Switch Theme:

The secondary objectives are Ill-conceived  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






The problem with kill secondaries is the problem that has always existed with kill points: A 50-point deffcopta is one VEHICLE keyword model. So is a Warlord Titan.

A 20pt platoon commander is one CHARACTER keyword model. So is Magnus.

incidentally this is the exact same problem every edition has had with restrictive force org charts: A single "Troop Choice" can be 50pts or 350pts.

The only way to implement something like this fairly - to really achieve the goal of what all these rules want to achieve - would be to require a certain number of points rather than a certain number of models to be destroyed. Or, when it comes to force organization, to require a certain points value of Troops, HQs, whatever.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




They used to do that, didn't they? At least in WHFB. I remember stuff like "up to 50% in heroes, at least 25% in troops, etc etc."
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




They used to do that, didn't they? At least in WHFB. I remember stuff like "up to 50% in heroes, at least 25% in troops, etc etc."


That's how army comp worked in 2nd ed., but I don't think it would fix the issue here.

I do think though, that there might be something to the suggestion of c hanging the "kill" secondaries to a percentage scale based on the cost of the thing you're killing. That might go a ways towards evening out the fact that a Guard commander and Magnus are not in any way the same, but that they will both net 5 points for assassinate.

That said though, I do wonder what this starts to look like if it were just the main objectives and the mission specific secondary. Will have to suggest to the group that we try that once we're able to garage hammer again.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I do think it is worth playing around with making the mission secondary mandatory.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






4th edition handled the scaling for victory points for unit kills and mission objectives really well IMHO.

For those that don't recall, it worked like this:

Victory points were tied to the size of the game. Players earned a unit's point value in VP's if it was completely destroyed or 50% of it's value if at least half the models were killed (or if a vehicle if it was immobilized and/or had all weapons destroyed)

So that was one way of earning points for kills.

Next up, the mission specific objectives were tied to the point value of the game. For example, one mission gives you 50% of the point value of the game in VP
s for holding the opposing table quarter, and 25% for each adjacent quarter (no points for holding your own quarter). If a mission had D6 objective markers, each marker would be worth an equal portion of the game's point value in points.

It did have other issues, but it was a good example of properly scaling the victory points of objectives around the size of the game and the relative point value of the units. It makes you think about what your priorities are for offense and defense, since units are worth their actual relative point value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho wrote:

That said though, I do wonder what this starts to look like if it were just the main objectives and the mission specific secondary. Will have to suggest to the group that we try that once we're able to garage hammer again.


Umbros wrote:
I do think it is worth playing around with making the mission secondary mandatory.


It's worth trying it for sure. I've played a few games this way and it's great.

Honestly, I'd love to see it pushed even more. The "primary objective" markers should ACTUALLY be the secondary objectives. The "Primary" objective should be the thing that is unique and distinct about the mission (i.e. controlling the power stations, moving the relic, capturing enemy territory, etc.) and should be the primary means of getting points.

Objectives also work better when they fundamentally require players to make a trade-off between scoring points versus doing the usual attack. Many of the mission specific secondary's do something like this.

Also worth pointing out are the missions in the crusade pack. These are structured often with an attacker and defender side - and I think these could have a place in matched play, where players perhaps bid CP's at the start of the game for the right to choose who is the attacker or defender.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/30 19:01:28


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Also in Crusade, secondaries (agendas) typically don't earn vp; they earn xp for the unit(s) who achieve them.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






What does a kill secondary actually accomplish anyways? Other than reward you for what you were going to do anyways? That is my issue with them?

Also - why do some objectives offer more points and some less? The pregame minutia of trying to figure out the max points you can achieve in a game by picking secondaries is pretty lame...your opponents armies basically determines your objectives. Pretty backwards to how objectives should be. Objectives should be determined by the mission not your opponents army..

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran



Canada

 Xenomancers wrote:
What does a kill secondary actually accomplish anyways? Other than reward you for what you were going to do anyways? That is my issue with them?

Also - why do some objectives offer more points and some less? The pregame minutia of trying to figure out the max points you can achieve in a game by picking secondaries is pretty lame...your opponents armies basically determines your objectives. Pretty backwards to how objectives should be. Objectives should be determined by the mission not your opponents army..


