Switch Theme:

How can mission design make 40K more strategic?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




But I also dislike that a forward-deploying army can box the enemy into their deployment zone, and if you can keep them restrained into turn 2 it's pretty much game over.


Agreed. Another side-effect of the smaller tables imo. Much harder to do this with a larger deployment zone on a larger table.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Gainesville, VA

I think in some missions it might work better if some objectives value changed over the course of the game. I.e. worth fewer points in turn 1 than in turn 5.

I mean its not like holding the objective for part of the battle, then losing it at the end is going to impress your superior commanders or anything, that's not a win at all. And in the Imperium you could probably get 'balisticaly reassigned' for such failure.

And possibly that objectives placed in your deployment zone were worth less than those in no-mans land, and those in your opponents deployment zone were worth more. Them all having a flat value all the time just seems off to me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/18 16:17:42


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Missions of scoring at the end don't encourage defensiveness they encourage eradicating your opponent.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Kcalehc wrote:
I think in some missions it might work better if some objectives value changed over the course of the game. I.e. worth fewer points in turn 1 than in turn 5.

I mean its not like holding the objective for part of the battle, then losing it at the end is going to impress your superior commanders or anything, that's not a win at all. And in the Imperium you could probably get 'balisticaly reassigned' for such failure.

And possibly that objectives placed in your deployment zone were worth less than those in no-mans land, and those in your opponents deployment zone were worth more. Them all having a flat value all the time just seems off to me.


Actually, in a lot of narratives you have to do exactly that. Reach a certain point, have enough time to do "something" and then either heroically die or just evacuate.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Mission design is irrelevant because the basics are rotten. As long as you get no advantage from flanking and/or attacking your opponent from behind 40K gameplay will stay awful.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





 Strg Alt wrote:
Mission design is irrelevant because the basics are rotten. As long as you get no advantage from flanking and/or attacking your opponent from behind 40K gameplay will stay awful.


There are plenty of games where flanking and facing is essentially irrelevant that are perfectly fine games, so I'm not really sure where you're getting that. If GW reintroduced a rule where models can only fire in a 45 degree arc forward and if you attack from a 45 degree arc in the rear you get +1 to wound, it still wouldn't be particularly tactically deep.

If anything, many of the problems with the power of alpha strikes would probably be increased.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Cog in the Machine




Bath

Spoletta wrote:
 Kcalehc wrote:
I think in some missions it might work better if some objectives value changed over the course of the game. I.e. worth fewer points in turn 1 than in turn 5.

I mean its not like holding the objective for part of the battle, then losing it at the end is going to impress your superior commanders or anything, that's not a win at all. And in the Imperium you could probably get 'balisticaly reassigned' for such failure.

And possibly that objectives placed in your deployment zone were worth less than those in no-mans land, and those in your opponents deployment zone were worth more. Them all having a flat value all the time just seems off to me.


Actually, in a lot of narratives you have to do exactly that. Reach a certain point, have enough time to do "something" and then either heroically die or just evacuate.



indeed, and such events did happen in history, where the objective of one side or the other was not to take and hold permenaltly, but only for a short time to enable something else to happen. for example, hold enemy at current postion so that fleeing units behind you can regroup (ie a rearguard or delay action action), or take a position so you can snatch someone or something ( casualty extraction, or the person grab that was the original plan in Black Hawk Down, before the helos get downed.), or even just tie down the enemy so that he can be defeated elsewhere (ie a feint action)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
on topic, i few things i would like to add:

Additional, faction specific bonus or penalties to certain secondary objectives. For example, a requirement that a World Eaters CSM force MUST take "thin their ranks" as a secondary objective, but have no limit to how many VP they can score by doing so ("khorne cares not where the blow flows form, only that it flows").

more faction specific secondary objectives that might be taken, so encourage more diversity in secondaries and thus more variety in play. for example, "recover gene-seed", where a mid-board objective is marked as a site of fallen marines, and the marines player can get additional VP for a apothecary completing an action on that objective.

add in a "end of game" scoring round for objectives, which might mitigate the go 1st problem slightly, as player 2 has the chance to knock player 1 off the objectives on his last turn without time for a counter (ie player 1 can get to the objectives 1st, but player 2 can take them last and hold them at the end).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/18 17:15:50


Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.
"Tommy", Rudyard Kipling
500pts
500 pts
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Everyone's responses are awesome so far! The collective insights here are really appreciated.

