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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well sure, if you change the whole primary scoring method. I was responding to people who seemed to think the game would be better with the current missions and primary scoring method but no secondaries, and that just isn't true.

In the current system the secondaries are the only thing that makes one game different from another.

Would not a different primary objective change the game?
Control center? Control Quarters? Control Deployment zone?

Each of these requires a different strategy and is going to have different action points on the map. The secondary objectives you think ad to game variety actually just reduce the number of unit selections that are viable. They force you to build a list a certain way or you lose because you are "too easy to score against" or some other stupid reason.

Know what is actually really boring? Playing a game you are down 20 points with no chance at recovering because of stupid secondary objectives.

Yeah, I think you're agreeing with him here dude.

If you put me in charge of designing missions for 40k, I would go for this:

First, the players roll off. The winner then determines 1 of 2 courses of outcome:

1) Roll randomly to determine the mission. After deployment, roll randomly to determine who goes first.

2) That player then chooses a mission, choosing whether they attack or defend in the mission where relevant. The opposing player then always goes first.

Mission 1: Hold objectives in a cluster near the center of the board

Mission 2: Attacker/Defender mission. Objectives are on Defender's deployment zone line, and the defender scores 1 point progressively for each turn they hold them, while the attacker burns them down for several points when they seize them.

Mission 3: Hold objectives toward the back corners of the map. Score double points for the objectives in your opponent's map quarters.

Mission 4: Players deploy 6 objectives scattered across the battlefield, and each turn determines randomly up to 2 objectives they must go and seize - only objectives they aren't currently holding can be targeted.

Mission 5: One objective in each DZ, one objective in the dead center.

Mission 6: Each player nominates 3 models on the battlefield from their army to defend. Their opponent scores points for killing them, and when they are destroyed an objective is placed down on the map where the unit was, which either player can score points for at the end of the battle (more points if you score an objective spawned by an opposing unit).

Xenomancers wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well sure, if you change the whole primary scoring method. I was responding to people who seemed to think the game would be better with the current missions and primary scoring method but no secondaries, and that just isn't true.

In the current system the secondaries are the only thing that makes one game different from another.

Would not a different primary objective change the game?
Control center? Control Quarters? Control Deployment zone?

Each of these requires a different strategy and is going to have different action points on the map. The secondary objectives you think ad to game variety actually just reduce the number of unit selections that are viable. They force you to build a list a certain way or you lose because you are "too easy to score against" or some other stupid reason.

Know what is actually really boring? Playing a game you are down 20 points with no chance at recovering because of stupid secondary objectives.

bingo, the game should never be won in the building of lists. I'm a big fan of randomly determining the mission/objective, makes it harder to effectively run a skew list since the mission can make that skew a liability.

Nah I am in total disagreement. The game would be a better game without secondaries straight up. The game does not need them.

On your point scotty. Yeah - I like that kind of layout you are suggesting. Though instead of being random - the player going second will automatically get to choose the mission type and deployment zone and obviously no STI. I would however remove all progressive scoring. primary objective is scored at the end of the game. In situations where there is a draw of some kind. You just count numbers of points destroyed as a tie breaker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well sure, if you change the whole primary scoring method. I was responding to people who seemed to think the game would be better with the current missions and primary scoring method but no secondaries, and that just isn't true.

In the current system the secondaries are the only thing that makes one game different from another.

Would not a different primary objective change the game?
Control center? Control Quarters? Control Deployment zone?

Each of these requires a different strategy and is going to have different action points on the map. The secondary objectives you think ad to game variety actually just reduce the number of unit selections that are viable. They force you to build a list a certain way or you lose because you are "too easy to score against" or some other stupid reason.

Know what is actually really boring? Playing a game you are down 20 points with no chance at recovering because of stupid secondary objectives.

bingo, the game should never be won in the building of lists. I'm a big fan of randomly determining the mission/objective, makes it harder to effectively run a skew list since the mission can make that skew a liability.

Glad I'm not the only one that finds this type of scoring to be asinine. Random mission is great. Building a list to the mission is boring to me. I want to make a TAC list to fight my opponents army - not to hide behind walls and achieve gamey objectives.

