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.

Glad to see the back of the current Secondary objectives. As ever, a lot will depend on the specifics of the various objectives. The Gambit they previewed doesn't seem good though. I'm not sure I like the idea of an objective with a very slim chance of success giving you 30VPs in one go because you got massively lucky on the dice roll. I don't think I'd feel good about that if I was on either side of that roll.

Hopefully GW can also produce enough of these card packs for everyone to get one, unlike previous GT mission packs.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ok so what do people think of this?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/28/gambits-and-missions-heres-how-you-win-games-of-new40k/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-40,000&utm_content=gambits28042023&fbclid=IwAR2EN6wOa64KcEKkvSQ94u8o82vMj6m28cjkABr57vRRiUsDyKvCi1qTvdk

"These objectives are scattered across a battlefield of 44″x60″ at Strike Force (1,000 points) and Incursion size (2,000 points), or 44″x90″ for an Onslaught game (3,000+ points). With both players deployed on the short edges, It’s the perfect theatre for a thrilling battle."

I wonder what a 2500 point game counts as . . .

Slipspace wrote:
Glad to see the back of the current Secondary objectives. As ever, a lot will depend on the specifics of the various objectives. The Gambit they previewed doesn't seem good though. I'm not sure I like the idea of an objective with a very slim chance of success giving you 30VPs in one go because you got massively lucky on the dice roll. I don't think I'd feel good about that if I was on either side of that roll.

Hopefully GW can also produce enough of these card packs for everyone to get one, unlike previous GT mission packs.

Well, it doesn't guarantee a win and they won't be in competitive games, but I think the key thing here is letting a tournament player score how they're used to while allowing a casual player to score how they want and give them a little hail mary for fun.

Playing some narrative mission set turns tournament players off pretty quick, but if I lost to an orbital strike I'd have a hard time not enjoying that game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

asymetric objectives is cool, seems like secondaries as we know them are gone (good IMO). Eager to see in-detail how its gonna work

Well, they're still there, but it lets the tournament player play their fixed objective and a more casual player to play something more dynamic. Does that help with the pickup dynamic?

Also it looks like being attacker / defender will have an actual meaning in games.

did i miss it in the article? they mention secondaries being fixed now (instead of the current "pick 3" from a list and basically just build your list in a way that maximises them and minimizes how many your opponents can score)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ok so what do people think of this?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/28/gambits-and-missions-heres-how-you-win-games-of-new40k/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-40,000&utm_content=gambits28042023&fbclid=IwAR2EN6wOa64KcEKkvSQ94u8o82vMj6m28cjkABr57vRRiUsDyKvCi1qTvdk

"These objectives are scattered across a battlefield of 44″x60″ at Strike Force (1,000 points) and Incursion size (2,000 points), or 44″x90″ for an Onslaught game (3,000+ points). With both players deployed on the short edges, It’s the perfect theatre for a thrilling battle."

I wonder what a 2500 point game counts as . . .

come on, its pretty obvious which boardsize you'd play on .. don't be disingenuous

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
did i miss it in the article? they mention secondaries being fixed now (instead of the current "pick 3" from a list and basically just build your list in a way that maximises them and minimizes how many your opponents can score)

The way I read it is that you can have fixed secondaries - those stay the entire game. Or you can have maelstrom style and those change each time you score them.

It sounds like you draw them regardless.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
come on, its pretty obvious which boardsize you'd play on .. don't be disingenuous

Unless I'm grossly misremembering, the current rules put Strike Force at 1-1000pts, Incursion at 1001-2000pts, and Onslaught at 2001-3000pts. But now it says Onslaught is 3000+pts.

It's not clear to me either whether it's a simple typo and 2500pts is still Onslaught, or if they've reversed it and it's now 'this value and above'.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
did i miss it in the article? they mention secondaries being fixed now (instead of the current "pick 3" from a list and basically just build your list in a way that maximises them and minimizes how many your opponents can score)

The way I read it is that you can have fixed secondaries - those stay the entire game. Or you can have maelstrom style and those change each time you score them.

It sounds like you draw them regardless.

i'm talking about the faction-specific secondaries, along with the "abhor the witch, grind them down, etc" that are picked at the start of the game (or listbuilding honestly)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
come on, its pretty obvious which boardsize you'd play on .. don't be disingenuous

Unless I'm grossly misremembering, the current rules put Strike Force at 1-1000pts, Incursion at 1001-2000pts, and Onslaught at 2001-3000pts. But now it says Onslaught is 3000+pts.

