Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So, in general, I love the way 9th missions work, punishing armies that generally are uninteractive and making people fight over the board, rather than sit in a corner and roll enough dice to kill the opponent.

Most games aren't truly decided till about the 3rd or 4th turn, and bar some niggles with turn 5 scoring for the player going 2nd and the game being pretty badly imbalanced at the <1k level, its been fun.

 

The biggest problem with the core rules as of now imo, is that many of the secondary mission objectives are bad overall, but more specifically there isn't a single kill secondary you can take vs an elite but all-infantry list, whatsoever. Well, bikes, cavalry, and infantry anyway.

 

Lots of vehicles/monsters?

Bring It Down

Tons of cheap infantry?

Thin Their Ranks.

Playing against Guard? Why not both.

 

Hell, lots of psykers running amok?

Here ya go, Abhor the Witch.

A max squad of double buffed ogryn?

Nah, sorry, no points.

An entire space marine army of all T5 3 wound models?

Ha, no.

 

There is no gangbusters style secondary, and I feel its a really big blunder from GW, as big multi-wound infantry squads are exactly the kind of unit you want to contest the midfield with, and they also never give up secondary pts.

 

This issue will be somewhat alleviated when/if every faction gets some specific secondaries that can be a solid 3rd pick, like Oath of the Moment for marines, but especially at smaller pts games, the secondaries just kind of suck.

 

If there aren't any psykers on the table, you throw out 25% of them outright, most of the action based ones are traps unless you have a specific army built for doing one, so everyone just ends up running engage on all fronts as the least terrible one as an example. And most of the mission specific ones are complete garbage.

 

Trying to choose secondaries for some armies is absolute torture (see previous example of all infantry marine lists) and others bleed them like nothing (see any half decent guard list)

 

Idk, I feel that secondaries deserve some fixing, and also that they should be adjusted based on the size of the game.

In my opinion there should never be secondaries that award points for killing. It just punishes too many armies and playstyles.

 

You should get Kill Points as a primary objective but never secondary.

I definitely do not want to see a gangbusters style secondary. I like the fact that the units you’re most likely to use for midfield objectives don’t give up kill points because that mitigates the level of undue influence secondaries put on list building.

 

Missions controlling the viability was one of my big gripes with ITC and I’d like to see it go away entirely by removing the two secondaries you mentioned, thin their ranks and bring it down.

In my opinion there should never be secondaries that award points for killing. It just punishes too many armies and playstyles.

 

You should get Kill Points as a primary objective but never secondary.

 

I'm not sure how making killing more important would be less punishing. I think that would lead back to 8th ed and gunline armies. 

 

OP, what if think their ranks was done by wounds instead? Or too complex to calculate in battle?

 

How about  "pick a force org choice except for troops, e.g. elites. 3 points for each unit from that slot destroyed"

Broadly speaking, I like the secondaries that target specific types of units. It discourages opponents from spamming a single type of unit and encourages more balanced lists. If you want to run a themed army like an armoured company or a green tide then you can but it offers your opponent a tailor-made secondary to compensate for the fact that it can be hard to fight a spam army with a balanced one. Either that or the game degenerates into rock-paper-scissors which is no fun for anyone.

 

Regarding the OP's original question, I had assumed that Attrition was the secondary to take for facing an Elite MSU army. By focussing fire, you should be able to ensure that more of their units die each turn than yours. If your opponent is running an elite army with large units, there is no easy secondary for that. But they will be fighting an uphill battle for board control. 3 x 10-man blobs of Deathwing Terminators would be really hard to shift but would cost around 1000 points for mostly anti-infantry fire. Outmaneuvre and take the movement based secondaries as well as challenging on Primary Objectives wherever possible.

I definitely do not want to see a gangbusters style secondary. I like the fact that the units you’re most likely to use for midfield objectives don’t give up kill points because that mitigates the level of undue influence secondaries put on list building.

 

Missions controlling the viability was one of my big gripes with ITC and I’d like to see it go away entirely by removing the two secondaries you mentioned, thin their ranks and bring it down.

Those elite MSU units are currently the only thing you can't really choose a kill secondary against.

 

Any build that relies on mass infantry or lots of vehicles gets punished HARD. Vehicles in particular because you can so easy stack on them.

 

I play Guard and if I want to run a mixed force my opponent can pick thin ranks/bring down without thinking. As long as I bring 5-6 vehicles, it's worth it. Each killed Leman Russ gives up 4 secondaries in that set up.

 

What's worse, the same works if I go vehicle heavy. An armoured list gives up the same secondaries, despite bring little infantry.

 

This means any game I want to play with a standard mixed Guard force, I play knowing thay I'm starting 20-30 secondary points down because my opponent will get them and there is nothing I can do to prevent that

 

Mass infantry works slightly better, but not much, and is a pain to play with or against. That basically leaves a very narrow space where you heavily lean into Scions to minimise idiot-proof secondary-picks for your opponent.

 

An army of MSU elite will basically not run into this problem ever. So a Gangbuster secondary would be nice.

 

But what would work even better is a restriction where each killed unit can only score for one kill secondary.

