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.

Yep. More diversity in missions promotes more balanced list building and makes it harder to "solve" a particular army.

To the guy talking about secondaries, secondaries don't really actually increase variability because you're always going to take the same secondaries in a given situation (i.e. your army is the same, their army is the same, and the mission is the same). If you don't, it's because you made a mistake last time. There is a best secondary pick for any given set of variables, so the only way the secondary choice will increase variability is if someone makes an error in secondary selection.

If secondaries were genuinely a lot more dynamic than they are and a lot less tied to your and your opponent's list, they could increase variability. But they aren't. Your secondary picks are essentially locked by the combination of your list, your opponent's list, and the mission, unless you deliberately make a non-optimal choice.

yukishiro1 wrote:
...secondaries don't really actually increase variability because you're always going to take the same secondaries in a given situation (i.e. your army is the same, their army is the same, and the mission is the same)....

The problem right now is that because most mission secondaries are unviable two different missions which should be unique situations, turn out to be pretty much the same situation, so the goal of balancing mission secondaries would be to make each mission feel like a novel situation even if the lists are the same.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
... I think a goal of missions should be to promote adaptability, to force players to compromise their one-trick-pony in order to add utility...

Yes, but how much efficiency to sacrifice on the altar of adaptability is a math problem of optimizing your chance of winning a game or tournament. At some point if you push this far enough you're going to run into "Astra Militarum cannot win mission #3 against Orks and mission #6 against Harlequins and cannot lose mission #2 against Orks and mission #3 against Harlequins". Because if the Astra Militarum list was changed to be able to win these matchups then the win rate would go from 44% to 38% and that isn't worth it, so you just have to eat those occasional automatic losses.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There should be missions where all the objectives are centrally located and Tau will need to take some points off their gun line to add mobile elements.

Exists:

There should be missions with lots of little objectives that make it hard on armies running only a small number of powerful units.

Exists:

There should be missions that screw with reinforcements

I think that would just make them not get used.

screw with fliers

Which would be really punishing to armies that need them.

screw with LoS

Feels unnecessary, but I can't envision how this would work.

but something with enough oomph that a well built army can't go all-in on its gimmick

What you guys are looking for are reasons for people to take different things in their list. That exists now. The internal balance of new books has been pretty good couple with a mission structure that allows people to use different approaches. There's room for refinement, but I haven't seen something that adds variability and also doesn't just punish something for little reason. Back in 7th those dynamics were ok, because the way you won was way more hamfisted and allowed for any list from all bikes to all tanks. That stuff doesn't fly now.

Thanks for the feedback on secondaries, as I don't tend to use them (Agendas are a very different think as they are decoupled from vicoty conditions).

I think someone pointed out earlier in the thread that if you've got a big enough army, you can build different variations to achieve different secondaries.

If I was a competitive player, I think I'd have my finely tooled Strike Force army built for my preferred secondaries, and I'd use it that way when prepping with tournies or the first time I was facing a new enemy.

And then, when I started to get bored, I'd drop down to Incursion and pick different secondaries knowing that I'd be able to create a different kind of list without buying more models.

I'd want to play every secondary at my disposal at least once, but I can see how it require a lot of models to do that at Strikeforce or Onslaught.

Theatres of war can still mix it up for you- you can keep the secondaries your army is built for and still get a different feel out of a game, even against the same opponent.

Still going to argue that the tools are there, but I admit my ignorance of the GT mission Pack and Secondaries in general do leave the argument somewhat toothless.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...I think that is looking at it from the wrong side. I think a goal of missions should be to promote adaptability, to force players to compromise their one-trick-pony in order to add utility...

In theory, sure. In practice the problem is that there are whole army books that are so one-trick-pony that you can break the whole book by doing this. Want to add elements to your Harlequins army that don't get screwed by no-Invuls? Too bad, you can't, better buy some allies from a different Codex. Want to add infantry to your Knights? Yup, different Codex time. Want your Tau to not fold immediately when touched in melee? Bet you wish you were an army with access to Allies!

