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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Sure, decline game with people who are also trying to enjoy the hobby. Don't play games. Don't support the hobby. Complain that the hobby is dying. It's not like you can do anything to save the hobby, you know, like supporting it, promoting it, and playing games. Oh no! You have to decline to play ant aspect of the game you disagree with, so it's the game that's killing itself, not you for being critical of others and bring inclusively elitist.


SJ

I thought this was supposed to be a game for fun, not a proselytizing religion.
If it's not fun for him, why would he continue to "promote" (aka. play) the game?
I say, expand your horizons and look at other games and see if they strike your fancy.

My Daemonkin are waiting. We play whatever comes. I love this dex, but it's not OP. Especially looking at the new SM dex. Play and loose is to play and learn.

 Massawyrm wrote:
Vaktathi: 10 of the 12 missions from the BRB are objective based. "Highly situational?" No. Just, no. In ITC-hammer maybe, but not in 40k. ObSec is a game winner. It's one of the things folks playing these new detachments will eventually learn the hard way.

Peregrine: In what world is a 25 troop transport with 14/13/12, 9 structure points and a S8 AP3 massive blast that also kills 1/6th of the survivors "garbage" for 410pts? Are there other variants I like better? Sure. But for 410, it's a GREAT tank. And the ABG is only 1 dimensional if you play it that way. Sure, it can be crippled by a heavy anti-tank army, but that's not the current meta. AV14 isn't the thing right now. People love their Gravcannons and their Scatterlasers. That's great for tank armies. I just shrug that gak off. And saying Elysian alpha strikes are worse than drop pod marines? What color is the sky on your world, P? 110pts gets me 10 DS dudes with 3 meltaguns at BS4. 15 more points gets me a ML with it or plasmaguns instead. Marines can't even touch that. For 110 they can get 5 DS dudes with 1 plasmagun. Elysians go down like chumps - just like every AS army - but they hit hard when they come down. Which is why you get more of them for the points. They hit WAY harder than SM. But if they can't wipe the opponent, they won't stick around long afterward. That's the tradeoff.

Master of Ordinance: Dude. Just....dude. Crack a codex, my man. We're talking about the Banehammer, not the Hellhammer. The Banehammer has a 60" range. It can deploy in the corner and hit almost anything on the board. The add ons on the Valk are 30, not 50pts, and yes, they're quite valuable when used right. But I was speaking more about the rest of the IG airforce than our standard workhorse. No one seems to want to gak on the Vulture. And for good reason. That thing is a beast for its points and at the heart of my initial comment. And the DKoK don't run. Which is why they cost more. You build them differently from standard IG, but their tenacity makes them amazing when used right.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, we IG players are forced to play from a 5th edition list in 7th edition 40K, without the priceings or upgrades or general buffs that we need. And we do not have any of these fancy formations to play with. We have to win through skill and it is an uphill battle every step of the way.

Yes. Welcome to Warhammer 40k. Where your codex will always fall to the back of the pack only to get a new bright and shiny codex that everyone else will eventually whine about on release. Does it suck that the AM codex fell so far behind so quickly? Yep. Sure does. It took the design team a while to figure out what they thought 7th should be. But with 10 codexes released in the first 6 months of this year, I have no doubt will get our new bright and shiny detachment/formation filled codex soon enough. Until then, pour over a couple of books and learn that we have a lot more options than you think we do.

I can count on one hand the number of times OS mattered, as can pretty much most of the forum. I really do think that it's such a minor benefit that you'd have to be bad for it to be that scary to you.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can count on one hand the number of times OS mattered, as can pretty much most of the forum. I really do think that it's such a minor benefit that you'd have to be bad for it to be that scary to you.

Considering Dakka's aversion to MoW missions, this doesn't surprise me. ObSec's use is far rarer in EW missions than it is in MoW, in which it isn't uncommon to see it come into play more than once in any given game. Considering I regularly play both, I've found it's better to have ObSec than not to. Arguably, ObSec tanks aren't nearly as sexy as ObSec bikes or jetbikes, but they still get the job done.

IG has super heavies? Were those added in WD or something, because they sure are not in the codex.

Makumba wrote:
IG has super heavies? Were those added in WD or something, because they sure are not in the codex.

