Wh40k 10th Edition Gambits and Missions (in 10th)

[AceofCase]

You have 2 turns to react to the gambits. If you can't handle that while already at a massive advantage, then you were the one that got outplayed in the end. I love the idea of shifting objectives forcing players to be flexible. I'm even more excited for the edition now. 

[Cruor Vault]

9 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

 

Why?

 

To me, it seems like a great idea. Give the losing player something to shoot for, instead of just watching your figures die, and going well, I can't possibly win - let me either concede turn 2 or just mentally log off.

 

 

Because it will turn a LOT many games into a pointless exercise when the losing player can determine the game with a single totally out of context die roll.  Losing a game because my opponent's single remaining guardsman hiding in a building near the corner of the game allowed them to shoot for the moon...  That's a MAJOR feels bad moment.  Its totally fine a fluffy for a narrative setup, but not everyone wants that.  I certainly don't.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Cruor Vault

[Halandaar]

Tempest (and Maelstrom before it) were my preferred way to play in their respective editions, and I've been playing Warcry with the same sort of system, so I don't at all mind seeing this principle made the default way to set up games. For those who prefer a less variable experience I'm sure that's what the inevitable mission pack expansions will offer.

 

Gambits are an interesting idea - personally I like the idea of people being able to come back from a bad opening to a game - but hopefully they won't be too overtuned. 

[BluejayJunior]

I love the idea of these missions. The gambits are cool. They remind me of the sudden death cards in the Open War deck when your opponent had a much larger force than yours. 

I can see how they might be great for tournament play though. On one hand, outplaying your opponent and then losing at the last second to a hail mary could feel bad. But on the other, a losing player having something to shoot for to keep the game interesting and not being a waste of several hours of a tourney is also nice. 

[BrainFireBob]

26 minutes ago, Cruor Vault said:

 

Because it will turn a LOT of games into a pointless exercise when the losing player can determine the game with a single totally out of context die roll.  Losing a game because my opponent's single remaining guardsman hiding in a building near the corner of the game allowed them to shoot for the moon...  That's a MAJOR feels bad moment.  Its totally fine a fluffy for a narrative setup, but not everyone wants that.  I certainly don't.

Yes, the "well, I was ROFLstomped after 3 hours of investment, let's do the die roll to see if losing is magically winning now." 

 

Losing can feel bad. The goal of life is not to get rid of feel bads. All this does is make the person who did things better... have to maybe eat the feel bad. Poor concept,  IMO. I get what they wanted to do, but it should be baked into alternate secondaries that you can switch to while losing all points earned on the one you abandon. 

[Scribe]

Its particularly offensive to me that they have this random mechanic described in the same article where 'balanced' is used several times.

 

It cannot be, as its RANDOM.

 

This is 100% a turn off. I dont know why they cannot figure out what actual balance looks like. They have gone the wrong direction for now 5 :cuss:ing editions.

[Khornestar]

It’s not magical though, at least in the case of the previewed gambit they had to accomplish something extremely unlikely, and then succeed with a dice roll overwhelmingly likely to fail. And perhaps it won’t even be enough, depending on the existing disparity of victory points.

 

Can always house rule this to not use gambits, if the idea of losing because of them is unpalatable. I’d also bet many tournaments etc. aren’t going to use them.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Khornestar

[LostTemplar]

Meh. Hard pass. 

[Marshal Rohr]

GW's incessant war against games becoming unwinnable for one player shows a fundamental lack of understanding of wargames. If you only make it to turn three before you've been thoroughly beaten, just call the game and play another one. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

You have to do something to get a random chance, it isn't just a random chance. In the gambit showed, you must have at least one unit in those locations for it to trigger at all.

Edited April 28, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Karhedron]

17 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Nothing too awful, glad pre selecting secondaries is apparently gone though. 

 

Quote

Each player starts with two Secondary Missions, and can either choose Fixed Missions – which remain in place the whole battle, reliable yet predictable – or take a risk with Tactical Missions, which offer greater rewards but must be replaced with a randomly-drawn card each time they’re completed. Both players can choose a different way to score, so you can play to the strengths of your army.

 

It is hard to tell from the article but I get the impression that you can still select your Fixed Missions. It sounds like it is only the Tactical Missions that are randomly generated. However the article isn't entirely clear and I may be misreading it.

  

17 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Bit weird to have only minimal mission in the rulebook though, because you know its still going to be hecking chonk :D Though im hoping this is just for matched play so there will be a half a dozen others for narrative and open.

