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.

You only need to get within 3" of the objective to claim/contest it. Therefore, a unit only needs to be on the floor below. (that's only one level of climbing in the OP's example)

Why is this a problem?

Savnock wrote:
@Wargamer: "Dick-move to victory!" is my new favorite phrase. May have to go on a T-shirt, if you don't mind.

Feel free.

To those with arguments based around bike-heavy armies, isn't being unable to reach higher objectives an accepted and widely-known major flaw of bike armies? So wouldn't planning to overcome it (like, say, a few infantry models) be a good idea (like Smashotron suggests)? Otherwise, you need the aforementioned charity from your opponent to make games even. I wouldn't want to have to ask for that all the time, dunno about you.

...noooo, my understanding was that the weakness of bike-heavy armies was the low model count. As powerful as Bikes are, I have horrible, mentally-scarring memories of seeing 255pt Ravenwing Bike Squadrons vanish in a single volley from Eldar Pathfinders. If that had been a Tac Squad, I'd have lost... 105pts at worst.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yes, completely. One of the guys in our group plays Ravenwing and he knows full well that units defending buildings will be a problem for him, especially once our resident Tau player figured out that by hiding in the 1st floor and higher he could avoid being charged by the dangerous biker units. The Ravenwing player now brings a good mix of biker and non-biker units like Land Speeders, Teleporting Deathwing Squads and tanks transporting units to off-set the inherent weakness or downside of biker units.

Translation - your "Ravenwing" player now plays Dark Angels, or at beast DeathRaven.

Ravenwing armies consist of (and ONLY of) the Master, 0-1 Bike-mounted Chaplain / Librarian, Ravenwing Bike Squadrons, Ravenwing Attack Bike Squadrons and Land Speeder Squadrons. That's it. That is all the Ravenwing can have - if you take anything else, it isn't Ravenwing.

The notion of placing objectives up high to 'catch out' a Ravenwing player (or any other pure-biker) is almost as bad as making a Bretonnian play siege. Honestly, I know Bretonnians have infantry and war machines, but I don't think I've ever seen a Bretonnian list with more than 20 Infantry models in it!

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ravenwing armies consist of (and ONLY of) the Master, 0-1 Bike-mounted Chaplain / Librarian, Ravenwing Bike Squadrons, Ravenwing Attack Bike Squadrons and Land Speeder Squadrons. That's it. That is all the Ravenwing can have - if you take anything else, it isn't Ravenwing.

Ok... you win? I guess...

H.B.M.C. wrote:The notion of placing objectives up high to 'catch out' a Ravenwing player (or any other pure-biker) is almost as bad as making a Bretonnian play siege. Honestly, I know Bretonnians have infantry and war machines, but I don't think I've ever seen a Bretonnian list with more than 20 Infantry models in it!

When did I say I was doing that? Why are you getting so amped up about this?

The second paragraph was not aimed at you directly, hence the break. It is a general statement on the subject of the thread, vis-a-vie how very wrong it is to actively abuse the rules because your opponent's theme (or even army list) is restricted.

Ultimately, if your opponent is fielding a themed list because they enjoy the background, you are not justified in 'abusing' the placement of Objectives.
If they field Nob Warbiker armies because they are hard to kill, you are justified in abusing the placement of Objectives, and saying unkind things about the player behind his back.
If they field Lashwhip, you are justified in setting their car on fire and going home instead of playing them.
It's all about applying behaviour appropriate to the situation.

If you have themed your list entirely one way, you simply have to accept that you will have some deficincies which a wily opponent can exploit.

Now it's been a while since I played 40k, certainly well before 5th Edition, but it was my understanding that objectives were placed by both players? Thus, if I put one purely to my advantage, what exactly is preventing you from doing the same?

Some armies excel in certain areas. Take IG. By putting an objective up high, accompanied by say, a Heavy Squad attached to an Infantry platoon, and have the troops as an amalgamated squad occupying the lower levels, then frankly I deserve to win that objective, seeing as I have played to my strengths.

As the OP said, most armies can indeed take high objectives. Sure, some will have a far easier time of it.

If you are going to struggle, you can still deny it to your opponent by taking out the unit currently holding it, and ensuring he cannot then retake it.

Is this not called tactics? So no, not a Jerk Move at all. Just a canny position which your opponent shouldn't be surprised about.

As for Bike armies yup, getting up high is a major problem for them in so far as they cannot do it. But then, Tau don't hold up so well in HTH, so perhaps engaging the Tau in a bout of fisticuffs is also a jerk move?

