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 thought people wanted options to score during the turns and not at just the end of the game. Wouldn't these cards give what people wanted? If you don't like the cards, then say each objective you are on, you get one point per turn. This way there is no random factor, or pic the cards you think are good and just use them for Everyone to use at the beginning of the game.

More options are good. Don't like them don't use them just like how people said 1999+1 for a 2000 point game to no use 2 FOC. I am sure GW will say change what you don't like, add what you would like and just have fun.

Davor wrote:
I thought people wanted options to score during the turns and not at just the end of the game. Wouldn't these cards give what people wanted?

Yes, but does that necessarily mean that this implementation of a way to do that is ideal, or fair, or balanced? Just because a poorly thought out solution is offered to a recognized problem doesn't mean that everything is great and we should offer praise.

...I am sure GW will say change what you don't like, add what you would like and just have fun.

That's part of the problem. It has been shown in creativity studies that reducing options actually increases creativity, and there's a fairly simple exercise that shows it. If I ask you to tell me a story, that's pretty open-ended, and most people have a hard time knowing where to start. If I ask you to tell me a story about an accident that happened on the way back from the grocery store, I've reduced the options you have available, but it's much much easier to come up with a story.

So, GW's "well, do whatever you want and have fun" - why are we paying them to write rules? If it's going to come down to doing what we want anyway, why not just stand up the models and shoot rubber-bands at them until they fall over? Clearly, "whatever we want" isn't the answer. What we want is a cohesive ruleset.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Briancj wrote:
As a 'forge the narrative' player

What does this honestly even mean?

I honestly don't know, anymore.

 Blacksails wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:


No, but I assume that when you got 1 unit type (and honestly its one unit type with an optional gun upgrade), who is very much not divisible in many points levels due to high PPM cost so that it only really works right on its own in given "skips", and can only do one thing (as you got just one unit) that it is NOT a stand-alone army, but an extension that is allowed to stand-alone for the few who REALLY wants to.

At least not in any remotely sane level of game design, and I make the bold assumption GW are at least TRYING to make sense, even if they often fail to do so.

Everything about knights screams "ally me", not "play me". they lack MOST army interactions, just like any other mini-codex, unlike big codecies who are "army X" or supplements who are "alternate army X"

Then why can they be fielded as a standalone force? Why do they have that ability if they weren't intended to be used in such a manner?

Regardless of the GW's inability to write coherent rules, the fact is that Knights are their own legal army. Its completely ridiculous, agreed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't intended purely as allies, otherwise their rules would have only let them be taken as allies. Like it or not, they can be fielded solo, as a primary detachment. Its irrelevant claiming they're not because you feel they're not, but the simple truth is that they are.

In the context of the mission cards, its even more poorly thought out, seeing as they can't participate in challenges or psychic powers.

They CAN be taken as a stand alone force, he's saying it's pretty clear to most people that they SHOULDN'T. Knights are cool and all, but deploying all of a single unit type is going to leave you with holes in your force. an inability to adapt. Knights are best run with allies. as eaither a primary detachment backed by allies, or as an allied force itself.

for example, Here's how I'd run a Knight primary detachment and allies. 3 Knights (of whatever mix you so choose there's only a 15 point differance over all which can be made up with wargear elsewhere. I'll assume Knight Paladins for ease of math) 1125 points.
1 SM Librarian with ML 2, Terminator Armor and a Storm sheild.
2 10 Man Tatical Squads with Rhinos
1 Hunter anti-Air Tank
1 Storm Talon Gunship

for a 1770 point list

As allied forces go it's pretty solid. the Librarian is gonna be your psyker, but he can also, should you need it, handle challanges. the tatical squads are solid all around and can combat squad to spread out and give you a little infantry support everywhere. the Hunter'll keep you safe from his fliers, and the storm talon can provide a light, flier effective in breaking open light vehicles, killing enemy fliers or slaughtering infantry. obviously your knights are gonna be your armor crackers.

this list is far from perfect. and I'm sure people could suggest way better builds. but that's just an example of how you could feild a knight detachment as your primary detachment while having allies on board that'd allow you to adapt to the changing conditions of the battlefield

Why does it matter that they shouldn't, when they clearly can be?

