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.

 Eldarain wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
You could always just play the standard missions they still have (and kept for people specifically like the OP) in the rule book?

Have they said whether they remain unaltered? Seems odd to have missions like Big Guns and The Scouring if everything is a scoring unit now.

Sortof, they've mentioned 6 additional new missions. My gut tells me they must have at leaest altered some aspect or at least clarified things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bodazoka wrote:
You could always just play the standard missions they still have (and kept for people specifically like the OP) in the rule book?

Sure, if the cards are optional it's good for everyone, except the whole having to agree either way thing.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
You could always just play the standard missions they still have (and kept for people specifically like the OP) in the rule book?

Have they said whether they remain unaltered? Seems odd to have missions like Big Guns and The Scouring if everything is a scoring unit now.

Sortof, they've mentioned 6 additional new missions. My gut tells me they must have at leaest altered some aspect or at least clarified things.

The old missions are in the leaked image above the new ones that have these cards.

Id assume that those missions were altered, in saying that the "everything scores" is yet to be confirmed? could be that those unit's get the new "objective secured" rule in scouring/big guns if they score.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Well... Nothing I'm hearing is convincing me that I should give 40k another try but this little snippet of information is actively pushing me away.


Good one GW...

40k is fine, as long as you and your opponent can figuer out what it is, together, without different interpretations and prefferences before every game.

Yeah, but the people in my local area and I disagree about that

Me too :(

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
You could always just play the standard missions they still have (and kept for people specifically like the OP) in the rule book?

Have they said whether they remain unaltered? Seems odd to have missions like Big Guns and The Scouring if everything is a scoring unit now.

Sortof, they've mentioned 6 additional new missions. My gut tells me they must have at leaest altered some aspect or at least clarified things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bodazoka wrote:
You could always just play the standard missions they still have (and kept for people specifically like the OP) in the rule book?

Sure, if the cards are optional it's good for everyone, except the whole having to agree either way thing.

In my group we generally reach a consensus on these things pretty quickly. For instance within a month (or less) we always re-rolled the Relic mission. If these cards are terrible it wont be too long before we go back to the old missions which as stated are still there to be played. On a side note didn't tournaments all play there own styles of missions also anyway?

NamelessBard wrote:
I think I'll be a big fan of the cards.

If you don't like d3 VP, house rule it to be always 2.

Not every card should 100% apply to every army. That's part of the game. The tides of battle are supposed to be constantly changing, these are supposed to represent that.

I would think the cards should incentivize players to achieve tasks by offering a reward for the succesful completion of said task, likely with some strings attached. The problem is without any context or sense of scale the cards don't do that and it's basically random luck rewarding x victory points. It's basically drunk judges holding up random victory point signs to reward, well, whatever the drink tells them they want to see at that time. If you pick up a card and immediately receive a vp it's added exactly nothing to the game.


The cards are only part of the problem, the other part is how they're being implemented. I can still see some value in the deck, however you'd have to completely change how it currently works.


I don't think anything will make me like handing out victory points for doing something the rules may actually be forcing you to do (challenge). The fact that it doesn't even matter if you win the challange is beyond me.

As a 'forge the narrative' player, I feel the need to point out...

When GW introduced Warlord Traits, Psyker cards and the new 6th ed codexes...everyone got new cards, power, traits, etc.

I'm placing $20 USD on GW releasing Codex/Army/Faction-specific "Objective Cards", ala the missions in their Battle Missions book.

--B.

Pretty sure you have to win the challenge before receiving the VP's.

Also pretty sure that you don't just get the VP, first you have to be on the specific objective (they are numbered, it might be on your opponents table edge) then you have to remain there until the end of your turn. They are also only worth 1 point each.

The roll for a D3 is only when you achieve multiples of that objective which seem fairly impossible to do and so IMO wont happen often.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Briancj wrote:
As a 'forge the narrative' player, I feel the need to point out...

When GW introduced Warlord Traits, Psyker cards and the new 6th ed codexes...everyone got new cards, power, traits, etc.

I'm placing $20 USD on GW releasing Codex/Army/Faction-specific "Objective Cards", ala the missions in their Battle Missions book.

--B.

That would be awesome!

bodazoka wrote:
Pretty sure you have to win the challenge before receiving the VP's.

Reality is tough I know it better than most.





Did you issue a challenge in your turn>? You did? Here, have a victory point.

The line between "being positive" and ignorance is thin.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

bodazoka wrote:
The roll for a D3 is only when you achieve multiples of that objective which seem fairly impossible to do and so IMO wont happen often.

Which would mean less incentive for doing more than the bare minimum... that's not cynical at all...

The bare minimum in some cases is just picking up the card. I hear monopoly is pretty sweet.

 Briancj wrote:
As a 'forge the narrative' player

What does this honestly even mean?

We played with a version of objective cards long before this came up, although our in-house version was a little different. (You drew just a single card for your primary objective, worth 3 points, and another for your secondary, worth 2.) The cards were pretty similar to the ones that I've seen so far. By and large, MOST people who gave it a shot loved it. We had one or two naysayers, but I'm tentatively optimistic about this change.

