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.

Played 11th today and all the new rules worked pretty much as advertised, hidden to play much part but we were both pretty aggressive. Battleshock really mattered and the new objectives played totally different. Cover felt impactful and it felt like we’re fighting over objectives not just standing on circles.

Stocking secondaries made the game feel more joined up, the armies didn’t just lurch from one thing to another they manoeuvred and set things up for the next turn and stuff.

It was good and felt like an evolution of 10th. Nothing seems to have gotten worse for me only better.

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree. Tripples of units only appeared in two cases.
Either it was due to something extremely powerful (DG demon engines, defilers, ork tankbustas), or when a codex simply has no other options for a specific role.

What has changed that GW now has a tool to nuke those massive imbalances without destroying perfectly fine lists which used some unit as part of their strategy, rather than have the whole army revolve around it.

The best example here was the PBC - nerfed into oblivion by a massiv point raise, there was zero reason to ever field it, you could have two other demon engines with more firepower for the same price. With the current implementation the first PBC is back to its old cost, so any DG player who wants to run one PBC can do so without kneecapping themselves, but anyone who wants to have reliable indirect fire support needs to pay the full price for it.

Or theme lists. My Full Company list has triples of two different BATTLE LINE units. My Spear of Macragge list had (at that time legal) more than Triples of the Razorback Dedicated Transport. First Company Lists can/will have Triples of Terminators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think Force Org is a good idea, but GW's categories were bunk and fairly arbitrary

It would be really interesting if they took after 30k's example and expanded the categories.

Not necessarily took after the whole system 30k has. But it's useful to have Heavy Transport separate from Armour since they don't necessarily fill much the same role at all.

Force Org that doesn't modify itself based on a theme list is what makes Force Org fail. Many editions ago if you took Sammael Ravenwing became TROOPS and if you took Belial Terminators became TROOPS. That did not help if you werent playing Dark Angels. Or if you wanted to play a generic HQ. They were STARTING down that path with alternate Force Org Charts, but then got rid of Force Org entirely splitting army creation from Force Org Everything to Pick Whatever, and Add a Det on top. Of the two, the second is better if you want to see variety (though variety still requires multiple distinct AND viable builds).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

ccs wrote:

In what world is running 2+ GK Thunderhawks problematic? Let alone even a thing.

Looks like everything over a certain threshhold got it by default. Mostly this seems to be done to prevent certain threshholds like too many Knights or Stompas, but they all seem to have a pretty consistent 10ish% tax on the second.

Sadly that doesn't make it better. Its for balance, but we didn't actually check to see if it needed balance isn't a good look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I think a better modern incarnation would be something like a Category keyword where like Gladiator would be a Category you can only take 3 of or something.

Great suggestion! We could call that Category "Heavy Support"?

I suspect this was more about tanks (for Space Marines) being in the Chapter Armoury and not necessarily a permanent part of the Company. When I read it I read it as a KEYWORD like AUXILLIARY - The Tanks, Speeders, and so on that a Company "checks out" from the Chapter. The keyword doesn't really matter its the application. I know AUXILIARRY contextually doesn't really work for Nids and other armies, but you get the premise at least.

On the Force Org chart - I think by 6th, at the latest, army rosters had generally expanded to the point that certain slots were overfilled if you stuck to the SM-themed force org options. Elites often seemed to just end up being a catch-all slot for anything that didn't fit elsewhere.

What I suspect would've been a better idea would've been to borrowed a concept from SM/TL and have, effectively, factional force org charts in each Codex, where the slots (other than HQ, Fortification and maybe Dedicated Transport) were more thematic for that army, and allow the ratios to be different for different forces.

Still keep the idea that an army has a structure, and limits on how much "flashy" stuff there is compared to the real guts of an army (so an army looks roughly in line with what would be expected in-setting), but allow for Tyranid swarms to be built in a different manner to a SM Company (which is arguably where the original Force Org chart derives from) which in turn would be different to a Dark Eldar raiding party.