You can argue till your blue in the face, but Knights are their own legal army and have clearly been intended to function that way due to the abundantly clear rules permitting and explaining how to do so.

Your thoughts and opinions on whether or not its a good idea is completely irrelevant.

Exactly Blacksails.


To add to the thought - if the goal of the new game system is to require all armies to take allies in order to be able to achieve the basic game objectives, why even have individual armies. Why not just have a master list of units and you can take whatever you want?

Or perhaps what Unbound means...

 Redbeard wrote:
Exactly Blacksails.


To add to the thought - if the goal of the new game system is to require all armies to take allies in order to be able to achieve the basic game objectives, why even have individual armies. Why not just have a master list of units and you can take whatever you want?

Or perhaps what Unbound means...

I think saying "knights might need allies to be effective" is a BIIIG differance between "ALL armies need allies"

I remember a time when people played, you know, one army. Hell, the army you played even at times defined you.

The knight model is cool, I'm sure it's fine in apocalypse, I guess I just lament that we now call apocalypse 40k.

BrianDavion wrote:

I think saying "knights might need allies to be effective" is a BIIIG differance between "ALL armies need allies"

If you're required to have a psyker on the table in order to achieve certain missions, then Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar and maybe Sisters now need allies as well. If challenges become a fundamental objective in the game, then non-combat armies like Tau and Guard will now require allies. And this is based on seeing four of sixty cards?

I guess we'll see how the rest are implemented. Still, I feel that the addition of basic game objectives that cannot be accomplished by some of the armies in the game is a sign of poor game design.

 Redbeard wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

I think saying "knights might need allies to be effective" is a BIIIG differance between "ALL armies need allies"

If you're required to have a psyker on the table in order to achieve certain missions, then Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar and maybe Sisters now need allies as well. If challenges become a fundamental objective in the game, then non-combat armies like Tau and Guard will now require allies. And this is based on seeing four of sixty cards?

I guess we'll see how the rest are implemented. Still, I feel that the addition of basic game objectives that cannot be accomplished by some of the armies in the game is a sign of poor game design.

"To achieve certain missions" that will only show up when playing the missions from "Maelstrom of War"...plus, you can actually opt to discard the cards that you think that you might not be able to complete.

And it's 36 cards in the pack apparently.

Honestly I think the major failing of the cards will be that they are generic, much like the major failing of the warlord traits was. If they do something like what they did in sixth with the new armies in giving them their own table to roll it could work better, no cast a psychic spell for the factions without psychers, but of course then suddenly the armies that get the easier to score cards would suddenly be dominate even if they are not viewed as the most powerful.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Anyone else notice the "TYPE" at the bottom of these? Whats the source for this pic? Perhaps you can choose which "TYPE" of objective card deck you are drawing from to match your army. I think that would make "dead cards" much less common and everything a bit more fair.

 kronk wrote:
I'm looking forwards to giving the cards a try.

Me too however if the randomness doesnt work out. There are still several ways to play with objective cards.

You can preselect mission cards for the table. The requirements on those cards can persist the entire game.
You can preselect mission cards for the table. You discard those cards once either player meets those conditions.
You can preselect the same mission cards for each player. Each player discards those cards once they meet the condition.
All of the above options remove the randomness of objective cards and allows for more victory point conditions during a game.

You can randomly select 6 mission cards for each player. Each player selects 3 cards to keep for the game to complete. Do not show the other player your mission. You discard the mission card once the condition is met.
You can randomly select 6 mission cards for each player. Each player selects 3 cards to keep for the game to complete. Each player can see your mission. You discard the mission card once the condition is met.
You can randomly select 6 mission cards for each player. Each player selects 3 cards to keep for the game to complete. Do not show the other player your mission. The mission card persists persists throughout the game.
You can randomly select 6 mission cards for each player. Each player selects 3 cards to keep for the game to complete. Each player can see your mission. The mission card persists throughout the game.

These setups limits randomness and useless cards draws and allows for more vicotry points.