Karol wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:


We're talking 10-15 rolls there - how the heck is that taking you half an hour?

simple. I need specific units with specific powers, and my characters are using the PA psychic school, while the units have to use the codex one. So I am going to be fishing for specific powers. It is not going to be, take 3 dice for 3 units of termintors and roll in go. Same with the two apothecary, my paladin unit. Some units, like the dreadnought would have to be cut from the army, because without being able to fire outside of LoS it becomes a really overcosted and bad unit.

It can easily be multiple 10s of minutes if I have to decide, specialy if I have to take accout terrain, opposing army etc. Some powers like the PA ones are so crucial to GK working, that playing without them or with the wrong ones on wrong characters, you may as well not play GK at all, because you get a pre PA evel of army. It would be as if someone else had to roll basic gear on their units.

Your unit choice happens before the game, in listbuilding.

You would show up to the game and do this for all your psyker units :

1.Roll a dice
2.Check the psychic power lists
3.Write it down.

it really doesnt take much time and there is no such thing as "fishing for powers" since the whole point of that is to randomise everything.

still. i'm glad its not part of the game anymore, i just wish some of the less used powers saw more use (When is the last time an elf cast mind war?)


@Xenomancer

Agreed on the random mission but i thought that was already how it was. Are there tournaments playing with predetermined missions in 9th?

Personally i like the secondaries but i'd get rid of anything "kill" related. The primary already rewards it enough.
The action based secondaries are an excellent concept to reduce the lethality in the game.

The only other real option other than what we have currently is to make secondaries fixed.

This falls back in line with the original First strike, warlord, and linebreaker objectives.


If you were gonna do this in the current edition i would use the following 3:

Sever the head- At the end of player turn 5, if you have killed both the enemies warlord and at least half of their total character models you gain 15pts.

Area Secured- At the end of each of your turns make a tally of how many table corners you control (you control a table quarter if you have more units wholly within that corner than your opponent). On turn 5 each table corner counts as three and the center of the table counts as two (the center of the table is a 9" circle in the middle of the table). Divide your total tally by 2 and you score this many victory points.

True Leader- At the end of the battle, compare the PL of the surviving units to your armies starting PL. If you have 25% of your army remaining you score 5 points, 50% gives you 10 points, and 75% grants 15 points (Always round down if its necessary).






This adds enough variation in points and rewards good play. Saves time at the game start and is fair to most armies.

Oooh, what about Secondary Drafting?

Draw 7 secondary objectives and place them face up before deployment. After you deploy, roll off; the player who wins the roll off decides whether to play first, or draft first. Draft taking turns until both players have 3 secondaries, then discard the one that remains.

You can offset first turn advantage, add variation to secondaries, and add a meaningful element of decision making during deployment.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The only other real option other than what we have currently is to make secondaries fixed.

This falls back in line with the original First strike, warlord, and linebreaker objectives.


If you were gonna do this in the current edition i would use the following 3:

Sever the head- At the end of player turn 5, if you have killed both the enemies warlord and at least half of their total character models you gain 15pts.

Area Secured- At the end of each of your turns make a tally of how many table corners you control (you control a table quarter if you have more units wholly within that corner than your opponent). On turn 5 each table corner counts as three and the center of the table counts as two (the center of the table is a 9" circle in the middle of the table). Divide your total tally by 2 and you score this many victory points.

True Leader- At the end of the battle, compare the PL of the surviving units to your armies starting PL. If you have 25% of your army remaining you score 5 points, 50% gives you 10 points, and 75% grants 15 points (Always round down if its necessary).






This adds enough variation in points and rewards good play. Saves time at the game start and is fair to most armies.

I like these objectives. Maybe not the exact points granted but I like the concept. Instead of fighting over objective markers - fighting over entire table quarters is a better way to progressive score I think.

One of the problems with an anti-elite secondary is also the reason they added 0-6 instead of 0-3 Elites. All the command squad style things were turned into 3+ Elite Slots if you want to take them all. They turned so many of those specialist and added even more Mini-characters.

Not Elites, the slot.

