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.

Hi Guys,

Over the years, I have come to realize that I am in a minority. I hate progressive scoring, and believe that end of game scoring is far superior for a strategic game.

IMO the golden age for missions was 5th, when they realized that missions needed more than killing mechanics, and limited scoring to troops, thereby giving troops a reason to exist in the game.

But I recognize that I'm in the minority on this one. So, I want to know why I'm wrong.

Why do you guys like progressive scoring? change my mind and make me drink the kool-aid!

I like progressive scoring because the missions need reasons not to kill the other guy first. Progressive scoring gives you a reason to stick your [troop's] neck out and take a risk to score rather than camping in your deployment zone.

I also love how it means you can sacrifice units to score, and win the game by sacrificing your troops to nab those objectives.

But on the flip side of that - why should it matter if you held an objective for 2 turns or whatever, if you subsequently lose it...? Hypothetically, someone could win a battle by holding a couple of objectives for a few turns before being shot off them - should that count as a win? It doesn't really feel like winning to me...

Crispy78 wrote:
But on the flip side of that - why should it matter if you held an objective for 2 turns or whatever, if you subsequently lose it...? Hypothetically, someone could win a battle by holding a couple of objectives for a few turns before being shot off them - should that count as a win? It doesn't really feel like winning to me...

Winning in a wargame can be more than just destroying the other side.

In 40k this can be faction specific. Ad Mech for example can be fluffed as extracting data or a rare bit of tech, so only holding for a few turns is sufficient data for them. The loss of some skitarii is meaningless in the pursuit of knowledge.

Maelstrom objective cards were the best thing to happen to 40K in a long time. They make the game a lot more interesting, as winning requires players to think on their feet and adapt to the cards that they have drawn.

Maelstrom with a wipe is a loss removed is even more fun, because it opens up the opportunity for a tabled player to still win the game by playing to the objectives (which is a rare but fun flex).

 akaean wrote:
Maelstrom objective cards were the best thing to happen to 40K in a long time. They make the game a lot more interesting, as winning requires players to think on their feet and adapt to the cards that they have drawn.

Maelstrom with a wipe is a loss removed is even more fun, because it opens up the opportunity for a tabled player to still win the game by playing to the objectives (which is a rare but fun flex).

Conversely, some armies can’t jump across the table to grab an objective in a single turn, and random objectives turn the game from a 6-turn game into 6 mini-games which are only loosely connected.

 greyknight12 wrote:

 akaean wrote:
Maelstrom objective cards were the best thing to happen to 40K in a long time. They make the game a lot more interesting, as winning requires players to think on their feet and adapt to the cards that they have drawn.

Maelstrom with a wipe is a loss removed is even more fun, because it opens up the opportunity for a tabled player to still win the game by playing to the objectives (which is a rare but fun flex).

Conversely, some armies can’t jump across the table to grab an objective in a single turn, and random objectives turn the game from a 6-turn game into 6 mini-games which are only loosely connected.

Which factions don't have access to some form of mobile objective-grabber?

Maelstrom with no tabling or slight tabling bonus, some small prearranged starting active cards pool, with added mechanics of "stealing" or "acquiring" not yet fulfilled cards from the opponent pool and "harder" objectives, that require involvement over more than one turn is IMHO the single most thought involving mode of playing 40k. It has all the parts of other scoring systems - overall battle plan for some part of the final score, adapting on the fly for new cards, strategic management of what to "steal/acquire" from opponent depending on current battlefield situation etc. In addition, such system is so mealable, that it is a great tool to arrange nice and unique narratives for each mission. I have played more than 200 games this way and no two were alike.

Maelstrom and the other progressive scoring can be a fun mental exercise.

But what does that have to do with table top war game?

I understand that the elder may try to retrieve a spirit stone....but why do they have to stay there more than one turn to do it? Do they only take 1/6th at a time.

Perhaps the guard is sending a signal for the orbital barrage to begin (why they cannot do this on their own???? interference perhaps)

Marines retrieving Gene Seed, etc....I guess all sorts of explanations could be explained....but they ARE NOT. That is the point. Explain why I get double points for counter 4 this time...and only 1 for counter 5....it is TOO abstract.

Lets have a scenario where you line break.....grab the prisoner and escape. Lets have government refugees or spiritual persons you must save or transport.
Lets have a Hilltop you must hold.

These are easier to understand. Make faction specific Scenarios for 1 race vs all the others. Make a few general ones. Make offensive vs defensive. Not everyone wants to grab objective 3 ???

The worst is the constant influx of new orders. I know in the heat of the battle goals may change...but getting 2 or 3 new orders every battle round is just silly.

Invest in Scenarios and chill on the abstract objective markers. In a game that frowns upon 'placeholder' with WYSIWYG mentality....any ABSTRACT objectives is really lame.

wipe the enemy or come up with a real world reason why I am throwing away my units lives....real world armies don't just amass VPs willy nilly like a video game.

WHY HOW WHEN etc all with a story....should be a included.

Well question really comes down to: Do you want games to be who kills opposing army? If yes no progressive scoring. If not progressive scoring.

Without progressive scoring mission can be made irrelevant by simply wiping out enemy. As it is that already is auto win. Killing already has huge incentives to be done over scenario. Non-progressive just removes last need for not worrying about scenario

I like you must get the bomb to the center of your opponents back deployment zone.

Do you rush forward and try to weather fire.
Do you mob crush your way thru.
Do you hold back while your guns blow open a hole.

You get the bomb there...you win....no matter how few points you have left

Scenarios like that force a confrontation and a good mix of forces that must be fielded to stop the enemy.

I think its because it makes the game organic.

To some extent that will always happen due to the map - but if you have a game which is strictly "we fight for X turns, person who killed the most wins" you find everything is basically decided. When you look at the stats there is a correct move.

Whereas with objectives you might want unit X to go do maximum damage on unit Y - but its the only unit which can go get an objective to earn you some points. So do you chase the objective, or decide that doing maximum damage this turn will be better?

Also having various different missions (as per CA) means that in a tournament (or if you use random missions) you can't so easily netlist*. Or at least in theory.

*By which I mean say definitively "this is the strongest list in this book, the maths says so. Full stop the end gg."

catbarf wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:

 akaean wrote:
Maelstrom objective cards were the best thing to happen to 40K in a long time. They make the game a lot more interesting, as winning requires players to think on their feet and adapt to the cards that they have drawn.

Maelstrom with a wipe is a loss removed is even more fun, because it opens up the opportunity for a tabled player to still win the game by playing to the objectives (which is a rare but fun flex).

Conversely, some armies can’t jump across the table to grab an objective in a single turn, and random objectives turn the game from a 6-turn game into 6 mini-games which are only loosely connected.

Which factions don't have access to some form of mobile objective-grabber?

You can get objectives 24"+ apart multi times in a row, MANY armies cant do that, even with some armies that have speed its still hard.

All maelstrom games i have player (well over 40 in 8th), it came down to who drew better cards, many times someone draws an objective for a point no army can take other than Ynnari, across the table in enemy DZ with 2-3 units on it... yeah ok you go take that on turn 2 and see how that fairs.

I like maelstrom, but it really needs some tweaks to be balanced.

Crispy78 wrote:
But on the flip side of that - why should it matter if you held an objective for 2 turns or whatever, if you subsequently lose it...? Hypothetically, someone could win a battle by holding a couple of objectives for a few turns before being shot off them - should that count as a win? It doesn't really feel like winning to me...

Forge the Narrative. There are plenty of ways of holding an objective for a short amount of time can be vital:

The objective was a computer with sensitive data. In the course of those two turns your forces uploaded a techno-virus and managed to render it useless

The objective was a prisoner with important information. In those turns your forces were able to extract information vital to the mission.

The objective is the launch codes to a missile preparing to launch at your forces in orbit. In those turns your forces were able to relay that information and managed to stop the launch.

 akaean wrote:
Maelstrom objective cards were the best thing to happen to 40K in a long time. They make the game a lot more interesting, as winning requires players to think on their feet and adapt to the cards that they have drawn.

Maelstrom with a wipe is a loss removed is even more fun, because it opens up the opportunity for a tabled player to still win the game by playing to the objectives (which is a rare but fun flex).

