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.

So ever since 8th came out in my club (some 20 players) everyone has been rebuilding there armies adapting to the new edition.
Now everyone is adapted games usually take 3-4 turns before one side is wiped. This is the case in 95%(probably more if you only count recent games) of all games played with various armies.
People do not bother with the objectives anymore and just go for the wipe as it is the only thing that matters. Leaving a pretty boring game after a few times...
Do other clubs/playing groups also have this issue with this edition?

We are thinking of house ruling win on objective pts only and games not ending if you wipe your opponent. So that it becomes tactically more interesting. How do you guys address this issue, if at all?

Are you playing Eternal War or Maelstrom of War? For maelstrom you could have the objective points determine the winner regardless of one person being wiped. Not much advice for Eternal War. Start playing ITC missions with the new point system they just dropped and start a running total for all players and make a makeshift league out of it.

But... if you've been wiped, it's hard to justify a win.

I always wonder what boards look like when people share their experiences like this. More LOS blocking terrain makes it harder to table entire armies.

Games to tend to go more to the table than by objectives nowadays. The positive to this is that I feel like it's less likely for a game to wind up in an (un) epic and exciting tie.

I did have a game that I would have changed the outcome were it not for the fact that I had a character hiding on an objective popped by a lucky shot, so it does still happen. Admittedly that is rarer than it should be.

I have not encounter a Warhammer edition that without extra rules for objetives doesn't end in just people trying to kill each other and ignoring objetives.

The game in general feels a lot killier, stuff dies faster. Monsters and eapecially tanks tend to go down waaayyy easier than in 7E (though Flyers are curiously sturdy) and medium infantry units like Tyranid Warriors or Ogryns tend to die even faster than in previous editions as a result of multiwound Damage.

Look at something like a Baneblade and what it took to kill one, what took 80 Lascannons to do in 5E, and 40 do in 7E, can be done by 20 in 8E.

As such, it's probably easier to table than it used to be.

A simple solution is to have the game end when someone is removed, but have that only count for a specific number of points.

So if you secured objectives, you can be tabled and still win.

This is obviously a casual games solution and not a competitive solution. In competitive, games are over by turn 3 easily, whether people concede / realize it or not is a whole different matter.

I mean if tabling your opponent was worth 3 points, but the opponent scored 4 maelstrom to your 0 to that point, you'd lose. I wouldn't mind seeing this as a casual / narrative mode.

 daedalus wrote:
I always wonder what boards look like when people share their experiences like this. More LOS blocking terrain makes it harder to table entire armies.

Games to tend to go more to the table than by objectives nowadays. The positive to this is that I feel like it's less likely for a game to wind up in an (un) epic and exciting tie.

I did have a game that I would have changed the outcome were it not for the fact that I had a character hiding on an objective popped by a lucky shot, so it does still happen. Admittedly that is rarer than it should be.

You would think that but not a lot of terrain these days truly blocks line of sight, and there are weapons that don't need line of sight/are on fliers/ on very fast platforms where it can be surprisingly common that even a very dense table doesn't really help.

If anything it can hurt you if a player builds their list right.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I always wonder what boards look like when people share their experiences like this. More LOS blocking terrain makes it harder to table entire armies.

Games to tend to go more to the table than by objectives nowadays. The positive to this is that I feel like it's less likely for a game to wind up in an (un) epic and exciting tie.

I did have a game that I would have changed the outcome were it not for the fact that I had a character hiding on an objective popped by a lucky shot, so it does still happen. Admittedly that is rarer than it should be.

You would think that but not a lot of terrain these days truly blocks line of sight, and there are weapons that don't need line of sight/are on fliers/ on very fast platforms where it can be surprisingly common that even a very dense table doesn't really help.

If anything it can hurt you if a player builds their list right.

This is accurate. With enough LOS blocking terrain, you'll see a lot of Manticores and other artillery, for absolute certain. And that can be really painful, if you can't see them, but they can shoot you, it's game over pretty quick.

I'm not sure what the best solution is for LOS blocking terrain. You obviously need some, but too much will actually hurt the armies its supposed to help.

No I don't find that 8th ed is making objectives irrelevant.

There is no doubt that units are more killy than before, and the pace of the game is faster; but overall I have found that games actually play to the end of turn 5 more often than not. I guess there are a lot of variables that can play into how the game 'plays'. Our group seems to have settled on 1500pts, which allows for a pretty good sized force, but forces you to be selective about what units you bring. I think larger games naturally see more firepower which clears the table faster. And terrain is important too. Often reading Dakka I get the impression that most folks are not playing on a very full table.

I would be curious to know what points level your group plays at, what your tables generally look like, and how 'competative' the players are.

Our group plays matched games, we randomly determine the mission either Eternal War or Maelstrom. Lot's of terrain on the table, both cover and LOS blocking, with lots of elevations. I have had many games actually go to turn 6 or 7. By that point though, both armies are pretty depleted, but that is to be expected.

 Marmatag wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I always wonder what boards look like when people share their experiences like this. More LOS blocking terrain makes it harder to table entire armies.

Games to tend to go more to the table than by objectives nowadays. The positive to this is that I feel like it's less likely for a game to wind up in an (un) epic and exciting tie.

I did have a game that I would have changed the outcome were it not for the fact that I had a character hiding on an objective popped by a lucky shot, so it does still happen. Admittedly that is rarer than it should be.

You would think that but not a lot of terrain these days truly blocks line of sight, and there are weapons that don't need line of sight/are on fliers/ on very fast platforms where it can be surprisingly common that even a very dense table doesn't really help.

If anything it can hurt you if a player builds their list right.

This is accurate. With enough LOS blocking terrain, you'll see a lot of Manticores and other artillery, for absolute certain. And that can be really painful, if you can't see them, but they can shoot you, it's game over pretty quick.

I'm not sure what the best solution is for LOS blocking terrain. You obviously need some, but too much will actually hurt the armies its supposed to help.

I mean, it seems to me that the solution is to eliminate indirect fire entirely. Then terrain gets even more important as you'll want to use vertical terrain and hills to give artillery line of sight.

Barring that, LoS is the answer for most these problems. Not really a way to fix the Manticore issue without custom rules.

I find that it depends a lot on what sorts of armies people have. A game between two vehicle-heavy armies will tend to end in a tabling, because vehicles can start shooting each other from turn 1 and anti-tank weapons are really efficient at what they do, and vehicles tend to have a lot of them.

But a light infantry-heavy Imperium or Chaos is basically never getting tabled. Nobody has enough firepower to kill all those GEQs.

The games i lose are due to objectives.... if your in 1 sided games then you have the problem, either list building, playing, or terrain, either way you need to change something.

Ethernal war you can afford to ignore objectives and go for the kill.

My main grief is I won very game i went first and lost every game i went second. The volume of fire is so fenomenally high that a good round of shooting will cripple you for good.

rugludvanguard wrote:
Ethernal war you can afford to ignore objectives and go for the kill.

My main grief is I won very game i went first and lost every game i went second. The volume of fire is so fenomenally high that a good round of shooting will cripple you for good.

I have not experience this. I've lost games for going 1st due to objectives.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The games i lose are due to objectives.... if your in 1 sided games then you have the problem, either list building, playing, or terrain, either way you need to change something.

My experience is it cuts both ways. I either table them or they table me and this was at NOVA.

Without a lot of house-ruling about tabling, how to score etc. yes, games are almost always decided by tabling (maelstrom or otherwise). In my group, at least, using lots of terrain only extends the game maybe another turn or two.
As such we've house-ruled that tabling is not an auto-win, and have ditched the very random maelstrom cards.

So far in 8th I've only won by tabling my opponent, and every game where I had first turn I won. I've won one game where I went second, but that was with both players restricted to using only models with 12" range attacks or shorter.

I would like the first round to be more about positioning, and less about killing. Too much is decided by who goes first.

 Flood wrote:
Without a lot of house-ruling about tabling, how to score etc. yes, games are almost always decided by tabling (maelstrom or otherwise). In my group, at least, using lots of terrain only extends the game maybe another turn or two.
As such we've house-ruled that tabling is not an auto-win, and have ditched the very random maelstrom cards.

If tabling isn't an autowin though, how is the tabled army going to claim victory, especially if you're playing an eternal war type mission where objectives only matter at the end? After all, someone needs to be alive at the end of the game to hold the objective.

Just adding my experience (my table has a half dozen players, each running 3-4 different factions at times).
Yes, tabling is the theme for us as well. About half of our games are obviously over (competitively, if not in total models destroyed) by turn two. I have seen one game go to turn 5, and that game's turn 5 consisted of the remains of one side's entire army attempting to kill Roboute Gulliman.
I also concur with the others who talk about first turn. I win almost every game I go first, and only have won going second with my horde style army. I do not claim any genius as a player, but it does not take even a room temperature IQ to place your alpha strike guys in range, and destroy the proper target for them. Generally, first turn strikes by my IG or Sisters army cuts my opponent down by a third. Since I tend to be wise in which units I destroy (those in the danger zone to me) that generally leaves him with only a third of his army left in range to damage my entire force on his first turn. Turn two eliminates his chance to win. My deathguard is a bit slower, and the above results generally take one extra turn to achieve (if I can) on the assault phase. (and I know, the litany of "just hide your forces...no, you can rarely hide enough from deep striking or indirect etc. That is really easy to get around in this edition) Now, bubble wrap armies with the entire force in one glob changes all of this. Sadly, a lot of games have now become deep strike bingo, as each player tries to hold half their army off the table as long as they can and not get tabled.
So my opinion is yes, objectives have become meaningless IF you do not have a special scenario around them etc.
This edition is very lethal, with synergy and such increasing deaths exponentially. Sadly, Alpha strike/deep strike style armies do massive damage if you are not built to survive them, as well as Herohammer armies. I do not see a fix. I am not sure it is needed. It is simply the meta of the game now.
I am a player who wants to outmaneuver my opponent, and beat him with some strategy or battle plan. Army building strategy seems to trump tabletop strategy because of the alpha strike style.
Again, just my own experience.

Tabling not being an autowin seems strange, to say the least. I can see it working in an asymmetric game, where the players have different objectives. In the battle of Thermopylae the Spartan army achieved its objective, delaying the Persians, yet were wiped out. That battle was highly asymmetric, and defeating the Persian army was never an option.

With a symmetrical setup like in 40k, total annihilation of the enemy should be a victory.

I assume everyone in this thread is playing Match games.

It would be interesting to know what points values folks are playing when they share their experiences. I'd also be curious to know what sort of armies are being played, for example Elite units few in number or bigger hordes, or somewhere in between.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

If tabling isn't an autowin though, how is the tabled army going to claim victory, especially if you're playing an eternal war type mission where objectives only matter at the end? After all, someone needs to be alive at the end of the game to hold the objective.

It's custom missions, game ends if one player is tabled, which scores you a VP or two extra.
The only regular mission I'd consider playing atm is the starter one with 3 objectives, Maelstrom's far too random and Eternal War is just, ugh.
Thankfully my gaming group are quite open to playing custom missions/scenarios.

To answer above, we play 2k games almost exclusively. Varying range of list types and armies, not many hordes.

SpookyRuben wrote:
I assume everyone in this thread is playing Match games.

It would be interesting to know what points values folks are playing when they share their experiences. I'd also be curious to know what sort of armies are being played, for example Elite units few in number or bigger hordes, or somewhere in between.

2k. Fair variety of elites and hordes. The only army that's not regularly tabled is Astra Militarum artillery or Chaos with a lot of Brimstones, but numbers don't seem to save the bugs any.

I stopped bothering with objectives awhile ago. I don't even look at my cards in Maelstrom.

Someone will be wiped before the end. No amount of terrain is going to make a difference. Offense is incredible in 8th, so is speed. It isn't long distance shooting only that's making games end upon tabling.

I am fine with this state of game. But objectives simply do not matter in 8th.

Some armies, like orks, can win only if the opponent is inexperienced and/or with a terrible list or by playing objectives. Without objectives the game is utterly unbalanced, I wouldn't even play with my orks in other kinds of missions.

Well most of our games are playedd 1500 -2000 pts.

We play with a fair amount of scenery. Tournaments that I have attended are played with far less scenery.
Some is line of sight blocking but a lot like ruins do not really block line of sight from all sides. And there are ways around that (like deep strikes, artillery that does not need LoS etc)


Well I have the impression in my group the powerlevel of lists has risen considerably since release of the game resulting in the wipe or be wiped.

Wiping is frankly boring after a couple of games. It is like playing AOS with just the basic rule pamflet...

We play maelstorm/eternal most of the time.

Definitely two of my last three games have been decided with objectives. Two of those were eternal war, and one of those was with those mission generating cards.

I only win games by playing the mission and I think I win more than I lose. I usually run a Ministorum army at 2k with a little Imperium flavor on the side. I'm highly mobile with lots of midrange shooting and tend to drop a lot of power armor in cover. I can get to the objectives, make myself hard to shift at range and scary to come close to. It seems to work, but I don't play in a high powered meta...

I think 8th edition really needs alternating activation. The advantage of going first is huge, and the player going first can really put a huge hurt on his opponent's army before he even gets to go.

I've heard this kind of complaint a lot, and I've started to keep track of game stats I've personally played. Since 8th dropped, I've played about 15 games of varying sizes, played through the whole Fate of Konor campaign, and played a doubles tournament with 1000 points total on either side.

I found:

1) Konor missions were terrible and rarely mattered. Constructing your army comp to tailor to the mission trumped everything else, and typically would allow you to table because of the weird board setup.

2) Maelstrom is the worst of the three mission setups for 8th. Very rarely are games not decided one way or another by turn 5. Eternal war is good if you move the clock forward and conclude turn 4.

3) Open war is my mission set that decides the game the most in 8th. my OW games have an average of over 2/3 of the time deciding the game. When playing open war, I will draw each card, ask my opponent if it sounds interesting, and re-draw if we decide it would be one sided, and I will then propose a twist that I think would help prolong the game (acid rain is very common and IMO a good replacement for first-turn night fight we had last edition, helpfully also hindering early charge alpha.)