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

[Sea Creature]

"10th looks like it will be different to the blatant mathhammer of 8th and 9th…"

 

This is simply untrue. 9th edition is a strategic game, it’s not just about blasting your opponent off the table. The developers worked hard to maintain balance between factions. You are rewarded for playing tactically, not simply bringing the most guns you can squeeze into your army list.

[ThePenitentOne]

I came to the discussion late, so this is going to seem like a real non-sequitur, but...

 

If their are expansion decks every season, and you can swap in cards from other sets, you could build really interesting campaign decks for narrative play. Curious to see about the implementation. 

 

I've been negative about a few specific rules reveals- I'd prefer the swap in two-pagers be based on subfaction rather than detachment, and I liked psychics having a selection of powers to choose from, rather than having them assigned.

 

I'm also nervous about a loss of detail once they reveal 10th's Crusade equivalent, but that hasn't happened yet, so I remain hopeful.

 

Other than that, I'm generally positive about what we've seen so far.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Edit: MEH. 

 

 

In my own honest opinion making the game swing more is fantastic. 

Even in tournament situations. 

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Interrogator Stobz

[Scribe]

3 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

 

Which is great

 

My local community played ITC rules throughout 8th which was what inspired secondaries in 9th. 

 

Playing secondaries really makes the game have more depth beyond just "my dudes shoot your dudes".

 

If you play 4 games in 2 months and can't even manage to play until turn 5 then I'm sure that's not a problem; but the rest of us who actively play the game probably enjoy the variety.

 

I like making my list and planning for secondaries. I like dropping a unit of inceptors at the back of the board to steal an objective and score me linebreaker.

 

It doesn't matter if you’re armies losing if you have that little guy scoring an objective for you; it's the free people of middle earth fighting an impossible battle at the gates to Mordor while Frodo climbs mount doom, or it's a bunch of space wolves throwing their lives away while one guy infiltrates behind enemy lines to stop a long planned warp ritual that would claim a large portion of a sector for chaos and the immaterium.

 

 

See, I dont think we disagree as much as it may appear to the peanut gallery. 

[TheMawr]

10 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

There is nothing to debate honestly.

 

You are probably (hopefully) correct that gambits are irrelevant. Its the design principle however, the idea of the 'spiny shell' as a game design element, for some is great, for others its a joke. You can probably imagine what side of the line I sit on.

 

Actually if it works like the "spiny shell" its not the worst thing to happen.. as even with it there is still a need of timing and tactics to win, and the same can be used to overcome it.. both sides of the coin  still need to play tactical, my griefance is more with the "rocket bill" of that context... where a bad player trough a stroke of simple luck can sit back and come out the winner.

 

Im not too versed into rules, but from what I understand so far it seems (extreme examples.) a whole lot of grotz cant take out a knight anymore, while in contrary to before the latter can hold objectives just as well. (if I understand previous rules and the 10th edition articles properly.)  wich means some battles are decided the moment each side reveals their armies.

 

The gambit they shown seems a wild card for such a situation.. meaning its risky for a player to put all their trust in a single hard to kill objective controlling unit (or a couple of them.)

Its there to make sure army selection remains a tactical choice as opposed to just taking the heaviest meanest OC unit and camp it. Or at least thats how I perceive it so far, after all they only said bigger stuff is more durable and can control objectives like "troops" .. we havent seen anything yet ofcourse.

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

In my own honest opinion making the game swing more is fantastic. 

Even in tournament situations. 

 

Sure, but it depends on how it is implemented. Rolling 2D6 at the start of every turn and getting 10 VP on double 6’s would be “swingy” but it would feel unearned and bad. As others have pointed out, the orbital strike gambit will be hard to execute in practice when losing, but it creates an unsettling precedent of luck in a single event swinging a game.

 

I used to play Hearthstone a fair bit, and there used to be a card in it called Yogg Saron who would cast a random spell for every spell cast that game by the controlling player. He could pull of ridiculous comebacks by casting defensive spells on you, nukes on your opponent, and token summons all at once. Or he could cast a bunch of do-nothing spells. Or he could nuke his own casting player. It was totally random and potentially very swingy, but it took no real skill. You just plopped him down in a bad situation and crossed your fingers. 

