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.

Since when is war fair? It's the way the mission is played. You're supposed to build your army with this in mind. Simple as that.

This is what the book missions do. Thyey discorage win-button builds. A purely static shooting army, will lose a lot of book missions. A purely grey knight paladin army, will lose most book missions. Because they can't adapt, they are not flexible.

Imperial guard do have fast unit's, and do have the tools to score objectives out of their own zone. Vendetta's with dropping units, is a fantastic solution that a lot of armies don't have. So say, you are playing the scouring, and your opponent get's the 4 point objective. Focus all your long range firepower on taking out anything on that objective, and on turn 5, drop something out of a flyer onto it. They might have to survive a turn, but that's why you focussed on killing anything that might cause them trouble holding the objective.

Have foresight, have a plan, don't just sit back, shoot, and hope for the best, because it just doesn't work in the book missions.

I find it sad that tournament's don't use the book missions, because they don't promote "Competetive play". They do, but just not in the sense that you can bring an army that only does one thing. BOok missions, require armies that can fulfill multiple roles, and -every- army has ways of doing this. But competitive player's don't seem to like it when they find one unit they like, spam it, and then cry that it can't fulfill every role they could need.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Objective placement is one 6th edition's major flaws. Nothing is more toxic to casual play than a gunline army deployed with 2 objectives behind their defense line while you only have 1 to place.

No, nothing is more toxic to casual play than a gunline army against a clueless newbie who doesn't know how to play against a gunline army.

(Hint: if they have two objectives this is good for you, you're going to be charging into their half of the table anyway so it means that you have to hold back fewer scoring units in your own half of the table.)

Guard vs Guard, one player is a full-on gunline, the other is a mixed list with a strong gunline element plus an "objective grabber" force designed to move up the table.

Scenario 1: Pure gunline guy gets two objectives and puts both in his deployment zone. Mixed-gunline guy now has to advance into the enemy deployment zone and shift a blob off an objective, fighting his opponent's whole army with only a portion of his.

Scenario 2; Mixed-gunline guy gets two objectives and puts both in his deployment zone. Pure gunline guy now has to advance into the enemy deployment zone and shift a blog off an objective, fighting his opponent's whole army with only a portion of his, with the added disadvantage that none of his units are purposed for that task.

So, yes, it's worse for the guy who brings a static, one-trick-pony list, but even if you do bring an objective grabbing element you're still pitting less than 50% of your army against almost 100% of theirs, in a situation which already favours them by virtue of their composition.

It's no different than the tossers who put a ruin or a hill down in front of an opponent's ADL to prevent it from shooting anything; it's technically allowed, but it's still a d***-move in every possible way. It makes far more sense to begin by placing the terrain to create a plausible landscape, then place the objectives into that landscape in a plausible way, and then finally roll off for table edges - THAT is a test of the player's army and their ability to adapt to the circumstances of the battle, using the terrain and objective placement systems as they exist to stack the deck in your favour is the opposite.

ive actually played games where ive placed all my objectives in the other guys deployment zone. for 2 reasons...

1. i usually play VERY agressive, and dont like to sit back and "camp" or "castle" im a very in your face, come get you type player, and therefore i intend my entire army to be on his half of the table. thus, if all the objectives are where i want to go, it makes it easier to claim them.

2. it makes the other guy SERIOUSLY reconsider his strategy. sometimes they ignore them and castle up in one spot, fearing my attack, other times they spread out and try to claim them all from turn one. either way, it gives me an edge as i can deploy and attack based on how he deploys. it also puts them on the defensive IMMEDIATLY, even before the first turn. likewise i also let the other guy take first turn whenever i can. i like to see their opening ,moves, so i can react and attack his weak points. it also gives me the last move, and allows me to perform that last turn objective grab or contest etc. obviously this only works for certain people and certain styles. and ymmv... but its won my last 20 or so games in a row for me. so i must be doing SOMETHING right.

 Evileyes wrote:
This is what the book missions do. Thyey discorage win-button builds. A purely static shooting army, will lose a lot of book missions. A purely grey knight paladin army, will lose most book missions. Because they can't adapt, they are not flexible.

Imperial guard do have fast unit's, and do have the tools to score objectives out of their own zone. Vendetta's with dropping units, is a fantastic solution that a lot of armies don't have. So say, you are playing the scouring, and your opponent get's the 4 point objective. Focus all your long range firepower on taking out anything on that objective, and on turn 5, drop something out of a flyer onto it. They might have to survive a turn, but that's why you focussed on killing anything that might cause them trouble holding the objective.

