6.5/7th Edition and What GW Should have done

[Sainhann]

So yes GW is coming out with a change to 40K and one of the biggest changes is that players can for go using the FOC and build an Unbound army using whatever they have.

Now myself, I have hated the FOC ever since it came out.

Now many players are stating that the WAAC'ers will attempt to build nasty 5-6 Riptide or Hell Chicken armies.

Well yes they can but they won't really be all that good because while these units are hard they eat up a ton of points and can be destroyed.

Now I like that GW has made the choice of allowing players to dump the FOC.

But they do need to take this a little bit further so that they put a stop to the above type armies.

They should have the players make choices and put in percentages, like:

HQ's - no more than 20% of the total point value of the army
Elites - no more than 25% of the total point value of the army
Troops - Minimum 40% of the total point value of army needs to be troops
Fast Attack - no more than 25% of the total point value of the army
Heavy Support - no more than 25% of the total point value of the army

So with you are playing a 2000 point game the above would mean:

HQ's - no more than 400 points
Elites - no more than 500 points
Troops - Minimum of 800 points
Fast Attack - no more than 500 points
Heavy Support - no more than 500 points

So putting a minimum on the troops means that players will have to have at least 800 points which means they will only have 1200 points to spend on the rest of the choices.

I would really like a 50% minimum on troops but Min/Maxer's would scream bloody murder.

But if GW did this they would put a stop to anyone who wants to bring 6 x Riptides in their army. Because they just would be limited in the number of points that they could spend.

But GW did not done this and more than like will never do this.

So yes there will be players who will bring 6 Riptides to a battle and others will not want to play them since they unlike many of us really old 40K players (I started in 1989) just don't have the forces available to them to field an army that can beat those 6 Riptides.

[Power Klawz]

It would probably be more like 25% troop minimum, definitely nowhere near 50%. It would basically mirror fantasy. The problem being that most people playing today have modeled their collections, and therefore their possible army builds, off of the force organization chart and they really couldn't just drop the habit cold turkey, maybe you could speculate that "7th" is an interim step before getting rid of it since I've never really seen a benefit from it personally, but we won't know for a few more years at least.

[Crydon Games]

Having played in 2nd edition, I think getting rid of the FOC is a terrible idea. Perhaps some combination of percentage and FOC would work. I like the idea that in the upcoming edition players will be rewarded for following the FOC. In fact, though I am not an unconditional GW supporter, I like all of the changes that we have heard about for 7th. Go GW.

[Caitsidhe]

I'm still waiting to actually see the changes confirmed. I think the laws of unintended consequences aren't really being thought about too deeply because if the rumors are true, exactly as we have heard them, assault took it in the mouth even more than before. Hopefully there is a lot we haven't heard about yet because thus far all we have heard is that Overwatch has become even more deadly.

[DarkLink]

No, we've hear of several buffs to assault, namely that the difficult terrain penalty is much less harsh, and you can consolidate into new combats.

[daboarder]

No, we've hear of several buffs to assault, namely that the difficult terrain penalty is much less harsh, and you can consolidate into new combats.

I think caitsidhe means that the confirmed rules all seem to support shooting (excluding the difficult terrain penalty) whereas we still only have rumours that consolidation is back (god I hope so)

[Harley]

As if the FoC isn't currently broken in 6th edition as is. Allies allow you to generally make Hellchicken and Riptide spam armies as is.

[Sainhann]

It would probably be more like 25% troop minimum, definitely nowhere near 50%. It would basically mirror fantasy. The problem being that most people playing today have modeled their collections, and therefore their possible army builds, off of the force organization chart and they really couldn't just drop the habit cold turkey, maybe you could speculate that "7th" is an interim step before getting rid of it since I've never really seen a benefit from it personally, but we won't know for a few more years at least.

Thing is most forces should have more troops not less.

What the FOC did was allow gamers to take the bare Minimum in troops and then see what they could max out in HQ's, Elites, Fast Attack & Heavy.

So it brought about the age of Min/Max and there will be gamers who just might drop even the minimum two troops and will field those 6 Riptides or 6 Hell Chickens.

So the best way to stop them is to force them to take a minimum amount of troops and then have then make choices as to what else they can include.

Under what I stated above you could still get 500 points of Heavy support but if you do so you will be limited in what you can field from the remaining areas.

So you need to think balance and abilities of your units, so that your army can deal with what your opponents will bring.

So consider this type of force using Marines; a okay Commander, 4 or so Squads of Marines in Razorbacks, then 2-3 x Predators and 3-4 x Whirlwinds with minimal upgrades plus take some Ratling Snipers as allies like around 4 Squads worth of them.

Think is unit points cost of around 150-200 points. Oh and Whirlwinds or far cheaper now so you might want to consider taking 5-6 of them. Predators base cost went up but if you keep at just their base cost you can get several of them.

- - - Updated - - -


I think caitsidhe means that the confirmed rules all seem to support shooting (excluding the difficult terrain penalty) whereas we still only have rumours that consolidation is back (god I hope so)

Looks like it is but the unit you move into still might be able to use its Overwatch shooting.

But if you know the distance that a unit can move after close combat all you need to do is keep your units farther apart so that they have nothing to consolidate into.

[Caitsidhe]

I think caitsidhe means that the confirmed rules all seem to support shooting (excluding the difficult terrain penalty) whereas we still only have rumours that consolidation is back (god I hope so)

Yes, exactly this. The only confirmed (as confirmed as anything can be) rumors support shooting. I have heard rumors that the combat consolidation is in and I've heard another rumor (just as reliable) that it is NOT. We can't really judge the rules without seeing all of them. I am merely commenting on the fact that I really hope there are some nice options thrown to assault, because so far I'm not seeing anything but net for shooting armies.

Any BS-4 Army hits Snapshots on a 5+. This favors Marines and Eldar rather than Tau (thank God) as I don't believe their Marker Lights hang around for the other guy's turn. The change is nice enough for me (being CSM) particularly when combined with various sources of Twin-Link. That is beside the point, Eldar didn't really need more help with their shooting. We will have to play it by ear, but it suffices to say that hitting with 1 out of 3 shots on Overwatch is better than 1 out of 6. It also ends the reign of Flyer terror. *A caveat people haven't been talking about is that an Unbound force can load up on cheap Quad Guns too. In fairness, BS-3 and less see no effective difference in the new rule and the old one.

So far the only rumor we have heard that even remotely helps assault is the contested one saying consolidation into combat may be back. That would be great if true, but it doesn't solve the problem we already have, namely that getting into combat in the first place seems almost entirely limited to Flying Monstrous Creatures and really fast, tough Greater Daemons. We can HOPE that more durable vehicles will help, but unless they have altered that horrible rule which says an assault vehicle cannot disembark its passengers if it moved over 6"... well I'm sure you see my point. It is getting into combat in the first place which is proving to be a problem.

[Tyrendian]

one thing I'm kinda worried about is that the changes to snap-shots may make some fliers completely crappy - like the Eldar ones (not that they'd been great to begin with, but the Crimson Hunter was usable at least, especially with all the potential reserve modifications ensuring it came when you wanted it to). Now, they just die to Marine and Eldar forces like it's nothing, and even their AA capabilities aren't needed any more...

[Darren Richardson]

the main problem here, is not everyone understands or can work out percentages, they tried it back in second edition and it was a disaster, and if they forced players into again it would just be history repeating itself.

Now it does work for fantasy, because fantasy only has 4 options in the lists plus the 5th allies option, unlike the gazillion and one options available to 40k players.

[Mr Mystery]

Is it just me, or are the rumours kind of pointing to the new rules being '2nd Ed - The Revenge'?

Dedicated psychic phase, less restriction on what you can and can't take (there was army selection back then, but a lot looserer than present.) And I'm willing to bet Unbound armies will look more 2nd Ed than horrificbeardcheese....

[Wolfshade]

Don't forget the missions!

[Sainhann]

Is it just me, or are the rumours kind of pointing to the new rules being '2nd Ed - The Revenge'?

Dedicated psychic phase, less restriction on what you can and can't take (there was army selection back then, but a lot looserer than present.) And I'm willing to bet Unbound armies will look more 2nd Ed than horrificbeardcheese....

Correct so beware of Orks since not being forced to limit their selections to just three Elites they can field 4 x units of Lootas plus 2-3 Units of Burnas, or fielded 4-5 Fast Attack choices.

I could even put my 130 Gretchen that I have onto the table if I wanted to and still field most of my Orks.

Before I would never even consider using them because they would cut into my limit of six troop choices now they wouldn't.

[phreakachu]

from what ive read thus far, it seems that GW is making some attempt to eradicate 'tableing' as a viable tactic. I'm all for this: as it sits, most tourney games and even some friendly games come down to the MtG equation

Money to buy the big toys + generalized lack of sportsmanship = WINNING!

while we can count on GW to keep with the money aspect of this, the rules thus far are geared toward balanced play, forcing this strange thing called actual tactics being applied to a game. I LIKE THIS... even in a friendly game, a Death Star is simply un-fun to play against. so, gogo GW

[Lord Asterion]

Correct so beware of Orks since not being forced to limit their selections to just three Elites they can field 4 x units of Lootas plus 2-3 Units of Burnas, or fielded 4-5 Fast Attack choices.

I could even put my 130 Gretchen that I have onto the table if I wanted to and still field most of my Orks.

Before I would never even consider using them because they would cut into my limit of six troop choices now they wouldn't.

From what we've seen though, Unbound, with their inability to contest objectives held by Battle-Forged units, are going to struggle to win against a FOC army, which their being Objectives all over and points to grab every turn for them

[Mr Mystery]

from what ive read thus far, it seems that GW is making some attempt to eradicate 'tableing' as a viable tactic. I'm all for this: as it sits, most tourney games and even some friendly games come down to the MtG equation

Money to buy the big toys + generalized lack of sportsmanship = WINNING!

while we can count on GW to keep with the money aspect of this, the rules thus far are geared toward balanced play, forcing this strange thing called actual tactics being applied to a game. I LIKE THIS... even in a friendly game, a Death Star is simply un-fun to play against. so, gogo GW

Indeedy.

Whilst Unbound allows us to field whatever we dashed well please, I do question how many people will field those horrorbeardcheese lists.

After all, if you reduce your only option to tabling your opponent (I hate that phrase, tabling. So very childish to my ears) then you're missing out on a huge part of the game, as you will likely struggle to complete mission objectives.

And that I feel is where the balance is struck. The Missions. Something 6th Ed did very well with (in my opinion at least) was the Missions, and the First Blood stuff. It largely did away with VP and KPs, making the objective, well, the objective of the game. Will 7th Edition get this right? I dunno, I don't really know enough about the proposed missions (haven't even watched Jervis' video).

But if it does get it right, the game itself, rather than some arbitrary rules, will encourage more tactical and strategic play than just 'HURRRR I HAVE NETLIST'.

[Lord Asterion]

Tactical objectives will mean you have to adjust your Stratergy on the fly to gain more points, and should encourage tactical play over having enough strong units to wipe out the enemy, if your deathstar wipes out a unit in CC but your Tactical Objective was to get a VP for shooting a unit off the table, you might not have accomplished as much as your opponent in that turn if he was sitting on an objective.

[Patrick Boyle]

So we're starting the post-mortem before we even have the book in hand?

[Caitsidhe]

So we're starting the post-mortem before we even have the book in hand?

Yes, apparently so. For my own part, I'm withholding judgement until I see the rules. I'm willing to wishlist and comment on my concerns and hopes, but those saying the game is awful or those saying how GREAT the game is and how they can clearly see objectives will do this and that... or how Unbound won't be able to dominate... fail to see the irony in the fact that they are engaging in behavior no different from those prejudging the game in a negative way.

[Arkhan Land]

I think the changes this edition are bringing are good, but I think there could have been a few adjustments to the pros/cons of the unbound/BH style armies. Not sure what, but in general I think what were going to see in games where the two armies meet: Unbound armies will try and wipeout their opponent, their opponent will try and score as many points as possible, while attempting to survive to the end of the game.

I think the slight perk to armour was good but I was personally hoping for something more robust, but I admit that might be too big a game-mechanics-changer. in deference to the rekindling of the old edition's style I wouldnt mind some sort of more complex vehicle damage chart. Heaven forbid GW were to implement something more complex than a d6 or d6+d6 system.
just as an excersize in thought. vehicle damage table on a d10:

1-2: Shaken
3 Stunned
4: Engine Damaged (1/2 Movment/looses jink)
5-6: Weapon Destroyed
7: Immobilised
8: Loses three Hull Points
9-10: Explodes

I want to reinforce how I think this will NEVER HAPPEN

[Mr Mystery]

Yet the points I raised are valid. And also caveated. If they get the Mission Objectives right. That's the key phrase.

Those muttering doom and gloom are basing it off the ropiest of rumours, and predicting doom where there is no information available.

[Lord Asterion]

So we're starting the post-mortem before we even have the book in hand?

No, we're looking at what we know and getting excited about the possibilities now that we have seen quite a lot

[Patrick Boyle]

No, we're looking at what we know and getting excited about the possibilities now that we have seen quite a lot

I'm not sure that a few pages of preview in WD counts as "a lot" of a 200 page rulebook, nevermind the massive FAQs every codex is going to be getting :rolleyes: We have an idea of broad strokes and a couple details.

[Caitsidhe]

I'm not sure that a few pages of preview in WD counts as "a lot" of a 200 page rulebook, nevermind the massive FAQs every codex is going to be getting :rolleyes: We have an idea of broad strokes and a couple details.

Well put and keenly spotted. Like the others, I am hopeful about the objectives. Unlike them I exercise a healthy degree of pragmatism. It doesn't matter if the objectives "look good" or the increased potency of shooting "looks bad" because we still don't know jack. A proper play test and evaluation of this rules set will require:

1. All the rules to see how they work in tandem with each other. For example, if you still lose if you have no units on the table, objectives aren't going to mean a hill of beans.
2. This rules set is going to require a MASSIVE Faq effort to align the various books just with the tidbits we have seen so far, let alone the rest of the book.
3. There is still the rule of unintended consequences that we won't see till the rubber hits the road.

I am hopeful that they have addressed some of the real problems of 6th Edition, but so far I've seen no clear proof of this. The only confirmed rumors we have address different issues and potentially create different problems (depending on the rest of the rules). In short, while I understand it is the job of some here to promote excitement for the coming release, please take it down a notch. We have been through this enough times that it is getting a bit insulting. To those who cry the sky is falling, I say give it rest. Read the rules when they come out and then give your opinion. I'm sick of both sides of the coin at this point. It seems impossible to have a conversation about the actual merits or failings of the game. All we have is the psycho-pep squad attacking anyone who doesn't fart rosewater and the screaming blue meanies who not only think the game will fail but somehow sound like they want it to fail to be proven right. I think you are both equally vapid and annoying.

[Sainhann]

From what we've seen though, Unbound, with their inability to contest objectives held by Battle-Forged units, are going to struggle to win against a FOC army, which their being Objectives all over and points to grab every turn for them

Thing is that is what players are trying to do today, save some Fast unit just so that they can contest an objective.

I don't play to contest objectives, nope I play to take the objective or keep it.

So if I figure that an objective can't be taken then I will work at something else until it can.

Orks have for been a bottom tier army for over a decade and the major reason for this was the FOC.

But with that no longer in the picture start to think of just what they could put on the table with 2000 points to spend.

[Sainhann]

I think the changes this edition are bringing are good, but I think there could have been a few adjustments to the pros/cons of the unbound/BH style armies. Not sure what, but in general I think what were going to see in games where the two armies meet: Unbound armies will try and wipeout their opponent, their opponent will try and score as many points as possible, while attempting to survive to the end of the game.

Or they might be damaging their opponent so much of cause them to make more decisions than they have units for.

So if a Ork player who is fielding an unbounded army and puts 200+ Orks plus lots of small support vehicles onto the table their opponent will need to think each and every turn on what his priorities are, oh with a more than likely smaller army to make them with each turn.

Like do they keep that unit on an objective to score points or be forced to move them off of the objective so that they have to deal with what their opponent is doing?

Hard Decisions to make and if they make the wrong one they will lose.

[daboarder]

So we're starting the post-mortem before we even have the book in hand?
your only allowed to speculate if your praising GW and offering up your first born.

If you dont, even if you are being passive, then clearly its just whinning about incomplete information

[John Bower]

While I am of the opinion a distinct lack of FoC can be a bad thing, it is a double edged sword in many ways. Firstly as has been said, you won't be able to 'contest' objectives with it, and tabling your opponent won't work either, as they could still have enough points to win.
You already get the WAAC players who will take silly lists to try and win, this will let them take the silliest lists of all, but in the end will balance them a bit for the reason stated above.
On the good side of it, I'm sure a good few of us have models that we think; 'nah, that will do the job and I have to choose so I'll use X instead of Y model', but now.. You won't have to, and that to me is the beauty of it, you'll build the list how you want to if you go unbound, hell even allies don't matter in an unbound list, you can use anything in your collection; basically they're making the normal game a 'mini apocalypse' now; admittedly not too sure I like that but I'll live I'm sure.
With the new objectives too, I think a lot will come down to how you build a list. some 'unbound' lists just aren't going to cut it in the fluid environment of 7th ed. There's going to be certain things they just won't be able to do. So I'm on the whole looking forward to it; I've ordered my books taking the chance I'm right about the rumours of a 'pdf update' (in that I don't think it will happen), and if it does I'll still have the rules nicely laid out in one place, so it's kind of win/win there really.

[deinol]

While I am of the opinion a distinct lack of FoC can be a bad thing, it is a double edged sword in many ways. Firstly as has been said, you won't be able to 'contest' objectives with it, and tabling your opponent won't work either, as they could still have enough points to win.

Has the no 'tabling' rule been verified yet? I certainly hope that is the case, to encourage actually fighting over objectives during games. But it has the 'no models = immediate loss' rule, then wiping the table could still be a tactic. Certainly you'd have to be all in.

On the other hand, if you don't need to have models on the table to stay in the game, then an all drop list or all airbourne scion or all legion of the damned army now become interesting possibilities.

[DarkLink]

What 'no tabling rule'?. Do you mean a rule where you can't kill your opponent's last model or something?

[buggle]

The best tournament FOC I played was that you had to fill 1 each of elite, heavy support and fast attack before you can get a second and so on for a third, alternatively you could unlock 2nd option with 4 troops and 3rd option with 6 troops. Yes there was still 3 heldrake list with 6 minimal cultists but no system is perfect

[Caitsidhe]

He is referring to the rule currently in 6th Edition which states you lose the moment you have no units on the table. Colloquially it is often called "tabling an opponent." His concern (and mine as well) is that objectives will be rather moot if someone playing Unbound is able to use excessive firepower to simply blow someone off the table and win by default.

[deinol]

What 'no tabling rule'?. Do you mean a rule where you can't kill your opponent's last model or something?

Sorry, I could have been more clear. I've seen a lot of comments that seem to take for granted that you could still win after being wiped from the table because you earned enough points from objectives. While I'm in favor of the rule changing, I don't think we have any rumors that have said whether the "no models on table = loss" rule has been removed or not.

Of course, if everything can score you can still do some fairly nasty elite/fast attack lists. It doesn't matter if you can contest objectives if you can wipe the unit from the objective. TH&SH Termies assaulting out of land raiders onto objectives can kill models and then score.

[Sainhann]

True, but an unit of TH&SH Terminators in a Land Raider is not cheap.

Plus if they need to wade through 40-50 models to get that Objective they might only be able to contest.

As to "Tabling" if you killed every single model in your opponent's army and they still won because of points you will learn very quickly not to kill that last guy until you have to.

[DarkLink]

Tau and Eldar already shoot armies off the table. Not that unbound would help there, but I digress.

I will say, though, that I've been to tournaments where tabling doesn't count as an automatic loss (and that's how it works in Infinity as well), and frankly it's a terrible way to force people to care about objectives. It creates a situation where suspension of disbelief gets shattered when your military dudes, on a mission to kill everything in their path on the way to their objective, fail their mission because they killed everything in their path on the way to their objective. When you literally can't kill an enemy model because it would lose you the game, that's absurd. Granted, that doesn't mean that tabling has to be the end-all that trumps everything, but I've played enough missions and games with that setup to dislike the general idea.

[Sainhann]

Tau and Eldar already shoot armies off the table. Not that unbound would help there, but I digress.

I will say, though, that I've been to tournaments where tabling doesn't count as an automatic loss (and that's how it works in Infinity as well), and frankly it's a terrible way to force people to care about objectives. It creates a situation where suspension of disbelief gets shattered when your military dudes, on a mission to kill everything in their path on the way to their objective, fail their mission because they killed everything in their path on the way to their objective. When you literally can't kill an enemy model because it would lose you the game, that's absurd. Granted, that doesn't mean that tabling has to be the end-all that trumps everything, but I've played enough missions and games with that setup to dislike the general idea.

Yup lost a game against Dark Elves with my Dark Angels many years ago.

I didn't table him but the mission was to get to an objective and claim an item. So on his last turn he rushes a vehicle so that it was right next to the item.

Thing is he didn't have much else since I killed most of his army off. That happened on the 5th turn and when rolled for a 6th turn and the game ended.

So I lost because the game ended because if it didn't I would have destroyed that vehicle on the next turn plus killing off more of his army.

But that is what the game has evolved into rush in at the last moment and win, when realistically no one in their right mind would use tactics like this.

[deinol]

The Spartans were wiped out at Thermopylae, but strategically they held the pass long enough to allow the allies to gather an army. Killing everything on the field isn't always the overall strategic objective, that's why the game has missions and objectives and isn't just kill points like they used to be.

I would presume that you'd give points for controlling all the objectives for the remaining turns if you had uncontested control over the field. But more dynamic battles and fewer last turn objective grabs would be good.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Too true, I always picture my games as just a small part of a much bigger war. After all what self respecting Waaaagh has only 185 boyz in it?

[Lord-Boofhead]

The best tournament FOC I played was that you had to fill 1 each of elite, heavy support and fast attack before you can get a second and so on for a third, alternatively you could unlock 2nd option with 4 troops and 3rd option with 6 troops. Yes there was still 3 heldrake list with 6 minimal cultists but no system is perfect

That pretty cool, I hope that the Modular/PAYSF (Play As You See Fit) vibe of 7th leads to more funky events like this.

A mate and I are already talking about Flyer only games and if we can get the rules tweeks needed to work it maybe running a Dogfight tourny.

- - - Updated - - -


Heaven forbid GW were to implement something more complex than a d6 or d6+d6 system.
just as an excersize in thought. vehicle damage table on a d10:

What are these heretical polyhedral dice you speak of, these run counter to the Holy STC, dice may only be cubical. :p

[deinol]

What are these heretical polyhedral dice you speak of, these run counter to the Holy STC, dice may only be cubical. :p

I remember when the armour penetration roll of a chainfist involved a d20...

[Sainhann]

Well I could consider using D20's for both shooting and saves.

Right now anything that has a ballistic stat of 4 will hit 66.67% of the time.

That is far to high of a percentage to hit.

So if you use a D20 and need the following:

Imperial Guard, Eldar, Squats, Tau & Orks etc..

Hit for shooting on a 16+ or a 25.00% chance of hitting.

Space Marines, Elites and Commanders...

Hit for shooting on a 15+ or a 30.00% chance of hitting.

Plus use lots of terrain on the table.

[DarkLink]

The Spartans were wiped out at Thermopylae, but strategically they held the pass long enough to allow the allies to gather an army. Killing everything on the field isn't always the overall strategic objective, that's why the game has missions and objectives and isn't just kill points like they used to be.

That does nothing to excuse the absurd situations that can arise, namely where you're completely dominating your opponent and then lose because you did -too- well. It's the wrong approach to try and balance out overpowered shooting armies. If you have a game where you can shoot all of your opponent's models off the table in the first few turns, then you have to keep exactly one of their models alive while you run out to grab objectives, there's a balance issue with your game that isn't going to be solved by something as clumsy as outright stating that you can't table your opponent.

[deinol]

That does nothing to excuse the absurd situations that can arise, namely where you're completely dominating your opponent and then lose because you did -too- well. It's the wrong approach to try and balance out overpowered shooting armies. If you have a game where you can shoot all of your opponent's models off the table in the first few turns, then you have to keep exactly one of their models alive while you run out to grab objectives, there's a balance issue with your game that isn't going to be solved by something as clumsy as outright stating that you can't table your opponent.

Except if you kill their entire army turn two, you'd get the points for controlling all the objectives for the next four turns, or whatever the battle length is. The killed them all but still lost scenario would only happen if they controlled most of the field for most if the game.

As it is, I have little sympathy for the player who doesn't want to take objectives and just castles up. Unless you are playing a defensive mission, but then they'll be sitting on most of the objectives to start.

[Caitsidhe]

As it is, I have little sympathy for the player who doesn't want to take objectives and just castles up. Unless you are playing a defensive mission, but then they'll be sitting on most of the objectives to start.

My sympathy, by contrast, is always with the players. It isn't their fault that their army is designed to do one thing better than another. It isn't their fault, as DarkLink points out, that Games Workshop botched balancing the army so bad that it can shoot opponents off the table. I lay the blame where it belongs, which is at the feet of a poorly balanced series of books. Hopefully, 7th Edition will somehow help fix the issue. Based on past performance I'm skeptical, but I remain hopeful.

The problem with your logic is that you don't know what mission you are going to draw until you get it. Most people build theme lists and design based around the both the fluffy history and strengths of the army. That makes commonsense.

[DarkLink]

Except if you kill their entire army turn two, you'd get the points for controlling all the objectives for the next four turns, or whatever the battle length is. The killed them all but still lost scenario would only happen if they controlled most of the field for most if the game.

I'm talking about a rule that would state that if you tabled your opponent but weren't on an objective, you don't get that objective. Or any rule similar to that, with the intent of "balancing" out tabling. Someone above suggested it, and my comments have been directed at that to explain why I think it's not a great idea.

I very much like the idea of collecting objective points mid-game, on the other hand. If they do a good job with it, that's a much better approach than some sort of no-tabling rule.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm with Darklink on this.

Done right, Missions and objectives are your balancing factor. I don't feel that simply wiping out your opponent should be auto-win. That makes the game dull as dish water for your opponent, and your tactics (hit everything in sight as hard as you can). Nothing wrong with it providing a solid VP haul, but your opponent should be able to balance it out with strategic wins.

I'm hoping we might see some inspiration from Epic Space Marine. Victory was achieved not by having the most VPs, but by hitting or exceeding a points size defined target, calculated at the end of each game turn. VPs were awarded for breaking units (half their value), wiping out units (their full value) and holding objectives (worth 5 VPs each if memory serves). It meant that while going for the wipeout could win you the game, your opponent could sneak a victory with a more tactically subtle* game.



*Because 'kill everything' still remains a tactic!

[Caitsidhe]

I agree that it would be nice if the objectives and rules are setup in such a way to encourage people to not build for maximum firepower. However, if Games Workshop set it up in a way that still says wiping your opponent out entirely is a win condition, I'm not going to blame the other players who go that route. I'm going to blame the design team for being fools and missing the obvious.

The best case will be if the new basic rules and objectives make objectives (whatever their nature) the key, i.e. it doesn't matter if the 137th Airborne is wiped out to the man as long as they held out for a certain amount of time and held key objectives long enough for the fleet to get into position or civilians to be evacuated and so on. The other side LOSES. They can crow about killing everyone but the key thing will be that they LOST, all in caps. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.00 and so on. Moreover, the missions should be even enough that the missions that do allow you to win by tabling an opponent (and some will be required in fairness) should be equal to the other kind.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

Currently, there's no pyrrhic victories in 40k, and I feel their really should be.

I mean, you can do them in a campaign no problem. You just introduce margins of victory, requiring say a 250 point difference to bag that victory (Warhammer had this, honestly cannot remember if 40k did).

But in general 40k as it stands, the wipe out is just too reliable. Yes it's often easier said than done, but the fact you just win if you pull it off isn't much fun (though I hasten to point out I've never been wiped out in 40k myself).

[deinol]

I'm hoping we might see some inspiration from Epic Space Marine. Victory was achieved not by having the most VPs, but by hitting or exceeding a points size defined target, calculated at the end of each game turn. VPs were awarded for breaking units (half their value), wiping out units (their full value) and holding objectives (worth 5 VPs each if memory serves). It meant that while going for the wipeout could win you the game, your opponent could sneak a victory with a more tactically subtle* game.

I must admit, I really wish I'd purchased Epic stuff back in the day. It really is much more like the game I want to be playing. But at the time I was a poor college student.

[lattd]

It would be awesome if they took some ideas from rivet wars, where you get points not just for the strategic objective but for things like getting a unit into your opponents half or taking out 3 units of cavalry, yes some times you get a card that you can't use so you discard it.

[Mr Mystery]

Never heard of Rivet War, but it does seem mission objectives follow that.

And I'm all for it.

In 6th ed, I for one really enjoyed the secondary objectives, like First Blood. Whilst not exactly what I would define as a serious tactical challenge, they were fun to go for, and added all important depth and options.

Well, dude buying my Daemons should be here within half an hour (love it when an ebay buyer collects!) so I'll be down my local GW for opening to place my pre-order. Though busy weekend next weekend. Excitement of a new edition, and a friend's birthday, including drinks, dinner, presents, preset wrapping and assorted other nonsense!

[White Tiger88]

Never heard of Rivet War, but it does seem mission objectives follow that.

And I'm all for it.

In 6th ed, I for one really enjoyed the secondary objectives, like First Blood. Whilst not exactly what I would define as a serious tactical challenge, they were fun to go for, and added all important depth and options.

Well, dude buying my Daemons should be here within half an hour (love it when an ebay buyer collects!) so I'll be down my local GW for opening to place my pre-order. Though busy weekend next weekend. Excitement of a new edition, and a friend's birthday, including drinks, dinner, presents, preset wrapping and assorted other nonsense!

Send the guy my way after he pays you......i have 3-5k points of them on my table........

But anyhow anyone get info on how 7th will effect Legion marine lists?