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.

Hey folks. Was reading an article on Bell of Lost Souls this morning, where they mentioned adding a third layer to the ObSec rules so that some units would get SUPER-ObSec, wherein they controlled objectives by having fewer models, rather than more models, and would beat out regular ObSec units no matter what. Seemed weird to me, but it did put my head into that spot of "what if we changed ObSec?" So here's the idea I had:

Objective Secured
Units with this or a similar ability always control an objective marker, even if there are more enemy models within range of it. If an enemy unit within range of the objective marker has a similar ability, then it is controlled by the player who has the unit in their army list with the highest Power rating that is within range instead. If there is still a tie, it is controlled by the player who has the most models with this or a similar ability within range of that objective marker instead.


What would this do?
Mainly, it would mean that your more elite Troops will beat your less elite Troops, units that you purchased that started off big will beat units that started off small, and that identical Troops will still have to fight each other off objectives. This means that that last man of a 10-man Tactical Squad will beat the 5 men of a 5-man Tactical Squad, that a lone Scout beats a 10-man unit of Guardsmen, or that a long Guardsman beats a unit of Conscripts. Pretty much, it gives you an advantage for being bigger. This pushes players further into wanting big units, but also pushes them into wanting more elite units. If you take the dirt cheap stuff, yes you're saving on points, but you will be less able to hold objectives.

This change seems small here, but I think it'd have some pretty deep repercussions. Anyone want to give this a try?

Maybe use leadership value to determine who contests the objective?

I feel like there's so much we can do with what Ld does.

Not a bad choice. Definitely makes Ultramarines and Black Legion traits more interesting from the +1 Ld bonus. Based on Ld would also still give a difference to Conscripts and Guardsmen. There is some extra weirdness from going the Ld route though. Necron Warriors and Genestealers would be kings of holding objectives with their innate Ld10. On the flip (and maybe not bad side), a Lord Commissar near some troops will seriously bolster their objective-holding capabilities by pushing up their Ld.

However, I really like Power, because it pushed people to bigger starting squads, even for their elite units. With rare exceptions where units receive bonuses for large starting sizes (ability to regenerate lost forces at no points cost, or gaining bonus stats for having lots of models), most units in the game benefit most from having as few models as possible. Not only would a Power Level change mean that Tacticals would start having a higher value than Scouts, but you'd also be rewarded for taking full 10-man squads.

You know....most of the ideas that come through here are pretty fethed up...but this one is actually pretty good. Basing it on LD or Power Level could incentivize list changes for more sure holding.

Never steal an objective from Custodes and Deathwatch ever, ever!
That's one problem immediately.

Also I don't like that a lone Scout would beat a whole squad of Infantry. I like the thought behind the idea, but now it makes some units so bad at objective holding that you wouldn't bother with them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Never steal an objective from Custodes and Deathwatch ever, ever!
That's one problem immediately.

Also I don't like that a lone Scout would beat a whole squad of Infantry. I like the thought behind the idea, but now it makes some units so bad at objective holding that you wouldn't bother with them.

I think it would be interesting to see low Ld armies more or less requiring the presence to Ld boosting units in order for them to be competent objective contesters.

As for the single high Ld unit wrestling the objective away, I think it'll give more incentives to wipe the weakened units out rather being able to ignoring them due to how little impact they'll have for the rest of the game.

I also like the idea of differing dynamics which different armies claim/contest objectives differently:
-some armies are poor at holding objectives so they must rely on killing them (so more focus on offensive)
-some armies are good at holding objectives which forces the opponent in either killing the other stuff in your army or peel the units holding objectives (defensive distractions while scoring)
-some armies are in the middle so a balanced approach is needed (gotta kill some, can ignore some)

Perhaps the order of operations can be something like:
1. any unit can hold objectives
2. troop choice contest objectives against non-troop units
3. troop vs troop, use Ld value
4. if Ld value is the same, use power level (of the troop, disregard any other Ld modiferers' PL) to determine who holds it OR noone holds it - it is currently being contested for.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Never steal an objective from Custodes and Deathwatch ever, ever!
That's one problem immediately.

Also I don't like that a lone Scout would beat a whole squad of Infantry. I like the thought behind the idea, but now it makes some units so bad at objective holding that you wouldn't bother with them.

You call it a bug. I call it a feature!

I think that something that scales off of points (or even wounds), rather than bodies, could work, but I just hate the power system: beyond thinking it's a poor system for creating armies, between points errata and broad inaccuracies (ex: jump packs usually increase power, but weapons that are more expensive don't, and it doesn't take into account the difference between a bare bones or armed to the teeth unit), it doesn't accurately represent the unit at all.

How about unit cost or half unit cost if below half strength (or just unit cost x fraction of remaining unit if you want to be more accurate but require division), as the tie breaker, or something like that?

I think the leadership stat is also a nice way of handling things.

Maybe the difference in LD between units could add to the units "total" instead. That way it isn't super absolute and scales a bit better. So Ultramarines with one less model will hold the same as an Iron Hands squad with just one extra member. Or something.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Maybe the difference in LD between units could add to the units "total" instead. That way it isn't super absolute and scales a bit better. So Ultramarines with one less model will hold the same as an Iron Hands squad with just one extra member. Or something.

What started as a mindless banter, the more I think about it I think this is the perfect way to empower "elite" armies' troops just a tad bit.

The issue is that obsec rarely comes into play in the game as the meta, both in tournament setting and most local gaming scenes, are so focused on tabling the opponent that it leaves so little to racking up VP's whose the most important function is just a tie breaker/magnitude of victory.

I think it would be fun if VP's were the actual win-loss conditions where tabling an opponent is simply game-end condition.

 skchsan wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Maybe the difference in LD between units could add to the units "total" instead. That way it isn't super absolute and scales a bit better. So Ultramarines with one less model will hold the same as an Iron Hands squad with just one extra member. Or something.

What started as a mindless banter, the more I think about it I think this is the perfect way to empower "elite" armies' troops just a tad bit.

The issue is that obsec rarely comes into play in the game as the meta, both in tournament setting and most local gaming scenes, are so focused on tabling the opponent that it leaves so little to racking up VP's whose the most important function is just a tie breaker/magnitude of victory.

I think it would be fun if VP's were the actual win-loss conditions where tabling an opponent is simply game-end condition.

Not sure if you've tried the ITC format, but just tabling your opponent is not necessarily going to give a victory in that. During my practice games for a recent ITC tourney, I had one match where I got tabled and still won because of the points I scored. I really enjoy the format for that very reason.

Anyways, yeah, it could be first tie goes to Ld, and if still tied goes to Power, or the other way around. Either way I think would be very interesting for the format.

It certainly is a interesting Idea, maybee needs some refining.
But not a bad one.

Ahh, yes. There's nothing I love more than being encouraged to take 6- and 11-man units because of the arbitrary increase in Power Level.

Points would be fine. Leadership is an interesting concept. Power Level is a joke.

Discussed this over a game yesterday my two friends were having. Looking at the table as it was, it was clear that basing this on Ld isn't going to work. The problem being that it would tend to help one player massively over the other. The game was Dark Eldar vs Space Marines. If you go by Ld, the Space Marine Troops just always hold the objectives over the Dark Eldar, regardless of the army compositions.

Most factions have a pretty self-similar Ld. This makes Mono armies more boring, as they either have the Ld to win objectives, or they don't, and this will be the same in every Mono vs Mono army fight. With Power Level, there's always the option during army construction to make different decisions, so just seeing your opponent's faction doesn't give you the knowledge as to whether or not you'll be holding the objectives or not.

Only question, again, would be whether or not you should go by start of game Power Level, or current Power Level.

 Yarium wrote:
Discussed this over a game yesterday my two friends were having. Looking at the table as it was, it was clear that basing this on Ld isn't going to work. The problem being that it would tend to help one player massively over the other. The game was Dark Eldar vs Space Marines. If you go by Ld, the Space Marine Troops just always hold the objectives over the Dark Eldar, regardless of the army compositions.

Most factions have a pretty self-similar Ld. This makes Mono armies more boring, as they either have the Ld to win objectives, or they don't, and this will be the same in every Mono vs Mono army fight. With Power Level, there's always the option during army construction to make different decisions, so just seeing your opponent's faction doesn't give you the knowledge as to whether or not you'll be holding the objectives or not.

Only question, again, would be whether or not you should go by start of game Power Level, or current Power Level.

Well the issue I see (which you raise already) is that power level is a non-linear growing stat. I feel like this will end up empowering tarpitting hordes even more as opponents will have to kill the unit under a certain threshold as opposed to just have 1 more model around it.

As for the issue you raise regarding Ld, this is something I've been trying to tackle in my own house rules. The below is a rough draft of the new obsec:

Objective Secured
A unit with this or a similar ability always control an objective marker as long as there are no enemy units with this or a similar ability within range of the objective marker.
If there are enemy units within range of the objective marker has a similar ability, the player with more units with this or a similar ability within range of the objective marker controls the objective marker.
If there are same number of units with similar ability contesting for an objective marker, the player with a unit (with the ability) having the highest Ld value controls the objective marker.

What this does: It forces armies with cheap, hordey troops to dedicate more than 1 unit in order to contest the objective. Currently, players are enjoying tarpitting an objective with single unit of 20+ bodies that require dedicated firepower from multiple units in order to peel them off. What it doesn't do is over-empower MSU elite armies with high Ld values - even the bravest and the mightiest heroes can't control an objective when they're swarmed in.

Potential risks/mitigants (more to come)
Risk: may encourage MSU-ing of horde armies, resulting in greater number of vanity CP's to the said horde army.
Mitigant: The FOC limits on troops will nonetheless impose a "tax" on how many troops you should be taking before you begin to cripple your army by taking too many troop choices.

Risk: High Ld armies will nonetheless control objectives despite the restrictions by bringing more than 1 units to the objective
Mitigant: High Ld armies tend to come with higher costing troop choices, which will restrict how many troop choices they can take reasonably. Focusing a control over a single objective will render other objectives up for grabs.

I really like the idea that was mentioned about the leadership difference being added to the number of models. I think it would tip the balance well.

You could easily just add leadership to the number of models and then compare. Use the highest leadership of the models in range.

Example:

Marines have 4 guys and Ld 8, meaning a total of 12.

Grots have 7 guys and Ld 4, totalling 11. Marines win.

Warboss wanders over, now orks have 8 guys and Ld 8, so total 16. Orks are now controlling objective.

means that you can help secure an objective using a character. it would empower elites, and whilst it would make necrons and genestealers very good at objectives, surely that reflects their fluff quite well?

Definitely dislike power level being involved at all, ever. points could work but would be a lot of working out. total wounds would be a good option, as I doubt a single carnifex would be overpowered by 2 gretchin!

Would it be too much maths for it to be total wounds within 3", plus highest ld within 3"? it means expensive models with more wounds will count as they should. 3 tyranid warriors > 3 terminators > 3 marines > 3 gretchin.

though not sure about the termines being less than warriors. Perhaps they can have a rule stating each one counts as 3 for the purposes of objectives. but the finer details can be ironed out once a system is in place.

 skchsan wrote:
Maybe use leadership value to determine who contests the objective?

I feel like there's so much we can do with what Ld does.

What about my 1 ork boy next to a 30 man squad who is now LD 30.

mhalko1 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Maybe use leadership value to determine who contests the objective?

I feel like there's so much we can do with what Ld does.

What about my 1 ork boy next to a 30 man squad who is now LD 30.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Mob Rule ability only function during the Morale Phase? Like, they're only Ld30 for purposes of seeing if units run away or not? EDIT: Because if so, then the 1 Ork Boy just uses his Ld - it's not a test, so the number of Orks present from nearby squads wouldn't change anything.

mhalko1 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Maybe use leadership value to determine who contests the objective?

I feel like there's so much we can do with what Ld does.

What about my 1 ork boy next to a 30 man squad who is now LD 30.

with my suggestion, he would count as 31 for taking the objective. Which makes sense if he has 30 boys about to back him up!

Though, as some others have said, this bonus may only apply to the morale phase. It could quite easily get an FAQ in place to avoid this issue.

 some bloke wrote:
I really like the idea that was mentioned about the leadership difference being added to the number of models. I think it would tip the balance well.

You could easily just add leadership to the number of models and then compare. Use the highest leadership of the models in range.

Example:

Marines have 4 guys and Ld 8, meaning a total of 12.

Grots have 7 guys and Ld 4, totalling 11. Marines win.

Warboss wanders over, now orks have 8 guys and Ld 8, so total 16. Orks are now controlling objective.

means that you can help secure an objective using a character. it would empower elites, and whilst it would make necrons and genestealers very good at objectives, surely that reflects their fluff quite well?

Definitely dislike power level being involved at all, ever. points could work but would be a lot of working out. total wounds would be a good option, as I doubt a single carnifex would be overpowered by 2 gretchin!

Would it be too much maths for it to be total wounds within 3", plus highest ld within 3"? it means expensive models with more wounds will count as they should. 3 tyranid warriors > 3 terminators > 3 marines > 3 gretchin.

though not sure about the termines being less than warriors. Perhaps they can have a rule stating each one counts as 3 for the purposes of objectives. but the finer details can be ironed out once a system is in place.

This doesn't work and it'll disproportionately favors hordes even further.

1. [Model count] + [Ld] = [Ld Factor] is diminishing value where points per [Ld Factor] decreases as you lose models - in other words, the effect of leadership comes at a cheaper cost the more model the unit loses.
2. Points per [Ld Factor] diminishes slower the cheaper the model is.

If the merit of horde is to be able to overwhelm its opponents through sheer numbers, its merit need to be reflected as a function of unit count and not model count because the rates in which FOC fills up in any given detachment is of a manageable difference as opposed to the potential discrepancies between net model counts between horde and elite army where the former easily out numbers the latter by 3x margin.

TLDR - models can always be bought to a maximum of allowed points, where Ld is capped at 10. Using [Model count] + [Ld] metric will always favor those who have access to cheap troops and those who have cheap troops only.

How about:

If any friendly unit within 3" of an objective, had a higher Ld than all enemy units within range of the same objective, then each model from that unit within 3" counts as 2 for the purposes of determining who holds the objective.