It sounds like, overall, most people are happy with the 9th editions progressive scoring, with the caveat that the points should scale by turn and be handed out differently to prevent the first player advantage.

Regarding the last point (when primary objective scoring occurs), I want to be sure I understand the dynamic correctly. Assuming 5 game turns, each player scores primary objectives 4 times. Assuming there is ONLY the primary objective scoring in play, is the issue that on Turn 5 player A scores and then can totally ignore objectives in order to get player B off any of their objectives. When player B takes their turn, they score at the start of their turn and then the rest of their turn is irrelevant as the final score is already decided at that point. In effect, player B has one less "turn" and nothing they do on their last turn will affect player A's position or improve their own score.

It seems like an easy fix would be to have a "final scoring" round after the last player turn - essentially dolling out another batch of points after both players have an equal number effective turns. Player A going first (potentially scoring more objectives on their first turn) might be balanced out by player B getting the actual last word on deciding the final game state.

Would that be a reasonable "fix" for this issue?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/18 17:27:42


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer 40k: Enhanced 5th Edition... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in gb
Bounding Assault Marine




United Kingdom

The 9th edition missions are nice but I don't like the fixed objective placements. For one, it's a nuisance and pointless time consuming measuring out to place them. I much prefer the old style of let players place them more than X from a table edge and other objectives. Also, let them be in terrain again. Makes more sense that objective locations be something to hold rather than an open stretch of road or a clearing in the wasteland.

My favourite 40K missions have been the tactical objective cards. Sure, they can be random and sometimes favour one player over the other, but they keep the games interesting and a bit more freeform. It removes the table my opponent to win play style in favour of doing the missions your commander has instructed you to do. I wouldn't say they make the games more strategic but they did make games more enjoyable than what we have now, for me at least.

Space Marines (Rift Wardens) - 4896pts. 
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




San Diego, CA

@OP I think the fix for first turn advantage is end of turn scoring. Then second player gets the last word on objectives, and only has to suffer one turn of offense before scoring points.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
“Often enough, people’s nonsense cancelled out sufficiently that you got some great games, and competitive 8th was great fun – but I don’t think it would be unreasonable to say that it was kind of accidental.” - One Wing
 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles




Don’t know if it’s been discussed but would objectives that award large amounts of VP in exchange for requiring multiple turns of set ups for high risk high reward scenarios? Something disrupt-able. Like use a scoring unit to capture an objective then advance into enemy deployment zone and survive a turn in the deployment zone? Now you have to get a scoring unit to survive a game round and get it in enemy territory and survive another round, likely you’ll need to conceal it behind LOS blocking terrain. You also need to tactically set up for it by shooting units off the board that may flank that maneuver. I’m sure there are more tactical ideas out there because that idea seems pretty simple to set up and possibly as simple to disrupt.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




Everyone's responses are awesome so far! The collective insights here are really appreciated.

It sounds like, overall, most people are happy with the 9th editions progressive scoring, with the caveat that the points should scale by turn and be handed out differently to prevent the first player advantage.

-SNIP-

Would that be a reasonable "fix" for this issue?


You have it basically right except for one thing. Currently, not only does player 1 have the advantage on the final turn, they also have the advantage on first turn. It's pretty easy to get strong units into scoring position really quickly such that player two starts the game "behind" because they're now fighting for objectives player 1 has already claimed. So now, when you add to that the fact that player 1 can ALSO shut out player 2 from scoring at all in the final round, it becomes potentially very punishing.

Shifting scoring to end of turn means Player 1 still has that advantage of getting first crack at unguarded objectives, but now has to contend with the fact that player 2 will get the last word. I obviously have only anecdotal evidence to back me up here, but our group has played about 50 games like this, and it's made a big difference.

Don’t know if it’s been discussed but would objectives that award large amounts of VP in exchange for requiring multiple turns of set ups for high risk high reward scenarios? Something disrupt-able. Like use a scoring unit to capture an objective then advance into enemy deployment zone and survive a turn in the deployment zone? Now you have to get a scoring unit to survive a game round and get it in enemy territory and survive another round, likely you’ll need to conceal it behind LOS blocking terrain. You also need to tactically set up for it by shooting units off the board that may flank that maneuver. I’m sure there are more tactical ideas out there because that idea seems pretty simple to set up and possibly as simple to disrupt.


