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.

Okay, so recently there has been something that really has annoyed me. Whenever we have a mission and roll an odd number of objectives my opponent places two objectives in their deployment. I am stuck with one in my deployment zone and feel like I am at a serious disadvantage (which I am). When I get to place the odd objective I put it in the middle of the field or a location that both of us can get to because I see this as more fair. When I see someone placing the odd objective in their deployment zone I suggest them putting it in the middle but some players refuse to put it anywhere that doesn't give them a large advantage. I even go as far as asking before the game if we can have 4 objectives for fairness, which sometimes doesn't work.

So I was wondering what the Dakka community thinks about opponents starting the game with more objectives on their side? When you get an odd number of objectives and you get to place the last one do you place it in your deployment zone or do you place it more in the middle where anyone can get it?

Idk, Im of the opinion of tactical deployment of your own objectives.
For fun i ALWAY place mine at the top of a giant flipping building.

 lambsandlions wrote:
Okay, so recently there has been something that really has annoyed me. Whenever we have a mission and roll an odd number of objectives my opponent places two objectives in their deployment. I am stuck with one in my deployment zone and feel like I am at a serious disadvantage (which I am). When I get to place the odd objective I put it in the middle of the field or a location that both of us can get to because I see this as more fair. When I see someone placing the odd objective in their deployment zone I suggest them putting it in the middle but some players refuse to put it anywhere that doesn't give them a large advantage. I even go as far as asking before the game if we can have 4 objectives for fairness, which sometimes doesn't work.

So I was wondering what the Dakka community thinks about opponents starting the game with more objectives on their side? When you get an odd number of objectives and you get to place the last one do you place it in your deployment zone or do you place it more in the middle where anyone can get it?

Not sure what the problem is. They get to place one more than you... so they get to place one more than you (ie: you don't get input, its their's to place, so leave them alone already). I tend to enjoy a challenge, and as I know the possibility of being down an objective is there, I build my lists accordingly. If you're not, you should.

I actually tend to place at least one of my objective(s) on their side... most of my lists are designed to get to the other guy's side and wreck face, so it actually hurts me to leave one behind. By the same token, if I'm playing Tau and you're Orks and you want me to place my odd objective in the middle... you'll probably think I'm rude when I laugh out loud at you.

 lambsandlions wrote:
So I was wondering what the Dakka community thinks about opponents starting the game with more objectives on their side?

They're playing the game exactly how it is meant to be played. The missions are deliberately designed to have asymmetrical objectives with each player placing theirs in whatever spot gives them the biggest advantage.

When you get an odd number of objectives and you get to place the last one do you place it in your deployment zone or do you place it more in the middle where anyone can get it?

I place it in whatever location I feel gives me the best chance of winning (usually in my deployment zone, but I might put one in the middle if I expect to have a unit there to claim it at the end of the game).

I always place one in my deployment zone and the rest out on the field. This is actually done to my advantage, since I don't play a gunline. My Tyranid lists are designed to be played very aggressively, so having all of my own objectives in my deployment zone is actually a burden. I like to have one back there in cover being babysat by some Termagants, however. Sitting in my deployment zone waiting for my opponent to come to me just isn't my style of play.

But my friends and I all play the game with a 'don't be a dick' mentality when it comes to things like objectives and terrain placement. While we'll place to our advantage, we won't place anything to be entirely detrimental to the other player. The game should be fun for both sides, afterall.

All in all, it sounds like an issue with your opponents. Do you simply play random pick up games, or do you play with a close circle of friends?

I usually place objectives with my opponent before choosing table edges/ deployment zones. I find this more fun and fair.

orkybenji wrote:
I usually place objectives with my opponent before choosing table edges/ deployment zones. I find this more fun and fair.

Same here!! It makes things waaaay more even

orkybenji wrote:
I usually place objectives with my opponent before choosing table edges/ deployment zones. I find this more fun and fair.

This is also how we play it.

