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.

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

In my last game, I was against tyranids. I got to place 3 objectives, my opponent 2. He hid his back next to a biovore and a unit of pooped out termagants. My 3 objectives were strategically placed in my deployment zone because I didn't want to move close to his MC (500 pt armies) and keep the VPs away from him. I won 7-6 purely because I was able to shoot him away from contesting and the edge of my deployment zone. So according to your logic, I was a dick for playing strategically and giving myself the best shot for victory. Especially, since he pooped out enough gants to make a whole extra 500 pt army of them.
Placing objectives is a strategic part of the game. Forcing say tau into the middle of the board is the real dick move. Plus isn't there another objective for getting in your opponents DZ. So get that.

 lambsandlions wrote:
Okay, so recently there has been something that really has annoyed me. Whenever we have a mission and roll an odd number of objectives my opponent places two objectives in their deployment. I am stuck with one in my deployment zone and feel like I am at a serious disadvantage (which I am). When I get to place the odd objective I put it in the middle of the field or a location that both of us can get to because I see this as more fair. When I see someone placing the odd objective in their deployment zone I suggest them putting it in the middle but some players refuse to put it anywhere that doesn't give them a large advantage. I even go as far as asking before the game if we can have 4 objectives for fairness, which sometimes doesn't work.

So I was wondering what the Dakka community thinks about opponents starting the game with more objectives on their side? When you get an odd number of objectives and you get to place the last one do you place it in your deployment zone or do you place it more in the middle where anyone can get it?

Honestly, you're only really at a huge disadvantage if you're playing a static gunline. I like to be mobile, so really I'm more likely to place the objectives out of my zone.

I generally try placing objectives evenly across the board, I'm definitely one of those people who get irked if I see an opponent placing them in advantageous places like on the top floor of a building deep in a deployment zone in a non-tournament game, but it's really more of a mindset thing and I realize that.

Ironwill wrote:
Placing objectives is a strategic part of the game. Forcing say tau into the middle of the board is the real dick move. .

As both a Tau and IG player, I'm calling shennanigans on this, if the objectives are relatively evenly spread, and there's an objective or objectives in the middle, it really shouldn't be much of an issue unless you've built an army so static as to be incapable of movement. Wait for your opponent to advance towards it to claim it and/or towards your lines (as they're likely less capable at range or want to get into CC), shoot the piss out of them (especially if they're just camping the objective), and move to claim objective after you've shot the piss out of them.

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

Not all codices can cross an entire board. Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so. The book missions are bad and so many folks, especially in the competitive scene, simply don't bother playing them at all.

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based?

Learn to play.

If your list is incapable of handling one of the random missions that you know you could be getting, then you screwed up pretty hard at the list building stage. Placing and capturing objectives is one of the tactical considerations of the mission. Wanting my opponent to go easy on me because it's 'fair' seems like you're asking for a handicap.

LValx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

Not all codices can cross an entire board. Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so. The book missions are bad and so many folks, especially in the competitive scene, simply don't bother playing them at all.

You named the 3 codices that have Skimmers as dedicated transports. They have the easiest time crossing the board.

And no, the book missions arn't bad by any streach of the imagination.

I never asked for anyone to go easy on me haha. If your going to play book missions, I agree, youve gotta be prepared for it. But the book missions are pretty poor. Starting the game at a large disadvantage is not good for the game, which is why I support 5 objective missions with all objectives placed symmetrically.

LValx wrote:
Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so.

Ha, no.

I really mean it this time, learn to play. Dark Eldar have trouble crossing the board? What are you smoking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LValx wrote:
ut the book missions are pretty poor.

Citation needed, because all your posts so far have demonstrated a rather weak understanding of how the game works.

Too fragile. They will be almost completely destroyed because their troops are weak. Why do you not see DE competitively? Lack of durability. They might be fast but they folk like wet towels.

Most xenos armies have weak troops, makes it hard to withstand a bunch of firepower while trying to contest/capture.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uhh, sort of hard to quantify badness of book missions but look at us GTs they dont abide by book missions. They either modify them or almost fully rewrite (NOVA, BFS, BAO, INDY). If the book missions were well balanced TOs wouldnt feel a need to modify them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

LValx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

Not all codices can cross an entire board. Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so. The book missions are bad and so many folks, especially in the competitive scene, simply don't bother playing them at all.

You named the 3 codices that have Skimmers as dedicated transports. They have the easiest time crossing the board.

