PDA

View Full Version : Best game type, Annihilation or Objectives?



Cooper97
20-11-2012, 21:58
I am trying to decide on which game type to play for an upcoming tournament I am hosting. Annihilation is fun but is longer where as objectives is quick but not as fun. Help

CrownAxe
20-11-2012, 22:01
why not both since im assuming your tourney will have more then one round

wyvirn
20-11-2012, 22:02
I think Objectives currently for 2 reasons:
1) It encourages players to balance offense and defense, without forcing them to (wipeout!)
2) If mysterious objectives are your thing, the Skyfire Nexus objective helps curb the strength of Flyers.

Cooper97
20-11-2012, 22:16
Yeah fair point I could have both. It's a round robin with five players. I like that idea. I could do a roll of where 1,2,3 is objectives and 4,5,6 is annihilation. Would this work?

-Loki-
21-11-2012, 00:04
I find objective games far more fun than simple annihilation. Simply having the goal of killing your opponents army makes the game grow exceedingly stale - objectives open the gameup as well as certain units not 'good enough' for Annihilation.

Cooper97
21-11-2012, 00:13
Yeah that is very true. I mean their are some units that thrive in annihilation and some that don't but in objectives its and open playing field. What kind of battle setup should I do. Cities of death or something like that. Please give me some more examples

igwarlord
21-11-2012, 05:34
Objectives all the way. Annihilation always feels like it hurts the horde armys too much as is.
as an instance I lost a 750pt game in an escalation league due to the fact that he was able to kill all of 155pts of my army! 1 vet squad with a chimera. I killed everything he had except the farseer and 2 jet bikes I lost the match

DaemonprincePaul
21-11-2012, 06:29
I say Annihilation as im a chaos player (daemons and chaos marines) and its much easier for me to attempt a win with Annihilation than it is for me to win objectives with my daemons (mainly cause alot of people seem to put objectives near diffixcult terrain which causes mayhem with daemons having to deepstrike in). I find objectives fun but its not that much of a challenge as i find the strategy of just shoot your opponents troops off the board while protecting your own works so well

Nymie_the_Pooh
21-11-2012, 06:33
I'd say go with one annihilation mission and the rest be objectives of some variety. Players can win objectives by wiping out the enemy anyway so it's built-in to an extent and objectives makes it easier to inject a different flavor into each mission.

Weazel
21-11-2012, 07:36
I've always thought pure annihilation rather uninspired and boring. Objective games bring a whole new tactical level to the game and also force you to balance out our list instead of minmaxing for ultimate cheese. Annihilation games are usually "over" on turn 2-3 whereas objective games more often than not stay interesting until the end. By "over" I mean it's usually clear which side is going to win. In objective games an extra turn (turn 6 or turn 7) can still totally turn the scales.

Annihilation has its place though. Sometimes it's really refreshing to just go all out and kill stuff dead.

RandomThoughts
21-11-2012, 10:27
Objectives all the way. Annihilation always feels like it hurts the horde armys too much as is.
as an instance I lost a 750pt game in an escalation league due to the fact that he was able to kill all of 155pts of my army! 1 vet squad with a chimera. I killed everything he had except the farseer and 2 jet bikes I lost the match

They are still doing the kill point thing?!
God, I so don't miss playing 40K!

Regarding the tournament, I'd go objectives all the way, and I believe that games are better the more objectives there are on the board.

Regarding set up, why not do both? Densly packed city on one half of the table, wide plains with some trees on the other half, and you add a narrative about a imperial (?) city under siege.

Whatever you decide, though, make sure you inform your players ahead of the tournament.

A last notion, the one thing I love most about the Warmachie tournament ruleset is the two-list style. In short, players are allowed to bring two different lists, same army but may use different allies. Before games, both players are allowed to look at their opponent's lists and then both decide simultaneously (or rather decide in secret and reveal simultaneously) which army they will run this game. Encourages more diverse armies, in my opinion.

As an alternative, you could allow players two bring one list of army A with allies from army B and one list of army B with allies from army A. Of yourse, if you do that, you better ignore the allies chart and declare all armies Allies of Convenience.

Nymie_the_Pooh
21-11-2012, 11:16
@RandomThoughts Kill Points are one of the six generic missions presented in the new rulebook with the others being some form of objective missions with a few more story missions later in the book placed in such a way they probably aren't in the little book. I don't have the little book so I don't know for certain those other missions aren't in there, but it would make sense based on their being buried later in the fluff sections.