This is the kind of thing I meant when I said "multi-stage" objectives. You have to build and play your force very differently if you know that, for example, rather than just get to "spot x" and hold "spot x", your infantry will need to be able to get there, grab the thing, move it to a different spot, and possibly perform an action that is dependent on the other things having happened. It makes for a very different game. Wouldn't want all the missions to be that way of course, but I think it would have an interesting effect on the meta if you had to plan for having at least one or two of these types of missions in a tournament packet ...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/18 18:59:55


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Shifting scoring to the end does lose the aspect of needing to "hold" a location with sufficient force to be able to stay on it until your next turn. If scoring is just at the end of the turn, you can potentially zip a minimum of force around to secure a point - although I guess logical retort is that if you send a minimum of force it'll be easier for your opponent to flip it back on their - so perhaps it creates a more varied decision space afterall (which I'm all in favor of).

Given some of the competitive data (goonhamer analysis etc) showing first turn advantage, it seems like this would be an easy fix.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer 40k: Enhanced 5th Edition... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





Maybe scoring at the end of the ROUND is the answer - giving the second player a definitive advantage to offset the tempo advantage the first player tends to always enjoy?

End of the battleround, both players score?

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






the_scotsman wrote:
Maybe scoring at the end of the ROUND is the answer - giving the second player a definitive advantage to offset the tempo advantage the first player tends to always enjoy?

End of the battleround, both players score?


I think this would be really putting the first player at a disadvantage. It means that every round Player 2 gets the last word in pushing players off objectives or moving on open objectives. Seems like it could get problematic pretty quickly.

Escalating Scoring - What ideas do people have for the scoring to escalate over the course of the game? Would objectives yield points equal to the current game round and max out at 5?

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer 40k: Enhanced 5th Edition... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





 Mezmorki wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Maybe scoring at the end of the ROUND is the answer - giving the second player a definitive advantage to offset the tempo advantage the first player tends to always enjoy?

End of the battleround, both players score?


I think this would be really putting the first player at a disadvantage. It means that every round Player 2 gets the last word in pushing players off objectives or moving on open objectives. Seems like it could get problematic pretty quickly.

Escalating Scoring - What ideas do people have for the scoring to escalate over the course of the game? Would objectives yield points equal to the current game round and max out at 5?


Competitively, there is an ENORMOUS amount of ground to make up. Currently, the difference in win percentage between the first and second player is nearly as wide as the difference between the strongest and weakest faction in the game.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







the_scotsman wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Maybe scoring at the end of the ROUND is the answer - giving the second player a definitive advantage to offset the tempo advantage the first player tends to always enjoy?

End of the battleround, both players score?


I think this would be really putting the first player at a disadvantage. It means that every round Player 2 gets the last word in pushing players off objectives or moving on open objectives. Seems like it could get problematic pretty quickly.

Escalating Scoring - What ideas do people have for the scoring to escalate over the course of the game? Would objectives yield points equal to the current game round and max out at 5?


Competitively, there is an ENORMOUS amount of ground to make up. Currently, the difference in win percentage between the first and second player is nearly as wide as the difference between the strongest and weakest faction in the game.


Wait...so...you could balance the game better...by giving the weaker army a bonus to the roll to go first!

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

I'm wondering how a progressive objective list would work out.

Now by progressive objective list I mean one secures one objective in order to be able to secure another objective farther away. Kind of like capturing a generator to power an anti-orbit cannon, and then the second objective would be the cannon's control console.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:


Wait...so...you could balance the game better...by giving the weaker army a bonus to the roll to go first!


technicaly yes, although something like tau still has under 50% win ratio when going first. It is just that when they second it is practicaly not worth playing, because they drop to something like 26% win rate.

For GK it is the difference between being a normal 50% army when going first, and 30% something when they go second.

Also there would be the problem of what does "weaker" in rules mean. Tau and knights all people would agree, but there are some who say that anything they play is not that good, even if the army has a close to 60% win rate going first.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

I could see progressively more valuable objectives, as the turns move forward. To maintain balance with the current Secondaries, turn 2 Primaries could be worth 3 pts each, then 5 pts each for turn 3/4, and then 7 pts each on turn 5.

That would result in a push back towards static early games, and aggressive end-games though. It stacks the value towards the back end, which takes away from the significance of the early game. While this *might* be more realistic, I feel it would take away from the tension of the game throughout.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 greatbigtree wrote:
That would result in a push back towards static early games, and aggressive end-games though. It stacks the value towards the back end, which takes away from the significance of the early game. While this *might* be more realistic, I feel it would take away from the tension of the game throughout.