Breton wrote:

Force Org that doesn't modify itself based on a theme list is what makes Force Org fail. Many editions ago if you took Sammael Ravenwing became TROOPS and if you took Belial Terminators became TROOPS. That did not help if you werent playing Dark Angels. Or if you wanted to play a generic HQ. They were STARTING down that path with alternate Force Org Charts, but then got rid of Force Org entirely splitting army creation from Force Org Everything to Pick Whatever, and Add a Det on top. Of the two, the second is better if you want to see variety (though variety still requires multiple distinct AND viable builds).

Quite the contrary I think where the force org failed was every man and his dog had exceptions that let them spam the miserable skew anyway.
Any army of Leman Russ doesn't become more fun to play against just because you say it's an armoured company. And army of bikes isn't any less spammy just because you paint them white or black.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Creating an area denial is a legit tactic though.

Not even beardy either, and I suspect with some missions in 11th we're going to WANT to do things like this.

It's patently ridiculous. When was the last time you read a Tyranid novel where the Hormagaunts swarm into the Imperial advance only to promptly take a nap half a metre away from the Imperial line because there's an invisible no-walky force field around them? And then stay there the whole battle if the opponent isn't willing to commit the firepower to overkilling them?

The next Tyranid novel I read will be the 1st, so....

As to my grants doing that?
I'm the Hivemind. Those giants will do as i tell them to do.

Andykp wrote:
it felt like we’re fighting over objectives not just standing on circles.

I played a game yesterday - and it was mostly good. But this was the biggest miss for me.
I'm not quite sure what people complaining about the previous ludonarrative dissonance of circles were hoping for - but I sort of doubt it was "this".

Sure you can argue pushing more OC within 3" of an uinteractive magic disk was a bit stupid.
But in this edition you can have say 5 terminators standing in the centre of the central objective. You'd imagine they were holding that ruined church/factory/magical forest - for whatever reasons you can imagine.
But... I can have 5 wyches whose bases are just touching a corner of the area. Which somehow means I control the 92 square inch objective - even though they obviously "don't". They aren't even meaningfully in it.
As a result rather than some cinematic fight over a vital terrain piece, it became "the battle to keep people off the pavement outside".

Its a game - I'm not that broken up about it. But for people upset about Hormagants movement blocking? Feel it might be an issue.
In fact I'd predict that toe-in mechanics (for both objective scoring and drawing line of sight) are going to be a significant source of discontent. Partly because it always has been.

By the way, are new points available somewhere?

People seem to be talking about them but I couldn't see them in the Downloads section on WHC.

Tyel wrote:

Andykp wrote:
it felt like we’re fighting over objectives not just standing on circles.

I played a game yesterday - and it was mostly good. But this was the biggest miss for me.
I'm not quite sure what people complaining about the previous ludonarrative dissonance of circles were hoping for - but I sort of doubt it was "this".

Sure you can argue pushing more OC within 3" of an uinteractive magic disk was a bit stupid.
But in this edition you can have say 5 terminators standing in the centre of the central objective. You'd imagine they were holding that ruined church/factory/magical forest - for whatever reasons you can imagine.
But... I can have 5 wyches whose bases are just touching a corner of the area. Which somehow means I control the 92 square inch objective - even though they obviously "don't". They aren't even meaningfully in it.
As a result rather than some cinematic fight over a vital terrain piece, it became "the battle to keep people off the pavement outside".

Its a game - I'm not that broken up about it. But for people upset about Hormagants movement blocking? Feel it might be an issue.
In fact I'd predict that toe-in mechanics (for both objective scoring and drawing line of sight) are going to be a significant source of discontent. Partly because it always has been.

I've not been able to get into a game yet, but I had already started printing out small terrain pieces that would make great objective markers, a computer console, a half-buried un-exploded rocket, etc. I don't understand this magic circle thing of previous editions when a tiny piece of terrain is all that needed to have it make sense.

