Armored Assaults still possible?

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.

**Grey Templar**

If you are having fun thats fine, but just be aware that you arn't playing the game like its meant to be played.

Many people complaining of imbalance or OPness simply arn't playing the game correctly. Common examples are playing without enough terrain, lacking LoS blocking terrain, or not playing with rulebook missions.

**TheAngrySquig**

Oh I know we're doing it "wrong" but we use most of the stuff. We use FoC, we use terrain, we even plan to use the new battlefield traits when we get around to playing

**Grey Templar**

Missions are more important then any of those, except terrain.

The mission is what balances everything out.

You could run an army of nothing by Heavy Support, but it would automatically lose in an objective mission(except Big Guns Never Tire)

**TheAngrySquig**

It would go against FoC, so no you couldn't. But its really just about the way you have fun. Some people like bashing each other in the face with big guns, some people like games that require balanced play and tactical thinking to win. It's a matter of preference

**ender502**

TheAngrySquig wrote:
It would go against FoC, so no you couldn't. But its really just about the way you have fun. Some people like bashing each other in the face with big guns, some people like games that require balanced play and tactical thinking to win. It's a matter of preference

Play it however is most fun for you guys.

Just one thought...peanut butter cups are awesome because they are peanut butter and chocolate. It's the combination that makes them so great.

Playing w/o objectives is like the peanut butter cup w/o the chocolate. Still good but not as ridiculously awesome.

Give the objectives a try. I think you'll find it's even better.

ender502

**TheAngrySquig**

We usually just forget to put them down honestly. We plan on using them if we ever remember

**TheCaptain**

Trondheim wrote:
@ TheCaptain : back to be rude and generaly making yourself look like an ass you mean?.

Excuse me? Go ahead and tell me that I'm wrong. Go ahead, because everything I said spoke truth. If you don't like my tone, don't read my stuff. Simple. Check out the first line in my signature if you've got any questions.

-The Wise, Snarky, Skull-Cappin Captain

**Kasrkin229**

Captain now i have to agree now your being Stuck up for absolutly no , might even say conceited

**TheCaptain**

Kasrkin229 wrote:
Captain now i have to agree now your being Stuck up for absolutly no , might even say conceited

And? Relevance, please?

Check it out, guys. Here is my first post in this thread.

Oh man, come on now dude. Sure, technically it's not unfair, but it ruins the game as intended. Thats like...playing monopoly without money. It all becomes "Who rolls what on their dice" meaning whoever is "luckiest" wins. It has essentially taken all of the difficult, strategic stuff out, and turned the game into "My wall of plastic is going to run at your wall of plastic. Your wall of plastic is going to run at mine too. We'll both shoot and whoever dies less wins." You're missing out on half of the fun stuff! (Well, 5/6 of the fun stuff, to be exact). Ask anyone that DOES use objectives; the coolest fights are "This squad has to slug it out over this objective, that one has to hope they make their saves so they can hold that one, and I have to decide whether to divert this squad to objective A or B. Hmm...strategy stuff..." It's what being a general is all about. Otherwise, it's your list playing the game, not you.

Also, yeah, it does actually kindof break the game. Assuming you play with the proper FoC (Please say yes. Oh please. Don't tell me you ignore it and just run all Heavys. Please. That's like the kid that tried to play a 1000pt game against me with 4 SM captains.) you only have to worry about taking the bare minimum of the required stuff. Much of what balances a list is deciding how many troops you need for objective missions.

Say I'm a guard player, and I want to play a 1500 point game. I should have around 4-5 troop choices, costing me roughly 600-700 points. That leaves me with, call it 800 points to spend on pure, raw dakka. This will give me a balanced list with probably a couple tanks, maybe a vendetta, and some stormies. Now, lets change things a bit and pretend I'm playing in your world. No objectives? Sweet, I don't have to bother with troops. So gimme a CCS, two Vet squads, and six tanks. Oh, and two vendettas. Yeah...yeah babygirl...that's nice right there. That's the spot. Can you smell what the Captain is cooking?

But seriously. See what I mean? Codices, rules, and units are made with the thought in mind that they will be written into lists that are forced to balance themselves out by accounting for objectives. Hell, a big point of 6th edition is stressing the importance of them (objectives). Give it a few games, you'll see the difference.

All of that is useful, helpful, serious advice. If you gentlemen don't like my tone, well, I don't really seem to care. I've provided insight to the OP on the merits of objective based gameplay. You have simply told me "I'm being a big meanie." Who is really the bad guy here? The guy with a snarky tone who posted a real, helpful, advising response? Or the personal attackers attempting to turn another thread into "Captain is a big ole jerkface."

Be a little less sensitive, guys. It's suuuuuper lame.

-The Charming, Conceited, Childish Cap'n

PS. rather not discuss this any more actually. I feel like you guys should understand it by now. But, you know, if you don't, cool. PM Me, we'll chit chat about how I should be more child-friendly. Just think we should, you know, avoid another derailed thread, so if you can handle not posting anymore about the matter, that'd be suuuuuuuper cool of you and stuff.

**Kasrkin229**

All i said is that your conceted and even so Objective games are not OP , i've never lost one , Armoured Assualts may seem less reliable but i think they just got all the better really , like i said conceited " - The Charming , Conceited , Childish Cap
'n " but funny none hte less

**TheCaptain**

"Provided insights "TO" the OP (Original poster)"

That's what I said, bud.