Wolfnid420 wrote:
Same here!! It makes things waaaay more even

Being even isn't the goal. Objectives are asymmetrical for a very good reason: so that you can't build an army that just camps on its half of the "fair" objectives and ignores the other half. You have to build your army with the ability to win objective games even when they're distributed in an "unfair" way. Making objectives symmetrical breaks this requirement and gives a significant advantage to gunline armies.

It's called playing in challenge mode.

If you didn't like the idea of a single die roll having such a huge strategic impact on the game, then you should seriously question why you're playing 40k at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wolfnid420 wrote:
Same here!! It makes things waaaay more even

Being even isn't the goal.

It is if that's what the people playing want. House ruling something neither party likes is not new.

My friends and I play a variation of what they suggested - we shift terrain around until were happy with it, then put down objectives after deployment. We simply do not like the terrain placement rules (because we don't think there should be 'rules' for it at all), so we do our own thing.

Why worry about objectives when you can just table the guy?

 -Loki- wrote:
It is if that's what the people playing want. House ruling something neither party likes is not new.

Of course you can house rule stuff. But this house rule makes about as much sense as house ruling that bolters are STR 10 because tactical squads have a hard time killing vehicles.

My friends and I play a variation of what they suggested - we shift terrain around until were happy with it, then put down objectives after deployment. We simply do not like the terrain placement rules (because we don't think there should be 'rules' for it at all), so we do our own thing.

That's not a house rule at all. In fact the rulebook encourages you to cooperate and set up an appealing table, the alternating terrain placement method is only used when you can't agree on a good way to do that.

 Lobukia wrote:


I actually tend to place at least one of my objective(s) on their side... most of my lists are designed to get to the other guy's side and wreck face, so it actually hurts me to leave one behind. By the same token, if I'm playing Tau and you're Orks and you want me to place my odd objective in the middle... you'll probably think I'm rude when I laugh out loud at you.

yeah but If you play tau and I play IG , then there is little sense in playing the game unless I get very lucky on rolls and you unlucky with yours.

Makumba wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:


I actually tend to place at least one of my objective(s) on their side... most of my lists are designed to get to the other guy's side and wreck face, so it actually hurts me to leave one behind. By the same token, if I'm playing Tau and you're Orks and you want me to place my odd objective in the middle... you'll probably think I'm rude when I laugh out loud at you.

yeah but If you play tau and I play IG , then there is little sense in playing the game unless I get very lucky on rolls and you unlucky with yours.

...or the person who thought to have a plan for taking an objective on the other side of the map is rewarded occasionally and the linear camper gets punished occasionally for playing a one-dimensional list. Both Tau and IG have several good options for grabbing an objective late game. Ignoring that part of the game and of list development should have a downside.

 Peregrine wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
It is if that's what the people playing want. House ruling something neither party likes is not new.

Of course you can house rule stuff. But this house rule makes about as much sense as house ruling that bolters are STR 10 because tactical squads have a hard time killing vehicles.

I think I'm going to bow out if you're going to start making claims like that. Telling someone to not be a dick with objective placement is not the same as altering the stats of a basic rifle to 10, and you know it.

 -Loki- wrote:
Telling someone to not be a dick with objective placement is not the same as altering the stats of a basic rifle to 10, and you know it.

And the point is that placing objectives to your advantage is not "being a dick", it's playing the mission exactly as it's meant to be played.

You can ultimately do whatever you and your opponent agree to.

On that note the rules are written that way as some armies are much better in the middle of the table than others. As was pointed out if this were how objectives were required to be done orks/tyranid/daemons etc. would never loose a single objective game to Tau/IG some armies just cannot advance effectively and some armies just have to advance to be effective.

I also have stopped using the terrain rolling as it is much faster and better to just place the terrain so you are both happy.