Well, the Primary Objective is driven by the mission. The Secondaries can be driven by your opponent's list, but sometimes that doesn't work. I find the Secondaries are a great part of 9th edition, but I get that some of you don't. I found most of GW's earlier mission sets rather lame in comparison.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

the only way kill secondaries work is based on pl or wounds. even then, only so much
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Killing secondaries are there for a reason, they balance skew lists.

Notice that I didn't say "Punish", because they are not meant to punish since some factions simply are meant to skew, like IG.

It doesn't change the fact though, that when you meet a skew list, a part of your army becomes useless. All your anti tank is useless against an horde list, and all your anti infantry is useless against a parking lot.
Those secondaries exist to offset this disadvantage, so in principle it is a good thing that we have them.
Obviously they need some tweaks, for many of the reasons already highlighted in this thread.
This also should make it clear why there is no anti elite secondary. Elite infantries were never considered a skew, since that profile is vulnerable to both light fire and AT fire. Problem is that now we have the gravis profile, which starts to being quite protected against small arms. A full gravis/termi/wolf list is a skew and should get a corresponding secondary (1 point for every 3W 3+ or better model destroyed).
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
Killing secondaries are there for a reason, they balance skew lists.

Notice that I didn't say "Punish", because they are not meant to punish since some factions simply are meant to skew, like IG.

It doesn't change the fact though, that when you meet a skew list, a part of your army becomes useless. All your anti tank is useless against an horde list, and all your anti infantry is useless against a parking lot.
Those secondaries exist to offset this disadvantage, so in principle it is a good thing that we have them.
Obviously they need some tweaks, for many of the reasons already highlighted in this thread.
This also should make it clear why there is no anti elite secondary. Elite infantries were never considered a skew, since that profile is vulnerable to both light fire and AT fire. Problem is that now we have the gravis profile, which starts to being quite protected against small arms. A full gravis/termi/wolf list is a skew and should get a corresponding secondary (1 point for every 3W 3+ or better model destroyed).


I just don't think this logic holds up.
Or at least it assumes all lists are skews unless they consist of:
Just 2-3 characters, at most 1 psyker.
Some troops (but not that many).
Some elite infantry.
At most 2-3 vehicles.

Now a Marine list does tend to look like this. But loads of non-MEQ factions don't - and really, without a lot of special pleading, can't (hence why "bring back the classic force organisation chart" feels like a non-starter).

If a Guard player brings 10+ vehicles, then okay its an armour skew. If he brings say 5, that's potentially what, 40% of his points? Not that much of a skew really. For 5 characters we could be talking sub 10%. Is that a "character skew" somehow? I'm not sure I can build a vaguely sensible Dark Eldar army that isn't almost certain to give up 15 points on Bring It Down. Am I skewing because I don't want to cover the table with foot slogging Kabalites/Wyches/Wracks? GSC find themselves in a similar boat of being "balanced" for bringing characters they were clearly *meant to take*.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





The character and psyker ones are meaningless in my opinion. The fact that the opponent has an high number of characters doesn't impact you in any way.

Bring it down instead is necessary, but as stated previously, it needs some tweaks to make sure that a 50 point vehicle doesn't give the opponent 2 points.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Spoletta wrote:
It doesn't change the fact though, that when you meet a skew list, a part of your army becomes useless. All your anti tank is useless against an horde list, and all your anti infantry is useless against a parking lot.


Given the "To Wound" chart in 8th and 9th, "useless" is over-stating things. Inefficient, sure, but you can use either type of weapon against the wrong sort of target to some effect, if not an ideal result.

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in us
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne




Noctis Labyrinthus

Bitharne wrote:
For instance I had a Knight oppoent recently that had 3 Knights, two armiggers, and an assassin. Titan Slayer was a risk because he only had the three knights so if he delayed me and kept away with one I can't score max.


That's not a risk, almost no secondary can be reliably maxed in a given game. Deploy scramblers is taken for being a very reliable ten points. Titan Slayer gives up ten points base very reliably to most armies and also has a best case scenario of a full 15.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:

I am conflicted on Abhor the Witch.


You shouldn't be, it's one of the most lopsided secondaries in the game.

Punishing Keeper lists isn't worth making Thousand Sons and Grey Knights give up 15 points for free for the crime of showing up. If Keeper lists need to be nerfed then Games Workshop can nerf them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/31 11:32:31


 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Spoletta wrote:
Killing secondaries are there for a reason, they balance skew lists.

