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.

After playing through several games of 7th, it's clear that the tactical objectives aren't that well balanced. I was initially excited about them, but with a few of the missions it's hard to plan ahead (not knowing what your objectives will be) and often it's impossible to stop your opponent from scoring certain points. Personally, I didn't find the 6th edition missions that fun, I usually prefer themed or fluffy missions. The 6th edition missions were too much of a slugfest and then Turn 5 objective grab. This is especially silly when the only other ways to score are 1st blood, warlord, and linebreaker. So why not combine elements of both systems?

Why not toss out tactical objectives and just allow players to score 1 VP at the start of each turn that they hold any objective, starting on turn 2? So instead of jumping attention from one objective to another, all six objectives are equally important and there's a constant fight to clear the enemy off of each objective. Then at mission end, all held objectives count for 2 VP, so that there's a benefit to seizing the objectives on the last turn rather than just scoring all your points early with faster units. Points should be scored at the start of the player turn so that any unit controlling an objective must have survived the opponent's entire turn.

This seems like a much better, more balanced, and more fun system for objectives. There's no more drawing useless tactical objectives, there's no gripe about drawing difficult objectives, there's just an incentive to fight over each and every objective on the table throughout the game. You need to move in force on an objective to take it and keep it. Rushing a couple shoota boyz onto an objective for two seconds won't cut it anymore, and both sides know what their objectives are for the game (rather than drawing them on turn 3).

So, use Apocalypse rules....they pretty much already do that.

 krodarklorr wrote:
So, use Apocalypse rules....they pretty much already do that.

Are they better or worse than standard objectives?

Wouldn't that reward stuff like Drop Pods and bikes/mech lists? Turn one your enemy can just turbo boost wherever he wants and claim a few victory points while even being able to contest yours.

 Klerych wrote:
Wouldn't that reward stuff like Drop Pods and bikes/mech lists? Turn one your enemy can just turbo boost wherever he wants and claim a few victory points while even being able to contest yours.

Only if he can keep his units on those objectives through your turn. My suggestion is that you collect your VPs at the start of your turn, so a turbo-boost unit won't capture those points until the start of their next turn but they would contest at the start of your turn. This also makes troops choices more important so they can have objective secured against that kind of blitz attack.

The big difference is that with this system you know where all the VPs can be scored, so slower armies can plan and maneuver to score points.

The gives every benefit to gunline armies such as Tau and Imperial Guard but ruins the game for armies that require mobility such as Eldar and Tyranids. The typical deployment zone has two objectives with a third nearby and reachable Turn 2, so the game now becomes 'hold your side' and entire armies just camp three objectives. Because to take the objective away, that means the other player has to abandon one they hold, attack with a weak force or spend X amount of points for the smallest placeholder unit.

A tactical objective that shifts means that both armies have to take into account a set of randomness to accomplish the mission. The fun is in drawing that difficult objective and needing to either make the effort to do it or abandon the point. Sitting back and shooting behind an Aegis line because there's no priority objectives outside of the ones already held is not fun. Nor is charging that Aegis line and spreading the army across a 6X2 stretch of table so that points aren't lost that legitimately can't be gotten back.

Then just require that they not be placed in any deployment zones.

How does this benefit gunlines? Both armies have the same advantage, being able to fortify their own objectives, but also having central objectives to compete for.

Not all armies have 24" gun range. So if a gunline is set up with superior range then there is little point of charging it when the charging army has to abandon their own objectives to take the other ones if they have even half a hope of having bodies left to actually make an assault phase with. You're talking about a two turn attack minimum where the attacking player now loses six points that the defending player gains by staying still. That's six points that are ridiculously difficult to grab back since there is a good chance that the objectives the game is now centered around are likely to be contested and void because of it. There is no advantage whatsoever of trying to attack the opponent held objectives. At most you will get single units making their attacks for First Blood and Linebreaker but it's essentially just a siege now. Ends up being very not fun when using assault themed armies. The current system with randomized objectives atleast allow a fair chance to every army with minor exceptions. Can't kill the psyker if the Tau don't have any on the table.

It is an interesting idea however it seems like a rule proposal so I shall move it to that area.

That is what I thought 7th was going to be. I thought "great I don't have to house rule this now".

I always thought you should score each turn when on an objective.

I'm inclined to agree with SharkOutaWata, as just having all objectives active all the time seems like it would simply devolve into both sides sitting on their own closest objectives while plinking away at the enemy. There's no incentive to leave your own objective, as it's easy VPs, and going after an enemy position is a big risk.
Essentially, it's the same problem as the old "One objective on my size, One objective on your side" mission from 5th/6th, which is universally known as the "tie game mission".
If objectives could be captured without needing to babysit them with a unit (you control an objective it becomes yours, and continues to generate VPs until the enemy captures it), it might work a bit better.

There are a few tournament scenes that use a mix of old objectives and new tactical objectives that seem to work pretty well. The Bay Area Open being one that springs to mind via Frontline Gameings battle reports.

For Maelstrom Objectives I've been tinkering with these few house rules to make them a little less "I score and there's nothing you can do about it!".

