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.

So the rumour thread moves too fast for so I've decided to post this here.

The cards are sounding pretty bad so far.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I start, a brief review of 6th ed missions from my perspective. (feel free to skip, but it may give you some context as to what I feel worked and didn't in 6th in terms of missions)

The Relic - stupid, it gave a massive advantage to tau and eldar who got extra movement they likely did not intend on them getting. It often served to highlight the issue of tables without adequate terrain and the issues with first blood. I never enjoyed it and it made using a center los blocking piece of a terrain a nightmare to balance game wise.

Emperor's Will - stupid, it suffered for similar reasons to relic. First blood was huge like with relic and in all honesety the mission either ended in a tie most of the time or a very small margin victory (first blood). It encouraged gunline and sitting on your butt and did not make for a good scenario in my experience.

The Scouring - Stupid, I've played it twice and both times the division in objectives decided the game before it even started. The LVO managed to fix it by ensuring both sides had the same levels of objectives and dictated where certain objectives went. I think we all liked fast scoring in this, but it's the possibility for terrible unfair division in objective value that ruins it. If it was just like big guns except fast instead of heavy it'd be fine.

Big Guns Never Tire - Ok, it's basically crusade but heavy scores. I can dig it.

Purge the Alien - Terrible, likely the worst mission. Kill point missions are a drag, I've never enjoyed them. For starters, there's the obvious imbalance in rewarding armies with smaller unit counts. Flying circus's and fmc spam lists and knights (puke) don't need a reward for not playing the game. Even in matchups with fairly similar sized forces in terms of unit count, it's still not engaging, often both sides in my experience just play conservatively and never really take risks. Boring,

Crusade - Good, it's pretty much baseline 40k mission. If done right it with ample los blocking terrain it incentivizes armies to move and not just gunline and with higher objectives and decent spread it can really help spread both armies out across the whole board and make for smaller clashes that are more engaging. It still has issues, like all the missions. It's main problem has been the introduction of fortifications, which nessesitated both opponents knowing what side of the board will belong to them. Which leads to cynical objective placement (think both players just tossing their objectives 6 inches from their board edge). In 5th, neither side knew where they would start and that worked a lot better. Fortifications really messed things up.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/05/objective-secured-sample-40k-objectives.html (I've fixed bols screw up)

SECURE OBJECTIVE 3:
Score 1 Victory Point is you control Objective Marker 3 at the end of your turn.

SUPREMACY:
Score D3 Victory Points if you control at least two Objective Markers and at least twice as many Objective Markers as your opponent controls at the end of your turn.

HUNGRY FOR GLORY:
Score 1 Victory Point if you issued a challenge during your turn. If you issued 3 or more challenges during your turn, score D3 Victory Points instead.

OVERWHELMING FIREPOWER:
Score 1 Victory Point if an enemy unit was completely destroyed during the Shooting Phase of your turn. If you completely destroyed 3 or more enemy units during the Shooting phase of your turn score D3 Victory Points instead.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The gist of how it works: "Apparently you draw a set of these pre-game, and trade them in for new ones once completed, or can discard one and re-draw once per turn, if you don't like your current hand." . Like all rumours, going with what we know, it seems we may have to number our objectives for the cards to work, no big deal there, grab a sharpie. So the first card gives you a vp for holding a specific objective at the end of your turn, that in and of itself isn't bad. However, if objective 3 isn't tied to a specific location on the board and is just the 3rd objective that was placed, what if it's one of the objectives in your zone, great you just got a free vp for picking up a card. Yeah.. to me this is a bit like why a lot of us have our issues with first blood, it often seems rewarded simply to whoever goes first.

Supremecy is also arbitrary. You possibly just rewarded the guy sitting on his butt while the other player is going on the attack. We already don't find gunline terribly fun and now the guy sitting in his deployment holding his 2 objectives to your none just got a vp lead that you may not be able to beat. Awesome. Or if you've got two and he's got one, you still have twice as many. 3 objective missions can but tough enough without rewarding the guy who was already rewarded with 2 objectives to your 1 from t he get go. At least its possible that scenario I described doesn’t occur and the only upside is at least it has some interaction with the mission/scenario at hand, which is more than I can say for the other cards we’ve been shown.

Hungry for glory seems more about adding legitimacy to terrible mechanic than anything else. Close combat is less common than shooting during the course of a game. You don't really need to incentivize cc oriented units to assault. At the same time there are plenty of situation where a challenge may be a no brainer (think guard sgt. vs daemon prince). Challenges are terrible and I really don't understand giving vp's for them, it's the same issue as kill points, you're not taking anything into account, killing 1 model can be the same as killing a 30 man unit which is apparently the same as a guard sgt, doing the most obvious thing when charged by an fmc character.

Overwhelming firepower, or basically kill points popping up randomly. Kill points are pretty terrible, and here you are thinking that now you've rolled crusade you won't have to deal with them other than secondary’s. At least with the secondary’s there's some context. I would think killing the enemy leader to be a valuable accomplishment. I don't know why first blood is important but we'll leave it there. I actually wished line breaker stacked, might reward aggressive play. This however is just more and it's random, it's not even tied to a type of unit so congrats for picking up this card.


The cards for me are a non-starter for organized play (tournaments). I've never felt particularly good having won a game because of first blood, I would have rather tied it. With that said, there have been some games where my opponent having gone first failed to get first blood,

In any case, I value being able to know where the score is turn by turn, I would rather win based on my decisions and actions, tactics, strategy. Random providence will always be a factor, we play with dice. Knowing the averages is still very important. Luck has won and lost me games, however it was always combined with some level of sound judgment, some involvement on the players part. If lucking out on getting cards just wins me the game, it doesn't seem enjoyable to me. Fun is subjective; this doesn't sound fun to me.

Crusade is my favorite mission and I would argue is the baseline 40k mission, the one that plays the best and makes the most sense. What I really like about it is both players know the score throughout the game, they can read each other’s actions and gauge what they’re doing or are about to do.

Some of the cards you might really have to work for it, you’ll likely discard those, others, you may literally have been given free vp’s because… narrative. The whole thing is the opposite of organic or player driven, it’s arbitrary as hell. The better you’re doing, the more cards you pickup which just pulls further and further away from the scenario you’re supposed to be playing.

Think of the stupidity even in a narrative game. Say there’s 3 bridges, each one with an objective marker but over the course of the game, more vps have been handed out for random stuff like declaring challenges. “we haven’t secured the bridges yet sir but our southern colonel’s honour remains solid”. Or kill points out the butt. Based on what we’ve been told, you’re not drawing 3 cards for the game, you’re drawing them every turn if you've made use of ones you held previously, that seems like way too much. There’s no guarantee you’ll be able to make use of a card the turn you draw it, but there is also a chance it’s auto rewarded the second you draw it (you’re on the objective in question, it’s your turn so you get to challenge ect).


There may be some potential for home brew scenarios that utilize the cards differently. As it stands now based on what we’ve been told, it doesn’t sound good.

From the sounds of it you can draw new cards every turn regardless of whether you used the cards you had. So from a 5-7 turn game you could both be whipping through like 15-21 cards each… scenario? What scenario? Yeah…

I'm liable to ignore cards altogether, assuming I actually play 7th.

Unless the scenario awards you with silly numbers of VP's, the cards will be all that matter. And they fit into GW's idea that random=balance and random=fun.

Yeah, the cards sound pretty terrible. I don't plan on playing with them, and would be surprised if most people did anyway, since they're probably going to be an extra purchase. Yay for money-grubbing...

It gets worse. The WD article suggests that some of the cards are things like "cast a psychic power". I'm going to love getting that one when I'm playing an army that doesn't have any psykers at all.

As with all rumors/leaks thus far, I will reserve final judgement pending the release of the full rules.

However, I will say that I do like the idea of the random objectives these cards represent. I prefer asymmetrical missions, where my goal is not the same as my opponent's goal (and where I might not even know what their goal is). Nearly every game of 40K is really just a zoomed in view of a small part of a massively epic-sized (pun intended) battle. Marneus Calgar isn't going to just show up at the front just to advance the battlelines, he's at that particular place in time for something more important than to just plant a flag on a hill (and, if so, it better be the most important hill on the whole planet). I feel that's what the cards are trying to represent: that extra importance that this particular battle is representing, as well as the changing tides of war as your those overseeing the battle from far away are giving new orders as the situations change.