Notice that I didn't say "Punish", because they are not meant to punish since some factions simply are meant to skew, like IG.

It doesn't change the fact though, that when you meet a skew list, a part of your army becomes useless. All your anti tank is useless against an horde list, and all your anti infantry is useless against a parking lot.
Those secondaries exist to offset this disadvantage, so in principle it is a good thing that we have them.
Obviously they need some tweaks, for many of the reasons already highlighted in this thread.
This also should make it clear why there is no anti elite secondary. Elite infantries were never considered a skew, since that profile is vulnerable to both light fire and AT fire. Problem is that now we have the gravis profile, which starts to being quite protected against small arms. A full gravis/termi/wolf list is a skew and should get a corresponding secondary (1 point for every 3W 3+ or better model destroyed).

Elite infantry are not that vulnerable to "light fire". MEQ and better defensive profiles have little to fear from lasguns and bolters. If you want to kill marines you need AP, and at least S4: plasma, disintegrators, auto cannons, etc.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Killing secondaries are there for a reason, they balance skew lists.

Notice that I didn't say "Punish", because they are not meant to punish since some factions simply are meant to skew, like IG.

It doesn't change the fact though, that when you meet a skew list, a part of your army becomes useless. All your anti tank is useless against an horde list, and all your anti infantry is useless against a parking lot.
Those secondaries exist to offset this disadvantage, so in principle it is a good thing that we have them.
Obviously they need some tweaks, for many of the reasons already highlighted in this thread.
This also should make it clear why there is no anti elite secondary. Elite infantries were never considered a skew, since that profile is vulnerable to both light fire and AT fire. Problem is that now we have the gravis profile, which starts to being quite protected against small arms. A full gravis/termi/wolf list is a skew and should get a corresponding secondary (1 point for every 3W 3+ or better model destroyed).

Elite infantry are not that vulnerable to "light fire". MEQ and better defensive profiles have little to fear from lasguns and bolters. If you want to kill marines you need AP, and at least S4: plasma, disintegrators, auto cannons, etc.


MEQ profiles have always gone down to lasgun weapons.

Remember that before the era of "SM are OP!!!!" there was the era of "Guardmen outshoot my marines!!!".
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Spoletta wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Killing secondaries are there for a reason, they balance skew lists.

Notice that I didn't say "Punish", because they are not meant to punish since some factions simply are meant to skew, like IG.

It doesn't change the fact though, that when you meet a skew list, a part of your army becomes useless. All your anti tank is useless against an horde list, and all your anti infantry is useless against a parking lot.
Those secondaries exist to offset this disadvantage, so in principle it is a good thing that we have them.
Obviously they need some tweaks, for many of the reasons already highlighted in this thread.
This also should make it clear why there is no anti elite secondary. Elite infantries were never considered a skew, since that profile is vulnerable to both light fire and AT fire. Problem is that now we have the gravis profile, which starts to being quite protected against small arms. A full gravis/termi/wolf list is a skew and should get a corresponding secondary (1 point for every 3W 3+ or better model destroyed).

Elite infantry are not that vulnerable to "light fire". MEQ and better defensive profiles have little to fear from lasguns and bolters. If you want to kill marines you need AP, and at least S4: plasma, disintegrators, auto cannons, etc.


MEQ profiles have always gone down to lasgun weapons.

Remember that before the era of "SM are OP!!!!" there was the era of "Guardmen outshoot my marines!!!".

It takes 36 BS4 lasgun shots to kill one T4 3+ 2W marine or two T4 3+ 1W CSM outside of cover on average. In cover it takes twice that to get the same results. Against things like gravis, Custodes, or terminators it's worse. If we're going to have kill secondaries, then there should be one for elite infantry and biker type units. I'd prefer no kill secondaries at all, as they just put more emphasis on winning at list building, and we already have enough of that.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I feel Guardsmen were OP. (The argument usually went "they are too good" "no, they are just human fence posts" "You mean a fence post with better shooting than most things in the game?" "no pls maths burns no".)

But things change.

In ye olde world, a 40 point squad expected to kill 1 13 point 1 wound marine if they were all in rapid fire range. 13/40=32.5% return.

Today that squad is now 50 points, and expects to do a single wound. As Tacticals are 18 points for 2, that's 9/50=18% return. (Call it 20% versus Intercessors if you want to avoid special pleading).

32.5->20% is a significant drop. Its a similar story for all the basic 1 damage troops (Kabalites, fire warriors etc).