With the current level of lethality game-wide, I'd be fine with the opening turns being a little less lethal and more emphasis placed on late-game. Games that go to five turns and are decided at the end are fun. Games that are over by turn three because everything's dead, less so.

Keep in mind also that the whole reason first-turn advantage is a thing is because scoring ASAP is so important. If scoring late-game were more viable, we might see a second-turn player play more defensively to start with, punishing the first-turn player for being aggressive on objectives, and then making their comeback.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I like the current scoring system overall. It encourages armies to close to each other - and with all primary and most secondary objectives scoring at the beginning of the command phase. It allows player's to counter play for the most part.

IME it seems that the biggest discrepancy from going first/second is caused by two parts:

The first (and most important IMO) is that during turn 5 the player that went first can completely abandon their objectives and just focus on denying the second player any of their objectives.
This is generally exacerbated by the first player determining the momentum of the game. A potential fix would be to allow the second player to score at the end of the game. Giving them a chance to clear and hold objectives, counteracting the initial push that the first player gets.

The second issue is specific to infiltrate heavy armies. Board presence is critical, and infiltrators (such as nurglings or infiltrators) are incredibly effective at controlling the flow. This in itself isn't a problem, but if the player with infiltrators go first good luck moving out of your deployment zone.
I'm not sure on potential fixes for this issue - maybe disallow infiltrating units from moving first turn?
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Karol wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Wait...so...you could balance the game better...by giving the weaker army a bonus to the roll to go first!


technicaly yes, although something like tau still has under 50% win ratio when going first. It is just that when they second it is practicaly not worth playing, because they drop to something like 26% win rate.

For GK it is the difference between being a normal 50% army when going first, and 30% something when they go second.

Also there would be the problem of what does "weaker" in rules mean. Tau and knights all people would agree, but there are some who say that anything they play is not that good, even if the army has a close to 60% win rate going first.


I was attempting to satirize GW's tendency to "solve" problems by adding a new mechanic that superficially sort of corrects the issue without fixing the underlying problem.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles




Spoiler:


Tycho wrote:


Don’t know if it’s been discussed but would objectives that award large amounts of VP in exchange for requiring multiple turns of set ups for high risk high reward scenarios? Something disrupt-able. Like use a scoring unit to capture an objective then advance into enemy deployment zone and survive a turn in the deployment zone? Now you have to get a scoring unit to survive a game round and get it in enemy territory and survive another round, likely you’ll need to conceal it behind LOS blocking terrain. You also need to tactically set up for it by shooting units off the board that may flank that maneuver. I’m sure there are more tactical ideas out there because that idea seems pretty simple to set up and possibly as simple to disrupt.


This is the kind of thing I meant when I said "multi-stage" objectives. You have to build and play your force very differently if you know that, for example, rather than just get to "spot x" and hold "spot x", your infantry will need to be able to get there, grab the thing, move it to a different spot, and possibly perform an action that is dependent on the other things having happened. It makes for a very different game. Wouldn't want all the missions to be that way of course, but I think it would have an interesting effect on the meta if you had to plan for having at least one or two of these types of missions in a tournament packet ...


So I was on to something? Anyways I think it would be cool to have objectives that require manuevering of your forces. Maybe one that pops at the end of the game that states that if you have none of your army in your deployment zone and some portion in neither deployment zone at the end of the game you get a chunk of VP, or something that really forces you to do odd maneuvers or would likely require you to make some tactical decisions that might be sketchy for a turn or two if you want those VP. Force the players to take more chances and what not. I'm glad I am not the only one that thought of this idea though.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Sedona, Arizona

Where 40k is right now, I don't think that it can gain much depth from objectives alone.

Simply put, the current objectives are simple but also do encourage choices and playing around. Do you rush mid field and hold them, or do you wait it out? Shooty armies have their targets walking into the open willingly, but they have to weigh the risk / reward of when they close in to claim the objectives for themselves. It's pretty solid from a decision making stand point.

The issue is with the game itself: 40k has complexity to be sure, but the depth is at tea-spoon levels.

Moral is barely a thing. Pinning is gone. Cross-fire / suppression / any number of positioning / focus-fire mechanics were never implemented. The only real way to interact with enemy units is to wipe them off the board.