As you just noted, they should have specified that units must be in the objective walls or something, not just touching the edige. At least then it would feel more like holding a position. Guess it could be house-ruled that way though.

 vipoid wrote:
By the way, are new points available somewhere?

People seem to be talking about them but I couldn't see them in the Downloads section on WHC.

https://mfm.warhammer-community.com/en

Its online now. Or int he App I guess.

Tyel wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
By the way, are new points available somewhere?

People seem to be talking about them but I couldn't see them in the Downloads section on WHC.

https://mfm.warhammer-community.com/en

Its online now.

Many thanks.

Tyel wrote:
Or int he App I guess.

It'll be a cold day in Hell.

Andykp wrote:Played 11th today and all the new rules worked pretty much as advertised, hidden to play much part but we were both pretty aggressive. Battleshock really mattered and the new objectives played totally different. Cover felt impactful and it felt like we’re fighting over objectives not just standing on circles.

Stocking secondaries made the game feel more joined up, the armies didn’t just lurch from one thing to another they manoeuvred and set things up for the next turn and stuff.

It was good and felt like an evolution of 10th. Nothing seems to have gotten worse for me only better.

Good to hear! Hoping to get my first game in next week. How did the changes to Battleshock end up mattering for you?

Tyel wrote:

Andykp wrote:
it felt like we’re fighting over objectives not just standing on circles.

I played a game yesterday - and it was mostly good. But this was the biggest miss for me.
I'm not quite sure what people complaining about the previous ludonarrative dissonance of circles were hoping for - but I sort of doubt it was "this".

Sure you can argue pushing more OC within 3" of an uinteractive magic disk was a bit stupid.
But in this edition you can have say 5 terminators standing in the centre of the central objective. You'd imagine they were holding that ruined church/factory/magical forest - for whatever reasons you can imagine.
But... I can have 5 wyches whose bases are just touching a corner of the area. Which somehow means I control the 92 square inch objective - even though they obviously "don't". They aren't even meaningfully in it.
As a result rather than some cinematic fight over a vital terrain piece, it became "the battle to keep people off the pavement outside".

Its a game - I'm not that broken up about it. But for people upset about Hormagants movement blocking? Feel it might be an issue.
In fact I'd predict that toe-in mechanics (for both objective scoring and drawing line of sight) are going to be a significant source of discontent. Partly because it always has been.

I feel like I'm misisng something. Isn't this pretty much the same issue you'd have had with wyches putting their toes on the edges of a magic circle? Or is the issue that the terrain piece is larger than a magic circle would have been, so the wyches are holding the objective while being nowhere near the terminators?

If that's the issue, then it sounds like we traded the weirdness of controlling a magic circle by standing right in front of the terminators for the weirdness of controlling it while being down the hall. And I'm not sure that's really a downgrade? Weird, sure, but not more weird than controlling an objective by chanting, "I'm not touching youuuuuuu," while having OC2 to the enemy's OC1.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Breton wrote:

Force Org that doesn't modify itself based on a theme list is what makes Force Org fail. Many editions ago if you took Sammael Ravenwing became TROOPS and if you took Belial Terminators became TROOPS. That did not help if you werent playing Dark Angels. Or if you wanted to play a generic HQ. They were STARTING down that path with alternate Force Org Charts, but then got rid of Force Org entirely splitting army creation from Force Org Everything to Pick Whatever, and Add a Det on top. Of the two, the second is better if you want to see variety (though variety still requires multiple distinct AND viable builds).

Quite the contrary I think where the force org failed was every man and his dog had exceptions that let them spam the miserable skew anyway.
Any army of Leman Russ doesn't become more fun to play against just because you say it's an armoured company. And army of bikes isn't any less spammy just because you paint them white or black.

You mean as opposed to spamming the same infantry list everyone else will copy too?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I feel like I'm misisng something. Isn't this pretty much the same issue you'd have had with wyches putting their toes on the edges of a magic circle? Or is the issue that the terrain piece is larger than a magic circle would have been, so the wyches are holding the objective while being nowhere near the terminators?

