I think the way objectives work should change

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I mentioned the first point in my topic about terrain, but here’s some other thoughts I’ve had on the subject as well.

 

1. No more objective markers, objectives should be represented by terrain features (building, hill, woods, ammo/supply crates, etc)

2. Player specific objectives. Don’t ask why but I find the idea of all objectives scoring points for what ever player controls them, and then plopping an objective in each player’s deployment zone stupid and redundant. I don’t mind an objective in each player’s deployment zone but it should only be storable by their opponents. Units can still contest to defend the objective, but sitting a unit on that objective all game shouldn’t necessarily benefit a player if their opponent never touches it.

So leave mid field objectives up for grabs, but objectives in deployment zones would be only for the opposing player to score on.

 

Just my thoughts.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Captain Coolpants]

Could get awfully busy if the rule became a whole piece of terrain was an objective. There would have to be a further rule to limit the size (just imagine a huge centerpiece building).

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Could get awfully busy if the rule became a whole piece of terrain was an objective. There would have to be a further rule to limit the size (just imagine a huge centerpiece building).

why not?

Maybe a rule that limits number of objectives by size.

So one massive objective would be the only one on the board.

[War of the Eagle]

I agree with point 2 but not really point 1.

 

Could be a secondary for defending your home objective but shouldnt be a primary objective to own something you already own.

[Lord_Ikka]

Terrain itself seems too big to be an objective in itself, and limiting objectives just makes the game devolve into "kill the other guy" style of play where all of the obsec units are clustered on the very limited number of objectives. 

 

Having a primary objective in your deployment zone makes sense- you have to choose to leave something behind to hold it which means you have less bodies to go out and take the midfield/enemy's objs. Quite a few of the Nachmund GT scenarios have primary "add-ons" that require you to either take the enemy's obj or hold your own (via having to do actions or something similar).

[Antarius]

I agree in principle, but I tend to think of the objective markers as designating that already. I.e. "This bridge is strategically important, the objective marker in the middle of the bridge designates control of the bridge".

The second part I'm not sure about. It certainly makes sense that holding a certain point can be a primary objective, even if it's in your deployment zone.
I mean it's not like i.e. the strategically important bridge from my earlier example suddenly becomes unimportant just because you already control it. In fact, the whole reason for fighting the battle may be to keep it out of the enemy's hands.

[Leonaides]

Final mission of the three in the 2nd ed boxed set was all about the marines holding the high ground in their deployment zone against an oncoming ork horde. Rourkes drift was about holding the buildings they were already in against the zulu army. Arguably Waterloo was about the british holding the ground to stop the French advancing any more while the prussian army caught them from the flank. There's usually one army with a good reason to want to hold what they have which is why the battle happens there. A true meeting engagement hardly ever happens.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I agree in principle, but I tend to think of the objective markers as designating that already. I.e. "This bridge is strategically important, the objective marker in the middle of the bridge designates control of the bridge".

 

The second part I'm not sure about. It certainly makes sense that holding a certain point can be a primary objective, even if it's in your deployment zone.

I mean it's not like i.e. the strategically important bridge from my earlier example suddenly becomes unimportant just because you already control it. In fact, the whole reason for fighting the battle may be to keep it out of the enemy's hands.

that would be fine, if objective markers weren’t also randomly placed in the middle of no where next to a bush as well.

 

And in your example for #2 you’re right it’s not unimportant to remain in control of it, but you already control it, so you get no extra benefit from continuing to control, it’s just up to you to maintain control over it

Edited May 29, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Final mission of the three in the 2nd ed boxed set was all about the marines holding the high ground in their deployment zone against an oncoming ork horde. Rourkes drift was about holding the buildings they were already in against the zulu army. Arguably Waterloo was about the british holding the ground to stop the French advancing any more while the prussian army caught them from the flank. There's usually one army with a good reason to want to hold what they have which is why the battle happens there. A true meeting engagement hardly ever happens.

and I said it is important to maintain control over the objective in your deployment zone to keep it from the enemy. I just don’t think that sitting a throw away unit on that objective for the whole game should provide victory points.

[MegaVolt87]

I agree with point 2 but not really point 1.

 

Could be a secondary for defending your home objective but shouldnt be a primary objective to own something you already own.

 

Oh definitely agree with point 2. It forces choices on how and what you leave behind to lock an opponent off it. Maybe a separate mission where its like this and the home objective also counts as scoring two objectives if an opponent holds it. Terrain being involved as objectives isn't really practical for many reasons outside of a narrative game though or a specialist format such as cityfight. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

I agree with point 2 but not really point 1.

 

Could be a secondary for defending your home objective but shouldnt be a primary objective to own something you already own.

Oh definitely agree with point 2. It forces choices on how and what you leave behind to lock an opponent off it. Maybe a separate mission where its like this and the home objective also counts as scoring two objectives if an opponent holds it. Terrain being involved as objectives isn't really practical for many reasons outside of a narrative game though or a specialist format such as cityfight.

dont really see what’s impractical about making terrain be objectives, but failing that require the objective markers be put on/in terrain features, or at the very least within 3” of a terrain feature.

