Switch Theme:

Thoughts on tactical objectives  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Like them or hate them?
Like
Dislike
Indifferent
Other, please specify

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Long-Range Land Speeder Pilot





A small, damp hole somewhere in England

 Redbeard wrote:
I played my first 7th games over the weekend. I really did not like the Maelstrom of War effect on the game.

It took any concept of mutli-turn strategy out of the game. Instead of thinking ahead where men needed to be, the only real approach was to take highly mobile units that could be anywhere they needed to be on a moment's notice.

I had a unit of eldar jetbikes, and my opponent did not. I won something like 16-6.

This was not really reflective of how the game was going. Instead, I just had a unit that could hop from one place to another quickly, allowing me to cycle through cards much faster than my opponent. Realistically, our game was decided on turn 2, at which point I had seen and scored five cards to his 2. His remaining cards were all either objectives well across a hammer&anvil deployment, or things that were unlikely (declare a challenge, when neither of us were fielding particularly assaulty lists),and he could only discard one/turn.

Meanwhile, I was consistently able to score 2-3 a turn, thanks to the mobility my bikes provided, and he couldn't even plan in advance to contest where they'd go, because I didn't draw new ones until the beginning of my turn. It was more like solitaire than a wargame. At the beginning of my turn, I'd see where I needed to move my unit, move it, and score points, all without interaction from my opponent.

We discussed this after the game, and came up with some ideas to make these more fun and interactive.

1) You may immediately discard and replace any card that is impossible to achieve. (Destroy a fortification if your opponent did not bring one). Not ones that are hard, or unlikely, but truly impossible.

2) All mission objective cards are to remain hidden until scored. Because bluffing is fun, and you shouldn't know what your enemy's plans are ahead of time.

3) You can choose to keep or replace an objective when you score it. Because while requirements in war may change, your commander is not so schizophrenic as to require you to advance 20 yards, and then turn around and retreat 20 yards.

4) For all 'Secure Objective X' cards, replace with the following:

"Reveal this card when one of your units gains control of Objective X. Score 1 Victory Point if you control Objective X at the beginning of your turn. Score 1 Victory Point if you control Objective X at the end of the game."

This makes the process far more interactive, as now scoring a point isn't simply a matter of putting a fast unit there, you have to work to ensure that the unit can remain there, and your opponent has an opportunity to prevent you earning the point.


This pretty much sums up my experience, except I was on the receiving end of it when my Chaos marines took on Eldar.

Not only were they both tougher and shootier than me, they could also grab objectives with impunity, while I couldn't get anywhere near them. It didn't help that the initial card draw gave them two objectives they already had - while the same draw gave me three in enemy territory.

In the end I scored a single victory point to their 16 or so - I don't mind losing fair and square, but I do mind losing when I feel I had no chance whatsoever of winning, which was the case here.

One suggestion I'd make is to change it so that you need to hold an objective until the end of the enemy turn - this at least gives people a chance to knock their opponent off the objective, and it means that super-fast scoring units are not an auto-win - they also need to hold that ground for at least a small period of time.

Follow the White Scars Fifth Brotherhood as they fight in the Yarov sector - battle report #7 against Eldar here
   
Made in au
Oberstleutnant






Perth, West Australia

Damn that does sound fething ridiculous.
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

I really like Redbeard's suggestion of playing the card on your turn but only getting the points if you still hold it at the start of your next turn.

It would make you actually commit to holding it rather than just throwing a 3 man jetbike unit at it and scoring the points immediately.

Will be trying that out with our communal hand approach.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in au
Oberstleutnant






Perth, West Australia

 Eldarain wrote:
I really like Redbeard's suggestion of playing the card on your turn but only getting the points if you still hold it at the start of your next turn.

It would make you actually commit to holding it rather than just throwing a 3 man jetbike unit at it and scoring the points immediately.

Will be trying that out with our communal hand approach.

I don't think that's enough honestly. I'm much more partial to at the very least, determining objectives before the game which don't change which are counted at the end. Then *maybe* adding (or optionally swapping out if you realize you can't achieve one after all) once at turn 3 or 4, something like that.
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

 Yonan wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
I really like Redbeard's suggestion of playing the card on your turn but only getting the points if you still hold it at the start of your next turn.

It would make you actually commit to holding it rather than just throwing a 3 man jetbike unit at it and scoring the points immediately.

Will be trying that out with our communal hand approach.

I don't think that's enough honestly. I'm much more partial to at the very least, determining objectives before the game which don't change which are counted at the end. Then *maybe* adding (or optionally swapping out if you realize you can't achieve one after all) once at turn 3 or 4, something like that.

I can understand your being partial to a hybridized system. I just really loathe the "Musical Chairs" objective system which overly favours the insanely mobile. (Eldar Jetbikes Nightscythe embarked Necrons etc.)

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: