Some 7th questions

[Ullr Direfang]

So I had my first game of 7th, and my first in a long while to be honest. 1k points my wolves vs Nurgal CSM. I mostly just wanted to try things out and get a feel for some "new" stuff. My oponent played a lot of 6th but this was his first 7th as well. But figured I would put some thoughts down and ask some questions.

 

1) Pykic Phase and pykic powers. I rolled with our lore, just felt like staying wolfy. I had a mastery lvl 2, Living lightning, Thunder clap, and the malidiction one can remember what is is called right now. Now is it just our lore, or are the psykic ranges (18" for all three I had) seem kind of short? Is this for balance purposes? Again, I was the only one with a psyker and this was my first go with them here. It just seemed very underwhelming with how the psyker phases turned out.

 

2) Assault Phase: Pile in moves. Seems kind of clunky. Don't really know how to explain it better, plus killing things in base to base "first". So with pile moves, people pile in at their I step right and just theirs? So you can keep moving people in. Do pile ins just take models that are out of 2" of an enemy, two within 2", or if they are 1" away they can move into B2B. If I have a normal GH with a PW and 3 normal GHs in B2B with one enemy model, can he choose my PW GH to be the one to take a hit or can I put it on a normal GH (I thought I got to choose but my oponent said he wanted to put it on my PW).

 

3) Tactical Objectives: seem kind of odd to me. I won the game when I probably shouldn't have, just because I rolled "Claim objective 3" three times, and it was right infront of my deployment zone, and he rolled that one or "have a unit in your oponents deployment zone" or what ever. Along  with the other "more normal" objective rules for them game make it seem clunky and very luck (which I don't believe in). Some one can win but have one model left, which is what happened here, unless rules were badly mis read somewhere.

 

4) still mostly a personally grip with the game, but "detachments" and allies still bother me. The fact that you have an "unlimited" number of detachments you can take bothers me. Plus the unlimited number of allies you can take. Plus based on your detachment choice, you can get different things/bonuses. I know that FW has become "more" of a part of the game, but it just doesn't sit well. I kind of wish people could take at most 2 detachments. While I know I can ask my friends/oponents to do so, and no unbound/FW, I can't control that so well when I go to the city where 40k is played most around here (1.5 hours away), as people say they want to play the army they made and it has cheese writen all over it. I do under stand that 7th is better then 6th was when it comes to this but.... this is my biggest issue with 40k. The only reason this came up at this last game, was my oponent was taking about something he heard about and wants to do that just seemed stupidly one sided if I were to face with out some knowledge that is was to happen, using 3 detachments.

 

A couple random things I noticed but don't feel as confused about or think that they are more tactically driven:

- Instant death is a pain still, with no way to reliable get it on ones Lord without a TW mount.

- Didn't fair as well as I had hoped in combat with GHs. One unit had Ultra-grit, and still seemed underwhelming. Guess they should just shoot now?

- When people take GH, what do they primaraly take for a load out now?

- Nurgal bikers...... yea, shoot them?

- I didn't take any but are BCs still a good CC unit?

- Is the Power/Frost Axe worth it? Going at I1 was  (maybe) my lords biggest downfall.

 

I know people will say TWC for a lot of answers, but I hate the current models. Until I find/make/have someone make something better looking, to me, then they are off the table. I guess one question would be, Are they required?

[Rift Blade]

TW's are not required. Just played a game last week against FW Armoured Co list & won, taking SW version of Armoured Co.. No TW's. I agree, it's taking some adjustment to this whole detachment & formation thing but play a few more games & reread the rules. I did, about 6 times & finally some things started sinking in.This whole unbound thing is a pain to be sure but if you play to our strengths with bound lists, they are manageable. My 4th game I played this guy in a pick up game playing GK's, Chaos SM's & 'Nid combo. Talk about ridiculous. Lictors, Hell Turkeys & psykers up the yazoo. Game went 6 turns & one more & he would have tabled me but I beat him by 10 VP's due to the various objectives achieved during the game. Just a different play style I guess. I've played 7 games of 7th (no pun intended) & all but the last one with the same list so I could get everything straight. Tactical Objectives will take some getting used to but really, not much has changed from 6th to 7th here. VP's just got easier to get if you play Maelstrom missions. This ed CC you have to much more careful with Overwatch & what all but still viable. GH's are still good IMO but with out the Wolf Std. & Mark of the Wulfen(I do miss these but oh well) not as good as they were. Didn't answer all your questions but hope this helps.