They're in Escalation and various FW books. As you should know by now "what is in the codex" has very little to do with what an army is able to bring.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Sure, decline game with people who are also trying to enjoy the hobby. Don't play games. Don't support the hobby. Complain that the hobby is dying. It's not like you can do anything to save the hobby, you know, like supporting it, promoting it, and playing games. Oh no! You have to decline to play ant aspect of the game you disagree with, so it's the game that's killing itself, not you for being critical of others and bring inclusively elitist.


SJ

I thought this was supposed to be a game for fun, not a proselytizing religion.
If it's not fun for him, why would he continue to "promote" (aka. play) the game?
I say, expand your horizons and look at other games and see if they strike your fancy.

I said it earlier in the thread. The complaints against people who decline a game because it wouldn't be fun for them remind me of a girl being called stuck up because she declines a date with someone she's not attracted to.
Good hell people, it's a big hobby, and if someone doesn't 't want to have a game with you, find someone who will and move on!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I can count on one hand the number of times OS mattered, as can pretty much most of the forum. I really do think that it's such a minor benefit that you'd have to be bad for it to be that scary to you.

You've got to be kidding. If this feeling is as widespread as you say it is, perhaps that's why I haven't lost a tournament since they introduced "Objective Secured".

It's the most game-winning rule I've had access to since it released. The only time it "doesn't matter" is when your opponent also has tons of Obsec units. If they don't, and you're fast MSU obsec in an objective based mission, you're virtually guaranteed victory. If none of your own units are obsec, and your opponent's are, with an intelligent opponent, they will deliver you the L, regardless of how well your army performs against theirs. So long as your opponent doesn't table you, Obsec is the most surefire way to eek out that skin of your teeth victory.

Makumba wrote:
IG has super heavies? Were those added in WD or something, because they sure are not in the codex.

The Escalation supplement has them, as well as the various Forge World books. Some folks still argue that Forge World doesn't exist in 40k, but the same can't be said for Escalation. The IG section of Escalation is a de facto extension of the codex.

 Massawyrm wrote:
The IG section of Escalation is a de facto extension of the codex.

So are the FW books. The anti-FW argument is just as "legitimate" as the anti-Escalation argument and the anti-decurion argument and the anti-tactical-squad argument. All of them are official rules and are part of the standard game as created by GW, but you can choose not to include them in your own army or play against people who use them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Massawyrm wrote:
The IG section of Escalation is a de facto extension of the codex.

So are the FW books. The anti-FW argument is just as "legitimate" as the anti-Escalation argument and the anti-decurion argument and the anti-tactical-squad argument. All of them are official rules and are part of the standard game as created by GW, but you can choose not to include them in your own army or play against people who use them.

You and I are on the same page with this. I was just nipping it in the bud before this thread turned into a rehash of Dec '13.

 Massawyrm wrote:
Vaktathi: 10 of the 12 missions from the BRB are objective based. "Highly situational?" No. Just, no. In ITC-hammer maybe, but not in 40k. ObSec is a game winner. It's one of the things folks playing these new detachments will eventually learn the hard way.

Peregrine: In what world is a 25 troop transport with 14/13/12, 9 structure points and a S8 AP3 massive blast that also kills 1/6th of the survivors "garbage" for 410pts? Are there other variants I like better? Sure. But for 410, it's a GREAT tank. And the ABG is only 1 dimensional if you play it that way. Sure, it can be crippled by a heavy anti-tank army, but that's not the current meta. AV14 isn't the thing right now. People love their Gravcannons and their Scatterlasers. That's great for tank armies. I just shrug that gak off. And saying Elysian alpha strikes are worse than drop pod marines? What color is the sky on your world, P? 110pts gets me 10 DS dudes with 3 meltaguns at BS4. 15 more points gets me a ML with it or plasmaguns instead. Marines can't even touch that. For 110 they can get 5 DS dudes with 1 plasmagun. Elysians go down like chumps - just like every AS army - but they hit hard when they come down. Which is why you get more of them for the points. They hit WAY harder than SM. But if they can't wipe the opponent, they won't stick around long afterward. That's the tradeoff.

Master of Ordinance: Dude. Just....dude. Crack a codex, my man. We're talking about the Banehammer, not the Hellhammer. The Banehammer has a 60" range. It can deploy in the corner and hit almost anything on the board. The add ons on the Valk are 30, not 50pts, and yes, they're quite valuable when used right. But I was speaking more about the rest of the IG airforce than our standard workhorse. No one seems to want to gak on the Vulture. And for good reason. That thing is a beast for its points and at the heart of my initial comment. And the DKoK don't run. Which is why they cost more. You build them differently from standard IG, but their tenacity makes them amazing when used right.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, we IG players are forced to play from a 5th edition list in 7th edition 40K, without the priceings or upgrades or general buffs that we need. And we do not have any of these fancy formations to play with. We have to win through skill and it is an uphill battle every step of the way.