There were high dollar tourney games settled by lucky Yogg casts. It was stupid, and devalued the skill of the game that preceded the Yogg cast.

 

None of which is to say that balance should not be improved, but that’s a separate issue, and one that should come about with lowered lethality.

 

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I agree, balance, lowered lethality and controlled swing.

Back in the day if you rolled to hit a Landraider with a Melta up close then threw twin sixes you killed it.

Both skill and luck were needed.

Those are the games you remember. 

Not, I threw 50 dice and predicted how many of X opponent died, and they did because math.

[Scribe]

8 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Not, I threw 50 dice and predicted how many of X opponent died, and they did because math.

 

Remember when I mentioned variance, and 9th (to be fair it started in 7th I think) editions crusade against it via masses of dice and rerolls? Yeah thats what you are describing as the impact.

 

Variance matters. Since we are stuck with the d6 it seems, rerolls need to be aggressively limited or the game does devolve into what you are calling 'mathhammer'.

[Interrogator Stobz]

100% agree with that. Variance is awesome.

Rerolls are definitely an issue. Looks like they are toned down a bit for 10th, from what I've seen anyway. 

[Evil Eye]

Gambits seem like a kind of interesting idea, honestly, and a nice way of adding extra flavour/narrative to the game. Plus, being cards, it should be easy enough for groups to selectively blacklist individual gambits if they're infuriating to play against.

[phandaal]

51 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

If their are expansion decks every season, and you can swap in cards from other sets, you could build really interesting campaign decks for narrative play. Curious to see about the implementation. 

 

Would be surprised if there are not. If GW keeps to their GT mission pack schedule, they will need to keep putting out new card packs.

 

This was one thing I always hoped they would do more of with Tempest of War. Mission decks seem like such an obvious thing.

[Malakithe]

I really hope they dont add faction specific secondaries again and even worse gambits. Trying to play around secondaries is toxic :cuss: gameplay 

[Interrogator Stobz]

New missions and objectives are great. They create new and 'fair' ways to play.

 

New ways to build your army or make it easier to win create the dreaded bloat.....

Please GW,  avoid the: "now, which suppliment or campaign book suddenly makes my army better than it was a minute ago again?" At all cost.

[Malakithe]

3 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

New missions and objectives are great. They create new and 'fair' ways to play.

 

New ways to build your army or make it easier to win create the dreaded bloat.....

Please GW,  avoid the: "now, which suppliment or campaign book suddenly makes my army better than it was a minute ago again?" At all cost.

This is why I hate secondaries to begin with. Forcing me to build a list around a couple sentences on a card is not why I play this game.

[bigtrouble]

Gambits seem utterly ridiculous from a competitive perspective, but I love that they’ve gone to the card system for casual mission selection. How fun!

[Sea Creature]

I’m really glad we will play the same secondaries. There was some in 9th that were just too easy to score.

[Malakithe]

1 hour ago, KrakenBorn said:

 

We're all different as I really preferred the introduction of secondaries into 9th. I'm curious though why do you play the game if you don’t mind me asking? More of a narrative player? Would you just prefer the old 8th edition "Hold objectives and kill the warlord/linebreaker"?

 

Sorry to pry but just trying to get a better understanding of the alternative options potentially down the road.

I guess all of that. I just like putting models on the table and playing for the sake of playing. What I dont like thou is losing because I didnt tailor a list to a faction specific thing that requires a specific unit to perform a specific action x. We have seen over and over how badly that messes things up from a balance point of view. Look at Necrons...they lived and died by secondaries alone. Not by models, tactics, or their datasheets(ok sometimes datasheets), but by some obscure ass sentences on a card. Its not balanced and its not fun.  

[FarvegNugan]

1 hour ago, bigtrouble said:

Gambits seem utterly ridiculous from a competitive perspective, but I love that they’ve gone to the card system for casual mission selection. How fun!

