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.

That's a bit rough for large squads though, as Yak pointed out. I think majority if fair and really, there is no way to manipulate that, at least not that I can think of.

There isn't; it's what we do for the NOVA Quarters mission, worked/works fine.

@Yak - Definitely on our list of things to review. The AWC guys brought that up this Fall along with the Non-Troops/Elite KP objective.

The problem is - Table Quarters are no longer standard 40K. We've actually had this exact same wording for at least the last two years in the Team Tournament and the Championships were even further out there by requiring you to be 'wholly within' a table quarter to contest or control (much like the old Dakka system it sounds like). So that objective description, which is one objective out of twelve, is sort of new for the Championships in any format. Table quarter resolution is semi-messy in a few forms. It either requires some bookkeeping (e.g.; declaration of which table quarter you want to be in at the end of each round, VP/KP calculations) or it introduces a sort of abusable fence-sitting aspect to the mission.

In reality, this can be remedied by doing away with table quarter objectives and moving to a fixed objective in each quadrant (e.g; a terrain piece, fixed objective in the middle). This is something we have done in the past and it has worked out well. My only aversion to this approach is: 1. We already have a ton of marker/point of control based objectives. 2. It removes a little bit of the need for stealth and/or tactical prowess when you no longer have the entire quarter to play with and instead turns the objective back into a dogpile (nothing against dogs). I have always liked the distinction between objective markers and table quarter control in that regard.

That said, it is only one objective out of twelve - it could also just slowly fade away...does anyone remember page 81 anymore...

Matthias, I'm definitely a fan of having table quarters as an objective. As you say, they're a distinctly different thing than objectives, and add more variety. It just requires more specificity than it used to, since it's not in the rulebook anymore.

Randomizing which quadrant for straddling units was, as I'm sure you remember, the actual rule in 4th ed, which probably contributed to fewer people commenting on it in 2009 & 2010, as they still thought of it as standard.

I'm honestly cool with any of the four variants (completely within, majority, randomize, or choose), although IHO majority (and roll off if no majority) tends to be the fairest and most intuitive.

Mannahnin wrote:Randomizing which quadrant for straddling units was, as I'm sure you remember, the actual rule in 4th ed, which probably contributed to fewer people commenting on it in 2009 & 2010, as they still thought of it as standard.

In 4th ed you didn't control the quarter by having the most victory points in it though, you got control by having the most scoring units. Those were mobile vehicles and units over 50% strength. IC were never scoring.

You could bring this type of "scoring units" back and mayabe call them "intimidating units". Or just allow all non-scoring units be able to capture table quarters.

Or how about a slight twist on it - Cleanse the Area - you have to cleanse table quarters of all enemy units, while having some of your own in the quarter. If there is even some part of an enemy unit in the quarter then you do not control it. It might be harder to actually claim quarters this way.

For copntrolling Tabe Quarters I prefer doing it by who has the most VP's in that table quarter.

Not every army is served well by stocking up on Troops. So some armies are naturally better able to field more units of Troops then others so its kind of unbalanced.

In ordder to make this more fair you can use VP's instead. Technically speaking, every army shows up with the same ammount of VP's on the board so have an equal chance to vie for control.

I did this for a Tournamet I ran back in November and it worked well.

The only complints I recieved was that people found it hard to keep track of what VP's everything was worth.

However, seeing as your opponent has givin their list to you, you have easy access to how much everything is worth. Simple addition should be easy enough to work out at that point.. I dont think its to much to ask grown adults and even teenages to be able to process simple math skills they learned as a small child.

Matthias wrote:@Yak - Definitely on our list of things to review. The AWC guys brought that up this Fall along with the Non-Troops/Elite KP objective.

The problem is - Table Quarters are no longer standard 40K. We've actually had this exact same wording for at least the last two years in the Team Tournament and the Championships were even further out there by requiring you to be 'wholly within' a table quarter to contest or control (much like the old Dakka system it sounds like). So that objective description, which is one objective out of twelve, is sort of new for the Championships in any format. Table quarter resolution is semi-messy in a few forms. It either requires some bookkeeping (e.g.; declaration of which table quarter you want to be in at the end of each round, VP/KP calculations) or it introduces a sort of abusable fence-sitting aspect to the mission.

