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.

I've seen a pattern in my games and I'm wondering if others have too. My group plays mainly Matched Maelstrom games... almost everything we do has tactical objectives involved in the scoring at a pretty essential level. Playing MSU Adepta Sororitas with a sprinkling of Scions I rarely go first, and I'm not likely to table anyone or swamp them with bodies or outlast them with big stuff... if I win, I win on points.

Since the player who places the last objective chooses both battle map and deployment zone, and since you know going in which role you'll play, I feel like I can nudge the game in my favor when placing objectives. When I lose the roll to place the first objective (roughly half the time, since that roll is unmodified), I weight the objectives toward one part of the board by squeezing my last one in among three others as best I can. Then I choose a battle map that centers a deployment zone around the objective-heavy end of the board, and I make that zone mine. Even with the objective placement restrictions, I can usually drop solid units on two objectives and screen them against an easy challenge, set up a Turn 1 grab of a third objective with a unit that will get there quickly and be hard to shift, and have a fourth objective where even if I can't dominate it, my opponent with have a tough time doing so as well... in the open with overlapping fields of optimally ranged fire, for example. That gives me 3-4 reliable objectives and my opponent only 2. The cards usually do the rest.

Is this what everybody does? Is it how the rules were intended to function? Is it at all on the gamey side, and would it feel lousy to be on the receiving end? Wondering if I'm exploiting a loophole or just doing the obvious thing. Thanks for your thoughts!

Play ITC style instead of GW missions. It fixes all these problems.

<caveat>

 MacPhail wrote:

...
Since the player who places the last objective chooses both battle map and deployment zone ... Then I choose a battle map that centers a deployment zone around the objective-heavy end of the board...

I keep seeing this come up on forums and at my FLGS. The player who places the last objective doesn't choose the deployment, but "determines which of the standard deployment maps is used in the battle (pg 216)..." (emphasis mine).

On page 216 of the rulebook, the following words reside:

"When playing matched play missions, you must randomly select one of these deployment maps."

Now, I'm not saying that your play group hasn't decided to house rule "choosing" over "determining", but if you are playing the missions as written, you should be rolling to decide the deployment map.
</caveat>

Now, to your point, objective placement is definitely a tactical decision, and I've definitely lost games because my opponent did a better job of placing objectives than I did. If you have a heavy deep striking force with foot-slogging back up, placing objectives central (ideally around/behind LoS-blocking terrain) can give you a great advantage (since the middle of the table is no-man's land regardless of deployment map.

Well the placement of objectives is one of those get gud skills you can learn outside of the core game and adds stratigery to the game.

its not an exploit and its hardly a loophole.

I think it's okay to place all the objectives to the advantage of...

... someone.

But since you roll for which deployment you are using, it's actually very risky and difficult to do.

 Desubot wrote:
Well the placement of objectives is one of those get gud skills you can learn outside of the core game and adds stratigery to the game.

its not an exploit and its hardly a loophole.

Its not an exploit if you don't know ahead of time if you will get to pick a map or zone whilst placing the last objective (eg previous editions of 40k). However in 8ed you often get to place the last objective and you get to pick the zone (if not the map itself as mentioned above). Once you figure out the sequence its a guaranteed advantage if you get last pick of the objective placement. It is even worse if your opponent doesn't know how to counter it (usually via placing the first objective in the center).

It isn't quite as bad with random maps, but still getting to also choose your zone gives you an advantage. There's clustering you can do that gives you easy access to a majority of the objectives regardless of map, forcing your opponent onto the back foot immediately.

 winterman wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Well the placement of objectives is one of those get gud skills you can learn outside of the core game and adds stratigery to the game.

its not an exploit and its hardly a loophole.

Its not an exploit if you don't know ahead of time if you will get to pick a map or zone whilst placing the last objective (eg previous editions of 40k). However in 8ed you often get to place the last objective and you get to pick the zone (if not the map itself as mentioned above). Once you figure out the sequence its a guaranteed advantage if you get last pick of the objective placement. It is even worse if your opponent doesn't know how to counter it (usually via placing the first objective in the center).

It isn't quite as bad with random maps, but still getting to also choose your zone gives you an advantage. There's clustering you can do that gives you easy access to a majority of the objectives regardless of map, forcing your opponent onto the back foot immediately.

Right, though conversely, your opponent was supposed to get first turn, all other things being equal (which was a huge advantage) since they got to place the first unit. They changed this to a +1 to go first, which is still a considerable advantage.

I dunno, I haven't noticed a problem and AFAIK everyone I play against (and myself) carefully thinks through where to place their objectives to give them the greatest advantage.

I always place objectives out in the open so I can light enemy units holding them.

 Primark G wrote:
I always place objectives out in the open so I can light enemy units holding them.

I actually do this too. You can use your objective placement to deny the enemy a juicy place if it looks like they're 'castling' their objectives. My big tanks don't mind sitting in the open to get objectives (they basically never get cover as it stands), and the enemy very rarely is brave enough to wander out and endure the vehicle's firepower, even if its in their DZ.