And no, the book missions arn't bad by any streach of the imagination.

I named three codices with fragile troops that cant make it across to capture and survive. Marines, Orks, IG and nids have much better chances of absorbing firepower and living long enough to capture/contest, but they are mostly slower. Speed doesnt matter if you are super fragile, considering the fact that you must leave a transport to capture nowadays.

More that people are too fond of their 3+ armour to learn to play DE properly

I do just fine competitively with my DE. I don't play the major tournaments because the Gakhead quotient is too high, and my funds and time are too low, but the codex is still quite capable of kicking butt.

Thing is, DE aren't MEANT to be durable. That's sort of the point.

The way to win with DE is to leave nothing near the objective alive, then strut over to it I tend to win to boardwipe as much as to objective wins.

If you're trying to camp DE in the open on an objective like you would Marines, then yes they will die easy.

Posting only an image or video with no text from yourself is considered spam on Dakka. edited MT11

LValx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

Not all codices can cross an entire board. Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so. The book missions are bad and so many folks, especially in the competitive scene, simply don't bother playing them at all.

Dude, I play DE and I can assure you that I never have a problem getting to any point of the board I want to be at by the end of turn 1. It's only a 4' wide board. My raiders have a 12" move + 36" Flat Out which gives a 48" total movement range. When Flat Out I get a 4+ jink, which makes the raiders amazingly survivable. By turn two I have splinter rifles, haywire grenades and klaivex weapons in their face. In a 1500 pt game that means 3 raiders plus 2 venoms full to the brim with damage potential, while keeping my own objective troops safely in reserve to come out later. God help them if I go first as they will be playing defensively for the entire game. And yes, I have been known to place an objective very close to my opponents side of the table just to encourage them to stay there.

The short of it is that taking my opponents objectives from them when I want is not a problem. Keeping them afterwards simply involves making sure the enemy is no longer there. Considering the armies I play against, it's only the top fliers (heldrake, storm raven and the 'scythe) that I'm still figuring out how to deal with.


If they go first, then the situation is slightly different as I just need to hide that initial player turn. With good tables that's not too difficult to do. Tables with close to zero terrain is a different story.

That said, ALL codexes have a means to cross 48" of space. Whether it involves bikes, skimmers or even deep striking units like spores/drop pods/whatever.

Scouring is imbalanced. One person can easily end up with all the high point objectives in their deployment. Relic obviously favors armies with strong durable troops. Big Guns and the other D3 mission are imbalanced because one person can easily end up with 2 objectives on their table edge. First blood is a bit silly because it favors lists that have nothing but durable targets to shoot at, or it favors armies that can bring a strong alpha strike.

Show me DE armies that win competitively that don't abuse Eldar psychic shenanigans to win (Invis Beastpack/Seers).

The book missions just aren't designed for competitive play. I think the major re-formatting by big tournaments helps support that idea. But hell, YMMV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:

LValx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based? Why would your army charge forward (aside from being forced to)? Not to mention the ground you'll have to cover and casualties you'll have to soak up.

Try not bringing a bad army next time? You know that the book contains missions with asymmetrical objectives, so why would you bring a list that can't deal with them?

Not all codices can cross an entire board. Tau/Eldar/DE would all have issues doing so. The book missions are bad and so many folks, especially in the competitive scene, simply don't bother playing them at all.

Dude, I play DE and I can assure you that I never have a problem getting to any point of the board I want to be at by the end of turn 1. It's only a 4' wide board. My raiders have a 12" move + 36" Flat Out which gives a 48" total movement range. When Flat Out I get a 4+ jink, which makes the raiders amazingly survivable. By turn two I have splinter rifles, haywire grenades and klaivex weapons in their face. In a 1500 pt game that means 3 raiders plus 2 venoms full to the brim with damage potential. God help them if I go first as they will be playing defensively for the entire game. And yes, I have been known to place an objective very close to my opponents side of the table just to encourage them to stay there.

The short of it is that taking my opponents objectives from them when I want is not a problem. Keeping them afterwards simply involves making sure the enemy is no longer there.

That said, ALL codexes have a means to cross 48" of space. Whether it involves bikes, skimmers or even deep striking units.

Sure, take your DE to the next big GT coming up and prove that they can do well, DE skimmers are a joke in 6th with 2HP, regardless of 4+ cover. With newer codices having high rate of fire Str.7 I doubt you'll do very well. Necrons are just a better version of DE because Night Scythes make Venoms/Raiders look like a joke.

LValx wrote:
Scouring is imbalanced. One person can easily end up with all the high point objectives in their deployment. Relic obviously favors armies with strong durable troops. Big Guns and the other D3 mission are imbalanced because one person can easily end up with 2 objectives on their table edge. First blood is a bit silly because it favors lists that have nothing but durable targets to shoot at, or it favors armies that can bring a strong alpha strike.

Show me DE armies that win competitively that don't abuse Eldar psychic shenanigans to win (Invis Beastpack/Seers).

The book missions just aren't designed for competitive play. I think the major re-formatting by big tournaments helps support that idea. But hell, YMMV.

Well FYI DE came third on the Norwegian championship this year.

phatonic wrote:

LValx wrote:
Scouring is imbalanced. One person can easily end up with all the high point objectives in their deployment. Relic obviously favors armies with strong durable troops. Big Guns and the other D3 mission are imbalanced because one person can easily end up with 2 objectives on their table edge. First blood is a bit silly because it favors lists that have nothing but durable targets to shoot at, or it favors armies that can bring a strong alpha strike.

Show me DE armies that win competitively that don't abuse Eldar psychic shenanigans to win (Invis Beastpack/Seers).

The book missions just aren't designed for competitive play. I think the major re-formatting by big tournaments helps support that idea. But hell, YMMV.

Well FYI DE came third on the Norwegian championship this year.

Didn't come in first though? Look at current Adepticon, 1 DE army, but I know for a fact he heavily abuses Eldar psychic powers and eschews Skimmers. DE work best as an ally or a vehicle for psychic powers. The Skimmer build isn't what it was in 5th (where I think it was actually quite competitive).

Like I said, hard to objectively prove that one mission scenario is less balanced, but I think if you play a NOVA format game and you play the book missions, you'll see that the NOVA format gives both players a better opportunity to win.

First off - i play tau - and a lot of the time I would place in the opponents zone or close to his side. This works for many reasons:

1- I like to play mobile. One of the ways to get points is Linebreaker. If you have to cross to get them anyway, the LB will be easier.

2-In order for your opponent to get LB, they have to move a unit out of place late game (if not sooner)

Now, where I place things also REALLY depends on what I am playing against - I will place the objectives based on what the enemy can do, how I see them moving, how I think the opponent will react to different placements....etc...

The reason for objective placement, is to ensure you can't rely on one specific thing for every game. A static gunline, suffer's if they can't move forward to get objectives. Likewise, an all out assault army suffer's if it can't also hold the backfield without making melee unit's redundant.

It's about making a list, that can adapt to any situation. If you simply spam a unit you like, that can only win games if the objectives go your way, you kind of deserve to lose those games.

To see this, you need to look at the missions.

The scouring? Randomly deploy's objectives of different values, so you don't know before the game, if you are going to be "attacking" or "Defending". Your army need's to be able to adapt to do both, or it will only win half of the scouring games you play.

The relic? You need to support your relic grabber's with either counter assaulters, or firepower, and you need a unit quick enough to grab the relic and resillient enough to get away once it has it.

And so on. The missions promote lists that can adapt. If you can't adapt, you can't win every missions. In fact, you can only win a select few.

LValx wrote:

Sure, take your DE to the next big GT coming up and prove that they can do well, DE skimmers are a joke in 6th with 2HP, regardless of 4+ cover. With newer codices having high rate of fire Str.7 I doubt you'll do very well. Necrons are just a better version of DE because Night Scythes make Venoms/Raiders look like a joke.

You're looking at it wrong. Raiders are just a delivery mechanism. Kind of like deep striking a unit. A DS unit might mishap; my raiders might explode. The difference being that I pay 60 points per unit to make sure they end up exactly where I want them, no scatter. Meaning, at worst, I'm paying to make sure you are worried about your back field, not mine. At best, they survive for an extra round or two while hurting you.

Last weekend I played a fairly large game 1500 points per person with 4 players divided in two teams (so, 3k per side). My opponents were CSM and SM and came with a ton of vehicles. They had to deploy first and they put all those rhinos/preds/razorbacks right up on the deployment line. While their objective ( 1 per side) was as close to the back edge as legally allowed. I had vect and easily stole the initiative. My Turn 1: Raiders right next to their objective. Their Turn 1: everything turns around to shoot; that 4+ allowed exactly 1 glance through. My turn 2: 30 warriors with rifles kill everything on and near the objective. Trueborn took out a pred while my Warlord killing unit - Incubi - killed vulkan and his unit. So, turn 2 I had Slay the Warlord, First Blood and was deep behind their lines. Did those units end up living? Nope. By turn 4 they were gone; but so was our opponents ability to even tie the game.