In reality, this can be remedied by doing away with table quarter objectives and moving to a fixed objective in each quadrant (e.g; a terrain piece, fixed objective in the middle). This is something we have done in the past and it has worked out well. My only aversion to this approach is: 1. We already have a ton of marker/point of control based objectives. 2. It removes a little bit of the need for stealth and/or tactical prowess when you no longer have the entire quarter to play with and instead turns the objective back into a dogpile (nothing against dogs). I have always liked the distinction between objective markers and table quarter control in that regard.

That said, it is only one objective out of twelve - it could also just slowly fade away...does anyone remember page 81 anymore...

Actually, if you go with an objective in each quarter then one big unit is then able to capture multiple objectives so you'd actually be swinging the rule around to really benefit big units.

I think using table quarters is fine and great for a tournament objective personally. I think it adds a nice little change of pace to standard objectives that I personally enjoy and feel benefits the tournament overall.

I don't think that 'fence sitting' is an issue with table quarters because of random game length. And in fact, so many units are now mechanized that it makes it really easy for them to be in the quarter they want to be in at the end of the game. The 'random rule' (or requiring the entire unit to be in the quarter to count) only really affects big slow foot pounding units...which IMHO (and I'm probably biased here) don't need any further hindrances compared to their mechanized brethren.

So I would humbly suggest that you please change the rule to say:

A unit may only control or contest ONE table quarter at a time. If a unit is spread between multiple table quarters at the end of the game, then it counts as occupying the quarter that most of the unit is in (if a unit is perfectly split between quarters, then randomly determine which quarter it counts as occupying).

I know its slightly more text than the current version, but I really think it is better overall towards removing unneeded randomness from deciding games.

It's more of a challenge when the entire unit has to be inside a TQ. Otherwise you will have some big units like Boyz or gaunts sitting on the fence then hopping a few more over as the game draws to an end and the owning player can see best where to place the majority.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:It's more of a challenge when the entire unit has to be inside a TQ. Otherwise you will have some big units like Boyz or gaunts sitting on the fence then hopping a few more over as the game draws to an end and the owning player can see best where to place the majority.

Of course it is more of a challenge, but is that a good thing? That rule hammers big slow moving units and rewards small fast units (i.e. mech units). Do we really need more reasons in a tournament for people to take mech armies?

And again, with random game length, what is wrong with having a player having a big unit straddle two quarters and then making a choice on turn 5 where to go with the unit? You still don't know exactly when the game is going to end unless you're already to turn 7 (or running out of time in the tournament round, I suppose).

I dunno, to me the whole point of a table quarter mission is to represent unit's holding areas of the table. If you play that the entire unit has to be within a quarter to capture, then this dynamic changes as you suddenly have units that are essentially 'not on the table' in that they're not considered to be in ANY quarter (when they're overlapping two or more). So now you have this big 30 man Ork mob that is 99% in one quarter, but somehow they're now not contributing to the game at all because one model is slightly over a quarter edge?

It just seems extra 'gamey' and punitive to big units for no particular reason. Table Quarters is supposed to be about area control and a unit should count as controlling the area that it is mostly in...it just seems intuitive and proper for the theme of the mission to me.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:It's more of a challenge when the entire unit has to be inside a TQ. Otherwise you will have some big units like Boyz or gaunts sitting on the fence then hopping a few more over as the game draws to an end and the owning player can see best where to place the majority.

True, but a unit in a transport can do that just as easy, and as Yak said it only punishes big units to do it the way you propose. There is more than enough reason to play Mech, we don't need any more.

As for killing everything in a TQ? That sounds fun but how in the blazes would some armies do it? CC is the only reliable way and that immediately eliminates a lot of armies. Trying to shoot fearless units to death to the man is a tough thing to do, not all all reliable.

As for most VPs? That has its pros and cons, although if you say it worked then you would know well. I could just see deathstar units like Wolfstars, Nob Bikers, BCs with characters, etc. dominating that. Just as MSU armies would dominate if it were most units.

