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.

 Blackie wrote:

 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.

Exactly my point, many armies just have to accept that theyre giving up some secondary. At least Abhor is situational compared to bring it down.

 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.

Uh, no? I said pure Knights is a skew list. Titan Hunters gives a bonus for killing titanic units, which a pure Knight army will most likely give up 15 points, and almost certainly give up 12 in any realistic tournament-strength-army matched play game.. That's a counter to skewing with Titanic units. It needs tweaked, as the bonus for killing a single Knight and maybe even two Knights is too high (considering their current lack of board control).

Your suggestion of removing secondaries at this point is almost even worse for the Knight player, as they are terrible for scoring primaries, which I pointed out. Knights have their own specific problems this early in 9th, but that's not the point of this thread.

My point is that the secondaries need tweaking or additions. Nothing I said counters or disproves that. You seem to think that if something isn't perfect it should be removed, while I think it should be refined.

Quasistellar wrote:

 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.

Uh, no? I said pure Knights is a skew list. Titan Hunters gives a bonus for killing titanic units, which a pure Knight army will most likely give up 15 points, and almost certainly give up 12 in any realistic tournament-strength-army matched play game.. That's a counter to skewing with Titanic units. It needs tweaked, as the bonus for killing a single Knight and maybe even two Knights is too high (considering their current lack of board control).

Your suggestion of removing secondaries at this point is almost even worse for the Knight player, as they are terrible for scoring primaries, which I pointed out. Knights have their own specific problems this early in 9th, but that's not the point of this thread.

My point is that the secondaries need tweaking or additions. Nothing I said counters or disproves that. You seem to think that if something isn't perfect it should be removed, while I think it should be refined.

They actually aren't terrible at the real primary of any war game- destroying their opponents army. Practically every game I have won as knights I have won by tabling my opponent (you know - back when that was a victory condition)

Just ask yourself. Why should I lose a game where I removed every single model of yours from the table?
Imagine winning a game of chess because of secondary objectives? "My knight was on this square all game so It doesn't matter my king is dead"...That would be a really dumb game.

Realistically and this has always been the case even in 8th. There aren't any models left after 3-4 turns (UNLESS) players are refusing to engage and hiding..

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 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.

Exactly my point, many armies just have to accept that theyre giving up some secondary. At least Abhor is situational compared to bring it down.

1) Abhor isn't in the same category as other kill secondaries, so it's in addition to anything else you may be giving up. GKs and Tsons will typically give up at least 24 points for abhor/assassinate, for example, usually 27 or 30, so the game basically just becomes about whether you can keep your characters alive or whether your opponent can kill them, which is a very boring sort of game to play.

2) It skews the meta because you can't take it if you don't have a psyker, meaning there's a strong disincentive to take a single psyker in a list.

3) Why should some armies - but not others - "just have to accept" they give up an automatic 15-30 points? This makes no sense from a balance perspective.

The best argument for abhor is "it doesn't completely destroy the game." There's no reason why it's actually a good thing. Not having it would be better than having it, and that's the sign of a very bad secondary.

This can be illustrated very easily with a thought experiment. Suppose Abhor had never existed. Would anyone be making a thread like this one about how what the game really needed was a secondary that specifically punished taking psykers? Nobody would even think of that as something the game needed, as opposed to the anti-elite secondary that is glaringly missing from the list.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 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.

Exactly my point, many armies just have to accept that theyre giving up some secondary. At least Abhor is situational compared to bring it down.

1) Abhor isn't in the same category as other kill secondaries, so it's in addition to anything else you may be giving up. GKs and Tsons will typically give up at least 24 points for abhor/assassinate, for example, usually 27 or 30, so the game basically just becomes about whether you can keep your characters alive or whether your opponent can kill them, which is a very boring sort of game to play.

2) It skews the meta because you can't take it if you don't have a psyker, meaning there's a strong disincentive to take a single psyker in a list.

3) Why should some armies - but not others - "just have to accept" they give up an automatic 15-30 points? This makes no sense from a balance perspective.

The best argument for abhor is "it doesn't completely destroy the game." There's no reason why it's actually a good thing. Not having it would be better than having it, and that's the sign of a very bad secondary.

