Do you play for the missions or do you specifically just go for the wipe your opponent out?

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.

**Hollismason**

So I got called out on this by my friends that I pretty much just ignore mission parameters and go for wiping out my opponent utterly. They said it was to aggressive of a play style, but I was of the opinion that if none of my opponents models were on the board that's a clear tactical win for me. So do you play for the mission parameters or do you play to annihilate your opponent.

Don't get me wrong I like playing the missions they are fun, but I generally just ignore having to grab objectives in favor of trying to destroy all of my opponents units.

**Zewrath**

I play to win, if my opponent is criminally short on models and my firepower allows for it, I'd go for the wipe, every time.
Some people employ different tactics to achieve victories. Some by attrition, some by alpha strike or some by gun lining. There's no "code" to play 40k, other than abiding by the rules and perhaps proper sportsmanship. What tactic you use in order to win, isn't your opponents business unless you're cheating.

**slk28850**

I don't see why you have to choose. Since you don't have a both option I'd side with wiping my opponent out because if there is no opposition then accomplishing whatever the mission objectives are is much easier.

**Thud**

Missions. Always.

It's pretty much impossible to table someone who knows what they're doing (barring extremely favourable match-ups combined with a decent bit of luck) and unfortunately all my regular opponents are pretty competent.

**BobNT**

It's War. While zooming around with my Eldar Jetbikes might score me VP, if there's no enemy shooting at them because I've tabled my opponent, then my Jetbikes can take it easy and enjoy the scenery.

He who isn't dead, when his opponent is, clearly gets the spoils of war

**EVIL INC**

A smart opponent will play youif you always go for the tabling. If they are playing for the mission, they should be able to win handily if all your worried about is killing off their entire army.

I found out years ago that I won a LOT more games by playing the mission.

**SYKOJAK**

I will seek to win the objectives first. If I am on a luck streak and my forces are shooting straight, then I might attempt to table the opponent. But I will not risk the victory, in order to wipe out the enemy.

**jreilly89**

Depends on what mission it is. I usually will go for objectives, as I've had several games where I've lost horribly, but won by VP.

**Hollismason**

Yeah regardless of the mission I always play to annihilate. I mean I play towards the Mission goals some what or the Maelstrom cards but really I just like playing the wipe that guy out.

**Iur_tae_mont**

Depends on what I'm running and what the Objectives are.

Most of the time, my armies end up with 2-4 squads that go after objectives and the rest of the Army goes down your throat.

Does this always (or ever) work? Nope. Do I have fun? Oh yeah.

**Nightlord1987**

I play for secondary Obj. FIRST. First Blood, Warlord and Linebreaker.

But usually Mission is more important than tabling (which I've only been close to, once or twice).

If it looks like my opponent is about to be tabled, I usually start taking bigger risks to keep the game fun.

**SharkoutofWata**

I always go to kill the enemy with my army and then in Turn 3 I think about the objective and start crossing the board. It got me in a lot of trouble early on, losing masses of units thinking my Eldar or Space Marines were like my Tyranids used to play and sacrificing them in droves when I only had 20 infantry models or so...

Now I hang back and kill the big things, then advance to kill the rest. If the objectives are on the way, yay. But, I do tend to have a lot of troops always so it's not ALL bad strategy and I keep Obj Sec.

**greenterror88**

I try to play to the mission, but after turn two I am so pissed about my buddy's Necron special characters that I target them just so they die!!!

**Paradigm**

My priorities go something like this as the game progresses:
T1-2: Get First Blood if possible, neautralise major enemy threat units

T3-4: Do as much damage as possible to the enemy while keeping my own models largely alive, focusing on a) major threat and b) objective-sitters. I also try and ensure I have enough potential VP on T4 that I can at least force a draw if things don't work out next turn.

T5+: Withdraw to any objectives I'lm defending, send everything else to deny the enemy, by taking objectives, killing Linebreakers, hiding the Warlord ect.

Funny enough, this has a rather interesting side effect where I'll often start off with a lead in potential VPs, then it will level out (I like to put at least one objective where both sides can easily get at it) and the final turn or two really do matter, leading to a good finish. Many times, I've won or lost games to reckless charges, terrible rolling or exceptional fortune on the last turns.

**CrownAxe**

I do which ever is most likely to make me victorious.

