tactical objective #66 - priority orders

[uldrick]

how do you interpret that objective?

 

here's the wording:

 

<Mod-Snip>See pg. 229 of your handy rulebook.</Mod-Snip>

 

how does that works with the following tactical objective:

 

14: "score 1 victory point if one or more of your infantry or biker units made a succesfull charge"

 

how does it works if your warlord is not infantry or bike, like robute guilliman?

 

43: <Mod-Snip>Hold the Line (pg. 228)</Mod-Snip>

 

i do not see how a single warlord could hold 3 objective by himself 

 

45: <Mod-Snip>Supremacy (pg. 228)</Mod-Snip> 

 

i do not see how a single warlord could hold 3 objective by himself 

 

46: <Mod-Snip>Domination (pg. 228)</Mod-Snip> 

 

i do not see how a single warlord could hold 6 objective by himself 

 

54: <Mod-Snip>Area Denial (pg. 229)</Mod-Snip>

 

how do we determine if the warlord done it be himself?

 

55: <Mod-Snip>Psychological Warfare (pg. 229)</Mod-Snip>

 

how do we determine if the warlord done it be himself?

 

 

i believe the RAW is severly flawed since the objective 66 is invalid with 6 out of 35 possible objectives, thats 17.14% chance that it is completly wasted and simply not possible to finish it. and that 17.14% is problematic by itself, it does not even need outside element (like absence of psykers or tank, etc) to make it useless.

 

am i missing something or is it simply broken)

Edited November 1, 2017 by Eddie Orlock
Redacted rules quote blocks per OR rule 5

[Eddie Orlock]

I'm not sure where you got objective 14, as it doesn't cross check with my copy of the books. With regard to it, however, nothing actually breaks in the game if it's impossible to achieve an objective.

 

What I find conspicuously absent from your listings in objective 56 that requires the manifestation or denial of a psychic power. There are many non-psyker warlord on the table tops that could never achieve either, either. This also isn't a break in the game. The response is the same for the other three poly-objective cards you've got listed. Just because you can't do a thing or randomly generated a non-applicable option doesn't mean the rules broke.

 

Objectives 54 and 55 are slightly more interesting.

 

With regard to 55, there is a probable extrapolation from the permission to claim a unit removal objective if the warlord is the model to inflict the final damage that suggests that if the warlord is the last unit to shoot at a unit that fails its moral test 55 may be claimable. Like any rules extrapolation this is a thin argument. Of course, this requires finding a way to arrange for your warlord to strip a model from at least three different units. Not impossible, but also, not an OR appropriate discussion direction.

 

Likely interpretation of 54 in context of 66 would require the warlord to remove the last hostile thing in the middle of the field.

 

As general notes about non-achievable objectives: first, if you know you're playing with them it would behoove you to consider that during force generation; second, there's a handy strategum on pg. 226 to help you mitigate unfortunate draws. Of course, further discussion of either of these tangents is something you'll need to take up elsewhere on the BnC. Your faction's sub-forum might be a good place to start.

[uldrick]

ok, thanks for your input.

i will take this elsewhere, since it was about official rules, i believed it was the place to talk about them.

Edited November 2, 2017 by uldrick

[Eddie Orlock]

... since it was about official rules, i believed it was the place to talk about them.

This is a place to discuss interpretations of the official rules. It says so right in the forum description.

 

You asked your questions, I tried to help. If you wait longer you might find another opinion from another user. They may find things to disagree with in my reasoning. The impression I'm left with is that you found something you disagreed with, unfortunately for both of us, if you don't further articulate it, it's really hard for us to resolve that.

 

At this point, I hypothesise that you and I are using different definitions of the concept of 'broken'. Would that seem like a fair assessment to you?

[Dam13n]

It's the risk inherent to the Maelstrom of War scenarios.

 

Opponent has no vehicles - get the objective that requires you to kill one.

 

Your Warlord is dead - get an objective that only he can do.

 

There's always a risk of getting an unattainable objective. When that happens you just have to use the mechanic that allows you to discard said objective.

 

It's not broken... it's intentional. The idea being, that it should encourage gamers to take balanced lists that can conceivably achieve as many of the potential objectives available as possible.

 

If that's not to anyone's liking, there are other scenarios available that don't use Tactical objectives... so they can just play those instead.

[GawFang]

The way i've done it is that if its possible for your warlord to do the objective then they must do it. If your warlord can't do the objective but its possible you to get it then you can complete it that way. If its impossible to complete discard the objective and pick another.

[Dam13n]

Problem there is that you're using a house rule, not an official rule. In the OR, house rules aren't relevant.

[uldrick]

It's not broken... it's intentional. The idea being, that it should encourage gamers to take balanced lists that can conceivably achieve as many of the potential objectives available as possible.

 

how can list building allows you to achieve objectives that cannot be achieved, in no way, mechanically in the current ruleset? like holding 6 objective at a time with only the warlord participating?

 

re we agreeing that  it is impossible for a warlord to hold 6 objective by himself?

 

is it really the intentions of the game writter to put a combination that cannot be solved in any way (there are a few of them, refer to my first post), that can not be completed by the warlord alone since it is not possible within the game itself?

 

as far as RAW is concerned, that card is clear, but as RAI, i feel there is a gap there....

Edited November 3, 2017 by uldrick

[Dam13n]

It can only be intentional that there are unachievable objectives. It's precisely why you have a mechanic that allows you to discard them.

 

Also note that I said "as possible". There's always a chance of drawing an objective that you can't achieve. But having a balanced spread of different units and unit types within your army can potentially limit the chances somewhat.

 

Regardless, as you said yourself, the RAW is clear. Which kind of makes RAI irrelevant.

 

I therefore doubt that there's much to be gained by continuing to discuss it here. So, your best course of action, if you're intent on pursuing this, would be to contact GW via their Facebook page and see if you can get an official response from them.

[Servant of Dante]

Quick comment, objectives don’t have to be scored by your Warlord. Domination isn’t scored by having your Warlord hold 6 objectives at once, You the player simply have to control all 6 objectives using the units you have on the table. Another example, Linebreaker is just having any 3 of your units in the enemy deployment zone, not your Warlord 3 times (which is indeed impossible). The same idea applies to all of these objectives. Your Warlord doesn’t have t do them, your army as a whole does.

 

I’m a bit confused why this hasn’t been brought up yet, did I miss something here?

Edited November 6, 2017 by Servant of Dante

[TheWolfLord]

Quick comment, objectives don’t have to be scored by your Warlord. Domination isn’t scored by having your Warlord hold 6 objectives at once, You the player simply have to control all 6 objectives using the units you have on the table. Another example, Linebreaker is just having any 3 of your units in the enemy deployment zone, not your Warlord 3 times (which is indeed impossible). The same idea applies to all of these objectives. Your Warlord doesn’t have t do them, your army as a whole does.

I’m a bit confused why this hasn’t been brought up yet, did I miss something here?

The Priority Orders mission card makes you draw a second card, if that bonus card is scored by your Warlord you get its points plus the bonus points from Priority Order. It must be scored by your Warlord though.

[Servant of Dante]

Oh ok yeah, then it’s just not guaranteed that you’re going to get an objective that’s possible. I agree with Eddie here. thanks!