Switch Theme:

We are in need of an Anti-Elite Secondary  [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
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant




San Jose, CA

 Jidmah wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
GW seems to disagree. There is also just one category of kill secondaries, other secondaries like teleport homers or the ritual the very opposite of "gamey".

There are always people who will hate on any kind of change.

Who is gonna pick those when the others exist??? Just cuz a couple are not auto includes does not make the rest any less gamey.


Did you actually play any game 9th edition games? Shadow operations and battlefield supremacy are the go-to categories for most players and armies, and neither is particularly gamey, especially compared to the secondaries of old editions. Teleport homers is a secondary many armies consider to be one of their top options.

The gamey kill stratagems you are freaking out about are almost exclusively limited to a single category and I think everyone agrees that abhor the witch is badly implemented.


secondaries were not a good thing in any edition. what happened to playing the mission, ya know like in real combat? Didnt play secondaries before 8th, during 8th, or post 8th & it looks like the trend will continue.

and no, I havent been able to play any 9th ed games & it doesnt look like that'll be anytime soon thanks to nurgle-19.
I cant wait to get some games in, whenever that'll be
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Blackie wrote:
A less "gamey" experience could be picking the secondaries in a totally random way, not by choosing them, like objective cards in 7th edition. I never tried, and I'm not even interested in doing that since I consider the game mechanics great, but it could be interesting for people who don't like picking secondaries to counter specific armies.


That could be an interesting way of doing it - make Mission and Faction secondaries into a sixth table, and expand the Purge the Enemy and No Mercy, No Respite categories to six options rather than four, and you're in a position where a d66 (or d63) roll can determine a secondary. Allow for a reroll if you a, get a duplicate; or b, get an objective that can't be completed due to the composition of either army (such as the Warpcraft category, or Titan Slayers), and away you go.

Some objectives might still warrant a review to even out potential scoring (Slay the Warlord, for example, and Thin Their Ranks (which I agree should count the Wounds of removed models, not just count the models themselves)), but it would definitely add in the feel of getting strange objectives from theater commanders sat well away from the front lines.

That, and it'd be funny to hear the conniption fits from the tournament community when they realise they can't micro-manage their pre-game planning so much.

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant




San Jose, CA

 Dysartes wrote:
Spoiler:
 Blackie wrote:
A less "gamey" experience could be picking the secondaries in a totally random way, not by choosing them, like objective cards in 7th edition. I never tried, and I'm not even interested in doing that since I consider the game mechanics great, but it could be interesting for people who don't like picking secondaries to counter specific armies.


That could be an interesting way of doing it - make Mission and Faction secondaries into a sixth table, and expand the Purge the Enemy and No Mercy, No Respite categories to six options rather than four, and you're in a position where a d66 (or d63) roll can determine a secondary. Allow for a reroll if you a, get a duplicate; or b, get an objective that can't be completed due to the composition of either army (such as the Warpcraft category, or Titan Slayers), and away you go.

Some objectives might still warrant a review to even out potential scoring (Slay the Warlord, for example, and Thin Their Ranks (which I agree should count the Wounds of removed models, not just count the models themselves)), but it would definitely add in the feel of getting strange objectives from theater commanders sat well away from the front lines.

That, and it'd be funny to hear the conniption fits from the tournament community when they realise they can't micro-manage their pre-game planning so much.
now this is something we all can get behind
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




I'm not a tournament player at all and pre-game randomness does not equate fun for me.

I absolutely hated (HATED!) random warlord traits and psychic powers in earlier editions.

Secondaries should be balanced against each other, without taking the balance of the surrounding factions into account. I personally like them, even the funky ones like Psychic Ritual.
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Blackie wrote:
A less "gamey" experience could be picking the secondaries in a totally random way, not by choosing them, like objective cards in 7th edition. I never tried, and I'm not even interested in doing that since I consider the game mechanics great, but it could be interesting for people who don't like picking secondaries to counter specific armies.


Technically, if one truly would want to balance via randomness, one would also need to randomly create terrain and missions, at that stage you'd not even need secondaries and it would enforce a somewhat balanced list since you never know how the board or the mission looks.

That beeing said, this would put alot of pressure on tournament organisers simply for all the terrain setups...
Not to mention factions that can't build viable balanced lists, be it for a lack of worthwhile options or structure of the army will also be hard fethed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I'm not a tournament player at all and pre-game randomness does not equate fun for me.

I absolutely hated (HATED!) random warlord traits and psychic powers in earlier editions.

Secondaries should be balanced against each other, without taking the balance of the surrounding factions into account. I personally like them, even the funky ones like Psychic Ritual.


that is not random that is randumb.

There is a difference between fixing mission and terrain parameters randomly before a match happens and randomness that impacts the capability of choosing ones list style.
one is healthy (or can be) for the game, the other is just plain stupid.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 08:21:45


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






Agree, random can be fun if done right (SAG, foul blight spawn or many of the pick one/roll two tables) but deciding the game before you start by three dice rolls is just an idiotic suggestion. There are just too many secondaries that potentially yield 0 VP in a game no matter what you do.
If you really think that it's fun to have random mission goals, nothing prevents you from rolling on them anyways. Strangely enough, I have never seen or heard of someone randomly generating warlord traits or psychic powers despite the game explicitly allowing you to do so - seems like random isn't that fun after all.

That said, I'm all for removing secondaries that reward killing models or units. Neither units nor models are created equal, there is no reason why killing a killa kan (5W, T5, 3+) is worth the same points as killing a foetid bloat drone (10W, T7, 3+/5++/DR).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 08:30:03


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation




Re psychic powers and warlord traits randomly chosen
I do. I'm not trying to derail the thread into argumentative back and forth here but I genuinely do so there you go, there is one.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 08:46:51


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Jidmah wrote:
Agree, random can be fun if done right (SAG, foul blight spawn or many of the pick one/roll two tables) but deciding the game before you start by three dice rolls is just an idiotic suggestion. There are just too many secondaries that potentially yield 0 VP in a game no matter what you do.


Let's dial back the hyperbole here - I already said that secondaries that can't be achieved due to army construction should be rerolled. If you take that into account, how many of the core secondaries are truly a "potential 0 VP no matter what you do"?

Sure, you might not be able to get a full 15 VP out of some of them, but those should be looked at anyway - I have no idea how you rebalance Slay the Warlord to be worth 15 VP, but I'm sure there's something that could be done.

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






Racerguy180 wrote:
secondaries were not a good thing in any edition. what happened to playing the mission, ya know like in real combat?

9th edition plays in a way that you actually need to primarily focus on primaries, if you don't you will usually lose the game. Primaries provide more points if you hold more objectives, so if you don't take care of your objectives, your opponent can quickly catch up or build a huge lead.
When people talk about secondaries it always reads like this doesn't matter, but essentially both players aim to score 45 or at least 40 points on primaries, so the secondaries tend to decide the games, even though you can't win the game by just relying on them.

Didnt play secondaries before 8th, during 8th, or post 8th & it looks like the trend will continue.

Well, the game has changed. If you ignore secondaries you'll either lose games or lose out on special crusade rewards.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






actually stuff like slay the warlord and first strike should not score more than 7-8 points.

They are fairly easy compared to most of the others so if you take them you should be ok conceeding on your overall a bit.

The problem is, some of the ones that you can score 15 points on are rather easy to get. Granted it circumstantial based on the opponent.

Im personally not in favor of any secondary that targets a specific army type. Save that for narrative games.


All the secondaries should be something any army can do:

Can your army get anywhere on the board?
Can your army kill big stuff?
Can your army stop your enemy from getting to a specific point on the board?
Can your army hold more than one point on the board?
Can your army push your opponent off a specific point?



These are all things that any army should be able to do, opponent not considered.

After that you should have more niche secondaries that are fairly easy to do but reward less points.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






 Dysartes wrote:
Let's dial back the hyperbole here - I already said that secondaries that can't be achieved due to army construction should be rerolled. If you take that into account, how many of the core secondaries are truly a "potential 0 VP no matter what you do"?

Grind them down when playing an army that values quantity over quality or when your opponent has ways to kill support characters
While we stand, we fight defaults to 0 VP in most games
Bring it down/assassinate/abhor the witch against players who have only one or two vehicles/monsters/characters/psykers is not necessary 0 VP but almost a guaranteed lost secondary as well.
Investigate Sites when going second against any mobile army
Teleport homers if you didn't bring units to specifically set them up tends to be 4 or 0 VP
Mental Interrogation, Ritual when you have only one or two psykers and those get killed or denied or if those psykers are essential to your strategy and you cannot afford not casting with them.
Pierce the Veil is nigh impossible to archive unless you specifically planned for it and it also has the same problems as the other psychic actions on top of that.

So even if you re-roll all the ones which cannot be archived or picked due to your or enemy army composition you still have 7 out of 18 which have the potential to be total duds, with titan hunter and abhor the witch having a high chance of being re-rolled. So if you roll two of those duds and your opponent rolls none, the game is over right there, you shake hands and pack up.