I am sure there are several more ways to use objective cards. Heck you can even create your own objective cards, such as slay the unit that slayed your warlord or Slay the unit that got first blood.

Personally i like the idea of randomly selecting 6 objective cards and keeping 3 and Do not show the other player your mission and you discard the mission once the condition is met. It sounds extremely fun and limits the useless cards and has me trying to figure out what my opponents armies missions are in the middle of the battle.

gungo wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I'm looking forwards to giving the cards a try.

Me too however if the randomness doesnt work out. There are still several ways to play with objective cards.

You can preselect objective cards for the table. The requirements on those cards can persist the entire game.
You can preselect objective cards for the table. You discard those cards once the condition is met.
You can preselect the same objective cards for each player. Each player discards those cards once the condition is met.
All of the above options remove the randomness of objective cards and allows for more victory point conditions during a game.

You can randomly select 6 objective cards for each player. Each player selects 3 cards to keep for the game to complete. Do not show the other player your objectives.
You can randomly select 6 objective cards for each player. Each player selects 3 cards to keep for the game to complete. Each player can see your objectives.
These setups limits randomness and useless cards draws and allows for more vicotry points.

I am sure there are several more ways to use objective cards. Heck you can even create your own objective cards, such as slay the unit that slayed your warlord or Slay the unit that got first blood.

Personally i like the idea of randomly selecting 6 objective cards and keeping 3 and Do not show the other player your objective. It sounds fun and limits the useless cards and has me trying to figure out what is his armies goals in the middle of the battle.

The cards have some value, no question. Being a pragmatic fellow, I will definitely agree that better methods involving less random and more choice can mitigate the issues.

The crux of the issue for me is the "normal" secondaries in 6th never totaled more than 3vp max. The scale of vp's on the cards don't seem to have any sense of proportion.

Cards on the table, I'm not a fan of kill points as a mechanic precisely because they don't take scale or context into account. Collecting vp's that cannot be taken away detracts from the game IMO.

The card system reminds me of the sims 3, there was a mechanic meant to incentivize sims to do random stuff and would reward them with points they could spend on skills. They had the same problem, they were arbitrary as hell. "work out for an hour, here have 500pts" "learn how to play the guitar, here, have 1000pts"

There wasn't much sense of scale, some tasks that took much shorter amounts of time yet offered much higher rewards. Granted, it was a single player game so it wasn't the end of the world, but in a game where two players face off againsts one another, laying a random easter egg hunt that rewards, well, whatever, doesn't seem too solid.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

I think saying "knights might need allies to be effective" is a BIIIG differance between "ALL armies need allies"

If you're required to have a psyker on the table in order to achieve certain missions, then Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar and maybe Sisters now need allies as well. If challenges become a fundamental objective in the game, then non-combat armies like Tau and Guard will now require allies. And this is based on seeing four of sixty cards?

I guess we'll see how the rest are implemented. Still, I feel that the addition of basic game objectives that cannot be accomplished by some of the armies in the game is a sign of poor game design.

"To achieve certain missions" that will only show up when playing the missions from "Maelstrom of War"...plus, you can actually opt to discard the cards that you think that you might not be able to complete.

And it's 36 cards in the pack apparently.

To people putting forth this whole Maelstrom of War thing, this almost certainly means "standard 40k mission". I'm pretty sure 6th ed missions were called Altar of War missions.

 Jaceevoke wrote:
Honestly I think the major failing of the cards will be that they are generic, much like the major failing of the warlord traits was. If they do something like what they did in sixth with the new armies in giving them their own table to roll it could work better, no cast a psychic spell for the factions without psychers, but of course then suddenly the armies that get the easier to score cards would suddenly be dominate even if they are not viewed as the most powerful.

THIS. I really hope they don't make army-specific objective cards because I can guarantee you that some army will get hosed for having terrible objectives, while another will have pants-on-head stupid rules which allow them to get a dozen VP every turn with ease.

One way to house rule it is to take out cards that aren't viable for BOTH armies and then deal a random bunch face up to the side of the board. First one to qualify for an objective card gets its point and the card is discarded.

That way both players will find themselves competing for a bunch of objectives they can't prepare for ahead of time, and since it's the same bunch of objectives for both players with both of them aware of them you at least know your chances and plan accordingly (or flip the table ).