[skeletoro]

1) Pykic Phase and pykic powers. I rolled with our lore, just felt like staying wolfy. I had a mastery lvl 2, Living lightning, Thunder clap, and the malidiction one can remember what is is called right now. Now is it just our lore, or are the psykic ranges (18" for all three I had) seem kind of short? Is this for balance purposes? Again, I was the only one with a psyker and this was my first go with them here. It just seemed very underwhelming with how the psyker phases turned out.

they are kinda short. Remember though, if the power says 'nova' then it hits EVERY enemy unit within range. Not just a single unit. The space wolves nova has a big radius/range compared to other novas but packs a smaller punch on each unit it hits.

 

Personally I would stick to biomancy most of the time, or divination. Blessings and maledictions for the force multiplying effect. Enfeeblement is exceptional for cc because you're debuffing both s and t. And if you have bikes/TW, a s3 marine will be wounding them on 6s.

 

2) Assault Phase: Pile in moves. Seems kind of clunky. Don't really know how to explain it better, plus killing things in base to base "first". So with pile moves, people pile in at their I step right and just theirs?

yes, unless some special rule they have says otherwise.

So you can keep moving people in. Do pile ins just take models that are out of 2" of an enemy, two within 2", or if they are 1" away they can move into B2B.

everyone not already in b2b.

If I have a normal GH with a PW and 3 normal GHs in B2B with one enemy model, can he choose my PW GH to be the one to take a hit or can I put it on a normal GH (I thought I got to choose but my oponent said he wanted to put it on my PW).

I've seen people get this one wrong before. But you're right. The wound must be allocated to the closest of your models to any of his models that are attacking at that step. If there are three models in b2b with that one model then they are equally close, and the defendr (you) gets to choose. And it doesn't have to be someone adjacent to that model - just someone adjacent to any of his models attacking at that initiative step.

[Ullr Direfang]

Thanks, having not played much, I realize that a lot of it is just learning what is new..... I will hate to have to change my army much.....

 

Thanks for some of the break downs too, skeletoro. Again rereading some of that will hopefully make it clearer.

[Leif Bearclaw]

3: Yep, it's unfortunate how Tactical Objectives work imo. While I don't out and out hate them, can't say I'm a fan. It's too random, and varied. If you wanted asymmetric objectives then fine, give each player 3/4 at the start of the game, which are their objectives for the game (plus the secondaries). AS it stands the draw can have you jumping acropss the board to claim objectives all over the place, or frustrate you when you get a mess of cards you cannot complete. I don't like losing games just because I draw 'kill a flyer', 'hold the objective in the enemy's deployment zone' or 'declare a challenge' while my opponent gets 'kill unit with shooting, D3 VPs if you kill 3' and 'hold objective he's already camping'. I know it's inherently a luck based game, but losing like that, instead of 'I failed my important save and my Warlord died', just feel cheaper and more BS to me. I genuinely don't get the popularity of tactical objectives.

 

4: Again, I also don't like it. But that's how GW have decided to make the game. I think it's a shame, and is a symptom of just ho0w out of touch the company is, but what can you do? Them's the breaks, and we've just got to work around them.

[Oz of the North]

Regarding random thoughts even if your lord has a TW he still can be insta-killed just with str. 10 now, which means stay away from Nids that bring Carnifexes because they will ruin your life. Grey Hunters now are just basic marines that can take a hidden power weapon and can get ultra-grit for extra 2 pts. But for that we lose out on doctrines or the ability to take a heavy weapon or tac squad. So they now really are meh, and load out probably go with 2 special weapons and maybe a power weapon, or as much plasma as possible in a drop pod, but this makes them very expensive and very prone to dying quickly. Nurgle bikes, shooting them is not a bad idea, but by the same token you wound on the 6s in both combat and shooting unless you have a fist/axe or special weapon and in combat they do not get a jink. BC are decent in combat, but you have to deal with all other marines are going to hit you on 3s and you hit on 4s in both combat and shooting. On an HQ wolf lord instead of fist/axe just go with champs of Fenris and use the krakenbone sword to get AP2, actually lets you use your I to its full extent. 

 

All in all TWC are not required, but if you want to be competitive or at least have a positive W-L, they are borderline must take.

[Rasclomalum]

Regarding random thoughts even if your lord has a TW he still can be insta-killed just with str. 10 now, which means stay away from Nids that bring Carnifexes because they will ruin your life. Grey Hunters now are just basic marines that can take a hidden power weapon and can get ultra-grit for extra 2 pts. But for that we lose out on doctrines or the ability to take a heavy weapon or tac squad. So they now really are meh, and load out probably go with 2 special weapons and maybe a power weapon, or as much plasma as possible in a drop pod, but this makes them very expensive and very prone to dying quickly. 

 

GH are just brought in line with other MEQ really. They aren't exactly losing out on doctrines either, Acute Senses and Counter-attack sees to that. Not being able to combat squad or take a heavy weapon is the price you pay for the ability to specialise - tactical marines cannot take two special weapons, after all, so no dedicated plasma squads like the GH can do, or podding in with two meltas and a combi-melta to slag a Land Raider.   

 

Or for that matter, just compare them with CSM and you'll see: 

 

Squad of 10 GH with 2 plasma guns and a Rhino = 205 points. 

 

Squad of 10 CSM with 2 plasma guns and a Rhino = 205 points. 

 

Of course, the CSM lack ATSKNF, can't swap their Rhino for a Drop Pod and can't rely on Counter-attack as a charge deterrent. In this particular case, the GH definitely come out on top. If you add a power weapon or fist, the CSM risk losing theirs before it even does anything in the first challenge whereas the GH can play hide and seek with it. 

[Oz of the North]

 

Regarding random thoughts even if your lord has a TW he still can be insta-killed just with str. 10 now, which means stay away from Nids that bring Carnifexes because they will ruin your life. Grey Hunters now are just basic marines that can take a hidden power weapon and can get ultra-grit for extra 2 pts. But for that we lose out on doctrines or the ability to take a heavy weapon or tac squad. So they now really are meh, and load out probably go with 2 special weapons and maybe a power weapon, or as much plasma as possible in a drop pod, but this makes them very expensive and very prone to dying quickly. 

 

GH are just brought in line with other MEQ really. They aren't exactly losing out on doctrines either, Acute Senses and Counter-attack sees to that. Not being able to combat squad or take a heavy weapon is the price you pay for the ability to specialise - tactical marines cannot take two special weapons, after all, so no dedicated plasma squads like the GH can do, or podding in with two meltas and a combi-melta to slag a Land Raider.   

 

Or for that matter, just compare them with CSM and you'll see: 

 

Squad of 10 GH with 2 plasma guns and a Rhino = 205 points. 

 

Squad of 10 CSM with 2 plasma guns and a Rhino = 205 points. 

 

Of course, the CSM lack ATSKNF, can't swap their Rhino for a Drop Pod and can't rely on Counter-attack as a charge deterrent. In this particular case, the GH definitely come out on top. If you add a power weapon or fist, the CSM risk losing theirs before it even does anything in the first challenge whereas the GH can play hide and seek with it. 

 

I would say they are lacking on the doctrines acute senses and counter attack, nowhere near stack up to some regular marines doctrines, such as all FnP on a 6+ or reroll hits on bolters. I am not saying they are horrible, I am just saying they are lacking on anything that really makes them unique, where last edition they had wargear/wargear costs that were unique to them, now they pay the same price as a regular marine, with less options and less options with what to do with them.

