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.

Which edition in your opinion has a more balanced aproach to objective placement?



In my opinion 5th edition's objective placement was more balanced. I find that the only explanation I can think of for why objective placement works the way it does in 6th is because of the shoehorning in of fortifications into the game thus requiring that players know wich table half is their's.

What's the difference between 5th and 6th?

Anyways, the best objectives rules were from 4th ed. Yeah, you almost always played VP, of course, but 4th had this great mechanic where both players set up terrain (and objectives, if applicable), and then rolled off to see who got which side.

That way if someone was being awful, cheesy, or WAAC, there was a chance that you'd win the roll off and get all the advantages that your opponent was trying to make for themselves. It highly encouraged balanced placement of things on the table.

What I'd love is for the future to look like:

1.) place terrain.
2.) roll mission.
3.) place objectives.
4.) roll to see who gets to choose board edge.
5.) deploy armies / purchased terrain.
6.) roll to see who goes first / seize.

That would do a pretty good job of stopping "DERP! I put all my objectives in MAH CASTLE!!! Take it from mah gunline IFFNYA DARE!!!" that we have now.

 Ailaros wrote:
What I'd love is for the future to look like:

1.) place terrain.
2.) roll mission.
3.) place objectives.
4.) roll to see who gets to choose board edge.
5.) deploy armies / purchased terrain.
6.) roll to see who goes first / seize.

That would do a pretty good job of stopping "DERP! I put all my objectives in MAH CASTLE!!! Take it from mah gunline IFFNYA DARE!!!" that we have now.

That'd work if we got rid of stupid deployment types like Vanguard Strike (takes even longer to get the game set up) or stupid mission types like The Relic (oh... the objective is inside of an impassible building apparently).

 Ailaros wrote:
What's the difference between 5th and 6th?

Anyways, the best objectives rules were from 4th ed. Yeah, you almost always played VP, of course, but 4th had this great mechanic where both players set up terrain (and objectives, if applicable), and then rolled off to see who got which side.

That way if someone was being awful, cheesy, or WAAC, there was a chance that you'd win the roll off and get all the advantages that your opponent was trying to make for themselves. It highly encouraged balanced placement of things on the table.

What I'd love is for the future to look like:

1.) place terrain.
2.) roll mission.
3.) place objectives.
4.) roll to see who gets to choose board edge.
5.) deploy armies / purchased terrain.
6.) roll to see who goes first / seize.

That would do a pretty good job of stopping "DERP! I put all my objectives in MAH CASTLE!!! Take it from mah gunline IFFNYA DARE!!!" that we have now.

You need to go work at GW to get this implemented now.

Having one person deploy first and go first is a good mechanic. Without that the deployment phase would be "you put that unit down," "No, YOU put that unit down." Second deployed gets to react and protect themself as best they can. All of Ailoros' other ideas are good and actually how my group plays.

What's dumb is seizing, there really is no good reason for it.

 Ailaros wrote:
What's the difference between 5th and 6th?

The ability to know where your army will be deploying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:


Anyways, the best objectives rules were from 4th ed. Yeah, you almost always played VP, of course, but 4th had this great mechanic where both players set up terrain (and objectives, if applicable), and then rolled off to see who got which side.

That way if someone was being awful, cheesy, or WAAC, there was a chance that you'd win the roll off and get all the advantages that your opponent was trying to make for themselves. It highly encouraged balanced placement of things on the table.

That's exactly where I'm coming from, you could put all your objectives with a plan in mind but in reality you could end up deploying nowhere near them. Kept it honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
What I'd love is for the future to look like:

1.) place terrain.
2.) roll mission.
3.) place objectives.
4.) roll to see who gets to choose board edge.
5.) deploy armies / purchased terrain.
6.) roll to see who goes first / seize.

That would do a pretty good job of stopping "DERP! I put all my objectives in MAH CASTLE!!! Take it from mah gunline IFFNYA DARE!!!" that we have now.

That would be much better than what we have now. Except for the rolling after deployment to see who goes first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
What I'd love is for the future to look like:

1.) place terrain.
2.) roll mission.
3.) place objectives.
4.) roll to see who gets to choose board edge.
5.) deploy armies / purchased terrain.
6.) roll to see who goes first / seize.

