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

[Lemondish]

34 minutes ago, Cruor Vault said:

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.

If you couldn't eliminate a single guardsman after two turns of a very clearly telegraphed goal by stopping them from entering your deployment zone unscathed, all while no longer having to deny them primary objective scoring, then they outplayed you and the dice roll is the least of your problems.

 

They have to both do a nearly impossible task, and roll pretty high to earn this. Your game plan changes at the exact same time - you are no longer competing for primary even while you still score it. Consolidating your forces to eliminate the potential for this gambit could result in you scoring fewer points in this victory than you otherwise would. For tournament play, that is flipping awesome, because some armies are going to be really good at that while others will want to push forward and stick to the primary mission gameplan. For narrative play, that is also flipping awesome, because it creates opportunities for a great story.

 

I can't imagine how any of this feels bad.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

43 minutes ago, AceofCase said:

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. 

I prefer to focus on just killing models so anything that increases the focus on objectives makes the game less fun for me.

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, jaxom said:

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.

 

And this dice-based game (d6 no less) has its variance introduced in such a way.

 

Its no surprise the desire to eliminate the variance (re-rolling, auto success) was done to improve the odds of success because we are still stuck on the d6 with its lack of granularity. The dice rolling is where the excitement came in. Can you make that charge to save the turn? Can you make the saves to hold your ground? Can you push enough attacks/wounds to make a difference in this engagement?

 

Thats the actual gameplay loop.

 

"Can you draw a card to luck sack a win when you have already been thrashed?"

 

No, I decline to participate in that.

[AceofCase]

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I prefer to focus on just killing models so anything that increases the focus on objectives makes the game less fun for me.

I prefer objective based missions and anything that focuses on purely killing models makes the game less fun for me. I hated rolling the kill points mission back in 7th edition. Take secondaries that give you points for killing enemy models and I'll take ones that don't. That's GW's solution to this. 

[Redcomet]

1 hour 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.

 

If the game is going so bad, concede the game and play again. 
 

Getting your win taken away because of a lucky card draw will epically suck

[Matrindur]

I like the idea of gambits but I really don't like that it includes a dice roll, make them hard challenges but also challenges that are based on the players skill not luck

Edited April 28, 2023 by Matrindur

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, Matrindur said:

I like the idea of gambits but I really don't like that it includes a dice roll, make them hard challenges but also challenges that are based on the players skill not luck

 

This isnt an FPS. The moment dice hit the table 'skill' is questionable.

[Doobles57]

I don't mind the gambits too much, but I largely play with a social group where such things will be considered funny when they get pulled off.

 

If you don't like them, don't use them. Simple.

 

Given that this mission set is being lined up to cover everything from pick-up games to tournaments, I can see most tournaments not using them at all, as well as specifying deployments, primary objectives etc. as they do now (fairly certain that most tournaments don't have you roll for the mission at the table right?).

[Scribe]

3 minutes ago, Doobles88 said:

If you don't like them, don't use them. Simple.

 

As long as they are relegated to 'unused random system' for pickup/matched play, like many other features GW has tried to push on us, sure, great.

[CCE1981]

Too much doom and gloom for only enough information to get an inkling.
 
Gambits are a different deck, if you don’t like them don’t use them. 

 

I enjoy having objectives in a game.   Objectives other than just kill your opponent.  Makes the game feel like it has more weight to it.  Like there is something to fight over for bigger objectives.  Removing your opponents models as a consequence to trying to grab an objective feels better to me.  
 

Dropping the number of things I have to remember and keep track of is a win for me.  I really didn’t like all the objectives and having to analyze which ones would be best against my opponent really dragged the game down for me.  It was one of the biggest time sinks in the game.  I can play a simple shoot my opponent 2,000 pt game in less than an hour, playing certain friends that know their army.  Adding all the objective analysis and tracking really added so much weight.  When someone introduced me to Tempest of War games went up to about an hour and a half and were fine.  
 

Really the card are just an easier way to do deployments and everything.  I don’t need to open to a table if I can say ‘pick a card’.  

[Squark]

29 minutes ago, Redcomet said:

If the game is going so bad, concede the game and play again. 
 