Have foresight, have a plan, don't just sit back, shoot, and hope for the best, because it just doesn't work in the book missions.

I find it sad that tournament's don't use the book missions, because they don't promote "Competetive play". They do, but just not in the sense that you can bring an army that only does one thing. BOok missions, require armies that can fulfill multiple roles, and -every- army has ways of doing this. But competitive player's don't seem to like it when they find one unit they like, spam it, and then cry that it can't fulfill every role they could need.

No they don't promote competitive play. I guess you understand competition more than all TOs? The idea of a good mission is to provide both players the same even ability to win, regardless of army composition. Scouring/Odd objective book missions often do not give both players the same chance to win. Good players can over come this, sure. But the field of battle, IMO, should be completely even. It is the same reason I support specific terrain layouts.

First of all, I'm freaking out, as I've agreed with most of Peregrine's posts for about 4 days straight.

Second, the whining from players that they don't have a sure thing road to victory, or that they occasionally have a greater challenge than their opponent. WTFrak! Go play chutes and ladders or just roll off a die each.

Then, the follow up is to complain that their top tier codex, with the most broken rapid deployment transport in game, that can packed with cheap AP 2/3 weapons can't contest/take objectives late game.

Folks, only one logical conclusion: its a troll.

I've always used my objectives to try to lure my opponent to specific areas of the board. For example, with Tau I'll never place an objective in cover, always out in the open. Force the opponent to decide on something 1) go sit on it and get shot to hell, 2) ignore it to stay safe or attack. It works fairly well to make my opponent think about whether to throw everything at my army, or leave some back for the objectives. Usually my placed objectives won't be back in my DZ, I don't need to give extra motivation to come at me. Similarly, my DE like cover, and don't stick around my DZ, so objective deployment is completely different.

However, if my opponent is foolish and brings a list without troops that can get around, then of course I'm not going to hand them an objective. If he loses because his troops can't move well, then he beat himself. He should have brought a balanced list that can play the game rather than a list just designed to kill stuff. Everyone has to come up with a way to get those objectives in order to win, some pay attention to it during list building, others don't think about it till turn 4.

If I wanted a game that was the same every time I played I would have stuck with Starcraft, but I find that mind-numbing and boring.
IMO, one of the things I like most about this game is the fact that you get thrown a curveball every once in a while. Sometimes the terrain isn't ideal. Sometimes the Codexes aren't balanced. Sometimes the mission sucks and the objectives are difficult to achieve. Sometimes you are matched against a Mech list and you just replaced some of your meltas with flamers.
But can you still pull out a win despite all that?

 Lobukia wrote:


...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.

I use 3 vendetta a mantiore and 2 lemman Russ in my army and when I play against another gunline and it has 2 objectives , then he has the upper edge . Even If I drop vets on the objectives late game , for which my vendettas have to be alive in late game , they are still geq and die from any form of assault a unit armed with a flamer or two can kill them in a single turn . I dont understand the list preparation part we dont tailor lists and most people own one army to play with and dont switch depanding on what they face .

Makumba wrote:

Even If I drop vets on the objectives late game , for which my vendettas have to be alive in late game , they are still geq and die from any form of assault a unit armed with a flamer or two can kill them in a single turn.

The point is you would have played poorly here. Why did you drop troops in an area they were vulnerable to assault? Why did you not focus down flamers if you knew this was going to be a tactic? Guard have superior fire power that could have cleared an area to prevent this.
Also placing a Vendetta between your vets and the assault unit would entirely stop that assault (what bubble wrapping troops with vehicles? Heresy!)

The point that list building can be used to do this is that if you create an army that takes into account anti-symmetrical objective distribution.

 Badger_Bhoy wrote:

 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.

I dont get the out shot part . If my opponent keeps 3 LF units in a bastion it aint that easy to blown them all up in one turn and if he gets the first turn , then I have to deal with 2 drop pods at point blank range , he gets first blood my vets wont claim his objectives because the LF will kill them he will kill the troops near my . he will get line breaker , I probably wont , and his LF squads give him better chance for slay the warlord , then me slaying his RP .

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 do I do that against other gunlines ? unless they are bad , I would have to always get first turn and better terrain and LoS . If that happens and my opponent doesnt shot back then I win , but I kind of a know that a non shoting gunline loses.

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.

I have yet to see my vendettas survive up to turn 5 . everyone here is either runing 2 flyers minium and the necron are runing 3-4 .

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?