 

You killed my tank commander? Great, you pick if you want points for thin ranks, bring down, assassinate or attrition. But you're not getting point for more than one of them.

Those elite MSU units are currently the only thing you can't really choose a kill secondary against.

Attrition is the best bet. Concentrate on one squad at a time while presenting your opponent with multiple threats.

 

Or just focus on secondaries that are within your control like Engage on All Fronts.

 

Those elite MSU units are currently the only thing you can't really choose a kill secondary against.

Attrition is the best bet. Concentrate on one squad at a time while presenting your opponent with multiple threats.

 

Or just focus on secondaries that are within your control like Engage on All Fronts.

That only works if you have semi-durable units yourself imo. Again I'm looking at this from my Guard perspective, but it's very easy for most of my opponents to remove more Guard squads or Chimeras than I can reliably remove multiple of their units each turn. And it's a secondary I need to be able to reliably get multiple turns to score enough. For other kill secondaries it doesn't matter if i achieve them T1 or T5.

 

I definitely do not want to see a gangbusters style secondary. I like the fact that the units you’re most likely to use for midfield objectives don’t give up kill points because that mitigates the level of undue influence secondaries put on list building.

 

Missions controlling the viability was one of my big gripes with ITC and I’d like to see it go away entirely by removing the two secondaries you mentioned, thin their ranks and bring it down.

Those elite MSU units are currently the only thing you can't really choose a kill secondary against.

 

Any build that relies on mass infantry or lots of vehicles gets punished HARD. Vehicles in particular because you can so easy stack on them.

 

I play Guard and if I want to run a mixed force my opponent can pick thin ranks/bring down without thinking. As long as I bring 5-6 vehicles, it's worth it. Each killed Leman Russ gives up 4 secondaries in that set up.

 

What's worse, the same works if I go vehicle heavy. An armoured list gives up the same secondaries, despite bring little infantry.

 

This means any game I want to play with a standard mixed Guard force, I play knowing thay I'm starting 20-30 secondary points down because my opponent will get them and there is nothing I can do to prevent that

 

Mass infantry works slightly better, but not much, and is a pain to play with or against. That basically leaves a very narrow space where you heavily lean into Scions to minimise idiot-proof secondary-picks for your opponent.

 

An army of MSU elite will basically not run into this problem ever. So a Gangbuster secondary would be nice.

 

But what would work even better is a restriction where each killed unit can only score for one kill secondary.

 

You killed my tank commander? Great, you pick if you want points for thin ranks, bring down, assassinate or attrition. But you're not getting point for more than one of them.

I mean if you read my whole post, what you described is why I said I’d like to see those two removed and replaced with other things.

The scenario you talked about along with a few other frustrations and the disadvantage the core rules put guard players at is why I’ve completely shelved mine at the very least until the codex comes out but likely longer.

Edited by Kain Mor

 

 

I definitely do not want to see a gangbusters style secondary. I like the fact that the units you’re most likely to use for midfield objectives don’t give up kill points because that mitigates the level of undue influence secondaries put on list building.

 

Missions controlling the viability was one of my big gripes with ITC and I’d like to see it go away entirely by removing the two secondaries you mentioned, thin their ranks and bring it down.

Those elite MSU units are currently the only thing you can't really choose a kill secondary against.

 

Any build that relies on mass infantry or lots of vehicles gets punished HARD. Vehicles in particular because you can so easy stack on them.

 

I play Guard and if I want to run a mixed force my opponent can pick thin ranks/bring down without thinking. As long as I bring 5-6 vehicles, it's worth it. Each killed Leman Russ gives up 4 secondaries in that set up.

 

What's worse, the same works if I go vehicle heavy. An armoured list gives up the same secondaries, despite bring little infantry.

 

This means any game I want to play with a standard mixed Guard force, I play knowing thay I'm starting 20-30 secondary points down because my opponent will get them and there is nothing I can do to prevent that

 

Mass infantry works slightly better, but not much, and is a pain to play with or against. That basically leaves a very narrow space where you heavily lean into Scions to minimise idiot-proof secondary-picks for your opponent.

 

An army of MSU elite will basically not run into this problem ever. So a Gangbuster secondary would be nice.

 

But what would work even better is a restriction where each killed unit can only score for one kill secondary.

 

You killed my tank commander? Great, you pick if you want points for thin ranks, bring down, assassinate or attrition. But you're not getting point for more than one of them.

I mean if you read my whole post, what you described is why I said I’d like to see those two removed and replaced with other things.

The scenario you talked about along with a few other frustrations and the disadvantage the core rules put guard players at is why I’ve completely shelved mine at the very least until the codex comes out but likely longer.

True, you did. Apologies for glossing over that bit, that's on me.

 

I'm not sure just removing them would solve the problem without opening up too many others...but I don't know. At the moment there's definitely too much of an imbalance where going for at least 2 kill secondaries is just a no-brainer against several armies and makes a lot of builds simply unviable.

 

Which is a shame, as I quite like the objective-focus the missions give. It just seems to often be negated by an abundance of viable kill-secondaries. It also doesn't help that many of the action secondaries are very difficult to achieve.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.