If the majority of objectives are in deployment zones, I think it makes for a boring game. I like to put them where there's some chance for either of us. It encourages us to all go for them which opens up more interesting combat opportunities. If I'm playing shooty, it lures the opponent out. If I'm playing assaulty, then he's going to have to come out and meet me allowing me to charge (or since I'm SW, get charged) more quickly. The latter is usually the case for me as I like smash mouth lists. I just don't see the fun in camping an objective and just waiting for the opponent to come to you.

We set up the board to look like a real place as much as possible. Rivers, roads, trees that sort of thing. After thats done we check with everybody to see if there's any objections "so far there hasn't been any". Then we do the same thing with objectives. After that's done we roll for teams/sides and deploy as normal from there. This has limited the shenanigans greatly.

That aside, as an ork player I would love it if you put your objectives on your side. In fact I'd probly toss mine over there too and hope for some sabatoge action to happen. After all I'm gunna be over there shortly anyway. So nice of you to warm up the objective for me.

I put mine inside neutral bastions *Evil smirk*

Then I blow them up when my enemies go inside.

Muwahaha

You place them dependant on your army. An ork army, is likely to place them further forward, because that's where he is likely to be late game. A shooting army, is likely to place it far back, because that is where they are likely to be.

No point in putting them in the middle, if you don't intend to move to the middle, and a shooting army is silly if it -forces- itself to move closer to an assault army, and vice versa.

He gets to place the objective following the rules, and I (and subsequently you) get to live with the placement he chooses.
Simple as that.

I place one in my DZ, and if I get another, I place it out in the open somewhere nice for my Immortals to VoD onto during endgame. If I get a third then I usually place it in some obscure place simply to deny it. If I can claim it then all the better, but it's doubtful I'll be able to, so I might as well deny my opponent the chance to grab it.

Objective placement is one 6th edition's major flaws. Nothing is more toxic to casual play than a gunline army deployed with 2 objectives behind their defense line while you only have 1 to place.

Easiest way to fix it is to place objectives before determining sides. That way players have to put them down a bit more centrally to avoid screwing themselves. That or just have symmetrical objectives with 1 in each corner of the board and 1 in the center. Or simply make objectives inside your deployment zone worth 1VP while others are worth more.

If your opponent puts more objectives in their deployment zone, GO GET THEM!

Take them away! Go get some!

Its not really unfair at all. IF you think that you need a unit of troops to hold an objective, then that is 2 units of troops that he has to use to hold both of them. if your unit moves away from it, you are no longer holding it. It forces your opponent to keep units back that might otherwise be pushing forward, and commits him to holding 2 objectives in order to win. All you have to do is contest one objective while holding your own, and you can win through achieving secondary objectives. and if you are contesting an objective in his deployment zone by the end of the game, thats 4:3 to you right there.

I find that strategic placing of objectives somewhere in the middle is a lot more effective, since it is easier for your opponent to capture an objective that isn't the other side of the board, you can in a way, force him towards it and turn it into a kill box, people will generally go for the easy 6:3 victory after all, and its simply a matter of contesting the objective and scoring points on secondary objectives just as when your opponent deploys two or more in his deployment zone.

Just remember, the more objectives your opponent has to cover his side of the board, the fewer units he has to push forward and threaten your side

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Objective placement is one 6th edition's major flaws. Nothing is more toxic to casual play than a gunline army deployed with 2 objectives behind their defense line while you only have 1 to place.

No, nothing is more toxic to casual play than a gunline army against a clueless newbie who doesn't know how to play against a gunline army.

(Hint: if they have two objectives this is good for you, you're going to be charging into their half of the table anyway so it means that you have to hold back fewer scoring units in your own half of the table.)

I don't mind the opponent placing their objectives in an advantageous spot. Being able to breach their deployment zone is part of the game in my mind. It's also not only about capturing objectives, sometimes it's simply about denying them.

What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

The book missions are very, very poor for competitive play. That is why most events make objectives equal or place the odd objective in the middle (NOVA) and other tournaments such as BAO format give you the option of placing some in your Dzone but having to place others in "no man's land"