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.

Slay the warlord as a victory condition is a terrible idea, hold the center is a fine idea. I think standing on objectives is a result of objective placement more than anything else. It isn't standing if most are midfield and you need to fight over them, to me that is far more interesting than stand and shoot gunline games that tabling leads to. Further as often as not tabling is either a by product that changes a close game to a lopsided win, or it is an easy choice to just ignore the mission. IMO ignore the mission should never be an option. As for the secondaries, I don't think they need to go, I think they need revision to make them more difficult to score. Slay the warlord is a fine option and should be made worth more points if in play, things like big game hunter in ITC less so because they punish list building choices. IMO all secondaries that exist should be achievable for any army against any army, but should be a tactical decision at the start of the game, not a decision in list building to make them unavailable. You could also design missions scored by the player who controlled the most objectives at the end of their player turn starting on turn 2. I don't believe a format should have a "mission doesn't favor you" style mission, in that format the obvious list building idea is always build for tabling.

Well there are fundamental issues with that.

For example if I am a CC army and I am up against a tau sept deathball - I can't table that guy. I have to got for objectives.

If I am Siamhan Shinning spears army vs a IG armored core - that's about the easiest army in the game to table for them but sitting on objectives getting blasted by 8+ battle cannons a turn wouldn't make any sense.

I'm just saying that different match-ups have different strategies. OFC there are people building lists to table you. That's more of a result of how easy it is to table someone in 8th edition than the way games are scored though IMO. I've been spouting on about it for quite some time now.

If tabling did not give you an auto full point win people would build for it less. As for your examples, That entirely depends on the army, but if you design an army to table, it will table almost anything. As for the eldar example, nothing stops you from killing the opposing army and collecting points after that, you just need to prevent them from scoring too much early. You don't have to "sit" on objectives to win an objective game, you can pin your opponent in a corner and keep them off the objectives, kill them off the objectives, contest those objectives etc. You think to linearly on objective game means"sitting on objectives"

Beyond that secondaries should be where the decisions based on match-up lie, not should I table or not, otherwise building a list that can table most things is the best choice. Essentially if you reward tabling, people will do it more, that is wholly on scoring. IF you can do it early it will always be an advantage in game. Mostly I'm just opposed to table = win, it makes it possible to not play the mission. Making it a max point win is doubly stupid as it results in skewed results.

Seems silly to me. If I table the other player in 2 or 3 turns the games over. Playing more turns creates the opportunity to score more objectives/points. If tabling points are awarded they,to me, should be based on the number of turns it takes but also less than the maximum available before turn 4 or 5. what ever turn would be appropriate to create a fair average in point. This assumes that playing the maximum number of turns and claiming to maximum number of total points in a game would be higher. Which I thing is more fair for players who are playing and forces players to do things and interact during a game beyond deleting enemy units.
Well, that's what I would like to see I think. I haven't really thought on it very long as I have a limited amount of experience to draw on these days.
The only other component I would like to see are fixed objectives to prevent armies from not moving. A fixed pattern of objectives for every game. (I don't know if that's done right now or not.) My reasoning is that it should/might encourage more balanced armies, armies built a bit less to one extreme or the other may well preform better, at least between the Objectives and the missions I would hope that would steer the players in that direction. I think of it as passive means to encourage a kind of comp but built around the needs of the games rather than to strict rule of comp.
My larger hope would be that this might ungame the systems in place. But gamers gunna game. There will always be that guy.

For some reason a scene from Saving Private Ryan is popping into my head.

The squad comes across a hidden MG position and Cpt. Millers men want to go around it. One of his men says "It seems like an unnecessary risk given our objective" - Cpt. Miller says "Our objective is to win the war".

Not entirely relevant here but none the less - destroying the enemy is the ultimate goal in conflict. Everyone one you let go can hurt your chances later even if you accomplish your objective today.

I see no reason why annihilating your opponent shouldn't be an ultimate victory. Other than the fact that some players don't like to play that way. IMO tournaments should be set up in a way that many play styles should be viable. Progressive scoring kind of forces an all or nothing approach in this sense - If you are behind in objectives - you kind of have to swing for the fences.This is why I think objectives should only be achievable over multiple turns or at the final battle round.

tneva82 wrote:
To move away from "screw the scenario, just table the army" mentality that drives to extreme lists that are designed to just kill opposing army to last man and who cares about scenario. It's also more logical as warfare isn't actually about just killing enemy and it's possible to lose war by concentrating too much on just killing.

HERESY!