That would do a pretty good job of stopping "DERP! I put all my objectives in MAH CASTLE!!! Take it from mah gunline IFFNYA DARE!!!" that we have now.

That'd work if we got rid of stupid deployment types like Vanguard Strike (takes even longer to get the game set up) or stupid mission types like The Relic (oh... the objective is inside of an impassible building apparently).

Oh god the relic, I hate it so


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:
Having one person deploy first and go first is a good mechanic. Without that the deployment phase would be "you put that unit down," "No, YOU put that unit down." Second deployed gets to react and protect themself as best they can. All of Ailoros' other ideas are good and actually how my group plays.

What's dumb is seizing, there really is no good reason for it.

I don't mind seizing, I think it's good at giving you a moment of pause, has a chance of making agressive players pay for not holding anything back or in cover ect..

Well, there are a few ways you could do it. You could go all the way 4th ed and have deployment be staggered rather than one person and then the other. You could also get rid of seizing, I suppose, if you just had a roll to go first after deployment. In that way, you'd have a 1/2 not a 1/6 odds lurking in the back of your mind telling you to deploy more conservatively.

Whoever gets to go first, though, has a serious advantage that isn't seriously countered by being able to deploy in a reactionary way. Being able to set up the terrain you want with the objectives where you want them and knowing that you're going first does a lot to help gunlines, which need no help.

I found that in 5th edition the objectives seemed a little more evenly spread along the table- now they seem to cluster up around easily defensible points on opposite sides.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I found that in 5th edition the objectives seemed a little more evenly spread along the table- now they seem to cluster up around easily defensible points on opposite sides.

Combine that with a table with way too little terrain, especially los blocking terrain and you've got a recipie for a pretty static game

I like finding out where you're deploying before objective placement. It makes the whole operation seem more sensible to me.

"Oh, we're here to protect and defend the sacred such-and-such. Neither army is fighting anywhere NEAR the sacred widget, but that's irrelevant..."

AS above. Conceptually it looks better than the diamond / star patterns of 5th edition objectives. You can actually setup objectives in a more enjoyable way, but of course you can also set it up in a way that is not at all enjoyable.

Having 3 objectives in my deployment zone sure looks good to my gunline, I can't wait and see how my opponent enjoys trying to shift me off of it the entire game.

Sarcasm aside, I liked the system that forced you yo be more cautious when setting up objectives, as your opponent may get the side thats stacked; it led to much more scrambles for the center. 6th ed really depends on your opponent being a southern gentleman and handicapping themselves with objective placement to make for a more engaging game.

Eh, in 5th there was no thinking with objectives either - they ended up as a diamon, or line / triangle, or cross pattern. That was basically it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Eh, in 5th there was no thinking with objectives either - they ended up as a diamon, or line / triangle, or cross pattern. That was basically it.

That sounds better than all the objectives 6 inches from a board edge.

 Crablezworth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Eh, in 5th there was no thinking with objectives either - they ended up as a diamon, or line / triangle, or cross pattern. That was basically it.

That sounds better than all the objectives 6 inches from a board edge.

Always. Especially when you play Hammer and Anvil.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Eh, in 5th there was no thinking with objectives either - they ended up as a diamon, or line / triangle, or cross pattern. That was basically it.

That sounds better than all the objectives 6 inches from a board edge.

Always. Especially when you play Hammer and Anvil.

Against serpent spam lol

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Eh, in 5th there was no thinking with objectives either - they ended up as a diamon, or line / triangle, or cross pattern. That was basically it.

That sounds better than all the objectives 6 inches from a board edge.

Always. Especially when you play Hammer and Anvil.

Against serpent spam lol

Whilst playing footslogging Tyranids. On a board with <25% LOS-blocking cover.

I'm actually terrified at what this poll is showing

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
I'm actually terrified at what this poll is showing

A nearly even split? It makes sense to me- some people do enjoy deploying their objectives to best suit their army's strengths. I do as well, but I believe a more enjoyable game will be had from it being a bit more random.