Elite as in units that are elite, like Marines.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well sure, if you change the whole primary scoring method. I was responding to people who seemed to think the game would be better with the current missions and primary scoring method but no secondaries, and that just isn't true.

In the current system the secondaries are the only thing that makes one game different from another.

Would not a different primary objective change the game?
Control center? Control Quarters? Control Deployment zone?

Each of these requires a different strategy and is going to have different action points on the map. The secondary objectives you think ad to game variety actually just reduce the number of unit selections that are viable. They force you to build a list a certain way or you lose because you are "too easy to score against" or some other stupid reason.

Know what is actually really boring? Playing a game you are down 20 points with no chance at recovering because of stupid secondary objectives.

bingo, the game should never be won in the building of lists. I'm a big fan of randomly determining the mission/objective, makes it harder to effectively run a skew list since the mission can make that skew a liability.

IMO, ideally, the kill-oriented secondaries are a counter to skew lists. If folks haven’t figured it out, this is 100% intended, as GW doesn’t like seeing skew lists winning tournaments. They have a vision of ideal armies and they are a mix of unit types.

If you want to bring 300 grots go ahead, but that’s 15 points for your opponent. Full knight army? 15 points (that one is a teensy bit unfair as pure Knights are TERRIBLE for scoring the primary, which currently makes them the worst army in my opinion.

The issue is that the current kill secondaries don’t quite have enough choices, and the ones that exist need some tweaking.

Random objectives are a bad idea, I think. If you want that kind of game, use the open war deck.

Quasistellar wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well sure, if you change the whole primary scoring method. I was responding to people who seemed to think the game would be better with the current missions and primary scoring method but no secondaries, and that just isn't true.

In the current system the secondaries are the only thing that makes one game different from another.

Would not a different primary objective change the game?
Control center? Control Quarters? Control Deployment zone?

Each of these requires a different strategy and is going to have different action points on the map. The secondary objectives you think ad to game variety actually just reduce the number of unit selections that are viable. They force you to build a list a certain way or you lose because you are "too easy to score against" or some other stupid reason.

Know what is actually really boring? Playing a game you are down 20 points with no chance at recovering because of stupid secondary objectives.

bingo, the game should never be won in the building of lists. I'm a big fan of randomly determining the mission/objective, makes it harder to effectively run a skew list since the mission can make that skew a liability.

IMO, ideally, the kill-oriented secondaries are a counter to skew lists. If folks haven’t figured it out, this is 100% intended, as GW doesn’t like seeing skew lists winning tournaments. They have a vision of ideal armies and they are a mix of unit types.

If you want to bring 300 grots go ahead, but that’s 15 points for your opponent. Full knight army? 15 points (that one is a teensy bit unfair as pure Knights are TERRIBLE for scoring the primary, which currently makes them the worst army in my opinion.

The issue is that the current kill secondaries don’t quite have enough choices, and the ones that exist need some tweaking.

Random objectives are a bad idea, I think. If you want that kind of game, use the open war deck.

You literally prove your own point wrong by stating knights are the worst because they are a skew list and it hurts their chance at taking primary objective. Yet it is the only way to play them. Your army comp should have 0% to do with scoring objectives. 0 - None - Nada. You bring the list you want to play and you have a fair shot at winning - that is how the game should work (outside of objective secured units or maybe only troops being able to score or something). Not building your list around making it hard to score against at the list building phase. Skew lists have an in build counter to them that if they run into a certain kind of list they get obliterated. They don't need objective point disadvantage as well.

Quite literally if you remove secondaries - the game play does not change at all. Your army will likely still move the same and fight the same because the primary objective does not change. You might have different target priority...like...You might be able to chose your targets instead of having them picked for you...IMAGINE THAT.

No one is saying we should play competitive malestrom. What people are saying is we should have 3-5 primary objectives that are randomly determined at the start of the game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

Quasistellar wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well sure, if you change the whole primary scoring method. I was responding to people who seemed to think the game would be better with the current missions and primary scoring method but no secondaries, and that just isn't true.

In the current system the secondaries are the only thing that makes one game different from another.

Would not a different primary objective change the game?
Control center? Control Quarters? Control Deployment zone?