 Xenomancers wrote:

I see no reason why annihilating your opponent shouldn't be an ultimate victory. Other than the fact that some players don't like to play that way. IMO tournaments should be set up in a way that many play styles should be viable. Progressive scoring kind of forces an all or nothing approach in this sense - If you are behind in objectives - you kind of have to swing for the fences.This is why I think objectives should only be achievable over multiple turns or at the final battle round.

That could be interesting as long as X number of tuns must be played for either player to win. To kick Slow play in the tender danglily bitz.

 Xenomancers wrote:
For some reason a scene from Saving Private Ryan is popping into my head.

The squad comes across a hidden MG position and Cpt. Millers men want to go around it. One of his men says "It seems like an unnecessary risk given our objective" - Cpt. Miller says "Our objective is to win the war".

Not entirely relevant here but none the less - destroying the enemy is the ultimate goal in conflict. Everyone one you let go can hurt your chances later even if you accomplish your objective today.

I see no reason why annihilating your opponent shouldn't be an ultimate victory. Other than the fact that some players don't like to play that way. IMO tournaments should be set up in a way that many play styles should be viable. Progressive scoring kind of forces an all or nothing approach in this sense - If you are behind in objectives - you kind of have to swing for the fences.This is why I think objectives should only be achievable over multiple turns or at the final battle round.

Because battles aren't wars? IF the objective of the battle is for a space marine force to relay specific information/tech prior to an exterminautus called down on the planet it doesn't matter if they all die in the process if they succeed in the mission. IF you want to have a mission being about killing, have it be about killing, but if you are going to bother with objectives, killing by itself should not trump those objectives, otherwise every mission becomes "kill the enemy" which leads to issues where armies/units that are the most efficient killers are the best. IF falling behind early is a problem, players either need to adapt beyond, stand and shoot or missions can be adapted to reward holding objectives in later turns. IF you are falling way behind in progressive objectives then that is a fault in your play, not in the mission.

Maybe I just disagree though that all styles of play should be equally valid. In other words, gunlines are fine, but if you are going to play stand and shoot you better come up with a way to deal with falling behind early. Either by using firepower to clear objectives so that your opponent doesn't score them, or having units to contest, or ensuring that you are the only one holding them late game (tabling early).

Hive Flee Leviathan was winning the Third Tyrannic Waron by objectives, but then they got tabled by Ka'Bandha. Major victory for Blood Angels.

#makeBaalGreatAgain

Breng77 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
For some reason a scene from Saving Private Ryan is popping into my head.

The squad comes across a hidden MG position and Cpt. Millers men want to go around it. One of his men says "It seems like an unnecessary risk given our objective" - Cpt. Miller says "Our objective is to win the war".

Not entirely relevant here but none the less - destroying the enemy is the ultimate goal in conflict. Everyone one you let go can hurt your chances later even if you accomplish your objective today.

I see no reason why annihilating your opponent shouldn't be an ultimate victory. Other than the fact that some players don't like to play that way. IMO tournaments should be set up in a way that many play styles should be viable. Progressive scoring kind of forces an all or nothing approach in this sense - If you are behind in objectives - you kind of have to swing for the fences.This is why I think objectives should only be achievable over multiple turns or at the final battle round.

Because battles aren't wars? IF the objective of the battle is for a space marine force to relay specific information/tech prior to an exterminautus called down on the planet it doesn't matter if they all die in the process if they succeed in the mission. IF you want to have a mission being about killing, have it be about killing, but if you are going to bother with objectives, killing by itself should not trump those objectives, otherwise every mission becomes "kill the enemy" which leads to issues where armies/units that are the most efficient killers are the best. IF falling behind early is a problem, players either need to adapt beyond, stand and shoot or missions can be adapted to reward holding objectives in later turns. IF you are falling way behind in progressive objectives then that is a fault in your play, not in the mission.

Maybe I just disagree though that all styles of play should be equally valid. In other words, gunlines are fine, but if you are going to play stand and shoot you better come up with a way to deal with falling behind early. Either by using firepower to clear objectives so that your opponent doesn't score them, or having units to contest, or ensuring that you are the only one holding them late game (tabling early).

To be fair - gunlines have a really hard time tabling opponents in 2 1/2 hours. It's super fast CC units that end up tabling you - especially if they are able to lock units in CC to prevent from being shot up in their next turn. IE Shinning spears/ Custodian jetbikes / bezerker blitzes/ geenstellers/ ect.

That is only true if you are not finishing games with your gunline/don't roll hot (another reason tabling is a bad sole measure of victory). I've seen plenty of people tabled by Guard in 2-3 turns. If you aren't finishing your games then that is an entirely separate issue.

Breng77 wrote:
That is only true if you are not finishing games with your gunline/don't roll hot (another reason tabling is a bad sole measure of victory). I've seen plenty of people tabled by Guard in 2-3 turns. If you aren't finishing your games then that is an entirely separate issue.

