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.

Simply put, I think GW should make and officially sponsor one game type called " Maneuver" based around Ob. Secs, VP's and Missions and another type called "Annihilation" based around tabling the opponent.

I know that is already optional but including it in the official rules and in events would really make it more widespread and viable within the community as a whole.

I also think a lot of people would prefer playing the latter game type more. Some of us don't want to worry about missions and ob. Sec in every game - we just want to shoot stuff.

I think you really overestimate the number of people who are interested in a version of 40k where you strip out virtually all strategic depth and just total up who has better dice math. The few people who want to play like that can already do it and you will never see a game mode like that in any formal event context where officialness matters.

Hey Aecus I have you on ignore for a reason. Could you stop following every thread I make? You've been the first comment in 2 of my newest threads.

Asenion wrote:
Hey Aecus I have you on ignore for a reason. Could you stop following every thread I make? You've been the first comment in 2 of my newest threads.

It's a public forum. You can start the discussion but you don't own it, and if you post things I want to comment on I will continue to comment on them. If you want to dictate who can comment on the things you say you should take your discussions to a private blog where you control membership. If you don't want to engage with someone then all you have to do is stop reading and replying to their posts.

Or, as a famous person once said, "it's not an airport, you don't have to announce your departure." If you're going to ignore someone then ignore them, don't keep talking to them.

I can't really see value in this considering that you can do this right now, you just play a game with zero objectives save for kill your opponent and you're done. You don't need to build and support and market a whole different game mode for that kind of play. This is something players can do themselves with 5 mins of talking before the game

 Overread wrote:
I can't really see value in this considering that you can do this right now, you just play a game with zero objectives save for kill your opponent and you're done. You don't need to build and support and market a whole different game mode for that kind of play. This is something players can do themselves with 5 mins of talking before the game

True but I don't see anything wrong with giving people the option and supporting it either.

Asenion wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I can't really see value in this considering that you can do this right now, you just play a game with zero objectives save for kill your opponent and you're done. You don't need to build and support and market a whole different game mode for that kind of play. This is something players can do themselves with 5 mins of talking before the game

True but I don't see anything wrong with giving people the option and supporting it either.

But what support are you after?
The game mode is already right there, many people already play this kind of game.

It's not like Killteam where there's a distinct gain to marketing it on its own - that of drawing in newbies and providing an increased chance of getting them into games whilst also luring time-limited oldies in as well. Thus creating an environment that draws in old and new people into the hobby through a shorter, faster, smaller model count game.

People who have 2K armies and who already play the game can already play annihilation games. Again all they have to do is pre-game agree to play such a game with their opponent.

 Overread wrote:

Asenion wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I can't really see value in this considering that you can do this right now, you just play a game with zero objectives save for kill your opponent and you're done. You don't need to build and support and market a whole different game mode for that kind of play. This is something players can do themselves with 5 mins of talking before the game

True but I don't see anything wrong with giving people the option and supporting it either.

But what support are you after?
The game mode is already right there, many people already play this kind of game.

It's not like Killteam where there's a distinct gain to marketing it on its own - that of drawing in newbies and providing an increased chance of getting them into games whilst also luring time-limited oldies in as well. Thus creating an environment that draws in old and new people into the hobby through a shorter, faster, smaller model count game.

People who have 2K armies and who already play the game can already play annihilation games. Again all they have to do is pre-game agree to play such a game with their opponent.

Just about anything. Just listing it as a game type is fine. It's just a suggestion anyways, not like GW is going to take any suggestions here seriously I imagine. Again I don't see it hurting anything.

And I can see it getting more people in. A lot might get turned off by the complexity of all the Ob.Sec. and Secondaries. A simple Army vs Army is easier to understand. GW just making this available in some formal manner could help that a lot.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
I think you really overestimate the number of people who are interested in a version of 40k where you strip out virtually all strategic depth and just total up who has better dice math.

I highly doubt any of the existing mission (types) have much to do with this, so I don't think we would lose anything with having only two missions. Let alone any measure of "strategic depth".

Anyway, I'm perfectly OK with the concept, but the 'Maneuver' mission should be called 'Domination' to better drive home the point.

If you want maneuver to be a part of the game, you don’t need to change the rules set. Maneuver requires space to move. Current game boards and objective placement tend to force the fight to the center of the table. A ma I ever game should use a larger board open up that space and make each objective require an effort to claim. The other board will make foot slogging less relevant and bring transports, deepstrike, and mobility options back to prominence. I’d also push to eliminate infantry move blocking a tank and stop letting vehicles get tied up to further encourage actual maneuvers.

Are you sure it's not already mentioned in the core rules? I would expect to see it in Free Play or Matched Play.

This is how my friends and I usually play, just last man standing. I remember a good 2v1 with my Inquisition + Guardsmen and my friend's Guilliman Ultramarines vs Ghazgull orks. I ended up tabled except for a single Jokaero who I hid amongst the Ultramarines, who eventually went down to a single apothecary and a handful of marines. I think the vile orks won that one! Good times.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
I think you really overestimate the number of people who are interested in a version of 40k where you strip out virtually all strategic depth and just total up who has better dice math.

I highly doubt any of the existing mission (types) have much to do with this, so I don't think we would lose anything with having only two missions. Let alone any measure of "strategic depth".

Anyway, I'm perfectly OK with the concept, but the 'Maneuver' mission should be called 'Domination' to better drive home the point.

I don't mean that the existence of "kill only" 40k would remove strategic depth from the normal game, I mean that "kill only" 40k would have zero strategic depth. The game mode would be nothing more than totaling up who brought better dice math and on-table decisions would be few and far between. Optimize your list, play the obvious buff stratagems, and hope your dice math wins. So what exactly is being added by officially supporting it? Events are never going to use it and that's the only place where officialness matters.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Optimize your list, play the obvious buff stratagems, and hope your dice math wins.

This is pretty much every mission in Warhammer 40k ever. The only difference is that in objective missions you stop your units on specific positions because an objective is there while in killy missions you stop your units on specific points because it is a good attack position. So "move to location to score points better" and "move to location to score points better", all other considerations be damned.

Annihilation missions might work if there was an option for not focussing on killing in the short term to get a later increase in damage or survivability. Actions and objectives that open up or close down map access, grant CP or survivability instead of VP.

All these things could be added on top of manoeuvre missions as well, so the question is why strip away the VP from holding objectives and doing actions? The answer might be to avoid the missions being too bloated and cumbersome, so you'd have to have a lot of the rules I mentioned before it makes sense to strip away the depth of the game that is introduced by scoring VP by holding objectives and doing actions.