Now you might say 18%/20% isn't nothing - and sure, you throw enough guns into marines and they do drop. But this is the same for just about everything. I mean you could say "its cos they suck" - but Guardsmen are about as efficient shooting the new Gladiator tanks as they are at shooting basic marines. They are worse shooting say Rhinos - but thats because rhinos have cheap wounds.

Now that might be desired. You can argue for fluff and game reasons Marines should shrug off small arms. Hence the stats. But if so, they are surely just as much a skew as someone bringing a mech wall, or nine carnifexes or something.
   
Made in gb
Bounding Assault Marine




United Kingdom

I don't mind secondary objectives even though I preferred the old style missions (especially the tactical objective cards). I find most fairly pointless and I that there are a handful that I take nearly every game because they are more doable than the rest. I do find that it is the secondaries which I lose most games from. My opponents always seem to do better than I where we are normally much closer on primary objectives. I also tend to find that the mission specific secondaries are generally not worth it.

40k: Space Marines (Rift Wardens) - 8050pts.
T9A: Vampire Covenants 2060pts. 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Tyel wrote:
I feel Guardsmen were OP. (The argument usually went "they are too good" "no, they are just human fence posts" "You mean a fence post with better shooting than most things in the game?" "no pls maths burns no".)

But things change.

In ye olde world, a 40 point squad expected to kill 1 13 point 1 wound marine if they were all in rapid fire range. 13/40=32.5% return.

Today that squad is now 50 points, and expects to do a single wound. As Tacticals are 18 points for 2, that's 9/50=18% return. (Call it 20% versus Intercessors if you want to avoid special pleading).

32.5->20% is a significant drop. Its a similar story for all the basic 1 damage troops (Kabalites, fire warriors etc).

Now you might say 18%/20% isn't nothing - and sure, you throw enough guns into marines and they do drop. But this is the same for just about everything. I mean you could say "its cos they suck" - but Guardsmen are about as efficient shooting the new Gladiator tanks as they are at shooting basic marines. They are worse shooting say Rhinos - but thats because rhinos have cheap wounds.

Now that might be desired. You can argue for fluff and game reasons Marines should shrug off small arms. Hence the stats. But if so, they are surely just as much a skew as someone bringing a mech wall, or nine carnifexes or something.


I was talking about MEQ, not PEQ. Yeah, I know that now things got confusing since many MEQ profiles changed to PEQ profile, but the MEQ profile is still 1W T4 3+.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/31 18:12:52


 
   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

Re: Abhor
Considering that both factions I play (Necrons and Kroot) have virtually no chance at affecting any psykers (zero way to use the psychic phase) and I've spent the last edition just having to stand there, watch, and remove models, this secondary is really important.
I know I'm a bit biased, but it's important to point out, especially in an edition where Necrons are the big Xenos threat, thus, getting lots of new players.

213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




But again, that's the total wrong way to do game balance. If there's a problem with psykers (there isn't, but let's indulge the assumption), the solution is to address the problem, not just handicap them with a secondary.
   
Made in us
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne




Noctis Labyrinthus

 Blndmage wrote:
Re: Abhor
Considering that both factions I play (Necrons and Kroot) have virtually no chance at affecting any psykers (zero way to use the psychic phase) and I've spent the last edition just having to stand there, watch, and remove models, this secondary is really important.
I know I'm a bit biased, but it's important to point out, especially in an edition where Necrons are the big Xenos threat, thus, getting lots of new players.


Really important for what? Dogstomping Grey Knights and Thousand Sons players with no counterplay?

Having a considerably better army doesn't give you enough of an advantage, you need to be able to trivialize the match-up entirely?
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

Seems to me the problem with Abor the Witch isn't that it exist. The problem is that it isn't in Purge the Enemy. That would prevent both doubling it up with Assassinate and getting triple kill secondaries by using Abor the Witch along with a No Mercy, No Respite and a Purge the Enemy secondaries.

Heck, it would probably be a good thing if Warpcraft as a category was removed and all those secondaries were distributed into the other 4 categories.

