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.

Gaining Victory Points through Objective markers have changed during editions and there is still other ways they can be used, so I am curious as to how you prefer them to work.

I think it should be static but dictated differently depending on the scenario.

I feel like it should be more progressive, in that you score fewer points on turn 1 than you do on turn 5; and/or holding one for longer results in more points; and taking a point from your opponent is more valuable than taking an uncontested point. Not all scenarios should be the same either; so, this does not need to apply to every mission.

1 point for each for a maximum of 3 points per round, counted after both players made their turn.

Why not multiples? All scenarios following same just restricts design space needlessly

tneva82 wrote:
Why not multiples? All scenarios following same just restricts design space needlessly

It's easier to remember. As long as the systems follow in order A, A, A, B, B, B, C, D, E instead of A, A, C, A, B, B, B, D, E then it's fine, but GW failed that in some mission packs.

Doesn't really matter to me. Just tell me what how to win any particular mission. If it's something achievable through actual play (i.e. not some painting requirement) I'll do my best to achieve it.
Or at least prevent you from achieving it....

Scenario-based is better IMO as long as there are also other ways of getting points. For example, objectives are there but things like Slay the Warlord or the player with the most units left getting a point etc.

The problem is not ever army is created equally, and not every army should be fighting the same battle, but bc we try to make the game balanced we have to have as balanced and equal ways for everyone to gain VP's. Example, why does DE care about holding ground? they want to rush in take your weakest bodies and leave.

So over all I am fine with Objectives, i would want to keep secondaries and have secondaries be very important to the play style of the each army.

Gert wrote:Scenario-based is better IMO as long as there are also other ways of getting points. For example, objectives are there but things like Slay the Warlord or the player with the most units left getting a point etc.

Amishprn86 wrote:The problem is not ever army is created equally, and not every army should be fighting the same battle, but bc we try to make the game balanced we have to have as balanced and equal ways for everyone to gain VP's. Example, why does DE care about holding ground? they want to rush in take your weakest bodies and leave.

So over all I am fine with Objectives, i would want to keep secondaries and have secondaries be very important to the play style of the each army.

Kind of agree with these sentiments, and also it should depend on the scenario. Ideally, I'm most interested in playing games that tell a story and reward factions for doing things that fit their fluff. So being rewarded for standing on a point all game feels very awkward with my space elves.

On the other hand, I understand that there are benefits to having 'one size fits all' missions. And for those missions, I generally prefer progressive scoring over end of game scoring because it makes it feel like you're actually holding onto territory rather than belly flopping onto it last turn.

Not wild about the "randomly determine what's up with the objectives" options don't appeal to me as much because they create extra bookkeeping and (by virtue of being random and generic) don't necessarily help tell a story.

ccs wrote:
Doesn't really matter to me. Just tell me what how to win any particular mission. If it's something achievable through actual play (i.e. not some painting requirement) I'll do my best to achieve it.
Or at least prevent you from achieving it....

I think that is the problem, sometimes some armies have secondaries which are just auto take, that require zero interaction and can't be countered, aside for blowing the opposing army up on first turn of the game. There isn't much to do to a necron player who scores for being on an objective, when he has a pre game move. Especialy if he goes first. Or kill objetives vs armies with kill units having the range of what we call "the table" and fire power of "kills everything bar a titan".

Scoring points every round is something I like about 9th. When I saw the One page rules uses end of battle scoring I immediately suggested to my group to ignore that and do scoring every round.
End of battle scoring just means you play for 4 hours and the player who incidentally has a bike or a rhino left at turn 6 wins because they can do a last turn sprint to an objective.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Kind of agree with these sentiments, and also it should depend on the scenario. Ideally, I'm most interested in playing games that tell a story and reward factions for doing things that fit their fluff. So being rewarded for standing on a point all game feels very awkward with my space elves.

On the other hand, I understand that there are benefits to having 'one size fits all' missions. And for those missions, I generally prefer progressive scoring over end of game scoring because it makes it feel like you're actually holding onto territory rather than belly flopping onto it last turn.

Not wild about the "randomly determine what's up with the objectives" options don't appeal to me as much because they create extra bookkeeping and (by virtue of being random and generic) don't necessarily help tell a story.

I am very much in favour of progressive scoring as well but without having to deal with different scores for different things. I already have to do maths enough with wounds and saves, why do I also need to have objectives where the reward varies between 1 point, 3 points, or 15 points? Can it not just be 1 point/objective and leave it at that?

 Gert wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Kind of agree with these sentiments, and also it should depend on the scenario. Ideally, I'm most interested in playing games that tell a story and reward factions for doing things that fit their fluff. So being rewarded for standing on a point all game feels very awkward with my space elves.

On the other hand, I understand that there are benefits to having 'one size fits all' missions. And for those missions, I generally prefer progressive scoring over end of game scoring because it makes it feel like you're actually holding onto territory rather than belly flopping onto it last turn.

Not wild about the "randomly determine what's up with the objectives" options don't appeal to me as much because they create extra bookkeeping and (by virtue of being random and generic) don't necessarily help tell a story.

I am very much in favour of progressive scoring as well but without having to deal with different scores for different things. I already have to do maths enough with wounds and saves, why do I also need to have objectives where the reward varies between 1 point, 3 points, or 15 points? Can it not just be 1 point/objective and leave it at that?

Really? 1-2-more is to much effort now?

I'm here to have fun not do school work chief. I shouldn't have to do 1+3+5+2+1 every single turn while also having a limit of 15 points/turn when one set score/objective should be enough.

If missions want to do higher points for the core objectives and have things like Slay the Warlord or First Blood as a bonus point each that's cool but different points depending on certain objectives is just annoying.

be more creative than just holding.

Do some more interesting missions where you need to hold a specific objective to unlock the option to do another part of the mission.

Something like Mindwipe from infinity.

Do an action on the midfield objectives -> unlocks the possibility to destroy a specific objective

Progressive scoring.
Players should place the objective markers before deployment - having fixed positions is stupid.
Quantity of objective markers should vary by mission from 2 to 6.
Objective markers should have varying importance and some be worth more VP's than others - vary from mission to mission and/or from objective marker to objective marker in the same mission.
In some missions, some objective markers should be 0 VP's, but grant an ability.

Side note...
Secondary objectives should be exclusive to the missions and not a laundry list of options chosen by the player. Some missions can have more or fewer secondaries (i.e. the average is 2 secondaries, but a mission that only uses 2 objective markers may have 3 or 4 secondary objectives that can be achieved).

I'm pleased to see more and more of these threads. It shows that it's more commonly accepted that there are major issues with the current mission design.

 oni wrote:

Secondary objectives should be exclusive to the missions and not a laundry list of options chosen by the player. Some missions can have more or fewer secondaries (i.e. the average is 2 secondaries, but a mission that only uses 2 objective markers may have 3 or 4 secondary objectives that can be achieved).

100% on this, i fething hate secondaries as they are right now.

Kcalehc wrote:I feel like it should be more progressive, in that you score fewer points on turn 1 than you do on turn 5; and/or holding one for longer results in more points; and taking a point from your opponent is more valuable than taking an uncontested point. Not all scenarios should be the same either; so, this does not need to apply to every mission.

I have a hard time considering even going back to end of game scoring sans a mission where completing said objective ends the game (which I find too difficult to balance in IGOUGO and deep strike/reserves heavy games). I do like the idea of at least one mission type being that of armies gaining more VP the longer they control an objective, reflecting the army redirecting resources back to their off table base or fortifying that objective's position. In either event, the more the enemy ignores this, the further they potentially fall behind. And another where each objective is worth more VP as the game progresses, potentially keeping the early game more cagey, so the players' armies have the resources late game to hold objectives when they are worth winning amounts of points. Which in many ways is basically end of game scoring, depending on the actual VP values.

oni wrote:Progressive scoring.
Players should place the objective markers before deployment - having fixed positions is stupid.
Quantity of objective markers should vary by mission from 2 to 6.
Objective markers should have varying importance and some be worth more VP's than others - vary from mission to mission and/or from objective marker to objective marker in the same mission.
In some missions, some objective markers should be 0 VP's, but grant an ability.

Side note...
Secondary objectives should be exclusive to the missions and not a laundry list of options chosen by the player. Some missions can have more or fewer secondaries (i.e. the average is 2 secondaries, but a mission that only uses 2 objective markers may have 3 or 4 secondary objectives that can be achieved).

I'm pleased to see more and more of these threads. It shows that it's more commonly accepted that there are major issues with the current mission design.

I agree that missions should have variable numbers of objectives and possibly static and dynamic objective missions. Such as many of the AoS 2019 General's Handbook Battleplans, Kill Team 2021 missions or a game where 6 markers are placed but only 2 are active either by cycling through ____# of objectives or performing actions on 1 objective unlocks/activates the ability to score on additional objectives. Spitballing, but that kind of stuff.

I think, if done correctly, secondary objectives can be less or no longer a thing (editorial: which is fine by me). I have always felt that 40k secondaries are just gimmicks to diversify army lists and dilute on table presence/power. And as such, are band-aid, busy boxes to prevent armies annihilating each other in a middle of the table castle scrum and make the gameplay feel deeper than it really is. What they don't feel is lore flavorful, as they make writing post game stories tough with so many 'plots' that may or may not have been instrumental in victory.

I am all for mission design guiding players toward a balance of Troops, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support (read: area control/toughness, speed, firepower, etc.). And I understand past editions with random missions didn't work as some players are going to skew and blame bad luck on rolling a mission their skew was a liability. But I don't see having players concern themselves of 3 secondaries plus considering how to prevent their opponent's own 3 secondaries works particularly well either. However, I know I have an ax to grind with secondaries and will likely always be bias against them.

 Gert wrote:
I'm here to have fun not do school work chief. I shouldn't have to do 1+3+5+2+1 every single turn while also having a limit of 15 points/turn when one set score/objective should be enough.