40K as a game is MUCH better than in 7th edition since the rules are easier to learn.

However, it's getting ridiculously complicated. You need a ton of books/supplements. Keeping up with all developments is MANDATORY otherwise you won't know what the hell is going on (Legends, Forge World, Psychic War etc). It's too fragmented and too scary to buy into if you know nothing about the game or the setting.

Also, and this is the big one, 40K is depressing as hell these days. Covid has hit the world very hard, but if you turn to 40K, all it has to offer is a litany of human world being destroyed, Imperial crusades being defeated, Guard regiments being mercilessly exterminated (usually by their own side) etc.

Seriously - the Imperium is not just in the worst trouble of any faction I've ever encountered in any genre, it is constantly, constantly losing worlds. It's losing entire sectors easily every day. Even the Indomitus Crusade, the biggest assembling of might in 10,000 years, had a near hopeless task and had to be disbanded for some reason ("well, we're still surrounded on all sides, better call it a day").

I don't care how big the Imperium is and how Captain Marvel-level the Space Marines have become. The Imperium would have collapsed, there's no question about it whatsoever.

Grimdark has become grimderp.

 NoPoet wrote:
Grimdark has become grimderp.

Honestly that's a complaint I've heard for years, and I think it's what happens when you focus on making the setting darker and darker without throwing any light to contrast the darkness so it all becomes so routine for the setting any shock factor is just like getting a bowl of plain vanilla ice cream: still good but not as interesting as it could be.

Guilliman offers the setting hope and even if we know he can't change it (and he's fighting a losing battle) his inclusion at least gives some balance to the mess that is the Imperium.

 NoPoet wrote:


However, it's getting ridiculously complicated. You need a ton of books/supplements. Keeping up with all developments is MANDATORY otherwise you won't know what the hell is going on (Legends, Forge World, Psychic War etc). It's too fragmented and too scary to buy into if you know nothing about the game or the setting.

If your intent is to dominate at a tourney, there is some truth to this.

But GW specifically designed this game so that you know YOUR faction. That's how the silent majority play; it's how the game was designed.

Are you a marine? 3 books. Three.
Anyone else? 2 books.
Throw in the mission pack your using for one extra.
FAQ's for those. Done. That's it.

Everything else? Figure it out at the table like we did before tournaments and the internet existed.

Now admittedly, GW themselves are actively encouraging the sportification of 40k, and the more they do that, the more legitimacy your argument has. But this is why GW gives you three ways to play- if sport hammer is too much, and there's no shame in that- it is for me, you don't have to play that game.

I'm a dedicated Crusader, and I advocate for it all the time, but honestly? The dude who plays only the models he likes against someone else who plays only the models he likes using the open war deck is probably the happiest dude on Dakka, and he's just waiting for the malcontents to join him.

It's amazing that they seem to be following right along the path privateer just went down. Maybe that's just the cyclical life of a wargame and this saga of 40k is getting close to the end.

 Irkjoe wrote:
It's amazing that they seem to be following right along the path privateer just went down. Maybe that's just the cyclical life of a wargame and this saga of 40k is getting close to the end.

People have been saying it's the end of 40k for more than twenty years. Not likely when the game is making more money than ever.

 Irkjoe wrote:
It's amazing that they seem to be following right along the path privateer just went down. Maybe that's just the cyclical life of a wargame and this saga of 40k is getting close to the end.

PP died because they botched a launch right when GW was doing a new edition, promising change, and trying to market themselves to the customers they'd lost to PP in the first place. GW doesn't have a lurking rival ready and waiting to snap up their playerbase in that same way.

My point is what came after mk3; the constant updates, faqs, CID, and releases tired people out within the year. I get the same feeling with gw but I'm not sure how big the tournament player market is for them vs the casual.

 Irkjoe wrote:
My point is what came after mk3; the constant updates, faqs, CID, and releases tired people out within the year. I get the same feeling with gw but I'm not sure how big the tournament player market is for them vs the casual.

Thing is that this is correlation, not causation, but go on making your tinfoil hat.

