always been free to just pick your favourite six from the four page spread in your 9th ed dex and use only those six... thus playing 10th before it was cool. It is, in point of fact, how I played 9th... Though I usually chose 8-10 from the list rather than 6... Which is probably why I had a hard time relating to people who said the game was cumbersome and bloated.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Orthogonal?

Sorry, genuinely not sure what that means here.

In this context probably “non interactive” or “minimal contact”

IIRC from my math classes a few lifetimes ago orthogonal was something perpendicular to another, so only touching at one point. Like a line was orthoganal to a plane if it intersected at a 90 degree angle.

For asynchronous missions in 40k it could be something like one army going full turtle, scoring it’s points but not playing the game. Or hiding off map/odd corners and never engaging while doing actions.

Not every game needs to be a slugfest in the middle, but I would like to play against and engage my opponent.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Every single battle requiring that I send a few dozen precious space elves to go stand out in the open

Asking because this came up in another thread: was there ever anything in the ACTUAL RULES that insisted those circles be out in the open?

I think 8th or 9th edition specified that you weren't supposed to have the objective marker itself be on terrain for some reason or other. Presumably to avoid weirdness with units that aren't allowed to walk onto ruins. But maybe I'm misremembering.

These days, my group tends to put ruins near objectives fairly often so that there's a way to hold them without getting instantly gunned down for standing on them.

In the context of this thread, I'm using "out in the open" a little hyperbolically. Objectives aren't necessarily fully exposed, but they do tend to be *somewhat* exposed because people tend to want to have the option to shoot enemies off of objectives if they position in the right direction. Basically, the life expectancy of my eldar drops considerably if they find themselves on an objective. Which makes plenty of sense from a gameplay point of view, but it does create this weird feeling that I'm just feeding precious lives to the enemy army so that I could hold the objective on turns 2 and 4 even though the enemy held it on turns 3 and 5.

Progressive scoring is much better for the game mechanically than the old end of game objective scoring, but the old system was a bit easier for me to justify narratively. In the old system, my eldar could spend the game trying to keep themselves alive and pick away at the enemy, and scoring only cared about the end-of-game snapshot. It made it feel like the board state at the end of the game represented who had control of the area after the dust settled.

Kinda like people LOVED the fact that you only got 6 strats in 10th instead of two-four pages in 9th... While I screamed from the rooftop that you had always been free to just pick your favourite six from the four page spread in your 9th ed dex and use only those six... thus playing 10th before it was cool. It is, in point of fact, how I played 9th... Though I usually chose 8-10 from the list rather than 6... Which is probably why I had a hard time relating to people who said the game was cumbersome and bloated.

See, picking you 6 favorites didn't really fix the issue for me. Because while the dozen other strats I wasn't using were generally less optimal or more niche, I'd feel like I was "messing up" by not keeping them in the back of my head just in case the situation arose that I might need them. And similarly, failing to be aware of some niche trick my opponent could pull off would feel really bad when my opponent bit me with it. So even though only a handful of strats usually mattered, I still ended up tyring to juggle a couple of dozen strats in my head simultaneously, which just kind of stressed me out.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Orthogonal?

Sorry, genuinely not sure what that means here.

I bring a gunline and choose Hold The Line and spend five turns camping in my deployment zone, you take a speedy army and choose Advance and Secure and spend five turns hiding behind ruins in the midfield. Our objectives do not interact.

We're still fighting and there's obviously strategy to be had in scoring points while preventing the opponent from doing the same, but we're not actually fighting over the same thing and from a narrative perspective that can be kinda lame.

 PenitentJake wrote:
Kinda like people LOVED the fact that you only got 6 strats in 10th instead of two-four pages in 9th... While I screamed from the rooftop that you had always been free to just pick your favourite six from the four page spread in your 9th ed dex and use only those six... thus playing 10th before it was cool. It is, in point of fact, how I played 9th... Though I usually chose 8-10 from the list rather than 6... Which is probably why I had a hard time relating to people who said the game was cumbersome and bloated.

If a game is so cumbersome and bloated as-written that you have to resort to ignoring some of the mechanics to have a good experience, that's a cumbersome and bloated game.

That you were able to simply choose to put yourself at a disadvantage rather than engage with the excessive cognitive load is really not an exoneration of bad writing, and cutting the stratagem list was a massive improvement.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I think 8th or 9th edition specified that you weren't supposed to have the objective marker itself be on terrain for some reason or other. Presumably to avoid weirdness with units that aren't allowed to walk onto ruins. But maybe I'm misremembering.

I remember the same, explicit instructions to put the objectives some distance from terrain. The intent may have also been to keep objectives exposed so that the player who gets there first isn't at a major advantage.

I think it's worth a shot. Despite its unpredictability, the maelstrom style current matched play feels extremely repetitive. Outside of a small hand full of armies it feels like you are always playing for the same goals, up to the point that getting blasted by a tau gunline feels like a welcome variety.

