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 agree Redbeard. I think that objectives would be more meaningful and strategic if you had to be claiming them for more than just at the end of the turn. If you had to hold an objective for multiple turns to get the VP then you would have to commit resources to actually holding it.

A real objective is not just quick grab the flag we got this. It's we will hold this hill/bunker/comm relay until the battle ends.

I don't really understand the need to say the game goes 6 turns. (or 5, or 7, or a random number).

Chess doesn't end after 10 turns each, and it's a much more successful game. Why not just keep playing until one side is tabled or concedes defeat (waves the white flag). If you want to fight until the last man, go for it. If you accept that you can't win, surrender the field and come back another day.

In fact, if you did it this way, you could avoid the whole "must have models on the table at the end of the turn" nonsense too. If you want to reserve your whole army, fine, you give your opponent a free turn's worth of maneuvering.

I think better defined terain guidelines could help, people say assault is weak but I can't say whether they play on realms of battle with 2 trees and a bunker or proper maps. Even in 6th when adding terrain there is a point where my assault nids start to be really scary and require a solid battle plan from my enemy to stand a chance. Also I wonder if maybe the intended way to make outlanking units viable was alternating terrain method so you can put some terrain on sides and at least not get shot on arrival.

Anyway some declaration that the standard table is 3 average ruins, 2 hills 2 forests etc would imo help. With ignores cover everywhere now it should be more big LoS blocking pieces or sth.

Also I agree with holding objectives being +1VP for each turn or sth.

Overwatch should be imo 2nd edition esque ability to shoot in opponents turn instead of yours but -2BS or sth, so it wouldn't end as ultimate move.

Love the idea for overrun in 40k. Just today I cried because killed entire unit of terminators, 2 times in a row. I begged for the last one to survive each time.

6 + d6 charge could fix CC abit heh.

One of my favorites:

“No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy.”
- Horatio Nelson

- Grim

 FirePainter wrote:
I agree Redbeard. I think that objectives would be more meaningful and strategic if you had to be claiming them for more than just at the end of the turn. If you had to hold an objective for multiple turns to get the VP then you would have to commit resources to actually holding it.

A real objective is not just quick grab the flag we got this. It's we will hold this hill/bunker/comm relay until the battle ends.

Which really undermines the feel of fast raiding strike forces, getting in to plant a charge and getting out or similar things.

 Redbeard wrote:


Chess doesn't end after 10 turns each, and it's a much more successful game. Why not just keep playing until one side is tabled or concedes defeat (waves the white flag). If you want to fight until the last man, go for it. If you accept that you can't win, surrender the field and come back another day.

because armies that can't spawn new troops or don't have tough troops or don't have 2++ scoring deathstars would have problems with having scoring units . Most of my wins come from clearing troops and contesting units from more objectives then my opponent has and hoping he didn't get line breaker and first blood on top of slay the warlord people always get vs guard.

There's a place for that. It's in skirmish games, kill-team style games, and the like.

You don't array your biggest tanks and warmachines and monsters to provide a diversion for the guys setting the charge ten feet away from them.

And, in fact, I could even see that approach in a bigger game - except why do both sides want to blow up the same point, and if they do, why are they trying to stop the other side? Seems indicative that one side actually wants to protect it, which you don't do with a fast raiding force...

Yeah... so one side could have incrememnting objectives adn the other all or nothing? Would that be better?

Objectives are one of the Tools of Wargamers.
You have two was of them being use.
>Just placed on the table to for your opponent to move to capture them for your advantage,
>Placed with some logical sense, The Building were you have been using as your HQ, the crucial Bridge that is the only one that can handle your Tanks or that vital Ammo/Fuel Depot.

Without objective both armies would just hammer each other, the only maneuvering it to gain and advantage.
Objectives force both Armies to think.

 KingofAshes wrote:

I think it is a good idea that makes sense. If you are charging why would you not shoot while doing it.

You just had a shooting phase! Like 2 seconds prior!

One of the things on this note that I'd like to see is models that can give up their normal attacks in melee to make 1 in-combat shooting attack with a pistol, not any other weapon type. If you miss, it's likely because your point-blank target slapped your hand out of the way as you pulled the trigger Equilibrium style.

That is the point none of the top players are getting tabled in one or two turns or loosing to it. The games are going 5 rounds and objectives determine the winner. If the most competitively built list are not losing to being tabled then that is not a problem in the game.

The most competitive lists in the game being able to survive does not balance make, good sir. And as has been pointed out, they use some rather dubious trickery to achieve that, such as having artificial luck so great that they only get wounded 1/36 otherwise successful shots.

I have to say I dislike the idea of objectives being so important in a wargame. Sure, occasionally your goal should be to get a unit somewhere and do something.

But the idea of being at a certain point and then hoping the game ends or doesn't end is a little silly. Small fast scoring units that hide all game and pop out at the end to grab things isn't exactly what I see when I watch war movies.

The game would be a lot more boring without objectives. No one would ever bring more than the compulsory troops slots. And barrage weapons would be crazy awesome, since your entire goal is to kill enemies, and they can do it from behind LOS blocking terrain. Well, until you played the guy who brings cheap hq, two troops, and flyers everywhere.

Anytime we roll up purge the alien, we roll up a 2nd mission to go along with it, just to give us something else to do on the map. Shooting armies need a reason to leave their deployment zone.

As for the random time limit, I think it's assumed that your mission is on a time table, and if you don't complete it, bad things will happen. EG capture that skyfire nexus before our birds have to fly over that zone. Not getting it results in difficulties, and likely deaths, elsewhere in the war. As for sabotaged objectives....uh...you got me...I guess they can be valuable once someone has had a chance to remove the perpetually exploding devices?

I do agree that the "only matters at the end of the game" design is sort of flawed sometimes. I really wish that the coming edition (OMG ON TOPIC) has missions more like 3rd edition. Actual MISSIONS, with an attacker and defender, and asymmetrical goals. Such as: "attacker has to cross the board, defender has to keep the enemy out of his deployment zone," or ambush, where the attacker got to walk on anywhere but behind the defender, and the defender just needed to book it out of there.

I still crack open that book to play those missions in 6th.

Anpu42 wrote:Objectives are one of the Tools of Wargamers.
Without objective both armies would just hammer each other, the only maneuvering it to gain and advantage.

You mean like real armies?

Objectives force both Armies to think.

Yes, because "hold my unit of 3 jetbikes in reserve, using psychic powers to keep them off the table until turn 4, and then rocketing to where the objective was placed" required so much thought.

Oddly enough, destroying the other guy's army can also require thought, you don't need a half-dozen random points marked on the table to achieve that goal. I'm not saying they're always bad, or that they shouldn't exist in some form, but the way objectives work, and are treated, in 6th ed 40k is pretty sad.

 FirePainter wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

You do realize that the most famous, most successful sci-fi series ever uses melee weapons as the most iconic weapon in that series, right?

Phasers are not melee weapons!

Have you seen the amount of brawling and fist fights in star trek?

No match for the all powerfull Batlev!

Well said Redbeard. Heartily agree with everything you've said.

Regarding assault, imo people who want it to be out of 40k or marginal not only don't understand the fluff part of 40k and most importantly its mood but also advocate dumbing down of the game. The game is more tactical when you have both assault and shooting as viable tactics, just look at napoleonics. Not to mention even if it was hard sf and not science fantasy, it still wouldn't be obvious that shooting should rule the battlefields, you can make up 100 technologies that improve defense vs bullets to the point where hand to hand combat is common.

As for fluff, it would be half ruined without blood soaked chainswords to the bowels everywhere. You want shooting only game, go somewhere else.

Napoleon did not need to contend with a chain-gun that shoots lasers. Napoleonic tactics also got a million Americans killed when armies that used Napoleonic tactics failed to account for rifles. Napoleonic tactics in 40K would also require those armies using such tactics to mount their units in small trays, so that every model maintains coherency by being in a rectangular block X models wide and at least 2 models deep...

... Napoleon also did not have to contend with indirect artillery fire on the scale that warfare in the 41st millennium presents it. Napoleonic tactics is a good way to get a whole lot of people killed very dead, very quickly.

 Psienesis wrote:
Napoleon did not need to contend with a chain-gun that shoots lasers. Napoleonic tactics also got a million Americans killed when armies that used Napoleonic tactics failed to account for rifles. Napoleonic tactics in 40K would also require those armies using such tactics to mount their units in small trays, so that every model maintains coherency by being in a rectangular block X models wide and at least 2 models deep...

... Napoleon also did not have to contend with indirect artillery fire on the scale that warfare in the 41st millennium presents it. Napoleonic tactics is a good way to get a whole lot of people killed very dead, very quickly.

I'm not sure which post you are answering, because it rather isn't mine - I was just pointing out that games that have both assault and shooting viable are the most tactical, like napoleonics for example. It was not about comparisions between 40k and Napoleon, using napoleonic tactics in 40k and whatnot. Also I really don't know what was the purpose and meaning of that remark about million Americans killed.

Because while assault is kind of a theme in 40K, 40K is also a game of sci-fi armies, and if you want to charge a bunch of guys with missile-shooting machine-guns with a bunch of guys with sticks (don't want to charge a machine-gun without that! to quote Black Adder) or with swords... expect to lose a *lot* of guys with sticks and swords to machine-gun fire. It's why automatic weapons exist.

