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

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Doobles88 said:

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?).

Again easy to say, but then horribly unbalances the game if your opponent  chooses to use them…people said the same thing about strats.

[Karhedron]

2 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

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. 

 

The trouble with end of game scoring is that it gives a big advantage to the player who goes second. Any player who can keep a modest number of fast units intact could simply sweep the opponent off the Objectives in the final turn without fear of retaliation. I played a lot of games in 3rd-5th that ended this way.

 

I agree the book-keeping of continuous scoring is really tedious but at least it means all turns matter, not just the last one.

[BluejayJunior]

15 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

The trouble with end of game scoring is that it gives a big advantage to the player who goes second. Any player who can keep a modest number of fast units intact could simply sweep the opponent off the Objectives in the final turn without fear of retaliation. I played a lot of games in 3rd-5th that ended this way.

 

I agree the book-keeping of continuous scoring is really tedious but at least it means all turns matter, not just the last one.

I would say the bookkeeping of secondary objectives is tedious. For progressive primary, it isn't too bad usually, imo. 

[Scribe]

16 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

The trouble with end of game scoring is that it gives a big advantage to the player who goes second.

 

Wait, wait. I thought going second meant you were already shot off the board?

[OttoVonAwesome]

I was looking at the mission rules and thought Gambits would also be great to give army builds that are poorly suited to the main objective a fighting chance as well. For example an army that has lots of cheap fast moving or scouting units like Tyranids is gonna have a clear advantage when it comes to sticky objectives over something like Votaan who have no hope in hell of keeping up without lot's of points invested in transports. 

 

Seems to me the idea of Gambits is also partially a balance factor for these randomly generated missions and the disparities between forces they can create.

 

edit- Hoping this mission style does become the tournment standard cuase nothing really bothered me more than the oppressive sameness of every single bloody battle in 9th with terrain always being the same no matter what and people choosing secondaries the games became very predictable with certain opponents always making the exact same moves. Going up against Deathwing Doug for the 15th identical rematch was pretty boring. Yes my group were not big fans of Tempest of War.

Edited April 28, 2023 by OttoVonAwesome

[Shield-Captain]

Can’t really believe the weeping and gnashing of teeth over something as silly and unlikely to be achieved as a gambit. The one shown doesn’t seem to automatically guarantee a player a win so I’m not sure why it’s so contentious.

 

I guess I can commiserate with people who are crushing their opponent for 3 turns only to find themselves on the wrong side of a gambit but I am a much bigger fan of the underdog who pulled off a miraculous upset. Imagine how your opponent felt when you were slaughtering them for 3 turns due to *gasp* some good luck. Then the fortune changes teams. That’s way more fun.

 

Perhaps we need to reconsider what we’re doing here if winning is more important than fun. It’s a game of toy soldiers after all. 
 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

16 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Wait, wait. I thought going second meant you were already shot off the board?

 Not if everything is in reserves!

[Scribe]

10 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

 Not if everything is in reserves!

 

But then you have given up board control! Its impossible that the game was actually played successfully before we had all these unnecessary subsystems, simply impossible! /s

[Scribe]

21 minutes ago, Shield-Captain said:

It’s a game

 

This part right here? This is the part people who have been put off for the last 4 editions (looking like 5!), want to get back to.

 

A game of reasonable time investment, with logical rules, that are a decent abstraction of the lore of the setting which one can roll up to a table suggest "1500 points?" roll up the mission, and play inside an hour and a half with another person without pre-planning.

 

So, not stratagems, not command points, not apocalypse type formations and rules, not hyper inflated damage profiles, and not random 'oh it will never work, but you have to try' subsystems.

[Sea Creature]

Gambits just reek of Seize the Initiative… will geedub ever learn?

[phandaal]

43 minutes ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

Going up against Deathwing Doug for the 15th identical rematch was pretty boring. Yes my group were not big fans of Tempest of War.

 

As a Deathwing Doug (and sometimes Greenwing G'Doug), at least until GW finally gave me my Squats, Tempest of War was the most fun I had this whole edition.

 

Getting people to try it though, that was like pulling teeth. And God forbid I won the game because good luck getting that person to do something besides Matched Play again.

 

Really happy to see Tempest included as part of the missions themselves rather than a separate game mode.

[Scribe]

6 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

As a Deathwing Doug (and sometimes Greenwing G'Doug), at least until GW finally gave me my Squats, Tempest of War was the most fun I had this whole edition.

 

Getting people to try it though, that was like pulling teeth. And God forbid I won the game because good luck getting that person to do something besides Matched Play again.

 

Really happy to see Tempest included as part of the missions themselves rather than a separate game mode.

 

Here's the thing though. If enough people need to have their teeth pulled to play it, maybe, just maybe, its not something they want in the game?

 

There is a reason people resist these things. I dont want to play these things. I dont want strats. I didnt want Random Objectives. I sure as hell didnt want Random Terrain back when that was proposed.

 

I want to build my army, within a reasonable FoC (also dead, thanks GW) at a reasonable 'matched play recommended' size (hint its not 2000 points and above, thanks GW) have a set of standard missions which are in the core book, with a number of deployment types, setting up terrain with my opponent, and then, rolling up the mission/deployment/who goes first. Then I want the game to end, inside an hour and a half.

 

Thats it. Thats all 40K needs to be for a matched play, pickup game experience.

 

That isnt to say these systems must NEVER exist, or that they cannot have their place, but its not the core gameplay that seemingly many are after.

 

If it was, people wouldnt be against it, and they would be playing more Crusade.

[Toxichobbit]

9 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Here's the thing though. If enough people need to have their teeth pulled to play it, maybe, just maybe, its not something they want in the game?

 

There is a reason people resist these things. I dont want to play these things. I dont want strats. I didnt want Random Objectives. I sure as hell didnt want Random Terrain back when that was proposed.

 

I want to build my army, within a reasonable FoC (also dead, thanks GW) at a reasonable 'matched play recommended' size (hint its not 2000 points and above, thanks GW) have a set of standard missions which are in the core book, with a number of deployment types, setting up terrain with my opponent, and then, rolling up the mission/deployment/who goes first. Then I want the game to end, inside an hour and a half.

 

Thats it. Thats all 40K needs to be for a matched play, pickup game experience.

 

That isnt to say these systems must NEVER exist, or that they cannot have their place, but its not the core gameplay that seemingly many are after.

 

If it was, people wouldnt be against it, and they would be playing more Crusade.

 

GW spent 2 editions trying to push power level on people, before they gave up. Last edition they decided to push secondary objectives (even Crusade had it's own form of them). Now they're pushing this. It'll always be something with the current design team. A basic game isn't good enough for them, they need their gimmicks. It feels like Jervis' advice to budding games designers from years ago has been forgotten, that sometimes you have to kill your darlings. Because more and more 40k rules feel like somebody ins the design team is in love with a certain way of playing and is trying to push it on to everybody.

 

I don't necessarily think that any of these ideas are bad. I just think they should be optional. A solid set of core rules, missions and simple army building and everything else, be it Crusade, secondaries, tempest of war, gambits or whatever, should be optional play modes/rules. They need to put their money where their mouth is and actually give different ways to play, rather than it being "you will play this way".

 

And before anybody says "if you don't like those rules then don't use them", remember that there's two people playing a game and a pool of opponents to play against. It's much easier to say "Hey, want to try out X game mode?" than it is to get anyone to agree to remove part of the core rules.

[phandaal]

6 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Here's the thing though. If enough people need to have their teeth pulled to play it, maybe, just maybe, its not something they want in the game?

 

It is not Tempest of War that people are against. Had the same trouble with getting people to play Open War, where you just pick a single objective for both armies for the entire game. Anything besides - Current GT Mission Pack. Believe me, I have tried. You want Current Thing though? EZ, when do to want to play?

 

I think mainly it is because people want to build their armies to win a single kind of game mode, and learn to win that kind of game mode, and they do not want to try other game modes because then they might not have as much chance of winning.

 

Most people want "the standard thing," whatever that is. That is just how people are.

[Dr. Clock]

This will work a treat for my admittedly very casual games: Tempest was already a standard for us, but I like the asymmetry of having different 'kinds' of objectives between opponents.

 

A ripcord to choose whether to 'go big or go home' on primary in the last half through gambits is interesting. Admittedly at first blush it seems like a thing that'll either be used too much (half of games or more) or not enough (1 in 10 games or less), whereas in a world where they were used in about 1/4 games and successful about half the time they're used (from behind) seems roughly ideal. I do think it's important to give players an option for playing 'a different game' than the basic/predictable 'grab objectives' if they've built a list that's better at kiting than trading. This coming from a notorious player of elves, but still... and knowing when to hold or challenge and when to concede on primaries creates some potentially excellent late game dynamics.

 

Narratively we always fudge a concessation as 'the remaining forces retreat to avoid complete devastation', but if there's a half a chance that that can 'actually become a plan that works out for them' then I'll happily play through that kind of 'retreat/rearguard' action to play for a tie or turnover if it's interesting.

 

Of course sometimes leafblowers happen, but 'competitive 9th' seemed in the main to be a trading game on objectives with fiddly bits at the edges, until those army-specific fiddly bits took over to 'making the list good' through asymmetrical secondaries. It seems like that (admittedly fun!) trading game is still there for anyone to play into, you now won't have the total security of knowing that the opponent will necessarily challenge you there (all game). And to that I say: security doesn't exist if you want to follow this game where it's going. It never has: this is a developmental, iterative design process!

 

I basically adore the intent of this system, which is apparently to create achievable, dynamic, interactive, asymmetrical and choice-driven missions for everyone so that you have to use both tactics and strategy during this strategy game instead of sometimes only in the 'mission phase' or indeed in the first and second turns.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

 

[Scribe]

9 minutes ago, phandaal said:

Most people want "the standard thing," whatever that is. That is just how people are.