Lootaz . 2-3 vendettas with veterans that is what the orc players use here , the other one uses lootaz and necron all making my turns night fight and his not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Griddlelol wrote:


The point is you would have played poorly here. Why did you drop troops in an area they were vulnerable to assault? Why did you not focus down flamers if you knew this was going to be a tactic? Guard have superior fire power that could have cleared an area to prevent this.
Also placing a Vendetta between your vets and the assault unit would entirely stop that assault (what bubble wrapping troops with vehicles? Heresy!)

The point that list building can be used to do this is that if you create an army that takes into account anti-symmetrical objective distribution.

aha so I am suppose to drop my vets away from the objectives to give my opponent the ability to shot the vets more . I again dont understand the superior fire power of IG argument . tau , necron , SW can all make good gunlines and they offten take IG as ally to get cheap vendetta . I dont see how a pure IG is suppose to always be superior .
as the focus down goes . I dont expect my opponent to be stupid , If he cant hide a unit of flamers near an objective he placed , then am probably not going to have problems with what will happen , if I drop my vets near .

As the vedetta goes . you do know you can go under flyers as long as you dont end your movement within 1" of the flyer base ?

Makumba wrote:

aha so I am suppose to drop my vets away from the objectives to give my opponent the ability to shot the vets more.

That's disingenuous to make out that's what I was saying. My point was that the area around the objective that you're placing your troops should have been cleared.

I again dont understand the superior fire power of IG argument . tau , necron , SW can all make good gunlines and they offten take IG as ally to get cheap vendetta . I dont see how a pure IG is suppose to always be superior .

It's superior in the way it's long range and generally ignores LoS.

as the focus down goes . I dont expect my opponent to be stupid , If he cant hide a unit of flamers near an objective he placed , then am probably not going to have problems with what will happen , if I drop my vets near .

And so if your opponent does hide them, 3 plasma guns, 6 lasguns and 3 TL lascannons should take care of them. You know, the unit you're dropping isn't carrying nothing.

As the vedetta goes . you do know you can go under flyers as long as you dont end your movement within 1" of the flyer base ?

Did you know the vendetta can hover? Why on earth would you continue flying on turn 5 if you want to cap an objective? You not only get superior disembarking, you also get movement blocking.

I've never had a problem with this. For some armies, I think that odd objectives might be a disadvantage (if you got fewer and you run a primarily shooting army) but if you run a primarily assault army, you're better served to have more objectives on your opponent's side. I run a drop pod army, and always try to stack as many objectives on their end as I can.

If they wanted perfect balance with the objectives, you would place them at set points. (One dead center, one twelve inches to the right, one twelve inches to the left, etc.) Personally, I think that by putting objective placement in the hands of the players, it shows a clear intent for objective placement to be part of the tactical aspect of the game.

If you think objective or terrain placement is unfair when players are involved, have a third party set the table up for you. That's what our club does for terrain, and while I don't always love the setups, I can't say that they're unfair. I think having the table setter also do the objectives would be a fair way to do things, and I certainly wouldn't object if my opponent asked to do it that way.

LValx wrote:
The idea of a good mission is to provide both players the same even ability to win, regardless of army composition.

No, that is NOT the goal of a good mission. A good mission does NOT give you equal chances to win no matter how terrible your list is. It is entirely appropriate (and even desirable) to punish people who bring one-dimensional lists and leave out things like mobile scoring units that can claim objectives on the other side of the table.

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
The idea of a good mission is to provide both players the same even ability to win, regardless of army composition.

No, that is NOT the goal of a good mission. A good mission does NOT give you equal chances to win no matter how terrible your list is. It is entirely appropriate (and even desirable) to punish people who bring one-dimensional lists and leave out things like mobile scoring units that can claim objectives on the other side of the table.

Misspoke. A good mission will give both players the same equal footing to begin the game. I.e. one player doesn't get to place more objectives. Or one player doesn't have higher point objectives on his side. NOVA 5x5 is, IMO, the most competitive set-up because the objectives are pre-placed equally, giving both players the same set-up. Even further, the terrain is symmetrical, giving both players the same deployment zones as well.

LValx wrote:
NOVA 5x5 is, IMO, the most competitive set-up because the objectives are pre-placed equally, giving both players the same set-up. Even further, the terrain is symmetrical, giving both players the same deployment zones as well.

So, the best game is one where you know before hand which mission you will play, how many objectives there will be, roughly where they will be, and while you will not know exactly how much terrain there will be, its a good bet there wont be much, and there will be no terrain advantage for either side. Thus, you have the ability to tailor for that mission, and that mission only, the terrain density you will have a fair idea that its not much. So its balanced, with neither side having an advantage,

Compared to: You don't know which mission you will play, how many objectives there will be, where they will be, you don't know how much terrain there will be,m or where it will be. So you cannot tailor specifically for the mission, you have to build a BALANCED army list, one that can take as well as hold objectives, and one that can perform regardless of which mission you are playing. The games aren't balanced, and they may provide an advantage to one player or the other, again, you are forced to anticipate that fact and factor it into your army selection.