Again, no. That is not a valid argument.

A similar situation actually comes up when Tau are viewed in 4th Edition. In lamen's terms, 40K works thusly;

Everything can move.
Most things can shoot.
If you are bad at shooting, you are good at combat.
If you are getting shot, you should be able to shoot back (assuming you are in range).
If you are getting hit in combat, you should be able to fight back (assuming you live).

Tau in 4th largely ignored Point #4: They could jink out of cover, shoot and jink back. Many players hated this, as it meant they spent a lot of time fighting an 'empty battlefield'.

To prove a point that facing an army you cannot realistically hit back was annoying, I took a Krieg army containing enough mortars to drop 30 blast markers a turn against our local "hidden battlefield" Tau Commander.

The experience must have scarred him for life, because he never brough the Tau in again for almost a year!

Ultimately, any situation where the phrase "technically, it's legal" applies is either cheating, or a dick-move. Yes, 'technically' you can place your objective where your opponent cannot possibly reach it... but I really don't see anything to suggest that is ever how GW intended the game to work.

The situation of a "High Ground" objective is not something I would ever expect to see in a normal game of 40K. Cityfight definitely, but Cityfighting has a very different style of play to normal. Planetstrike is another potential source of 'High Ground', but again that is not normal 40K.

Lastly, the very notion that placing the objectives "tactically" is acceptable feels very, very wrong to me. I'm sure we've all played Dawn of War, and in DoW the "Objectives" are evenly spaced across the map; victory goes not to the side whose objectives are a pain in the ass for the other guy to get, but to the army who makes best use of his forces to win the day.

40K should be no different - If I lose because my opponent outplayed me, that's fine. If I lose because of how my opponent set up the board, that's Dickery.

Placing the objectives in hard to reach places comes down to tactics. Of course in a friendly game it could be considered a bit rough, but then they are equally allowed to place their objectives in such positions also.

Being outplayed includes a many number of things: army list, movement decisions, shooting decisions, assault decisions, objective placement, deployment, etc.

If I deploy first and decide to spread out across the board, is it dickery for the opponent to castle up in a corner? No, it's tactical play.

Wargamer wrote:Again, no. That is not a valid argument.

Inventing your own moral code and list of restrictions isn't a valid argument. I suggest you stop doing that.

I'm 100% with Grotsnik on this one. There are armies that have deficiencies that can't be solved via legality or 'jerk moves' or whatever. Not every army is geared towards every situation, and it's not going to always be the fault of the opponent when such a situation arises. Placing objectives higher on the table is no more cheating than taking multiples of the same powerful unit.

Lukus83 wrote:Placing the objectives in hard to reach places comes down to tactics. Of course in a friendly game it could be considered a bit rough, but then they are equally allowed to place their objectives in such positions also.

Being outplayed includes a many number of things: army list, movement decisions, shooting decisions, assault decisions, objective placement, deployment, etc.

If I deploy first and decide to spread out across the board, is it dickery for the opponent to castle up in a corner? No, it's tactical play.

I do not see it that way.

The board should be set up fairly. That includes placement of Objectives. You don't need a mirrored board, but it should be fairly evenly spread so that there is no "advantage" to getting a certain corner of the board / table edge.

Likewise, winning because your army list is "better" feels wrong. Very wrong. 40K is not balanced, but in theory the 'power' of each list should be equal.

How you use that army (including deployment) is what should decide the victor. I have won games because my opponent didn't deploy any units on his objective, intending to advance onto it in later turns. A sound plan, until I blitzed his side of the board during the endgame and physically blocked his access to it with a Rhino, a superbly timed Drop Pod and a pair of Tac-squads.

This is one of the reasons I so loved Rules of Engagment; I always seemed to wind up with a mission like "hold both enemy objectives" when playing static, and "hold both your own" when playing a really assault-heavy list. The fact that neither player knew which two of the four Objectives he had to claim (if he had to claim any at all) meant they were usually deployed in easy to reach locations... and the games became less about turtling in some 2+ Re-rollable Cover and more about blitzing the enemy in a desperate attempt to make your army perform in a way you never intended.

Wargamer wrote:
Likewise, winning because your army list is "better" feels wrong. Very wrong. 40K is not balanced, but in theory the 'power' of each list should be equal.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this. Surely making good/better army lists is part of being a good general?