Yes. Welcome to Warhammer 40k. Where your codex will always fall to the back of the pack only to get a new bright and shiny codex that everyone else will eventually whine about on release. Does it suck that the AM codex fell so far behind so quickly? Yep. Sure does. It took the design team a while to figure out what they thought 7th should be. But with 10 codexes released in the first 6 months of this year, I have no doubt will get our new bright and shiny detachment/formation filled codex soon enough. Until then, pour over a couple of books and learn that we have a lot more options than you think we do.

Sorry, I do get a bit toxic when talking about stuff like this. It is just that our codex was not even top tier to begin with and within a couple of months it had been reduced to a lower tier codex. Im also a bit peeved about a certain epic giant chainsword being blatantly stolen and given to the SM forces.
Without that the priest has lost most uses.

Within a few months??? It was low tier when it dropped. Now it looks like a speck of dust in a deep valley from the perch some of the new dexes have. And I'm not a guard player, so no bias there. In fact - my renegades outmatch you in every single slot.

The whole 'when your dex drops it'll be as amazing' falls flat on its face when you consider:
-AM
-MT
-BA
-Nids (aside from ONE unit)
-Orks
-Inquisition
-DE
-CSM
-KDK
-DA
And arguably
-SW
-GK
-SoB
-Tau (although admittedly WERE amazing when they dropped)

In fact the only ones who have been this astouding are:
-Crons
-CWE
-Skittari
-SMs

Don't know squat about harlies or Mechanicus to say anything about them. And deamons are an odd one, quite a few strong builds from them.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Within a few months??? It was low tier when it dropped. Now it looks like a speck of dust in a deep valley from the perch some of the new dexes have. And I'm not a guard player, so no bias there. In fact - my renegades outmatch you in every single slot.

The whole 'when your dex drops it'll be as amazing' falls flat on its face when you consider:
-AM
-MT
-BA
-Nids (aside from ONE unit)
-Orks
-Inquisition
-DE
-CSM
-KDK
-DA
And arguably
-SW
-GK
-SoB
-Tau (although admittedly WERE amazing when they dropped)

In fact the only ones who have been this astouding are:
-Crons
-CWE
-Skittari
-SMs

Don't know squat about harlies or Mechanicus to say anything about them. And deamons are an odd one, quite a few strong builds from them.

Yeah, the Cron dex was the beginning of a new 7th ed model at GW. The 6th ed codex model was bad - drop a dex in which the new units/kits were beefier than the old, add supplements later to give more options and correct any mistakes (like Nids). The new model of detachments and formations allows them to make every unit great and give a power boost to armies that buy a wide range of models - meaning they're pushing new models out the door with older kits. They're actually back in business of making armies great rather than focusing on specific units because, SURPRISE, that's how you sell models.

AM will no doubt get vehicle squadrons with nasty boosts and a detachment that does something on par with the others. Considering the success of the SM codex, free transports might become a thing. GW wants too sell kits. These detachments sell kits. Expect an update soon, and expect that it won't suck.

Relapse wrote:


I said it earlier in the thread. The complaints against people who decline a game because it wouldn't be fun for them remind me of a girl being called stuck up because she declines a date with someone she's not attracted to.
Good hell people, it's a big hobby, and if someone doesn't 't want to have a game with you, find someone who will and move on!

My problem is that where I live it is not a big hobby. It was in 5th and even parts of 6th. Had well over 80 players here, Now we have less then 30, and aside of me and one orc player, all of them have access to formations. If I say no to formations or decurion style list, I can have one opponent. And that is technily one opponent as the orc player doesn't realy come that offten to the shop.

The Escalation supplement has them, as well as the various Forge World books. Some folks still argue that Forge World doesn't exist in 40k, but the same can't be said for Escalation. The IG section of Escalation is a de facto extension of the codex.

So IG is balanced around an out of print book and FW? So a bit like end of 6th where the only way to have fun was to load up on 9 saber weapon platforms. Nice thing, I guess.

Makumba wrote:
So IG is balanced around an out of print book and FW? So a bit like end of 6th where the only way to have fun was to load up on 9 saber weapon platforms. Nice thing, I guess.