 

It is actually just like it is now. The core 40K PDF that you can download from GW has a single simple Only War mission at the end, Most people don't play it though.

[redmapa]

I like the modularity of it, you can make static missions or tempestt of war type, add gambits or not, chhange them up as you see fit and just create all  new missions. Its a nice way to give tools to thhe players and have them figure out the type of game they want all using the samme set of cards.

 

From what I uunderstood theres also a grand tournament pack so if tighter rules is your jam it seems that  option isnt gooing away.

[WrathOfTheLion]

1 minute ago, Karhedron said:

It is hard to tell from the article but I get the impression that you can still select your Fixed Missions. It sounds like it is only the Tactical Missions that are randomly generated. However the article isn't entirely clear and I may be misreading it.

I am hoping faction secondaries are gone, even if fixed secondaries stay for certain types of play. They skew who wins too much and are too hard for GW to pass up trying to balance with them.

[BluejayJunior]

Yeah, I think we need to see how missions are going to play out before going too far into the doom-and-gloom. 

The gambit still only gives 30 VP. If it even works. So you would likely have to have scored something prior to using the gambit and still have to prevent your opponent from scoring their objectives. 

Using the Take and Hold primary objective they showed. Your opponent could score 30 VP in the final 2 turns just from that if you completely give up trying to hold objectives. Granted they would have to be able to hold 3 objectives for 2 turns. But they're still likely still getting points from their secondaries as well. 

So it's a chance to get a big bonus at the end, but isn't guaranteed or very easy. 

[Metzombie]

@KrakenBorn

It is only +3. The first corner does not give a bonus.

[Urauloth]

It seems extremely unlikely that anyone would ever pull off this gambit. It seems kinda pointless. No idea what the others are like, but this whole thing feels a bit like an unnecessary gimmick. Could easily turn into bloat if we start getting more of them in codexes, seasons, warzones etc.

 

Then again, I don't even really like secondaries. I don't see what's wrong with just getting your points from playing the mission. That's what we did back in the day and it was FINE,

[WrathOfTheLion]

Just now, BluejayJunior said:

Yeah, I think we need to see how missions are going to play out before going too far into the doom-and-gloom. 

The gambit still only gives 30 VP. If it even works. So you would likely have to have scored something prior to using the gambit and still have to prevent your opponent from scoring their objectives. 

Using the Take and Hold primary objective they showed. Your opponent could score 30 VP in the final 2 turns just from that if you completely give up trying to hold objectives. Granted they would have to be able to hold 3 objectives for 2 turns. But they're still likely still getting points from their secondaries as well. 

So it's a chance to get a big bonus at the end, but isn't guaranteed or very easy. 

That's why earlier I said it's going to be more useful for the situation where you're losing on points, but you control the battlefield. So if you're T'au playing against Harlequins, and they scored a bunch at the beginning. Now you are more dominant, but have less points, then you have a chance to do something, instead of always getting blown out by a mobile army scoring a ton during the first half of the game. We haven't seen the other gambits, but that's the scenario I see this one coming into play with.

[Verbal Underbelly]

Yeah I'm quite positive. The players themselves can choose whether or not to use Gambits. The rules are a sandbox that you can tinker with. I like the current Tempest deck and this feels like a good evolution of the format.

The wording on the cards looks to be slightly improved as well. Easier to scan during a game.

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, Urauloth said:

It seems extremely unlikely that anyone would ever pull off this gambit. It seems kinda pointless. No idea what the others are like, but this whole thing feels a bit like an unnecessary gimmick. Could easily turn into bloat if we start getting more of them in codexes, seasons, warzones etc.

 

Then again, I don't even really like secondaries. I don't see what's wrong with just getting your points from playing the mission. That's what we did back in the day and it was FINE,

 

Exactly.

 

If its such an unlikely thing to accomplish, its bloat or an outlier that adds nothing to the game.

 

Secondaries have never been needed. Just play the mission, exactly as we used to when the game was playable and quick (comparatively!).

 

I get it GW loves to push their unnecessary decks of stupid cards because they need that sweet sweet profit margin but give me a break.

 

We already pay you thousands for your plastic and cycled rules books GW, maybe even some dice. We dont need these extraneous random subsystems. Like Random Objectives, or Random terrain? Gross.

 

Army.

Dice.

Measure.

Mission Objectives.

 

Simple, call it a day.