This can be illustrated very easily with a thought experiment. Suppose Abhor had never existed. Would anyone be making a thread like this one about how what the game really needed was a secondary that specifically punished taking psykers? Nobody would even think of that as something the game needed, as opposed to the anti-elite secondary that is glaringly missing from the list.

I do not play a psyker heavy army but it is kind of ridiculous the Abhor the Witch secondary exists. It’s such an unfair handicap. Personally I think secondaries are a great idea and can really help balance this game eventually, however they obviously need a lot of tweaking.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 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.

Exactly my point, many armies just have to accept that theyre giving up some secondary. At least Abhor is situational compared to bring it down.

1) Abhor isn't in the same category as other kill secondaries, so it's in addition to anything else you may be giving up. GKs and Tsons will typically give up at least 24 points for abhor/assassinate, for example, usually 27 or 30, so the game basically just becomes about whether you can keep your characters alive or whether your opponent can kill them, which is a very boring sort of game to play.

2) It skews the meta because you can't take it if you don't have a psyker, meaning there's a strong disincentive to take a single psyker in a list.

3) Why should some armies - but not others - "just have to accept" they give up an automatic 15-30 points? This makes no sense from a balance perspective.

The best argument for abhor is "it doesn't completely destroy the game." There's no reason why it's actually a good thing. Not having it would be better than having it, and that's the sign of a very bad secondary.

This can be illustrated very easily with a thought experiment. Suppose Abhor had never existed. Would anyone be making a thread like this one about how what the game really needed was a secondary that specifically punished taking psykers? Nobody would even think of that as something the game needed, as opposed to the anti-elite secondary that is glaringly missing from the list.

Literally all secondaries are like this.
You pick something about the opponents army you want to attack and get rewarded for it. They can get rewarded by not putting anything on the list of secondaries in their army.

"Its just the killing secondaries that suck"
Cause getting rewarded twice for doing something is...stupid?
"Secondaries add lots to the game"
Except they just reduce viable unit selection AND make the game less engaging because you gain more from protecting your "secondary units" than you do using them.

How about this. We remove all these stupid secondaries from the game and just go back to the way things used to be. The "OLD SCHOOL" objectives.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Class - you balance the game by making the points right bub...in reality the mission has nothing to do with balance - provided it is not slanted toward attacker or defender.

No, not all secondaries are like that. Please read my post before responding to it. I even numbered the points so you could easily read each one.

Points 1) and 2) are completely unique to Abhor. Point 3 is also semi-unique in that Tsons and GKs *have* to give up Abhor; there is no choice. None of the other kill secondaries are like this, except Titan Killers for a Knights list. Certain *lists* in other factions may give up max points on a kill secondary, because they skew - which is precisely why the secondaries are there, to punish skew.

Abhor doesn't punish skew, it just arbitrarily punishes two factions for no reason, while discouraging any other faction from taking psykers unless the faction absolutely doesn't work without them.

Again, if Abhor didn't exist, nobody would be demanding they implement it. It wouldn't even occur to people to ask for something so targeted and so punishing. Just like it wouldn't occur to anybody to demand they add an "Condemn the bigots" secondary that gives you 5 VP for each religiously-themed character (chaplains, ethereals, every SoB character, every black templar character, etc) you kill and 2 for each religiously themed unit.

I see 3 problematic secondaries. Thin their ranks is too weak, abhor the witch, and bring it down are too strong. Here are my fixes!

Thin their ranks: keep a tally of the total number of wounds of all opponent's models destroyed (maximum of 5 per model) (including resurrected models) and divide that number by 10. Score that many victory points at the end of the game (rounding down)

This would makes this a fair choice against elite infanry armies, particularly marines, while not being an auto take. It also doesn't double up as well vs vehicle lists with bring it down.

Abhor the witch: Cant take if you have a psyker. Score 3 points for destroying an enemy psychic character, or 5 points instead of that character was destroyed by a character model from your army. In addition score 2 victory points for each enemy psychic power that is denied or resisted during the game.

Less auto take. Still possible to max vs psychic spam, but more fluffy from a "witch hunter" aspect added in.