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree that it feels weird when an objective marker is in the middle of nowhere so trying to tie it to something like a building or other feature does make sense, I’m just not sure how it would work in practical terms.

 

As for holding an objective in your deployment zone, I’d say it should only be worth points if you’re in possession of it at the end of the game to show you weren’t completely routed.

 

I’d also like to see objectives worth more or worth bonus points if you’ve actually taken them off the enemy in a turn. Running and grabbing an uncontested objective is not the same as pushing the enemy off one they hold so I think the scores should reflect that.

[Halandaar]

Objective Markers in the middle of nowhere only feel weird if you think of them just as tokens or dice or transparent game-aid discs or whatever else you use to signify them in your games.

 

If it's a valuable dataslate dropped in the dirt by a fleeing Imperial citizen or a small cache of geneseed on the corpse of a dead Apothecary it feels much more natural for them to be out in the open.

[Tyriks]

It could also be the best landing site for reinforcements or the best place to start sending an important signal. It could even be the site of a symbolic/important moment in the past so morale depends on keeping it.

[Halandaar]

It could also be the best landing site for reinforcements

Simple but really smart. An open patch of ground with nothing notable on it is an asset in its own right if you're looking for somewhere to drop stuff from air/orbit.

[gideon stargreave]

It's one of the reasons I always used modeled onjective markers, ammo caches, a civilian dignitary, a small shrine, even a ruined dreadnought. I can place them where they fit most thematically, and I can even add narrative. Eg. I have to get to the ambassador first, collect important information from him and take it to the comms relay, receive orders from the battle barge to place a Homer on the ancient terminator Armour for retrieval etc

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

1. I think that would make a lot of sense in narrative games, but I don't want GW to go in that direction for matched play. I think it would reward gun lines, and really push tables towards certain terrain features even more than the game already does.  Won't lie though part of the concern is that GW would copyright the objectives, to force out 3rd party terrain which I think would hurt the game. 

 

2. I wouldn't mind this, but I think slow armies would really suffer if they went that route. I would want some missions where you score by defending that objective, so that those armies stay relevant. Guard for example already really suck, if they couldn't score the objective in their deployment zone their win rate would drop and they're at 33%-win rate right now. 

[Focslain]

 

 

I agree with point 2 but not really point 1.

 

Could be a secondary for defending your home objective but shouldnt be a primary objective to own something you already own.

Oh definitely agree with point 2. It forces choices on how and what you leave behind to lock an opponent off it. Maybe a separate mission where its like this and the home objective also counts as scoring two objectives if an opponent holds it. Terrain being involved as objectives isn't really practical for many reasons outside of a narrative game though or a specialist format such as cityfight.

dont really see what’s impractical about making terrain be objectives, but failing that require the objective markers be put on/in terrain features, or at the very least within 3” of a terrain feature.

 

Honestly I do this anyway if able just because the terrain can grant cover and it will make the unit I take it with that much harder to shift off. 

 

Especially if it's a large ruin/building and then I can get multiple units in capture distance or at least nearby.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1. I think that would make a lot of sense in narrative games, but I don't want GW to go in that direction for matched play. I think it would reward gun lines, and really push tables towards certain terrain features even more than the game already does. Won't lie though part of the concern is that GW would copyright the objectives, to force out 3rd party terrain which I think would hurt the game.

 

2. I wouldn't mind this, but I think slow armies would really suffer if they went that route. I would want some missions where you score by defending that objective, so that those armies stay relevant. Guard for example already really suck, if they couldn't score the objective in their deployment zone their win rate would drop and they're at 33%-win rate right now.

how would GW copyright terrain?

[BluejayJunior]

I agree with Jorin above. Both of those are great for more narrative games, but probably wouldn't work as well for competitive. I have always been a big fan of asymmetrical win conditions for games. That's part of what I like about Crusade missions. While the main objective is usually the same for both opponents, the agendas encourage you to do other things in order to get more XP for you units. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

1. I think that would make a lot of sense in narrative games, but I don't want GW to go in that direction for matched play. I think it would reward gun lines, and really push tables towards certain terrain features even more than the game already does. Won't lie though part of the concern is that GW would copyright the objectives, to force out 3rd party terrain which I think would hurt the game.

 

2. I wouldn't mind this, but I think slow armies would really suffer if they went that route. I would want some missions where you score by defending that objective, so that those armies stay relevant. Guard for example already really suck, if they couldn't score the objective in their deployment zone their win rate would drop and they're at 33%-win rate right now.

how would GW copyright terrain?

By making a new fancy name for something as simple as an ammo crate combined with some specific dimensions. Most 3rd party sites can't really afford to deal with GW legal.