Each of these requires a different strategy and is going to have different action points on the map. The secondary objectives you think ad to game variety actually just reduce the number of unit selections that are viable. They force you to build a list a certain way or you lose because you are "too easy to score against" or some other stupid reason.

Know what is actually really boring? Playing a game you are down 20 points with no chance at recovering because of stupid secondary objectives.

bingo, the game should never be won in the building of lists. I'm a big fan of randomly determining the mission/objective, makes it harder to effectively run a skew list since the mission can make that skew a liability.

IMO, ideally, the kill-oriented secondaries are a counter to skew lists. If folks haven’t figured it out, this is 100% intended, as GW doesn’t like seeing skew lists winning tournaments. They have a vision of ideal armies and they are a mix of unit types.

If you want to bring 300 grots go ahead, but that’s 15 points for your opponent. Full knight army? 15 points (that one is a teensy bit unfair as pure Knights are TERRIBLE for scoring the primary, which currently makes them the worst army in my opinion.

The issue is that the current kill secondaries don’t quite have enough choices, and the ones that exist need some tweaking.

Random objectives are a bad idea, I think. If you want that kind of game, use the open war deck.

You literally prove your own point wrong by stating knights are the worst because they are a skew list and it hurts their chance at taking primary objective. Yet it is the only way to play them. Your army comp should have 0% to do with scoring objectives. 0 - None - Nada. You bring the list you want to play and you have a fair shot at winning - that is how the game should work (outside of objective secured units or maybe only troops being able to score or something). Not building your list around making it hard to score against at the list building phase. Skew lists have an in build counter to them that if they run into a certain kind of list they get obliterated. They don't need objective point disadvantage as well.

Quite literally if you remove secondaries - the game play does not change at all. Your army will likely still move the same and fight the same because the primary objective does not change. You might have different target priority...like...You might be able to chose your targets instead of having them picked for you...IMAGINE THAT.

No one is saying we should play competitive malestrom. What people are saying is we should have 3-5 primary objectives that are randomly determined at the start of the game.

this makes too much sense for those primarily focused on screwing over the person you're playing WITH. removal of secondaries would only take away their tourney bull gak, which can only be a good thing. keep that gak where it belongs, far, far away the the game.

It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

this can be said for MANY aspects of the game

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

I can imagine why someone playing a psychic heavy elite army may not be very enthusiastic about secondaries the way they are not, specialy if they are just starting the game and haven't played 1ksons or GK in 8th, and they don't know that how ever bad it may seem it is no way near as bad as things could be.

They are very unbalanced as far as how easy it is to do them.

Quite literally if you remove secondaries - the game play does not change at all. Your army will likely still move the same and fight the same because the primary objective does not change. You might have different target priority...like...You might be able to chose your targets instead of having them picked for you...IMAGINE THAT.

I would be playing very different games, if abhore the witch didn't exist. The same with being forced in to If we stand, we fight. It very much changes how I can play or even what units I could potentialy take. For example I can't take GM NDKs anymore or try out a storm raven or a land raider, because they give up points too easily, comparing to a master or librarian on foot or a big unit of paladins.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

I can imagine why someone playing a psychic heavy elite army may not be very enthusiastic about secondaries the way they are not, specialy if they are just starting the game and haven't played 1ksons or GK in 8th, and they don't know that how ever bad it may seem it is no way near as bad as things could be.

They are very unbalanced as far as how easy it is to do them.

Quite literally if you remove secondaries - the game play does not change at all. Your army will likely still move the same and fight the same because the primary objective does not change. You might have different target priority...like...You might be able to chose your targets instead of having them picked for you...IMAGINE THAT.

I would be playing very different games, if abhore the witch didn't exist. The same with being forced in to If we stand, we fight. It very much changes how I can play or even what units I could potentialy take. For example I can't take GM NDKs anymore or try out a storm raven or a land raider, because they give up points too easily, comparing to a master or librarian on foot or a big unit of paladins.