All this thread has shown me is that your Ravenwing army isn't very good.

I'm with HBMC and Grotsnik. If you intentionally create a large blindspot to adhere to your overall theme, it's your fault, not your opponent's, when he exploits it.

Furthermore, I don't think that it's as bad as you're making out. Turboboosting speeders, for example, are still perfectly capable of contesting top floor objectives. Tactical play can overcome those deficiencies built into your list as long as you recognize and adapt to them.

Lukus83 wrote:

Wargamer wrote:
Likewise, winning because your army list is "better" feels wrong. Very wrong. 40K is not balanced, but in theory the 'power' of each list should be equal.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this. Surely making good/better army lists is part of being a good general?

No, it makes you a good list-builder.

A good general can take a bad list and win with it. That's why they're a good general!

Well-known example - Thermopalye. Numerically, the Greeks couldn't win, yet because the Persian general was an idiot, they were massacred for three days straight. The Spartans did not win because their "list" was better, they won because they used superior tactics and strategy.

I still don't understand it though. Winning because you have a better list is not wrong. And anyway, this has nothing to do with the original thread. I'm sticking with HMBC, Sourclams and Mad Doc on this.

Placing an objective high up purly to try to win = jerk move (unless you're in a tourney, in which case expect it and build it into your force)
Placing an objective high up for fun (with opponents permission) = go for it. I've played games like this, they are fun and add a different feeling to the battle if both players are happy to do so. If someones not happy they're less likly to have fun and therefore won't come back to play. Their loss. Until it get's to the point you have a bad rep or no players left, in which case it's safe to aaume you are a jerk. Simple answer? Place high objectives somewhere neutral, or ensure both players have an objective placed that will cause problems for the opponent. If in doubt don't do it, do something else to make the game interesting, after all you're here to enjoy and hopfully not to win at all costs. Want difficult objectives? Put them all in the open and surround them with mine fields or something. KABOOM

last point - consider what the objective is - if it's reasonable plot wise it would be at the top of a building fair dos (transmitter etc), if not then don't put it there or risk shouts of dumbass (underground tunnel entrance, tank data recorder). Bear in mind though if your opponent is trying to take an objective like a transmitter on top of a building they would expect it to be high up - agree some sort of plot before going to the game, otherwise you're not just playing 3D but 4D in that you need a bit of psychic power or foresight. After all, what sort of army would turn up to a battle with no idea why they were sent? (Ok, guard may do but the commanders would still know and in some instances would plan to suceed rather than hold up the enemy with expendable troops while they finish teir game of chess and have a drink and smoke!)

The game is supposed to be fun for both people.

Is taking an unfair advantage (say, putting the only tall building in your DZ) fun for both?

But, the flip side is, your opponent shouldn't show up with an army that can't handle situation X (objectives high, land raider spam, hordes of GEQs, etc.) and then complain too much. That's not fun for the other guy either - he's now forced to play in a 'certain' way (objectives only on the tabletop, only 1 landraider, not as many ork boyz, etc), which isn't fun for him either.

Fool me once, shame on me. But, if I was playing a biker-themed army, and my opponent regularly hid in the upper floors of buildings out of my reach, I'd start investing in assault marines, speeders, etc. It might break my theme a bit, but it's better than showing up to a gunfight with a knife, and then complaining that the gun is unfair.

dietrich wrote:The game is supposed to be fun for both people.

Is taking an unfair advantage (say, putting the only tall building in your DZ) fun for both?

But, the flip side is, your opponent shouldn't show up with an army that can't handle situation X (objectives high, land raider spam, hordes of GEQs, etc.) and then complain too much. That's not fun for the other guy either - he's now forced to play in a 'certain' way (objectives only on the tabletop, only 1 landraider, not as many ork boyz, etc), which isn't fun for him either.

Fool me once, shame on me. But, if I was playing a biker-themed army, and my opponent regularly hid in the upper floors of buildings out of my reach, I'd start investing in assault marines, speeders, etc. It might break my theme a bit, but it's better than showing up to a gunfight with a knife, and then complaining that the gun is unfair.

Cost of replacing Ravenwing with a new army - £150 to £300

Cost of making your opponent put his objective on the ground floor - £0.

Care to change your mind on this matter?

Buying a ravenwing army without thinking about objective missions: Priceless (for the opponent)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also fail to see how it's the opponents fault for you buying a ravenwing army, and then punishing you for this. The only person's fault it could possibly be is the ravenwing player.

