Is our game too much about point now? 11th discussion.

[Tawnis]

4 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

 

 

I hadn't seen these yet, that looks pretty cool. Reminds me of a combination of two of my favourite missions from the old Battle Missions book from back in the day. 

Edited March 19 by Tawnis

[Galron]

Thats a cool mission. I would actually like to see these and missions like them in tournaments, make it feel more like a wargame with a real objective than a game of circles. I feel as the game has gotten more tournament centric that the game has gotten more bland. When I was more competitive and played in tournaments every month, the organizers made their own missions and you found out about them once you got to the table. You didnt do prep work in advance and armies that tended to win were typically TAC lists as a skew list might be able to crush the opponent but not score the actual objectives of the game. I think we should go back to this and make tournament missions a surprise. I would also be in favor of every now and then the mission you find at the table is suddenly a fixed mission with 3 or so options available. Basically anything to throw off the meta game and bring actual skill into the game instead of muscle memory. 

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, Galron said:

Thats a cool mission. I would actually like to see these and missions like them in tournaments, make it feel more like a wargame with a real objective than a game of circles. I feel as the game has gotten more tournament centric that the game has gotten more bland. When I was more competitive and played in tournaments every month, the organizers made their own missions and you found out about them once you got to the table. You didnt do prep work in advance and armies that tended to win were typically TAC lists as a skew list might be able to crush the opponent but not score the actual objectives of the game. I think we should go back to this and make tournament missions a surprise. I would also be in favor of every now and then the mission you find at the table is suddenly a fixed mission with 3 or so options available. Basically anything to throw off the meta game and bring actual skill into the game instead of muscle memory. 

 

Well a narrative tournament would have them, and people do run them. You'll also find them in Crusade leagues, which would probably fit what you want a lot more than a 'play as many games in a day as possible' type tournament that is more of the norm.  Usually it's more of an event type thing than called a tournament, because tournament does imply a certain level of "Sport", which would hew towards being more proscribed and at least attempting at egalitarian positions for everyone coming to play.  Different strokes for different folks, as they say. 

 

It's okay that people want to play the game differently than you. That doesn't make the game bland; you just have different tastes.  

Edited March 20 by DemonGSides

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I’m not a fan of the way games are scored either, but not everything in war is about fighting and killing and destroying vehicles.

 

sometimes it is about sneaking, sometimes it’s about building and establishing defenses, sometimes it’s about holding on to a piece of terrain and denying it to the enemy, sometimes it’s about sabotaging.

[Karhedron]

I would actually argue that battles are rarely fought simply to kill the enemy. If you want to do that then missiles/bombs/artillery are an easier solution. Infantry are usually sent in to accomplish an objective. Battles occur when the enemy seek to prevent that objective, the killing on each side is almost a by-product. Sometimes you do get meatgrinder battles designed to break enemy lines by killing as many troops as possible. These are often remembered as the bloodiest battles in history (Somme, Verdun, Rzhev, Hurtgen Forest) but tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

[Tawnis]

5 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Sometimes you do get meatgrinder battles designed to break enemy lines by killing as many troops as possible. These are often remembered as the bloodiest battles in history (Somme, Verdun, Rzhev, Hurtgen Forest) but tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

True, though I think that part of the horror of the 40k setting, is that these kinds of battles are FAR more prevalent in the 41st millennium than they are/were in our world. (Not to say that they others wouldn't exist though, of course they still would.)

Edited March 25 by Tawnis

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Karhedron said:

I would actually argue that battles are rarely fought simply to kill the enemy. If you want to do that then missiles/bombs/artillery are an easier solution. Infantry are usually sent in to accomplish an objective. Battles occur when the enemy seek to prevent that objective, the killing on each side is almost a by-product. Sometimes you do get meatgrinder battles designed to break enemy lines by killing as many troops as possible. These are often remembered as the bloodiest battles in history (Somme, Verdun, Rzhev, Hurtgen Forest) but tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

Even those famously bloody battles I believe had objectives beyond simply killing the enemy, even if they were as simple as take/hold key terrain to gain advantage (for example trench lines to break a defense line open.

[mozes2367]

On 12/29/2025 at 7:54 AM, Brother Raul said:

Hail Brother and Sister,

                                          This is a serious question I'd like to ask the community. I'll keep it brief and too the point as yoir answers are the important part.

 

A points/mission system to determine the winner has a lot of meritt but have secondaries ect gone way to far and are now detracting from our armies fighting?

 

I've not played a lot 40k in 10th but get a strange feeling after a game. Points have their own narrative on the reult and Its sometimee like a basketball game and not like a earlier edition table top wargame.

 

Doing non combat actions or manouvering to do them is kinda ridicolous to me to be honest.

 

We have units manouvering or not shooting to simply score points now where as before it was to screen, bait, get a better firing angle or charge ect.

 

It still happens but if your melta squad doesnt get a better rear % A, and you are behind on points, then why not terra form this turn or recover assets?

 

I am not complaining about rear AVs being gone, just about the rewards for being more strategic in your attacks versus rewarded for not attacking at all.

 

You now trade units for points and not enemy assets in an attempt to beat them from the field, you outscore them.

 

Its about out scoring your enemy not winning a war game.

 

If scoring was heavily around destroying units, or keeping units alive as well as Primaries, the game would feel more like a war game and less like a points system.

 

Sure missions are a good idea but as and secondaries have some merrit but they arent focused on fighting, especially the later which is often opppsed to fighting (the mission is more about the rules to fight with).

 

Also with secondaries kinda sick of GW doing this whole roll something back but then make it a lot worse by not thinking about it. So if the game is supposed to become more about scoring why give it a draw system on secondaries?

 

Fixed is the way. You get 3 per game that reward fighting or surving to suppliment your final destroyed v surrvived + primary score. You choose the 3 based on your opponents list.

 

Thats the equaliser without FOC GW.

 

Finally I believe there are too many Primary objective markers in a 40k game. 4 is balanced and perfect, 5 means we are more focused on gathering resources (spreading out) than fighting for limited resources.

 

So in summary before I go of all Black Templars on a crusade to the UK what are your thoughts please?

 

Q.1 Is points scoring too much of a focus of game play now and detracting from fighting/ surviving?

 

Q.2 Should points and secondaries be more about fighting/ surving?

 

Q.3 Should there be less objective markers and less points for them so that destroying/ surviving units is the new primary, objective control the new secondary. Fix some cards to chose as a tertiary to augment your points for destroying/ surviving units or holding certain objective markers and make these points very limited.

 

There’s something interesting about how discussion threads like this tend to circle back to the same core issues, like whether design decisions really enhance the experience or just pad time. Thinking about engagement makes me appreciate platforms where everything feels tight and responsive, which is why Pinup Nigeria stands out to me with how well the interface and options flow together during play. It’s not perfect, but when systems behave consistently it changes the whole mood of the session. That kind of smoothness makes it easier to stay focused on what matters.

I think the balance is a bit off; there should be more incentive to actually destroy units, rather than just running around, performing actions, and grinding for points.

Edited April 7 by mozes2367

[DemonGSides]

A dead unit doesn't score, and can't kill other units.

There's plenty of incentive to kill.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

On 4/6/2026 at 1:21 PM, DemonGSides said:

A dead unit doesn't score, and can't kill other units.

There's plenty of incentive to kill.

I found the Khorne Cultist!