Well not finishing games is mostly a tournament issue. I agree with everything you just said though.

It is a tournament issue that needs to be addressed likely by a combination of mission design, chess clocks, and points reductions.

Breng77 wrote:
It is a tournament issue that needs to be addressed likely by a combination of mission design, chess clocks, and points reductions.

A mission design like I was suggesting like. At the end of turn 4 whoever has the most (power level) in the center of the board wins - stuff like that would help with game time - because it is a mission deigned to be played in 4 turns not 6+. (not saying this should be the only mission - but something like this). I really like 2k point level - I like playing with lots of models I'd prefer something like chess clocks or time sensitive missions were done first to see if that makes for a better experience. Rather than the triple Nerf approach GW seems to take at everything.

I think all 3 are needed. Chess clocks help, but they are harder on some armies than others if you don't reduce points. The game still isn't a good game if someone clocks out on turn 2 or 3 or if both players use all their time, but only get to turn 3 and the loser is the person who had the clock last. Reducing points helps that.

As for missions that end before the 6th turn, I'm not sure that is really the way to go. At that point why not just play standard missions and have them end on turn 3 or 4 instead of turn 6? You are essentially just arbitrarily saying "the game takes too long to play 6 turns, so lets just play 4."

A center control "auto-victory" would need to be something like "At the end of any battle round after round 3, if a player has double the PL of his opponent within 9" of the center he/she wins." But then every turn after turn 3 you are adding up PL in the center to try to win. It would be faster to just do something like each player scores a point starting on turn 2 if they have at least 3 units within 9" of the center, then at the end of the game the player with more PL in the center scores 3 Points. Then have slay the warlord, line breaker etc.

The issue with many missions right now is the time they take to score every turn. Take ITC for example
Every player turn you are checking for (and confirming with your opponent) holding an objective, killing a model, and 3 secondary missions. Then every battle round calculating who killed more, who holds more, and the bonus objective. It doesn't take a ton of time but it adds up. If you are looking at 2-3 minutes a turn, plus any time players take strategizing to maximize their points the game really slows down. Add to that time at the start of the round selecting those secondaries etc.

To help with game time, standard progressive objectives, plus end of game secondaries that are built into the missions would help.

Ending the game at turn 4 means basic infantry often wont even have had time to move far enough to get there depending on deployment type and terrain, and is going to heavily favor turn 1 alpha atrike armies. The game is built around 6ish (5-7) turns for a reason, turns 4 and 5 is where a lot of armies, especially CC armies, really break initiative their way.

I love 2k myself, thats what I build and buy most of my stufd around personally, but if people wanna play 2k with the scale 40k has grown to, they need to allow proper time for it, not to change everything else to hamfist an overly large game into an inappropriate time availability.

I played a game this weekend where if the game ended on Turn 5, I would've lost horribly. It went on to Turn 6, and I clawed it back but still would have lost.

However, I won on turn 7, after a very close, very tense, and incredibly fun and engaging 4 hour game that both my opponent and I loved.

In a tournament? I'd've lost for sure.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ending the game at turn 4 means basic infantry often wont even have had time to move far enough to get there depending on deployment type and terrain, and is going to heavily favor turn 1 alpha atrike armies. The game is built around 6ish (5-7) turns for a reason, turns 4 and 5 is where a lot of armies, especially CC armies, really break initiative their way.

I love 2k myself, thats what I build and buy most of my stufd around personally, but if people wanna play 2k with the scale 40k has grown to, they need to allow proper time for it, not to change everything else to hamfist an overly large game into an inappropriate time availability.

That isn't really my experience with the game at all - After turn 4 someone is usually tabled or about to be tabled next turn.

In reading this, I wonder if the pro-tabling camp played 2nd Edition.

In the tournaments I host, I give max points out for the person that tabled their opponent, but any points that their opponent earned are awarded without penalty.

Because rewarding tabling encourages unfun habits in list building and play.

I've played a lot of Bolt Action- which is a WW2 miniature game with a similar rules style to 40K, Most armies are very heavily ranged oriented, for obvious reasons, there aren't really "close combat weapons", just ranged weapons that make you better at CQC. like Pistols or Sub Machine Guns. Back on point I've played many Bolt Action games without an objective or objectives- the problem with it is that there is no incentive for the armies to do *anything* other than hump cover and shoot at each other from relative safety. It comes down to who has the the bigger guns and more of them, because any attempt to cross the board will be met with a swift death. This dynamic changes drastically when there is an objective or two in the middle. Suddenly in order to win the game its worth trying to push the objective. Big plays are made and herocis go on as players now have something to fight over. I am far more likely to risk an Infantry Squad in a daring advance if it could potentially swing the game in my favor by seizing an objective. The short of it is, when games are decided on objectives players play more aggressively, a wider variety of units and weapons become more viable and the end result is a healthier funner game for the players to enjoy.