DE aren't about keeping your guys alive. They are about throwing themselves into the grinder and causing enough mayhem as fast as possible so that your opponents lose focus and, ultimately, the game. DE is a very tough army to learn and they do NOT play like marines. Per fluff, they don't have the concept of making sure everyone gets home safe so why play them that way?

LValx wrote:

phatonic wrote:

LValx wrote:
Scouring is imbalanced. One person can easily end up with all the high point objectives in their deployment. Relic obviously favors armies with strong durable troops. Big Guns and the other D3 mission are imbalanced because one person can easily end up with 2 objectives on their table edge. First blood is a bit silly because it favors lists that have nothing but durable targets to shoot at, or it favors armies that can bring a strong alpha strike.

Show me DE armies that win competitively that don't abuse Eldar psychic shenanigans to win (Invis Beastpack/Seers).

The book missions just aren't designed for competitive play. I think the major re-formatting by big tournaments helps support that idea. But hell, YMMV.

Well FYI DE came third on the Norwegian championship this year.

Didn't come in first though? Look at current Adepticon, 1 DE army, but I know for a fact he heavily abuses Eldar psychic powers and eschews Skimmers. DE work best as an ally or a vehicle for psychic powers. The Skimmer build isn't what it was in 5th (where I think it was actually quite competitive).

Like I said, hard to objectively prove that one mission scenario is less balanced, but I think if you play a NOVA format game and you play the book missions, you'll see that the NOVA format gives both players a better opportunity to win.

Wait, so your point is because DE aren't a top top tear army and they don't win major GTs, where almost none of the missions involve capturing more objectives on the other side of the map... That means you're right that in casual play they can't win games where you do capture objectives in the enemy DZ? ...wow. -1 Cast down (opposite of exalting).

clively wrote:

LValx wrote:

Sure, take your DE to the next big GT coming up and prove that they can do well, DE skimmers are a joke in 6th with 2HP, regardless of 4+ cover. With newer codices having high rate of fire Str.7 I doubt you'll do very well. Necrons are just a better version of DE because Night Scythes make Venoms/Raiders look like a joke.

You're looking at it wrong. Raiders are just a delivery mechanism. Kind of like deep striking a unit. A DS unit might mishap; my raiders might explode. The difference being that I pay 60 points per unit to make sure they end up exactly where I want them, no scatter. Meaning, at worst, I'm paying to make sure you are worried about your back field, not mine. At best, they survive for an extra round or two while hurting you.

Last weekend I played a fairly large game 1500 points per person with 4 players divided in two teams (so, 3k per side). My opponents were CSM and SM and came with a ton of vehicles. They had to deploy first and they put all those rhinos/preds/razorbacks right up on the deployment line. While their objective ( 1 per side) was as close to the back edge as legally allowed. I had vect and easily stole the initiative. My Turn 1: Raiders right next to their objective. Their Turn 1: everything turns around to shoot; that 4+ allowed exactly 1 glance through. My turn 2: 30 warriors with rifles kill everything on and near the objective. Trueborn took out a pred while my Warlord killing unit - Incubi - killed vulkan and his unit. So, turn 2 I had Slay the Warlord, First Blood and was deep behind their lines. Did those units end up living? Nope. By turn 4 they were gone; but so was our opponents ability to even tie the game.

DE aren't about keeping your guys alive. They are about throwing themselves into the grinder and causing enough mayhem as fast as possible so that your opponents lose focus and, ultimately, the game. DE is a very tough army to learn and they do NOT play like marines. Per fluff, they don't have the concept of making sure everyone gets home safe so why play them that way?

The problem is, when a venom or raider blows up, which it is actually fairly likely to do, a lot of models die in the process. Low LD results in a fair amount of pinning as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:

LValx wrote:

phatonic wrote:

LValx wrote:
Scouring is imbalanced. One person can easily end up with all the high point objectives in their deployment. Relic obviously favors armies with strong durable troops. Big Guns and the other D3 mission are imbalanced because one person can easily end up with 2 objectives on their table edge. First blood is a bit silly because it favors lists that have nothing but durable targets to shoot at, or it favors armies that can bring a strong alpha strike.