Achieving Tactical Objectives:
You score Victory Points for achieving Tactical Objectives at the beginning of your turn, before new Tactical Objectives are generated. Read all Tactical Objectives as “beginning of your turn” instead of “end of your turn”. Normally, this means you will have to achieve your objective during your own turn, then survive through your opponent's turn before claiming any Victory Points.

Tactical Vengeance:
When achieving Tactical Objectives that require destroying enemy units, casting powers, forcing moral checks, issuing challenges, or other objectives that do not involve Objective Markers, make note of which units achieved these objectives. You may only score Victory Points for these objectives if the units that achieved them are not destroyed or falling back at the start of your turn.

Could you Repeat that Sir?
Tactical Objectives that are impossible to complete (Such as destroying a Flyer when there are no Flyers in the current game) may be immediately discarded and regenerated.

Me and my son finally had a game. We are not familiar with the rules so I made up a rule. In first game he played 15 Necrons, I played 15 Genestealers. Game 2 he played 15 Necrons, I played 15 Dark Angles.

One objective in the middle, One Point. Then I place and objective in his end, and he places an objective in my end. If I am on the objective in my end it's One Point, and if I am on an objective on his End it's Two Points.

You score at the end of the turn.

First game he kicked my arse. GS couldn't get close to score and he just shot me up to pieces in 4 turns.

Second game was more even, went to 6 turns. Final tall was 9 to 5 for him. We only did points on objectives so no first blood, and did my version of movement.

Was a lot faster, he focused more on the game, and loved keeping a scoring tally every turn.

So I believe Objectives should be scored every turn and added up.

 McGibs wrote:


Achieving Tactical Objectives:
You score Victory Points for achieving Tactical Objectives at the beginning of your turn, before new Tactical Objectives are generated. Read all Tactical Objectives as “beginning of your turn” instead of “end of your turn”. Normally, this means you will have to achieve your objective during your own turn, then survive through your opponent's turn before claiming any Victory Points.

Tactical Vengeance:
When achieving Tactical Objectives that require destroying enemy units, casting powers, forcing moral checks, issuing challenges, or other objectives that do not involve Objective Markers, make note of which units achieved these objectives. You may only score Victory Points for these objectives if the units that achieved them are not destroyed or falling back at the start of your turn.

Could you Repeat that Sir?
Tactical Objectives that are impossible to complete (Such as destroying a Flyer when there are no Flyers in the current game) may be immediately discarded and regenerated.

These I could absolutely get behind and would make for very fun matches that are a constant defend-attack back and forth no matter the armies. Gets rid of the idea of the 51pt Eldar jetbike stealing the objective at the last moment and securing the point in the face of an Assault Cannon Dreadnaught or other similarly slaughtering unit that isn't an 'Objective Secured' troops choice. Also forces players to play either proactively or reactively, making that last ditch effort to focus fire on the unit that just killed the warlord for the full D3 points value even though it doesn't actually win them points themselves.

 TheSilo wrote:
After playing through several games of 7th, it's clear that the tactical objectives aren't that well balanced. I was initially excited about them, but with a few of the missions it's hard to plan ahead (not knowing what your objectives will be) and often it's impossible to stop your opponent from scoring certain points. Personally, I didn't find the 6th edition missions that fun, I usually prefer themed or fluffy missions. The 6th edition missions were too much of a slugfest and then Turn 5 objective grab. This is especially silly when the only other ways to score are 1st blood, warlord, and linebreaker. So why not combine elements of both systems?

Why not toss out tactical objectives and just allow players to score 1 VP at the start of each turn that they hold any objective, starting on turn 2? So instead of jumping attention from one objective to another, all six objectives are equally important and there's a constant fight to clear the enemy off of each objective. Then at mission end, all held objectives count for 2 VP, so that there's a benefit to seizing the objectives on the last turn rather than just scoring all your points early with faster units. Points should be scored at the start of the player turn so that any unit controlling an objective must have survived the opponent's entire turn.

This seems like a much better, more balanced, and more fun system for objectives. There's no more drawing useless tactical objectives, there's no gripe about drawing difficult objectives, there's just an incentive to fight over each and every objective on the table throughout the game. You need to move in force on an objective to take it and keep it. Rushing a couple shoota boyz onto an objective for two seconds won't cut it anymore, and both sides know what their objectives are for the game (rather than drawing them on turn 3).

Even further invalidates footslogging hordes that want to move across the board. The enemy just sits backfield blasting at them and gaining free VP. And when you get there, it's gona be allready impossible to catch up in point difference.

Needs a restriction that objectives should be placed somewhere around the middle of the map than.

 koooaei wrote:

Even further invalidates footslogging hordes that want to move across the board. The enemy just sits backfield blasting at them and gaining free VP. And when you get there, it's gona be allready impossible to catch up in point difference.

Needs a restriction that objectives should be placed somewhere around the middle of the map than.

I thought me and my son had a good idea. We put one objective in the middle that everyone can get to. 1 point. Then he places one objective in my zone. 2 points for him, one point for me. Then I place an objective marker in his zone. 2 points for him, one point for me.