Since both players know that the missions are random, and the number of objectives are random, and there is a chance that their opponent could have more objectives to place than them. there is NO advantage to either party. you both have to anticipate it. If you bring a one trick pony to a game, and find you can't play some of the missions because your army is so limited, well, learn to play better, pick a better army, and don't blame the missions.

Agree with all of the above, I don't think of the scouring as 6 objectives, I think of it as a randomly decided attack or defend mission. Half of the scouring games, you will need to defend from an enemy approach, the other half, you will have to attack the enemy while they defend.

Having an army that can only do one of these things, is bad army design.

Playing the game in a predictable manner, with predictable objectives in predictable placement's, is pointless, as it just means basically, who could squeeze the most hitting power into their army. It's not strategic. It's just roll to see if you can kill/outlast your opponent, if you do, you win, if you don't, you lose.

When you play like that, in such a predictable manner, you might as well say "Well, choosing all these unit's is too unpredictable, the enemy might bring thing's I cant deal with and make the game unbalanced. So in this tournament, you can only bring tactical squads with bolters from codex space marine. That way, it's more balanced.

Or else. "Well, this whole "Using armies" thing is far too unbalanced. So we all just gather around a table, and toss a coin, head's I win, tail's you win."

Uhh... The missions in NOVA vary every round. So things like FA scoring, HS scoring and what not are still used. Terrain is 25%, familiarize yourself with the format before you come to a conclusion.

Ending up with 2 objectives in your Dzone is generally an advantage, if you can't see that, I can't help you. It will often mean that you have to bear the full brunt of your opponents fire while only being able to return a fraction of yours (how much depends on how mobile, but most mech and infantry based shooting reduces on the move). Possibly ending up with all the high value objectives in one player's Dzone is an obvious advantage as well.

Those missions are more balanced, it is why the TOs use them,

Makumba wrote:
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 .

While this has partially been addressed, it's probably worth pointing out that if you have one of the objectives in your own deployment zone, you don't have to remove those Orks camped on the other objectives. You just need to have scoring units near enough to contest those objectives on the last turn.

Winning is not always down to how much of the enemy's army you can kill.

LValx wrote:
Misspoke. A good mission will give both players the same equal footing to begin the game. I.e. one player doesn't get to place more objectives. Or one player doesn't have higher point objectives on his side.

Both players DO start on an equal footing. If you roll 3 objectives then each player has an equal chance of getting to place the odd objective. It's no different than the fact that one player gets to choose whether to go first or second.

NOVA 5x5 is, IMO, the most competitive set-up because the objectives are pre-placed equally, giving both players the same set-up. Even further, the terrain is symmetrical, giving both players the same deployment zones as well.

That's a good mission in the context of a tournament. Yes, sometimes you want to have an event where dozens of people are playing the exact same mission in the exact same situation and the overall winner is based purely on who played the mission the best. Asymmetrical objectives aren't bad because they're unbalanced, they're bad because they're not the same. You don't want players X and Y playing a different mission from players A and B, so that means symmetrical objectives (ideally in the same localtion on every table) and similar (or, better, identical) terrain.

That is NOT the same as that kind of mission being the best or most competitive overall. If you remove the constraints of tournament ranking and look at a game between two players then adding the potential for asymmetrical objectives improves the mission since you have to build more adaptability into your list instead of just determining the perfect solution to a specific situation.

When we have three objectives, we usually have one that we can place anywhere and another one in the middle.

We always agree on where to put the 'middle' one, since we tell a "story" behind this objective.

Giving a player a significant advantage before the game starts is terrible game design and what you would expect from the bizzare philosophy of game rules that GW follows. I am sure in their opinion its more fun.

A far better system is to place the objectives before you chose table sides.

I am not surprised a lot of 40k players like the current system because the hobby is infected with people that want to win the game without ever playing it. For example, winning by tabling someone means that for some reason you have such a huge advantage that you can utterly destroy your opponent. If you are doing this regularly you need to consider that you are playing opponents very far beneath your skill level or their is some serious flaw in the game.

I believe a symmetrical mission is the most competitive, each player knows what to expect from the get-go, so it all comes down to what happens in-game. Book missions dont allow for that.

JWhex wrote:
I am not surprised a lot of 40k players like the current system because the hobby is infected with people that want to win the game without ever playing it.