Show me DE armies that win competitively that don't abuse Eldar psychic shenanigans to win (Invis Beastpack/Seers).

The book missions just aren't designed for competitive play. I think the major re-formatting by big tournaments helps support that idea. But hell, YMMV.

Well FYI DE came third on the Norwegian championship this year.

Didn't come in first though? Look at current Adepticon, 1 DE army, but I know for a fact he heavily abuses Eldar psychic powers and eschews Skimmers. DE work best as an ally or a vehicle for psychic powers. The Skimmer build isn't what it was in 5th (where I think it was actually quite competitive).

Like I said, hard to objectively prove that one mission scenario is less balanced, but I think if you play a NOVA format game and you play the book missions, you'll see that the NOVA format gives both players a better opportunity to win.

Wait, so your point is because DE aren't a top top tear army and they don't win major GTs, where almost none of the missions involve capturing more objectives on the other side of the map... That means you're right that in casual play they can't win games where you do capture objectives in the enemy DZ? ...wow. -1 Cast down (opposite of exalting).

Uhh... NOVA format definitely requires being able to capture objectives all over the board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Middle objective tends to be paramount though. Which is why you see lots of Blobs led by Marine characters at big events now. Those units are durable enough to capture and hold as well as push upfield to the middle or the enemy's deployment zone.

DE can get where ever they'd like, that fact does not elude me, the bigger worry is surviving an average of 6 game turns. I don't trust flimsy vehicles and mediocre troops to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I only find DE viable if they choose to ally with a Seer council or Wraithguard deathstar, or if they take a big Beastpack deathstar. Both lists are unlikely to devote many points to transports or mech.

If you need to capture an objective with flimsy troops, don't make your move until turn 5. Or, support the little suckers and make the opponent take it back at his peril.

It's been years since I went to a GT and I rarely get to a two day event, but I play all the locals that do, and my 5th Ed Tau do just fine getting objectives "over there" (haven't played enough 6th Ed Tau to say). I don't have DE, but a play against them enough. Making dashes to contest/take late game objectives and capping objectives near cover works very well for them.

LValx wrote:
The book missions are very, very poor for competitive play. That is why most events make objectives equal or place the odd objective in the middle (NOVA) and other tournaments such as BAO format give you the option of placing some in your Dzone but having to place others in "no man's land"

Pretty much. Competitive play sorts this out with different missions and formats, plus the tournament regulars are all good players who know how to win. Casual play is where imbalanced (CINEMATIC) missions cause problems. We tournament players either don't struggle or care to come out on top in an unbalanced scenario in pickup play. Little Timmy, on the other hand, doesn't know what to do and just gets frustrated. I've seen in happen all too often and it is disheartening.

Since I play Draigo/Paladins I tend to post my objective middle board as I advance to that area naturally. I isn't too bad for my opponent either as they are not forced to charge into my deployment zone to claim them.

Something you have to keep in mind here though. If they are placing them in their deployment they are also making those objectives more valuable to you since they are a combo obj/line breaker position. Granted they may be harder to grab, but you also get a greater reward.

 Portugal Jones wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based?

Learn to play.

If your list is incapable of handling one of the random missions that you know you could be getting, then you screwed up pretty hard at the list building stage. Placing and capturing objectives is one of the tactical considerations of the mission. Wanting my opponent to go easy on me because it's 'fair' seems like you're asking for a handicap.

it is not a learn to play problem , nor a tactical one . If both our armies are shoting and his doesnt have to move and my has [losing fire power] then am losing on both fronts.Not only am I doing less damge to him , because I have to move , but I also take more damge in return , because am getting closer to him and my lower fire power means he has his for a longer time . It may not be a problem for meq armies which can do assaults and shoting at the same time and have good resiliance [comparing to IG at least] , but for IG it is .

Makumba wrote:
It may not be a problem for meq armies which can do assaults and shoting at the same time and have good resiliance [comparing to IG at least] , but for IG it is .

So IG don't have tanks, Vendetta troops, allies, outflanking Harker/Al'rahem/Creed units, or enough artillery to just smash your opponent's scoring units from across the table? The problem isn't the mission with asymmetrical objectives, it's that you failed to bring a good IG list and would rather change the mission to compensate than fix your list. The rules shouldn't reward one-dimensional gunlines, and you shouldn't act like your opponent is TFG or the mission is broken because the game isn't favorable to your one-dimensional gunline.

Makumba wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

LValx wrote:
What if your army is also shooting based?