Let's see what GW has to offer. If it doesn't work, fixing a broken mission pack is extremely easy to do. If to does work, I look forward to no longer having ork units lined up to stand in the middle of the board and die every turn, just for the sake of archiving/denying VP.

Victory Conditions can absolutely make or break a game.

If it’s just “kill as much as you can as quick as you can” it can get dull. Especially if certain armies and/or builds tend to do well in the early game, as those that lean into attrition are only a few jammy rolls away from being hamstrung.

I do like the concept of each army having its own Mission though, as I see no reason why those should be symmetrical. And, done right? Having to balance what you’re trying to achieve with preventing what your opponent is trying to achieve can be a solid challenge.

So, let’s say my Mission is Assassination, and yours is Linebreaker.

We both have different goals. On the face of it neither is necessarily hard to achieve, especially if as we’re told our Detachments dictate Mission, and so presumably we’ve specced into those. But, whoever has the army flexibility and tactical nous to also vex their opponent’s aims? Now that player has an advantage. And crucially? A skills based advantage.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Objectives aren't necessarily fully exposed, but they do tend to be *somewhat* exposed because people tend to want to have the option to shoot enemies off of objectives if they position in the right direction.

Legit- this is why I only suggested cover from deployment zones; that way units that specifically position to capitalize on firing lanes still can, but the actually have to put effort into doing that if they want it to work.

Thanks for the clarification though.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

See, picking you 6 favorites didn't really fix the issue for me. Because while the dozen other strats I wasn't using were generally less optimal or more niche, I'd feel like I was "messing up" by not keeping them in the back of my head just in case the situation arose that I might need them. And similarly, failing to be aware of some niche trick my opponent could pull off would feel really bad when my opponent bit me with it. So even though only a handful of strats usually mattered, I still ended up tyring to juggle a couple of dozen strats in my head simultaneously, which just kind of stressed me out.

Also legit- enjoyment is in the experience of the individual player- the tone of my post perhaps didn't communicate this well, but I'm really referring to my own experience: BECAUSE of the way I chose to play 9th, the innovations of 10th didn't seem as innovative to me as they did to some, who for whatever (likely valid) reason tried to hold every strat in the game in their memory.

To clarify for you the method to my madness, and the reasons I chose to play the way I did, I didn't do it specifically to avoid the mental load- that was just a pleasant side effect. To me, it was part of the narrative. So maybe one particular unit, based on their background and history, was known for a particular strategy. Fielding that unit in a game? Take that strat and add it to your list. Leaving that unit at home? Don't add the strat to you your list. Whether the strat was good or bad mattered less to me than the story.

Got a particular scenario where a certain type of uncommon valor may be called for? Add that strat.

Did you achieve a feat in a previous game that allowed you to leverage a particular strategy? Add that strat.

Building my list of strats that I chose to bring was never about winning or losing. My army are who they are, and sometimes they are going to win, and sometimes they're not... And the losses are just as important to the campaign narrative as the wins.

Doing math before a game or consulting a net list to figure out which units, which equipment, which gear to bring? I mean, I don't begrudge people who play that way- play whatever way makes you happy. But that approach just always seemed dull and boring to me. Including Defenders of the Faith as a strat for 20 Order of the Sacred Rose bolter nuns because they were the drill instructors who were responsible for teaching the Art of the Bolter at the Schola Progenium in peace time? EPIC flavour, way cooler than math hammer.

This prevented me from experiencing the legitimate limitations of "pick six" that you describe above when you're picking six to try and give yourself the best chance to win... And again, not saying that making all of your choices based on what gives you the best chance to win is wrong- It isn't. It's a perfectly valid way to play, and it is in fact the way the vast majority of players (even casual and narrative players) do it.

I'm just saying it's not the way I did it, and I think it's why I find the game as fun as I do when so many other people seem to hate it so much.

 catbarf wrote:


If a game is so cumbersome and bloated as-written that you have to resort to ignoring some of the mechanics to have a good experience, that's a cumbersome and bloated game.

That you were able to simply choose to put yourself at a disadvantage rather than engage with the excessive cognitive load is really not an exoneration of bad writing, and cutting the stratagem list was a massive improvement.

As explained above, I didn't do it to avoid cognitive load. To me, choosing strats as a reflection of narrative was FEATURE not a bug. This is because I come from a role-playing game background. Most wargames bore the gak out of me... And in fact, playing 40k AS a wargame bores the gak out of me.

In RPG's, ignoring rules is standard practice. Ever met a GM who thinks they need to memorize every Monster Manual entry? Nope. GM's plan each sessions, bring notes for the monsters the players will encounter in that session... AND IGNORE EVERY OTHER MONSTER, because none of them matter.

Playing a game of World of Darkness: Vampire with a Torreador, a Tremere and a Malkavian in Chicago? Guess you didn't need the Brujah and Ventrue handbooks or the New Orleans by Night books... Though you might in the next campaign.