Of course, like with most things from GW these days, it looks like the usual "good idea, bad implentation."

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Yeah, the cards sound pretty terrible. I don't plan on playing with them, and would be surprised if most people did anyway, since they're probably going to be an extra purchase. Yay for money-grubbing...

From another rulebook page pic, it looks like the cards may not actually be necessary. You can alternatively roll on a D66 chart.

Random VP is a HUGE no-no-no. If an enemy can get more points by sitting on an objective compared to someone who cleverly outmaneuvers his opponent to snatch an objective with a risky maneuver, that's completely trash game design.

Also, what Peregrine said. What's up with armies that can't use Psykers? Tau? Necrons? Lose 1+ VP by default?

Balance through random rolling!

Might as well roll at the start of the game on a D6 to see how many VPs you start with.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Random VP is a HUGE no-no-no. If an enemy can get more points by sitting on an objective compared to someone who cleverly outmaneuvers his opponent to snatch an objective with a risky maneuver, that's completely trash game design.

Also, what Peregrine said. What's up with armies that can't use Psykers? Tau? Necrons? Lose 1+ VP by default?

GW: "Tau and Necrons have been getting lots of sales recently, due to being very powerful armies. So we no longer need to keep them at the top. It's time to make our followers buy everything else."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Balance through random rolling!

Might as well roll at the start of the game on a D6 to see how many VPs you start with.

+1

I've played other games with these sorts of randomized requirements. The thing is, they're usually short games, where that sort of thing is okay, and if you get hosed on what you pull, you didn't waste 2-3 hours.

I find non-identical requirements great. It's GW's execution of what constitutes an objective I worry about. "Declare a challenge" - yeah, that's going over well for IG or Tau. "Score d3..." with no correlation between the difficulty in achieving the objectives and how much you're rewarded for doing so.

Someone will certainly say that a good army is one designed to be able to accomplish any of these objectives. But does that naturally mean that Tau aren't a good army, because they cannot realistically challenge or cast psychic powers? Seems like flawed logic there.

I'm sure this is all well and good for people who enjoy pushing models about a table for a few hours while drinking beer and rolling a die at the end to see who wins. But some people actually want player action to be the primary determinant of victory, not a deck of cards or a die.

 Redbeard wrote:
I've played other games with these sorts of randomized requirements. The thing is, they're usually short games, where that sort of thing is okay, and if you get hosed on what you pull, you didn't waste 2-3 hours.

Risk

Probably not all that torney friendly but I see no issue with it during games with friends, im interested to try it out. I don't see it as total bankruptcy like what's being over stated here, pretty cringe worthy considering you've got a list containing only 4 of the cards. Lets wait for more info before we throw all the toys out the pram huh.

Sure the tau cant cast psychic powers but they would only have that card for 1 turn out of 5.

kingleir wrote:
Sure the tau cant cast psychic powers but they would only have that card for 1 turn out of 5.

But then you're using up your one discard and replace on getting rid of a card that you literally can not use, while your opponent gets to spend it on hopefully upgrading a weaker card. Having dead cards like that is a huge problem.

So every objective card should be able to be used by every army? Those would be some pretty bland cards, especially to account for the fact that almost everything will be a legal.

The objectives should be based around the game rules and not the army rules. You want a chance to get that psychic card, bring an ally, or build your army to maximise other cards.

My opinion on the card idea and mission objectives in general.



Objectives naturally come in games without needing a prompt. You say, "Huh, if I have control of that hill it would be a lot easier to rain death on those marines. I'd better take it." or "If I get on top of that building I'll be able to flank my opponent". I don't need the piking game to artificially tell me that I need to seize an objective, kill a commander, or something else. I can figure it all out on my own- just let me wreck bloody havoc on my opponents army, stop trying to hold me back.

Plenty of heroic duels, brave defenses, objective-taking, varied tactics, and the like can be found in the most basic 'kill-the-enemy' mission. In fact, more basic missions tend to have a better narrative because you have more control and more opportunity to do what you like and really get into your army.

I find it silly that you're rewarded merely for the challenge, not even winning it, how stupid is that?