[Dark Shepherd]

6 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

I am hoping faction secondaries are gone, even if fixed secondaries stay for certain types of play. They skew who wins too much and are too hard for GW to pass up trying to balance with them.

I can see secondaries being universal and maybe being updated/changed each season

 

Hoping the reduction to 2 secondaries means that or coincides with 10points for painting your army being gone

[Lemondish]

1 hour ago, tzeentch9 said:

Gambits seem really annoying. Seems like it gives you a chance to win games you shouldn't win, robbing people of deserved wins with outrageous luck

 

This is exactly the reason I like them. I hate seeing games conceded after the second turn is through, I'd love an opportunity to pull it back, even if it's very unlikely.

 

It's a dice game - luck will always be a factor.

 

1 hour ago, Sir Clausel said:

Seems good but gambits can ruin it. It needs to be difficult to do and a random dice roll with maybe some bonuses to it seems... Too random instead of difficult for me.

 

I don't know about you, but a game I'm losing will mean it'll be very difficult for me to make it into the opponent's battlefield corners, while also trying to deny them primary (even if I'm no longer gaining those VP, they can). Since they know the Gambits as much as I will, they can predict it ahead of time, too. Can't be battle shocked, can't be in engagement range, and need to be at a specific place all while still relying on a dice roll to succeed. It's a long shot, but the fact that it could be possible is significantly more engaging than an inevitable defeat where we're just going through the motions.

 

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Why are they turning this into a card game? Oh yeah to make more money selling more crap.

 

Spoken like someone who never played the excellent Tempest of War system.

 

37 minutes ago, BrainFireBob said:

One player is being outplayed so change the rules?

 

You're right, it's better to just go through the motions for integrity or whatever

 

Spoiler

 

I absolutely adore Tempest of War and love that folks will get a chance to enjoy it more. Gambit will keep games relevant even if, as Bob says, you're being "outplayed" (or the dice betray you), and that is way, way, way more interesting and engaging a mechanic than just conceding or playing through a lost cause. For folks with a more narrative mindset, just don't use 'em.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Lemondish

[Borbarad]

Tempest of War was my favorite way to play 9th so I’m happy it is taking center stage in 10th. 
 

The gambits are a nice idea in principle. I’m sure in some settings - like turnaments that wish to create an even playing field for both player - they might be to chaotic. 
 

I’m not opposed to the idea, hope they execute it well. Them it might lead to games that are exciting to the very end of the 5th turn. 
 

 

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Is a player losing big conceding the game really an issue?

 

i enjoy the game but I’m not a fan of the 3 hour play time. I don’t mind conceding on T4 if it seems quite evident I have no way to win, saves me time and I can get on with the rest of my day.

 

id personally have much less fun by the end if I tried a gambit and failed because I only rolled a 12 and not a 13.

 

The option for one player to not play a Gambit is always there, but I think it comes back to the social contract between the two players. So long as the two players agree, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

36 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

If the game is so poorly balanced that it needs to randomly introduce a way to inflate a players points total...it's bad.

 

I've read the article twice. Pretty much hate it.

 

I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but it seems like it may be fighting randomness with randomness? A dice-based game may be exceptionally well balanced and one player can then roll straight ones for the first turn. Puts them on the back foot, and now there's a Hail Mary Option to stay in the game.

 

12 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

GW's incessant war against games becoming unwinnable for one player shows a fundamental lack of understanding of wargames. If you only make it to turn three before you've been thoroughly beaten, just call the game and play another one. 

 

*Takes off optimism hat and puts on cynicism hat* I think it's because of broadcast tournament games. It's real boring to have a three hour slot be an hour of play, 15 minutes of the players talking through how one of them can't-maybe?-no, can't win, and call the game. 

[sairence]

For the most part, this is just modified Tempest of War. Which is a fun game mode, though I'm pretty sure tournaments will still go with fixed secondaries.

 

The gambits don't seem that big of a deal at first glance. A fairly small chance to score 30 primary points in exchange for giving up ALL primary scoring in turn 4 and 5 is unlikely to actually turn a one-sided game around. Like...it's cute, but if your game is going so poorly that you think you'll score so few primary points that this long shot is a viable option, you're unlikely to be able to set up much to boost it for the end of the game either.

[Squark]

Comeback mechanics have..  potential, but this sort of thing balances on a knife edge. We'll have to see how eay the other gambits are to pull off, if they all have an element of randomness on top of their activation requirements, and how many points the winning player can pull each turn from primaries and secondaries.