Ignoring rules that aren't being used in a game is literally standard operating procedure in RPGs. By the time I discover Rogue Trader, I'd been playing RPGs hardcore for eight years or more and the hook was set deep. All of the editions that people love because they were better wargames were always less interesting to me. And again, I get that this is not how most people play... In fact the ONLY people I've met who do play this way are my friends. I've met people who come close to playing as narratively as I do, but no one outside a select group who takes it as far.

RPGs and wargames aren't the same, though.
I'm glad you enjoy 40k as a role-playing experience, but the majority of people play 40k as a wargame, not an RPG.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Every single battle requiring that I send a few dozen precious space elves to go stand out in the open

Asking because this came up in another thread: was there ever anything in the ACTUAL RULES that insisted those circles be out in the open?

Here's what the core rules say about it: https://assets.warhammer-community.com/warhammer40000_core&key_corerules_eng_24.09-5xfayxjekm.pdf

Tourney rules https://assets.warhammer-community.com/eng_11-02_wh40k_core&key_chapter_approved_tournament_companion-fzhlwjzwf4-agxpall6br.pdf specifically allow units to end their various moves ON actual objective markers.

No such change has officially been made for non-tourny play - though here is what the current mission deck rules have to say about it:
https://wahapedia.ru/wh40k10ed/the-rules/chapter-approved-2025-26/

Note, this only concerns the actual 40mm objective marker.

I guess my voice of concern about tailored objectives is we sort of had that in 9th edition with faction specific secondaries. The result was certain factions were pretty much guaranteed to max out on secondaries before the first dice was rolled, while others tended to struggle.

Factions rose and fell in tournaments based on these secondaries. Which feels a bit weird.

For better or for worse, a system with a very explicit essentially universal scoring system allows GW's designers to write the factions to work in the game as a game. With experience/skill they can create differences while still not leaving people playing checkers while their opponents play chess. The likelihood of GW making a mess because "this feels cool/fluffy" for factions/detachments X and Y not matching up seems high.

Crosspost from the ork thread:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I'm actually quite concerned about the mixing of detachments and certain detachments getting certain objectives. My gut says it's going to be a min-maxy hellscape that doesn't work properly, encourages super toxic armies, or both. I'm really hoping I'm wrong.

New rumors on this:

Spoiler:

Take with grain of salt, rumor credibility is "unknow person on the internet said this".

If true, it sounds interesting. Something universal like wartribe or tactics could be 3 points, dreadmob or kult of speed could be 2 points and a detachment focused on flash gits or kommadoz could be 1 point.

Tyel wrote:
I guess my voice of concern about tailored objectives is we sort of had that in 9th edition with faction specific secondaries. The result was certain factions were pretty much guaranteed to max out on secondaries before the first dice was rolled, while others tended to struggle.

Factions rose and fell in tournaments based on these secondaries. Which feels a bit weird.

For better or for worse, a system with a very explicit essentially universal scoring system allows GW's designers to write the factions to work in the game as a game. With experience/skill they can create differences while still not leaving people playing checkers while their opponents play chess. The likelihood of GW making a mess because "this feels cool/fluffy" for factions/detachments X and Y not matching up seems high.

This is pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if, rather than coming up with a bunch of bespoke objectives for each faction/detachment, they instead just had a handful of objectives that correspond to certain detachment keywords. So maybe there's an objective for sneaky detachments, an objective for fast detachments, one for durable detachments, etc. That way, they'd only need to balance a handful of "universal" objectives rather than dozens.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess my voice of concern about tailored objectives is we sort of had that in 9th edition with faction specific secondaries. The result was certain factions were pretty much guaranteed to max out on secondaries before the first dice was rolled, while others tended to struggle.

Factions rose and fell in tournaments based on these secondaries. Which feels a bit weird.

For better or for worse, a system with a very explicit essentially universal scoring system allows GW's designers to write the factions to work in the game as a game. With experience/skill they can create differences while still not leaving people playing checkers while their opponents play chess. The likelihood of GW making a mess because "this feels cool/fluffy" for factions/detachments X and Y not matching up seems high.

This is pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if, rather than coming up with a bunch of bespoke objectives for each faction/detachment, they instead just had a handful of objectives that correspond to certain detachment keywords. So maybe there's an objective for sneaky detachments, an objective for fast detachments, one for durable detachments, etc. That way, they'd only need to balance a handful of "universal" objectives rather than dozens.

It also has to be fun not just winning.

In BFG, the way Specialist Games initially tried to balance the overpowered Necron fleet was by making their opponents gain many more VPs for any damage or destroyed Necron ships. The intent was to make the Necron player wary of taking damage or break off if threatened with heavy damage or losses. However, a Necron player could instead press the attack and choose to wipe the enemy fleet off the table. Sure they might take losses and lose in VPs but it surely left a bitter taste in the mouth of their opponent to claim a "victory" when they have been wiped out.