While Assault needs a bit of a buff, it should not be considered the first and primary tactic against a line of automatic weapons in a defensive position, unless you can somehow negate the advantage the defensive position of the gunline has (smoke, darkness, pods, armored transport, etc.)... in fact, if you're facing a gunline, assault should be considered the least-viable tactic to dealing with it, unless you can Chenkov (or Orky) your way to the line and come to blows with the machine-gun-wielders.

 Psienesis wrote:
Because while assault is kind of a theme in 40K, 40K is also a game of sci-fi armies, and if you want to charge a bunch of guys with missile-shooting machine-guns with a bunch of guys with sticks (don't want to charge a machine-gun without that! to quote Black Adder) or with swords... expect to lose a *lot* of guys with sticks and swords to machine-gun fire. It's why automatic weapons exist.

While Assault needs a bit of a buff, it should not be considered the first and primary tactic against a line of automatic weapons in a defensive position, unless you can somehow negate the advantage the defensive position of the gunline has (smoke, darkness, pods, armored transport, etc.)... in fact, if you're facing a gunline, assault should be considered the least-viable tactic to dealing with it, unless you can Chenkov (or Orky) your way to the line and come to blows with the machine-gun-wielders.

Or if your armour is of sufficient quality to simply deflect the machine gun bullets...

Yep, that would be the "armored transport" option I mentioned, too.

So if you've got metal bawkses (and, granted, metal bawkses need some help, too... vehicles are too fragile against small arms in the current edition) and can load your troops into said metal bawkses, feel free to drive up the field... and pray the gunline doesn't have lascannons or missile launchers or other anti-vehicle weapons.

5E was really good. I liked it.

6E is pretty different, but good. I like the CORE (codex +main rule book) a lot. There's a wish list I had but nothing that's a deal breaker to me.

I think that the unintended consequences of certain combos were the issue. I think if a 7th edition addresses the actual CONSEQUENCES of some combos, it would be fine.

For example take the most annoying rules lawyers (they are on DakkaDakka, so it will be easy to find) and then have them explain in depth the F'd up combos they came up with. Then GW takes that, decides which OUTCOMES are just terrible for the game and fix the potential outcomes.

Overwatch for example isn't really the issue it was painted to be. in Flames of War, overwatch is at FULL Ballistic skill. 6th Ed's version is nothing in comparison. So maybe just have a RELOAD rule that says you maybe are reduced to ROF 1 next turn?

2++ saves are obviously an issue. Was it an intended consequence they saw th impact of? Would limiting RE-rolls of ANY kind to a 3 or higher make it a little better without stealing the ability to try to do it ?

Battle Brothers: make battle Brothers mean something different, so the codex's wont be jacked. They did it with Acute Senses and they could do it with the definition of Battle Brothers. Battle Brothers may have been a very bad decision in its current form.

AND F*** the SUPER HEAVY BS in normal games. It's dumber than dumb to inflict that into normal games that are essentially company sized skirmishes.

they will put a DAGGER into the HEART of the game if they proceed with that nonsense outside of supplements. Supplements are there any time two people agree to play them. Outside of that... gimme a break.

 Psienesis wrote:
Yep, that would be the "armored transport" option I mentioned, too.

So if you've got metal bawkses (and, granted, metal bawkses need some help, too... vehicles are too fragile against small arms in the current edition) and can load your troops into said metal bawkses, feel free to drive up the field... and pray the gunline doesn't have lascannons or missile launchers or other anti-vehicle weapons.

If I can assault from the metal bawkses at some point I'm fine with that. It beats giving you a free round of shooting at me after I've disembarked and am, for some reason standing around, pecker in hand doing nothing with chainsword/powerklaw that I paid extra for like a mental invalid.

Let me elaborate, I'm fine with hoping 4 or 5 LC shots either miss or do minor damage as opposed to having to take 40+ armor saves because my troops are idiots and can't assault the shooty guys the turn they leave their metal bawkses and I for some reason can't run far enough to get behind LoS blocking terrain.

 Psienesis wrote:
Yep, that would be the "armored transport" option I mentioned, too.

So if you've got metal bawkses (and, granted, metal bawkses need some help, too... vehicles are too fragile against small arms in the current edition) and can load your troops into said metal bawkses, feel free to drive up the field... and pray the gunline doesn't have lascannons or missile launchers or other anti-vehicle weapons.

So personal armour the equivalent in protection to an armoured transport should not exist in this sci-fantasy setting 39000 years in the future?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yep, that would be the "armored transport" option I mentioned, too.

So if you've got metal bawkses (and, granted, metal bawkses need some help, too... vehicles are too fragile against small arms in the current edition) and can load your troops into said metal bawkses, feel free to drive up the field... and pray the gunline doesn't have lascannons or missile launchers or other anti-vehicle weapons.

So personal armour the equivalent in protection to an armoured transport should not exist in this sci-fantasy setting 39000 years in the future?

Even when it's explicitly stated to be the case, the answer's appearently "no"...