So this way I want to get into his zone for those 2 points and make sure he doesn't get into my zone for those 2 points. I made a mistake, and he claim his 2 points and wooped my butt.

My idea to fix objectives is to borrow from Risk a bit.

You place down six numbered objective markers at the beginning, after terrain but before armies are deployed. You then both draw an objective card from a deck.

Each objective card will give you a mission to complete by the end of the game, involving controlling certain objectives. You might have to control objective 1 and 2, or 3 and 6 whilst your opponent needs 4 and 5 or 1 and 6 etc.

Your opponent will not know what your objective is and you will not know what your opponents objective is. This allows you to use feints and deception to accomplish your goals (such as sending a force to capture objective 2 to lure some of your opponents units from objective 3 etc.), making the game much more tactical and strategic. You have to try and work out what your opponents objective is and stop them achieving it whilst still trying to achieve your own.

I think Davor has a pretty cool idea.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
My idea to fix objectives is to borrow from Risk a bit.

You place down six numbered objective markers at the beginning, after terrain but before armies are deployed. You then both draw an objective card from a deck.

Each objective card will give you a mission to complete by the end of the game, involving controlling certain objectives. You might have to control objective 1 and 2, or 3 and 6 whilst your opponent needs 4 and 5 or 1 and 6 etc.

Your opponent will not know what your objective is and you will not know what your opponents objective is. This allows you to use feints and deception to accomplish your goals (such as sending a force to capture objective 2 to lure some of your opponents units from objective 3 etc.), making the game much more tactical and strategic. You have to try and work out what your opponents objective is and stop them achieving it whilst still trying to achieve your own.

I like this idea best.

yeah I love the idea of these cards. Love them.

Initially they made for interesting games. but after about 4 it dawned on us that usually, 1 guy gets the luck the other one gets the shaft. Rarely do you see the cards evening them out of the game. It's not that enjoyable seeing your opponent lose interest turn 2 with most of his guys still on the board cause you've drawn some cards that are amazin.

We just had a mini local tournament, where turn one the guy got two D3 objective points for turning up and having a deployment zone and even managed to steal one of our objectives.

While my Dark Eldar got turn 1 Assault, force moral tests and kill someone with a psychic power.

They were picking up Tau and Eldar by the bucket loads, but by turn 3 they had 13+ VPs and we had I think 3.

Love the idea of them, but they make for really 1 sided games that are just not enjoyable, even from a victors point of view.

What I'd like to see is:

Each team picks (Actual picks, not draws. And in secret) 2 Objective cards for turn 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Turning them over for that turn that they were picked. If they are not completed during that turn they are then discarded.

kinda like the old Apoc bombardments.

At least you'd get to plan your strategy for the game, over random chances of not getting psychic cards when your playing Tau or Deldar.

They're a good example for some types of cards, but many objectives, most armies just have no hope of getting at. Unless you're bikes or drop pods.

 Grumzimus wrote:
We just had a mini local tournament, where turn one the guy got two D3 objective points for turning up and having a deployment zone and even managed to steal one of our objectives.

While my Dark Eldar got turn 1 Assault, force moral tests and kill someone with a psychic power.

They were picking up Tau and Eldar by the bucket loads, but by turn 3 they had 13+ VPs and we had I think 3.

Assigning random point values for objectives is one of the things that makes GW's Maelstrom inappropriate for competitive play.

Take a look at these, they address a number of issues:

http://adepticon.org/wpfiles/2015/201540Ktocards.pdf

That looks great!!!!

Will need to give them a proper read through. But certainly seems a better fit than random

Whether you're using the GW or Adepticon or other decks, what do folks think of drawing from individual decks versus a pooled deck?

If you and your opponent are both drawing from a single deck of tactical objectives, I think it might balance some of the objective draws. As an example, if Objective 1 is in my deployment zone and Objective 2 is in his deployment zone, then when I draw Objective 1 it reduces the chance of him drawing that same objective. Vice versa, if he drew Objective 1, it'd be a tough card to earn but it would make me less likely to pull an easy Objective 1 card.

Only tried playing from a single (AdeptiCon) deck once. The problem wasn't in the numbered objective cards, since there are 3 of each of those, it was in the 'special' (unique) cards. I got all the sweet ones and ran away with the game.... We've either been playing rolling d66 on a chart or using two decks since then.

 McGibs wrote:

Could you Repeat that Sir?
Tactical Objectives that are impossible to complete (Such as destroying a Flyer when there are no Flyers in the current game) may be immediately discarded and regenerated.

I love this rule. There are a lot of really good house rules on here but this is my favorite. I hate that the Dark Eldar cards have objective like gaining VPs for manifesting psyker powers. Unless I am running with allies this is impossible and I am assed out of VPs that turn if that is the only card I draw. The only problem I have with Calculating VPs at the beginning of the turn is that it puts armies like DE at a severe disadvantage. We are not designed to hold the line, sometime the best we can do is a suicide mission to grab an objective. While other armies excel at standing their ground, DE are just jinking to live long enough to get the next objective. My Space Wolves would love all three of your rules McGib.