 Crablezworth wrote:
I find it silly that you're rewarded merely for the challenge, not even winning it, how stupid is that?

Are you even trying to Forge a Narrative?

lol do you even narrative bro?

As said before, perhaps not a bad idea but a poor implementation. However, is this such a surprise? With GW cleaving to random elements for the sake of them being random, why not random objectives as well? It further levels the playing field between skilled players and fortunate ones.

Maybe on turn (random) whomever rolls a (random) wins (random) and is victorious!

 amanita wrote:
It further levels the playing field between skilled players and fortunate ones.

It really doesn't.

Well... Nothing I'm hearing is convincing me that I should give 40k another try but this little snippet of information is actively pushing me away.


Good one GW...

 Crablezworth wrote:

 amanita wrote:
It further levels the playing field between skilled players and fortunate ones.

It really doesn't.

In a way it does...now neither player will enjoy the game!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
As with all rumors/leaks thus far, I will reserve final judgement pending the release of the full rules.

However, I will say that I do like the idea of the random objectives these cards represent. I prefer asymmetrical missions, where my goal is not the same as my opponent's goal (and where I might not even know what their goal is). Nearly every game of 40K is really just a zoomed in view of a small part of a massively epic-sized (pun intended) battle. Marneus Calgar isn't going to just show up at the front just to advance the battlelines, he's at that particular place in time for something more important than to just plant a flag on a hill (and, if so, it better be the most important hill on the whole planet). I feel that's what the cards are trying to represent: that extra importance that this particular battle is representing, as well as the changing tides of war as your those overseeing the battle from far away are giving new orders as the situations change.

Of course, like with most things from GW these days, it looks like the usual "good idea, bad implentation."

Oh yeah, it's a cool idea. But really poor implementation by arbitrarily handing out VPs for doing the most random crap. It'd be cool if they were unique secondary objectives that rewarded strategic play, but from the sounds of things these are pretty lame.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Well... Nothing I'm hearing is convincing me that I should give 40k another try but this little snippet of information is actively pushing me away.


Good one GW...

40k is fine, as long as you and your opponent can figuer out what it is, together, without different interpretations and prefferences before every game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 amanita wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 amanita wrote:
It further levels the playing field between skilled players and fortunate ones.

It really doesn't.

In a way it does...now neither player will enjoy the game!

lol exalted!

You could always just play the standard missions they still have (and kept for people specifically like the OP) in the rule book?

 Crablezworth wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Well... Nothing I'm hearing is convincing me that I should give 40k another try but this little snippet of information is actively pushing me away.


Good one GW...

40k is fine, as long as you and your opponent can figuer out what it is, together, without different interpretations and prefferences before every game.

Yeah, but the people in my local area and I disagree about that and there are plenty of better games that don't require that to function which are much more enjoyable imo. I love the fluff but am no longer interested in trudging through the sub par game mechanics of 40k.

I'm liking the declare a challenge one. I just won all my games for the year with it!

1.Bring Krieg Assault Brigade.
2.Charge everything in range.
3.Declare challenges with all Watchmasters available don't bother wining them.
4.Recycle platoons
5. ???
6. Profit!

M.

I think I'll be a big fan of the cards.

If you don't like d3 VP, house rule it to be always 2.

Not every card should 100% apply to every army. That's part of the game. The tides of battle are supposed to be constantly changing, these are supposed to represent that.

NamelessBard wrote:
I think I'll be a big fan of the cards.

If you don't like d3 VP, house rule it to be always 2.

Not every card should 100% apply to every army. That's part of the game. The tides of battle are supposed to be constantly changing, these are supposed to represent that.

I will play a few games with the discard mechanic and see if that takes care of the draw for players without psykers etc.. but if it doesn't wed just rule that you draw another card or just remove the psyker cards from the deck before you play (If your Tau for instance).

It would be interesting to play with like a deck of 7 cards (pokerhammer haha) for the game without the draw and see what that is like also.

bodazoka wrote:
You could always just play the standard missions they still have (and kept for people specifically like the OP) in the rule book?

Have they said whether they remain unaltered? Seems odd to have missions like Big Guns and The Scouring if everything is a scoring unit now.