Bring it down: Same as before, but capped at 12.

Why do harder secondaries not give max points? This slight nerf should alleviate some of the list building burden this objective creates.

yukishiro1 wrote:
No, not all secondaries are like that. Please read my post before responding to it. I even numbered the points so you could easily read each one.

Points 1) and 2) are completely unique to Abhor. Point 3 is also semi-unique in that Tsons and GKs *have* to give up Abhor; there is no choice. None of the other kill secondaries are like this, except Titan Killers for a Knights list. Certain *lists* in other factions may give up max points on a kill secondary, because they skew - which is precisely why the secondaries are there, to punish skew.

Abhor doesn't punish skew, it just arbitrarily punishes two factions for no reason, while discouraging any other faction from taking psykers unless the faction absolutely doesn't work without them.

Again, if Abhor didn't exist, nobody would be demanding they implement it. It wouldn't even occur to people to ask for something so targeted and so punishing. Just like it wouldn't occur to anybody to demand they add an "Condemn the bigots" secondary that gives you 5 VP for each religiously-themed character (chaplains, ethereals, every SoB character, every black templar character, etc) you kill and 2 for each religiously themed unit.

For my Guard, I'm very much obliged to build an army that bleeds secondary points. I can't think of any functional list that doesn't give up a lot. Especially with the whole 'kill more' one that absolutely favours elites. And Thin Their Ranks. And Bring it Down.

 Xenomancers wrote:

They actually aren't terrible at the real primary of any war game- destroying their opponents army. Practically every game I have won as knights I have won by tabling my opponent (you know - back when that was a victory condition)

Just ask yourself. Why should I lose a game where I removed every single model of yours from the table?
Imagine winning a game of chess because of secondary objectives? "My knight was on this square all game so It doesn't matter my king is dead"...That would be a really dumb game.

Realistically and this has always been the case even in 8th. There aren't any models left after 3-4 turns (UNLESS) players are refusing to engage and hiding..

Why should I lose a game where I removed every single enemy model? That's easy to head-canon. Just think of the innumerable circumstances where holding a particular location long enough is more important than surviving.

Chess? It's an established game with a single victory condition and pre-defined unit movement on a static field of squares. If chess had "editions" where the scoring was altered to achieve an effect on the gameplay, then yeah, I could imagine winning a game of chess because of secondary editions. I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here.

Sometimes refusing to engage and hiding is a valid tactic, and I find it interesting that this tactic is being explored for secondaries.

 Dolnikan wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
No, not all secondaries are like that. Please read my post before responding to it. I even numbered the points so you could easily read each one.

Points 1) and 2) are completely unique to Abhor. Point 3 is also semi-unique in that Tsons and GKs *have* to give up Abhor; there is no choice. None of the other kill secondaries are like this, except Titan Killers for a Knights list. Certain *lists* in other factions may give up max points on a kill secondary, because they skew - which is precisely why the secondaries are there, to punish skew.

Abhor doesn't punish skew, it just arbitrarily punishes two factions for no reason, while discouraging any other faction from taking psykers unless the faction absolutely doesn't work without them.

Again, if Abhor didn't exist, nobody would be demanding they implement it. It wouldn't even occur to people to ask for something so targeted and so punishing. Just like it wouldn't occur to anybody to demand they add an "Condemn the bigots" secondary that gives you 5 VP for each religiously-themed character (chaplains, ethereals, every SoB character, every black templar character, etc) you kill and 2 for each religiously themed unit.

For my Guard, I'm very much obliged to build an army that bleeds secondary points. I can't think of any functional list that doesn't give up a lot. Especially with the whole 'kill more' one that absolutely favours elites. And Thin Their Ranks. And Bring it Down.

Guard are definitely one of the armies that are hit harder by the secondaries, I agree. But you don't give up an auto 15 on literally any list you can bring no matter what the way Tsons and GK (and Knights, to be fair) do. Not that that is really the point. Some of the other kill secondaries need tweaking too - but that's what they need, tweaking. Abhor needs to just be deleted from the game entirely, or fundamentally reworked.