 Irkjoe wrote:
My point is what came after mk3; the constant updates, faqs, CID, and releases tired people out within the year. I get the same feeling with gw but I'm not sure how big the tournament player market is for them vs the casual.

The CIDs were a retraction/apology after a lot of the playerbase had already gone.

MKIII has One glaring problem that is abused by it's second major problem-1 official theme lists were poorly designed which led to 2 the toxic steamroller.comp players abusing the game system.

The core rules of MKIII are the best the game has ever been. it is quite fun to play as long as you have a group of casual like minded players.

You can still play models you like because they look cool or fit a personal theme/list design and the list is still viable to play.

The thing that is hurting PP the most is internally the marketing and supply side and the other thing they cannot control the hard core player groups that chase new players away from the game.

In the past few months our casual group have added a cygnar trencher player, a crucible guard player and a legion of everblight player who all now have full armies and then some to play with.

Regarding PP, I can't imagine it helped that they decided to close all the faction-specific sections on their forum, and make it so that there is no equivalent of 'general discussion'.

Previously, I'd found their forums to be very helpful to new players. But after that change I never visited them again.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

And you left out 8th, which had tons of missions, with the CA books adding lots more with some very cool victory conditions.

Then there's 9th, with its variation on 4-8 objectives, and totally symmetrical combat.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

>.>

<.<

....All the missions from 8th are completely compatible with 9th.

 vipoid wrote:
Regarding PP, I can't imagine it helped that they decided to close all the faction-specific sections on their forum, and make it so that there is no equivalent of 'general discussion'.

Previously, I'd found their forums to be very helpful to new players. But after that change I never visited them again.

Forums are so weird for company, it’s almost random if it’s positive or not to keep them up. I think it’s a good resource for a game to keep butt..

For many company I think they think Facebook is enough back then, and now I spend most of my hobby chat on reddit as a one stop info on all my hobby’s and dakka so I not sure it’s hindered me specifically and I don’t think many of our players even know the forums existed for PP.
Even if I am huge into infinity I spend little time on there official forums compared to other places I discuss the game.

And I wonder if the lack of central forums has helped GW over the years, as they can segment and control community even if they unintentionally did it.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

And you left out 8th, which had tons of missions, with the CA books adding lots more with some very cool victory conditions.

Then there's 9th, with its variation on 4-8 objectives, and totally symmetrical combat.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

>.>

<.<

....All the missions from 8th are completely compatible with 9th.

For that matter, so are most of AoS missions (except the ones that directly reference Battleline, Behemoth, etc), and like... 7th edition, 5th edition, 4th edition, etc 40k.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

And you left out 8th, which had tons of missions, with the CA books adding lots more with some very cool victory conditions.

Then there's 9th, with its variation on 4-8 objectives, and totally symmetrical combat.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

>.>

<.<

....All the missions from 8th are completely compatible with 9th.

9th's missions are a large part of why the game works better than before, just dropping 8th edition's missions onto the core rule doesn't solve the problem. For example, the main reason why gunline aren't a thing in 9th are the missions. If you play a mission from an older book which has half the objectives in their deployment zone, some armies go right back to zero movement while shooting the opponent off the table.

What H.B.M.C. (and me as well!) want is missions as diverse as CA2018's supplies from above and four pillars with the same improved objective placement and battlemaps as 9th edition's missions.

Essentially the current GT2021 has the same problem that the last iteration of maelstrom had. If you play enough games, eventually every mission feels the same.
The little differences between which shadow operations, battlefield supremacy or no mercy, no respite secondary my opponent picked has next to no impact on the game - most of those are auto-decided by the match-up anyways. Most variation comes from the two armies that are playing.

 Jidmah wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

And you left out 8th, which had tons of missions, with the CA books adding lots more with some very cool victory conditions.

Then there's 9th, with its variation on 4-8 objectives, and totally symmetrical combat.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

>.>

<.<

....All the missions from 8th are completely compatible with 9th.