Learn to play.

If your list is incapable of handling one of the random missions that you know you could be getting, then you screwed up pretty hard at the list building stage. Placing and capturing objectives is one of the tactical considerations of the mission. Wanting my opponent to go easy on me because it's 'fair' seems like you're asking for a handicap.

it is not a learn to play problem , nor a tactical one . If both our armies are shoting and his doesnt have to move and my has [losing fire power] then am losing on both fronts.Not only am I doing less damge to him , because I have to move , but I also take more damge in return , because am getting closer to him and my lower fire power means he has his for a longer time . It may not be a problem for meq armies which can do assaults and shoting at the same time and have good resiliance [comparing to IG at least] , but for IG it is .

...you've just broken the code for why static gunlines aren't the easy button people think they are... its may not be a learn to play (but it is, learn to run an army that won't lose if down an objective) or a tactical one (you think planning on how to take an objective isn't tactical?!), but it is a list construction/preparation one. After deployment I usually know whether or not I will win the game. If you are getting that feeling, make a different list.

But IG doesnt have any units which can take objectives from a power armored class army without almost shoting the army off the board.

how long will a unit of vets droped from a vendetta surive near the opposing army , lets say even two , the opponent would have to be without any AA and already beaten and without any form of flamers . How am I suppose to remove an army of shoty orks that have parked all their shoty units , which also happen to be ok at melee against IG , from 2 objectives while at the same time I have to fight off two nob biker squads with warlords .

Same with a SW gunline which has 2-3 LF squad on home objectivs 2-3 GH squads siting to score and 1-2 drop pods melting my stuff.

If you can show me a 1500 IG list that can be mobile and have fire power enough to beat other gunlines and meq swarms at the same time I would realy like to see it , because it would be awesome to play with one.

First of all, you're confusing "this is a difficult matchup" with "I can't win". You aren't supposed to win easily against every army in every mission type, if you did the game would be completely broken. Sometimes you'll just find yourself in a situation where you have an uphill battle. Sometimes you'll even find yourself in a situation where you can't see an obvious route to victory and have to hope you can get lucky and find an opportunity to exploit. That's just part of the game, and you have to deal with it.

Makumba wrote:
But IG doesnt have any units which can take objectives from a power armored class army without almost shoting the army off the board.

Congratulations, you discovered the IG solution to asymmetrical objectives: cripple their army with your overwhelming shooting, then use your outflanking and/or Vendetta units to capture the relatively unprotected objectives.

how long will a unit of vets droped from a vendetta surive near the opposing army

Who cares? Objectives don't count until the end of the game, so the vets don't have to disembark until turn 5 when your opponent's army has been properly crippled.

How am I suppose to remove an army of shoty orks that have parked all their shoty units , which also happen to be ok at melee against IG , from 2 objectives while at the same time I have to fight off two nob biker squads with warlords .

Let me get this straight: you're playing against orks, an army that has essentially zero firepower at long range, and you can't figure out how to win the game if your opponent holds back large parts of their army where all they can do is sit on the objective? Don't you bring Manticores/Griffons/etc?

Also, nob bikers are garbage against IG. They're massive overkill, and extremely vulnerable to tarpit units.

Same with a SW gunline which has 2-3 LF squad on home objectivs 2-3 GH squads siting to score and 1-2 drop pods melting my stuff.

How do you kill a SW gunline? Out-shoot it and then move scoring units onto objectives at the end of the game. And then thank your opponent for keeping their GH (a mid-range unit that is wasted camping on objectives at the back of the table) away from anything useful. SW aren't a gunline army, and someone trying to play them as one is probably a sign that it's going to be an easy win.

 Peregrine wrote:

Same with a SW gunline which has 2-3 LF squad on home objectivs 2-3 GH squads siting to score and 1-2 drop pods melting my stuff.

How do you kill a SW gunline? Out-shoot it and then move scoring units onto objectives at the end of the game. And then thank your opponent for keeping their GH (a mid-range unit that is wasted camping on objectives at the back of the table) away from anything useful. SW aren't a gunline army, and someone trying to play them as one is probably a sign that it's going to be an easy win.

This is exactly correct. This is exactly what happened during my first game with my SW against Eldar. Stupidly, and stubbornly, I camped my GH on two objectives, while he sat just outside of bolter range and picked me off. Thankfully it taught the lesson quickly. PA or not, we can be shot to bits, especially with the volume of fire and at the range you'll have as IG.