If that's the issue, then it sounds like we traded the weirdness of controlling a magic circle by standing right in front of the terminators for the weirdness of controlling it while being down the hall. And I'm not sure that's really a downgrade? Weird, sure, but not more weird than controlling an objective by chanting, "I'm not touching youuuuuuu," while having OC2 to the enemy's OC1.

Yes that's the issue. The point is that you are not "down the hall". You are not even in the building.
Your feet just grazing the pavement outside.

I mean I'm about to go to the shops. It seems weird for me (with my massive OC!) to "control" the supermarket... while still standing in the car park outside.

Now you can say "I don't care, its just swapping one gamey mechanic for another" - and that's fine, its my position in practice, but my point is GW presumably wanted something more.
I had been (perhaps naively) imagining some attractional fight where both armies would feed units into terrain peices - and so they'd appear to be fighting over them. And I guess they still can - but they don't have to (and its probably competitively better not to). They just brush the edge of the area, rather than meaningfully occupy it.

Is this a situation, Tyel, where "unit wholly within" the terrain template rather than "unit within" would have been a better fit for you, in terms of verisimilitude?

 Dysartes wrote:
Is this a situation, Tyel, where "unit wholly within" the terrain template rather than "unit within" would have been a better fit for you, in terms of verisimilitude?

I don't know. I think that distinction often just leads to arguments.

Could this matter not be fixed by having the sides of the build also be the sides of the terrain marker? So, by virtue of being on the marker, you're actually in the building?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Could this matter not be fixed by having the sides of the build also be the sides of the terrain marker? So, by virtue of being on the marker, you're actually in the building?

Today at the shop I watched a game where after everything was set one player quietly nudged a # of L ruin pieces (all facing his deploy zone) ever so slightly further away, into the template.
Conveniently creating a few mm of exposed template. Completely blocked from enemy sight thanks to the 1st floor walls now being solid regardless of the fact the pieces in question are far more window than wall...

I have ideas on how to fix this, but the terrains not mine to modify.

So I had to content myself mentioning what I saw to the guys opponent.
And their game began with an argument phase.

ccs wrote:

And their game began with an argument phase.

My favorite phase of the game.

Never seen it occur before the Command Phase, I usually see it inserted into a phase where dice are being rolled.

Feels like a lot of the weirdness could be mitigated by specifying that only models that are wholly within a terrain template count as contesting the associated objective. If you want to hold a building, someone needs to actually be inside it.

 catbarf wrote:
Feels like a lot of the weirdness could be mitigated by specifying that only models that are wholly within a terrain template count as contesting the associated objective. If you want to hold a building, someone needs to actually be inside it.

The problem with this, is it puts monster/vehicle heavy armies at a disadvantage.

Got in a game over the weekend. It's definitely still largely 10th but I did like it better in a lot of ways. The objectives don't feel meaningfully different to me and toeing in on the pavement to hide behind the outside wall is a little odd, but the scenarios do have some interesting elements like setting traps on the terrain and different payout rates. It makes round 5 a lot more important which could be a problem but I'm generally of the opinion that a game only counts if it goes the distance.

I did feel a lot more need for tokens than ever before. A lot of terrain marking, hidden (which isn't super impactful but isn't nothing either) and most importantly battleshock tracking had me marking a lot more units than ever.

The app works REALLY well for running the missions to the point where the decks probably aren't terribly useful anymore. Probably a little too much time on it tracking the opponent but its very slick and cleans up how scoring works a lot.

Terrain is definitely more varied but needs to be designed to take use of that variety. Rules wise I think things work really well. My only real gripe is Storm Shield Vets don't really protect the rest of the unit anymore. The point of things like that is now to keep that model alive as long as possible rather than taking hits for more fragile members of the squad.

Tyel wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I feel like I'm misisng something. Isn't this pretty much the same issue you'd have had with wyches putting their toes on the edges of a magic circle? Or is the issue that the terrain piece is larger than a magic circle would have been, so the wyches are holding the objective while being nowhere near the terminators?

If that's the issue, then it sounds like we traded the weirdness of controlling a magic circle by standing right in front of the terminators for the weirdness of controlling it while being down the hall. And I'm not sure that's really a downgrade? Weird, sure, but not more weird than controlling an objective by chanting, "I'm not touching youuuuuuu," while having OC2 to the enemy's OC1.

Yes that's the issue. The point is that you are not "down the hall". You are not even in the building.
Your feet just grazing the pavement outside.

I mean I'm about to go to the shops. It seems weird for me (with my massive OC!) to "control" the supermarket... while still standing in the car park outside.

Now you can say "I don't care, its just swapping one gamey mechanic for another" - and that's fine, its my position in practice, but my point is GW presumably wanted something more.
I had been (perhaps naively) imagining some attractional fight where both armies would feed units into terrain peices - and so they'd appear to be fighting over them. And I guess they still can - but they don't have to (and its probably competitively better not to). They just brush the edge of the area, rather than meaningfully occupy it.

I appreciate the response.

This sounds like it could be an issue of abstraction? To my mind, if you're able to tie in on the piece of terrain, it means that you're "inside" that patch of terrain thoroughly enough to be getting its benefits. So if I'm getting the benefits of the supermarket terrain piece, it's implied that I'm already, for all intents and purposes, inside the super market. I might be on the opposite end of the store hiding behind the shelves so you can't shoot me, but I'm sufficiently "in the store" for your friends outside to be inconvenienced when they try to shoot in at me.

I do kind of get what you're saying. It's weird to be that close to eachother, to not be actively fighting eachother, and for one side to be able to say that they're "controlling" the store while the enemy is a few aisles away. But I also feel like that's not a unique problem to 11th? In 10th, if I didn't think my storm guardians could take your assault intercessors in a fight, I might move my stormies onto the objective your intercessors were defending but not actually charge you. Which was pretty much the same issue, right? In 11th, we can at least explain the lack of charging/fighting as our squads being in different aisles of the store, but it's still weird that either of us can claim to be "controlling" the store at that point.

Which I think is maybe just a side-effect of the objective control pendulum swinging the other direction again. It felt kinda weird when a single grot could prevent an entire squad of terminators from claiming that they "controlled" an objective back in the day, but it's also weird that an entire squad of terminators standing right there doesn't necessarily prevent a squad of cultists from claiming that they control the objective.

LunarSol wrote:
Terrain is definitely more varied but needs to be designed to take use of that variety. Rules wise I think things work really well. My only real gripe is Storm Shield Vets don't really protect the rest of the unit anymore. The point of things like that is now to keep that model alive as long as possible rather than taking hits for more fragile members of the squad.

Thanks for sharing! I was wondering if the shield thing was going to be an issue. Do you have thoughts on how you'd *like* shield units to work? I kind of wonder if just giving shield bearers extra wounds would do the trick. It essentially lets them survive more attacks from low damage weapons before finally succumbing (effectively keeping other squad members safe for a while), but then you run into the dire avenger exarch problem where you don't necessarily want to be putting wounds on your more valuable squad members before you have to. It would feel weird if the sergeant with the combat shield was always the first to die because you were trying to make use of his shield, you know?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

LunarSol wrote:
Terrain is definitely more varied but needs to be designed to take use of that variety. Rules wise I think things work really well. My only real gripe is Storm Shield Vets don't really protect the rest of the unit anymore. The point of things like that is now to keep that model alive as long as possible rather than taking hits for more fragile members of the squad.

Thanks for sharing! I was wondering if the shield thing was going to be an issue. Do you have thoughts on how you'd *like* shield units to work? I kind of wonder if just giving shield bearers extra wounds would do the trick. It essentially lets them survive more attacks from low damage weapons before finally succumbing (effectively keeping other squad members safe for a while), but then you run into the dire avenger exarch problem where you don't necessarily want to be putting wounds on your more valuable squad members before you have to. It would feel weird if the sergeant with the combat shield was always the first to die because you were trying to make use of his shield, you know?

I suspect an extra wound would do the trick. That's how shields work on Terminators that already have an Invul after all and its a fine solution. I theoretically like the ability for it to provide an invul until it fails the way it worked in 10th but it was super inconsistent and clunky so I'm cool with it being a bit more normalized as 1 extra failure in a lot of cases. Makari is probably the character you want to redesign entirely for the change.

 whembly wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Feels like a lot of the weirdness could be mitigated by specifying that only models that are wholly within a terrain template count as contesting the associated objective. If you want to hold a building, someone needs to actually be inside it.

The problem with this, is it puts monster/vehicle heavy armies at a disadvantage.

Encouraging infantry over monsters/vehicles would seem to be a positive step.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

This sounds like it could be an issue of abstraction? To my mind, if you're able to tie in on the piece of terrain, it means that you're "inside" that patch of terrain thoroughly enough to be getting its benefits. So if I'm getting the benefits of the supermarket terrain piece, it's implied that I'm already, for all intents and purposes, inside the super market. I might be on the opposite end of the store hiding behind the shelves so you can't shoot me, but I'm sufficiently "in the store" for your friends outside to be inconvenienced when they try to shoot in at me.

I do kind of get what you're saying. It's weird to be that close to eachother, to not be actively fighting eachother, and for one side to be able to say that they're "controlling" the store while the enemy is a few aisles away. But I also feel like that's not a unique problem to 11th? In 10th, if I didn't think my storm guardians could take your assault intercessors in a fight, I might move my stormies onto the objective your intercessors were defending but not actually charge you. Which was pretty much the same issue, right? In 11th, we can at least explain the lack of charging/fighting as our squads being in different aisles of the store, but it's still weird that either of us can claim to be "controlling" the store at that point.

Which I think is maybe just a side-effect of the objective control pendulum swinging the other direction again. It felt kinda weird when a single grot could prevent an entire squad of terminators from claiming that they "controlled" an objective back in the day, but it's also weird that an entire squad of terminators standing right there doesn't necessarily prevent a squad of cultists from claiming that they control the objective.

It would probably be better to have a photo - but with a lack of that, the issue is something like this:

(not sure if this will work. If not imagine a rectangle area objective, some inset L-shaped walls, blue unit in the middle, purple unit brushing the top left corner.)

You'll have to forgive my poor paint skills (and its probably not to scale) - but this is the phenomenon I'm talking about. Blue's unit is "in" the objective - while purple's units are brushing the very edge of it. But purple holds it.
This isn't strictly an OC issue - you could add another purple model if that was the concern so it was 6 vs 5. Its that they are holding the objective while not "in" the objective. There's 14" apart between the opposite corners of this objective - units can be very far apart. Compare that with a theoretical distance of 7.5~ inches today.
Lets say next turn the Blue unit charges the purple squad and kills it. Now they are holding the pavement - but then they get shot/charged in turn, and another unit claims its place on this corner.
What you are fighting over is to toe into this pavement around the building, while trying to manipulate the dense terrain to ward off some shooting, rather than the building itself.

Maybe this was just silly - but I had imagined people would instead be fighting to stand where Blue's unit is standing.

I can't help but think of objective conditions requiring occupation by only one contestant to mean a "hold". That's the way Epic EA does it. I realize this means that it will be much harder for any one side to hold an objective, but it feels more decisive/intuitive.

I guess it would still feel weird if a few gretchin were on an objective at the end of a game, while an Imperial Knight is just 1" outside the objective area, but it still feels better than the situation illustrated above where there's a clear "winner" between what looks like two relatively equal forces occupying the territory.