 

Totally fair, and I cannot fault the logic of "I am building to this specification." when the 'building' part consists of quite literally hundreds if not thousands of dollars in product + X amount of time to prepare it for play.

[Khornestar]

15 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

And before anybody says "if you don't like those rules then don't use them", remember that there's two people playing a game and a pool of opponents to play against. It's much easier to say "Hey, want to try out X game mode?" than it is to get anyone to agree to remove part of the core rules.

Perhaps an answer would be, “suck it up and enjoy the experience as much as you can in spite of the feature(s) you don’t love” instead of getting no games whatsoever?
 

Legitimately, this is what I believe. No edition is perfect, but the game can still be enjoyed. And if not, then that’s that, I suppose. Time for a new hobby, if it proves to be truly impossible.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Khornestar

[Scribe]

3 minutes ago, Khornestar said:

Perhaps an answer would be, “suck it up and enjoy the experience as much as you can in spite of the feature(s) you don’t love” instead of getting no games whatsoever?

 

No, I'll just choose no games to playing one that is not enjoyable. Just like 9th, and most of 8th.

[phandaal]

5 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Totally fair, and I cannot fault the logic of "I am building to this specification." when the 'building' part consists of quite literally hundreds if not thousands of dollars in product + X amount of time to prepare it for play.

 

Yeah. Even if people never pick up a single die, a lot of them will still build with the expectation that whatever unit they have will see use in a certain kind of game.

 

Think the same thing will happen with 10th edition's standard missions, which is why I am happy those missions will contain elements of a game mode I really enjoy.

[Karhedron]

24 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Totally fair, and I cannot fault the logic of "I am building to this specification." when the 'building' part consists of quite literally hundreds if not thousands of dollars in product + X amount of time to prepare it for play.

 

All my armies have far more units than I can field at any one time. I suspect I have models painted for all my armies that haveyet to see the tabletop. I am not going to pretend that GW models are cheap but I don't know anyone who has built a fixed X points list and just stopped. Apart from anything else, running the same list all the time gets boring, even if it is successful.

 

GW changing the meta of the game does not bother me particularly as I just rotate my unit selection a bit.

[Interrogator Stobz]

6 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

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

This statement proves their worth.

If someone is winning through luck and only questionable skill, then it is only fair that they can lose through luck.

 

Also the underlying issue is that if someone cannot enjoy their opponent winning after completing the difficult requirements of these Hail Mary's, from a losing position, then rolling extraordinarily luckily, then the issue is with the first player. 

 

The best and most memorable games have these moments.

No one cares about being  ROFLStomped or winning super easily in a boring one sided environment. They remember special moments.

 

 

.... but I do also support the notion of only having Primary Objectives like the good old days. Sometimes simple is best.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Interrogator Stobz
Sp.

[Scribe]

3 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

This statement proves their worth.

If someone is winning through luck and only questionable skill, then it is only fair that they can lose through luck.

 

Also the underlying issue is that if someone cannot enjoy their opponent winning after completing the difficult requirements of these Hail Mary's, from a losing position, then rolling extraordinarily luckily, then the issue is with the first player. 

 

The best and most memorable games have these moments.

No one cares about being  ROFLStomped or winning super easily in a boring one sided environment. They remember special moments.

 

.... but I do also support the motion of only having Primary Objectives like the good old days. Sometimes simple is best.

 

Its all about ones personal tolerance for random/layers/systems.

 

I'd argue 40K at its best didnt need all these things, as the core rules + humble d6 was sufficient to add variance to the gameplay, others want more.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Khornestar said:

Perhaps an answer would be, “suck it up and enjoy the experience as much as you can in spite of the feature(s) you don’t love” instead of getting no games whatsoever?
 

Legitimately, this is what I believe. No edition is perfect, but the game can still be enjoyed. And if not, then that’s that, I suppose. Time for a new hobby, if it proves to be truly impossible.

Ah yes, suck it up and play a game you don’t like. 
that’s a totally logical response.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

45 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

This statement proves their worth.

If someone is winning through luck and only questionable skill, then it is only fair that they can lose through luck.

 

Also the underlying issue is that if someone cannot enjoy their opponent winning after completing the difficult requirements of these Hail Mary's, from a losing position, then rolling extraordinarily luckily, then the issue is with the first player. 

 

The best and most memorable games have these moments.

No one cares about being  ROFLStomped or winning super easily in a boring one sided environment. They remember special moments.

 

 

.... but I do also support the notion of only having Primary Objectives like the good old days. Sometimes simple is best.

If that’s the case why not just set up armies, roll off and whoever got higher wins, then pack the armies back up?

 

sure really bad luck resulting in you failing basically everything can and does happen, but it’s not a common occurrence.

 

the game relies on skill at least as much as luck. If you run your WL out into the open ahead of any other models, even with bad luck your opponent will likely kill it.

skill can get you into a position to target an enemy character, bad luck can keep that character alive, but the averages for a lot of units depending on factions, will kill that WL or bring him so low an opponent can’t afford to take any risks with him.

[jaxom]

There’s a reason Grimdark Future Firefight and the other 1PR systems are gaining popularity.