RandomThoughts
21-11-2012, 13:46
@RandomThoughts Kill Points are one of the six generic missions presented in the new rulebook with the others being some form of objective missions with a few more story missions later in the book placed in such a way they probably aren't in the little book. I don't have the little book so I don't know for certain those other missions aren't in there, but it would make sense based on their being buried later in the fluff sections.

Thanks. I think my surprise was more due to the fact that highly biased kill point system is still in the game.
Pretty unfair towards armies with lots of small units, in my opinion, encourages death stars, which I find pretty boring.

But yeah, just my opinion, and since I haven't played 40K since ... August, I think, I guess it's not my place to complain.

Nymie_the_Pooh
21-11-2012, 13:58
I feel much the same. Thankfully there's only a one in six chance of encountering it in a random game and if knowing about it going into a tournament I can build with it in mind.

Prisoner24601
21-11-2012, 15:57
Have objectives but have it be more fun.. like say the objective of each army in one round is the other persons warlord (worth 2 objectives).. and to avoid shenanigans he has to start on the filed turn one..

so you could have the d3+2 objectives and the extra 2.. so you could kill the other teams warlord but still lose.. or the death of him is the deciding vote.


or another idea is have the objectives actually give you VP when they are captured.. instead of the mad scramble turn 5, there's more incentive to get off your **** and claim/contest objectives.. as you gain vp's

2vp for claimed, 1 for contested and at end of game each objective is worth an additional 2 claimed and 1 contested (both sides)

Scammel
21-11-2012, 16:43
Objectives all the way. Forces much more balanced armies and deters point-n-click gameplay.

Rated_lexxx
21-11-2012, 20:22
well I find objective games to be fun. But here is way to think about this

Any game can be annihilation, but not every game can be objective based

Scammel
21-11-2012, 20:36
Any game can be annihilation, but not every game can be objective based

Not getting it, what are you trying to say? You can have objective games, you can have annihilation games, you can have a blend of both.

Grocklock
21-11-2012, 20:48
Thanks. I think my surprise was more due to the fact that highly biased kill point system is still in the game.
Pretty unfair towards armies with lots of small units, in my opinion, encourages death stars, which I find pretty boring.

But yeah, just my opinion, and since I haven't played 40K since ... August, I think, I guess it's not my place to complain.

I know what you mean but where the balance comes in is as you roll randomly before the game generally each player has to build a balanced list to do both as I could bring a ork list which lots of units to hold and deni objectives but it would suffer in anilation.

Fingers
21-11-2012, 21:09
Annihilation all the way. it's like Rock in RPS, good ole Rock. Nothing beats Rock.

Just remember, if your opponent has 0 models left, they cant take objectives!

Cooper97
21-11-2012, 22:41
I will make it an objectives tournament with 3 objectives for normal games and 5 for the grand final. 1500 points per army and 7 turns. All I need help with now is what terrain type. Eg cities of death.

Banville
21-11-2012, 23:54
Not getting it, what are you trying to say? You can have objective games, you can have annihilation games, you can have a blend of both.

Seriously? It's like saying all humans are animals but not all animals are humans. You can win any game by wiping out the enemy but it's rarely possible to win every game by focusing all your efforts towards wiping out the enemy. But if you can, you're golden.

y

Cooper97
22-11-2012, 02:39
Yeah I agree with you. You have to choose one or the other, not both. That is why I ended up only choosing one game type and I went for the quickest type. Also it is really not a good tactic to go for annihilation in an objectives game because you win by taking objectives and it is the easiest way.

DaemonprincePaul
22-11-2012, 07:13
I personally dont believe that for my daemons i can make a balanced list with objectives and anhiolation in mind as 1 my entire army deep strikes in and 2 i prefere to design my daemon army to include alot of the things i like (which is most things in the daemon book)

Scammel
22-11-2012, 08:06
You can win any game by wiping out the enemy but it's rarely possible to win every game by focusing all your efforts towards wiping out the enemy.

Ah, I was thinking of 'annihilation' in terms of the KP system, not actual annihilation.


I personally dont believe that for my daemons i can make a balanced list with objectives and anhiolation in mind as 1 my entire army deep strikes in and 2 i prefere to design my daemon army to include alot of the things i like (which is most things in the daemon book)

A broad mix of units from across the book? You should be solid in most objective games. From the sounds of it you have multiple options for attack and defence whilst having token FA and HS for the games thatallow them to score.