Every army has weaknesses, any general worth his salt will ALWAYS play by exploiting them.

Wargamer wrote:Cost of replacing Ravenwing with a new army - £150 to £300

Cost of making your opponent put his objective on the ground floor - £0.

Care to change your mind on this matter?

No.

I must have the wrong army in mind. I thought that Dark Angels could field Ravenwing with a unit of Assault Marines. Or some tacticals in a rhino. And I was thinking that a box of Assault on Black Reach would give them two infantry squads and a walker. Why do you think it's fine to houserule objective replacement to save some money?

So, by dictating a houserule to overcome a weakness in your themed list that you refuse to overcome by the addition of a couple units that are part of the same Space Marine Chapter - you're making this fun for your opponent? And maybe the answer is Yes.

This is strictly up to the two players in question. While it's not fun to have an auto-lose game, both players need to consider if they're making the game fun for the opponent or not.

Personally, my group plays mostly tournies and prep games for tournies. So, there's a certain understanding. Hiding objectives on top floors is fine. Terrain is about 25% with a mix of LOS-blocking, area terrain, walls, etc. Lists can be as hard as possible. That works for my group, it may not work for others.

Maybe you need to play Apocalypse, or even Apocalypse lite. Which means working with the opponent to develop a mission and terrain setup, etc. to avoid issues like this.

I think HMBC made the best point out of this arguement - the actual terrain itself is the biggest factor in weither it's being a dick move or not.

Skimmers and drop troops can only disembark on the higher levels if there is room for the base of the model. If the top 12" of a 24" high tower is 1" square, then no units can deploy there to even try and take it. THis would be a bit of a dick move to me. If the same building was 12" square, then no problem. THe original poster has even conceeded that the scenario they were originally talking about was not an extreme case, and I see nothing wrong with what was done, but there are cases where it wouldn't be cool.

If you have a themed army like ravenwing and didn't anticipate 1/3 of all missions maybe needing to take an objective, then you have a bad list. It's no different than a gunline guard list that isn't designed to move, complaining about how unfair it is to have to move something during the game to try and capture an objective in the opponents deployment zone. A well designed army should have elements to try and handle any mission situation that may appear. This isn't just list building, you are not the great general you think you are if you don't have something in your list to try and win 1 or two of the three basic missions 40k now consists of.

personally, the two objective mission is not one I enjoy, because it seems to be very rare when it doesn't turn out to be a draw. The old missions were far superior.

dietrich wrote:
I must have the wrong army in mind. I thought that Dark Angels could field Ravenwing with a unit of Assault Marines. Or some tacticals in a rhino. And I was thinking that a box of Assault on Black Reach would give them two infantry squads and a walker.

That's Dark Angels, not Ravenwing. There is a difference.

Yeah, Ravenwing is a company in the Dark Angel chapter. It's not like it even requires you to buy a new codex. If you don't want to field anything that's not Ravenwing, that's your choice. But I don't see how you can complain about your opponent taking advantage of that.

If you played Orks, would you complain if your opponent fielded ordnance weapons that ignore cover saves and land raiders? Do you complain if an Eldar player brings Starcannons against you?

Again, the game is supposed to be fun for both players. How would you feel if your opponent put restrictions on you, because he didn't want to add a unit or two to his army? Personally, I wouldn't like having someone do that to me.

Can placing objectives in a tower be unfair? Possibly.
Can fielding a themed army have disadvantages? Certainly.
Can refusing to modify your army be inconsiderate? Possibly.

Wargamer wrote:

dietrich wrote:
I must have the wrong army in mind. I thought that Dark Angels could field Ravenwing with a unit of Assault Marines. Or some tacticals in a rhino. And I was thinking that a box of Assault on Black Reach would give them two infantry squads and a walker.

That's Dark Angels, not Ravenwing. There is a difference.

Methinks he was being sarcastic. Ravenwing can field Assault Marines as fast attack, and as you no doubt have Sammael your fast attack slots are more open now that four Bike Squads are troops. Tacs in a Rhino is a bit useless, considering another full Bike squad is roughly the same points and more mobile (while maybe having less firepower, which is atradeoff you made from the getgo if you run a pure Ravenwing army).

Rico.

Wargamer wrote:

dietrich wrote:
I must have the wrong army in mind. I thought that Dark Angels could field Ravenwing with a unit of Assault Marines. Or some tacticals in a rhino. And I was thinking that a box of Assault on Black Reach would give them two infantry squads and a walker.