No, IG is still balanced for 6th ed, with a very much still in print book, with FW providing a larger number of options than for any other army.

 Massawyrm wrote:
Vaktathi: 10 of the 12 missions from the BRB are objective based. "Highly situational?" No. Just, no. In ITC-hammer maybe, but not in 40k. ObSec is a game winner. It's one of the things folks playing these new detachments will eventually learn the hard way.

Just because a mission is objective based doesn't mean that ObSec is going to matter. Again, we're talking extremely mobility challenged tanks, that are likely to be auto-killed if anything is close enough to contest. On top of that, ObSec only matters IF:

1: you are within range of an objective to claim or contest it (if you're not on the objective, ObSec isn't doing anything)
2: the objective is contested (if an opponent isn't contesting it, then ObSec doesn't kick in)
3: you're at a point in the game where the contesting matters (e.g.turn 5+ in an eternal war mission, or a Maelstrom mission where someone has actually rolled the objective in question).
4: the objective in question actually matters in deciding the outcome of the game (e.g. you both hold an objective and are fighting over a third for the decision, if you're up 4-1, getting an ObSec unit to the 6th objective isn't changing the outcome).

If none of these are true, then ObSec does nothing. I honestly cannot recall the last time I saw ObSec make any difference to the outcome of a game. I know for sure it did not decide a single game in either of the last two tournaments I attended of ~16 players.

Is it worthless? No. Is it a gigantic, routinely game winning advantage? No. Is it tremendously useful on heavy battle tanks restricted to 6" movement a turn (with no Flat Out possible) and exceedingly vulnerable to close combat from a possible contesting unit? No.

 Massawyrm wrote:

Makumba wrote:
So IG is balanced around an out of print book and FW? So a bit like end of 6th where the only way to have fun was to load up on 9 saber weapon platforms. Nice thing, I guess.

No, IG is still balanced for 6th ed, with a very much still in print book, with FW providing a larger number of options than for any other army.

To be fair, they're a book released in 6E with balance changes centered entirely around 5E performance

The CSM book has many of the same issues, most of the units are built around a 5E or even 4E paradigm in many instances, and it's no wonder that they don't do well in 7E

 Vaktathi wrote:
Just because a mission is objective based doesn't mean that ObSec is going to matter. Again, we're talking extremely mobility challenged tanks, that are likely to be auto-killed if anything is close enough to contest. On top of that, ObSec only matters IF:

1: you are within range of an objective to claim or contest it (if you're not on the objective, ObSec isn't doing anything)
2: the objective is contested (if an opponent isn't contesting it, then ObSec doesn't kick in)
3: you're at a point in the game where the contesting matters (e.g.turn 5+ in an eternal war mission, or a Maelstrom mission where someone has actually rolled the objective in question).
4: the objective in question actually matters in deciding the outcome of the game (e.g. you both hold an objective and are fighting over a third for the decision, if you're up 4-1, getting an ObSec unit to the 6th objective isn't changing the outcome).

If none of these are true, then ObSec does nothing. I honestly cannot recall the last time I saw ObSec make any difference to the outcome of a game. I know for sure it did not decide a single game in either of the last two tournaments I attended of ~16 players.

Is it worthless? No. Is it a gigantic, routinely game winning advantage? No. Is it tremendously useful on heavy battle tanks restricted to 6" movement a turn (with no Flat Out possible) and exceedingly vulnerable to close combat from a possible contesting unit? No.

ObSec matters when you play as if it does. In a tournament meta like yours in which the meta doesn't care about ObSec, it's going to seem to mean diddly. But when you play to win with it, you focus your fire on opposing ObSec units to ensure the final objective grab is going to be unopposed. ABG played with only tanks is silly - that's why we have Centaurs. I usually run two, keep them hidden if need be, then run them out for a last minute objective grab. Tanks hold any mid to back field objectives, Centaurs go for the long distance ones. It doesn't matter how much of your army you have left if I control more objectives than you. Most players in tournament settings play to wipe. Consistent winners play the mission, not their opponent.

 Massawyrm wrote:

ObSec matters when you play as if it does. In a tournament meta like yours in which the meta doesn't care about ObSec, it's going to seem to mean diddly. But when you play to win with it, you focus your fire on opposing ObSec units to ensure the final objective grab is going to be unopposed. ABG played with only tanks is silly - that's why we have Centaurs. I usually run two, keep them hidden if need be, then run them out for a last minute objective grab. Tanks hold any mid to back field objectives, Centaurs go for the long distance ones. It doesn't matter how much of your army you have left if I control more objectives than you. Most players in tournament settings play to wipe. Consistent winners play the mission, not their opponent.

In Malifaux we talk a lot about objective runners. Units that in many cases are useless both at surviving and killing, but that are brought specifically to go collect points before dying. As Malifaux is won entirely on points with very few objectives awarding points for killing, these units are basically your bread and butter for winning games. New players often have a hard time grasping the concept of a unit that isn't killing anything being able to win the game. Luckily for my full Skitarii force, 40k players are exactly the type of people I am referring to. I'm able to play very casually because my force that can't get obsec is entirely valid since no one uses their obsec except by accident anyway.

I like the way it is done in infinity. A lot of models can do some of the missions, but specials do some very well and because missions are dynamic durning list building I wouldl have try to balance them. But to be honest skirmish systems don't compare well to a system based around IGYG and alfa strikes stun locking half of an army w40.

As object secured goes it is a good thing to have for transports, if they are cheap. An object secure rhino or pod are nice objective holders. At worse they draw fire power away from other stuff.

My major gripe is that formations have been introduced to drive sales. Nothing else. They should have stayed in Apoc and I think they are causing some severe balance issues. The powercreap is increasing rapidly in Wh40k imho.
(as an example that formation in the new sm codex, 2 assault squads, 2 dev squads in droppods, clearly designed to promote the new kits and with insane bonus...)

 aliusexalio wrote:
My major gripe is that formations have been introduced to drive sales. Nothing else. They should have stayed in Apoc and I think they are causing some severe balance issues. The powercreap is increasing rapidly in Wh40k imho.
(as an example that formation in the new sm codex, 2 assault squads, 2 dev squads in droppods, clearly designed to promote the new kits and with insane bonus...)

As Vaktathi put it earlier, GW are a miniatures company first and a game company second. They are more than willing to break the game if it means that they can sell more models. Formations are just GW's new way of getting people to buy models.

The power creep has been real, especially since Necrons. Dark Angels appear to be a step down, but still ahead of the pre-Necron codexes. However, none of these formations are either broken or unbeatable. The problem is that the pre-Necron codexes don't have formations of a similar power level, making it an uphill struggle when playing against some of the more recent 7th edition books.

 aliusexalio wrote:
My major gripe is that formations have been introduced to drive sales. Nothing else. They should have stayed in Apoc and I think they are causing some severe balance issues. The powercreap is increasing rapidly in Wh40k imho.
(as an example that formation in the new sm codex, 2 assault squads, 2 dev squads in droppods, clearly designed to promote the new kits and with insane bonus...)

Agreed and exalted

 Massawyrm wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Just because a mission is objective based doesn't mean that ObSec is going to matter. Again, we're talking extremely mobility challenged tanks, that are likely to be auto-killed if anything is close enough to contest. On top of that, ObSec only matters IF:

1: you are within range of an objective to claim or contest it (if you're not on the objective, ObSec isn't doing anything)
2: the objective is contested (if an opponent isn't contesting it, then ObSec doesn't kick in)
3: you're at a point in the game where the contesting matters (e.g.turn 5+ in an eternal war mission, or a Maelstrom mission where someone has actually rolled the objective in question).
4: the objective in question actually matters in deciding the outcome of the game (e.g. you both hold an objective and are fighting over a third for the decision, if you're up 4-1, getting an ObSec unit to the 6th objective isn't changing the outcome).

If none of these are true, then ObSec does nothing. I honestly cannot recall the last time I saw ObSec make any difference to the outcome of a game. I know for sure it did not decide a single game in either of the last two tournaments I attended of ~16 players.

Is it worthless? No. Is it a gigantic, routinely game winning advantage? No. Is it tremendously useful on heavy battle tanks restricted to 6" movement a turn (with no Flat Out possible) and exceedingly vulnerable to close combat from a possible contesting unit? No.

ObSec matters when you play as if it does. In a tournament meta like yours in which the meta doesn't care about ObSec, it's going to seem to mean diddly. But when you play to win with it, you focus your fire on opposing ObSec units to ensure the final objective grab is going to be unopposed. ABG played with only tanks is silly - that's why we have Centaurs. I usually run two, keep them hidden if need be, then run them out for a last minute objective grab. Tanks hold any mid to back field objectives, Centaurs go for the long distance ones. It doesn't matter how much of your army you have left if I control more objectives than you. Most players in tournament settings play to wipe. Consistent winners play the mission, not their opponent.