It's not clear to me either whether it's a simple typo and 2500pts is still Onslaught, or if they've reversed it and it's now 'this value and above'.

to me its pretty obvious that if onslaught starts at 3k, 2.5k is still incustion-levels. Also, this is a Warcom article, don't expect that to be the final wording anyway

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i'm talking about the faction-specific secondaries, along with the "abhor the witch, grind them down, etc" that are picked at the start of the game (or listbuilding honestly)

Yea faction secondaries are seemingly dead ( for now ). Whether or not you can build around these remains to be seen, but the one so far doesn't permit it. I'm curious to see them all and how attacker / defender plays into how you approach the table.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i'm talking about the faction-specific secondaries, along with the "abhor the witch, grind them down, etc" that are picked at the start of the game (or listbuilding honestly)

Yea faction secondaries are seemingly dead ( for now ). Whether or not you can build around these remains to be seen, but the one so far doesn't permit it. I'm curious to see them all and how attacker / defender plays into how you approach the table.

I think we can expect faction-specific or even detachment-specific decks in the future. It's an extra thing for GW to sell alongside a codex and it doesn't complicate the game much while making factions feel different.

I think this is a really bad idea. If I want a casual game but my opponent just wants to safely crush me they don't need to do randomness. If I want to have a competitive game I don't want to lose because of a last second lucky draw. I am getting neither the benefit of AoO or Tempest.

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
come on, its pretty obvious which boardsize you'd play on .. don't be disingenuous

Unless I'm grossly misremembering, the current rules put Strike Force at 1-1000pts, Incursion at 1001-2000pts, and Onslaught at 2001-3000pts. But now it says Onslaught is 3000+pts.

It's not clear to me either whether it's a simple typo and 2500pts is still Onslaught, or if they've reversed it and it's now 'this value and above'.

This was addressed in one of the earlier articles.

The supported game sizes are Combat Patrol, 1000 points, 2000 points and 3000 points. You can probably make 2500 points work, but it's not one of the sizes the game is designed to support, so you may need to come up with some optimization yourself.


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

 Asmodai wrote:

The supported game sizes are Combat Patrol, 1000 points, 2000 points and 3000 points. You can probably make 2500 points work, but it's not one of the sizes the game is designed to support, so you may need to come up with some optimization yourself.


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

Nope, not official, so ergo 2500 pts is not supported or balanced. Anyone suggesting such should be pilloried and shamed for blighting such a perfectly balanced game....

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ok so what do people think of this?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/28/gambits-and-missions-heres-how-you-win-games-of-new40k/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-40,000&utm_content=gambits28042023&fbclid=IwAR2EN6wOa64KcEKkvSQ94u8o82vMj6m28cjkABr57vRRiUsDyKvCi1qTvdk

Excited to try these rules out, that's what I am.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ok so what do people think of this?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/28/gambits-and-missions-heres-how-you-win-games-of-new40k/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-40,000&utm_content=gambits28042023&fbclid=IwAR2EN6wOa64KcEKkvSQ94u8o82vMj6m28cjkABr57vRRiUsDyKvCi1qTvdk

Mission design is fine, gambits are bad design though.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ok so what do people think of this?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/28/gambits-and-missions-heres-how-you-win-games-of-new40k/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-40,000&utm_content=gambits28042023&fbclid=IwAR2EN6wOa64KcEKkvSQ94u8o82vMj6m28cjkABr57vRRiUsDyKvCi1qTvdk

"These objectives are scattered across a battlefield of 44″x60″ at Strike Force (1,000 points) and Incursion size (2,000 points), or 44″x90″ for an Onslaught game (3,000+ points). With both players deployed on the short edges, It’s the perfect theatre for a thrilling battle."

I wonder what a 2500 point game counts as . . .

Do you also wonder what a 1500 pt game is?

ccs wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ok so what do people think of this?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/28/gambits-and-missions-heres-how-you-win-games-of-new40k/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-40,000&utm_content=gambits28042023&fbclid=IwAR2EN6wOa64KcEKkvSQ94u8o82vMj6m28cjkABr57vRRiUsDyKvCi1qTvdk

"These objectives are scattered across a battlefield of 44″x60″ at Strike Force (1,000 points) and Incursion size (2,000 points), or 44″x90″ for an Onslaught game (3,000+ points). With both players deployed on the short edges, It’s the perfect theatre for a thrilling battle."

I wonder what a 2500 point game counts as . . .

Do you also wonder what a 1500 pt game is?

By the wording as given? A little bit, yeah. It's like it doesn't exist.

But also playing 2500 on a 44x60 is gonna be pretty crowded.

 Insectum7 wrote:

But also playing 2500 on a 44x60 is gonna be pretty crowded.

how do you know? we havnt seen point changes, maybe the scale of the game will be smaller

I love the new approach. I can see it leading to thematic missions, even in a tournament (I'd assume in a tournament the primary would be predetermined), like you could have a 'themed' tournament, where it's still a competitive event but has some flavour to it.

Win-win. I am still a bit sad 2000 is still the standard instead of 1500, but it's whatever. And kinda wish they went back to 6x4 table size.

