PDA

View Full Version : Problems with objective-based missions



Bloodriver
21-11-2009, 02:54
There has been a great deal of discussion lately about kill points and annhiliation missions, but frankly, I have greater concerns regarding Objective based missions. My problem is not with the objectives themselves, but which units can control and contest them.

In a Chaos Space Marines army I could have a unit that consisted of 10 Chaos Marines in power armor, including an Aspiring Champion, one marine with a Lascannon and one marine with a plasma gun. I could build this unit as 1. Chosen (elite), 2. Chaos Space Marines (troops) or 3. Havocs (heavy support) and their capabilities in the game would be virtually identical, except that only option 2 can control an objective. That makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

I could have a squad of twenty plague marines camped immovably on an objective, but if on the last turn my Ork opponent manages to get a single grot to survive within 3 inches objective, I no longer control it. (I conceed that this is not very likely, but it is theoretically possible). I did recently lose a game because a single Tau stealth suit managed to survive the first round of combat against seven Plague Marines and thus contest the objective, and then the game ended on turn 5. The problem of Tau players doing last turn objective denial with drones has been discussed at length on other threads.

Other glaring anomalies are not hard to think of.

What I suggest as a more realistic system (bearing in mind that perfection is an impossible dream) is this:

Any Infantry unit can control an objective, provided it consists of at least three modes (including attached Independent Characters) and is not falling back.

Any Infantry or Cavalry unit as described above can contest an objective provided it has at least half as many models as the largest unit exerting control over the objective. Any Monsterous Creature can contest an objective. Any vehicle that is not immobilised and has a functioning weapon of strength 6 or greater can contest an objective.

What say you, other WarSeer guys?

Count de Monet
21-11-2009, 03:14
What I had thought of as a possible change previously:


Another option for objective-based missions:

Rather than simply Troops-scoring/others-contest, assign values to objectives based on if the unit you have in range is troops or not.

- Non-vehicle Troops unit within 3" of objective = 2pts

- Other unit within 3" of objective = 1pt

- Only count one value, no pts for multiple units.

(Example - SM have a Tac squad [troops] within 3" objective A. They get 2pts. Eldar have a Swooping Hawk squad [Fast attack] and a Fire Prism [HS] within 3" of the same objective. They get 1pt.)

- Still gives Troops an advantage, and lets them still get marginal advantage over non-troops contesting the same objective, but also lets non-troops units that can get a decisive field advantage translate that into a more likely win (4 objectives, Eldar have non-troops on 3, SM has Troops on 1, Eldar win 3-2).

Meriwether
21-11-2009, 03:34
Saying that it makes no sense whatsoever is faulty. It makes no real-world sense, certainly. But this is a game, and all that rule does is alter the metagame. If that alteration to the metagame makes for a more [insert desireable trait here] game, then it makes good sense.

Meri

Arakanis
21-11-2009, 04:02
In a Chaos Space Marines army I could have a unit that consisted of 10 Chaos Marines in power armor, including an Aspiring Champion, one marine with a Lascannon and one marine with a plasma gun. I could build this unit as 1. Chosen (elite), 2. Chaos Space Marines (troops) or 3. Havocs (heavy support) and their capabilities in the game would be virtually identical, except that only option 2 can control an objective. That makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
...why would you field them as anything but troops then?

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well argue why ONLY troops can hold objectives. Because for balance reasons and to force Troops to be useful, they have made it so you cannot. However, this hardly matters because you only need ONE single model that is a troop choice to hold an objective, and just contest all others and you win.

Objective based games make the MOST sense of any type. :rolleyes:

Col_Festus
21-11-2009, 04:22
I remember reading the rumors for 5th and hearing that only troops could capture and contest. I liked this idea a lot and was really excited about it, that was until I found out all units can still contest. Then realized 5th would be the edition of draws lol. Still much better than 4th tho.. I personally would find the games very interesting if only troops could capture and contest, anyone play tested this at all?

big squig
21-11-2009, 05:14
I'm ok with it. If anything could score, then no one would ever have any reason to take troops.