I'm not debating that you need to play to the mission, but again, ObSec only makes a difference if all of the above conditions hold true. If you're holding an objective, on a turn it matters, and it's going to decide the outcome of the game, but it's not contested, then ObSec didn't do anything. If you hold an objective, with an ObSec unit, and it's contested, but you're losing 1-5, well, its effect technically kicks in, but in regards to the outcome of the game, you might as well not have it, you're still losing. If you're holding an objective that's contested with an ObSec unit that's critical to how the game turns out, but it's turn 2 in an Eternal War mission, it' not doing anything relevant yet. If you're holding an Objective with an ObSec unit, that's contested by a non-ObSec unit, in a Maelstrom mission, but nobody rolled for that objective, again, doesn't do anything for anyone.

Playing to objectives wins missions, but ObSec isn't critical to winning those. It's nice, but not a routinely game-winning deal. I think I've won a single game with it. One will notice that a lack of ObSec hardly makes players of other armies bat an eye to lose in exchange for formation or alternate detachment benefits, and this is because ObSec is a highly conditional rule, even if playing to the mission and primarily on objectives. Killing power usually just works better, especially when it's skyrocketing currently through formation benefits and the introduction of things like D weapons and squadron benefits.

Meanwhile, sure, Centaurs with armoured fist vets can be nice in Maelstrom missions, and can get you ObSec on something other than slow Russ tanks, but the original comment was made that while the tanks are pricier they get ObSec, which doesn't work very well on them. Likewise, AV11/10/10 HP2 non-skimmer transports with 5 T3 5+sv Ld7/8 models is a very easy objective nabbing unit toi neutralize that's not likely going to live in most games past turn 2 or 3.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Playing to objectives wins missions, but ObSec isn't critical to winning those. It's nice, but not a routinely game-winning deal.

I completely disagree. I've used Obsec to win countless games. It's even more valuable when your opponent thinks like you do. If you don't have Obsec and I do, I don't even have to win combats. I just have to SURVIVE combats without running away. In this manner, my cheaper, inferior troops unit(Such as a unit of 10 point wyches) can win out an objective against a more expensive, superior unit that would eventually beat them in combat.

Further, by promoting the attitude that ObSec isn't a game-winning rule, it makes it more game-winning. The fewer people that take ObSec, the more powerful ObSec becomes. That's the whole issue here. It's a shifting metagame. If no one in your meta takes ObSec, ObSec is VERY powerful. If EVERYONE in your meta takes ObSec, it's not particularly powerful, but you STILL have to have it to keep the other guy from using it to steal all your objectives.

Just an example of how Obsec wins games: You went 2nd. You take 2 land speeders as dedicated transports for troops units, but you don't start the troops on their transports. Instead, you reserve the transports and bring them in later. When they do arrive, you keep them hidden from LoS as best as possible, and generally don't do a whole lot with them to make them a priority target. The game is close and grinds into round 5 with both you and your opponent controlling 2 objectives each. Almost all your infantry are on objectives and locked in combat. In your own deployment zone, your troops are locked in combat with Obsec against his non-Obsec attackers, therefore you control the objectives. In your opponent's zone, your Elite's who don't have Obsec are locked in combat with his non-obsec unit contesting an objective. You just merrily zoom your land speeder over next to your Elite troop to change the objective from "contested" to "Objective Secured", thereby giving you the win.

I've not only "Won" games with ObSec, but I completely destroy my opponent in points, which is important in many tournament formats. It's not only about winning, but by how much you win. Because of this, every point that ObSec wins you is vital. Now, granted, I'm a tournament player, so that may be why other people have a different view of the importance of ObSec. It might not always be the determining factor in an individual game. Many times, if you scored extra points by having ObSec, you may have very well won anyhow. But while ObSec isn't necessary to win a game, I'd say it's pretty instrumental in winning most tournaments, where very few points seperate the top 10 players.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Playing to objectives wins missions, but ObSec isn't critical to winning those. It's nice, but not a routinely game-winning deal.