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ok so what do people think of this?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/28/gambits-and-missions-heres-how-you-win-games-of-new40k/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-40,000&utm_content=gambits28042023&fbclid=IwAR2EN6wOa64KcEKkvSQ94u8o82vMj6m28cjkABr57vRRiUsDyKvCi1qTvdk

"These objectives are scattered across a battlefield of 44″x60″ at Strike Force (1,000 points) and Incursion size (2,000 points), or 44″x90″ for an Onslaught game (3,000+ points). With both players deployed on the short edges, It’s the perfect theatre for a thrilling battle."

I wonder what a 2500 point game counts as . . .

Do you also wonder what a 1500 pt game is?

By the wording as given? A little bit, yeah. It's like it doesn't exist.

I don't think it's rocket science to figure out that if 1k is played on table size X, and 2k is played on table size Y, then since 1500 is less than 2k , you'd use table size X....

 Insectum7 wrote:
But also playing 2500 on a 44x60 is gonna be pretty crowded.

I guess it'll depend upon what you're taking. Some of my forces? I can eat up 500 pts & barely increase the footprint of the army.
Also I'm sure that the Arbites aren't going to come haul us away for simply playing on a bigger table. Afterall, they haven't cared one bit that I've committed the ultimate heresy of routinely using non-GW models.

 vict0988 wrote:
I think this is a really bad idea. If I want a casual game but my opponent just wants to safely crush me they don't need to do randomness. If I want to have a competitive game I don't want to lose because of a last second lucky draw. I am getting neither the benefit of AoO or Tempest.

The one we've seen means that the player going for it needs to end turn 5 with at least one unit within 9" of one of your table quarters and that unit can't be in battle shock, that can be blocked, and even if they get uncontested units in every corner they still need a 9+ to earn 30 points which may not even win them the game. Gambits are desperate measures that basically take a miracle to even roll for.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
I think this is a really bad idea. If I want a casual game but my opponent just wants to safely crush me they don't need to do randomness. If I want to have a competitive game I don't want to lose because of a last second lucky draw. I am getting neither the benefit of AoO or Tempest.

The one we've seen means that the player going for it needs to end turn 5 with at least one unit within 9" of one of your table quarters and that unit can't be in battle shock, that can be blocked, and even if they get uncontested units in every corner they still need a 9+ to earn 30 points which may not even win them the game. Gambits are desperate measures that basically take a miracle to even roll for.

Yeah, which any good player thats already ahead in a game will be able to counter (gambits are NOT hidden info, seems like a lot of people don't seem to realise that)

They could work for very offensive designed and fast moving armies. I can imagine people sometimes tryning to go after them if they are a bit behind on VP and playing second. It could be funny if something like the custodes units splits in to X separate duds stratagem is still in the game. If your losing trying to roll a 12 on a 2d6, when your unit of 1 turned in to a unit of 6, isn't so improbable to pull off. Although it does depend if the gambit change can be done on turn 3 only, or not.

Karol wrote:
They could work for very offensive designed and fast moving armies. I can imagine people sometimes tryning to go after them if they are a bit behind on VP and playing second. It could be funny if something like the custodes units splits in to X separate duds stratagem is still in the game. If your losing trying to roll a 12 on a 2d6, when your unit of 1 turned in to a unit of 6, isn't so improbable to pull off. Although it does depend if the gambit change can be done on turn 3 only, or not.

what?

In short... Yes.

The ultra-competitive mentality is the problem.

The outcome of the game being prioritized over a mutually enjoyable experience is the problem.

Sacrificing the heart & soul of what Warhammer 40,000 is in order to mutate it into an eSport is the problem.

...but it doesn't need to be.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
They could work for very offensive designed and fast moving armies. I can imagine people sometimes tryning to go after them if they are a bit behind on VP and playing second. It could be funny if something like the custodes units splits in to X separate duds stratagem is still in the game. If your losing trying to roll a 12 on a 2d6, when your unit of 1 turned in to a unit of 6, isn't so improbable to pull off. Although it does depend if the gambit change can be done on turn 3 only, or not.

what?

If it is possible to change your primary to a gambit after turn 3, like on 4th or 5th, and you have an army that can split units with a unit rule or stratagem then a gambit like the gain 30VP for rolling 12+ on a 2d6+number of units in a corner wouldn't be hard to do. Otherwise it is very meh, because if you are at the back footing VP wise changing to gambit turn 3 will just make you lose harder. Especialy vs armies that can kill stuff fast and move far in a turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
In short... Yes.

The ultra-competitive mentality is the problem.

The outcome of the game being prioritized over a mutually enjoyable experience is the problem.

Sacrificing the heart & soul of what Warhammer 40,000 is in order to mutate it into an eSport is the problem.

...but it doesn't need to be.

