PDA

View Full Version : Tactical Objectives



Azulthar
23-10-2014, 12:35
7th edition may have saved the hobby for us, after the annoyance that was 6th edition. "But Azulthar", I hear you say, "isn't 7th edition considered to be even worse by you competitive GW-hating curmudgeons?" Well, maybe to some, but not to me or my gaming group. You know why?

Tactical Objectives.

We use them exclusively now, they are such a welcome game-changer. No more last turn rushes and tricks - the entire battlefield is now relevant the entire time.

Yeah, it adds even more random noise. You can lose by drawing the wrong card. Well, so what? The entire game is so random already, adding another element just doesn't matter. You could lose the entire game on a botched assault move, or a very lucky round of Overwatch from your opponent. Keeping the random out of 40k at this point is futile, and by doing so you're denying yourself an entire new level of strategic thinking. We haven't had this much fun with 40k for a while, and we're quite competitive players (we play to win, but we limit our cheese).

So, what about you Warseer? Have TOs found a way in your games? :)

A.T.
23-10-2014, 12:52
Keeping the random out of 40k at this point is futile, and by doing so you're denying yourself an entire new level of strategic thinkingI find I think far less strategically about games these days than I used to - there is only so much you can plan ahead for when your objectives won't be randomly determined until next turn, by which point your opponent has already randomly generated and achieved theirs.

It's tactical whack-a-mole at times, there is no overarching strategy.
Not that kill points and last minute objective grabs were really any better, but they allow an element of planning no matter how futile/beardy at times.

And adding more random does matter. Your hand in poker for instance is entirely random, but your skill at the game makes a big difference. Adding an extra rule that, for instance, causes any player who draws the ace of hearts to win all the chips instantly does not make the game any better.

Slowpoke
23-10-2014, 13:22
I think the TO's have changed our groups games for the better. No more of those last turn objective grabs, mindless rushing and clobbering of the opposing force or static gunlines. Now you have to plan ahead and personally my lists are more diverse now and include some mobile elements in order to get into those objectives fast. Yes, sometimes the cards screw you over but so did the dice before the inclusion of the TO's.

HelloKitty
23-10-2014, 13:33
Our games are IMO much more fun with tactical objectives. Fun in the sense that games are less predictable now and you have to think on your toes throughout the game, whereas before the game was kind of scripted when the goals were more static.

We have a mission chart we use that can use these, or core scenarios, or even altar of war scenarios, so you never know what you're going to get which influences army builds quite a bit.

Konovalev
23-10-2014, 19:03
Your hand in poker for instance is entirely random, but your skill at the game makes a big difference. Adding an extra rule that, for instance, causes any player who draws the ace of hearts to win all the chips instantly does not make the game any better.

What's the tactical card equivalent of this? Which card wins the game for the player that drew it?

A.T.
23-10-2014, 19:25
What's the tactical card equivalent of this? Which card wins the game for the player that drew it?The statement was not in reference to tactical cards specifically, but rather the suggestion that adding more random elements to an already random system doesn't matter.

ehlijen
24-10-2014, 00:40
The idea of tactical objectives was fine, even great possibly. But I still think they could have been implemented a lot better.

If you draw a whole hand of bad cards (impossible or very difficult), you're usually stuck replacing them one at a time. That will seriously throttle your VP progression.

If you get a great hand, you can breeze through multiple objectives and cycle through cards faster than the player with the bad hand. Theoretically, you'd eventually get stuck on a bad hand as well, but will that happen before the opponent catches up or the game is over?

And then there are the d3 VP cards. What do more dice matter if you're already asking chance for objectives? It matters because whoever gets to roll more dice is likely to gain more.

Combined what this means is that it's easier to succeed if you're already successful, which is not good game design (and is already an issue wargames need to deal with because the winner's force will become proportionally larger as he grinds down his foe).

If objective cards had to be kept to keep their VP to the end of the game (meaning both sides have the same number of opportunities to gain VP and cycling was only used to change unattainable objectives) and d3 VP was replaced with 2 VP, I think they'd be a lot fairer.

R.D.
24-10-2014, 00:59
It's a pretty cool system, though best done on a 6x4 board at least. Usually we go with a house rule that if you a card that's impossible to attain (like kill a psyker if the enemy has none) then you just put it away immediately and replace it.

Scribe of Khorne
24-10-2014, 05:09
"Its already random, may as well be bat **** crazy random!"

Not sure if I should laugh or cry at that. I find the cards 'fun', I also find that they render any chance for a 'fair' competitive game to be approaching zero. I played a game last weekend, he had 4 VP's before I even had a turn, while my hand was brutally slow. It makes first turn even more important potentially, and is just far too much variance in a game that has already turned into an exercise in just throwing more dice, more chance, more 'maybe I get a 6!' false hope, than most can stomach.

7 being better than 6 cuz '****it, its already random, jump the shark!' is...a view I'll not grasp. :]

AngryAngel
24-10-2014, 08:06
I think they can feel fun, but each time I've used them to date, they have lead to entirely one sided games where one player is crushing the other seemingly from just amazing draws, while the other player mired away in a hand full of trash. Great feeling change to the game, **** poor once you really break it down.

Menthak
24-10-2014, 08:22
We just use a GM instead of random-ness. But yeah, it does add more fun.

Harwammer
24-10-2014, 10:59
And then there are the d3 VP cards. What do more dice matter if you're already asking chance for objectives? It matters because whoever gets to roll more dice is likely to gain more.

Some valid complaints. I've snipped all but the piece that was relevant to my reply. Having some cards with random values helps add an extra level of consideration.