I completely disagree. I've used Obsec to win countless games. It's even more valuable when your opponent thinks like you do. If you don't have Obsec and I do, I don't even have to win combats. I just have to SURVIVE combats without running away. In this manner, my cheaper, inferior troops unit(Such as a unit of 10 point wyches) can win out an objective against a more expensive, superior unit that would eventually beat them in combat.

Assuming they aren't shot to pieces, forced to fall back, and, most importantly, that the game ends when you need it to, etc. That's a lot of "if's".

*If* they're even on an objective. *If* the objective is contested. *if* it's at a point in the game where holding it matters. *if* holding that objective makes a difference in the winning objective count. *If* your unit survives. And another one, *If* the other unit also doesn't have ObSec (if both have it, it's the same as if neither had it). All of these conditions have to be met for Objective Secured to have had meaningful value.

People make it seem like this is something that others don't think about. I've very definitely thought about it. At the beginning of 7E, I was all hot on ObSec like everyone else. In the year since it's release, I just haven't seen it swing the outcome of many games, particularly non-Maelstrom missions. It's utility is also highly variable between armies. ObSec also can be far better leveraged by armies that have things that can move to objectives very easily, things like Fast Skimmers, Jetbikes, Deep Striking units like Drop Pods (honestly, probably 75% of the time I've seen ObSec make a difference in a game at all, it was Drop Pods) etc. For other armies that don't have these tools, it's simply much more economical and effective to just concentrate on destroying the scoring units, ObSec or no.

Further, by promoting the attitude that ObSec isn't a game-winning rule, it makes it more game-winning. The fewer people that take ObSec, the more powerful ObSec becomes. That's the whole issue here. It's a shifting metagame. If no one in your meta takes ObSec, ObSec is VERY powerful. If EVERYONE in your meta takes ObSec, it's not particularly powerful, but you STILL have to have it to keep the other guy from using it to steal all your objectives.

Maybe? I've played against armies with a dozen or more ObSec units and played *with* armies with roughly that many ObSec units, I've never found myself to be particularly crippled or advantaged either way except in one game where ObSec made the difference (and that was against another army that also had ObSec...just all their ObSec units were dead).

I'm not saying ObSec can't provide value, but it's not a meta-crushing super-rule. It can be useful, but is super conditional. Against many opponents, it may never matter, it only kicks in if they're contesting objectives, and if they're not doing that then ObSec isn't doing anything.

What I see quite often is a confusion of "playing to mission objectives" and ObSec being the same thing, when it's not. ObSec assists in that, but is a conditional bonus that aids in that, but does not define it.

Just an example of how Obsec wins games: You went 2nd. You take 2 land speeders as dedicated transports for troops units, but you don't start the troops on their transports. Instead, you reserve the transports and bring them in later. When they do arrive, you keep them hidden from LoS as best as possible, and generally don't do a whole lot with them to make them a priority target. The game is close and grinds into round 5 with both you and your opponent controlling 2 objectives each. Almost all your infantry are on objectives and locked in combat. In your own deployment zone, your troops are locked in combat with Obsec against his non-Obsec attackers, therefore you control the objectives. In your opponent's zone, your Elite's who don't have Obsec are locked in combat with his non-obsec unit contesting an objective. You just merrily zoom your land speeder over next to your Elite troop to change the objective from "contested" to "Objective Secured", thereby giving you the win.

There are a gigantic number of conditionals here, lots of "if's" that are very easily not fulfilled.


You're hoping the game ends turn 5, because if it goes on to turn 6 it's likely those AV10/10/10 HP2 speeders are dead (and if anything could draw LoS to them before at all, or didn't need LoS, it's likely they're dead by this point anyway) and it's likely that the Scouts aren't going to survive combat much longer against most anything an opponent would throw into combat against a unit of Scouts in the opposing deployment zone.

Your troops are SM Scouts if they're taking a Land Speeder transport, What are they going to be locked in combat with that's not going to destroy them in rather short order, especially if softened up first?

Already, from the outset, the speeders are pointless if the two objectives in your opponents deployment zone are contested, you're holding 2-0, not 2-2. ObSec on the speeders changes nothing, it only mattered for the Scouts in your own deployment zone.

This entire thing is dependent on a very specific scenario that you're simply not going to see in most games, and relies on every conditional I put forward previously being true. The ObSec side is winning only because of its Scouts in its own deployment zone. If the game goes past turn 5 and the Scouts are killed in CC, then the Opponent is going to win unless you can somehow get those Land Speeders back across the board, intact, to contest the objectives in your own deployment zone, which they may not be able to do unless they survive to a turn 7 through a possible two additional shooting phases.