I mean, abhor the witch is pretty situational and has a pretty big restriction to it. In my eyes its no different then picking big game hunter against admech or guard. You automatically give your opponent 15pts. The problem is that not while Abhor or BGH are trivial to max out, a list with 60 intercessors doesn't really have a good secondary to pick against.

oh and i just want to point out that when people talk about marines, they most likely aren't including GK in them.

You can still run your GMNDK & co. you just gotta accept that they'll be giving points away. And if youre bringing only one land raider or storm raven, chances are your opponent won't pick BGH against you anyway since thats only 3vp.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

I can imagine why someone playing a psychic heavy elite army may not be very enthusiastic about secondaries the way they are not, specialy if they are just starting the game and haven't played 1ksons or GK in 8th, and they don't know that how ever bad it may seem it is no way near as bad as things could be.

They are very unbalanced as far as how easy it is to do them.

Karol, I honestly have not been talking about you. Considering how exclusively take extreme inflammatory positions, twist any and every argument to be about grey knights and eventually respond to every train of thoughts with a surreal story from dystopian Poland, my need for engaging in discussions with you has disappeared.

And yes, abhor the witch is idiotically over-rewarding players for killing random units in psychic armies, but the vast majority of armies are not psychic.

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

I can imagine why someone playing a psychic heavy elite army may not be very enthusiastic about secondaries the way they are not, specialy if they are just starting the game and haven't played 1ksons or GK in 8th, and they don't know that how ever bad it may seem it is no way near as bad as things could be.

They are very unbalanced as far as how easy it is to do them.

Karol, I honestly have not been talking about you. Considering how exclusively take extreme inflammatory positions, twist any and every argument to be about grey knights and eventually respond to every train of thoughts with a surreal story from dystopian Poland, my need for engaging in discussions with you has disappeared.

And yes, abhor the witch is idiotically over-rewarding players for killing random units in psychic armies, but the vast majority of armies are not psychic.

And aside from that, it's not just psychic armies that suffer from very easy to score against them secondaries. That's a problem that quite a few armies face and now have to deal with. So, I would actually be in favour of abolishing all the killing secondaries because they only seem to reward eliteness.

And besides, things like assassinate where little characters are worth points whereas elite infantry, who cost more points per model, aren't worth anything just feel so silly.

 Dolnikan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

I can imagine why someone playing a psychic heavy elite army may not be very enthusiastic about secondaries the way they are not, specialy if they are just starting the game and haven't played 1ksons or GK in 8th, and they don't know that how ever bad it may seem it is no way near as bad as things could be.

They are very unbalanced as far as how easy it is to do them.

Karol, I honestly have not been talking about you. Considering how exclusively take extreme inflammatory positions, twist any and every argument to be about grey knights and eventually respond to every train of thoughts with a surreal story from dystopian Poland, my need for engaging in discussions with you has disappeared.

And yes, abhor the witch is idiotically over-rewarding players for killing random units in psychic armies, but the vast majority of armies are not psychic.

And aside from that, it's not just psychic armies that suffer from very easy to score against them secondaries. That's a problem that quite a few armies face and now have to deal with. So, I would actually be in favour of abolishing all the killing secondaries because they only seem to reward eliteness.

And besides, things like assassinate where little characters are worth points whereas elite infantry, who cost more points per model, aren't worth anything just feel so silly.

Agreed, get rid of the kill secondaries and add more action-based secondaries.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

I can imagine why someone playing a psychic heavy elite army may not be very enthusiastic about secondaries the way they are not, specialy if they are just starting the game and haven't played 1ksons or GK in 8th, and they don't know that how ever bad it may seem it is no way near as bad as things could be.

They are very unbalanced as far as how easy it is to do them.

Karol, I honestly have not been talking about you. Considering how exclusively take extreme inflammatory positions, twist any and every argument to be about grey knights and eventually respond to every train of thoughts with a surreal story from dystopian Poland, my need for engaging in discussions with you has disappeared.

And yes, abhor the witch is idiotically over-rewarding players for killing random units in psychic armies, but the vast majority of armies are not psychic.

And aside from that, it's not just psychic armies that suffer from very easy to score against them secondaries. That's a problem that quite a few armies face and now have to deal with. So, I would actually be in favour of abolishing all the killing secondaries because they only seem to reward eliteness.