I think not, only to someone with a waac attitude. In fact gambits make it more competitive, they allow for leeway for a bad early turn or facing some uncreative a d beardy alpha strike list. 

 

    Someone who builds their list around exploits will hate it sure, but really it actuakly makes things more even 

[sairence]

9 minutes ago, FarvegNugan said:

I think not, only to someone with a waac attitude. In fact gambits make it more competitive, they allow for leeway for a bad early turn or facing some uncreative a d beardy alpha strike list. 

 

    Someone who builds their list around exploits will hate it sure, but really it actuakly makes things more even

 

I don't think Gambits will factor much at all competitively tbh. 

 

If the match is going so badly, that you think it's better to trust a low percentage dice roll in exchange for giving up 2 whole turns of primary scoring, while your opponent can continue getting those points AND thwart your efforts...I doubt you'll be able to even pull it off. Or, if you do, that those 30 VP will actually be enough to swing the game.

 

They seem like a great narrative objective, but I can't really imagine a realistic overall scenario where picking them in a competitive setting will be a good choice. So I just don't think they're worth getting upset about.

Edited April 29, 2023 by sairence
Forgot something

[OttoVonAwesome]

55 minutes ago, sairence said:

 

I don't think Gambits will factor much at all competitively tbh. 

 

If the match is going so badly, that you think it's better to trust a low percentage dice roll in exchange for giving up 2 whole turns of primary scoring, while your opponent can continue getting those points AND thwart your efforts...I doubt you'll be able to even pull it off. Or, if you do, that those 30 VP will actually be enough to swing the game.

 

They seem like a great narrative objective, but I can't really imagine a realistic overall scenario where picking them in a competitive setting will be a good choice. So I just don't think they're worth getting upset about.

I think they will factor. Especially at the top tiers and in very closely matched games you'll see people go for them if they think they got a solid chance at pulling it off. We have only seen one and depending on the state of your match the risk may very well be worth the reward. Not every game will call for it cuase you may be too far gone or just in no position to achieve the conditions of the cards you pulled but it's definitely gonna be a thing to consider always and I think shifting objectives is just such a damn cool concept for a wargame it's probably gonna turn out to be the most fun thing about the edition. Stuff like that is the kinda thing people talk about weeks after a game is over.

[The Unseen]

Gambits aren't a bad idea, comeback mechanics can be very useful in preventing games from being "over' after turn 2, but they're potential landmines of poor balance. But if faction secondaries are gone and everyone has access to the same set of objectives overall, even if in an individual game the players have different objectives, that'll probably be balancable in theory, and hopefully in practice. The Gambit shown is so difficult to do however, that I don't see it being very viable. Even if you basically table your opponent and end up in all 4 corners at the end of the game but somehow couldn't have just stood on the Primary points (Maybe the opponent is playing a 9th ed deathwing list and has nothing but slow tough melee units hogging the primary?), you then have a <~30% chance of scoring effectively a maxed primary turn 4 and 5. That *really* isn't something to bet a game on, but is just plausible enough you might try and play it out. Definitely not going to be the go-to gameplan with that high a risk of failure. Which is good, if a Gambit(s) are too reliable, people will just start building to do them rather than primary and play solitaire, ala Necrons or Harlequins, where what the opponents plan is doesn't really matter

 

I'm glad their bringing the number of secondaries down to 2, imo they could've dropped it too just one unique chosen secondary even, but 2 is still better. When you have 3 things requiring specific actions, and your opponent also has 3 things their looking to do to score points, its a lot of moving parts to keep track off. If the secondary list gets tweaked/expanded upon and everyone has the same list, be a lot less load on the memory banks after the initial learning curve. Same with USR's, once you learn it you don't have to learn every factions slightly different version of it. Trying to remember every factions current FAQed secondary list in 9th currently is a mess. Making it 2 choices from a list everyone shares is a good thing. I like progressive scoring overall, as its led the game away from the 2 previous supreme archetypes that ruled 40k for years, Pure Gunline and Hit and Run style armies, that look to never interact with the opponent on anything other than favorable ground and kill everything, and score all the points at the end of the game.