This a very specific scenario. Yes, ObSec can make a difference in a game like this. But if you change just about anything, then ObSec becomes dramatically less useful or completely irrelevant. If they're not contesting, then ObSec doesn't do anything. If you change up who holds what, then ObSec's value becomes much less relevant. If the game goes on beyond turn 5, ObSec is likely to become irrelevant as those fragile units are likely easily destroyed. If they just shot your units to death instead of getting in there with a CC unit, ObSec would mean nothing.

See what I'm getting at here? ObSec only matters because a number of very specific conditions hold true, a set of conditions that are relatively mutable. They change, and ObSec's importance becomes questionable.

I've not only "Won" games with ObSec, but I completely destroy my opponent in points, which is important in many tournament formats. It's not only about winning, but by how much you win.

This is an artificial construct outside the core game rules that varies from event to event. We've absolutely seen that armies lacking ObSec have no problem placing very highly in tournaments like Adepticon, and that ObSec doesn't

The issue is that you're saying that the rule is conditional, but arguing that they're coincidental, ignoring the players who play toward achieving those conditions. Those conditions don't happen by accident. They are the soul of our strategy.

 Massawyrm wrote:
The issue is that you're saying that the rule is conditional, but arguing that they're coincidental, ignoring the players who play toward achieving those conditions. Those conditions don't happen by accident. They are the soul of our strategy.

I get that, but it's an extremely flimsy strategy if you're relying on ObSec to win you games on a consistent basis, especially in the example given, and the strategy of "lots of scoring units/lots of fast scoring units" works very often even without ObSec, and most armies don't feel crippled at all if they don't have it. You don't see Necron Decurion armies for instance running around feeling like the lack of ObSec is a crippling flaw, because it's not, just as its availability on overcosted Armoured Battlegroup Russ tanks is not much of a boon. ObSec is a nice "extra trim" option that can make or break a game at the margins, but will only very rarely decide a game on its own.

I am of the opinion that formations are a good thing happening to WH40K. I take formations with,a grain of salt in regards to how they are employed. It allows folks to field armies in another manner than unbound or CAD.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Playing to objectives wins missions, but ObSec isn't critical to winning those. It's nice, but not a routinely game-winning deal.

I completely disagree. I've used Obsec to win countless games. It's even more valuable when your opponent thinks like you do. If you don't have Obsec and I do, I don't even have to win combats. I just have to SURVIVE combats without running away. In this manner, my cheaper, inferior troops unit(Such as a unit of 10 point wyches) can win out an objective against a more expensive, superior unit that would eventually beat them in combat.

Further, by promoting the attitude that ObSec isn't a game-winning rule, it makes it more game-winning. The fewer people that take ObSec, the more powerful ObSec becomes. That's the whole issue here. It's a shifting metagame. If no one in your meta takes ObSec, ObSec is VERY powerful. If EVERYONE in your meta takes ObSec, it's not particularly powerful, but you STILL have to have it to keep the other guy from using it to steal all your objectives.

Just an example of how Obsec wins games: You went 2nd. You take 2 land speeders as dedicated transports for troops units, but you don't start the troops on their transports. Instead, you reserve the transports and bring them in later. When they do arrive, you keep them hidden from LoS as best as possible, and generally don't do a whole lot with them to make them a priority target. The game is close and grinds into round 5 with both you and your opponent controlling 2 objectives each. Almost all your infantry are on objectives and locked in combat. In your own deployment zone, your troops are locked in combat with Obsec against his non-Obsec attackers, therefore you control the objectives. In your opponent's zone, your Elite's who don't have Obsec are locked in combat with his non-obsec unit contesting an objective. You just merrily zoom your land speeder over next to your Elite troop to change the objective from "contested" to "Objective Secured", thereby giving you the win.

I've not only "Won" games with ObSec, but I completely destroy my opponent in points, which is important in many tournament formats. It's not only about winning, but by how much you win. Because of this, every point that ObSec wins you is vital. Now, granted, I'm a tournament player, so that may be why other people have a different view of the importance of ObSec. It might not always be the determining factor in an individual game. Many times, if you scored extra points by having ObSec, you may have very well won anyhow. But while ObSec isn't necessary to win a game, I'd say it's pretty instrumental in winning most tournaments, where very few points seperate the top 10 players.

I see too many tablings for this to be a thing.