Should I go for the two 1vp TOs on the east of the board? Or should I risk only getting a single vp from the D3 TO on the west?

Vipoid
24-10-2014, 11:34
The entire game is so random already, adding another element just doesn't matter. You could lose the entire game on a botched assault move, or a very lucky round of Overwatch from your opponent.

So, why bother even playing? You might as well just flip a coin at the beginning of each game to see who wins.

If you really want, you can then play the game afterwards as a formality.

Wesser
24-10-2014, 11:58
Now in my experience TO's rarely matter because the snowballing game 40k is. What is an even game until Turn 3 more often than not ends up with a complete wipeout by the end of Turn 5 (especially if one army is Tau/Eldar)

I can't remember a board that looked like a draw in like...forever..


As for the TO's themselves a lot of stuff depends on the luck of the draw. I've had on opponent score 7 points before I got my 1st turn for instance. On the plus side it takes a little of the list building out of 40k since you gotta be more flexible, so that's good... now if we could just tone down the damage of certain armies so that wipeouts become less standard then it would prolly work better

Krucifus
24-10-2014, 12:25
The last game we played my Warlord rolled the trait "when scoring a capture the objective card, score 2 points instead of one". I then pulled out 3 different "capture objective 5" (which was practically in my deployment zone) cards and got 1st Blood. So I was 7 points ahead just by killing a Chimera.

My opponent in the mean time managed to laughably pull out kill a flyer (which came on the board turn 4), kill a psychic (which I didnt have) and capture objective 4 (buried deep in my deployment zone).

He enjoyed tactical objectives a lot less after that game.

A.T.
24-10-2014, 12:30
So, why bother even playing? You might as well just flip a coin at the beginning of each game to see who wins.I've seen one or two alpha strike armies that work on that principle too... Something 40k could do without.



The last game we played my Warlord rolled the trait "when scoring a capture the objective card, score 2 points instead of one"Had that in a game I was ref-ing on wednesday - big 250+pt chapter master running around hoovering up objectives rather than fighting. The opponent gave up somewhere around turn 4 having scoring 4 VPs despite sacrificing units at times to try and score.

Krucifus
24-10-2014, 13:04
When the character is on a bike and can turboboost its a no brainer to just zip to whatever objective each turn, completely ignoring the enemy.

Schismotive
24-10-2014, 14:05
No one in my gaming group seems to play with tactical objectives. I would like to give it a try, but I agree that it sounds pretty unfair. I played a tournament scenario with a friend that was similar to TOs a while ago. Every turn we randomly rolled for objectives and it pretty much favored him the whole game. I lost pretty bad

Geep
24-10-2014, 14:21
Some armies really excel at the small, sacrificial, objective grabber units far too much. Eldar, for example, can take lots of units of 3 bikes. They're cheap, troops, insanely fast and if you're bothering shooting them enjoy taking the actual threats to the face. Many other armies struggle to get cheap+fast, or fast+sacrificial.

I agree with Ehlijen's points- the idea is fine, the execution is... well I think we can say GW'd. It's a verb now, and their efforts are pretty consistent in falling short one way or another.


Yeah, it adds even more random noise. You can lose by drawing the wrong card. Well, so what? The entire game is so random already, adding another element just doesn't matter. This is not the sign of a good game. This is the sign of a $#@%ing terrible game. At this point things are about as tactical and strategic as Ludo (Parcheesi I think it's also known as?). Are TO's a good idea? Sure, mostly, but their execution is poor meaning they don't reach their potential.

Ghungo
24-10-2014, 16:24
As many tournaments have recently shown. Preplanned tactical objectives for tournaments or preplanned narrative objectives for friendly games are amazingly awesome.

What doesn't completely work is a set of tactical objectives for all armies. However this is easily remedied when you just use a deck of cards and remove the irrelevant kill cards before the game starts. Also having one warlord roll on the tactical objective warlord traits and the other choose something like strategic in a pure tactical objective game is asking to loose the victory point game.

And personally I feel d3 should just be 2 points not because it's unbalanced in any way I just feel random rolling dice on everything in 40k is just a bit much.

There are litteraly a dozen ways to make tactical objectives work in games that add a ton of fun to games. Another great way to play with the cards is simply choosing a set number of cards to play with from the deck limiting the amount of victory points achievable through tactical objectives and tailoring those cards to the game and/or army. This also severely mitigates issues with tactical objectives. Tactical objectives is one of the best inclusions to 40k in my experience.

Konovalev
24-10-2014, 18:28
This is not the sign of a good game. This is the sign of a $#@%ing terrible game.

Magic The Gathering is pretty terrible. I draw the wrong card all the time and it regularly costs me games. Stupid mana curves.

Azulthar
24-10-2014, 23:22
You have to trust that random balances out. If you don't, why bother playing 40k? If you don't use TOs because of the possibility of (un)lucky draws, how do you resolve the shooting phase? Just take averages? Because one (un)lucky round of shooting can decide the game just as easily as a lucky hand of cards.

ehlijen
24-10-2014, 23:55
You have to trust that random balances out. If you don't, why bother playing 40k? If you don't use TOs because of the possibility of (un)lucky draws, how do you resolve the shooting phase? Just take averages? Because one (un)lucky round of shooting can decide the game just as easily as a lucky hand of cards.

For randomness to balance out both sides need to have similar numbers of rolls/card draws.

For shooting and combat, the burden is on the player to get more dice than the opponent through manoeuvring. You play better, you get more chances for luck to favour you, you'll probably be luckier.