This same idea carries over to 40K. Players are rewarded for building lists that the sole objective is tabling their opponent without respect for taking and seizing objectives. Killing power is still important- as any player who has played Malifaux (a game which is heavily objective based and players do win after being tabled) will tell you- its a lot easier to score objectives when your opponent is dead. Still, if you managed to get outscored so badly that you cannot win on objectives even after tabling your opponents its fine if you lose. And as others have said, there is a lot more to a battle than just kills. Maybe you are planting explosives, maybe its a suicide mission, maybe your goal is to disrupt a ritual. Its still possible to obtain these "OBJECTIVES" even if you are ultimately killed to a man. I believe the word we use to describe this type of win is Pyrric.

 akaean wrote:
Because rewarding tabling encourages unfun habits in list building and play.

I've played a lot of Bolt Action- which is a WW2 miniature game with a similar rules style to 40K, Most armies are very heavily ranged oriented, for obvious reasons, there aren't really "close combat weapons", just ranged weapons that make you better at CQC. like Pistols or Sub Machine Guns. Back on point I've played many Bolt Action games without an objective or objectives- the problem with it is that there is no incentive for the armies to do *anything* other than hump cover and shoot at each other from relative safety. It comes down to who has the the bigger guns and more of them, because any attempt to cross the board will be met with a swift death.

Sounds like a nice WW1 game, though. Just add off-board Artillery and increased weapon ranges.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ending the game at turn 4 means basic infantry often wont even have had time to move far enough to get there depending on deployment type and terrain, and is going to heavily favor turn 1 alpha atrike armies. The game is built around 6ish (5-7) turns for a reason, turns 4 and 5 is where a lot of armies, especially CC armies, really break initiative their way.

I love 2k myself, thats what I build and buy most of my stufd around personally, but if people wanna play 2k with the scale 40k has grown to, they need to allow proper time for it, not to change everything else to hamfist an overly large game into an inappropriate time availability.

That isn't really my experience with the game at all - After turn 4 someone is usually tabled or about to be tabled next turn.

In my 5 games at the GT I was tabled once, at the very end of turn 5. Game one didn't finish, we only got to turn 4, but no-one was close to being tabled. My remaining 3 games finished at the proper round [5 or 6] with no-one being tabled. My general impression from my fellow gamers was very few games ended in a tabling and the majority reached at least turn 5.

That's only because the meta has shifted so much since 2E. If you go back to 2E / early 3E, when the focus was still on killing things, tabling was far more common. Make tabling worth it, and people will again build toward that.

At the start of 8th I ran a 50 player event that awarded full points (20) for tabling your opponent, otherwise the maximum you could get was 17.
The overwhelming feedback from players was that the battle points at the end of games was not reflective of the actual game being played, and they would have preferred a different scoring system.
The were large numbers of games which were tooth-and-nail fights where at the end of turn 7 the remaining 3 models from one army killed the last units of the other army... and got a 20-0. Both players felt a bit cheated by this kind of win.

We experimented with no reward for tabling, which also had poor results. Players have the incentive to leave a single enemy model hanging around while they rack up victory points, which isn't terribly fun for either player. And we also had occasions where players purposefully suicided in to the enemy in order to reduce the margin of victory, which was also problematic. You shouldn't be penalized for killing the enemy and you certainly shouldn't be rewarded for dying as soon as possible.

We've since changed to, if you table your opponent, awarding 3 extra VPs per turn remaining in the game. This still gives the incentive to table your opponent, and removes the suicide incentive, and it has been well received by players.

Tabling is a horrible game experience. Another reason why I don't play warmachine is simply because when I did, no one did the mission, they all went to kill the caster because its the easiest method and most straight forward.

I think some scenarios with strict kill points are fine. But not all of them. I think tabling some of the time is ok as an objective. But not all of the time.

auticus wrote:
Tabling is a horrible game experience. Another reason why I don't play warmachine is simply because when I did, no one did the mission, they all went to kill the caster because its the easiest method and most straight forward.

I think some scenarios with strict kill points are fine. But not all of them. I think tabling some of the time is ok as an objective. But not all of the time.

I don't understand this - tabling occurs most often when both armies decide to full on engage with each other. Clearly this is the most fun game experience.

There are so many different missions but all of them share the same objective and victory condition, tabling the opponent.

This is not desiderable, armies building can completly ignore the mission played and go for tabling, this lead to a few OP lists that tend to dominate