Makes me think of an interesting idea for doing Secondaries. 4 Categories of secondaries. You pick one from each category. Your opponent then decides which one you don't use. So while all the secondaries are of your choosing, it isn't the most optimal three.
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight






How fething dare you <Insert IG Player> for picking one basic unit out the three troop choices you have that allow your army to function properly. How fething dare you skew.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 alextroy wrote:
Makes me think of an interesting idea for doing Secondaries. 4 Categories of secondaries. You pick one from each category. Your opponent then decides which one you don't use. So while all the secondaries are of your choosing, it isn't the most optimal three.


I think the issue with this is that we're approaching there being an entire pre-match minigame that exists only to determine the victory conditions for the actual game.

It would be like the players having to play a full game of Yugioh in order to determine deployment zones.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 vipoid wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Makes me think of an interesting idea for doing Secondaries. 4 Categories of secondaries. You pick one from each category. Your opponent then decides which one you don't use. So while all the secondaries are of your choosing, it isn't the most optimal three.


I think the issue with this is that we're approaching there being an entire pre-match minigame that exists only to determine the victory conditions for the actual game.

It would be like the players having to play a full game of Yugioh in order to determine deployment zones.
Do... do you not?
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

 Mezmorki wrote:
Personally, I'd like to change this state of affairs, at least within my own group. My vision for 40K is one where the tactics you employ on the battlefield matter far more than the list you bring. This likely means, among other things, restricting the force organization charts a bit more (i.e. everyone use a single battalion detachment) and re-thinking entirely the secondary victory system.

My issue with this is that it's never going to happen.

For one there will always be a meta. Even in a game where rock has its best match-up versus scissors with a 60% win-rate and still wins 40% against paper and the same holds for all other match-ups. No list is ever purely rock or purely scissors and eventually combos that tilt either the wins in good matches or even up the disadvantage in losing matches will be discovered and that will set a meta. Metas are always exclusionary to some styles of play so any given list may not work even in such a balanced system.

The other issue is that an anti-horde skew list might run into an armored list that it can only wound on 6's. Regardless of how that game plays out and who wins, it'll be a match that doesn't exactly showcase the game in a great light. The thing is, that's realistic. We know what happens when light infantry meets tanks, bunkers, or fortified positions and it doesn't go well for the light infantry, there's a reason why there has always been an interest in airdropped and amphibious armor and yet that same armor is rarely good enough to be worth fielding.

In short, the game where both players have a choice in listing building can never escape being dominated by list choices.

 Xenomancers wrote:
What does a kill secondary actually accomplish anyways? Other than reward you for what you were going to do anyways? That is my issue with them?

Also - why do some objectives offer more points and some less? The pregame minutia of trying to figure out the max points you can achieve in a game by picking secondaries is pretty lame...your opponents armies basically determines your objectives. Pretty backwards to how objectives should be. Objectives should be determined by the mission not your opponents army..

That's nonsense. Your pregame planning should always be heavily influenced by the enemy's forces. No sane commander is going to instruct his soldiers to focus on something that either doesn't exist in the enemy's force or which the enemy can easily make impossible by employing skill in their own actions.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/02 03:46:38


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







I can certainly agree that all the kill secondaries should be grouped into one category - including Abhor - to prevent getting rewarded twice for one achievement. That seems sensible.

Not sure what to do with Warpcraft after that, though potentially bundling those objectives with some of the other "taking actions" objectives in one category reduces the potential advantage some factions may have regarding access to Warpcraft objectives.

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Canadian 5th wrote:

That's nonsense. Your pregame planning should always be heavily influenced by the enemy's forces. No sane commander is going to instruct his soldiers to focus on something that either doesn't exist in the enemy's force or which the enemy can easily make impossible by employing skill in their own actions.


You mean like operation Market Garden, because from what I understand, the british don't claim Montgomery to have been insane. Or stuff like rolling wave tactics the Soviets used durning 1920 or WWII. In 1943 the 1st divions of the Polish Communist Army was send without air support , by order of the soviet high command to attack a german forces around Lenino, without an artilery barrage or support from Soviet units in the same area. What followed was 50% loses in 2 days, and territory gains that were soon lost, because the units that went 17km deep in to german lines were in danger of being cut off. Durning WWI it was very common for ally forces to send in ANZAC or colony units to be bleed, sometimes just so the germans would use up ammo or to make breachs in mine fields. Durning fights around Galipoli the ally forces were attacking up steap hills, through mine fields and razorwire suffering gigantic loses and achiving nothing. Americans and French durning fights in Korea and Vietnam were doing mighty stupid things, sending troops not knowing what is around them, and losing a ton of them too.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: