Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm curious what people familiar with multiple 40k editions think about which ones had the best mission structure. By mission structure I mean the rules governing selecting the objectives, determining scoring/victory, deployment process, etc.

Non-ITC 3rd through 8th used a similar (iterative) set of missions where players deployed objectives, had one player flly deploy before the opponent, some didn't have 'seize' as a mechanic, etc. However the mission structure didn't inherently change really until 9th with it's fixed objective locations, deployment and order to determine first turn.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Non-ITC 3rd through 8th used a similar (iterative) set of missions where players deployed objectives, had one player flly deploy before the opponent, some didn't have 'seize' as a mechanic, etc. However the mission structure didn't inherently change really until 9th with it's fixed objective locations, deployment and order to determine first turn.

I think there are a ton of differences between earlier editions. For example:

* 4th edition had players alternate deployment of units in order of heavy support, troops, elites, HQ, fast attack - most later editions had players deploy their entire force at once
* 4th edition had more unit types that count as scoring units, 5th-7th focused more on troops being the only scoring units, and others denial units. 8th-9th I think opened it up more again?
* 3rd/4th had VP-based games with a lot more granularity in the scoring - i.e. you earned points based on the actual point value of units destroyed. Objectives were worth points based on the point limit of the game.
* 6th + editions added secondary objectives, and eventually tactical objectives to the game

I've been playing since the release of 2nd edition.

7th & 8th edition Maelstrom Missions using the Tactical Objectives are by far my favorite.

Out of 8th and 9th, 9th is much better.

Out of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, and 9th, the 9th ed CA mission packs are by far my favorite. It's the first time I can remember official GW rules creating a situation where I can be far enough ahead on points by turn 3 to get tabled and still win the game.

The Newman wrote:
Out of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, and 9th, the 9th ed CA mission packs are by far my favorite. It's the first time I can remember official GW rules creating a situation where I can be far enough ahead on points by turn 3 to get tabled and still win the game.

You view this as a good thing?

Depends on mission Type. Eternal War missions from 6th and 7th were extremely boring, so I very rarely played them and moved to Maelstrom or narrative missions instead. 8th eternal war was a little bit better once last turn scoring was gone, but Maelstrom and narrative were still superior. I haven't played 9th yet, the missions look good on first glance but I wonder if they'll be a little bit boring after some games because they seem to be all pretty similar. In that case I'll do as usual and write my own missions.

For me, and I might on my own in this corner, but I think the best were the tactical objective missions with the cards. Sure they are random but they made the game more interesting.

 oni wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Out of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, and 9th, the 9th ed CA mission packs are by far my favorite. It's the first time I can remember official GW rules creating a situation where I can be far enough ahead on points by turn 3 to get tabled and still win the game.

You view this as a good thing?

From my point of view, yes, because it makes people play to the mission to win rather than relying on purely eradicating all enemy models.

 oni wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Out of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, and 9th, the 9th ed CA mission packs are by far my favorite. It's the first time I can remember official GW rules creating a situation where I can be far enough ahead on points by turn 3 to get tabled and still win the game.

You view this as a good thing?

Absolutely, without the slightest hesitation.

The Newman wrote:

 oni wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Out of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, and 9th, the 9th ed CA mission packs are by far my favorite. It's the first time I can remember official GW rules creating a situation where I can be far enough ahead on points by turn 3 to get tabled and still win the game.

You view this as a good thing?

Absolutely, without the slightest hesitation.

Same, it is literally the ONLY thing that is getting me tempted to come back to 40k, I like where the game is going but I am still holding off to see the necron codex and space marine codex, if they are dull and boring like 8th I am staying out, if they are not, I will take the plunge and come back to 40k.

Love the new Cron models so got some anyway haha

I like 5th for setups and table based objectives, 3E/4E by far over any other edition for "killing stuff" points (KP's based on simple discrete unit kill count instead of points value are stupid on top of being abysmal game design where unit value can be as variable as it is in 40k, simple as).

regarding the missions that can allow people to accumulate enough points by turn 3 to get tabled and still win in a game with 5 or 6 turns, I find that to be no less silly than entirely kill based objectives. Accomplishing the mission at the cost of the force is generally military insanity, unless the mission of the utmost singular importance, and phyrric victories are noted for what they are for a reason. If you can ramp up enough points by turn 3 such that an opponent can obliterate your force and still lose, that also feels like something that just frontloads way too much into deployment and turn 1 movement, in a game that's already insanely depending on those phases, and doesn't make for any more interesting or fun games if the outcome is already determined halfway through the game.

The Newman wrote:

 oni wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Out of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, and 9th, the 9th ed CA mission packs are by far my favorite. It's the first time I can remember official GW rules creating a situation where I can be far enough ahead on points by turn 3 to get tabled and still win the game.

You view this as a good thing?

Absolutely, without the slightest hesitation.

It is complete garbage and one of the reasons why 8th and 9th edition objectives are some of the worst in the games history.

Default in any wargame is taking out your opponent as a fallback victory condition. and it was an auto win condition in almost all of 40Ks history.

I don't care how many points you scored if you have nothing left on the table i can take the objectives at my pleasure, i control the field of battle.

In previous editions game play lasted till the end because if there were objectives, other than kill points or victory points, they only counted at the end. allowing you to pull off a tactical win even if you were not winning on body count.

As far as editions, the 4th ed rulebook had a host of alternate mission setups and objectives for normal games, breakthrough scenarios, combat patrols and the original (and some of the best) kill team rules.

My personal favorites were probably in 5th with the fixed d3+2 objectives, or the central "relic" moveable objective (that could never be moved more than 6" in a player turn or it would get dropped)..

P.S. I should note that most 40k games in my experience are quick and dirty with "just kill each other" as the most often chosen objective.

As more of a narrative player I am going to say 2nd, giant mess that it was I loved those mission cards.