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

I think saying "knights might need allies to be effective" is a BIIIG differance between "ALL armies need allies"

If you're required to have a psyker on the table in order to achieve certain missions, then Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar and maybe Sisters now need allies as well. If challenges become a fundamental objective in the game, then non-combat armies like Tau and Guard will now require allies. And this is based on seeing four of sixty cards?

I guess we'll see how the rest are implemented. Still, I feel that the addition of basic game objectives that cannot be accomplished by some of the armies in the game is a sign of poor game design.

"To achieve certain missions" that will only show up when playing the missions from "Maelstrom of War"...plus, you can actually opt to discard the cards that you think that you might not be able to complete.

And it's 36 cards in the pack apparently.

To people putting forth this whole Maelstrom of War thing, this almost certainly means "standard 40k mission". I'm pretty sure 6th ed missions were called Altar of War missions.

Nope. "Maelstrom of War" is something separate.

We have seen the scan of the "roll for mission" page, there is "malstorm of war" mission table (6 of them) and the good all ethereal war table (same missions as 6th, at least by names)


Not to mention over half the armies already have their altar of war missions you can also use.
Then you got the cinematic missions (forgot their name) that got per-defined terrain, armies and such.

There are gaktons of missions to play, you don't like card? don't play cards.

I wonder how the 6 are differentiated.

Who knows?

That's part of the reason all the crying people annoy me, we really don't know anything about malstorm except "cards are involved"

I used to get so angry at the direction of the game. I started playing in 1991 with photocopied rogue trader books. Back then I didn't understand what a "competitive" game was and so it was great fun. Then I played some CCG's that were very competitive. I won many tournaments for various games and then when I returned to 40k I saw what a mess it was based on my expectation of what a good game should be.

After not playing 4th out of anger after my main army was gutted by codex change (Chaos marines) I picked up Blood Angels and enjoyed them. Then 6th came and nothing I could do made the game fun anymore I forced myself to break out of my mindset with 40k. I learned to not expect a "good" game and just enjoy playing with friends. No more tournaments, only casual games at friend's houses.

Now the game is great fun. I don't care so much about winning or how balanced things are, I play when we just want to kill some time together in a fun way. 7th is going even further into the non-competitive zone and that's ok. It's clearly what GW wants so you either go with it or you don't.

TLDR: Stop thinking that 40k is supposed to be a balanced competitive game and see it for what it is. If you don't want what they are offering, either stop playing it or write your own rules to suit you knowing no one else will adhere outside your group.

On topic, These random objective cards add an interesting mechanic to the game. Did they do it well? Of course not, this is GW we are talking about. Will it be fun? It will be for my group, they love random for the sake of random things.

How does one go from unable to do stuff with things you bought and which were suppose to do them , to having fun .
That is like having a care that you don't know , if it will turn left or right.

IMO if anything w40k is only good for tournaments. Someone can buy an army which at the given time is top tier. It will do what an army is suppose to do . On the other hand , if someone wants to play with what he wants , like for example your BAs. why bother with playing ? One can see friends without spending 300-450$ and the time be just as good , maybe even more so , because the frustration from spending money on something that doesn't work won't be there.

Makumba wrote:
How does one go from unable to do stuff with things you bought and which were suppose to do them , to having fun .
That is like having a care that you don't know , if it will turn left or right.

IMO if anything w40k is only good for tournaments. Someone can buy an army which at the given time is top tier. It will do what an army is suppose to do . On the other hand , if someone wants to play with what he wants , like for example your BAs. why bother with playing ? One can see friends without spending 300-450$ and the time be just as good , maybe even more so , because the frustration from spending money on something that doesn't work won't be there.