Troops are easily the weakest units in every army. Other than grabbing objectives, they have no major use. Now, some armies have strong troops, like orks, but they're still weaker compared to nobs or odd boys. In 4thed you would often see armies with two min required troops. I'd see marine armies all the time with two 5 man scout squads so the player could take the cool stuff they really wanted.

Troops scoring makes the game better. It's not about what the units is (infantry, whatever), it's about their role. Fast Attack units are tasked with assaulting positions to clear it out for the troops to move in and hold the territory. Heavy Support units are tasked with providing the long range fire power to keep the troops safe while they reach their objective. HQs are tasked with leading the army and aiding in close combat. Elites are tasked with specialist roles like sabotaging tanks/bunkers, assaulting artillery, or assassinating key elements of the opposing force. None of these units are tasked with the objective themselves, they are there to aid the troops to complete their mission.

Sure, Chosen or Havoks can be equipped the same as a Chaos Marine squad, but that's not their role. They're ordered to be there for support reasons and you should be equipping them for that role. That's why they don't score.

big squig
21-11-2009, 05:17
That's not to say objective missions couldn't be better, they certainly could. One big problem is how easy it is to contest and cause a draw. Just look at C&C.

I would rather see "scoring" as a USR marking which units are scoring and which aren't. But that requires new codexes.

I think we need more variety in objective based missions. I miss 4thed in that regard, except the mixing of objectives and VP never worked so I certainly don't want VP back.

My gaming group has been toying with some new objective rules. We set up objectives as usual using yellow, blue, and red poker chips. We place yellow poker chips as the objectives. Yellow ones are neutral and held by no one. One player plays blue, the other plays red.

-If a player has an uncontested scoring unit within 3" of an objective at the beginning of any of their turns (or at the end of the game), they capture the objective and it changes to their color.

-If a player has an uncontested non-scoring unit within 3" of an objective at the beginning of any of their turns (or at the end of the game), the objective turns neutral.

This means that players can grab an objective early and move one, abandoning it without losing it or let a tough non-scoring unit defend it since the only way to claim an objective is to clear out everyone. It stops cheap last turn contesting with bikes and skimmers. It stops players from just hanging out in the deployment zones or reserves and then rushing the board on the last turn(s).

Simply put, it fixes a lot.

Jayden63
21-11-2009, 05:26
Troops are easily the weakest units in every army. Other than grabbing objectives, they have no major use. Now, some armies have strong troops, like orks, but they're still weaker compared to nobs or odd boys.

The problem is no all troop choices are created equal across all of the armies codexs. LD, Toughness and armor save, max numbers, etc. all go into how good a unit is for keeping an objective.

I'll place money on 8 tac marines over 12 firewarriors any day as to who will still be standing on an objective at the end of the game. And like someone else said. Once 20 plague marines are on an objective, getting them off is near impossible. Even 20 Necron warriors don't have as good of odds.

Now, I like objective missions, I really do. It forces you to think ahead over just kill the other guy. If your opponent looses track of where his troops are in relation to the objectives, the best he could maybe hope for is a draw.

Bloodriver
21-11-2009, 05:55
That's not to say objective missions couldn't be better, they certainly could. One big problem is how easy it is to contest and cause a draw. Just look at C&C.

I would rather see "scoring" as a USR marking which units are scoring and which aren't. But that requires new codexes.

I think we need more variety in objective based missions. I miss 4thed in that regard, except the mixing of objectives and VP never worked so I certainly don't want VP back.

My gaming group has been toying with some new objective rules. We set up objectives as usual using yellow, blue, and red poker chips. We place yellow poker chips as the objectives. Yellow ones are neutral and held by no one. One player plays blue, the other plays red.

-If a player has an uncontested scoring unit within 3" of an objective at the beginning of any of their turns (or at the end of the game), they capture the objective and it changes to their color.