The inverse of TS GK, Tau and Necrons.
We can never have a psychic anything, so Abhor is really helpful.

If your faction is underpowered your faction needs a buff, not a free 15VP vs TS and GK. "We need to nerf TS and GK so that bad factions without psykers can occasionally win a game by tilting the playing field via a secondary" is nonsensical from a design point of view.

If the psychic phase is overpowered (it isn't, but for the sake of argument here) the solution is to nerf psykers directly, not to give people a secondary that punishes you for taking something that's overpowered.

But overall it doesn't seem that GK and TS are in such bad state, they are actually both quite solid.

And no, the existence of Abhor the Witch is not a strong disincentive to take a single psyker in a list. We assume we build TAC lists having no idea about what armies we're going to face.

I constantly see a couple of psykers in most of eldar or harlequins lists, a librarian in SM armies is not mandatory but still useful and quite common just like psykers for AM, a weirdboy (even two) is always a good option for a footslogging oriented ork army, tyranids will also likely have psykers etc...

Agree, it's not like my DG will leave their daemon princes at home just to maybe screw over a TS/GK player I might be facing.

Actually the caveat on Abhor the Witch seems to make it a lot weaker than, say, Bring it Down, which you can also pick even if your army also has Monsters or Vehicles, or Assassinate, which you are free to pick even if you also have Characters. Etc..

yukishiro1 wrote:
1) Abhor isn't in the same category as other kill secondaries, so it's in addition to anything else you may be giving up. GKs and Tsons will typically give up at least 24 points for abhor/assassinate, for example, usually 27 or 30, so the game basically just becomes about whether you can keep your characters alive or whether your opponent can kill them, which is a very boring sort of game to play.

2) It skews the meta because you can't take it if you don't have a psyker, meaning there's a strong disincentive to take a single psyker in a list.

We've actually had 9th ed events during a global pandemic, bafflingly - this means we have some degree of data which can be reviewed regarding these assertions.

Does the data back up your claims? Are factions that could take psykers apparently choosing not to, given ATW exists?

For that matter, are secondary objectives being tracked as part of the tournament dataset - and if not, why not?

I'm also wondering about the assassinate combo - are GK and TS really bring that many additional characters? If they only yield 9 VP from assassinate, wouldn't a battlefield dominance and shadow operation choice be superior as those tend to be fairly secure 12VP?

 Xenomancers wrote:

They actually aren't terrible at the real primary of any war game- destroying their opponents army. Practically every game I have won as knights I have won by tabling my opponent (you know - back when that was a victory condition)

Just ask yourself. Why should I lose a game where I removed every single model of yours from the table?
Imagine winning a game of chess because of secondary objectives? "My knight was on this square all game so It doesn't matter my king is dead"...That would be a really dumb game.

Realistically and this has always been the case even in 8th. There aren't any models left after 3-4 turns (UNLESS) players are refusing to engage and hiding..

Because if your only goal is to table your opponent it makes the game boring and removes a lot of the strategy, it becomes "my anti tank shoots at your tanks, my anti infantry shoots at your infantry" and aggravates the lethality problem of 40k.

And some battles can be won even by getting tabled. What if i have to defend a thunderhawk while it refuels and launches into space and you kill my last model as it launches sucessfully : i won that fight.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Literally all secondaries are like this.
You pick something about the opponents army you want to attack and get rewarded for it. They can get rewarded by not putting anything on the list of secondaries in their army.

"Its just the killing secondaries that suck"
Cause getting rewarded twice for doing something is...stupid?
"Secondaries add lots to the game"
Except they just reduce viable unit selection AND make the game less engaging because you gain more from protecting your "secondary units" than you do using them.

How about this. We remove all these stupid secondaries from the game and just go back to the way things used to be. The "OLD SCHOOL" objectives.

Ahhh yes, engage on all fronts, linebreaker, all the actions ones are clearly based on your opponent more than on your planning before the game. The only secondaries that match your description of "double reward" are the kill ones, the positioning ones and the actions ones are completely fine and act as a way to reduce lethality.