Sure, you might not be able to get a full 15 VP out of some of them, but those should be looked at anyway - I have no idea how you rebalance Slay the Warlord to be worth 15 VP, but I'm sure there's something that could be done.

In the tournament pack, slay the warlord is worth more the earlier you score it. However, for some faction a durable warlord that has LoS is impossible to kill before turn 3 or 4, essentially leaving your with a maximum of 6 VP here. There also would be no need for every secondary to max out at 15 if 15 VP weren't so easy to archive on many others. A guaranteed 10VP or easy to get 12VP could be more valuable than hard to get 15VP if all the secondaries were balanced properly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 09:24:10


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Blackie wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
how about not having secondary objectives in the first place. it's a stupid mechanic and yet another way for GW to feth up. if anything they need to reduce the gamey bs and stop adding it in before they get a handle on the core functionality.


Sounds like you haven’t played much. Our group is loving Secondaries and the new missions in general.


New missions and 9th generic mechanics are a massive improvement from 8th edition, indeed.


At least if you love book keeping and want games decided by who wins 1st turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:
While we stand, we fight defaults to 0 VP in most games


So far got 5 once, 10 most of the time(which means pretty average. Maxing out secondary is very rare unless you are dominating game anyway) and 15 quite a few times. 0 once but then again when you get wiped out in 3 turns not much you score anyway.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 09:32:27


12 factions for Lord of The Rings
4663
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5265 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in it
Stormin' Stompa




Italy

tneva82 wrote:

At least if you love book keeping and want games decided by who wins 1st turn.


Not at all, it was more true in 6,7,8 editions that 9th.

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






Lucky you. Neither my DG nor my orks have archived a single VP through that so far and not for the lack of trying.
There really is no reason for an opponent to not just kill the three most expensive models on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:
Not at all, it was more true in 6,7,8 editions that 9th.

Well, the CA2019 missions actually did a good job at not giving any first turn advantage. Too bad we could play them so little.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 09:40:42


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




While not all missions in CA2020 are equally balanced in regards to who goes first, 5 are close enough to 50%, given our current dataset.*

Just play those 5 missions and reroll the other ones for the time being.

*see Goonhammer for reference
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Blackie wrote:
A less "gamey" experience could be picking the secondaries in a totally random way, not by choosing them, like objective cards in 7th edition. I never tried, and I'm not even interested in doing that since I consider the game mechanics great, but it could be interesting for people who don't like picking secondaries to counter specific armies.


I loved the idea of the random objective cards. I thought that was a far better tool to promote TAC lists over Skew lists. If your list has to do a little of everything no matter who/what you're playing against it's a lot harder to skew.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




There absolutely needs to be some sort of kill secondary against SM, though.

Look at the categories of objectives in the GT Pack.

Battlefield Supremacy:
Armies can choose any of these fine against elite armies.

No Mercy, No Respite:
1)Thin their ranks? No, won't score against elites.

2) Grind them down? Mayyybeee. But you need to be even more elite than they are. Won't necessarily work. In addition, marines are often quite tanky, even with MSU.

3) While we stand we fight? Army dependent, but this one is a bit mad against SM, which can absolutely have no issue tabling armies.

Purge the enemy:
1) Grind them down? Strong elite armies often bring too few vehicles. On the flip side, a lot of armies rely on their transport just to play the game, and will probably be down 10-15 VPs against their elite army opponents because Bring it Down is almost always an auto take.
2) Titan Hunter? No applicable.
3) Cut off the head? The opponent has too much control of this -- they'll simply hide their HQ until turn 3. Also, good luck killing that T7, -1 to wound, 3++ Bike captain.
4) Assassinate? This is actually a maybe, depending on the SM army. But elite armies are bring less characters due to the new force org rules.

Shadow Operations:
Plethora of good options.

Warpcraft:
Nothing reliable.

So most armies will struggle for that 3rd option against elite armies, when the opposite is unlikely to be true.

Not only do armies potentially give up a free 15 VPs just for showing up (Bring it down), they'll be unlikely to choose a good secondary back.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dai wrote:
Re psychic powers and warlord traits randomly chosen
I do. I'm not trying to derail the thread into argumentative back and forth here but I genuinely do so there you go, there is one.


Well imagine trying to do that based on an army which whole power comes from specific psychic powers on specific units and specific warlord traits being used, alongside specific relics.

Plus rolling 3 troops, 3-4 elites, 3 psykers , some with multiple powers would make the opponent hate you for a 30 min pre game phase.