-If a player has an uncontested non-scoring unit within 3" of an objective at the beginning of any of their turns (or at the end of the game), the objective turns neutral.

This means that players can grab an objective early and move one, abandoning it without losing it or let a tough non-scoring unit defend it since the only way to claim an objective is to clear out everyone. It stops cheap last turn contesting with bikes and skimmers. It stops players from just hanging out in the deployment zones or reserves and then rushing the board on the last turn(s).

Simply put, it fixes a lot.

I agree completely with your issues with C&C. I'm sure I've had more draws than results with that mission, especially with the spearhead deployment. I like your objective system - going to have give that a try sometime soon.



Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well argue why ONLY troops can hold objectives.

That is exactly what I am arguing about.:rolleyes:

big squig
21-11-2009, 06:08
The problem is no all troop choices are created equal across all of the armies codexs. LD, Toughness and armor save, max numbers, etc. all go into how good a unit is for keeping an objective.

I'll place money on 8 tac marines over 12 firewarriors any day as to who will still be standing on an objective at the end of the game. And like someone else said. Once 20 plague marines are on an objective, getting them off is near impossible. Even 20 Necron warriors don't have as good of odds.

Yes, but when talking about balance in objectives, you can't put scoring units in a vacuum. That's the beauty of "only troops scoring", that the non-scoring units are there to assists the scoring units and compensate for disadvantages some troops may naturally have compared to other armies'.


The tau player will have plenty of other non-scoring units that are built to kill marines.

Jayden63
21-11-2009, 07:28
Yes, but when talking about balance in objectives, you can't put scoring units in a vacuum. That's the beauty of "only troops scoring", that the non-scoring units are there to assists the scoring units and compensate for disadvantages some troops may naturally have compared to other armies'.


The tau player will have plenty of other non-scoring units that are built to kill marines.

All that matters are points. My example put 120 points of Tau sitting on an objective and 120 points of marines on an objective. Thus 8 marines to 12 Tau. That leaves and equal number of points for player A to push player B off the objective (and vise versa). Who do you think has the advantage now?

I don't look at things in a vacuum, but there are quite a few more ways to spook the tau off the objective than the marines. Everything from LD issues, to HTH, to AP level of weapons. The marines will still be standing after a suit team shoots them up with Missile pods and even some plasma. What will the Tau look like after a devistator unit of heavy bolter fire?

My overall point is, at equal points expenditure, not all troop choice are equal. And since troops are the ONLY units that can score, thats all that matters when looking at objective based game balance.

big squig
21-11-2009, 07:50
All that matters are points. My example put 120 points of Tau sitting on an objective and 120 points of marines on an objective. Thus 8 marines to 12 Tau. That leaves and equal number of points for player A to push player B off the objective (and vise versa). Who do you think has the advantage now?

I don't look at things in a vacuum, but there are quite a few more ways to spook the tau off the objective than the marines. Everything from LD issues, to HTH, to AP level of weapons. The marines will still be standing after a suit team shoots them up with Missile pods and even some plasma. What will the Tau look like after a devistator unit of heavy bolter fire?

My overall point is, at equal points expenditure, not all troop choice are equal. And since troops are the ONLY units that can score, thats all that matters when looking at objective based game balance.

I wouldn't agree with that at all though. In objective games, points mean squat. I mean, there is a point when spending too much on a unit when it's not worth it, but in an objective game, all that matters is controlling one more objective than the other guy regardless of how much you sacrifice.

It's perfectly acceptable to throw 1000 points at 8 marines if it grants you the objective that wins you the game.

mughi3
21-11-2009, 08:29
There has been a great deal of discussion lately about kill points and annhiliation missions, but frankly, I have greater concerns regarding Objective based missions. My problem is not with the objectives themselves, but which units can control and contest them.

In a Chaos Space Marines army I could have a unit that consisted of 10 Chaos Marines in power armor, including an Aspiring Champion, one marine with a Lascannon and one marine with a plasma gun. I could build this unit as 1. Chosen (elite), 2. Chaos Space Marines (troops) or 3. Havocs (heavy support) and their capabilities in the game would be virtually identical, except that only option 2 can control an objective. That makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

I could have a squad of twenty plague marines camped immovably on an objective, but if on the last turn my Ork opponent manages to get a single grot to survive within 3 inches objective, I no longer control it. (I conceed that this is not very likely, but it is theoretically possible). I did recently lose a game because a single Tau stealth suit managed to survive the first round of combat against seven Plague Marines and thus contest the objective, and then the game ended on turn 5. The problem of Tau players doing last turn objective denial with drones has been discussed at length on other threads.

Other glaring anomalies are not hard to think of.

What I suggest as a more realistic system (bearing in mind that perfection is an impossible dream) is this:

Any Infantry unit can control an objective, provided it consists of at least three modes (including attached Independent Characters) and is not falling back.

Any Infantry or Cavalry unit as described above can contest an objective provided it has at least half as many models as the largest unit exerting control over the objective. Any Monsterous Creature can contest an objective. Any vehicle that is not immobilised and has a functioning weapon of strength 6 or greater can contest an objective.

What say you, other WarSeer guys?

I'd say thats way to complex for 40K

saying X can contest and Y can score is fine, saying X can contest but only under conditions 1,2,3 and Y can score but only under conditions 4,5,6

etc.. adds way to many extra rules for the type of game it is.


The idea to get more people to take more core "troop" units by making them the only ones scoring does not work simply because any unit can contest. GW failed in that attempt because often times objective based missions become a battle over one or two key objectives. it also hase not really led to people taking more troops. none of my armies have more than 2 or 3 troops units on the table. and in most tournaments you usualy don't see more than 3, 4 at the most.

Granted they could have followed the fantasy route of core choices to unlock elite and rare choices, but 40K really isn't designed to operate like fantasy so it hardly works by comparison.

Jackmojo
21-11-2009, 08:35
How much sense the 'Troops = scoring units' rule makes varies from codex to codex, I find it fairly reasonable in the IG list, but less so in the current Space Marine book for example. Much like vehicle defensive weapons or other rules applied to all armies retroactively with the new edition its sensibility is open to some debate and interpretation.

Jack

Vaktathi
21-11-2009, 08:37
With objective missions, I do not so much mind that a single guy can contest something. Nobody can claim to have something secured with the enemy, of any kind, right on top of it. I am ok with this even when it leads to my loss, as I can't really consider that objective secured and locked down. I really like the way the current system only takes into account the objectives now, as it encourages players to be much more ruthless and cold with their armies and make hard decisions, and much better reflects the reality that is the 40k universe.

My bigger issue is with the awkwardness of Troops Only scoring. I have come to accept this as overall being a positive change for the game as a whole, however I do think it has some problems. My main problem is that often the primary objective takers and hold for many armies, both in terms of mechanics and fluff, are Elites, and thus incapable of actually holding an objective in game terms. For instance, with Imperial Guard, Stomtroopers would be the guys that would storm and objective and hold it in a tactical sense and any time period that a game of 40k would cover. They'd be relieved later but would be the ones to secure that objective within the timeframe presented within the 40k game, however can't actually count as holding it, but the stupid conscripts that have never held a gun before can for whatever reason. Likewise, Space Marines face a similar situations with units like Terminators that would teleport in, secure it, and hold.

Additionally, sometimes you can have identical units that can be both Troops or another slot, such as under the old IG codex, you could have these guys both as Elites and Troops, which was odd when you had 3 groups of both, all identical in every way, but only half could actually hold objectives? Or with Orks you can have Bikers as troops and bikers as Fast Attack, and even as Elites all within the same army, but not have all count as scoring, even though they are identical units.



These issues I find present very odd conundrums and issues that should be addressed in the next edition of 40k. I think mostly this could be solved in the vast majority of situations simply by allowing Elites to count as scoring as well, given that these are often the archetypal objective nabbers, although that may also ruin much of what was originally intended with the change, so I'm not sure how well that would work out.

CherryMan
21-11-2009, 08:42
The rule is not meant to make sense, its there to force players to pick troop choices. I absolutely loved it when this rule came in to play, made my mates army a whole lot useless... that and the "new" csm dex helped allot:D

IJW
21-11-2009, 09:57
Any Infantry unit can control an objective, provided it consists of at least three modes (including attached Independent Characters) and is not falling back.

Any Infantry or Cavalry unit as described above...
Got something against Bike armies, have we? :rolleyes:

shabbadoo
21-11-2009, 14:12
Probably not. Just didn't think it through to cover all possibilities.

The TROOPS only thing is awkward, but it does encourage people to field the supposedly most common units in any army- TROOPS choices.

I half-heatedly cursed this revamp came out, as I have always used lots of TROOPS choices(4 or more in most of my army lists), seeing it as a great advantage for a variety of reasons. Now my opponents field more basic TROOPS units, and prove to be a little bit harder to deal with. Despite the fact that there ought to be lots of basic TROOPS in people's armies, and that *most* basic TROOPS choices are decent enough for their points value, many people still do not take a lot of them. Sure, this cuts into taking "all the cool stuff", but hard choices are part of every game, and more so in smaller games.

Badger[Fr]
21-11-2009, 17:06
While the "Troops only scoring" rule is awkward and doesn't make any sense in terms of background, it ensures that list building isn't a mere exercice in min-maxing. So far, the new missions (be it objective or KP games) have been the most significant change in terms of gameplay 40k has ever witnessed since 3rd Edition, and are the main reason I favour 40k's 5th Edition over its two previous iterations. Bringing the most point efficient units to the table is no longer the be all and end all of 40k.

Thud
21-11-2009, 18:54
Saying that it makes no sense whatsoever is faulty. It makes no real-world sense, certainly. But this is a game, and all that rule does is alter the metagame. If that alteration to the metagame makes for a more [insert desireable trait here] game, then it makes good sense.

Meri

I agree. Game-mechanics are more important than what may or may not make sense.

I may be inclined to agree somewhat with the assertion made in this thread about 5th edition being the draw edition, but, honestly, I'm more inclined to say find a way to deal with it.

All in all, I'm pretty damn happy with 5th edition. Of course, there are a few aspects I'd like to be different from what they are, but nothing of major consequence.

the1stpip
21-11-2009, 20:30
It may not make sense, but it makes the game more enjoyable (certainly for the majority) so it works.

My issue is that home and away objective missions are nearly always draws.

Meriwether
21-11-2009, 21:17
My issue is that home and away objective missions are nearly always draws.

I have yet to have a draw in the two-objective mission. Keep your own, contest theirs -- done.

Meri

big squig
22-11-2009, 00:20
I have yet to have a draw in the two-objective mission. Keep your own, contest theirs -- done.

Meri

Well, the problem is that there's nothing stopping them from putting their objective in the very corner of the board and some armies just don't have what tit takes to reliably contest the opposite corner every game.

Meriwether
22-11-2009, 00:27
Insufficient maneuverability is not the fault of the mission. You have to be able to get the heck around in this game, and if you don't design an army that can do that, you're not being a very good player.

mughi3
22-11-2009, 00:31
Bringing the most point efficient units to the table is no longer the be all and end all of 40k.
have not been to a GT lately have you...that is completely untrue.
lash sorcerer's surrounded by a couple squads of plague marines who are troops and the rest of the list filled out with elites and heavies.....

The reality is that in 40K, while troops can kill things, elites and heavies(the most points efficient units) are the majority of the killing power in any army in the game.

Occulto
22-11-2009, 00:36
have not been to a GT lately have you...that is completely untrue.

GTs are also not the be all and end all of 40K. :D


The reality is that in 40K, while troops can kill things, elites and heavies(the most points efficient units) are the majority of the killing power in any army in the game.

The most brutal unit in the game is worth nothing if it's languishing far from any objective when the game ends.