Ahh well.. issuing a challenge card is pretty dumb! lol at least chaos players have some sort of relief! haha

I still think the D3 thing wont happen in most games. I like the "If you wipe out 3 or more enemy units" card. Generally if you do that in a turn it means you win lol.

I compare these cards to the games I have had in 6th (with my Necrons). From a non selfish perspective I like that I have to do more than get first blood and then hide all game before late game contesting with my un kill-able troops in flyers. This will at least make me have to play the game, which is a better alternative.

I do agree with some of the cards likely being silly though, there is what 32 of them however?

My issue stems from the following approach to game design:

1) Write a codex that details how to create a legal, viable army in the game.

2) Write game rules with victory conditions that cannot be achieved by the armies in those codexes.


I've been sold a product (my codex) that says I can play this game with this army. Let's say, Imperial Knights. Oh, but I have no psykers, and I cannot declare challenges...

This just seems like a really sloppy approach to game design, not that any of us should be surprised by that.

@Redbeard, what are you complaining about? I have it on good authority that GW playtested the new objective cards with both kind of army: Ultramarines AND Imperial Fists.

 Mysterious Pants wrote:
My opinion on the card idea and mission objectives in general.



Objectives naturally come in games without needing a prompt. You say, "Huh, if I have control of that hill it would be a lot easier to rain death on those marines. I'd better take it." or "If I get on top of that building I'll be able to flank my opponent". I don't need the piking game to artificially tell me that I need to seize an objective, kill a commander, or something else. I can figure it all out on my own- just let me wreck bloody havoc on my opponents army, stop trying to hold me back.

Plenty of heroic duels, brave defenses, objective-taking, varied tactics, and the like can be found in the most basic 'kill-the-enemy' mission. In fact, more basic missions tend to have a better narrative because you have more control and more opportunity to do what you like and really get into your army.

Agreed! Ideally there should be no objectives at all. The rules of the game should reward you for doing things that put you at an advantage. For example, controlling high ground should give you more of an advantage then just better LoS. These advantages would make it more likely that you can kill more enemy units/keep your units alive. Your opponent would have to actively take these locations from you to gain/deny those advantages. Of course this ideal is probably not attainable, but I think we should be able to avoid stuff like 'Cast a psychic power'.

Don't like the cards being the objectives?

Then don't play the "Maelstrom of War" missions as per White Dwarf they are the ones that have the cards. Otherwise you have set objectives.

I keep getting shocked how people can get so much hate over OPTIONAL rules, for a totally new set of missions they know nothing about, with rules they never even seen.

And sure, an all-knight army cant cast powers or issue challanged, but why on earth do you play only knights? they fact its a legal army does not mean its not clearly intended to be used as allies, just like LotD, rather then stand-alone.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I keep getting shocked how people can get so much hate over OPTIONAL rules, for a totally new set of missions they know nothing about, with rules they never even seen.

And sure, an all-knight army cant cast powers or issue challanged, but why on earth do you play only knights? they fact its a legal army does not mean its not clearly intended to be used as allies, just like LotD, rather then stand-alone.

Are you claiming you know the intention of the game designers? Because, the only logical assumption is that if an army can be fielded on its own with explicit instructions on how, then it must be assumed that it was intended to do so, in addition to being an allied detachment.

So no, its not "clearly intended to be used as allies", as it appears to be quite clearly intended to be used as its own army.

Therefore, it follows that either that army and/or the optional rules in the form of mission cards are poorly designed, hence why some people are shaking their head.

 BoomWolf wrote:

And sure, an all-knight army cant cast powers or issue challanged, but why on earth do you play only knights? they fact its a legal army does not mean its not clearly intended to be used as allies, just like LotD, rather then stand-alone.

An army of Knights or similarly weird armies like...Tau..or Necrons.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Don't like the cards being the objectives?

Then don't play the "Maelstrom of War" missions as per White Dwarf they are the ones that have the cards. Otherwise you have set objectives.

People just love to cry and whine about anything. I wonder how these people can look in the mirror and be proud they complain about plastic toy soldiers.

Davor wrote:


People just love to cry and whine about anything. I wonder how these people can look in the mirror and be proud they complain about plastic toy soldiers.

Almost as though people can discuss new game mechanics that are poorly thought out without 'whining' and 'crying'.

 Blacksails wrote:

Davor wrote:


People just love to cry and whine about anything. I wonder how these people can look in the mirror and be proud they complain about plastic toy soldiers.

Almost as though people can discuss new game mechanics that are poorly thought out without 'whining' and 'crying'.

Except how many people actually have read how the "new game mechanics" will work?

Why bother discussing it when you have no frame of reference?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

And sure, an all-knight army cant cast powers or issue challanged, but why on earth do you play only knights? they fact its a legal army does not mean its not clearly intended to be used as allies, just like LotD, rather then stand-alone.

An army of Knights or similarly weird armies like...Tau..or Necrons.