But with objective cards you don't have that. You draw bad objectives, you only slowly get to cycle them, you'll make slow progress.
You get good objectives, you'll breeze through them, you get more chances for more good objectives, you rack of VPs.

You chose your army and how to set up and move it. It's combat success is (or should be in a balanced game) up to your skill. You can't chose to draw easily obtained objectives. You get them, or you don't, and then your success depends on the enemy not getting more lucky.

That's a world of difference and makes for rather bad game design.
I'm not saying the game can't be fun (plenty of people say it can, and fun being subjective, that's all that needs), but I am saying it could be much, much better.

Scribe of Khorne
25-10-2014, 00:25
Magic The Gathering is pretty terrible. I draw the wrong card all the time and it regularly costs me games. Stupid mana curves.

Considering percentages, mana fixing, and redundancy, anyone who plays MTG and 40K would know that your on pretty unstable ground with this comparison. ;)

Geep
25-10-2014, 01:39
Magic The Gathering is pretty terrible. I draw the wrong card all the time and it regularly costs me games. Stupid mana curves.
I don't think Magic the Gathering is a good game. Is it fun? Sure, it can be, that's a separate issue. I've known players to be beaten within the first few turns by crazy hand draws, but the beauty of that game is that it's quick- you can easily re-shuffle and go again. If you're being stuffed by TO's in a 40k game you're probably locked in for over an hour, and there's bugger all you can do to fix your bad draw. You can usually cycle out a bad Magic hand much, much faster than a poor TO hand. You can quit and play again, but are you going to want to?


You have to trust that random balances out. If you don't, why bother playing 40k? If you don't use TOs because of the possibility of (un)lucky draws, how do you resolve the shooting phase? Just take averages? Because one (un)lucky round of shooting can decide the game just as easily as a lucky hand of cards.
Sometimes trusting luck to balance works, sometimes it doesn't, but whatever's going on you can always try and play in a way that minimises your losses, maximises your opponent's losses and so actually have an input into the chance rolls (rapid fire to roll more dice, get to the ruins to have better cover save, etc.). You have no input to the card draw and no way to clear up a bad draw with any speed (and speed is vital in a game that can be as short in turns as 40k). Even a simple change like being able to discard and re-draw (poker style) for your first lot of cards dealt would help a lot (though not be a perfect fix by any means).

Schismotive
25-10-2014, 02:53
Used to play magic, loved it but not so into it these days. Not really any more balanced than 40k, but it's more the crowd that's kept me away lately

But what do you guys think of the new codices adding in a portion of army specific TOs? On the surface they seem cool and tailored to the strengths of the army, but at the same time they're just slight tweaks to the normal cards... i dunno.

SamaNagol
25-10-2014, 03:32
Combined eternal war and modified maelstrom is brilliant. Try the UK GT rules:

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=123471

Geep
25-10-2014, 03:53
But what do you guys think of the new codices adding in a portion of army specific TOs? On the surface they seem cool and tailored to the strengths of the army, but at the same time they're just slight tweaks to the normal cards... i dunno.
Unfortunately I think these codex-specific cards take away from the best aspect of TOs- that you have to be willing to capture things all over the board and not remain static. Sure they help with adding to army theme a little, but they don't help the bad draw problem and the fact that they're really there as a cash-grab is pretty damn blatant. Has there been a codex release since TOs that hasn't had new cards? Surely not all armies need them?

Scribe of Khorne
25-10-2014, 04:59
I don't think Magic the Gathering is a good game.

:eek:

I play more 40K than MTG by about...a million %, but MTG is far and away a better game, once you go to eternal formats. I mean....top to bottom. Its better run, its better balanced, the designers and developers actually care fundamentally about the play and balance of the game. I dont know how one can say its not a good game. It may not be your favorite game, but its plainly 'good', if not great, if not the best modern game of all time.

R.D.
25-10-2014, 05:46
But what do you guys think of the new codices adding in a portion of army specific TOs? On the surface they seem cool and tailored to the strengths of the army, but at the same time they're just slight tweaks to the normal cards... i dunno.

I like the idea, but they do seem just slightly different. I guess there's only so many variations you can have on 'kill stuff'.

Harwammer
25-10-2014, 08:00
Which TO cards are screwing us over?

Instead of whining, perhaps we can turn this into a discussion of what strategies and tactics we could be using to turn these 'difficult' TO cards into easier ones?

Specific examples pleas; lets brain trust!

Geep
25-10-2014, 08:26
I play more 40K than MTG by about...a million %, but MTG is far and away a better game, once you go to eternal formats. I mean....top to bottom. Its better run, its better balanced, the designers and developers actually care fundamentally about the play and balance of the game. I dont know how one can say its not a good game. It may not be your favorite game, but its plainly 'good', if not great, if not the best modern game of all time.
Fair point, I should define what I mean: Basically, tactics and strategy are pretty limited in Magic. Not non-existent, but limited, primarily by your initial hand draw. That draw can and does decide games before the game really gets going (not always, of course). There's also cards with one of my pet hates- outright immunity. If I want to run an all red deck, for example, I can pretty much auto-lose if you throw out a strong creature immune to red. Being forced to break-theme with allies annoys the heck out of me. It's still a good game for being very easy to get into, easy and fast to play, and popularity breeds popularity- so there's no shortage of opponents.


