I think the way objectives work should change

[Rogue]

I don't know - "I want it *because* you want it, even though I don't know what it is" feels like a fairly valid possibility. And if I don't have it by the end of the battle, then I'll knock the building down so neither of us can have it.

[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.

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.

the ruin doesn’t need anything inside of it.

Have you not been paying attention to Ukraine? Ukraine has been holding ruined buildings to maintain a cohesive defensive line and that ruined building provides defensive boosts. Therefore as an attacker you need to break that cohesive line, and keep it from reforming, or prevent it from being established in the first place.

I don't know - "I want it *because* you want it, even though I don't know what it is" feels like a fairly valid possibility. And if I don't have it by the end of the battle, then I'll knock the building down so neither of us can have it.

-source: Ukraine and russia

[Tyriks]

I do think making objectives have a bigger footprint is fun. We played with house rules that made objectives capturable within 6" and made obsec an aura so people had to really fight for objectives more, and everyone that tried that enjoyed it. It made the objective game a lot more interactive for us. But now you can just kill everything so easily, it might not matter as much.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

@Inquisitor_Lensoven

 

1. We're not supposed to talk about real life stuff, just say modern warfare.

 

2. 40k is fiction and the capabilities that units have don't reflect reality.

 

3. In game how would you contest terrain, can you make it symmetric while still looking interesting, and would make it sense for all the fractions to value it the same way?

[Brother Tyler]

The example given is fine, but it's just one of many examples from modern warfare in urban environments that supports the argument. I'm sure we can all ignore the specific situation and consider the basic principle, which has numerous examples from modern warfare (and I'm counting examples from almost a century ago).