Getting your win taken away because of a lucky card draw will epically suck

It's not nearly so simple. If I make a logical guess based on the points shown in the only primary and gambit we've seen, it looks like the points for scoring a gambit will be equivalent to scoring max points on turn 4 and 5 (30 points)- So if you're behind by 15 points on turn 3 and go for a gambit and succeed, but your opponent scores 10 points on turn 4 and turn 5, your opponent would still have a 5 point lead and win. Furthermore, it's not like the Gambit we've seen doesn't have counterplay- You can clear them out of corners to reduce their bonus to their roll, battleshock them, or tie them down in melee. For that matter, trying for a gambit doesn't mean you can forget about the primary objective because if you do, your opponent scores the full 30 points as well and the score difference doesn't change.

 

Actually, gambits seem less likely to change the outcome of a match as they are to give the loser a chance to gamble for better tiebreaker stats as I look at it.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Squark

[Marshal Mittens]

I think its interesting. I really like sweep and clear so you don't need to park on objectives, seems like there will be a lot more movement and a lot of reasons to spread out.

 

Probably not perfect, but its an interesting change. I know a lot of games seem kinda decided by the end of round 2 or 3 so adding a way for a come back seems interesting. Hopefully this edition will be less killy so we can have enough units left to achieve these gambit, reasonably. 

[Emicus]

54 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

If you couldn't eliminate a single guardsman after two turns of a very clearly telegraphed goal by stopping them from entering your deployment zone unscathed, all while no longer having to deny them primary objective scoring, then they outplayed you and the dice roll is the least of your problems.

 

They have to both do a nearly impossible task, and roll pretty high to earn this. Your game plan changes at the exact same time - you are no longer competing for primary even while you still score it. Consolidating your forces to eliminate the potential for this gambit could result in you scoring fewer points in this victory than you otherwise would. For tournament play, that is flipping awesome, because some armies are going to be really good at that while others will want to push forward and stick to the primary mission gameplan. For narrative play, that is also flipping awesome, because it creates opportunities for a great story.

 

I can't imagine how any of this feels bad.

It's either useless or it's too good.  It's also a big gotcha when your opponent is suddenly playing a different game than you are halfway through.

 

Gonna need some hard playing yo figure out where it lands

[phandaal]

These changes look great. Standardized secondaries, option for Tempest-style objectives at each player's discretion? Sounds awesome. Tempest of War is the best way to play 40k, and GW gets big props for incorporating that in to the "main" game.

 

And Gambits are just something that a winning player has to account for when they are playing the game. If you know up front that your opponent has a chance to do it, then you take it into account while you are playing. There will still be blowout games, just maybe slightly less often now.

 

Hell, you or your opponent might achieve the Gambit and still lose, but at least you have that memory. Sometimes losing is not so bad when you pull off that fun Hail Mary before the end.

[WrathOfTheLion]

5 minutes ago, Emicus said:

It's either useless or it's too good.  It's also a big gotcha when your opponent is suddenly playing a different game than you are halfway through.

 

Gonna need some hard playing yo figure out where it lands

Is it really a gotcha? As the opponent, you'd've had to have drawn a gambit card as well, so it can't exactly be out of left field.

 

They also happen at a fixed time in the game (turn 3), and you're all supposed to have the same options. When they reveal theirs, you're also supposed to either choose to enact it or not.

Edited April 28, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[gideon stargreave]

Gambits sound absolutely amazing. It makes the game feel so cinematic. Where a simple recon mission can become a desperate fight for survival, or a border skirmish becomes a chance to assassinate a key leader. Brilliant idea.

it also adds so much more of the ‘war’ to the war game. Currently 40k is a battle game, and gambits add the sense that there is a sun tzu somewhere in orbit taking advantages where they appear.

[Isual]

ITCers will LOVE gambits 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Games used to take two hours, including setup and deployment, and last the full turn limit. Conceding was the mark of a bad player; objectives scored at the end of the game, and allowed a good player to actually work towards their victory. 