Instead of whining, perhaps we can turn this into a discussion of what strategies and tactics we could be using to turn these 'difficult' TO cards into easier ones?
There a re a few problems: 1) Strategy and tactics is not always enough (the entire point of the whining here) and 2) what's difficult or impossible changes depending on the playing army and opponent.
Examples:
One TO is 'Destroy a Flyer'. If your opponent has a flyer, that can be easy VPs, if your opponent has no flyer you will never get a chance. That's a wasted card taking up hand space.
Another one is 'cast a psychic power'. If I'm playing Eldar or Tyranids it's a joke how easy it is, if I'm playing Necrons... yay. Wasted card.
Then there's 'kill a psyker'. Vs Tyranids or Grey Knights that's pretty much a free VPs card, vs Tau, another useless card.

Then there's the more subtle instances, for example- your army sits on objectives #1 and #2. You draw lots of 'capture objective #1'- free VPs for you, and you get new cards next turn. Your opponent draws lots of 'capture objective #2'. For most armies that's going to be 2-3 turns before he even has a good shot at fulfilling it, by which point he's well behind the 8 ball (in such a short game).

Players really need to be able to cycle through cards more easily, and discard without penalty anything which is impossible.

Harwammer
25-10-2014, 10:49
Good points, Geep. I like your suggestion to try include a psyker in your army where possible in case you draw this card. Likewise, I like your implication to kill enemy psykers ASAP so by the time your opponent draws the card he may be unable to complete it. I think you need to be more explicit in your advice though, instead of leaving it for inference.

Your definitely right about army selection too; if you know you are going to be playing TOs you want to make sure you can play to TOs; a TO army not only needs to be able to sit on a lot of objectives, but it also needs to be able to reach out and touch the enemy so you aren't left waiting 2-3 turns before you can even have a good shot at fulfilling it.

Your advice has me looking again at how I will construct lists with TOs in mind; writing a list that can easily cycle thru cards, without getting stuck with unwanted cards in hand is the way to victory and a dynamic game! Thank you for those thoughts!

A.T.
25-10-2014, 11:38
Specific examples pleas; lets brain trust!Well for starters 11 to 36 - the secure objective cards are relatively light on strategy and heavily influenced by codex selection. At a minimum they should require a player to hold the objective at the end of their turn for at least two consecutive turns.

Players who have multiple copies of the same objective should be required to clear them consecutively rather than concurrently if only secured by a single unit, and it would be nice to have some variety between capture and control, take and hold, storm and defend. Perhaps one takes longer if not held by troops, or another is impossible to secure with vehicles.

A set of cards that simply give 1 vp for each turn held, only discarded once they are not held for a turn would be a possibility. Similarly variance in point scoring - 1 vp for taking an objective if it is in your deployment zone/table half, 2 vps if in your opponents deployment zone/table half to reduce the benefit of fortunate camping cards.


Next up cards like scour the skies and witch hunter should have alternative conditions - if the objective is not possible the card should simply award you one VP for destroying an enemy unit, again if you have multiple cards of this nature the player should be required to achieve each consecutively with one dead unit per VP claimed.

Recon, it's a free point for doing nothing. Replace it.
Hold the line, should have additional restrictions. Behind enemy lines also.
Hungry for glory, challenges are stupid.
Harness the warp, too army specific.

Spiney Norman
25-10-2014, 15:30
Which TO cards are screwing us over?

Instead of whining, perhaps we can turn this into a discussion of what strategies and tactics we could be using to turn these 'difficult' TO cards into easier ones?

Specific examples pleas; lets brain trust!

55 - psychological warfare when you are fighting marines
56 - harness the warp when you don't have a psyker (at least 4 armies have no Psykers at all)
62 - Witch Hunter when your opponent has no Psykers
63 - scour the skies when your opponent has no flyer or FMC
65 - Demolitions if your opponent has no fortifications (I almost never see any fortifications)

If I draw three (or even two) of those five at the start of the game I feel like over already lost, esp since none of my armies (SoB, dark Eldar & necrons) can take Psykers at all.

Harwammer
25-10-2014, 15:37
I don't think it matters so much for sisters, who in my view are part of the imperium's forces so are likely to be fielded alongside IG or inquisitors for psychic goodness. I think with allies/unbound GW doesn't want us to think of each codex as it's own army anymore, rather just a source of detachments for an army.

I don't know if we can feel too bad for Dark Eldar having some TOs they have to sit on for a turn as they are infamous for being good at seizing most other objectives.

Necrons I'm not sure about as honestly I have very little experience or knowledge against them.

Geep
25-10-2014, 15:40
Good points, Geep. I like your suggestion to try include a psyker in your army where possible in case you draw this card. Likewise, I like your implication to kill enemy psykers ASAP so by the time your opponent draws the card he may be unable to complete it. I think you need to be more explicit in your advice though, instead of leaving it for inference.
I am surprised and a little shocked at your positivity towards my mainly negative post Harwammer. Well done. In recognition of your effort I'll try and dissect the cards in a more neutral and informative manner:

Cards 11-36, the capture objective cards. Luck plays a big role with these as they're easy VPs if in your deployment zone but damn hard if in your opponent's, and all worth the same. The best way to fulfil these is with fast troops- very fast, and if they can tank-shock then all the better. If you can get 1st turn accurate deep-strikes (eg. drop pods) they may also work. Expect the troops to be sacrificial, so keep them as cheap as possible. To deny these objectives to your opponent you also want troops- preferably tough ones that won't run away. Deny them easy VP snatches from under your nose.
41- Recon- Make sure to play with Mysterious Objectives, or this one's impossible. If you are playing with them, this one's just a matter of time, though you can speed it up with the same things mentioned above.
42- Behind enemy lines. Deep strike, speed, or some other similar ability makes this one easy. The bonus is you don't need to rely on troops, and most opponents wil have some juicy target in the back field. The only real counter to this one is interceptor (or focus fire on fast things if no deep strikers are around), but you'd have to get lucky to make those shots count.
43- Hold the line. This one requires you to keep units in your own back field- easier for some armies than others. Take a few long range units and hope to draw this card before their positions become useless.
44- Ascendency- control 3 objective markers. If you draw this in the early game it's no so hard, especially if you've stacked up on some fast troops.
45- Supremacy- As Ascendancy really.
46- Domination- Control every objective marker. Unlikely to ever happen, but you may get very lucky. Don't take an extremely reserves heavy army as you may hand this one to your opponent early.
51- Overwhelming firepower- Take some units that can shoot, and make sure to finish off those last few models. This one's just a matter of time.
52- Blood and guts- As for Overwhelming Firepower, except that it's much easier if you have an actually strong combat unit. Even if you don't you can target a hurt unit and kill it with numbers.
53- No prisoners- completely destroy an enemy unit. This one will happen, and probably fairly quickly. Your only way to avoid it is with large and tough units, but then you'll probably lose out in the objective-securing game.
54- Hungry for Glory- Take someone who can issue a challenge, get into combat with someone who can receive a challenge and done. There's no requirement to win. Not very hard, though to achieve it quickly you'll need a fair few characters to issue the challenges and some speed.
55- Psychological warfare- very few things in 40k really impact psychology, and many things have crazy Ld or special rules, so the only way to really have a chance at this one is by having many pinning weapons, fear causing creatures, etc. (though all space marines are immune to fear).
56- Harness the Warp- If you take a Psyker you have this one, almost no worries. That may mean being forced into allies, but that's probably already a given. Only Grey Knights and maybe Tyranids can put up some kind of defence. More psykers gives you more chance at the D3 VP option, but you may want to give up on this card in the first place due to 62.
61- Kingslayer- focus on killing your opponent's Warlord. You can start towards this one right from Turn 1- it doesn't matter when it happens.
62- Witch hunter- By not taking any psykers you deny this to your enemy. Unless the enemy has lots of psykers or you draw this card early you may want to keep enemy psykers alive- but then you risk the enemy achieving 56.
63- Scour the Skies- As for Witch Hunter, except to be reliable you will need some AA firepower. This is good reason not to take your own flyer though.
64- Assassinate- Kill enemy characters. This one will usually be achieved along with one of the other objectives- wipe out a squad, etc. It does make fielding a lot of characters to achieve 54 a little risky though- probably better to go with faster, tougher characters.
65- Demolitions- Your opponent needs to take a building or gun emplacement. Don't take one yourself, or claim one on the field. Have some anti-tank things.
66- Big game hunter- Kill an enemy vehicle or MC. Chances are you'll be trying for this anyway. Most armies can't get by without having one of these unit types, but if you can it's another way annoy the opponent.

So, I guess in summary- have lots of fast, expendable troops for objective capture and some tough, stubborn ones for defense. Deep strike works for some capture, but don't overload on reserves and remember they'll be slow once they've arrived. Don't take flyers, buildings or gun emplacements. Psykers have good and bad points. If you can field an army without vehicles or MCs it has a minor advantage. Have some back field units. Back field Interceptor may be handy, but probably won't be. Aim to kill the enemy warlord early. Have enough AT firepower, AP firepower (anti-personnel) is also sometimes good but tends to be there whether you want it or not.
As soon as you have an army-specific card lot numbers 11-16 get replaced and the actual objective grabbing becomes less important.

I hope this is more to the likings of those positively disposed towards TO's? I still will never like them as-is.

Harwammer
25-10-2014, 16:07
Wow!

Five star post there! Thanks you so much for taking the time to provide such depth!

I've not had much chance to play TOs yet, I'm sure after a dozen games I will be as sick of them as everyone else seems to be, in the mean time though this will give me loads of exciting ideas to think about!

Wesser
25-10-2014, 17:36
Hmm, quick question then. Is the it only my Group that have wipeout in 9 out of 10 games?. Objectives rarely seems to matter....

AngryAngel
26-10-2014, 03:44
55 - psychological warfare when you are fighting marines
56 - harness the warp when you don't have a psyker (at least 4 armies have no Psykers at all)
62 - Witch Hunter when your opponent has no Psykers
63 - scour the skies when your opponent has no flyer or FMC
65 - Demolitions if your opponent has no fortifications (I almost never see any fortifications)

If I draw three (or even two) of those five at the start of the game I feel like over already lost, esp since none of my armies (SoB, dark Eldar & necrons) can take Psykers at all.

Pretty much this.

mongoosedog300
26-10-2014, 10:24
You have to trust that random balances out. If you don't, why bother playing 40k? If you don't use TOs because of the possibility of (un)lucky draws, how do you resolve the shooting phase? Just take averages? Because one (un)lucky round of shooting can decide the game just as easily as a lucky hand of cards.

Because it's new so people assume it's going to be bad because it involves randomness. Having played at least 50 or so games with TO's, they make for very interesting games and have brought back my love for 40k. How many of the people complaining it have seriously had more than 2 or 3 games where the cards have gone seriously bad against them? And even then, you can still try and counter opponents moves towards objectives and what not. I feel like those complaining have had little actual expose to them, and aren't adapting to a new way of playing

Vipoid
26-10-2014, 10:35
How many of the people complaining it have seriously had more than 2 or 3 games where the cards have gone seriously bad against them?