Vlad? why are we talking about a lethality problem...and trying to cover it up with objectives. If the rules are too lethal...you change the rules - not shorten the game and come up with random secondary objectives to cover a problem. Honestly it is not a problem though - you just don't enjoy battling to the death...this is what 40k is and it's always been that way. At least 80% of all games end in someone getting tabled.

How is it boring to fight to the death? I find it fun - in fact it's how I have always played. I assure you it is fun for my opponents. They have a target rich environment because I am coming for them or gunning for them and we are laughing having a good time. Looking back at an ITC table its usually 2 dudes...not smiling...and I can walk up and see just what happend.

Oh you dropped in assault cents turn 1 and practically tabled this DE army in 1 turn. WOW. SO much strategy!

Oh wow look! These nurglings (brainless fungus type creatures) are too short to be shot...must be gathering some important intel from that hidden spot and their lack of brains. Cant shoot that Giant daemon behind them though...cause it's a character.

This games rules just keep getting worse and worse. I am glad I have a group of friends who are tired of the gameiness. We are just gonna play crusade and campaigns so we can actually manage to have fun.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Vlad? why are we talking about a lethality problem...and trying to cover it up with objectives. If the rules are too lethal...you change the rules - not shorten the game and come up with random secondary objectives to cover a problem. Honestly it is not a problem though - you just don't enjoy battling to the death...this is what 40k is and it's always been that way. At least 80% of all games end in someone getting tabled.

How is it boring to fight to the death? I find it fun - in fact it's how I have always played. I assure you it is fun for my opponents. They have a target rich environment because I am coming for them or gunning for them and we are laughing having a good time. Looking back at an ITC table its usually 2 dudes...not smiling...and I can walk up and see just what happend.

Oh you dropped in assault cents turn 1 and practically tabled this DE army in 1 turn. WOW. SO much strategy!

Oh wow look! These nurglings (brainless fungus type creatures) are too short to be shot...must be gathering some important intel from that hidden spot and their lack of brains. Cant shoot that Giant daemon behind them though...cause it's a character.

This games rules just keep getting worse and worse. I am glad I have a group of friends who are tired of the gameiness. We are just gonna play crusade and campaigns so we can actually manage to have fun.

Objectives and terrain rules allow to keep the big punch of your guns while nerfing the lethality. Its not just about killing the other guy now, you're rewarded for making decisions (ie: i wont shoot with my aggressors because i really need to raise the banner on that objective).

If you enjoy tabling and getting tabled thats fine, each are free of their opinion, which is why we won't agree on the removal of secondaries.

I think they still need tweaking (removal of the "kill" objectives first) but the concept is there to make the game have more depth (in general).

And your example with the assault centurions is exactly what i feel secondaries help against (with the exception of the "kill" ones). You can drop in and kill half my army but i still have a chance because my goal isnt only to table you.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm also wondering about the assassinate combo - are GK and TS really bring that many additional characters? If they only yield 9 VP from assassinate, wouldn't a battlefield dominance and shadow operation choice be superior as those tend to be fairly secure 12VP?

The only reason a GK or Tsons list wouldn't have at least four characters is if they deliberately took only 3 to try to avoid giving up the obvious combo.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm also wondering about the assassinate combo - are GK and TS really bring that many additional characters? If they only yield 9 VP from assassinate, wouldn't a battlefield dominance and shadow operation choice be superior as those tend to be fairly secure 12VP?

The only reason a GK or Tsons list wouldn't have at least four characters is if they deliberately took only 3 to try to avoid giving up the obvious combo.

My average Tsons list only has 3 characters (batallion + patrol).

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

And some battles can be won even by getting tabled. What if i have to defend a thunderhawk while it refuels and launches into space and you kill my last model as it launches sucessfully : i won that fight.

I think a narrative objective like that can be useful in giving context to victory.

Without it, one can only scratch one's head as to why an army "won" despite being utterly annihilated, just because some of its models managed to sit in the enemy deployment zone for a few turns. Were they snapping beautiful panorama pictures of an untouched paradise just beyond the edge of the table, in order to fill the Imperium's desperate need for new postcard designs?

 vipoid wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

And some battles can be won even by getting tabled. What if i have to defend a thunderhawk while it refuels and launches into space and you kill my last model as it launches sucessfully : i won that fight.