9th's missions are a large part of why the game works better than before, just dropping 8th edition's missions onto the core rule doesn't solve the problem. For example, the main reason why gunline aren't a thing in 9th are the missions. If you play a mission from an older book which has half the objectives in their deployment zone, some armies go right back to zero movement while shooting the opponent off the table.

What H.B.M.C. (and me as well!) want is missions as diverse as CA2018's supplies from above and four pillars with the same improved objective placement and battlemaps as 9th edition's missions.

Essentially the current GT2021 has the same problem that the last iteration of maelstrom had. If you play enough games, eventually every mission feels the same.
The little differences between which shadow operations, battlefield supremacy or no mercy, no respite secondary my opponent picked has next to no impact on the game - most of those are auto-decided by the match-up anyways. Most variation comes from the two armies that are playing.

Improved battlemaps? You just mean the board size, and having objectives be towards the middle? or what? If you (this is my interpretation obviously) dislike the secondary system, but you also dont like where the objectives are in the pre-9th missions, where the objectives are is...generally what the pre-9th missions are.

You could add in something like 'you only score at the beginning of your turn' and the 9th ed miniboard, but I think you'd find missions like the one you referenced where the objectives move are preeeetty miserable.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Improved battlemaps? You just mean the board size, and having objectives be towards the middle? or what? If you (this is my interpretation obviously) dislike the secondary system, but you also dont like where the objectives are in the pre-9th missions, where the objectives are is...generally what the pre-9th missions are.

Basically what the GT2020/2021 missions do better compared to 8th is the objective placement connected to the deployment map. No more mini-game, no player dropping three objectives in his deployment zone while the other drops his in midfield. In addition, there are always more objectives outside of your deployment zone than inside of it. This by far the most important part, as it forces all armes to move out and protect their backfield at the same time.
The table size is definitely an improvement, but not a large one. It helps shifting power away from deep strikers and super-mobile units - according to these forums some people are deadly afraid of boyz appearing in their line with da jump in 8th, while my experience in 9th is more that you can't find a good spot to place 30 boyz in most games, and that you just use da jump to grap unattended objectives.

I also don't dislike the secondary system, it does its job of balancing armies against each other quite well, but it doesn't add anything for variety.

You could add in something like 'you only score at the beginning of your turn' and the 9th ed miniboard, but I think you'd find missions like the one you referenced where the objectives move are preeeetty miserable.

It's not that simple. You don't have proper board for these missions and no primary rules mean you can't use secondary objectives.

Sure, I could just create my own missions, but those face the same issues as all other house-rules.

Thank the Emperor for Open War, I 'spose.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Thank the Emperor for Open War, I 'spose.

The only way to play 40k....

I saw the new Ork Boys kit. They look amazing but as a Guard player I'm incredibly pissed off. It's just another spit in the face, we're stuck with an upgrade sprue to a 20 year old kit. Which apparently justifies a $45 USD or $77 AUD cost for 10 Guardsmen.

Jarms48 wrote:
I saw the new Ork Boys kit. They look amazing but as a Guard player I'm incredibly pissed off. It's just another spit in the face, we're stuck with an upgrade sprue to a 20 year old kit. Which apparently justifies a $45 USD or $77 AUD cost for 10 Guardsmen.

"A Xeno army is getting updated but how can I make this about MEEEEEEE?"

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:
I saw the new Ork Boys kit. They look amazing but as a Guard player I'm incredibly pissed off. It's just another spit in the face, we're stuck with an upgrade sprue to a 20 year old kit. Which apparently justifies a $45 USD or $77 AUD cost for 10 Guardsmen.

"A Xeno army is getting updated but how can I make this about MEEEEEEE?"

Don't be that guy.

What's happened with the Cadian box is stupid - the price especially. Used to be AUD$50 for 20 of the fething things. It's over 300% more now.

Ork = good way to do it
Guard = bad way to do it

Simple as that.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Ork = good way to do it

We ain't seen what the new Ork kit looks like. Given GW's modern standards we're infinitely more likely to get a set of very limited Orks that are completely incompatible with the rest of the Ork range.

Still better than what cadians got....