I think the only fair way, and the most intuitive is to have it revolve around scoring units as that is in keeping with the vibe of 5th ed. Either the only or the most scoring units per table quarter to control it. Simple, easy, and most armies should be bringing scoring units anyway as a part of normal 5th ed. Yes that bones Crons, but Crons are boned anyway and you almost never see them at tournaments these days.

I certainly dont want to see VPs used to control TQ. That harkens too much back to 4th edition for my taste. I like to see a squad having to be fully in one TQ because it forces the owning player to make a clear decision. I've seen my share of games where they ended with a squad in one or more TQ. whenever I play a game that uses TQ as an objective I immediately identify the center of the table and keep an eye on it. A bad situation is one squad at the center of the table straddling all four quarters. Things like this can happen when both armies have suffered a lot of attrition.

AB, I think Yak's reasoning is cogent and convincing. Random game length already allieviates the fence-sitting issue, and denying a straddling unit from counting for any quadrant mostly hurts big units which are generally at a disadvantage to MSU anyway.

I have no issues with tweaking individual objectives to make them mechanically more sound. This discussion is centered around a victory condition that GW has abandoned. We've used it as they did in the past, as well as several variations on that theme in the 40K Championships and the Team Tournament. It's on the discussion list. What I can say for certain:

1. We will not be doing 'Wholly Within'.
2. We not be doing VP per quarter. While I understand the concept, and I like that it gets VP into the regular mix of objectives, it also is adding an additional level of complexity to a objective that I am not sure it needs. In 128 games, someone is bound to mess that up. If the idea is to produce a well-oiled tournament format, over complicating the instructions is a mistake. The less VP calculations the better. We have attempted to limit these to tiebreak situation only, as per the rulebook, except in the case of the final mission - but even then VP calculations are minimal and to a point.

I can generally get on board with Yak's rewrite, although I think I would word it differently. We've done 'majority' before, but you have to account for things like vehicles (in regards to contesting), characters, multi-wound creatures...and if you are going to define something like this, you need to be precise or there will be a ton of questions. Some might suggest to just limit the ability to capture AND contest to Scoring Units, I am not sure about that though...

This mission also needs to be properly paired with two other objectives. The idea behind the primer mission was: Scoring Units had to claim table quarters. Your opponent would attempt to contest those quarter either with his own Scoring Units (which could possibly weaken his ability to control other table quarters) or other units in his army. The risk would be that these other units would award Kill Points as they fell trying to wrest control of the battlefield. It also removed the redundancy of killing a troops/Scoring Unit in that not only did it weaken your opponent's control over a table quarter, but it also gave you a Kill Point towards another objective. Meanwhile you HQ has to plant himself strategically in the middle of the battle and repel the enemy. In essence, it makes the entire enemy force a target (of course you have the option of ignoring at least one objective).

@ Matthias thanks for keeping up with the feedback and continue on the good work. I really am enjoying what you are doing for Adepticon this year.

thehod wrote:@ Matthias thanks for keeping up with the feedback and continue on the good work. I really am enjoying what you are doing for Adepticon this year.

I agree you and the Acepticon staff have really stepped it up this year.

If a squad is embarked in a transport and it straddles two TQ how do you decide which one the majority is in?

Oh I know, make it so squads in transports don't count as scoring!

Afrikan Blonde wrote:If a squad is embarked in a transport and it straddles two TQ how do you decide which one the majority is in?

Whatever quarter the majority of the vehicle is in...why wouldn't that be the answer?

I vote for just majority (in my non-biased stance). Allowing them to choose heavily favors large unit builds. All in one quarter favors msu. VP's are good but i'd just go with majority in the quarter.

If you are going to go with that generic of a resolution, which I am generally in favor of, you need to consider all the additional possibilities and/or possible questions that will ultimately arise. Majority models or wounds? What about multi-wound models in or attached to a Scoring Unit? Should units need to be at or above 50% to capture or contest? Do vehicles still need to be mobile to contest?

Matthias wrote:If you are going to go with that generic of a resolution, which I am generally in favor of, you need to consider all the additional possibilities and/or possible questions that will ultimately arise. Majority models or wounds? What about multi-wound models in or attached to a Scoring Unit? Should units need to be at or above 50% to capture or contest? Do vehicles still need to be mobile to contest?