RandomThoughts
22-11-2012, 08:07
I will make it an objectives tournament with 3 objectives for normal games and 5 for the grand final. 1500 points per army and 7 turns. All I need help with now is what terrain type. Eg cities of death.

I find three objectives a bit few, but otherwise I approve this message.

Regarding terrain, why not aim for a terrain density somewhere between regular game and City Fight. Cover half the table with a variety of terrain, and you're golden.

If it were me, I'd also add the rule that models can fire into forests and out of forests, but never through forests, but that's just me again, I guess.

Azazel
22-11-2012, 09:58
I like both. Although if I had to choose it would be objectives because it forces you to move places perhaps you don't want to. Rather than just hunkering down in your own deployment zone and blasting away (although that can be fun too once in a while).

I think the 1 in 6 chance of Purge the Alien is pretty much the best ratio you can get on a D6. In an ideal world it would perhaps be 1/4 on a D8 (2 missions annihilation and 6 different objective games).

Chapters Unwritten
22-11-2012, 20:43
I'd say go with one annihilation mission and the rest be objectives of some variety. Players can win objectives by wiping out the enemy anyway so it's built-in to an extent and objectives makes it easier to inject a different flavor into each mission.

I second this just because the possibility of a mix means it will reward more balanced lists.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Rated_lexxx
23-11-2012, 12:02
Not getting it, what are you trying to say? You can have objective games, you can have annihilation games, you can have a blend of both.

In any game you can focus on killing but not every game you can focus on objectives

Take the relic for example. 90% of the time we focus on killing each other because grabbing that objective and moving it along is really hard

DaemonprincePaul
23-11-2012, 15:10
Ah, I was thinking of 'annihilation' in terms of the KP system, not actual annihilation.



A broad mix of units from across the book? You should be solid in most objective games. From the sounds of it you have multiple options for attack and defence whilst having token FA and HS for the games thatallow them to score.

I do take a mix of units from all the slots. In fact in my 2k list i have 4 troops 2 elites 3 fast attack and 1 heavy support

Vaktathi
24-11-2012, 19:23
Annihilation games, as they currently are represented, are *highly* stilted as they simply count the discrete number of units destroyed, regardless of their value, running into the situation where a drop pod is worth as much to victory as a Land Raider, Abaddon is worth as much as a squad of cultists, or Ghazkull is worth as much as some Grots, and one can win a game of annihilation with an army that has been shattered and broken and an opponent with an intact army.

Objective missions generally play a lot better and are more of a "casualties are acceptable, failure is not". Objectives generally challenge players more and force them to make harder choices than annihilation mission and give a much more believable victory outcome than many annihilation missions.

The_Klobb_Maniac
24-11-2012, 19:37
I second this just because the possibility of a mix means it will reward more balanced lists.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
According to internet wisdom that would only lopside it even more towards annihilation lists. Why? Because the competitive types on here speak as though that's how nearly every game should play out. They take low numbers of troops, hunker them down, and spit 90% of their list at you to dominate the field. It's not even far-fetched from a strategy point of view.

I personally still take 4 or so troops, but I can see the merit and possibly superiority of taking lists that minimize troops to maximize effective units/points.

The only way to further balance the game IMO is to actually *get rid of* annihilation games. we're looking at an edition where:
-Can no longer deny with many (all?) vehicles <-encourages infantry
-Can't score in a vehicle <- encourages larger/more durable troops units
-1/2 of the missions require troops to score primary objectives <-heavily encourages troops
-1/3 of the missions (with no overlap of the above) can utilize troops for scoring <-somewhat encourages troops
-1/6 is annihilation

and it's still lopsided towards annihilation.

RandomThoughts
25-11-2012, 06:55
According to internet wisdom that would only lopside it even more towards annihilation lists. Why? Because the competitive types on here speak as though that's how nearly every game should play out. They take low numbers of troops, hunker them down, and spit 90% of their list at you to dominate the field. It's not even far-fetched from a strategy point of view.

I personally still take 4 or so troops, but I can see the merit and possibly superiority of taking lists that minimize troops to maximize effective units/points.

The only way to further balance the game IMO is to actually *get rid of* annihilation games. we're looking at an edition where:
-Can no longer deny with many (all?) vehicles <-encourages infantry
-Can't score in a vehicle <- encourages larger/more durable troops units
-1/2 of the missions require troops to score primary objectives <-heavily encourages troops
-1/3 of the missions (with no overlap of the above) can utilize troops for scoring <-somewhat encourages troops
-1/6 is annihilation

and it's still lopsided towards annihilation.

