Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Tactical objectives... They SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have played 3 games and I do not enjoy it, I have won all 3 games so it's not because I'm a bad loser I just think it makes the game too random and takes away the tactics of a set mission.

Does anyone else think the same, most people I speak too really like it. Am I just an odd case? (don't answer that)

:crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,755 Posts
no i agree with you to some point...i think its a great idea..but not quite executed well..you really can win a game quite esily buy getting a really good first draw..or getting a really crappy hand..i think for just fun games its ok..but if your a realy serious WAAC player or mathammer twat..then the cards will never work..as you said to much randomness..

no heres why i do like them...ive always been a player that like to move use then entire table..play with different units good/bad..so what i find boring is sombody that just castles up (tau/ig) are really doesnt get involved in the game...

so with the cards its kinds forcing people to get out of theses "bad habits?" and to get them moving..become active players..now to me thats a good thing...

hiw to make the cards even..ive no idea.the only thing i can really think of is to stack the deck..take out the cards that will be usless for the game etc
 

·
Herald of The Warp
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
Well being a huge fan of randomnes in games (I do play Chaos for a reason) I think this new game-mode is the most awesome thing to grace Warhammer 40k in the time that I have played.

I'm having way too much fun with it and I think it challenges both players to think more on their feet and take more chances. The entire game can change from turn to turn, if you wish to get that one objective you just drew and I absolutely love it.

Yes you're odd. But we like you anyway :drinks:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
but if your a really serious WAAC player or mathammer twat..then the cards will never work"
If you remove the underline bit it probably explains why i am not a fan of it haha

We had a discussion after the games yesterday and a lot of people agreed the new rules really suit a chaos army
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,694 Posts
honestly i've played some games in 7th but not one with new objectives. is randomness so much an issue? i mean with a discard a turn is mathematically impossible to have 3 unclaimable objectives. or not?
However i can understand that "balance loving" player find this new rule disturbing. it definetely destroys your battle plan. i have to say that that is the reason that i like the idea: force everyone to rethink strategy and definetely prohibits you to play static gunlines (thing that i hate)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
I found the random objectives good in some cases. Though for others it just seemed to be the guy with the fastest troops to run around the board won even if he killed no one and was taken down to a single guy left at the end.

Trouble is same went with the the old game. People on jetbikes could fly in packs of 3 to gather up linebreaker. The person with the first turn normally ended up with first blood, and maybe even slay the warlord. At that point (end of turn 1-2) the victory points were 2or3-0 and with the only remaining VPs to win being slay the warlord against them and getting a few objectives from the field of battle the likely chance was you could have [won/lost] before [you/your oppenent] even took a turn.

At least with these new objectives it means that you can have a fighting chance after those first 2-3 have come in for the enemy.

I personally would have prefered a system that had some kind of army focus / theme though.
So Chaos are more about killing / ritual challenges / displays of power than gather/securing.
Orks are the brutal tide that like chaos is about the killing and overpowering of the enemy.
Imperial Guard are more about securing the tactical objective and pushing the enemy back, but less about the heroic kill the enemy leader in a challenge type of stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I found the random objectives good in some cases. Though for others it just seemed to be the guy with the fastest troops to run around the board won even if he killed no one and was taken down to a single guy left at the end..
I think that is the reason I don't like it, its not a tactical game any more, its now a race to an objective. Before you had to hold and defend an objective, or go and assault it but now it's a race. No real tactics just a mad sprint.

But each to their own, some will love it, I hate it...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,694 Posts
I think that is the reason I don't like it, its not a tactical game any more, its now a race to an objective. Before you had to hold and defend an objective, or go and assault it but now it's a race. No real tactics just a mad sprint.

But each to their own, some will love it, I hate it...
I think i understood the point, now. but i have to ask: was not the same before, only that you had fixed points where to rally/sprint last turn?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I suppose previously you had the whole game to defend or attack a position, you had to think and plan your manoeuvres. Where as now you can easily grab an objective if you have a quick enough unit. The better player doesn't always win it feels. It's a sloppy win
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,694 Posts
this would change the game into a sort of "magic the gathering" but...maybe a good house rule could be to have an "objective deck" of ten cards for every player, pre game selected by him. This way we could build a list based on objectives and thematically selected
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Long long ago in 2nd / 3rd edition you had some objectives to capture worth X number of VPs but also for every X amount of points of stuff you killed you earnt VPs.
Normally it was 100pts of stuff = 1VP.
The objectives point values were normally based on how many points the game was. Either in a way that the objectives were worth more, or their were more objectives to gather. But the main decider was often the amount of stuff you killed.
I still think that a system like this should still be used, though working out the amount of VPs to killing ratio might be trouble. THOUGH as each side scores the same amount per X amount of pts killed then regardless it should even itself out. BUT might have the problem of either being just a couple of extra pts to tip the balance OR make the other objectives pointless in going for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
I think it works, though you cannot play with the same lists you use for eternal War which I think is what people don't realise yet.

I quite like them, but I generally play with one deck of cards between both players and you just re-draw cards you cannot complete (e.g. kill a psyker against Tau). I don't know if it is something I could play consistently as a competitive thing as I have only played a couple fo games, but I like it, in the games I played there was hardly anything left in either persons army as you just couldn't hide. And it does work if you sit on objectives, you just have to be able move if you need to, which makes sense, I mean as a battle goes on things change in command which may mean they order you to do different things in the end.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top