 

Progressive scoring, from both the 8ths itc house rules and 9ths adaptation, has lead to longer games that are somehow more predetermined and end in concessions. Adding a janky end game scoring to encourage hail Mary wins and fewer concedes misses that the actual cause of the problem; their progressive scoring model. 

 

 

[Dried]

Love this.

 

Tempest of War was ma favourite game mode in 9th and I really didn't like preselecting objective in the match play base mode.

Gambit here seems like a great addition to have memorable games so I'm totally on board.

[Frogian]

Quote

 

These objectives are scattered across a battlefield of 44″x60″ at Incursion (1,000 points) and Strike Force size (2,000 points), or 44″x90″ for an Onslaught game (3,000+ points). With both players deployed on the short edges, It’s the perfect theatre for a thrilling battle.

[OttoVonAwesome]

Gambits are cool. It's not even the loser that can activate them the winning player can do it to try and seal his advantage too. Hating on the mechanic beacuase someone who's losing can still win is about the least sportsmanlike thing I've ever heard. 

[Ammonius]

As a player who lost every (weekly or so) game of 7th edition, I like the idea of Gambits.

As a player who will only be playing friends who can agree on what is and isn't in effect for a game, I like Gambits.

 

 

(With only the examples we have seen so far) We will have to see how hard it is to get 31 points ahead of your opponent by turn 3. I'm sure there will be some mathematicians that will plot a graph showing what the points deficit needs to be for taking the Gambit to be a good idea. 

 

I think that if there are battles where someone wins by 1 point because they rolled high on a Gambit, then that will become a funny story in the local gamer group.

[MoshJason]

1 hour ago, Redcomet said:

If the game is going so bad, concede the game and play again. 
 

Getting your win taken away because of a lucky card draw will epically suck

 

But that's the thing - it's not really "luck" - it's a rubber-band mechanism, similar to what a lot of videogames do.

If your losing, and you look at the board and go, yeah, I'm not coming back, but draw a gambit that *you might* be able to pull off, well, great. Your opponent can stop it - like, in this case, the opponent can easily prevent you from being able to call in the orbital strike - and if they "miss one guardsman" as someone said, well, it's a 2.7% chance for them to get it, and you didn't win thoroughly enough to prevent that. And even if they do do that - it only adds points to their score. It's possible for someone to succeed with a gambit - and still lose.  If your not good enough to prevent that, than maybe you don't deserve the win?

Like, I don't really understand the hate for a mechanic that should make the game feel better? Is winning so important to everyone that they don't just have to win, they have to crush the opponents spirit into the dust? I mean, this is a game lol the social contract is that we are *both* supposed to have fun. 

EDIT: I am also seeing some confusion - Gambits also don't prevent your opponent from scoring primaries, just the player who plays the gambit.

Edited April 28, 2023 by MoshJason

[Squark]

I'm also seeing some confusion, or at least misleading language- as to how gambits are selected. You don't really "draw" a gambit, at least not in the same way that drawing from a deck of cards works. Both players have the same 3 gambit cards. At the end of turn 3, both players discard a random gambit card (To ensure you can't guarantee you get a specific one and thus can't do too much prepping for it in the first 60% of the game). They then choose either one of the remaining two gambits or a fourth card that indicates you're keeping the primary.

 

The only gambit and only primary objective we've seen have the same maximum score for the turns they're available. So if you're trailing in this scenario, the gambit only wins you the game if you score it and keep your opponent from maxing their primary VPs turn 4 and 5 (And maybe not then if the deficit ia large enough)- In the example game we're working with, this means the player attempting to pull of the gambit needs to keep their opponent from holding objectives while also scrambling units to reach the four corners (Which are presumably nowhere near said objectives)

Edited April 28, 2023 by Squark

[phandaal]

28 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

EDIT: I am also seeing some confusion - Gambits also don't prevent your opponent from scoring primaries, just the player who plays the gambit.

 

We can also assume that some kind of cap on Primary VP will still be in place. You or your opponent may be close to the Primary cap, but way behind or ahead on the secondary mission score, in which case the Gambit will not make much difference.

 

This is really only for the times when someone is just completely unable to score on the Primary mission for whatever reason.