If missions want to do higher points for the core objectives and have things like Slay the Warlord or First Blood as a bonus point each that's cool but different points depending on certain objectives is just annoying.

40k is 90% a highschool statistics class, 10% a board game.

If you don't want homework, you're in the wrong hobby.

ERJAK wrote:

 Gert wrote:
I'm here to have fun not do school work chief. I shouldn't have to do 1+3+5+2+1 every single turn while also having a limit of 15 points/turn when one set score/objective should be enough.

If missions want to do higher points for the core objectives and have things like Slay the Warlord or First Blood as a bonus point each that's cool but different points depending on certain objectives is just annoying.

40k is 90% a highschool statistics class, 10% a board game.

If you don't want homework, you're in the wrong hobby.

nah, the hobby is fine, plenty of other wargames don't feel as mathy as 40k

ERJAK wrote:
40k is 90% a highschool statistics class, 10% a board game.

If you don't want homework, you're in the wrong hobby.

HH and every edition of 40k I've played prior to 9th didn't do. Bolt Action doesn't do it.
The mathsiest game I've played is BFG where you calculate the value of ships destroyed and I'm pretty sure that's only one of the game modes.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
be more creative than just holding.

Do some more interesting missions where you need to hold a specific objective to unlock the option to do another part of the mission.

Something like Mindwipe from infinity.

Do an action on the midfield objectives -> unlocks the possibility to destroy a specific objective

I like this approach on paper, but I worry that only having a set 5 turns makes it difficult to squeeze multi-stage goals into a single game. Especially if you have to move potentially slow units to a new location to complete the second-stage objectives.

I feel like the Pillage and Burn (or whatever it's called) mission from Crusade is a good example of a mission that feels like it tells a story and incorporates objectives, but does so in a way other than just having you stand on them.

I'd like to see some variety in objectives. Having basically one mission makes the game predictable and allows armies to min-max.

More than that, it helps verisimilitude in objectives. Some things make sense to reward VP every turn, and some things only make sense to reward if you hold them at the end, or extract them off the table.

I'd also very much like to see a re-work of secondaries, because as it stands they're another element of the game that further rewards army optimization and pre-game planning, things that are already too prevalent as it is.

 catbarf wrote:
I'd also very much like to see a re-work of secondaries, because as it stands they're another element of the game that further rewards army optimization and pre-game planning, things that are already too prevalent as it is.

I'm ok with spam being bad. It is better to have obvious incentives for rounded lists instead of just mandating that spammy lists are entirely illegal by going back to the force organization chart (and tightening up battlefield roles and unit sizes such that it affects everyone equally).

Only the "anti spam" tends to hurt codex that have one or even less good option per slot. And give huge buffs to armies that get showered by GW with super efficient and powerful choices, which are often only not run because there is something that works 10% better.

I like missions that force units to be spread out over the table. In my experience, having a set of very different missions encourages an army less specialized in killing, as different and less kill efficient units are required to cover the different possible scenarios.
Progressive scoring helps a lot. I recommend different variants for scenarios:
- at the end of each turn, score the amount of remaining turns (maybe devide by 2 or 3 and round up)
- at the end of each turn, score the amount of passed turns (or same variant as above)
- some objectives score 1 point, some objectives score several points
- only correct unit type can score the objective (scenario and location dependent)

Sometimes it may also make sense to only score every other turn. I also like objectives that can be moved by the unit holding the objective, and scoring additional points if moved to the players table edge.
Another scoring idea I encountered was deviding the table into sectors ( 4 or 6 of the same size) and the player with the most infantry/troops (in points value) in a terrain feature scores points for the specific sector. Again, this allows different sectors scoring different amount of points, which may make sense for more narrative games.

Have a set of six scenarios with different scoring variants discussed before building your list. After setting up terrain, one of the predetermined scenarios gets chosen per dice roll. If the scenarios are at up well, this encourages a TAC list building mentality.

I would love if primaries all worked like raise the banner does/did.

If there is a banner raised at the beginning of your turn, gain points.
Action required to put up banners, you need obsec or INFANTRY to do it, obsec infantry does it faster.
If enemy has control of an objective, banner gets torn down.
Extra points at end of game.

Not for balance reason or anything, I just like the feel. Playing way too much DoW might also be a reason.

I like objectives to be varied in how they work between different scenarios and even in them (based on the scenario of course). Different moments to score them, the ability to move some, different amounts of victory points. And yes, some missions where there aren't objective points but whole objective zones.

There are many good ideas here! Progressive Objectives make it for a very dynamic game, and the best board games, I know of, are very dynamic.

No matter how good the idea is or how many there is, do the two armies have to collect the victory points exactly the same way?

I mean, if we look at the background, actions could be divided into:

Controlling an Objective Marker

Destroying an Objective Marker

Creating an Objective Marker - maybe out of a destroyed enemy unit (looking at you Drukhari!)

Gaining Victory Points from an entirely difference source

Even though the armies don't have mirrored Objectives, they still would still be mirrored in the sense, that they'd want to avoid the enemy to gain Victory Points.