Tau = Powerful army that is no good for challenging, and has no psykers
Necron = Powerful army that is only somewhat good for challenging, also has no psykers.

CSM = Utterly terrible army that is all about the challenging and psychic powers.

Maybe it's a "balance" thing?

Davor wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Don't like the cards being the objectives?

Then don't play the "Maelstrom of War" missions as per White Dwarf they are the ones that have the cards. Otherwise you have set objectives.

People just love to cry and whine about anything. I wonder how these people can look in the mirror and be proud they complain about plastic toy soldiers.

How do people complaining about people complaning about plastic toy soldiers keep up with themselves?

 Blacksails wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
I keep getting shocked how people can get so much hate over OPTIONAL rules, for a totally new set of missions they know nothing about, with rules they never even seen.

And sure, an all-knight army cant cast powers or issue challanged, but why on earth do you play only knights? they fact its a legal army does not mean its not clearly intended to be used as allies, just like LotD, rather then stand-alone.

Are you claiming you know the intention of the game designers? Because, the only logical assumption is that if an army can be fielded on its own with explicit instructions on how, then it must be assumed that it was intended to do so, in addition to being an allied detachment.

No, but I assume that when you got 1 unit type (and honestly its one unit type with an optional gun upgrade), who is very much not divisible in many points levels due to high PPM cost so that it only really works right on its own in given "skips", and can only do one thing (as you got just one unit) that it is NOT a stand-alone army, but an extension that is allowed to stand-alone for the few who REALLY wants to.

At least not in any remotely sane level of game design, and I make the bold assumption GW are at least TRYING to make sense, even if they often fail to do so.

Everything about knights screams "ally me", not "play me". they lack MOST army interactions, just like any other mini-codex, unlike big codecies who are "army X" or supplements who are "alternate army X"

 BoomWolf wrote:


No, but I assume that when you got 1 unit type (and honestly its one unit type with an optional gun upgrade), who is very much not divisible in many points levels due to high PPM cost so that it only really works right on its own in given "skips", and can only do one thing (as you got just one unit) that it is NOT a stand-alone army, but an extension that is allowed to stand-alone for the few who REALLY wants to.

At least not in any remotely sane level of game design, and I make the bold assumption GW are at least TRYING to make sense, even if they often fail to do so.

Everything about knights screams "ally me", not "play me". they lack MOST army interactions, just like any other mini-codex, unlike big codecies who are "army X" or supplements who are "alternate army X"

Then why can they be fielded as a standalone force? Why do they have that ability if they weren't intended to be used in such a manner?

Regardless of the GW's inability to write coherent rules, the fact is that Knights are their own legal army. Its completely ridiculous, agreed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't intended purely as allies, otherwise their rules would have only let them be taken as allies. Like it or not, they can be fielded solo, as a primary detachment. Its irrelevant claiming they're not because you feel they're not, but the simple truth is that they are.

In the context of the mission cards, its even more poorly thought out, seeing as they can't participate in challenges or psychic powers.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Don't like the cards being the objectives?

Then don't play the "Maelstrom of War" missions as per White Dwarf they are the ones that have the cards. Otherwise you have set objectives.

People just love to cry and whine about anything. I wonder how these people can look in the mirror and be proud they complain about plastic toy soldiers.

How do people complaining about people complaning about plastic toy soldiers keep up with themselves?

Could only take so much of grown men complaining/whining about rules they have no idea how they are going to work. Usually I don't make a comment, but the internet broke me and I had to make jab.

I've been gaming for 25 years. D&D 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 4th editions. Cyberpunk, Cthulu & VtM. For wargames DeBellis, Fire & Fury & of course Warhammer since 1990. Not as much as some, but more than most. There's been more but nothing worth mentioning.

Let me say that in all those years of gaming I've learned that cards SUCK. The randomness sucks. Its not strategy, its just GoFish mixed in for extra points. Any game where random card draw is a big factor I've learned to stay away from. This new card system is gonna blow goats.

There's nothing wrong with cards, in theory. They have the potential to add more strategy than dice do (because once you have cards, it's easier to build in strategic choice to the randomness, with hands and discards, and because you add the potential for at least limited card-counting if you want). It's just this implementation that could be problematic.

Davor wrote:
People just love to cry and whine about anything. I wonder how these people can look in the mirror and be proud they complain about plastic toy soldiers.

Games are a form of entertainment, just like movies, or TV, or music. All of the later have changed from being considered merely entertainment, to being considered artforms, and gaming is heading the same direction; the Museum of Modern Art has started a collection of relevant video games (http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-games-14-in-the-collection-for-starters/).

The point of criticism is to further the art. Game design in a vacuum does little, and feedback is required for progression. If you cannot comprehend the difference between valid critiques of a game system and "whining", perhaps you should distance yourself from the subject matter, as you're obviously too wrapped up in it. Save your claims of whining for those who merely type "this sucks". They're of roughly equal intelligence.

I'm looking forwards to giving the cards a try.