In 7th edition, objectives were placed and then deployment zones were random after.

This led to me tailoring armies to drive for centre and hold. Since I didn't know where I would deploy, I knew that the most consistent place for me to get close objectives was table centre. So I built armies to head to centre and then hold for points.

I gamed the gaming of the system.


If you can guarantee choice of deployment zone, then you bet your sweet tukas I'd be stacking a zone with objectives, if I was a sit'n'shoot style army. Assault, I'd be putting them in my opponent's zone. CHaaaarge!

The ITC msisions have symmetric boards and objective markers as well as a random deployment zone.

Bottom line is yeah it's giving you an advantage. If you feel that's unfair then don't do it, or play a system that doesn't allow this to happen.

 Herodius wrote:
<caveat>
I keep seeing this come up on forums and at my FLGS. The player who places the last objective doesn't choose the deployment, but "determines which of the standard deployment maps is used in the battle (pg 216)..." (emphasis mine).

On page 216 of the rulebook, the following words reside:

"When playing matched play missions, you must randomly select one of these deployment maps."

Wow, okay... so I/we have technically been doing it wrong. Although there's room for misinterpretation... if they had just said "randomly selects" rather than "determines" I'd never have read it as such. I'm sure we use the page reference to flip back to the appropriate section and just never bothered to reread the text there... the word "determines" seemed clear enough at the time. Thanks for clarifying!

That said, and as other have pointed out, there's still an advantage. Assuming a randomly selected map doesn't somehow neutralize the weighted placement of objectives, the (perhaps less obvious or less definitive) advantage still exists, and it seems to fall naturally to the player who has a slight disadvantage when it comes to going first (they deploy the second unit). With my MSU list, I was never going to have a shot at the +1 to take first turn anyway (I usually have 5-10 drops remaining when my opponent finishes, regardless of who placed first). So, even with the correction, it sounds like the advantage is built into the game design and is mine to make the best use of that I can.

EDIT:
Follow-up question... what are some effective objective placement strategies given the above discussion? It looks like overloading a single quadrant of a 4x6 table can be made to go your way on 5 of the 6 maps... only Search and Destroy could create a situation in which both players are equidistant from the overloaded quadrant. Overloading a board half (say, two objectives per quadrant) is harder to exploit... it looks like only half of the maps yield a potential advantage at that point. Anybody else see something I'm missing?

And, like we mentioned, there's some balance to it with the objective "exclusion zone."

You can counterplay your opponent's apparent "castling" with good play of your own, at least in some ways.

 MacPhail wrote:
What are some effective objective placement strategies given the above discussion? It looks like overloading a single quadrant of a 4x6 table can be made to go your way on 5 of the 6 maps... only Search and Destroy could create a situation in which both players are equidistant from the overloaded quadrant. Overloading a board half (say, two objectives per quadrant) is harder to exploit... it looks like only half of the maps yield a potential advantage at that point. Anybody else see something I'm missing?

This is a tough one to answer as there are too many variables to cover all the strategies involved.

** Objectives have to be 12" from each other, and 6" from a board edge.

- Placing first actually has a bit of an advantage, as you get to isolate two of your objectives before your opponent can prevent them from being placed. You also get to deny placement of his objectives. I've found that if you're opponent is stuck on hoping to get his pick of DZ, then it's possible to force that 6th and final objective someplace where picking the wrong DZ can really have an impact on the game.
- Place objectives 'Diagonally' from each other, instead of on just your side, which is what I commonly see. I'll try to explain. If you place your first objective in the SW corner of the board, and your opponent doesn't put something in the NE corner, that's where your next placement should be. This will seriously affect your opponents placement, while still keeping an eye on how the DZ's are going to roll out. You can plan for not getting the DZ of your choice at this stage by making it difficult for your opponent to pick his.
- While placing in the open is one option. I tend to place them where they can deny the placement of an objective that's difficult to reach by most of the models, especially ruins. Placing an objective on the open corner of a building or wood prevents your opponent from placing one 1/2 out of sight or not accessible by most models. I tend to see this more often in EW missions, but it sometimes carries over into Maelstrom.
- Avoid putting objectives in possible DZ's, or place them to prevent another objective from being placed there. This not only makes it difficult to pick a good DZ based on objectives, but also opens up the opportunity to do well if you get stuck with the DZ you didn't want. This is one I feel is more important in 8th because we have T1 Reserves, No Scatter, and First Turn Assaults. Putting objectives in places where I'm not defending them on turn 1 means my opponent is now forced to make a decision. Don't make it easy for them to kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
- This is a simple strategy that still seems to frustrate my opponents. Place an objective off-center from the middle of the board. Too many players tend to place an objective smack dab in the middle of the board. Works really well if there is a terrain piece that you can deny an objective sitting inside. Placing it off center is often enough to remove a centralized objective that they can put their tankier units on if it comes up and removes the options for that unit to get to any of the other objectives if they come. Force your opponent to put these units somewhere where it could hurt them late game if they're in the wrong place.