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





Karol wrote:
That would be very unbalanced vs armies like 1ksons and GK, who already give up the psyker secondary in every game. If there was also an anti elite one, then in all games the opponents of those two armies would be getting max points without even trying very hard.


It wouldn't be a problem if the psyker killing one was moved to the category that includes all the anti-skew objectives anyway.

which is where it should be currently, i.e. NOT stackable with the character killing secondary.

That's one of the stupidest things about the new mission setup: The fact that you can make Character Psykers worth EIGHT secondary points each by taking assassinate+Abhor.

Sorry, guard player, but you took a couple 25-point astropaths, looks like they're worth more points to kill than fething imperial knights!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
Dai wrote:
Re psychic powers and warlord traits randomly chosen
I do. I'm not trying to derail the thread into argumentative back and forth here but I genuinely do so there you go, there is one.


Well imagine trying to do that based on an army which whole power comes from specific psychic powers on specific units and specific warlord traits being used, alongside specific relics.

Plus rolling 3 troops, 3-4 elites, 3 psykers , some with multiple powers would make the opponent hate you for a 30 min pre game phase.


Yep, it definitely does, I remember 7th ed!

OK, this is my thousand sons army, now hold up a sec while I roll 89 times on this stupid fething table and write stuff down on a piece of paper, I should be done in roughly an hour!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 15:28:01


"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
Fixture of Dakka







Jidmah wrote:
Sure, you might not be able to get a full 15 VP out of some of them, but those should be looked at anyway - I have no idea how you rebalance Slay the Warlord to be worth 15 VP, but I'm sure there's something that could be done.

In the tournament pack, slay the warlord is worth more the earlier you score it. However, for some faction a durable warlord that has LoS is impossible to kill before turn 3 or 4, essentially leaving your with a maximum of 6 VP here. There also would be no need for every secondary to max out at 15 if 15 VP weren't so easy to archive on many others. A guaranteed 10VP or easy to get 12VP could be more valuable than hard to get 15VP if all the secondaries were balanced properly.


Ah, I've not picked the Chapter Approved pack up yet, as it's not clear when I'll get to play a game safely - are other secondaries tweaked? That sounds like a reasonable tweak to StW, off-hand.

Karol wrote:Plus rolling 3 troops, 3-4 elites, 3 psykers , some with multiple powers would make the opponent hate you for a 30 min pre game phase.


We're talking 10-15 rolls there - how the heck is that taking you half an hour?

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant




San Jose, CA

Jidmah wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
secondaries were not a good thing in any edition. what happened to playing the mission, ya know like in real combat?

9th edition plays in a way that you actually need to primarily focus on primaries, if you don't you will usually lose the game. Primaries provide more points if you hold more objectives, so if you don't take care of your objectives, your opponent can quickly catch up or build a huge lead.
When people talk about secondaries it always reads like this doesn't matter, but essentially both players aim to score 45 or at least 40 points on primaries, so the secondaries tend to decide the games, even though you can't win the game by just relying on them.

Didnt play secondaries before 8th, during 8th, or post 8th & it looks like the trend will continue.

Well, the game has changed. If you ignore secondaries you'll either lose games or lose out on special crusade rewards.
how can you lose out on stuff if both players dont use secondaries????
awww shucks, looks like the old adage of "if both players agree....." applies.
but it would be unfathomable for you to even imagine not playing by the book.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Racerguy180 wrote:
how about not having secondary objectives in the first place. it's a stupid mechanic and yet another way for GW to feth up. if anything they need to reduce the gamey bs and stop adding it in before they get a handle on the core functionality.

Exactly!

The reason objectives exist in a game like this is to force action. The reason we are battling with armies is to destroy each others army. This is the objective in all war - to destroy the enemy.


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well, no. In fact, the objective is almost never to destroy the enemy, it's to accomplish something in particular. This is especially true in 40k, where the stories they tell are almost always about doing something, with the enemy just an obstacle, not the objective itself. Every once in a while you have the "orks just love to krump!" or "chaos just wants to kill!" storylines, but they're few and far between compared to the "Ahriman wants to break into the black library" or "the dark angels want to catch a member of the fallen" or whatever.

Tyranids and orks are really the only factions in the game where the objective is usually just to krump 'em.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 16:51:37


 
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant




San Jose, CA

primary objectives achieve this and they're not all just kill stuff.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no. In fact, the objective is almost never to destroy the enemy, it's to accomplish something in particular. This is especially true in 40k, where the stories they tell are almost always about doing something, with the enemy just an obstacle, not the objective itself. Every once in a while you have the "orks just love to krump!" or "chaos just wants to kill!" storylines, but they're few and far between compared to the "Ahriman wants to break into the black library" or "the dark angels want to catch a member of the fallen" or whatever.