[tylerw]

3: Yep, it's unfortunate how Tactical Objectives work imo. While I don't out and out hate them, can't say I'm a fan. It's too random, and varied. If you wanted asymmetric objectives then fine, give each player 3/4 at the start of the game, which are their objectives for the game (plus the secondaries). AS it stands the draw can have you jumping acropss the board to claim objectives all over the place, or frustrate you when you get a mess of cards you cannot complete. I don't like losing games just because I draw 'kill a flyer', 'hold the objective in the enemy's deployment zone' or 'declare a challenge' while my opponent gets 'kill unit with shooting, D3 VPs if you kill 3' and 'hold objective he's already camping'. I know it's inherently a luck based game, but losing like that, instead of 'I failed my important save and my Warlord died', just feel cheaper and more BS to me. I genuinely don't get the popularity of tactical objectives.

 

4: Again, I also don't like it. But that's how GW have decided to make the game. I think it's a shame, and is a symptom of just ho0w out of touch the company is, but what can you do? Them's the breaks, and we've just got to work around them.

 

Much of the time in games I've played people are allowed/encouraged to weed out totally non-applicable TacOs, such as "there are 0 psykers in this game on either side... ignore those and reroll/draw for them."

 

On the other hand, I like that they tend to encourage well-rounded lists to some extent - if you have a choice between your last unit being a psyker or a non-psyker, maybe you throw a psyker in for the scoring potential.  At the same time, if you're not playing a particularly competitive match/event, just see if the opponent is cool with both sides tossing "impossible" objectives.

[Valerian]

 

3: Yep, it's unfortunate how Tactical Objectives work imo. While I don't out and out hate them, can't say I'm a fan. It's too random, and varied. If you wanted asymmetric objectives then fine, give each player 3/4 at the start of the game, which are their objectives for the game (plus the secondaries). AS it stands the draw can have you jumping acropss the board to claim objectives all over the place, or frustrate you when you get a mess of cards you cannot complete. I don't like losing games just because I draw 'kill a flyer', 'hold the objective in the enemy's deployment zone' or 'declare a challenge' while my opponent gets 'kill unit with shooting, D3 VPs if you kill 3' and 'hold objective he's already camping'. I know it's inherently a luck based game, but losing like that, instead of 'I failed my important save and my Warlord died', just feel cheaper and more BS to me. I genuinely don't get the popularity of tactical objectives.

 

4: Again, I also don't like it. But that's how GW have decided to make the game. I think it's a shame, and is a symptom of just ho0w out of touch the company is, but what can you do? Them's the breaks, and we've just got to work around them.

 

Much of the time in games I've played people are allowed/encouraged to weed out totally non-applicable TacOs, such as "there are 0 psykers in this game on either side... ignore those and reroll/draw for them."

 

Agreed. It seems to be pretty common practice to discard the "Not Applicable" Tactical Objectives. Another point to consider is that they're completely optional - you and your mates don't have to use them if you don't want to, and can stick with the Eternal War missions, if you're more comfortable with the traditional style of play.

 

V

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

3: Yep, it's unfortunate how Tactical Objectives work imo. While I don't out and out hate them, can't say I'm a fan. It's too random, and varied. If you wanted asymmetric objectives then fine, give each player 3/4 at the start of the game, which are their objectives for the game (plus the secondaries). AS it stands the draw can have you jumping acropss the board to claim objectives all over the place, or frustrate you when you get a mess of cards you cannot complete. I don't like losing games just because I draw 'kill a flyer', 'hold the objective in the enemy's deployment zone' or 'declare a challenge' while my opponent gets 'kill unit with shooting, D3 VPs if you kill 3' and 'hold objective he's already camping'. I know it's inherently a luck based game, but losing like that, instead of 'I failed my important save and my Warlord died', just feel cheaper and more BS to me. I genuinely don't get the popularity of tactical objectives.

 

4: Again, I also don't like it. But that's how GW have decided to make the game. I think it's a shame, and is a symptom of just ho0w out of touch the company is, but what can you do? Them's the breaks, and we've just got to work around them.

 

Much of the time in games I've played people are allowed/encouraged to weed out totally non-applicable TacOs, such as "there are 0 psykers in this game on either side... ignore those and reroll/draw for them."

 

On the other hand, I like that they tend to encourage well-rounded lists to some extent - if you have a choice between your last unit being a psyker or a non-psyker, maybe you throw a psyker in for the scoring potential.  At the same time, if you're not playing a particularly competitive match/event, just see if the opponent is cool with both sides tossing "impossible" objectives.

 

That does improve it somewhat, but it's still problematic imo. For example, it's technically possible to complete 'issue a challenge' as long as the opposition still has a character left. But if I draw that card and my opponent with a Tau gunline draws 'kill a unit with shooting', then one of us is still getting the short end of the stick. Again, if these were set objectives at the game's start, I'd be more forgiving, but what is (I think) meant to reflect the changing and uncertain nature of warfare come across more as a high command with raging multiple personality disorder; "take objective alpha, now instead of holding it, take objective sigma, now break through the enemy lines, even though objective sigma is back where you started". Ultimately, tactical objectives boil down to a decent idea that was let down in the execution.

[CatSmasher]

I couldn't disagree more. I think TaCos are a great way to change up the game. We have adopted a couple of house rules for discarding irrelevant cards, but each player is just as likely to get them. I think against a gun line the objectives are likely to work in your favour, forcing some aakward deployments or movement when there might not have been any.

[Ullr Direfang]

I couldn't disagree more. I think TaCos are a great way to change up the game. We have adopted a couple of house rules for discarding irrelevant cards, but each player is just as likely to get them. I think against a gun line the objectives are likely to work in your favour, forcing some aakward deployments or movement when there might not have been any.

 

See it is thinking like this that the main store in my area is full of. I am not saying it is wrong, it just gets old fast, or at least from what I have seen. There are people that literally wont play the "more" normal game type because they stick to their plan. Now I know that is part of the game but I watched a guy literal not try to get objectives that didn't say something with "kill" he literally sat back a just shot stuff to death while the other guy tried to actually do things that he was delt. So is the moral of the story to do exactly what your opponent does and and either a fast game that ends bloody, or sit back and barely lose anything?

 

I also have an issue with the more normal missions. Honestly, I would prefer to have it so that there were many objectives( 2 to 4 max), and some kind of secondary objectives that were for both players, or one attack and defender. Giving a role to each army feels far better to me then anything really. That might be because I like how FoW does its missions, but it make sense to me.

[Reichfaust]

 

 

Honestly, I would prefer to have it so that there were many objectives( 2 to 4 max), and some kind of secondary objectives that were for both players, or one attack and defender. Giving a role to each army feels far better to me then anything really. That might be because I like how FoW does its missions, but it make sense to me.

 

 

I understand where you're coming from, but just remember that at the end of the day it's just a game played between two people, and you can play it however you want with whatever rules or objectives you desire. Forge that narrative bro ;)

[FenrisWolf]

Honestly, I would prefer to have it so that there were many objectives( 2 to 4 max), and some kind of secondary objectives that were for both players, or one attack and defender. Giving a role to each army feels far better to me then anything really. That might be because I like how FoW does its missions, but it make sense to me.

I understand where you're coming from, but just remember that at the end of the day it's just a game played between two people, and you can play it however you want with whatever rules or objectives you desire. Forge that narrative bro

True to an extent. If you are the dissenting opinion (one way or the other) in your local community, you might not have much choice.

[Ullr Direfang]

Honestly, I would prefer to have it so that there were many objectives( 2 to 4 max), and some kind of secondary objectives that were for both players, or one attack and defender. Giving a role to each army feels far better to me then anything really. That might be because I like how FoW does its missions, but it make sense to me.

I understand where you're coming from, but just remember that at the end of the day it's just a game played between two people, and you can play it however you want with whatever rules or objectives you desire. Forge that narrative bro

True to an extent. If you are the dissenting opinion (one way or the other) in your local community, you might not have much choice.

This. I am the ONLY person (that I have encountered) in my area who as really played for more the 12 years. Every one else really only knows 6th and 7th. So my point of veiw is the "lame" one. and when I have to drive 1.5 hours to be near most of the people who play and the local store, it is even harder. I can suggest things all day but "thats not in the BRB, so I don't want to play that way"..... Yet they like how WHFBs game types are played, but like 40K more.

I need to move....

[FenrisWolf]

Sorry to hear the tale, Ullr.  You've got my sympathy at least.

[tylerw]

 

I couldn't disagree more. I think TaCos are a great way to change up the game. We have adopted a couple of house rules for discarding irrelevant cards, but each player is just as likely to get them. I think against a gun line the objectives are likely to work in your favour, forcing some aakward deployments or movement when there might not have been any.

 

See it is thinking like this that the main store in my area is full of. I am not saying it is wrong, it just gets old fast, or at least from what I have seen. There are people that literally wont play the "more" normal game type because they stick to their plan. Now I know that is part of the game but I watched a guy literal not try to get objectives that didn't say something with "kill" he literally sat back a just shot stuff to death while the other guy tried to actually do things that he was delt. So is the moral of the story to do exactly what your opponent does and and either a fast game that ends bloody, or sit back and barely lose anything?

 

I also have an issue with the more normal missions. Honestly, I would prefer to have it so that there were many objectives( 2 to 4 max), and some kind of secondary objectives that were for both players, or one attack and defender. Giving a role to each army feels far better to me then anything really. That might be because I like how FoW does its missions, but it make sense to me.

 

 

For the first part, I've noticed that the best cure for folks that want to sit back on the gunline is punishing them for it.  You can have an extremely mobile army that is relatively durable, and doesn't concentrate points in one unit, such as the old-school rhino-rushers.  This lets them shoot up your transports if that's their preference, but you're going to cap objectives fairly consistently and win most of the time.  Another approach is lots of pods + long range fire of your own.  Send in your TL Melta nought, GHs with 7 Melta shots (or whatever it ends up being for you), etc on their high-point vehicles while your own predators or whatever sit back and snipe.  

 

Basically I would recommend "punishing" that sort of list for a while.  People will either adapt to the gametype (so you don't have to rinse/repeat against the same army style over and over) or be more willing to change games at least.

[tylerw]

 

 

3: Yep, it's unfortunate how Tactical Objectives work imo. While I don't out and out hate them, can't say I'm a fan. It's too random, and varied. If you wanted asymmetric objectives then fine, give each player 3/4 at the start of the game, which are their objectives for the game (plus the secondaries). AS it stands the draw can have you jumping acropss the board to claim objectives all over the place, or frustrate you when you get a mess of cards you cannot complete. I don't like losing games just because I draw 'kill a flyer', 'hold the objective in the enemy's deployment zone' or 'declare a challenge' while my opponent gets 'kill unit with shooting, D3 VPs if you kill 3' and 'hold objective he's already camping'. I know it's inherently a luck based game, but losing like that, instead of 'I failed my important save and my Warlord died', just feel cheaper and more BS to me. I genuinely don't get the popularity of tactical objectives.

 

4: Again, I also don't like it. But that's how GW have decided to make the game. I think it's a shame, and is a symptom of just ho0w out of touch the company is, but what can you do? Them's the breaks, and we've just got to work around them.

 

Much of the time in games I've played people are allowed/encouraged to weed out totally non-applicable TacOs, such as "there are 0 psykers in this game on either side... ignore those and reroll/draw for them."

 

On the other hand, I like that they tend to encourage well-rounded lists to some extent - if you have a choice between your last unit being a psyker or a non-psyker, maybe you throw a psyker in for the scoring potential.  At the same time, if you're not playing a particularly competitive match/event, just see if the opponent is cool with both sides tossing "impossible" objectives.

 

That does improve it somewhat, but it's still problematic imo. For example, it's technically possible to complete 'issue a challenge' as long as the opposition still has a character left. But if I draw that card and my opponent with a Tau gunline draws 'kill a unit with shooting', then one of us is still getting the short end of the stick. Again, if these were set objectives at the game's start, I'd be more forgiving, but what is (I think) meant to reflect the changing and uncertain nature of warfare come across more as a high command with raging multiple personality disorder; "take objective alpha, now instead of holding it, take objective sigma, now break through the enemy lines, even though objective sigma is back where you started". Ultimately, tactical objectives boil down to a decent idea that was let down in the execution.

 

 

I feel that having the option to discard 1 at each EOT helps minimize how problematic the "possible but really?" objectives are.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

 

I feel that having the option to discard 1 at each EOT helps minimize how problematic the "possible but really?" objectives are.

 

Helps yes, but far from eliminates. Even with discarding, you can get absolutely screwed early on and never be in a position to catch up. If I get, for example "hold all 6 objectives, declare a challenge and SW declare a challenge" but my opponent gets "kill an enemy unit with shooting, kill and enemy unit and have units in his own deployment zone". I can reasonably expect to be 3-5 points down after 1 turn (as he will probably have three units in his deployment zone for D3, and most armies include something easy to gun down in 1 turn, Rhinos, Speeders etc.). Now even if I discard and draw one more objective, I'm still behind, and have wasted a turn being unable to earn VPs (other than the standard secondaries). Meanwhile my opponent is also new cards, giving him more opportunities to increase his lead.

 

Now I realise I'm talking worst case scenarios here, but if you play enough games this will happen. Speaking personally, I don't find getting objective screwed like this leads to fun games. Therefore I don't think adding another way the game design can suck out my fun is a positive change to the game.

[Ullr Direfang]

 

 

 

I feel that having the option to discard 1 at each EOT helps minimize how problematic the "possible but really?" objectives are.

 

Helps yes, but far from eliminates. Even with discarding, you can get absolutely screwed early on and never be in a position to catch up. If I get, for example "hold all 6 objectives, declare a challenge and SW declare a challenge" but my opponent gets "kill an enemy unit with shooting, kill and enemy unit and have units in his own deployment zone". I can reasonably expect to be 3-5 points down after 1 turn (as he will probably have three units in his deployment zone for D3, and most armies include something easy to gun down in 1 turn, Rhinos, Speeders etc.). Now even if I discard and draw one more objective, I'm still behind, and have wasted a turn being unable to earn VPs (other than the standard secondaries). Meanwhile my opponent is also new cards, giving him more opportunities to increase his lead.

 

Now I realise I'm talking worst case scenarios here, but if you play enough games this will happen. Speaking personally, I don't find getting objective screwed like this leads to fun games. Therefore I don't think adding another way the game design can suck out my fun is a positive change to the game.

 

 

That is basically what happened in the game I played. My opponent only really lost because he kept having to move from one spot to another, and never got close to any objective he needed until turn 5. SO even though I only had one model left at the end, I had 5 more points then him because I roll "claim objective 3" a bunch and had a unit on it from the start. maybe it is just that we rolled the same things every turn, but I still feel they are poorly done.

[tylerw]

 

 

 

I feel that having the option to discard 1 at each EOT helps minimize how problematic the "possible but really?" objectives are.

 

Helps yes, but far from eliminates. Even with discarding, you can get absolutely screwed early on and never be in a position to catch up. If I get, for example "hold all 6 objectives, declare a challenge and SW declare a challenge" but my opponent gets "kill an enemy unit with shooting, kill and enemy unit and have units in his own deployment zone". I can reasonably expect to be 3-5 points down after 1 turn (as he will probably have three units in his deployment zone for D3, and most armies include something easy to gun down in 1 turn, Rhinos, Speeders etc.). Now even if I discard and draw one more objective, I'm still behind, and have wasted a turn being unable to earn VPs (other than the standard secondaries). Meanwhile my opponent is also new cards, giving him more opportunities to increase his lead.

 

Now I realise I'm talking worst case scenarios here, but if you play enough games this will happen. Speaking personally, I don't find getting objective screwed like this leads to fun games. Therefore I don't think adding another way the game design can suck out my fun is a positive change to the game.

 

 

Even this isn't necessary a worstcase scenario unless you cannot possibly issue a challenge - instead you're going to pitch the 6 obj card and try to issue a challenge on T1 or T2.  I guess I don't expect that I'll always hit any points on T1, but being able to play towards them in later turns usually decides the games.  Also, I like Fog of War or whatever it is that keeps TacOs secret, myself.