And besides, things like assassinate where little characters are worth points whereas elite infantry, who cost more points per model, aren't worth anything just feel so silly.

Agreed, get rid of the kill secondaries and add more action-based secondaries.

Absolutely, although actions also need some work because right now it seems like generally, durability is the most rewarded trait in a unit. Light infantry of all sorts finds it very difficult to complete any before just getting blown up.

 Dolnikan wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:
And aside from that, it's not just psychic armies that suffer from very easy to score against them secondaries. That's a problem that quite a few armies face and now have to deal with. So, I would actually be in favour of abolishing all the killing secondaries because they only seem to reward eliteness.

And besides, things like assassinate where little characters are worth points whereas elite infantry, who cost more points per model, aren't worth anything just feel so silly.

Agreed, get rid of the kill secondaries and add more action-based secondaries.

Absolutely, although actions also need some work because right now it seems like generally, durability is the most rewarded trait in a unit. Light infantry of all sorts finds it very difficult to complete any before just getting blown up.

I'm on board with this. Kill secondaries don't make the game more interesting, I'd gladly have something else in their stead.

Sure, but at least actions push the game away from kill city which is a good thing in my eyes.

Heck, i'd be down to have actions that only vehicles/monsters could do even.

Clear a path
Action (vehicle or monster)
Do this while within a piece of terrain bigger than 5", ends at the end of your next command phase, get Xvp at the end of the battle for each zone where you completed this action (deploymen, no mans land, enemy deployment)

Sure it would reward tanky units but that would simply mean that people start to value resilience more than killing power. Which is a good thing to lower lethality.


Kill secondaries were my main problem with ITC. Killing in itself is already a reward since its the best way to deny objectives from your opponent. So being explicitely rewarded for it made them TOO rewarding

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

How could anyone not understand how they work? They are objectives you pick at the start of the game tailored against the list you are fighting. I'm saying they don't add anything but "gaminess" (unfun ways to win).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

How could anyone not understand how they work? They are objectives you pick at the start of the game tailored against the list you are fighting. I'm saying they don't add anything but "gaminess" (unfun ways to win).

The kill objectives are, the rest isnt. You build a list with Psychic ritual or engage on all fronts in mind, you don't build a list with Big game hunter in mind.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

I can imagine why someone playing a psychic heavy elite army may not be very enthusiastic about secondaries the way they are not, specialy if they are just starting the game and haven't played 1ksons or GK in 8th, and they don't know that how ever bad it may seem it is no way near as bad as things could be.

They are very unbalanced as far as how easy it is to do them.

Quite literally if you remove secondaries - the game play does not change at all. Your army will likely still move the same and fight the same because the primary objective does not change. You might have different target priority...like...You might be able to chose your targets instead of having them picked for you...IMAGINE THAT.

I would be playing very different games, if abhore the witch didn't exist. The same with being forced in to If we stand, we fight. It very much changes how I can play or even what units I could potentialy take. For example I can't take GM NDKs anymore or try out a storm raven or a land raider, because they give up points too easily, comparing to a master or librarian on foot or a big unit of paladins.

So the secondaries are affecting your army build and making list choices for you...that sounds great actually. Less list choices or you auto lose. Good stuff.

 Xenomancers wrote:

So the secondaries are affecting your army build and making list choices for you...that sounds great actually. Less list choices or you auto lose. Good stuff.

Now I like 9th, incomperably more then 8th. Like and 8th is not something I could comprehend. That doesn't mean 9th has its problems. As I said to me 9th equals good.

As the affecting the army building goes, it kind of a depends, if someone starts in 9th or comes from 8th. I am used to core rules eliminating the viability of multiple units or options. So secondaries doing it too, doesn't bother me at all. But I can imagine that if someone thinks that his army should have options or wants to try out different things, and core rules make it that option X, Y and Z are something you should never take, they may not be happy about it. Plus on top of everything, I don't own a land raiders, storm raven or a NDK, just a ton of foot characters and terminators, so it doesn't limit me personaly.