Well, as an Eldar player, I just can't justify taking more troops than I absolutely must, because our troops are so horribly bad.

In its core, this game is about killing the other dude's army while keeping your own army alive. Eldar troops can do neither.

Believe me, I tried, but paying winable games has a certain appeal...

Gaargod
25-11-2012, 20:30
Play a victory points (in the sense of whatever you kill, you get that many points (and half points for anything reduced to half strength/fleeing)) if you want a pure deathy scenario.

Kill Points is still stupid as hell because, as others have said, it basically directly penalises taking MSU.

HereticHammer01
25-11-2012, 21:29
Objectives, brings in far more strategic thinking, especially in building your list, than annihilate in my opinion.

Dark_Kindred
25-11-2012, 22:00
For the Dark Eldar, every game is Annihilation .

Cooper97
26-11-2012, 00:29
Over the weekend I held the tournament with the same scenario i said before. I chose to do a cities of death terrain set with fragile buildings, chaos areas and a mysterious river. this turned out really well. i stoked up most of the scenery for the city o one side and the river with some boulders and ruins on the other. one army would start in the city, the other outside. i placed two objects 3 inches away from both deployment zones and one in the middle of the table. It was pretty much a 'if you have fast attack units, you win'. Thanks guys you al helped make this the best tournament. i am holding one next week. what should i do. I want new game types and new terrain types. Help

big squig
26-11-2012, 05:11
I find annihilation games terribly boring. Objective games require much more skill and give the game some semblance of a narrative.

I've done games where players lost automatically if they had no troops left. Was a lot of fun.

RandomThoughts
26-11-2012, 08:02
Over the weekend I held the tournament with the same scenario i said before. I chose to do a cities of death terrain set with fragile buildings, chaos areas and a mysterious river. this turned out really well. i stoked up most of the scenery for the city o one side and the river with some boulders and ruins on the other. one army would start in the city, the other outside. i placed two objects 3 inches away from both deployment zones and one in the middle of the table. It was pretty much a 'if you have fast attack units, you win'. Thanks guys you al helped make this the best tournament. i am holding one next week. what should i do. I want new game types and new terrain types. Help

Not sure I can help you much with the terrain types, since I don't know what you have got available. Just one thing: Bogs full of Mist. Take ponds/rivers/swamps/whatever you have and declare they are both rough terrain/cover and completely block line of sight; looking in and looking out is okay, but never through. Then add a few rocks here and there, both impassable and los-blocking. Add some conventional bushes/weeds, and declare the whole setting the Darkmoor.

If you want to ge crative with missions, there are a few nice ones out there. How about the score-as-you-go sudden death match. Objectives generate VPs at the beginning or each player turn, once a player reaches a certain number of VPs, the game ends instantly and he wins. With three objectives on the map as you described and First Blood/Slay the Warlock in, I'd suggest 1-2 points more than the number of turns you want games to last. Expect each player to score ~1 VP off objectives each turn, and set a max number of turns in case two players really get stuck in one of those never ending brawls with either all objectives contested or all troops killed off.

Then again, I'd like to repeat my suggestion for a two-list tournament. With named characters restricted to once for both armies. And perhaps the possibility to chose different allies for both lists.

If you really want to switch stuff up, you could go the old Combat Patrol route. 750p armies, HQ optional but not required (or just outright no HQ slots), no models with more than 2 wounds, Toughness greather than 5, a 2+ save and no vehicles with a total armor value (sum of all three) greater than 33.

Or if you want to be really mean to your players, make it a two-vs-two team-event. Make the lists smaller, somewhere around 1250, and players get teamed up randomly before each game. You wanna go a step, further, make it a two-list event. With Each team having ten minutes before the game starts to decide which two lists the wanna team up.

Lots of possibilities, really.

Cooper97
26-11-2012, 22:35
I like the teams idea. I have always personally enjoyed playing in doubles tournaments but it they have always been anihilation. I think i will make it seven turns, 12 objectives and 1500 points per army. I also love the Darkmoor idea. I will definately consult the players and see what they think. I am pretty sure they will be happy but i will need more players. I have most gaming tables available because I am hosting the tournament at my cousins store and he has an off-cut of GW gear plus tables and scenery. If anyone has anymore ideas, please help me out to make this tournament better than the last.