True that DZ's aren't determined until after placement, but I found that doing this has led to narrower wins/losses over the course of a game. Even when I lose, the close games have allowed my decisions to have more of an impact on the outcome instead of having my choices made for me.

 MacPhail wrote:
I've seen a pattern in my games and I'm wondering if others have too. My group plays mainly Matched Maelstrom games... almost everything we do has tactical objectives involved in the scoring at a pretty essential level.

SO happy to hear that there are others playing Maelstrom. It is the best Matched Play setup, especially if you're using the updated ones from CA.

 MacPhail wrote:
... it sounds like the advantage is built into the game design and is mine to make the best use of that I can.

If ONLY we can get more tournaments to see this as the solution, and not the problem...

sometimes my opponent and I actually pick the map 1st then put the objectives down. We then put 2 objectives in each deployment zone and 2 just in null space to make us leave our deployments. if the mission states that a specific objective has to be placed in the middle or something then we go with the flow and place the rest accordingly.

when placing objectives normally we try to spread them out as much as we can so we are forced to use every it of the table.

i don't like placing objects to my advantage unless it is a tournament game or against someone who is a known WAAC Gakk face,

We always roll for mission and deployment, so choosing is just being the one who gets to hold the dice.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
We always roll for mission and deployment, so choosing is just being the one who gets to hold the dice.

That’s the official rule anyway. It says that one of the players gets to determine the deployment map used, but then when you go to do that it says to roll a dice - not pick.

It’s very difficult to gain advantage when deploying objectives because you don’t know what deployment map you’ll be using, and you don’t know where you’ll deploy.

That said, there are actually some tricks. Generally speaking, assault armies prefer the objectives to be close together, so that the enemy has to come close to them in order to score objectives. Conversely, shooting armies want the objectives to be far apart, so that melee armies have to do a load of running around.

I disagree with the above, based on my experiences playing Guard vs Eldar in 7th edition.

The more mobile you are, the further spread you want your objectives to be. 5 objective game with Scatter Bikes, the ideal placement was one in each corner, and one in the middle. That way the scatter bikes could "scatter" to the corners to take any uncontested objective, because of how fast they moved.

On the other hand, my sluggish Guardsmen needed to concentrate the objectives so that no matter which units made it to the cluster, any one of them could score objectives and have support nearby.

I find the slower my army, the better off I am with clustered objectives. Same deal with "tough" units that can sit and hold. You can deny a 12" circle, for example, with a tough yet relatively slow assault unit. Plunk that in the middle of a triangle of objectives and you're in good shape to defend those objectives.

In previous editions, I’d do the opposite: place all the objectives on one side, and then pick the other side. My opponents would be really puzzled until I deepstruck my entire army into their deployment zone.

Even if you are correctly rolling for zones, it can still be a huge advantage to be placing the last objective.

When playing a pretty static army like the Cawl Wall admech gunline, losing the first rolloff can be a huge advantage!

if you win the rolloff and are placing the first objective, your primary mission is to try and make sure one part of the board is not stacked... usually you can do this by really scattering your objectives to make no one area of the board more appealing.

I have started occasionally playing what local tournaments have started, which is 6 fixed location objectives. Not great for narrative/friendly, but when you want a fair/balanced/matched game it helps to not be starting T1 with a pointless disadvantage and the feelbadsies.

 MacPhail wrote:
I've seen a pattern in my games and I'm wondering if others have too. My group plays mainly Matched Maelstrom games... almost everything we do has tactical objectives involved in the scoring at a pretty essential level. Playing MSU Adepta Sororitas with a sprinkling of Scions I rarely go first, and I'm not likely to table anyone or swamp them with bodies or outlast them with big stuff... if I win, I win on points.

Since the player who places the last objective chooses both battle map and deployment zone, and since you know going in which role you'll play, I feel like I can nudge the game in my favor when placing objectives. When I lose the roll to place the first objective (roughly half the time, since that roll is unmodified), I weight the objectives toward one part of the board by squeezing my last one in among three others as best I can. Then I choose a battle map that centers a deployment zone around the objective-heavy end of the board, and I make that zone mine. Even with the objective placement restrictions, I can usually drop solid units on two objectives and screen them against an easy challenge, set up a Turn 1 grab of a third objective with a unit that will get there quickly and be hard to shift, and have a fourth objective where even if I can't dominate it, my opponent with have a tough time doing so as well... in the open with overlapping fields of optimally ranged fire, for example. That gives me 3-4 reliable objectives and my opponent only 2. The cards usually do the rest.

Is this what everybody does? Is it how the rules were intended to function? Is it at all on the gamey side, and would it feel lousy to be on the receiving end? Wondering if I'm exploiting a loophole or just doing the obvious thing. Thanks for your thoughts!

My group plays ITC now, but when we were playing Maelstrom we re-ordered the sequence of events slightly because of this occurrence. We roll for objective order -> place objectives -> roll for deployment -> randomise deployment -> deployment winner chooses side, loser places first etc.

Yep, we do it the similar to how hollow one's group does. Objectives get set up after terrain, before rolling missions or deployment.