Wh40k 10th Edition More about missions in 10th Ed

[Bouargh]

So here we are more about missions.

 

Mission Maths in #New40k – When Is The Right Time To Take A Gambit? - Warhammer Community (warhammer-community.com)

 

Nothing too fancy but an interesting stratagem... Which makes me moderatly happy as it is now clear than Mission decks are not an add-on to the game but a clear core part of the Game, or at least this is how I interpret that stars affect at the deck.

 

So what: even more accessories sold separately/added to rule book? @#*¿!¡¡¡ 

 

* I know that Core rules are supposed to be free. But last time it happened, a serious part of the Required rules needed to get a proper game set up were not included (detachments...)

[TrawlingCleaner]

An actual catch-up mechanic, nice!

I love the idea of the Gambits (and that there's a cap), really rewards those hail mary plays where everything needs to go right. Great stuff!

[Handsome Fred]

That's an important confirmation 

 

Quote

For tournament organisers, there will be a digital and routinely updated GT pack from Day 1 of the new edition. This will include suggested combinations of Deployments, Primary Missions, and Mission Rules for typical tournament play, using the Leviathan card decks to pre-generate these shared parts of the game so all players at the event are playing the same mission.

 

[Noserenda]

9th edition had the best missions ever? *snort* Boooooold claim that one, it was one of the biggest complaints! 

[phandaal]

Really liking everything they have shown for missions so far. They are acknowledging a lot of the issues I saw during 9th.

 

From discords, looks like some of the more intense tournament players are upset about people being able to choose Tempest-style objectives. Wonder how big of an issue that will actually be though.

[Karhedron]

Personally I felt the missions were fine, it was the secondary objectives that were the problem.

[davextreme]

Nothing mentioned so far (I think) about faction missions, which is probably good. 

[phandaal]

1 minute ago, davextreme said:

Nothing mentioned so far (I think) about faction missions, which is probably good. 

 

Those are no longer a thing.

 

Quote

Not only that, each new Codex brought faction-specific secondary objectives that created a bias of haves and have-nots. A Dark Angels player could load up on hardy units, knowing they would sit on an objective all game and fulfil a secondary, in a way that an Ork player could not. This inevitably made it more challenging to balance.

 

Quote

In every game, you and your opponent both have identical decks of 16 different Secondary Missions.

 

Funny that they use Orks as the example to compare with Stubborn Defiance, when right now Get da Good Bitz is a very strong secondary.

 

Removing faction secondaries takes away some of the flavor, but overall I think it is better for the game experience.

[Borbarad]

I wasn’t the biggest fan of Mission Rules in 9th. While they added another layer to the mission, they were an additional factor to keep in mind and I frequently forgot to score them. 

[Urkh]

The fact that there is a 50vp cap for primaries+gambits, means as long as you have 20vp at the end of turn 3, completing the gambit will bring you to 50 (assuming they all give 30), and at worse you'll tie with the opponent on primary points. Then the game becomes who wins on secondaries.

[Sea Creature]

8 hours ago, phandaal said:

Really liking everything they have shown for missions so far. They are acknowledging a lot of the issues I saw during 9th.

 

From discords, looks like some of the more intense tournament players are upset about people being able to choose Tempest-style objectives. Wonder how big of an issue that will actually be though.

If they can select fixed secondaries I don’t see why it should be an issue.

[redmapa]

Weve known you can make static missions and the existence of a GT pack since they revealed missions and people are still mad about getting options.

[Lemondish]

I suspect the issue is that many of the WAAC players would argue that losing a match against a player using tactical objectives rather than fixed could be "feels bad" in the event that they pulled great cards, I guess?

[SkimaskMohawk]

People feeling jilted by the draw has been the legacy of maelstrom since it came out in 6th.

[Sea Creature]

Tempest of War you can max secondary turns 3 - 5 so it’s not so bad really.

[Brother_Angelus]

I feel like the game would be a lot healthier if more people embraced dice variance and failure rather than expecting a perfect result from every roll and draw. This change to missions is a good step towards that.

[Bash]

Definitely like the way they're coming along now. I didn't hate the missions and maps we've had over this edition and I personally loved Tempest the few times I got to try it out in pickup games. This seems like some nice mix between random and determined secondaries but the key for me, balance-wise, is that they're all the same. That's huge to me since some secondaries are very irritating to score and others are very easy. I'm sure there'll be no shortage of good and bad ones of course but at least we'll all have good ones. 

[Lemondish]

4 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

People feeling jilted by the draw has been the legacy of maelstrom since it came out in 6th.

Except now they don't even need to partake and can get their perfect little battle plan in order with whatever secondaries they wish and still they complain. I do not understand.

[MasterDeath]

5 hours ago, Lemondish said:

I suspect the issue is that many of the WAAC players would argue that losing a match against a player using tactical objectives rather than fixed could be "feels bad" in the event that they pulled great cards, I guess?

Of course winning by having the other Guy choosing random and pulling Bad cards would all have been their own Genius.

[Rik Lightstar]

I'm finding this really interesting, I've not played 40k for most of 9th Edition. My preferred GW games have been Kill Team, Aeronautica Imperialis, Adeptus Titanicus, WarCry and Blood Bowl.

 

In terms of competitive play though most of my time has gone into Star Wars: Legion which uses card decks for generating Deployment, Mission and Conditions. A huge part of the list building is about being able to handle most of the possible combinations. You do still see "skew lists" and sometimes they have a good run at a tournament or two but they're rarely consistent because they can't cope with certain combinations of cards, this keeps the "balanced and versatile lists" as the way to go. 

 

Rik

[Karhedron]

I like the option for each player to choose fixed or random secondaries without forcing the same choice on their opponent. Planning and list design has always been a big part of 40K but I think it has gone too far and some games are almost decided before the armies even deploy. Armies that can max out on secondaries without really interacting with the opponent does not make for interesting games. Needing to bring a variety of tools to deal with different enemy units has always been a feature of games. Now you need to account for different opponent game plans too.

 

It has been a feature of some WAAC lists to carefully choose their units so that a lot of secondaries are poor against them. E.g. not enough psykers to make DTW viable, not enough vehicles to make BID worthwhile etc. With opponents randomly drawing and potentially getting good secondaries, it removes an element of their control.

[Kallas]

56 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

I like the option for each player to choose fixed or random secondaries without forcing the same choice on their opponent.

Yep.

 

2 hours ago, Lemondish said:

Except now they don't even need to partake and can get their perfect little battle plan in order with whatever secondaries they wish and still they complain. I do not understand.

You're preaching people playing how they like, while denigrating people playing a certain way; and complaining about people complaining, apparently without seeing the irony inherent in that.

[Prot]

I try to look at this through the eyes of people I've taught the game in 9th, and the missions were part of the bloat. It is really hard to understand the implications of a faction specific secondary unless you are very deeply entrenched in the game as a whole (as most of us here are.) So considering that learning curve I have to admit I think it's a good change, and the lack of Tertiary scoring is also a good thing in my opinion.

 

But if I'm being honest... I never liked GW adopting ITC scoring, and always enjoyed the dynamic play of what is now Tempest. 

 

That being said the number 1 reason I like that they are (currently) dropping Faction secondary choices is that I hope against all hope that this will force them to fix broken codexes that need help. (Look at Necrons as an example. The codex couldn't win competitively, secondary changes became a bandaid for a bad codex, rather than really examining why the codex isn't working.) 

 

Overall it looks okay so far, and I hope they don't reintroduce them.

[phandaal]

5 hours ago, Karhedron said:

With opponents randomly drawing and potentially getting good secondaries, it removes an element of their control.

 

This is what I have seen the most complaining about. Not here, but in 40k discords. The people who were complaining about this option said they want as little randomness as possible so they can plan out what they want to do in advance.

 

Once people started pointing out that reacting to the opponent's changing plans is a skill as well, the complaints got a little bit quieter.

[Khornestar]

2 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

This is what I have seen the most complaining about. Not here, but in 40k discords. The people who were complaining about this option said they want as little randomness as possible so they can plan out what they want to do in advance.

 

Once people started pointing out that reacting to the opponent's changing plans is a skill as well, the complaints got a little bit quieter.

 

Reminiscent of something about no plan surviving contact with the enemy. ;)

 

I think that is a great point. It isn’t as if it takes no skill or intelligence to map out the game in your head when everything is set in advance, but not being adaptable and able to modify a plan is certainly a weakness. Not pretending I’m some tabletop napoleon by any means, but that is the mark of real skill to me; not just stacking the deck in one’s favor via army construction and secondaries.