I think a narrative objective like that can be useful in giving context to victory.

Without it, one can only scratch one's head as to why an army "won" despite being utterly annihilated, just because some of its models managed to sit in the enemy deployment zone for a few turns. Were they snapping beautiful panorama pictures of an untouched paradise just beyond the edge of the table, in order to fill the Imperium's desperate need for new postcard designs?

Agreed, i was giving him an example because he seems to lack imagination.

 Xenomancers wrote:
At least 80% of all games end in someone getting tabled.

Can you cite your sources for that because that's definetly NOT my experience playing the game.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
At least 80% of all games end in someone getting tabled.

Can you cite your sources for that because that's definetly NOT my experience playing the game.

Yeah in 9th I dont think thats the case at all.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
At least 80% of all games end in someone getting tabled.

Can you cite your sources for that because that's definetly NOT my experience playing the game.

This is what happens when armies actually fight.
It is probably has to do with most games not having tones of cover and I am speaking about my entire 40k experience not just 8th or 9th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

And some battles can be won even by getting tabled. What if i have to defend a thunderhawk while it refuels and launches into space and you kill my last model as it launches sucessfully : i won that fight.

I think a narrative objective like that can be useful in giving context to victory.

Without it, one can only scratch one's head as to why an army "won" despite being utterly annihilated, just because some of its models managed to sit in the enemy deployment zone for a few turns. Were they snapping beautiful panorama pictures of an untouched paradise just beyond the edge of the table, in order to fill the Imperium's desperate need for new postcard designs?

How could that be an objective if I don't have the option to shoot down the thunderhawk to win the battle? Sounds like a bad movie or something.

Yeah I get your point but it's still a won battle. Might have won the battle but lost the war. Since we only have command of our tiny forces and not an entire armada...it only seems relevant to rate our performance on the battle.

 Xenomancers wrote:

How could that be an objective if I don't have the option to shoot down the thunderhawk to win the battle? Sounds like a bad movie or something.

Yeah I get your point but it's still a won battle. Might have won the battle but lost the war. Since we only have command of our tiny forces and not an entire armada...it only seems relevant to rate our performance on the battle.

because the thunderhawk is in a hangar further away and my force has intercepted yours halfway there, before your guns got in range?

Like come on. I don't know in what universe you play 40k but your perception of it is quite different from most people i've played against.

 Xenomancers wrote:
They actually aren't terrible at the real primary of any war game- destroying their opponents army. Practically every game I have won as knights I have won by tabling my opponent (you know - back when that was a victory condition)

Just ask yourself. Why should I lose a game where I removed every single model of yours from the table?

Any decent wargame will have scenarios where killing the enemy is not the goal, because that's how it works in real life.

The 'real primary' of a fighting force is to accomplish whatever is needed to further the operational goals of their unit, in service of forcing (at a national level) the enemy to surrender. Sometimes that means eliminating their forces directly. Sometimes it means holding significant terrain to provide a beachhead for further activity. Sometimes it means time-sensitive actions to exfiltrate POWs or VIPs, seize a structure or vessel before it can be scuttled, or knock out an emplacement threatening friendly forces, and holding the field or wiping out the enemy are completely irrelevant to operational success.

I don't think the current progressive scoring model should be used for all scenarios, but there are absolutely ones where tabling the opponent but losing the mission makes sense. Three of the Strike Force scenarios- Retrieval Mission, The Four Pillars, and Vital Intelligence- have primary objectives that are explicitly unrelated to killing the enemy. If your mission is extracting an intelligence asset, you don't get a medal if you let him die while you're busy racking up kills.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah I get your point but it's still a won battle. Might have won the battle but lost the war. Since we only have command of our tiny forces and not an entire armada...it only seems relevant to rate our performance on the battle.

How many officers do you think get promotions for completely failing in their given objectives, but still defeating an equivalent enemy force? Let alone if they sustain significant losses in the process?

That's not a win. If your objective was to extract a HUMINT asset, deny the enemy reconnaisance of your positions, or kidnap a VIP, and you failed to do that, you lost the battle. You don't get a participation trophy for shooting the enemy real good.