 

But some late game scoring options for grindier armies should be possible, otherwise we run into the current 9th problem of armies that do most of their killing from range have their lethality dialed way way up so they can kill the opponent by turn 3 and then sometimes still lose on points, which doesn't really feel good for either player. Hunkering down on objectives, getting tabled while barely doing any damage to the army thats shredding you, and then winning on points at the end somehow feels like a mutual loss. Like playing against Knights in earlier editions.

[BrainFireBob]

12 hours ago, FarvegNugan said:

I think not, only to someone with a waac attitude. In fact gambits make it more competitive, they allow for leeway for a bad early turn or facing some uncreative a d beardy alpha strike list. 

 

    Someone who builds their list around exploits will hate it sure, but really it actuakly makes things more even 

Describing anyone who dislikes gambits as WAAC, which is considered insulting in general, is offensive. It is also dismissive of all opinions that differ from your own with the implied ad hominem. 

 

Kindly desist committing the mind reading fallacy with impugned motive

[MARK0SIAN]

On 4/28/2023 at 10:15 PM, phandaal said:

 

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.

I think this is true but I also think as a community we’ve been burned too many times by GWs inability to balance or show any form of self-restraint when it comes to overpowering things. This means that the Pavlovian response we have to new methods of play that GW introduce isn’t “hmmm that might be cool” it is instead “what fresh balance hell is this going to be?”. So we are super wary of it on an instinctive level.

[phandaal]

18 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I think this is true but I also think as a community we’ve been burned too many times by GWs inability to balance or show any form of self-restraint when it comes to overpowering things. This means that the Pavlovian response we have to new methods of play that GW introduce isn’t “hmmm that might be cool” it is instead “what fresh balance hell is this going to be?”. So we are super wary of it on an instinctive level.

 

The only guy in the last couple of years that actually requested we play something besides the latest mission pack said something like this. According to him, he had a "horrific" experience with the new mission pack, so he just wanted to play Matched Play from the core rulebook.

 

This was the one and only time since the start of 9th edition that someone I met volunteered to play anything besides the latest mission pack, and apparently he only did so because he had a bad experience with that latest mission pack.

[Bash]

I kinda like the cards to be honest, as an idea and under the assumption they work like they do currently. That's a reasonable assumption but maybe everyone always takes "the good ones" every game resulting in everything being the same. It might not play out this way though with different Attacker and Defender choices but we'll see. I think Gambits absolutely DO throw a little something extra in there but I don't think they're the "game-saving ploy" they're marketed as because face it, if you're getting absolutely crushed, it won't save you. What they will do is add an extra flukey RNG to the mix where you can absolutely pull off something sneaky in a tight game. You have to gamble the following; you are going to get one of the gambits you want from your options, you are going to actually be able to pull off that gambit, your opponent isn't also going to draw a gambit that will win them the game and your opponent isn't going to just outscore you anyway while you try to do. That's a lot to consider but again, it depends largely on what the gambits actually are more than anything.

If a gambit is fairly reliable and you absolutely assume you can pull it off, you could build an army around assuming you will go for it. Granted you can't definitely get it but if you play around getting early-game secondaries done to score plenty early and, if you think you need it, try to pull off that gambit, that's a sensible strategy to go for. Conversely, if the gambits are hard to pull off, particularly in a game where you're already getting trashed or require a very specific build or to already be at certain places on the board (which are unlikely to be where you're fighting on objectives or killing/avoiding things), chances are you're never going to pick them, much less achieve them. This narrows down gambits into a mix of "you will want to try to do this if you're doing anything but dominating the game" and build/plan around doing it or "this is too hard and complicated to pull off" and never attempting them at all. 

Again, I might be completely wrong about gambits and there may just be several that are fairly easy to achieve for most standard armies that don't require very gimmicky movements or pre-planned positions to pull off. If that's the case, it's a huge boost to the fun and engagement of gambits that enhances the system, otherwise I simply see them as a kind of secondary you just build/play around. Not even that bad of a thing really if that's the case, just a bit of missed potential.