Couple that with absolutely absurd levels of lethality and there just aren't many choices to make past list building. Lists are built to one-phase just about.. anything. It's not so much an issue of what can a list kill, so much as what does said list kill.

EDIT: Overall I'd say that lethality is single biggest contributor to current 40k's lack of depth. People in this thread have proposed multi stage objectives (reach point X, pick up thing, take thing to point Y, sit on point Y for a turn) which are a good idea. The issue is that any unit trying that, in current 40k, is going to be absolutely blown away.

As a quick example, imagine if a shooting army could out-play a melee army not by blowing the ever-living gak out of them, but by heavily suppressing key elements and preventing them from bringing their full force to bear on the objectives? Or if melee units could severely punish shooting units they engage with via killing them over two turns in melee, or having the shooty-unit's player withdraw them (which killed them) in one turn. Thereby giving the non-melee player an actual tactical choice of using his unit as a speed bump to keep the melee enemy in place for longer, or sacrificing the unit quickly in order to shoot at them faster.

Shifting some of the 'interaction' focus away from killiness into other methods of interaction would go a long way towards allowing for more diverse objectives, as well as making it so the current ones are more nuanced.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/19 04:04:42


 welshhoppo wrote:

I like my Orks how I like my Emperor, dead.
 
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




Simply put, the current objectives are simple but also do encourage choices and playing around.


They really don't though. You said it yourself - your choices are: "Do you rush mid field and hold them, or do you wait it out?"

Like I said "Get to place X and withstand your attempt to kill me, or get to point X and attempt to kill YOU". That's pretty much it for mission design in 9th when it comes to most of the Primaries ... It's not a lot of choice, it's anything but tactical, and regardless of what others have said, it CAN be improved upon without a lot of changes to the rest of the core system.

EDIT: Overall I'd say that lethality is single biggest contributor to current 40k's lack of depth. People in this thread have proposed multi stage objectives (reach point X, pick up thing, take thing to point Y, sit on point Y for a turn) which are a good idea. The issue is that any unit trying that, in current 40k, is going to be absolutely blown away.


Lethality is a problem, but it's more of a problem with the current Primaries than it would be with some of the mission types that have been proposed. See, where we sit right now, the biggest issue isn't really lethality so much as predictability. I know where you are going because we both know where the objectives are. Because of the fact that I know that, I ALSO know which troops in your army you are likely to send to which objectives, and I know which troops in my army I need to counter you with. So the game often comes down to just a few things - timing, mono-tasked units, and dice rolls. If I time the placement of my objective grabbers better than you, and if my units that are tasked with destroying your objective grabbers roll well enough, I'm going to win. And that's about it.

If you start to mix up static objectives with multi-stage objectives, I think you would start to see more varied army comps, and a more wide-open meta. Lethality would still be a problem, but because of the fact that the objectives would be more complex than "Hur-Duuuur - get ur dudes to the spot", you have more variables to deal with and more potential for games that aren't just "everybody mosh-pit at midfield" style rugby scrums ...

EDIT:

Meant to ask this earlier - What are people's thoughts on the number and placement of primaries? If we assume no change to anything BUT the number and placement of primary objectives - is there an answer there that helps make the missions a bit more strategic/tactical?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/19 04:55:47


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





As I said earlier, there is very little left to tune on primary scoring.

They are close to perfect thanks to a long testing phase. The reason 9th feels so much better than 8th is 90% due to how well they are designed.

The only change I could see is an additional turn of scoring for the second player at the end of turn 5, to offset the first turn advantage. Math shows that the difference between going first and going second is around 8 points, which is perfectly in line with an additional round of scoring.
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




In Warmachine scoring doesn't happen until the second player's second turn. Also both players score objectives they control at the end of ever turn, not only their own. Getting 5 Control Points advantage wins the game.

It creates a very dynamic environment and very live scenarios where you HAVE TO control and contest objectives every turn, because if you let your opponent gain a CP advantage on your turn, on their they just have to contest your objectives, which is in most cases an easy win.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




That is very intersting thing. I wonder how it would work in w40k, would have a bad feel for armies like tau, but in general such a rule set would seem to both keep the engagment on multiple objectives we have now, keep melee and shoting valid, and it would lessen the impact of the first turn a bit. and 1 turn for just manouvers of both players sounds interesting too.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





There is no scoring (from objectives, at least) on turn 1 in 40k though. It doesn't make things less deadly. Generally speaking if anything it makes them more.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: