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.

Okay, this was inspired by FezzikDaBullgryn's thread about giving Elites and Vehicles ObSec and having them count as 3 and 5 models respectively. Figured I'd create my own thread so as not to clutter or hijack their thread with my own ideas. The thread got me thinking regarding the issue that certain armies (those that rely on more elite (small "e", not capital "E") units with lower model counts) struggle holding objectives when against horde armies.

So, I started thinking - what if instead of counting individual models, we instead counted whole units and worked something as follows:

A player controls an objective marker if they have more units in Operable Strength within range of it than their opponent.

Operable Strength is defined as the minimum size the unit can be taken without becoming Understrength, or greater (e.g. a Space Marine Tactical Squad of 5+ models, or a unit of XV8 Crisis Battlesuits containing 3+ models).

All units at Operable Strength are treated equal in value to one another when determining control of an objective marker, regardless of the number of models within the unit, the value of the unit, or if the unit exceeds its minimum size. Units at half its minimum size or larger, but less than its minimum size, counts as half an Operable Strength unit when determining control of an objective marker.

Units at less than half its minimum size, AIRCRAFT units, and CHARACTER units cannot hold an objective marker unless specified otherwise through special conditions (e.g. an ability, use of stratagem).

In addition, Objective Secured gains the following:

A unit with Objective Secured may control an objective marker even when reduced to less than half its minimum starting size, provided no other unit is in range to control the objective marker.

By doing this:

It helps level the playing field between armies that conceptually rely on a large number of models, and armies that rely on a small number of more powerful models.

It gives vehicles/monsters and units that can be taken in larger sizes an advantage when trying to hold an objective. With the former, they will always be at full Operable Strength (since their minimum size is typically 1). With the latter, the additional bodies provide them a number of ablative wounds before they fall below Operable Strength.

It creates a situation where losing that first model in a unit as a tactically significant loss since it drastically reduces its ability to hold an objective.

Horde armies will still have an advantage since they are typically able to either take units at larger sizes and/or a large number of whole units anyway.

It might also be easier to count; making the game faster to play which is always a good thing.

I have a lot of doupts about it. I don't have the impression that the balance is currently in favor of the "non-elite" factions and bolstering the small elite forces more might be... contraproductive. "Level the playing field" sounds a bit hollow seeing who currently is topdog and who underdog

I'm most familiar with IG and have the Impression that the option to at least outnumber other forces before our dudes get slaughtered is a straw that keeps us alive. With your Change, where before it would have been enough to get a damaged (6+ surviving) Infantry squad near an objective to take it from 5 Marines at least for one turn before they shoot/fight those to death, we would now need either either one squad at full size and another one at at least half size or three half sized squads.

It also does not help that we cannot increase the model count in a lot of our infantry units (Infantry squad, Veterans, Command Squads, Special Weapons Squads, Heavy weapons Squads).

I think the issue with this thread and the one that inspired it is I'm not sure there's a real problem that we need to solve in the first place. The current ObSec rules don't seem to be a problem in general. There are a few situations where it doesn't quite work correctly - mainly for Knights - but ObSec is designed to give basic dudes more of a role in the game and encourage players to use the grunts for the grunt work while using more specialist troops to do their thing.

Do we really need yet another buff for MSU?

tneva82 wrote:
Do we really need yet another buff for MSU?

Actually, I'm worried about this being a huge kick in the pants to MSU armies including ones that aren't doing so great right now (my eldar). Note the bit about only counting towards objective holding holding if you have the minimum starting size of models left. So in my craftworld army full of relatively squishy MSU units (squishier than marines anyway), my opponent would just have to kill one model from each of my non-vehicle squads to prevent them from scoring at all. Sort of gives me flashbacks to 5th edition where my opponent could just kill my overcosted troop tax, and I'd auto-lose the game unless I could basically table him.

Expanding my unit size to try to prevent this isn't ideal. If a craftworld unit is only viable if I take, let's say, 50% more dudes than the starting unit size, then my already limited and expensive wave serpent seats suddenly have even more competition. This, in turn, pushes me to not field units that need a transport to function or who don't provide more bang for their buck when taken above minimum size thus reducing list diversity. Striking scorpions, for instance, are already pretty bad but also don't really get better when you increase their squad size because the sergeant is responsible for most of their offense. So I'd probably just never take them. (Whereas right now you occassionally take a min-sized unit or two and have them deepstrike onto objectives or into the opponent's backfiield.)

I don't know what to do first, start a list of the infantry units that incredibly small minimum sizes (which is otherwise a completely arbitrary decision or based on the number of models GW can fit in a box) compared to other units or ask why the original poster thinks that monstrous creatures (or whatever else) that have degrading stat lines should always count as being at 'operational strength'...

Yeah I have never noticed an issue with objective secured either playing as a horde army or an elite force. There are of course some fringe cases, but overall I've never seen ObSec as a problem, except for one-off rules that give lots of units ObSec.

I wouldn't recommend expanding ObSec and I also wouldn't recommend making it a more complicated mechanic either.

Echo the 'is this really a problem?' line of thinking. The only 'horde' army that's really meta relevant at the moment are Admech and that's entirely do to their insane damage+survivability per point, not because they overwhelm objectives.

My original thinking was around finding an alternative solution to the apparent issue raised in the original thread, and to make calculating who holds an objective as quickly as possible. I will concede that Pyroalchi is correct that - as implemented - this idea would likely weaken Astra Militarum due to their fixed size with no option to expand the model count (i.e. they are always at the minimum size) of their infantry units.

Another potential issue is that it doesn't quite achieve another original intention I had - which was to quicken model counting when determining who controls an objective marker, due to having to know each unit's minimum size, and made further complicating by having to determine which units are at half size and which aren't. Another problem is that it makes certain units (e.g. Custodian Guards) potentially too resilient and hard to shift from an objective (using Custodian Guards as an example: individual models are pretty tough to kill especially for a troop choice with ObSec, their minimum size of the unit is quite small at 3, the unit size can be greatly increased to 10 (meaning having to kill up to 8 Custodian Guards before they fall below Operable Strength)). Though on the flip side, just bringing two units of AM Infantry Squads would supercede them in determining control.

With all this is mind what do people think of just going with a flat figure and something as follows:

A player controls an objective marker if it has more units in range of it.

All units are equal in value to one another in determining who controls an objective marker, regardless of the number of models within it or its point value provided it can control an objective marker.

Only units of 5+ models, or have the MONSTER or VEHICLE keywords can control an objective marker.

If the maximum size of a unit contains 4 models or less, it can only control an objective marker when it is at its maximum size.

Units with the CHARACTER keyword can never control an objective marker unless it also has the MONSTER or VEHICLE keyword as well

In terms of whether this is strictly "necessary", I'd say no proposed fix or new edition is ever "necessary" by virtue that the game works as is in its current state. The idea here is to try to simplify/quicken determining objective marker control and to address the apparent issue of the current system favouring horde armies over smaller ones. Whether its favouring of horde armies is needed or not due to the current meta and faction balance is beyond the scope of the discussion.

I'm still not sold on that. It means stuff like 5 Scions nullifying an objective against 30 Boys, because both are one unit. Or taking it from the boys if they are 2 x 5 dudes.
Also it might be much harder to get multiple big units into range compared to multiple small units. One of the few strengths of units like IG infantry and the like (low S, relatively bad safe, but cheap cost), is that they at least are good at taking objectives by outnumbering the elite MSUs, even if they are slaughtered immediatly afterwards. In the most extreme example I could think of we were argueing in the IG tactics threat what to do against Dark Angels ObSec Terminators sitting on an objective for their "score points for number of consecutive turns you hold it" secondary and the consensus seemed to be that the best option is trying to get more models within range for at least one of you own turns around the middle of the game because there is no real working route to kill those Termis efficiently. With this change it would have to be 2+ units which is even harder.

The issue of the system favoring horde armies over smaller ones just... is hard to see, really. Did this ever came up in anyones game? And does it really often come up that counting models within range is something that should be simplified?

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm still not sold on that. It means stuff like 5 Scions nullifying an objective against 30 Boys, because both are one unit. Or taking it from the boys if they are 2 x 5 dudes.

But by that same token, it's equally seemingly unrealistic that a single Grot not only nullifies 5 10-man squads of CSM Terminators' holding of an objective, it captures it. Obviously, ObSec as a rule is pretty arbitrary in its implementation. In the example you provided, it is plausible flavour-wise that 2 smaller squads who are working independently but in concert with one another are able to capture an objective out from under a bigger swarm of soldiers who are all clumped up together. Similarly, it is conceivable that once past a certain number of warm bodies working as a unit, its efficacy at taking a specific position ceases to improve beyond pure resilience.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
One of the few strengths of units like IG infantry and the like (low S, relatively bad safe, but cheap cost), is that they at least are good at taking objectives by outnumbering the elite MSUs, even if they are slaughtered immediatly afterwards. In the most extreme example I could think of we were argueing in the IG tactics threat what to do against Dark Angels ObSec Terminators sitting on an objective for their "score points for number of consecutive turns you hold it" secondary and the consensus seemed to be that the best option is trying to get more models within range for at least one of you own turns around the middle of the game because there is no real working route to kill those Termis efficiently. With this change it would have to be 2+ units which is even harder.

Yes and no since AM should theoretically be able to take more troop units for a given set of points compared Dark Angels. If they have one unit of ObSec Terminators sitting on an objective, two Infantry Squads would be able to capture it from them and be enough to contest it provided even just one of those two squads continue to have 5+ models. Not to mention, there is the option to use the Consolidate Squads stratagem even after they both get knocked <5 models per unit.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
The issue of the system favoring horde armies over smaller ones just... is hard to see, really. Did this ever came up in anyones game? And does it really often come up that counting models within range is something that should be simplified?

The favouring is that for X points, a horde army would typically always be able to bring a larger number of models than a more elite army. Whether that is a good thing or helpful to balance the game is a different thing entirely.

mr. peasant wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I'm still not sold on that. It means stuff like 5 Scions nullifying an objective against 30 Boys, because both are one unit. Or taking it from the boys if they are 2 x 5 dudes.

But by that same token, it's equally seemingly unrealistic that a single Grot not only nullifies 5 10-man squads of CSM Terminators' holding of an objective, it captures it. Obviously, ObSec as a rule is pretty arbitrary in its implementation. In the example you provided, it is plausible flavour-wise that 2 smaller squads who are working independently but in concert with one another are able to capture an objective out from under a bigger swarm of soldiers who are all clumped up together. Similarly, it is conceivable that once past a certain number of warm bodies working as a unit, its efficacy at taking a specific position ceases to improve beyond pure resilience.

You'll always get that arbitrary cut-off though. Sure, having 10 Grots controlling an objective over 20 Chaos Marines or Genestealers is "better" than having 1 Grot take an objective from a unit of 10 Terminators but it's still pretty arbitrary. Also, under your rules you could have 2x5 Grots control an objective even if only 1 model from each unit is within range of the objective. You would generally encourage conga-lining units out more as there's less incentive to get models close to an objective as opposed to models, which is how it is now.

I'm not sure your system is really all that streamlined either. At the moment it's a two-step process. Does only one person have ObSec? If not, count number of models within range. It's pretty simple, if a little fiddly to figure out exact distances to the objective at times. Under your proposals we need to make sure no unit is under 5 models, except those that are allowed to be, and check for vehicles and monsters as well, while discounting characters. None of that is really difficult but I don't think it's any more streamlined or quicker and I don't think it solves whatever the initial problem was without introducing at least as many similar issues.

Slipspace wrote:

mr. peasant wrote:
But by that same token, it's equally seemingly unrealistic that a single Grot not only nullifies 5 10-man squads of CSM Terminators' holding of an objective, it captures it. Obviously, ObSec as a rule is pretty arbitrary in its implementation. In the example you provided, it is plausible flavour-wise that 2 smaller squads who are working independently but in concert with one another are able to capture an objective out from under a bigger swarm of soldiers who are all clumped up together. Similarly, it is conceivable that once past a certain number of warm bodies working as a unit, its efficacy at taking a specific position ceases to improve beyond pure resilience.

You'll always get that arbitrary cut-off though. Sure, having 10 Grots controlling an objective over 20 Chaos Marines or Genestealers is "better" than having 1 Grot take an objective from a unit of 10 Terminators but it's still pretty arbitrary. Also, under your rules you could have 2x5 Grots control an objective even if only 1 model from each unit is within range of the objective. You would generally encourage conga-lining units out more as there's less incentive to get models close to an objective as opposed to models, which is how it is now.

I'm not sure your system is really all that streamlined either. At the moment it's a two-step process. Does only one person have ObSec? If not, count number of models within range. It's pretty simple, if a little fiddly to figure out exact distances to the objective at times. Under your proposals we need to make sure no unit is under 5 models, except those that are allowed to be, and check for vehicles and monsters as well, while discounting characters. None of that is really difficult but I don't think it's any more streamlined or quicker and I don't think it solves whatever the initial problem was without introducing at least as many similar issues.

I would agree that the original suggestion would be clunky in this respect. However, I'd argue that my second proposal (the one with flat 5+ units) would only be clunky if you go about the assessment mechanically without applying pattern recognition. With the current system, careful measurement would at times be needed to determine where the precise cut-off point is and which models within a unit count. I'd argue my proposal is much easier to pass the "eyeball test". Saying one would need to check which units have the MONSTER and VEHICLE keywords is somewhat artificial since such units often look very different from the rank-and-file units in terms of size. Similarly, the brain can very quickly pick out which units have 5+ models and which don't. Realistically, the only time one actually needs to hit pause on the determination are for the rare times where a unit has less than 4 models and is at its maximum size. In which case, in situations where this does apply and the unit is owned by the opponent and it alters the outcome of who controls the objective, the opponent will very quickly point this out.