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.

I think the idea behind random objectives is a good one. That being keeping the armies moving to complete tasks throughout the game. Where it falls apart is the random aspect of it. Especially with repeat objectives in the deck. So if Turn 1 I draw score for controlling objective 1, and I am already sitting on it, that is an auto-point, whereas if my opponent draws that same card, they may have a hard time getting to that objective. Then on my next turn I draw objective 1 again, and score again. Now I'm up 2 points for not having to do anything.

Looking at some of the new missions this is still an issue. While they cut down on some of the impossible missions, they still have the random and one of the missions for example states that either player can achieve the secure objective x cards after they are drawn. In that mission if the above scenario happened I would be up 3-0 again through no effort of my own.

I think if they wanted to do random objectives they needed to not have numbered objectives, but instead things like "Capture and objective that is not in your deployment zone 1 VP, if that objective is in your opponents deployment zone score 2 VP."

This at least would mean that you would have to move to those objectives to score points, rather than just setting up on them

Then with the defend objective cards (2 points if you are on an objective 2 turns in a row) you could do the same thing.

SO you could do it that way.

Otherwise if you wanted the numbered objective piece I would say to not have random objectives, but instead have say 2 of each objective card in hand, and you score them, but after scoring one objective twice you need to move on. So to get max points you need to try and control every objective for at least 2 turns. This would still get players moving, fighting over objectives etc. Then if you wanted the kill oriented ones, I would just have a blanket +1 VP if you killed a unit this turn.

Lastly you could have a Malifaux like situation where you choose a certain number of objective cards to complete during the game. At which point I would opt to go back to the non-numbered hold objective rule I listed above. Have say 10 cards drawn at the start of the game, then each player picks say 5 they want to accomplish during the game. You do this after seeing your opponents list.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Then there's the "unwinnable objectives." I'm sure you know what I mean things like "Manifest a Psychic Power" when playing Necrons or "slay an enemy transport" vs Tyranids.

Everyone I have played with when doing random objective cards, if the objective was impossible to achieve then its discarded and the next one is drawn.

Likewise. I haven't looked through 8e Maelstrom objectives in detail so am holding off saying similar things about them, but the fact that this was such a common houserule was telling about the system as a whole. Now? You get to spend a CP to redraw.

I wouldn't be surprise if most people keep the impossibility house rule and use the CP spending rule to allow you to reroll for possible objectives.

Impossible Objectives are ones that were always Impossible. Witch Hunter vs Tau or Necrons. Master the Warp as Tau or Necron.

If you don't like the idea that your army can't easily play to a mission, then determine the mission before you choose your army (that's how Malifaux does it, and how 3rd edition 40k did it).

If you don't like random objectives, then choose ones from the list/deck that suit the story you're trying to tell.

I don't mind the randomness. It adds a bit of fog of war that most tabletop games sorely lack. Yes, you might roll a '1' for random VPs while your opponent rolls '3', but if you're achieving more objectives, then you're putting the odds in your favour.

With the ones where you get VPs this turn for one objective, then VPs for another next turn, the story isn't that you're chasing some sort of will o' the wisp across the battlefield, but that taking more of the important points of the battlefield will make your chances of victory greater than holding one or two isolated points.

Sometimes it doesn't pay off, and you still don't win. So what? it's not important. Add it to the story of our force and play another game.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Either way, the "random" aspect of it is not going to be balanced by itself. Getting "Destroy a Vehicle" will have different difficulty to pull off depending on if your foe is running Venomspam, versus running 3 Baneblades

All this also goes to eternal war missions. Scoring only at the end of the game. Some armies do it better, some worse. It triggered the all-famouse style of sit and shoot and turboboost on objectives last turn. Not very entertaining to watch and play. I remember 5-th parking lots quite well.

One fun and quite strategic variant of using Tactical Supremacy set I've been using a lot, goes like this:

- before game, each player draw three cards - those are initial goals;

- at the start of each turn, each player draw new card for every objective marker he controlls BUT each marker can be used this way only once per game per player. Additionally, each player can also draw one additional card per turn OR (and this is the fun part) choose exactly same card as one of the opponents active cards (not yet achieved).

With Tactical Supremacy set this puts a strong emphasis on trying to achieve high scoring cards in a single turn (if possible) and largely counters randomness of the final score (it is still possible to have exceptionally good luck in drawing cards and being able to achieve them instantly for loads of VPs, but it is less likely to happen)

During a 5 turn game with six objective markers this scenario gives you a maximum of 14 objectives to score: 3 that you can pre-plan for during deployment, 6 random which are a reward for table controll, and 5 that you can either choose or draw randomly. If you want even more balance, then players can agree on those three initial cards as a "theme" for this particular battle and choose them rather than draw them.

 Kiggler wrote:
I like the idea of random objectives but like everything else GW did with 6th and 7th it was poorly implemented. I think they should be something you pick to draft like say maybe 10-15 objectives when you build your army. This way when you draw a random objective it is more geared toward your armies design. If your army is assault based then you can pick the objectives that require to kill certain things, get in enemy deployment zone, kill stuff in the fight phase, etc. Right now the objectives would need to be adjusted for a system like this to work properly but would eliminate the drawing a useless objective problem and would also add another level of strategy.

Problem with this is it would encourage building extreme 1 way armies rather than flexible ones.