My suggestion was pulling JUST the part of your existing mission text explaining that units can only capture/contest one quarter and what to do if they are spread between multiple quarters (as this is the only thing that personally bothered me). I was envisioning all your existing mission rules regarding the actual capturing and contesting would be included as currently written.

I intentionally made the wording general to cover both single and multiple model units, but I do suppose that people could ask questions about multiple wound models. So if you don't mind a bit more text you could go with (and again, all the other rules you currently have in the mission about what units can capture/contest remain):

A unit may only control or contest ONE table quarter at a time. If a unit is spread between multiple table quarters at the end of the game, then it counts as occupying the quarter that most of the models in the unit are in (or for single model units, whichever quarter most of the model is in). If a unit is perfectly split between quarters, then randomly determine which quarter it counts as occupying.

Those are some good ideas indeed.

For the same tournament I ran I had the mutiple table quarter issue written as this:

"If a unit straddles between multiple Table Quarters, it counts as being in the Table Quarter in which a
majority of its models are located. If the unit is evenly spread between multiple Table Quarters, then
randomly determine which one it counts as being in. If the unit is a single model and its hull or base
straddles multiple Table Quarters, then count it as being in the Table Quarter in which most of its base or
hull is clearly located. If you can not clearly determine which Table Quarter it is mostly located in then
determine it randomly in any way you and your opponent agree (be it dice roll, coin flip etc)."

I was personally indifferent to a models number of wounds or vehicle damage. If it wasnt dead (wrecked, destruction, total loss of wounds etc) then it was a viable option to contest or control. Mutuipe wound models in units (Nob Bikers as example) don't lose any Scoring/Contest ability for "carrying wounds" so I didnt think single models should either. Same went for vehicle damage. I dont see anything saying a damaged vehicle cannot contest so I saw no reason to complicate it by adding further restrictions.

@ Reecius The VP issue worked well here because it was a much smaller tournament then A-Con. Though even in a larget format I don't see it as a complication (who can't do simple math? How did ones army even get made if it cant be done?) BUT I havent been on Matt, Hank and the rest of the A-Con head organizers level either. So I defer to them on a much vaster experiance.

VP heavy units actually didnt preform well because it wrapped up to much VP into a single table quarter, leaving the other much easier to control for the oponent of such units.

Having run VP-controlled Quarters at the NOVA, and in our primers, and collected a couple thousand results now using it ... both observationally from personal play and anecdotally from other testers, the VP-inclusion actually benefits armies with more concentrated points in units.

Effectively, the "wrong" way to play the Quarters mission is to spread your resources across the board, and try to firmly "sit" fully in a quarter ... instead, armies with the oomph and unit strength to function and dish out pain from a central position / board control position are in better shape, b/c they are enabled to shift large #'s of VP's to any quarter near the end of the game. Smaller MSU'ed out units tend to get in each others' way (especially mech spam), forcing more of a clearcut placement of each unit in each quarter / advance placement, and making it easier on the opponent to strategically predict one's actions and prevent them.

This is all just chitchat, but the point is pure MSU armies statistically did worse in Quarters with VP to determine control than armies with heavier units (i.e. multi-raider/assault term marines, nob biker armies, etc.).

You of course get into a problem with # of units or # of scoring units in that it can strongly encourage MSU ... the more units you have, the more firmly you can control if # of units is the determiner instead of VP.

With Marius' comment, I don't think the math issue is a "real" one ... maybe I'm biased by having a smart phone, but almost everyone's cell phone has a calculator tool, and everyone has their opponent's list. It's not that complicated.

@Marius Xerxes
As I said, I deferred to your experience over my theorizing =) If you have run it before, then you would know far better than I if it is a good idea or not.

At Brandt - you are assuming the elite units can move very quickly. Sounds idealistic.

Not at all - if they can survive and live at center, they can readily and easily be majority in any quarter, since all the quarters intersect at the center of the board. Even the slowest unit doesn't have a problem moving a few inches one way or another.

That's the point here - dominating the center is key to VP-control quarters, b/c it doesn't matter if you're barely in that quarter off the center, or entirely in it in the very corner of the board edge.

A lot of people miss that, and get "punked" by the Quarters mission piloted by a better general.

Fair enough and good point.