I don't disagree with you there. I would sell off my stuff and not touch 40k again if not for my group wanting to play it. So since I am going to be playing it anyway I needed to figure out how to reconcile the game in a way that I could still enjoy it. I thought my post relevant because of the reaction to the objectives. It seems to me that it is the old arguments from the "casual" crowd vs the "competitive" crowd. Are random objectives in the middle of the game competitive? No way. Getting random points just because have nothing to do with your tactics during the game and you could lose a well played game just because you were unlucky when you drew your objective cards.

yeah , but you already own an army . you liked it and then it went bad. Short or long term you played with it. Am more concerned about people like one of our friends , he was stupid to trust the clerks in the GW store and started a GK army , made out of GKs. Now he can't play at the GW anymore , unless he starts to buy more stuff. Not one of us wants to play him , because he will feel bad and we will feel bad too. And after playing some games in our FLGS , he knows he wasted money. How are we suppose to bring in more people in to the game , when we have someone who spend a huge pile of cash on something that doesn't work at all and worse it is impossible to make it work .

 Brotherjanus wrote:
TLDR: Stop thinking that 40k is supposed to be a balanced competitive game and see it for what it is. If you don't want what they are offering, either stop playing it or write your own rules to suit you knowing no one else will adhere outside your group.

Go have a look at the 'is 40k dying at your FLGS?' thread.

People don't like the discretion the game is going. People are quitting. And it is slowly killing the game.
Don't confuse you liking something with it being objectively good.

It is entirely possible to appeal to both 'competitive' players and 'causal' players, in fact there is little or no distinction between them in other, better written, games. GW however don't see a problem and insist that their way is the 'right' way to have fun. What we are seeing with these cards is that they are further pushing in the 'we want people to remember that time they rolled a 6 and won' mentality over any sort of tactical depth or strategic thinking on the players part. The fact that they are hemorrhaging sales and that 40k is no longer the predominate game in some places (or most rather, depending on there you live) tells you everything you need to know about how the 'if you don't like it quit' mentality is working out for the game.

I like the idea of objective cards. Represents the ever changing field of battle where sometimes a seemingly unimportant position all of a sudden becomes important. A battlefield is chaotic. You shouldn't be able to plan for everything. This adds a crimp into the game and makes it so that deathstars don't just auto win against non death star armies because the other side something to do other than try and stay away from the death star.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Go have a look at the 'is 40k dying at your FLGS?' thread.

Actually just as many people post positively in that thread..

bodazoka wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Go have a look at the 'is 40k dying at your FLGS?' thread.

Actually just as many people post positively in that thread..

I didn't see that but hell, lets say you are right. Just as many saying going strong as dying. Whats that, roughly 50/50?

That is utterly TERRIBLE considering 5-10 years ago there was no question that 40k was THE dominate game on the market.
Having only lost half there market domination is not a positive thing...

 jonolikespie wrote:


People don't like the discretion the game is going. People are quitting. And it is slowly killing the game.
Don't confuse you liking something with it being objectively good.

It is entirely possible to appeal to both 'competitive' players and 'causal' players, in fact there is little or no distinction between them in other, better written, games. GW however don't see a problem and insist that their way is the 'right' way to have fun. What we are seeing with these cards is that they are further pushing in the 'we want people to remember that time they rolled a 6 and won' mentality over any sort of tactical depth or strategic thinking on the players part. The fact that they are hemorrhaging sales and that 40k is no longer the predominate game in some places (or most rather, depending on there you live) tells you everything you need to know about how the 'if you don't like it quit' mentality is working out for the game.

If you read my entire post you'd see that I am basically a defeated player. I have spent enough money on things as to feel that I can't recoup it and I have friends that still like the game for whatever reason. Out of context, I can see why you'd think I was saying to like it or get out. What I am actually saying is that if you are like me (you like the models, you have friends that want to play, you have spent too much to get out now) then you need to find a way to make it enjoyable for yourself. The game designers themselves are not doing that for me (and many others or there wouldn't be threads like this), so if it requires house rules or a different edition then do that. If you can't find a way to enjoy it then you should stop playing. Forcing yourself to do something you don't enjoy as a hobby makes little sense.

 jonolikespie wrote:
'we want people to remember that time they rolled a 6 and won'

Hmmm sounds like the Variable game length, and yet pretty much all tournaments run off those rules and I consider them terrible. You can be clearly tabling an opponent with superior firepower but they win by 1 point at the end of turn 5 cause they rolled a 1 or a 2.