**Fafnir13**

In a balanced fight, completely wiping out your opponent can be rather difficult. Even in scenarios where they don't have many models, the dice could just decide to hate you.
With that in mind, I certainly go for the kill with the majority of my army. Units designated for objective grabbing are kept small and inexpensive so that their lack of participation isn't a serious blow to my armies firepower.
However, should the situation occur where I have the choice of abandoning an objective late game to try for a kill, I will stay on the objective and go for the sure win.

**vipoid**

Honestly, I find I rarely have the firepower to even contemplate annihilating my opponents. If anything, I find I'm quickly on the back foot against a death star, teleporting MC and/or invincible flier-transport. So, my initial turns are usually more about staying alive.

In terms of Maelstrom missions, I'll do what I can to accomplish them, but usually not if it means sacrificing a healthy unit. In terms of the 6th edition missions, I'll generally focus on holding my objectives and blasting my opponent off his (actually reaching his objectives is rather over-optimistic for my army).

Really though, I just try to do as much damage to my opponent (taking out key threats, if possible), whilst at least keeping the mission in mind.

**Nevelon**

Missions, always the mission.

I play vanilla, TAC, Ultramarines. I very rarely have the overwhelming advantage needed to table my foe. So I try to play smarter, and keep an eye on the VPs. Mixed results, of course, but it’s my style.

**vipoid**

One other thing regarding annihilation - there seem to be a ton of really fast models around these days.

So, if your opponent is winning on objectives but is close to being annihilated, he can often just flat-out a few units as far from your army as possible, behind cover. Especially since it's usually late in the game anyway by this point, there's a good chance you won't be able to kill them all.

**Ashiraya**

Each battle is a GLORIOUS SACRIFICE to the Blood God. As such, the only justifiable strategy is to DESTROY the enemy and GRIND them to dust in glorious battle!

The Dark Gods care not if you hold a nice scenic view, the Lord General's favourite underpants or whatever those fools call 'objective'. A true master of battle knows that the only objective is to CRUSH the enemy's skull using his SPINE as a CLUB!

**IGtR=**

Depends on my army for me.
If its the Templars then I go all out fluffy and try and kill the xenos and purge the witch. I die in glory and the centre of the table will hopefully become a bloody mess of crusader squads engaged i hand to hand. Not exactly tactical but quite fun and makes a change for my opponents to Riptides and Wave Serpents
If its the IG I just try and stay alive, hold my line and not run away. Playing all infantry IG is a tactical nightmare but quite fun trying to combat all threats and manage all your hundredsof troops.
So yeah it really depends on my army, and my opponenets as much as the missions.

Ig

**Amanax**

I try a bit of a mix really. I hit hard the first couple of turns as I try and position myself as best I can for later objective grabbing.

The less of them there are, the less objectives they can hold/contest.

The more of their guys I kill, the less of my guys they can kill, and the more objectives I can hold/contest.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

In the glorious world of Alpha Strike, there is only crush your opponent as quickly as possible, if you fail in this (i.e go second) then there is only cowardly cower on whatever objectives are around while waiting for your opponent to mercilessly grind you off them.

**Looky Likey**

I'm also a bit of both. I'll have a few units of his that I'll want to wipe out regardless of what it costs me but I will keep an eye on the objectives and try to position myself so I can swoop in turn 5 if I need to.

**winterwind85**

I always Play very agressive. If that means that my dire avengers and guardians have a fistfight with those guardsmen Thats ok. I also try to smash small squads with my crisis or riptides. I always try to anihilte

**wuestenfux**

Well, annihilation has some bad taste even at GT's.
Therefore, I always go for the mission objectives if any.

**BoomWolf**

Assuming eternal war, it starts with annihilation matchup where both sides try to hurt the other as much as possible, than turn 4 or so both sides scramble to try to get and deny objectives with what they have left.

**DanielBeaver**

With Maelstrom, always the mission objectives. Killing that last 10% of an army sometimes becomes impossible if your opponent has survivable units (e.g., a single jetbike hiding behind LOS on the corner of the table), so it's more reliable to just play the objectives.

For Eternal War... it often makes sense to play annihilation for the first 4 turns, and not really give much thought to objectives (since it's difficult to predict which units will actually be alive to score by the end of the game).

**reiner**

I play primarily for the mission, but I'll table if I get the opportunities to do so.

**Jimsolo**

Depends on the armies, the mission, and the setup. I try to be flexible enough to do either, depending on what would be more likely to give me the victory.