Literally every TO mission my group has played has started with one team getting several easy missions, and the other team getting maybe one that they can complete that turn (frequently not even that).

Harwammer
26-10-2014, 11:06
Hmm, so that suggests when your opponent gets easier objectives then you need to perhaps shift focus away from completing your own objectives and instead (when possible) work on disrupting the enemy's?

Vipoid
26-10-2014, 11:26
Hmm, so that suggests when your opponent gets easier objectives then you need to perhaps shift focus away from completing your own objectives and instead (when possible) work on disrupting the enemy's?

The problem with that is that if your opponent is getting easy objectives then he'll usually complete them in the same turn.

So, by the time you know what you're trying to stop him doing, he's already done it. :p

Harwammer
26-10-2014, 11:55
Yes, I can see how having to pre-empt his objectives could be difficult. I guess this means a list needs to include units that is good at camping objectives, to prevent the opponent grabbing them, but can also take part in the wider game by using range attacks or similar?

Geep
26-10-2014, 12:12
Yes, I can see how having to pre-empt his objectives could be difficult. I guess this means a list needs to include units that is good at camping objectives, to prevent the opponent grabbing them, but can also take part in the wider game by using range attacks or similar?
Although this certainly helps in slowing the opponent down, it's far from a fix. You can generally expect 3 objectives to be near your opponent- if he draws cards to capture those objectives there's basically nothing you can do. In fact, if they get first turn there is literally nothing you can do. In later turns you can try and send units to go sit on those objectives but 1) they'd have to be troops to stop him reliably and 2) pretty much no unit in the game will survive that role for long.
I think one small but great improvement to the system would be if the objective capturing TO's could only be scored at the end of your opponent's turn.


How many of the people complaining it have seriously had more than 2 or 3 games where the cards have gone seriously bad against them?
The problem is 40k is a very time consuming game. It's not unusual to only squeeze in 1 game a week, and all you need is 2-3 bad experiences early on and you just lose the drive to try again- at least with the current system. So we have an exodus of old timers back to the 'good ol' days' of 2nd or some other edition, new players don't find the experience exactly thrilling and game playing generally stagnates. I have plenty of other games I play, so unless I find like minded people to play me in 40k the way I want (which at this moment has about as many houserules as actual 40k rules) I'm happy to shelve my GW stuff until the sun comes out again.

R.D.
26-10-2014, 16:52
55 - psychological warfare when you are fighting marines
56 - harness the warp when you don't have a psyker (at least 4 armies have no Psykers at all)
62 - Witch Hunter when your opponent has no Psykers
63 - scour the skies when your opponent has no flyer or FMC
65 - Demolitions if your opponent has no fortifications (I almost never see any fortifications)

If I draw three (or even two) of those five at the start of the game I feel like over already lost, esp since none of my armies (SoB, dark Eldar & necrons) can take Psykers at all.

Do what I do and just before the game ask the opponent "Hey, you good with us just instantly discarding and redrawing cards impossible to achieve?" And they almost universally say yes, since hey, also benefits them.

Vipoid
26-10-2014, 17:58
Do what I do and just before the game ask the opponent "Hey, you good with us just instantly discarding and redrawing cards impossible to achieve?" And they almost universally say yes, since hey, also benefits them.

How do you define 'impossible to achieve'?

This is a serious question. For example, if your opponent has a flier in reserve (but none on the field), then do you count 'destroy an enemy flier' as an impossible objective?

R.D.
26-10-2014, 18:16
How do you define 'impossible to achieve'?

This is a serious question. For example, if your opponent has a flier in reserve (but none on the field), then do you count 'destroy an enemy flier' as an impossible objective?

I meant impossible to get in the game under any circumstance. Like if your player has no fliers or psykers at all anywhere. If it's just difficult to attain, you still use it.

Vaktathi
26-10-2014, 18:19
Not only are there some that often can be literally impossible, there are many that will be functionally impossible, stuff like "oh, look I pulled Domination turn 1" or "yeah, my Tau aren't going to accomplish Blood and Guts and destroy an enemy unit in my assault phase", etc.

Vipoid
26-10-2014, 18:21
Not only are there some that often can be literally impossible, there are many that will be functionally impossible, stuff like "oh, look I pulled Domination turn 1" or "yeah, my Tau aren't going to accomplish Blood and Guts and destroy an enemy unit in my assault phase", etc.

Indeed.

The other aspect, of course, is that there's a time consideration. In the above example, if you draw that 'destroy a flier' card on turn 1 then it could easily be sitting in your hand for 2-3 turns before you even get a chance at completing it.

R.D.
26-10-2014, 18:22
Not only are there some that often can be literally impossible, there are many that will be functionally impossible, stuff like "oh, look I pulled Domination turn 1" or "yeah, my Tau aren't going to accomplish Blood and Guts and destroy an enemy unit in my assault phase", etc.

Well, those can force you to be ballsy. It's possible for Tau to smash up an enemy unit in by having battlesuits or a Riptide beat up a tank or something, which I do often. ;)

R.D.
26-10-2014, 18:23
Indeed.

The other aspect, of course, is that there's a time consideration. In the above example, if you draw that 'destroy a flier' card on turn 1 then it could easily be sitting in your hand for 2-3 turns before you even get a chance at completing it.

So then you hold onto it and be patient. Depends if you play a game where cards and increase exponentially over the game.

Vipoid
26-10-2014, 18:25
So then you hold onto it and be patient.

While your opponent is getting objectives that he can complete immediately.

R.D.
26-10-2014, 18:27
While your opponent is getting objectives that he can complete immediately.

And maybe so are you, unless you're somehow only doing a single card at a time.

SimaoSegunda
26-10-2014, 18:30
Tactical warlord traits can make a big difference. Being able to discard 2 objectives a turn, or being able to take a mulligan on your first turn draw have both been useful for me recently.

Vipoid
26-10-2014, 18:34
And maybe so are you, unless you're somehow only doing a single card at a time.

As I said above, the latter is exactly what happens in every TO game I've played.

One team starts with things like 'Capture objective 1' (where said objective is in their deployment zone), 'cast a psychic power', 'destroy a unit with shooting' etc.

The other team then draws stuff like 'Capture objective 3' (where said objective is in the enemy deployment zone), 'capture every objective', 'destroy a flier' (not on the field yet), 'kill the enemy warlord' (when he's still in reserve), 'declare a challenge', etc. And, in general, that just sets the tone of the game - the first team cycles through all their objectives each turn, whilst the second team struggles to even get one per turn.

Every. Single. Game.

R.D.
26-10-2014, 18:35
As I said above, the latter is exactly what happens in every TO game I've played.

One team starts with things like 'Capture objective 1' (where said objective is in their deployment zone), 'cast a psychic power', 'destroy a unit with shooting' etc.

The other team then draws stuff like 'Capture objective 3' (where said objective is in the enemy deployment zone), 'capture every objective', 'destroy a flier' (not on the field yet), 'kill the enemy warlord' (when he's still in reserve), 'declare a challenge', etc. And, in general, that just sets the tone of the game - the first team cycles through all their objectives each turn, whilst the second team struggles to even get one per turn.

Every. Single. Game.

Well that's just your bad luck. Would be the same if I kept losing games because the dice rolled bad for me every shooting phase. Shuffle your cards a bit more between games.

Dosiere
26-10-2014, 20:25
I like them and hope they don't go away. They make games much more interesting, and i love how they force you to change your battle plans mid-game. I do think they need some house rules to work in a tournament setting though, the randomness of them can be fun in a pick up game but really frustrating in a tournament. That being said, it's your own fault if your list sucks at taking advantage of tactical cards. I saw several players moaning about them at the last tournament but if you looked at their lists and how they were playing, it was really their own fault. They played and reserved things in exactly the same way they would in any other game, and they really should have changed some things so they could grab objectives like they needed to.

One rule used here in many tournaments is that objective cards are achievable by either player, and I think it works and helps alot.

Geep
27-10-2014, 02:16
Well that's just your bad luck. Would be the same if I kept losing games because the dice rolled bad for me every shooting phase. Shuffle your cards a bit more between games.
The difference is rolling bad every shooting phase is pretty damn unlikely (it happens still) and there are things you can do about it- keep your troops in cover so the return fire is less effective, get closer so you can rapid fire and get more shots, etc.
The card draw, on the other hand, is most crucial early in the game and, except for some tactical warlord traits, your ability to influence it is nil. You are purely at the mercy of luck.
To say that the solution to this is 'Shuffle your cards more' is... I can only hope that was a joke on your part.


One rule used here in many tournaments is that objective cards are achievable by either player, and I think it works and helps alot.
This one seems like a good idea, although there's still the annoyance of TOs dictating your army selection if you want an advantage (eg. Don't take flyers, don't take buildings or weapon emplacements)

Azulthar
27-10-2014, 08:59
The difference is rolling bad every shooting phase is pretty damn unlikely (it happens still) and there are things you can do about it- keep your troops in cover so the return fire is less effective, get closer so you can rapid fire and get more shots, etc.
The card draw, on the other hand, is most crucial early in the game and, except for some tactical warlord traits, your ability to influence it is nil. You are purely at the mercy of luck.
To say that the solution to this is 'Shuffle your cards more' is... I can only hope that was a joke on your part.
The cards are as much under your control as the dice.

You can stack the odds in your favor with dice by having more of them. You can stack the odds in your favor with TOs by spreading out over the table, having a varied army, etc. The vast majority of the TOs are about Objective grabbing.

Element of chance with both. You can still roll extremely crappy despite your best efforts, and you can still draw crappy cards despite your best efforts.

Geep
27-10-2014, 10:11
The cards are as much under your control as the dice.

You can stack the odds in your favor with dice by having more of them. You can stack the odds in your favor with TOs by spreading out over the table, having a varied army, etc. The vast majority of the TOs are about Objective grabbing.

Element of chance with both. You can still roll extremely crappy despite your best efforts, and you can still draw crappy cards despite your best efforts.
Unfortunately this is not the case. You can (and should) aim to be good at objective grabbing, of course, but if your first hand draw is poor (kill a flyer, destroy a building, etc.) there is NOTHING you can do about it within the required timeframe. Aside from some tactical objective warlord traits (which, as a randomly generated thing, are inherently unreliable), you're usually stuck ditching one useless card a turn. Full stop. That's it. Control over this fact is out of your hands. Of course if your opponent has been kind enough to bring a flyer or building then you can aim to achieve the objectives faster, but that's simply poor list making by your opponent- not up to you.

The cards don't even have to be impossible, or that 'bad'. Drawing three variants of 'capture objective X' is great- but if objective X is in the middle of your opponent's army you can be sure you won' be taking it any time soon- so those three cards go from being great to very annoying space-wasters in your limited hand. Can you achieve the objective? Sure- and it's great when you do. 3VPs. But you're probably behind your opponent by this time, and not due to any mistake on your part.

I really like the idea of TOs, but the execution has not been thought out.

Edit: Something which would make it more like the other game elements, giving a level of player control, is if you had some additional way to swap or generate objectives. For example, if you elect to pin one of your units during your own turn (it's receiving orders) you can discard and redraw a TO card, in addition to whatever the turn's limit is. That way you have a choice- you get to choose if that option is worth it.

mongoosedog300
27-10-2014, 11:36
I can't think a single army that cant get a deep strike/fast moving unit that can get across the board in a turn or 2. They may not be the toughest or most killy, but mobility is the aim of the game. If you try to play the same game as 6th then you're going to lose on the cards regardless. If you have a mobile army, then you're in with a good chance, as chances are you'll be able to get those objectives outside of your half.

Adapt play styles/army builds to suit the game. Ask your opponent if you can take out objectives that literally cant be done (destroying buildings/flyers/pskers if theres none in the game, ones that are difficult are in), and the game is not as horrible as the internet seems to think it is.

Geep
27-10-2014, 11:54
You'd be at a disadvantage trying to capture objectives in the opponent's table half even if they had no models to actually try and repel you. That VP, however, is worth just as much as a VP sitting in your own deployment zone. That's not right.

As well as that issue, getting across the board isn't necessarily the problem. All the opponent needs is to sit a troops unit on the objective and, unless you can kill it to a man (or beast) (since morale issues are laughable for most races) you can't claim that objective. If that defending unit holds out only 1 turn and your opponent sees such a prime chance to stuff up your objectives hand (objectives are open) you can bet the units you had planned to capture the objective with will be shot badly, and those defending troops will probably be reinforced.
Compare this with someone who draws 3 of 'Capture objective X' when that X is in their own deployment zone. That's done, no questions, 3 free, easy VPs. You're unlikely to even get a chance between knowing what those cards are and him completing them where you can react and stop it.

In short: If someone has a bad draw it's easy to kick them while they're down, if someone has a good draw they'll probably go on a roll and be hard to stop.

One other change that may help would be a tetris-like 'future peak' system. Both players always have the top of their TO deck flipped, so although they can't yet achieve it both sides know what's coming.

Harwammer
27-10-2014, 12:15
The discussion seems to have moved a little towards house rules to patch TOs.

How about making it so TOs can only be claimed from turn 2? Or even TOs are only counted at the end of each game turn? These suggestions will make it so players will always have a chance to make a preemptive actions against their opponent's TOs.

The other point the discussion seems to have found traction with is objective captures; is it worth using strategies during objective deployment to try prevent either player 'getting lucky' with early capture TOs and if so how can this be done?

Vipoid
27-10-2014, 13:41
How about making it so TOs can only be claimed from turn 2?

Makes little difference, I fear.


Or even TOs are only counted at the end of each game turn?

This could help, but it doesn't fix the underlying issue - claiming objectives in the enemy deployment zone is always going to be harder than claiming ones in your own zone.

I believe, as someone mentioned above, the game should give higher rewards for capturing objectives in the enemy deployment zone. So, greater difficulty yields greater VPs.

Also, I think there needs to be a way for players to catch up in terms of cards. As it stands, it's too easy for one person to start with 3 easy cards, and just cycle through them - whilst the opponent is stuck with maybe one usable card.

I'm not sure that it's the best solution, but I quite like the mission where you can only get cards by holding objectives - so you're rewarded for controlling the battlefield.

Avian
27-10-2014, 14:01
Claiming objectives only from turn 2 is done in That Other Game, but then objectives are shared and placed symmetrically, so you don't have the situation where one player gets lucky with the placement of them.

I would think that when objectives are not symmetrical, they should either be worth different amounts of points, or you should only see who holds them at the end of the game. That's what I did with my scenario generator for FB and that's worked quite well. We did have some Dwarf players complain that they'd be sometimes required to claim objectives in the opponent's DZ, but if they had 6 turns to get there it could absolutely be done.


(I'd also throw away all cards that are dependant on what the opponent has in his army.)

Spiney Norman
27-10-2014, 14:09
(I'd also throw away all cards that are dependant on what the opponent has in his army.)

Add to that all objectives that are dependent on what you have in your army when some armies have no access to the necessary unit (specifically thinking of the cast-a-psychic-power card).

Avian
27-10-2014, 14:29
Those too.

I guess the moral lesson is that game designers should not use D6|6 tables because coming up with 36 different objectives is too difficult and you end up with a bunch of ones that are far less thought out than the rest. 12 is a good number.

R.D.
27-10-2014, 15:36
The majority of the time, the cards I draw are some variation on 'capture objective X' or 'kill stuff'. Not always immediately achievable, but unless it's completely unattainable not always a problem. Same with my opponent. The bulk of the cards are objective ones, so it's rare anyone gets stuck with all truly bad ones.

Still Standing
27-10-2014, 15:44
As well as those suggestions already mentioned, how doubling the number of cards drawn, but having a communial pool, rather than a pool per player? It's not a complete solution, and will still cause issues at times, but it will give a greater range of cards to draw from.

Azulthar
28-10-2014, 10:03
I feel this is very much a mindset problem. If you play with a focus on "these random cards are going to hurt me", then you'll notice each and every one.

We play with TOs exclusively, but it's never the random cards that are discussed as good or bad luck after a battle. It's the Great Unclean One that rolled double 6s on his instability test, or the Landraider that got shot down by a single shot (6 to penetrate, 6+1 for damage). This happening in the first turn has a lot more impact than drawing poor cards.