 

I'd also be kinda bitter because something like a ruin wouldn't really make a ton of sense as an objective so I'd probably have to look for different pieces.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

1. I think that would make a lot of sense in narrative games, but I don't want GW to go in that direction for matched play. I think it would reward gun lines, and really push tables towards certain terrain features even more than the game already does. Won't lie though part of the concern is that GW would copyright the objectives, to force out 3rd party terrain which I think would hurt the game.

 

2. I wouldn't mind this, but I think slow armies would really suffer if they went that route. I would want some missions where you score by defending that objective, so that those armies stay relevant. Guard for example already really suck, if they couldn't score the objective in their deployment zone their win rate would drop and they're at 33%-win rate right now.

how would GW copyright terrain?

By making a new fancy name for something as simple as an ammo crate combined with some specific dimensions. Most 3rd party sites can't really afford to deal with GW legal.

 

I'd also be kinda bitter because something like a ruin wouldn't really make a ton of sense as an objective so I'd probably have to look for different pieces.

a ruin wouldn’t make sense? How does holding or taking a structure not make sense?

 

GW already has a bunch of silly names for the ruins and trees and cargo containers they make…

Then giving factions silly copyrightable names has not stopped 3rd party companies from producing models that are clearly astra militarum or adeptus astartes…

 

They’ll just call their terrain ‘gothic ruins’ and put ‘perfect for use as war gaming objectives’ or something similar in the description. GW can’t copyright their competition (that actually helps support them) out of business.

 

And all that only really effects tournament play…if the tournament organizers even care about specific dimensions being exact on the money for objectives, so it would only matter in GW stores…who already only use their own kits on their tables.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Antarius]

Yeah, I don't believe the copyright thing is really an issue, for this or for anything else. "Aeldari" doesn't make any difference for 3rd party companies' ability to make "Space Elves" or whatever, anymore than "Eldar" did. So it's not like "Objectivus Ruinus Maximus Skullus" is going to make it impossible to make "Gothic Ruin" (with or without skulls) that you can totally use as an objective. It's not like you can copyright 3,2 x 3,7 inches either.

 

Still, I think objective markers work just fine. Just place them in sensible places, or be willing to come up with an explanation if it's not in a place that immediately makes sense to you. Pretty much anything can be an objective if you flex your narrative muscles a bit.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

 

1. I think that would make a lot of sense in narrative games, but I don't want GW to go in that direction for matched play. I think it would reward gun lines, and really push tables towards certain terrain features even more than the game already does. Won't lie though part of the concern is that GW would copyright the objectives, to force out 3rd party terrain which I think would hurt the game.

 

2. I wouldn't mind this, but I think slow armies would really suffer if they went that route. I would want some missions where you score by defending that objective, so that those armies stay relevant. Guard for example already really suck, if they couldn't score the objective in their deployment zone their win rate would drop and they're at 33%-win rate right now.

how would GW copyright terrain?

By making a new fancy name for something as simple as an ammo crate combined with some specific dimensions. Most 3rd party sites can't really afford to deal with GW legal.

 

I'd also be kinda bitter because something like a ruin wouldn't really make a ton of sense as an objective so I'd probably have to look for different pieces.

a ruin wouldn’t make sense? How does holding or taking a structure not make sense?

 

GW already has a bunch of silly names for the ruins and trees and cargo containers they make…

Then giving factions silly copyrightable names has not stopped 3rd party companies from producing models that are clearly astra militarum or adeptus astartes…

 

They’ll just call their terrain ‘gothic ruins’ and put ‘perfect for use as war gaming objectives’ or something similar in the description. GW can’t copyright their competition (that actually helps support them) out of business.

 

And all that only really effects tournament play…if the tournament organizers even care about specific dimensions being exact on the money for objectives, so it would only matter in GW stores…who already only use their own kits on their tables.

 

 

Thats fair I'm probably overly paranoid about GW legal. 

 

As far as a ruin being objective it really has to have something in it that both sides want in order to make sense. If there isn't something they want in it, it just makes sense for the opposing side to knock it over. With all the different fractions its kinda hard to justify.   

[Tyriks]

Yeah, I don't believe the copyright thing is really an issue, for this or for anything else. "Aeldari" doesn't make any difference for 3rd party companies' ability to make "Space Elves" or whatever, anymore than "Eldar" did. So it's not like "Objectivus Ruinus Maximus Skullus" is going to make it impossible to make "Gothic Ruin" (with or without skulls) that you can totally use as an objective. It's not like you can copyright 3,2 x 3,7 inches either.

 

Still, I think objective markers work just fine. Just place them in sensible places, or be willing to come up with an explanation if it's not in a place that immediately makes sense to you. Pretty much anything can be an objective if you flex your narrative muscles a bit.

I agree with this. I think it'd be great if Gw made objectives for every faction that are appropriately sized and thematic but that's probably never going to happen. And pretty much anything can be valuable to any army if it's valuable to your enemy; I don't need to use the same ordnance as Guard to know its in my best interest to stop them from reloading their artillery, or to take the comms console to stop them sending for reinforcements, or whatever. It just needs a bit of creativity sometimes.