Since when is losing the "heart & soul" of any game? Especialy in cases of games where you have to invest in to them and you are stuck with what you buy. Wanting to win at a game or any other activity is way older then ESports. There is a reason why even ancient civilisations had games with rules and clear winners and losers. There are rules and boards and even "tips&tricks" on how to win Sumerian table top games.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
They could work for very offensive designed and fast moving armies. I can imagine people sometimes tryning to go after them if they are a bit behind on VP and playing second. It could be funny if something like the custodes units splits in to X separate duds stratagem is still in the game. If your losing trying to roll a 12 on a 2d6, when your unit of 1 turned in to a unit of 6, isn't so improbable to pull off. Although it does depend if the gambit change can be done on turn 3 only, or not.

what?

If it is possible to change your primary to a gambit after turn 3, like on 4th or 5th, and you have an army that can split units with a unit rule or stratagem then a gambit like the gain 30VP for rolling 12+ on a 2d6+number of units in a corner wouldn't be hard to do. Otherwise it is very meh, because if you are at the back footing VP wise changing to gambit turn 3 will just make you lose harder. Especialy vs armies that can kill stuff fast and move far in a turn.

That's not even how the gambit works...

You count corners that have at least one qualifying unit, not each unit crammed into a corner, so the best you can do is fish for a 12+ on 2d6+3. So if you pull off this cunning plan perfectly you have a ~31% chance to score 30 points in a complete all-or-nothing maneuver that can be blocked if the other player just screens off his corners of the board. It's a desperate catch-up play that's probably going to fail to qualify to roll more than half the time and even when done perfectly has low odds to succeed.

Karol wrote:

If it is possible to change your primary to a gambit after turn 3, like on 4th or 5th, and you have an army that can split units with a unit rule or stratagem then a gambit like the gain 30VP for rolling 12+ on a 2d6+number of units in a corner wouldn't be hard to do. Otherwise it is very meh, because if you are at the back footing VP wise changing to gambit turn 3 will just make you lose harder. Especialy vs armies that can kill stuff fast and move far in a turn.

oh ok, you missread the gambit.

First, you pick it at the end of the 3rd battle round (so not on rounds 4-5)
Second, the gambit they showed looks for you to have ANY number of unit within a corner not in your deployment. Then you roll and add +1 for every other corner (so max +3).

So unless we get deployments that don't use the full table width, you need to cross the table, into enemy territory, then roll a 9+ on two dice. All that over 2 turns where your opponent KNOWS its happening and can try to deny you.

Third, we don't know what stratagems will be, we can't pass judgment on any of this with the point of view of 9th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Since when is losing the "heart & soul" of any game? Especialy in cases of games where you have to invest in to them and you are stuck with what you buy. Wanting to win at a game or any other activity is way older then ESports. There is a reason why even ancient civilisations had games with rules and clear winners and losers. There are rules and boards and even "tips&tricks" on how to win Sumerian table top games.

sigh... most people i know play to tell a story, winning or losing is irrelevant to the game. 40k is much closer to being a RPG than being Chess

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
I think this is a really bad idea. If I want a casual game but my opponent just wants to safely crush me they don't need to do randomness. If I want to have a competitive game I don't want to lose because of a last second lucky draw. I am getting neither the benefit of AoO or Tempest.

The one we've seen means that the player going for it needs to end turn 5 with at least one unit within 9" of one of your table quarters and that unit can't be in battle shock, that can be blocked, and even if they get uncontested units in every corner they still need a 9+ to earn 30 points which may not even win them the game. Gambits are desperate measures that basically take a miracle to even roll for.

Yeah, which any good player thats already ahead in a game will be able to counter (gambits are NOT hidden info, seems like a lot of people don't seem to realise that)

This does depend a little bit on the armies. 9" Is a big space to be trying to keep Saim Hann out of.

Deathguard doing this is just a long concession, though.

If winning and losing was irrelevant to 40k, then it wouldn't have winning conditions.

Even when it was at its most "telling a story", it still had objectives, a point system and a winner and a loser.

A game doesn't need to be Chess for winning and losing to be relevant.

Karol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
In short... Yes.

The ultra-competitive mentality is the problem.

The outcome of the game being prioritized over a mutually enjoyable experience is the problem.

Sacrificing the heart & soul of what Warhammer 40,000 is in order to mutate it into an eSport is the problem.

...but it doesn't need to be.

Since when is losing the "heart & soul" of any game? Especialy in cases of games where you have to invest in to them and you are stuck with what you buy. Wanting to win at a game or any other activity is way older then ESports. There is a reason why even ancient civilisations had games with rules and clear winners and losers. There are rules and boards and even "tips&tricks" on how to win Sumerian table top games.

Pay it no heed, it's a Casual At All Cost mentality, which is arguably worse than Win At All Cost.