This was true up until last year, then we got Eternal War missions with progressive scoring. I like the idea of mission objective cards but Maelstrom is far too random for it to consistently work, too many games have been decided by one player drawing bad cards each turn.

Endgame scoring is far worse though, it literally takes all stratagy out of the game and turns it into a statistical exorcise, if your game manages to get far enough to actually score objectives usually one side by then is automatically able to grab more than their opponent.

Im actually not a huge fan of progressive scoring either. I'm not outright opposed to it, but most implementations I have seen have been awful, at least as far as 40k is concerned, particularly as far as random elements go.

Often, they also just don't make much sense either. I can get why a Chaos Space Marine force and an Eldar warhost are squaring off looking to hold the field and destroy their opposing force. That's a pretty classical battle. Playing "obsec" whackamole with random objectives spread across the board every turn...not so much. Holding ground for a few turns to score more objective points, for what narratively may only be a few seconds of time, doesn't make much sense if you're blown off them at the end of the battle.

I get some of the "it forces the gunline to move" thing, but it feels like a ham-fisted solution.

Maelstrom always just ended up feeling likr Mario Party, where you'd get to the end of the game and nothing you did actually mattered, the random rolls determined most everything.

I never liked objectives and mission, I don't care if you held the marker on a hilll or in a swamp, I killed all but 3 marines., you win? Kill points were unfair to horde armies and were dumb on their own, like first blood=first turn. free point


I would be more keen on missions if they made sense. and forced a narative. Like the wounded SM model.

Avor wrote:
I never liked objectives and mission, I don't care if you held the marker on a hilll or in a swamp, I killed all but 3 marines., you win? Kill points were unfair to horde armies and were dumb on their own, like first blood=first turn. free point


I would be more keen on missions if they made sense. and forced a narative. Like the wounded SM model.

The missions do have narratives and do make sense, do you not read them?

Eternal War Mission: Vital Intelligence
"Important tactical information must be captured. Several key data-terminals have be detected, but they have been damaged in the fighting and you cannot reliable tell when each will be processing the intelligence"

Narrow the Search
"Orbital scanners are locating a powerful relic......"

You get the idea.

 akaean wrote:
Maelstrom objective cards were the best thing to happen to 40K in a long time. They make the game a lot more interesting, as winning requires players to think on their feet and adapt to the cards that they have drawn.

Maelstrom with a wipe is a loss removed is even more fun, because it opens up the opportunity for a tabled player to still win the game by playing to the objectives (which is a rare but fun flex).

The RNG element of maelstrom is to strong IMO. Most games I play with the rules someone gets a landslide lead early on due to lucky draws and just steamrolls. Adding more random elements into a game that already hinges on a lot of random elements is never really a good idea.

Maelstrom could be ok IF you have the option to destroy the objective.

So you need to reach that Terminal? I can use my Earthshaker cannon to wipe it off the board.

You need to rescue that hostage.....My Sniper can kill him.

Perhaps I would lose some VPs by destroying that valuable piece, but at least I would have a counter to what you are doing rather than just killing your unit off.....IS THAT NOT THE COUNTER ARGUMENT vs boring kill point games.

If my only counter to take VPs from you is just to wipe you out....then its boring.just as much.

Let players make choices when to reach the objective, to exit the board to hold the hill, or to save the hostage.
Then give the other side the same tactical decisions to hold destroy the objective, hold the line, take the hilltop or execute the hostage. There would be penalties for doing some of those but you have to weigh the pros and cons depending on the opponent and situation.

 admironheart wrote:
Maelstrom could be ok IF you have the option to destroy the objective.

So you need to reach that Terminal? I can use my Earthshaker cannon to wipe it off the board.

You need to rescue that hostage.....My Sniper can kill him.

Perhaps I would lose some VPs by destroying that valuable piece, but at least I would have a counter to what you are doing rather than just killing your unit off.....IS THAT NOT THE COUNTER ARGUMENT vs boring kill point games.

If my only counter to take VPs from you is just to wipe you out....then its boring.just as much.

Let players make choices when to reach the objective, to exit the board to hold the hill, or to save the hostage.
Then give the other side the same tactical decisions to hold destroy the objective, hold the line, take the hilltop or execute the hostage. There would be penalties for doing some of those but you have to weigh the pros and cons depending on the opponent and situation.

There's a few missions where you can actually do that, can't remember the names though.

 admironheart wrote:
Maelstrom could be ok IF you have the option to destroy the objective.

So you need to reach that Terminal? I can use my Earthshaker cannon to wipe it off the board.

You need to rescue that hostage.....My Sniper can kill him.

Perhaps I would lose some VPs by destroying that valuable piece, but at least I would have a counter to what you are doing rather than just killing your unit off.....IS THAT NOT THE COUNTER ARGUMENT vs boring kill point games.

If my only counter to take VPs from you is just to wipe you out....then its boring.just as much.

Let players make choices when to reach the objective, to exit the board to hold the hill, or to save the hostage.
Then give the other side the same tactical decisions to hold destroy the objective, hold the line, take the hilltop or execute the hostage. There would be penalties for doing some of those but you have to weigh the pros and cons depending on the opponent and situation.

That terminal was connected to a device that was researching the Webway. By destroying it, you set off a chain reaction that opened a tear into the warp. And since there isn't a spare Golden Throne and Emperor around I guess that Craftworld is doomed. Minor victory to your opponent I guess. Sure they wanted the research data that could have potientally made the Astronomicaon obsolete, but big chunk of Eldar gone is fine too even if Slaanesh gets to gorge themselves.

Great you killed the hostage. They will never learn the secrets held in their brain. Unless space marines can eat their brains and experience their memories. I mean, that would be a really dumb/gross power to have right?

A little imagination goes a long way to explain why these objectives absolutely must be held even for a short amount of time even by both sides. Remember 40k is a Platoon level game that have been swollen to company level where the boots on the ground totally don't get a say in what is needed win the overall battle. Chances are the those ground-pounders will never know why their actions are important (and often times they really won't be win or lose). As for killing more, you can look several really world instances where one side killed/destroyed more of the other side and still didn't win. Heck, George Washington won far less than half the battles he was involved in. I suggest you study some really world battles to see just how stupid some battles were.

Or... you can just accept that 40k is a game and as such is going to have some game-y aspects that might not make a whole lot of sense.

As you letting the players pick, my guess dollars to donuts a player that can table opponent (or just about) is going to ignore the mission objective and just make the mission about kill points anyways. Kinda defeats the point of even picking/random generating a mission in the first place. I mean, I don't know many players that concern themselves about minor/major victories/defeats outside of tournaments. Even inside of tournaments, I would except things to be more than kill points with the option of going for objectives,[shrug] I guess.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
As you letting the players pick, my guess dollars to donuts a player that can table opponent (or just about) is going to ignore the mission objective and just make the mission about kill points anyways. Kinda defeats the point of even picking/random generating a mission in the first place. I mean, I don't many players that concern themselves about minor/major victories/defeats outside of touraments. Even inside of tournaments, I would except things to be more than kill points with the option of going for objectives, I guess.

That was the main issue with the standard missions, it was easier to plan for the table by turn 3 - ignore the mission it doesn't matter.

I think CA2018 is a step in the right direction with their missions. Sudden Death is no longer a thing so if you're playing against IK spam they might table you mid game but hopefully by then you've clocked enough VP's for it to not matter.

Progressive scoring also helps a steady build up throughout the game rather than hammering each other and then going for a turn 5/6 scramble on objectives. It's obvious that these missions have been quite influenced by ITC/ETC formats and it's a great start IMO.

My last game was just luck though. And it was CA 2018 mission.

early in the game my Nid opponent rolled a 6 for the objectives and viola he about doubled his VPs,

My army was slower to tackle the field. By the end of the game I had the nids in a defensive circle....but I was way behind in VPs.....then he rolls a 6 again by chance on the last round and this time I am in position and win the game.

So why don't we just randomly roll the dice to see who wins or lose....because those 2 dice rolls (nothing to do with tactics, list building, mathematics, etc) decided the game.

We can ask for better than that.

I'm sending in a team to do x....I'm sure as hell sending the troops that can do x well. I am not going to send in a gunline to break thru attack.....So many of our army lists don't fit the missions....to alieviate that we go for TAC lists.

Preferably you should know'most' of the missions prior.....and if your supposed to do x....I doubt the commanders will expect y and z to be as important....let alone a, b, c,d, ........

Fine objectives are good...but there should ALWAYS be a priority and scale level to objectives.....SHOW me a battle where almost every objective in history was equal value?

Lets have Main objectives, filled in with smaller objectives and fluff objectives, etc.

Then those can be factored into Desivive Victories, Major Victories, Marginal Victories, Ties, etc.
If your opponent scores a fluff victory and you table him you cannot get more than a Major or marginal victory....
Way more in depth calculations. In 2nd ed they used to have scoring that was based on a scale of a victory.I think.

I played ww2 games that lasted 2 months and came down to the last units in Berlin to decide a Devestaing defeat or only a Major victory.

Instead of I gained 72.5 VPs I win.....

 admironheart wrote:
My last game was just luck though. And it was CA 2018 mission.

early in the game my Nid opponent rolled a 6 for the objectives and viola he about doubled his VPs,

My army was slower to tackle the field. By the end of the game I had the nids in a defensive circle....but I was way behind in VPs.....then he rolls a 6 again by chance on the last round and this time I am in position and win the game.

So why don't we just randomly roll the dice to see who wins or lose....because those 2 dice rolls (nothing to do with tactics, list building, mathematics, etc) decided the game.

We can ask for better than that.

I'm sending in a team to do x....I'm sure as hell sending the troops that can do x well. I am not going to send in a gunline to break thru attack.....So many of our army lists don't fit the missions....to alieviate that we go for TAC lists.

Preferably you should know'most' of the missions prior.....and if your supposed to do x....I doubt the commanders will expect y and z to be as important....let alone a, b, c,d, ........

Fine objectives are good...but there should ALWAYS be a priority and scale level to objectives.....SHOW me a battle where almost every objective in history was equal value?

Lets have Main objectives, filled in with smaller objectives and fluff objectives, etc.

Then those can be factored into Desivive Victories, Major Victories, Marginal Victories, Ties, etc.
If your opponent scores a fluff victory and you table him you cannot get more than a Major or marginal victory....
Way more in depth calculations. In 2nd ed they used to have scoring that was based on a scale of a victory.I think.

I played ww2 games that lasted 2 months and came down to the last units in Berlin to decide a Devestaing defeat or only a Major victory.

Instead of I gained 72.5 VPs I win.....

Honestly, I actively seek to have games that come down to the last couple of dice rolls decide the winner and loser. That means it was a very close game where both players were in it the whole time. Way better than the ones you know who is going to win after the initiative roll or even earlier. Which happens way more than it should in 40k especially if the mission can be ignored in favor of just killing.

As for your game, you say you were slower to the field that the 'nids. Well, did your army feature fast attack options to prevent that or did you just build the most kill-y army you could? Honest question, as 40k makes it pretty easy to have fast attack and still be slow to take ground just by losing initiative especially with no more deep strike on turn 1. But if it was the former, that is why progressive scoring exists, if makes fast and durable units that have low damage a worthwhile option as they can grab objectives and hold them for a while. And I am all for the game including methods to make more units viable. Granted, it doesn't always work out that way.

As for knowing your mission objective before the game starts, I completely agree with you. However, many players game in a pick up game (PUG) way where this simply isn't possible. Additionally, 40k armies at 2000 points tend to be a good chunk of models that don't exactly travel easily making sideboard difficult. Add the fact that the models are fairly expensive and take time to assemble and paint are even more complications to switching out units better suited of the mission. That is why I don't play much regular 40k and play more Kill Team where this is pretty much expected.

At the same time, miniature war gaming has (or should have IMO) a collaborative element to it. Warhammer 40k actively encourages players to create their own mission scenarios to play the kind of game they want to play. So if you can get your opponent to agree with a game mission with various win conditions, by all means, do it. I honestly think that more of the open and narrative missions in the BRB should be utilized, and tailored, for PUG matched play. A good player should be able to generate a mission that could even make a 'competitive' list vs. a 'casual' list an more interesting game just by adding elements challenging for the more optimized list while favoring the elements of the lesser optimized one. Which is what I always try to seek. There is no glory in an easy victory and little fun in a crushing defeat. The most rewarding games are the ones where both players trying their best struggle against the other until the very last dice rolls where indeed it comes down to who is luckier.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


As for your game, you say you were slower to the field that the 'nids. Well, did your army feature fast attack options to prevent that or did you just build the most kill-y army you could? Honest question, as 40k makes it pretty easy to have fast attack and still be slow to take ground just by losing initiative especially with no more deep strike on turn 1. But if it was the former, that is why progressive scoring exists, if makes fast and durable units that have low damage a worthwhile option as they can grab objectives and hold them for a while. And I am all for the game including methods to make more units viable. Granted, it doesn't always work out that way.

.

Well most of my game play revolves around going up a flank and attacking the static gunline that most editions have. The benefit is that I use terrain and range to limit the attacking LoF while at the same time taking a large point value of my army vs a smaller point value of the opponents. I am not a fan of Napoleon game play where you line up the redcoats and blue coats and just shoot away....I at least want to be challenged more than just combo moving up a cc unit or strat up a gunline.

This was the first Mech list I have really played in any edition of 40k.

Flyer, 5 tanks, some vypers/windriders and a couple slogging wraithlords. My set up was utilizing my planned tactics and terrain. The mission had pre-measured spots for 5 objective markers. Nids went first. Killed my flyer (I forgot the extra -1 to hit) died first turn. I think he got 3 VPs. He put a blob of 30 gaunts on 1 objective and about 50 models on one that randomly was worth twice in his deployment side. On my turn I held 1 objective as charging with tanks into objective secure blobs would be idiotic on several levels.
On turn 2 he brought in reinforcements and held 4 of the 5 objectives...and rolled that all of them were worth double that turn. Now he gained 8 more VPs. I still held one but almost eliminated his 30 blob off of one between shooting and cc. So after 2 turns I think I had 3 VPs for the mission and he had 11.

This is where my tactical maneuvering and better game play lent itself to me wiping most of his units over the next 3 turns. and claiming all but one objective ....and I still would have lost the match if he did not once again roll that lucky 6 at just the right moment for me so I could net 10 VPs on my final turn and win 22 to 19 after all VPs were calculated.

So it was really just luck for him on turn 2 and luckier for me on turn 5.......which really minimized the tacitacal decisions I had made and the sloppy unimaginative setup and moves of his units. It was just luck of the draw.

Better to have a mission where you needed to take over a section of the battlefield, kill the enemy commander, keep your commander alive, target a specific unit, move a piece off the board, etc. Listening to myself I find that I am mocking some of the ITC parameters. Ive only used them once...but it sounds the same, even though I wasn't very impressed as I felt that it could be 'gamed' easily by certain list building.

Maelstrom cards are too random to be allowed to decide a game on their own. We have (house-ruled) progressive scoring and sometimes have Maelstrom cards as a side quest: Whoever wins on Maelstrom cards gets additional 3VP. This way they are still significant but not a deciding factor of a game on their own.

Progressive scoring makes the game far more interesting than endgame scoring. It is rare that one side is not effectively tabled at the end of round 3, which means that whoever tables the other wins on end game scoring no exceptions.

Progressive scoring forces mobile elusive armies *cough* Eldar *cough* to stick their neck out from turn one creating a much more even playing field. It's too trivial (and BORING) to just sit back and evade everything while at the same time blasting away all game and fly on objectives last turn.

Avor wrote:
I never liked objectives and mission, I don't care if you held the marker on a hilll or in a swamp, I killed all but 3 marines., you win? Kill points were unfair to horde armies and were dumb on their own, like first blood=first turn. free point


I would be more keen on missions if they made sense. and forced a narative. Like the wounded SM model.

Cause that's not how war works. Through out history there are a ton of examples of a force losing most if not all of their numbers but "won" because they completed their goals. Battles rarely revolve around wiping out 100 percent of the other sides soldiers.

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Cause that's not how war works. Through out history there are a ton of examples of a force losing most if not all of their numbers but "won" because they completed their goals. Battles rarely revolve around wiping out 100 percent of the other sides soldiers.

Battles rarely revolve even wiping out 10 percent of the other side.....so 40K is just silly or the mindset of Eternal war without end is so principal and the brutal results of losing so ominus that you must fight to the last man.

secretForge wrote:
Hi Guys,

Over the years, I have come to realize that I am in a minority. I hate progressive scoring, and believe that end of game scoring is far superior for a strategic game.

IMO the golden age for missions was 5th, when they realized that missions needed more than killing mechanics, and limited scoring to troops, thereby giving troops a reason to exist in the game.

But I recognize that I'm in the minority on this one. So, I want to know why I'm wrong.

Why do you guys like progressive scoring? change my mind and make me drink the kool-aid!

End of game only scoring is stupid. It means that nothing you do until turn 5 actually matters. It's 100% 'whoever kills more wins' compared to the 75% it is in a progressive scoring game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 admironheart wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Cause that's not how war works. Through out history there are a ton of examples of a force losing most if not all of their numbers but "won" because they completed their goals. Battles rarely revolve around wiping out 100 percent of the other sides soldiers.

Battles rarely revolve even wiping out 10 percent of the other side.....so 40K is just silly or the mindset of Eternal war without end is so principal and the brutal results of losing so ominus that you must fight to the last man.

40k is silly. It's always been silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 admironheart wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


As for your game, you say you were slower to the field that the 'nids. Well, did your army feature fast attack options to prevent that or did you just build the most kill-y army you could? Honest question, as 40k makes it pretty easy to have fast attack and still be slow to take ground just by losing initiative especially with no more deep strike on turn 1. But if it was the former, that is why progressive scoring exists, if makes fast and durable units that have low damage a worthwhile option as they can grab objectives and hold them for a while. And I am all for the game including methods to make more units viable. Granted, it doesn't always work out that way.

.

Well most of my game play revolves around going up a flank and attacking the static gunline that most editions have. The benefit is that I use terrain and range to limit the attacking LoF while at the same time taking a large point value of my army vs a smaller point value of the opponents. I am not a fan of Napoleon game play where you line up the redcoats and blue coats and just shoot away....I at least want to be challenged more than just combo moving up a cc unit or strat up a gunline.

This was the first Mech list I have really played in any edition of 40k.

Flyer, 5 tanks, some vypers/windriders and a couple slogging wraithlords. My set up was utilizing my planned tactics and terrain. The mission had pre-measured spots for 5 objective markers. Nids went first. Killed my flyer (I forgot the extra -1 to hit) died first turn. I think he got 3 VPs. He put a blob of 30 gaunts on 1 objective and about 50 models on one that randomly was worth twice in his deployment side. On my turn I held 1 objective as charging with tanks into objective secure blobs would be idiotic on several levels.
On turn 2 he brought in reinforcements and held 4 of the 5 objectives...and rolled that all of them were worth double that turn. Now he gained 8 more VPs. I still held one but almost eliminated his 30 blob off of one between shooting and cc. So after 2 turns I think I had 3 VPs for the mission and he had 11.

This is where my tactical maneuvering and better game play lent itself to me wiping most of his units over the next 3 turns. and claiming all but one objective ....and I still would have lost the match if he did not once again roll that lucky 6 at just the right moment for me so I could net 10 VPs on my final turn and win 22 to 19 after all VPs were calculated.

So it was really just luck for him on turn 2 and luckier for me on turn 5.......which really minimized the tacitacal decisions I had made and the sloppy unimaginative setup and moves of his units. It was just luck of the draw.

Better to have a mission where you needed to take over a section of the battlefield, kill the enemy commander, keep your commander alive, target a specific unit, move a piece off the board, etc. Listening to myself I find that I am mocking some of the ITC parameters. Ive only used them once...but it sounds the same, even though I wasn't very impressed as I felt that it could be 'gamed' easily by certain list building.

Lotta stroking in this write-up. Careful, you'll get carpal tunnel.

Here's the reality of these kinds of missions when you play people who are actually good at 40k. They kill 90% of your army in the first 3 turns and jump jetbikes onto objectives in turn 5 if you manage to hide what's left somewhere.

'Gaming' eternal war is easy. I just table you and call it a day.