Serious question: in the grimdsrk future are there only points?

[Brother Raul]

Hail BA Community,

                                    Have posted this on the main 40k board but want all of your opinions please.

 

 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.

 

I just feel in the far future there is only points at the moment. 40k needs more war. Please let me know yoir thoughts.

[Karhedron]

I have been playing 40K since 1st edition and in the old days, killing the enemy was the primary focus. 2nd edition introduced simple mission cards and the idea has come back in various forms over the years. The current mission decks are the most sophisticated iteration of the concept. I enjoy the missions and secondary objectives because they add variety to the game. If you play the same opponent regularly then simple "kill the foe" missions can become repetitive after a while. Drawing secondaries is a great way to keep games fresh. And even here, your secondaries are a lot easier to complete if you opponent is dead so killing the enemy is never a bad idea. 

 

Having said that, it is a very personal thing. If you prefer games focussed on killing the enemy, that is fine and can be accommodated. If you and your opponent feel the same way then the easiest solution is to play the "Purge the Foe" Primary mission and simply ignore secondaries. This will give you a game centred on killing the enemy. There really is not right or wrong way to play the game. As long as you and your opponent are both on the same page, then do whatever you enjoy.

 

One thing to bear in mind is that this will affect the balance of some armies slightly. Certain units (particularly Battleline units) have abilities that help them take or hold Objectives such as better OC or Objective Secured. If you play without these elements, you may find certain units lack a role. This is not a problem, just something to be aware of.

[Ash]

I could not have framed an answer to your points raised better than Kahedrons eloquent response. 

 

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

 

No you have to do both to win it's a choice in play style and army list building.  There is a subtle touch in list building which is very much a part of 40K not mentioned enough. 

 

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

 

Aren't they already now? sure you get a easy secondary in the draw but thats balanced by poor draws you have to expect both.   If the opponent has no models left he's not scoring is he?  Having said that at the end of a recent game I had just a single lone op combo weapon lieutenant on the board and still won on points. A great rewarding game. 

 

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.

 

I enjoy having to manage secondaries and primaries it gives an added dimension to the game, at many different levels.  The beauty is you can ignore that and just play how you want.  As Kahedron wrote, just play Purge and you've got your ideal game.   40K in its simplest form is: My army will charge and/or shoot yours.  You'll do the same back and the best dice will win. Versus what we have now which incorporates part of that and a lot more thought .  Ive never enjoyed 40K as much as I do currently.  I wonder if we started a poll ranking the editions ?

 

To add a comment: Emperors throne, I hated armour facing values.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2025 by Ash
Added thought