That's Dark Angels, not Ravenwing. There is a difference.

So Ravenwing don't have speeders capable of moving onto the top floor? I must be thinking of Bikerwing, not Ravenwing.

Seriously, this "That's not Ravenwing" you're tossing out as justification is nonsensical.

I can pay up $1000 to make a pure footslogging Deathguard army composed of nothing but Forgeworld Plaguemarines with plagueswords and plasmaguns led by Typhus. I have a very fluffy, very expensive custom army. I also have almost no mobility, and nothing that can deal with AV14. If I get clobbered by my opponent's Land Raider Redeemer, I have no justification whatsoever for going 'BAWWW! DicK MovE!' because I [should] know exactly what my weaknesses are going into it.

Cost of Land Raider Redeemer: $50
Cost of Not Playing Against 'BAWWW! DicK MovE!' Guy: $0

i think you should avoid it. you are effectively changing the size of the table.

Basis for that argument is....?

We've got rules for multi leveled terrain and measurement is done in 3 dimensions. Where in the world do the rules say that we play on a 2D plane?

I cant imagine something on the 3rd floor being a problem, you'd only have to climb one floor to contest/claim...

Although my whole army is in rhino's so I dont really have a mobility problem.

War isn't easy. Placing an objective at the top of a building is totally fair.

You guys think at D-day the Germans thought that making huge concrete bunkers on the top of cliffs (difficult terrain) with machine guns over looking clear beach was a "dick move?" I'm sure the G.I.s were QQin hard core about it but they over came it any way.

Its legal, its tough, its the 41st Millenium.

Manstein wrote:War isn't easy. Placing an objective at the top of a building is totally fair.

You guys think at D-day the Germans thought that making huge concrete bunkers on the top of cliffs (difficult terrain) with machine guns over looking clear beach was a "dick move?" I'm sure the G.I.s were QQin hard core about it but they over came it any way.

Its legal, its tough, its the 41st Millenium.

but the GIs didnt have to take the bunkers in ~6 turns either =/

It's legal to put an objective at the top of Rapunzel's tower. It doesn't mean you should or should not. The game is meant to be fun. Is it fun to set up terrain so your opponent has a minimal chance of winning? Is it fun to restrict your tactics and/or army comp because your opponent only wants to play a themed armylist of X?

Basic 40k is meant to provide the framework for two strangers to play a game and have a reasonably fun time.

If you have a small gaming group, especially if some players have a set army, it dramatically changes the metagame. Joe Ork only plays footslogging orks - don't bring any lascannons! Ravenwing Bob only plays Ravenwing, bring lots of plasma! It's perfectly acceptable to have some houserules to address things, but you're not playing the 40k that most of the rest of us do. And I don't mean that to be critical, just a statement. I admire HBMC for his prolific houserules, but I also realize that I won't see them at any RTTs anytime soon.

Wow.

Wargamer-

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I think you're putting out your line of argumentation in the wrong forum. Dakka is, generally speaking, a place where competitive 40k players discuss 40k. You're talking about maintaining an army list that has obvious, glaring weaknesses for fluff reasons and then thinking the onus is on your opponent to not take advantage of said obvious weaknesses. That's not competitive 40k. Multiple posters have given the advice (again, from the perspective of competitive 40k players) to expand your army to add things that are perfectly legal for the list you're playing albeit not fluffy. This, in a competitive environment, is good advice, and furthermore given in good faith.

So, you end up with a general response of "we don't care", because, well, from a competitive standpoint, we don't. If you willfully choose to adhere to a principle of list design other than "maintain competitiveness" and you get into situations where you lose horribly as a result, well, it's your bed, you made it, you get to sleep in it.

Not to say that we don't have any players who try to adhere to the fluff, but by and large the standard response is going to be to bend the fluff to maintain competitiveness, explicitly not to ask your opponent to ignore your weaknesses because you're playing a fluffy list.


To the original point-

Traditionally, I prefer to have a neutral third party arrange terrain on a table before a game. I'm not a big fan of gimmicky terrain pieces (and I'd generally consider a 4-or-greater story building to be at least somewhat gimmicky) -- whether it's a huge building, or someone with a static shooty army wanting to place a counts-as-difficult-and-dangerous-terrain lava pool that occupies half the game board. That said, once the board is set up fairly, placing objectives is an important strategic element to the game, and any legal placement is fine.