So how good the situation is, seems to be a personal thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:


Karol, I honestly have not been talking about you. Considering how exclusively take extreme inflammatory positions, twist any and every argument to be about grey knights and eventually respond to every train of thoughts with a surreal story from dystopian Poland, my need for engaging in discussions with you has disappeared.

And yes, abhor the witch is idiotically over-rewarding players for killing random units in psychic armies, but the vast majority of armies are not psychic.

I don't know "some people" seems to include multiple people posting in this thread and I think that includes me, and you were generalize, and this means it does include an army like GK. I speak about GK, because it is the army I play, so I give examples according to what I know. I doubt a 1ksons players feels much different about abhore the witch, then a GK player.

Ah and vast majorities goes. Vast majority of players play marines, and people like you want to make those armies worse in favour of minority played armies. So you are not being very consistent.

I do like there being asymmetric objectives in the game alongside the symmetric primaries. It does add an interesting layer - though some of them are too easy depending on the armies played, and many do seem to give smaller Elite style armies advantages, as they are harder to score against them. Though it does make it a bit gamey as player attempt to list build around the objectives. Making them random avoids this, but then potentially makes it un-fun when you get an objective that you cannot achieve.

A partially random way might be a good compromise. Randomly decide on the category, but then you get to pick which objective from that category you are going to achieve.



Perhaps one based on PL might work against those Elite type armies.

Reduce their Manpower
Pick up to 3 non-Character Infantry enemy units, gain as many VP as they cost in PL for each of these units are destroyed at the end of the game. Up to a maximum of 15 VP scored.

Or something to that effect, maybe a smaller ratio of VP to PL might be better possibly (1 to 2) (may also need adjusting for Knights).

Karol wrote:

I doubt a 1ksons players feels much different about abhore the witch, then a GK player.

I play thousand sons and tzeentch demons and i dont care about abhor the witch. I just accept that i'll be giving my opponent 15vp.

Most armies i play against can't even use abhor because they include psykers of their own. And the armies that don't include them basically give me a free 15pts from a secondary, usually big game hunter

Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

How could anyone not understand how they work? They are objectives you pick at the start of the game tailored against the list you are fighting. I'm saying they don't add anything but "gaminess" (unfun ways to win).

its ok, at this point I don't think those that are wanting to keep/add more stupid secondaries understand that, they like gaminess and unfun(for the person they're playing AGAINST).

Xenomancers wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious how you can clearly read from some people's posts that they have neither seriously played nor understood how secondaries work, but still are vehemently against them.

I can imagine why someone playing a psychic heavy elite army may not be very enthusiastic about secondaries the way they are not, specialy if they are just starting the game and haven't played 1ksons or GK in 8th, and they don't know that how ever bad it may seem it is no way near as bad as things could be.

They are very unbalanced as far as how easy it is to do them.

Quite literally if you remove secondaries - the game play does not change at all. Your army will likely still move the same and fight the same because the primary objective does not change. You might have different target priority...like...You might be able to chose your targets instead of having them picked for you...IMAGINE THAT.

I would be playing very different games, if abhore the witch didn't exist. The same with being forced in to If we stand, we fight. It very much changes how I can play or even what units I could potentialy take. For example I can't take GM NDKs anymore or try out a storm raven or a land raider, because they give up points too easily, comparing to a master or librarian on foot or a big unit of paladins.

So the secondaries are affecting your army build and making list choices for you...that sounds great actually. Less list choices or you auto lose. Good stuff.

bingo

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


I play thousand sons and tzeentch demons and i dont care about abhor the witch. I just accept that i'll be giving my opponent 15vp.

I mostly play with vehicles based lists (worthy of 30ish VPs in total if there wasn't any cap) and I accept giving up 15 points to the opponent for Bring It Down. I feel like it's a fair trade: I get to play a better list while the opponent is also getting some advantage in scoring points. I definitely don't auto lose because of that, nor I autowin against psyker based armies.

Abhor the Witch for GK and 1K players could need a fix IF they really can't win thanks to that secondary. Is it true? I don't think so, both armies are pretty solid even if they give up those 15 points. What if all their units barring characters lose the psychic ability? It's a tradeoff, and while I don't think it's particularly well implemented it doesn't look that unbalanced either.