GW changed the way objectives were placed from 5th to 6th edition for one, and only one reason I would bet my life on it.

It is because of the advent of fortifications that you purchase for your army. In 5th edition, you didn't have those, so it was perfectly fine to set up all your terrain, then place objectives and then roll for deployment zones.

That's a problem in 6th because you can't put out your fortification until you know your deployment zone, and if you had to wait to deploy your fortification up until after all the other terrain is placed and objectives are placed then all of a sudden you have to write rules to cover what happens when there is no room to place your fortification on the table.

Since GW doesn't want to cover that possibility, they instead threw the entire game's balance out the window when it comes to objectives in 6th edition.


I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but if you think that the 6th edition objective placement in the rulebook is more balanced or creates better games than it was in 5th edition, you simply are not looking at the facts.

Since you can place objectives 6" from your board edge, if there is an odd number of objective markers then one player is going to have a massive, massive, massive advantage in the game based on one single dice roll (the roll that determines who sets up the first objective). This is simply an indisputable fact.

Are there some armies that actually favor going onto the other side of the board to capture objectives? Sure, there are a few, but in the vast majority of games, having one extra objective 6" from your board edge is most likely to be the biggest deciding factor in the game.

And that's not even taking into consideration some of the other insanely imbalanced elements of the book missions, like the Scouring where you can easily end up with one side having the '4', '3' and '3' point objectives all 6" from their own board edge while the other side only gets the '2', '2' and '1' point objectives on their side...all decided by complete luck, but again will almost certainly be the biggest deciding factor in the game.



But if you're determined to play with 6th edition's objective placement rules, if you actually want games that are roughly fair and balanced, you at least should implement a few house rules:


1) objectives should not be able to be placed within 12" (not 6") of a board edge if at all possible (only cheat this by as little as possible if there is no way to fit an objective marker). The Emperor's Will mission is an exception to this (because it is basically the old 'capture and control' of 5th edition).


2) Anytime there is an odd objective marker, it must be placed somewhere along the 'center line' of the deployment type (the rest are placed normally)


3) With the Scouring, two of the six objectives must be placed somewhere along the 'center line' of the deployment type (the rest are placed normally). Don't place secret point values by the objectives. Instead, randomize between the two 'center line' objectives to see which is the '4' point objective and which is the '1' point objective. Similarly randomize between the other two objectives that each player placed to see which one is a '3' point objective and which is a '2' point objective.

That way, the two objectives along the center line of the board are always the '4' and '1' point objectives, and the other two that each player places are always a '3' and a '2' point objective (per player).

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
I'm actually terrified at what this poll is showing

A nearly even split? It makes sense to me- some people do enjoy deploying their objectives to best suit their army's strengths. I do as well, but I believe a more enjoyable game will be had from it being a bit more random.

There's the problem; people are voting for the thing they enjoy the most, not the most balanced which was the question of the poll. I shouldn't be surprised that the internet doesn't read by this point, yet I am

@yakface take an exalt for that

 yakface wrote:

GW changed the way objectives were placed from 5th to 6th edition for one, and only one reason I would bet my life on it.

It is because of the advent of fortifications that you purchase for your army. In 5th edition, you didn't have those, so it was perfectly fine to set up all your terrain, then place objectives and then roll for deployment zones.

That's a problem in 6th because you can't put out your fortification until you know your deployment zone, and if you had to wait to deploy your fortification up until after all the other terrain is placed and objectives are placed then all of a sudden you have to write rules to cover what happens when there is no room to place your fortification on the table.

Since GW doesn't want to cover that possibility, they instead threw the entire game's balance out the window when it comes to objectives in 6th edition.


I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but if you think that the 6th edition objective placement in the rulebook is more balanced or creates better games than it was in 5th edition, you simply are not looking at the facts.

I agree completely, the shoehorning in of fortifications has really messed things up. The other thing fortifications did was essentially give the guy with the fortification veto power to do the stupid "I go, you go" terrain deployment which is just an abomination and only makes things worse.

I'm not surprised the poll is tied, if you play gunline lists more often than not it's pretty obvious which method benefits your playstyle more.