Given that under the current system your opponent is just as likely to wind up with the extra objective as you are, this statement makes no sense.

For example, winning by tabling someone means that for some reason you have such a huge advantage that you can utterly destroy your opponent. If you are doing this regularly you need to consider that you are playing opponents very far beneath your skill level or their is some serious flaw in the game.

And your example doesn't appear to actually have anything to do with the statement preceding it...

LValx wrote:
I believe a symmetrical mission is the most competitive, each player knows what to expect from the get-go, so it all comes down to what happens in-game. Book missions dont allow for that.

Of course book missions allow that. Each player has read the missions, and each player knows exactly what to expect. There's no "surprise, we're going to use D3+2 objectives today" mission that nobody knew about. If you know that the asymmetrical missions exist and fail to prepare for them it's entirely your fault.

If anything, the symmetrical mission is less competitive because it narrows the range of possible situations you could have to deal with and allows you to focus on one specific objective layout. For example, your gunline no longer has to worry about having to move up and claim objectives since you'll always have an equal share of objectives safely in your own deployment zone and the "odd" objective will always be in the middle of the table where you can easily shoot it clear.

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
I believe a symmetrical mission is the most competitive, each player knows what to expect from the get-go, so it all comes down to what happens in-game. Book missions dont allow for that.

Of course book missions allow that. Each player has read the missions, and each player knows exactly what to expect. There's no "surprise, we're going to use D3+2 objectives today" mission that nobody knew about. If you know that the asymmetrical missions exist and fail to prepare for them it's entirely your fault.

If anything, the symmetrical mission is less competitive because it narrows the range of possible situations you could have to deal with and allows you to focus on one specific objective layout. For example, your gunline no longer has to worry about having to move up and claim objectives since you'll always have an equal share of objectives safely in your own deployment zone and the "odd" objective will always be in the middle of the table where you can easily shoot it clear.

Disagree pretty strongly. Random doesn't mean you will know what the mission is. You'll know it will be random, but you don't know what that randomness is actually going to manifest itself as. You may know the different probabilities of what could happen, but you dont have certainty.

LValx wrote:
Disagree pretty strongly. Random doesn't mean you will know what the mission is. You'll know it will be random, but you don't know what that randomness is actually going to manifest itself as. You may know the different probabilities of what could happen, but you dont have certainty.

And this is a good thing for competitive play. It forces you to bring a flexible list capable of handling a wide variety of situations (including ones where you face an uphill battle) instead of tailoring one specifically to the objective placement in a single perfectly symmetrical mission, and it rewards the skilled players who can adapt to that full range of situations instead of just autopiloting their way through a completely predictable game.

LValx wrote:
Disagree pretty strongly. Random doesn't mean you will know what the mission is. You'll know it will be random, but you don't know what that randomness is actually going to manifest itself as. You may know the different probabilities of what could happen, but you dont have certainty.

Yes, that's what random means. Peregrine's point was that both players are aware of those probabilities before they even write their army lists, so are both on the same playing field. It's up to you to design a list that can deal with each of the possible missions that you might wind up playing.

There was a time when casual play largely involved just ignoring the missions... Outside of tournaments most people just played meatgrinders where the objective was to just wipe out your opponent. And the end result was a lot of very similar armies, because people just built each code for it's best strength. If you came across, for example, a Guard army that ever actually moved, it was a rare moment.

The random missions result in more variety on the tabletop, because people approach them in different ways. At least from what I have seen. YMMV.

I like the system of deploying objectives first then choosing sides.

So this is what happened today, it was SW/Daemons vs Daemons/DE, which was a 2v2.

The guys put a huge piece of terrain that blocked all LoS to them, and essnetially put 3 objectives around that area and we simply had no way to take any of those objectives.

Our lists were super balanced too at taking objectives in enemy deployments too, we had 3 drop pods, and 2 FMCs in their zone before everything was just shot to death or assaulted to death.

None of the long fangs could shoot anything since everything was out of LoS I don't know if that's "fair".

There was absolutely nothing we can do against them since Daemon would murder us in CC.

We could have played defensively but in the end we would have still lost that objective.

 Makutsu wrote:
The guys put a huge piece of terrain that blocked all LoS to them

This is your problem, not the objective system. A single piece of terrain that can block LOS for three different objectives (don't forget the limit of being at least 12" from all other objectives) is way too big. If you play with more sensible terrain you won't have this problem.

And hey, two can play that game.

If someone screws you with terrain go ahead and screw him back. Eventually he'll stop doing that.


Don't complain if someones taking advantage of the system when you are just as capable of doing the same exact thing.