Idk. I don't want to be contrarian, but this feels like it's maybe just an issue of how we conceptualize the objective area? Nowhere does it say that controlling the objective means being at the centermost point of it or anything like that. If your base is touching the area, then you're in the part of the battlefield that matters for "controlling the objective." Whatever that means.

If you've ever played a shooter video game with a King of the Hill mission, you'll get what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter whether you're in the middle of the glowing circle or at the edge of it. If you're in the designated area, you're in the designated area. Contesting the objective while you're toe-in doesn't seem meaningfully different (to me) from contesting the objective when your entire base is on the terrain. It just means that the "actual" area in which you start to be considered a threat to the security of the objective startes an inch or so outside the actual area of the terrain.

To me, it's weirder that we ever started allowing a unit to be considered "controlled" while their were enemies around in the first place. I gave the grot vs terminators example earlier, and that's how we ended up where we are now, but still.

In the diagram Tyel provided, my expectation would be to say that nobody "controls" that objective. That objective is clearly actively being contested. Two units are posted up on either side of some cover poised for violence. The wyches in this scenario may not be in the center of the objective's mass, but they're in position to do violence to anyone else who's in that area.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Idk. I don't want to be contrarian, but this feels like it's maybe just an issue of how we conceptualize the objective area? Nowhere does it say that controlling the objective means being at the centermost point of it or anything like that. If your base is touching the area, then you're in the part of the battlefield that matters for "controlling the objective." Whatever that means.

If you've ever played a shooter video game with a King of the Hill mission, you'll get what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter whether you're in the middle of the glowing circle or at the edge of it. If you're in the designated area, you're in the designated area. Contesting the objective while you're toe-in doesn't seem meaningfully different (to me) from contesting the objective when your entire base is on the terrain. It just means that the "actual" area in which you start to be considered a threat to the security of the objective startes an inch or so outside the actual area of the terrain.

To me, it's weirder that we ever started allowing a unit to be considered "controlled" while their were enemies around in the first place. I gave the grot vs terminators example earlier, and that's how we ended up where we are now, but still.

In the diagram Tyel provided, my expectation would be to say that nobody "controls" that objective. That objective is clearly actively being contested. Two units are posted up on either side of some cover poised for violence. The wyches in this scenario may not be in the center of the objective's mass, but they're in position to do violence to anyone else who's in that area.

I always thought units/models should have an Objective Control and an Objective Denial rating. I mean lets say there's a Gigantic Dumb Animal Unit. They can't control objectives - because they're dumb. But they can deny them.

An objective denial stat would be nice in giving units that are good at clearing objectives but bad at holding them a little extra oomph.

However, it does lead towards people having to do maths during a game (even if it's just addition and subtraction), and with the idea that 10th/11th are meant to be simpler (meaning smoother) it means it's a potential issue in the rules bloat/unnecessarily "complex" category.

The main thing I dislike about Old World and WHFB is combat resolution and how it's all little bits of numbers going back and forth and kind of interrupts the flow of the game every time you fight. At least in the current 40k system controlling objectives is just "I have 10 models with 2OC each and you have 5 models with 1OC each so I win", so it's easy to keep track of quickly and there's no ifs, ands, or buts.

But then again, maybe more of those Gigantic Dumb Animal Units need the ability to effectively inflict Battleshock, which would negate enemy OC anyway. If they then have 0OC themselves then it fulfills the niche of just being denial units.

I will agree however that I think that models wholly within should have more impact on holding an objective, but at the same time it means that you get really dull looking battlefields because it incentivises terrain that's open squares with thin walls rather than interesting looking, non "standard" terrain.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I will agree however that I think that models wholly within should have more impact on holding an objective, but at the same time it means that you get really dull looking battlefields because it incentivises terrain that's open squares with thin walls rather than interesting looking, non "standard" terrain.

Well that already happened in 10th were 99% of terrain became L shaped ruins so it happening a again is likely regardless.
I do like this idea, maybe if a unit is within a terrain area the units total OC is halved and if they are wholly within it is normal.