Tyranids and orks are really the only factions in the game where the objective is usually just to krump 'em.

Actually no. Destroying the enemy is always an objective. Secondary objectives in real war are like...engage the enemy and take this position so we can gain an advantage and destroy the enemy in the next battle. Not speaking of 40k lore which is full of all kinds of imaginary scenarios which don't start by making sure each army is equal on both sides (points). "Our objective is to win the war!" - Captain Miller

My point in any case is the only reason we need objectives at all in a game of toy soldiers is so people don't just hide behind walls all game and just win every game by making an immobile gun line. Because the player leaving cover to cross the table loses the advantage of cover and exposes their units to more damage. Objectives force you to move...that is a good thing overall but really that is the only reason they need to exist. They don't add anything else to the game - they just become gamey the more complicated they get.

This game is supposed to simulate battles...not covert operations. If you want covert ops...go play infinity or kill team.

40k should be about swirling melee and fights to the death. I will consider any rules system in 40k that does not grant you victory and max points for tabling your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:
primary objectives achieve this and they're not all just kill stuff.

Aye...and a primary objective can be really simple like...he/she who holds the center of the table at the end of 5 turns wins...Or He/she who has more units in the enemy deployment zone wins.

Tell me how much more dynamic the game gets by adding other objectives here?



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 17:09:48


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Way more dynamic. The game would be extremely boring with only primary, objective-control based scoring, and it would also very quickly be "solved" and the few factions that are really good at standing on objectives would be the only ones played competitively.

Secondary objectives are what keep the game varied.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Dysartes wrote:


We're talking 10-15 rolls there - how the heck is that taking you half an hour?


simple. I need specific units with specific powers, and my characters are using the PA psychic school, while the units have to use the codex one. So I am going to be fishing for specific powers. It is not going to be, take 3 dice for 3 units of termintors and roll in go. Same with the two apothecary, my paladin unit. Some units, like the dreadnought would have to be cut from the army, because without being able to fire outside of LoS it becomes a really overcosted and bad unit.

It can easily be multiple 10s of minutes if I have to decide, specialy if I have to take accout terrain, opposing army etc. Some powers like the PA ones are so crucial to GK working, that playing without them or with the wrong ones on wrong characters, you may as well not play GK at all, because you get a pre PA evel of army. It would be as if someone else had to roll basic gear on their units.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 17:22:20


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





yukishiro1 wrote:
Way more dynamic. The game would be extremely boring with only primary, objective-control based scoring, and it would also very quickly be "solved" and the few factions that are really good at standing on objectives would be the only ones played competitively.

Secondary objectives are what keep the game varied.


IMO, secondary objectives in the ITC style make the game far less varied than simple primary objectives.because suddenly half your scoring potential you can basically just build in to your list...or you instantly know seeing your opponent's list what you're going to try and kll for secondary points.

ITC makes the game more "solved." not less. A simple, randomized mission set, where you might have to control the center, you might have to control the corners, you might have to break through an enemy defense, you might have to hold a defensive line, you might have to move around the board grabbing different objectives, and you might have to control board area is a much more variable game experience than every mission primary being "hold the majority of the board" and choosable secondaries.

Heck, you could even make it NOT a randomized mission set, and allow the player taking the second turn to determine exactly what mission the two armies will play...wouldn't that be a trip! an advantage to going second! Wild!

"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
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well sure, if you change the whole primary scoring method. I was responding to people who seemed to think the game would be better with the current missions and primary scoring method but no secondaries, and that just isn't true.

In the current system the secondaries are the only thing that makes one game different from another.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 17:54:08


 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






yukishiro1 wrote:
Well sure, if you change the whole primary scoring method. I was responding to people who seemed to think the game would be better with the current missions and primary scoring method but no secondaries, and that just isn't true.

In the current system the secondaries are the only thing that makes one game different from another.

Would not a different primary objective change the game?
Control center? Control Quarters? Control Deployment zone?

Each of these requires a different strategy and is going to have different action points on the map. The secondary objectives you think ad to game variety actually just reduce the number of unit selections that are viable. They force you to build a list a certain way or you lose because you are "too easy to score against" or some other stupid reason.

Know what is actually really boring? Playing a game you are down 20 points with no chance at recovering because of stupid secondary objectives.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: