Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules

[Haval]

I don't disagree but is this even really true? What is the Necrons unique Secondary, I honestly haven't heard anything about it.

According to YouTube, Code of Combat (3 pts when a Noble kills a unit). I have not seen either book.

[Forum Explorer]

I don't disagree but is this even really true? What is the Necrons unique Secondary, I honestly haven't heard anything about it.

Each faction each gets multiple. The Space Marine ones are:

1. Get one point for every unit killed with that doctrine's ability. So when in Devestator Doctrine get one point per unit killed with heavy weapons, and so on.

2. Get 3 points if by the end of the turn you control an objective that was controlled by your opponent at the start of your turn.

3. 1 point for killing Character/Monster/Vehicle. 2 points for being within 6 of the centre. 1 point for not falling back or failing a morale test.


The first one is garbage, the second one is alright for melee marines and the third one is an easy 15 points.

Necrons get:

1. Get 3 points for killing something with a Noble.
2. Get 2 points for each table quarter that has NO enemy units in it. Starts on turn 2.
3. Your opponent picks 3 objectives, get 2 points for holding 1, 3 points for 2, and 5 for all three.
4. You pick 1 objective, your opponent picks 2. Complete an action with a core or canoptik unit to score 3 points if you are still on the objective, and there are no enemies on the objective by your next Command Phase.

First one is garbage unless you have the Silent King. The second is going to be kinda difficult, since your opponent likely wants to run the opposite version of getting points for being in every table quarter. But it should be relatively easy to get some 8-10 points on it, so it has potential. The third is really good for some missions where you only have 3-4 objectives, and the fourth is garbage because it requires you to survive for the whole turn.

[Blackhawk748]

E
Necrons get:

1. Get 3 points for killing something with a Noble.
2. Get 2 points for each table quarter that has NO enemy units in it. Starts on turn 2.
3. Your opponent picks 3 objectives, get 2 points for holding 1, 3 points for 2, and 5 for all three.
4. You pick 1 objective, your opponent picks 2. Complete an action with a core or canoptik unit to score 3 points if you are still on the objective, and there are no enemies on the objective by your next Command Phase.

So, in order:

1. Meh, but can be worked towards if you want.
2. Should get you at least 8 points. Otherwise you've already lost
3. Situationally good, entirely mission dependant.
4. Over messy and just kinda dumb. Hard pass.

So, possibly ok, Fine, Situationally great, and crap. Overall seems fine ish.

[Fable Wright]

This talk of secondaries does make me wonder about bug carpet lists.

A hypothetical: What would it mean to the Tyranid players if they got a strategy that earned them 1 victory point for every 5 models of theirs that were killed? This would incentivize running endless hordes of termagants into the blender with no real desire to see them survive... which is kinda what 'nids are supposed to do, and it's more efficient at racking up points than kill them all... but you can't really ignore that many ObSec bodies running around on the table.

Would this kind of objective do good things or bad things for the game?

[Renegade Paladin]

This talk of secondaries does make me wonder about bug carpet lists.

A hypothetical: What would it mean to the Tyranid players if they got a strategy that earned them 1 victory point for every 5 models of theirs that were killed? This would incentivize running endless hordes of termagants into the blender with no real desire to see them survive... which is kinda what 'nids are supposed to do, and it's more efficient at racking up points than kill them all... but you can't really ignore that many ObSec bodies running around on the table.

Would this kind of objective do good things or bad things for the game?

If you're running a bug carpet, that would literally be a free 15 points.

[Blackhawk748]

If you're running a bug carpet, that would literally be a free 15 points.

Ya, and while I appreciate that it is incentivizing a form of lore accurate Tyranid play... ya, I don't think we need more "Easy 15 VP" secondaries. Like... Objectives are supposed to be a bit difficult to obtain and the reason the ones that are good are good, is because they're easy to do consistently, or give you a huge payoff for doing like, one thing. (ie the Titan Killer one)

[Brookshw]

So, we're getting close to new thread title time. My suggestion, "Secondary Opinions".

[LansXero]

If you have played GT missions so far you know that, due to the way primary objectives are currently set up, the whole 'board control is super important now' isnt exactly true. Holding 2 objectives (as in, deploy zone +1) IS important, but then that doesn't require mobility at all. Between dense cover, boosted wound counts and statlines and obscuring terrain, Marines can sit on their original objectives forever (or can Infiltrate on the further away ones from T1). IF you play in planet bowling ball you get shot to pieces virtue of new and upgraded weapon profiles, IF you play on 'fun and interactive' meaningful terrain world you have a hellishly hard time keeping them from scoring 10 Primary VPs/round. So when the ATVs and whatnot rush out and cap a third consistently for the last 5 VPs, you NEED to outrace them on secondaries or you drown.

However, secondaries like their special faction one which are both progressive and trivial (its an easier Linebreaker ffs) mean they keep closing the Secondaries distant without any possible counterplay as they're just running their regular game plan. There is no list building accomodation, no risk, no situational decision. Kill things, rush the middle, dont die, get points. Regardless of it being strong or weak, it promotes more of the 'go fish' style of play of late 8th where each side just did their own thing trading potshots into a frantic tiebreak at match end. Which was awful and ruined everything.

Now, of course, this might be taken as negative and decrying anything GW does; however, I'd welcome people's opposing point of views if they can provide actual play experience that differs from this, or actual reasoning beyond 'well I dont feel that way so you should not say those things'.

[Forum Explorer]

So, we're getting close to new thread title time. My suggestion, "Secondary Opinions".

Considering we've got nothing but Marines and Plague Marines on the docket until March, I vote for "Because Space Marines"

[Blackhawk748]

Considering we've got nothing but Marines and Plague Marines on the docket until March, I vote for "Because Space Marines"

I second the motion

[Fable Wright]

If you're running a bug carpet, that would literally be a free 15 points.

Sure. So's the strategy that everyone gets that's a free 15 points against them.

Ya, and while I appreciate that it is incentivizing a form of lore accurate Tyranid play... ya, I don't think we need more "Easy 15 VP" secondaries. Like... Objectives are supposed to be a bit difficult to obtain and the reason the ones that are good are good, is because they're easy to do consistently, or give you a huge payoff for doing like, one thing. (ie the Titan Killer one)

Free 15 points vs Imperial Knights is a thing.
Free 15 points vs lore-accurate tyranids is also a thing. (Discounting the psyker and character hunting strategies that disproportionately hurt tyranids with their reliance on psychic characters for synapse.)

These things are so overpowering that they force entire armies out of the meta. What else but likewise free points could make them viable again?

[Mystic Muse]

NEW EDITION ANNOUNCED.

Well...****.

I still vote this for next thread title.

[Keraunograf]

The issue is that anything that can read as "free 15 points if enemy builds a list one way" is bad. It can be balanced by having free 15 points on the other side, but... I don't think it's good design.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On a completely different note,

Am I a heretic and a blasphemer if I believe that models generally look better with simple matte black bases rather than more complex terrain? I'm not sure why I feel this way, but I do.

[Enixon]

On a completely different note,

Am I a heretic and a blasphemer if I believe that models generally look better with simple matte black bases rather than more complex terrain? I'm not sure why I feel this way, but I do.

I can see where you're coming from, I admit one thing in wargames that always ever so slightly irks me even though I know it's a silly thing to be bothered by is when bases and the battlefield don't mesh, stuff like snowy bases on the field that otherwise looks like an arid desert or moss-covered forest themed bases in a city-space so a blank base is easier to sort of ignore for lack of a better word.

I remember some armies I've seen online for the Infinity wargame, each unit there has it's own insignia in the rulebook so somebody made acrylic bases with said insignias on them instead of normal basing, those were a cool sort of abstract base that avoided adding terrain to the base while still not being "blank".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can see where you're coming from, I admit one thing in wargames that always ever so slightly irks me even though I know it's a silly thing to be bothered by is when bases and the battlefield don't mesh, stuff like snowy bases on the field that otherwise looks like an arid desert or moss-covered forest themed bases in a city-space so a blank base is easier to sort of ignore for lack of a better word.

I remember some armies I've seen online for the Infinity wargame, each unit there has it's own insignia in the rulebook so somebody made acrylic bases with said insignias on them instead of normal basing, those were a cool sort of abstract base that avoided adding terrain to the base while still not being "blank".

Yeah. I think it's the clash between the base and the (imagined) battlefield that does it for me. The base should really only be an area control marker, not part of the actual mini. Or you could get crazy and do magnetic bases that you swap per battlefield theme, but that's just nuts.

On the same token, I am not as fond of the models with complex bases built in (like the AoS big paladin dude on the winged mount whose name I'm forgetting right now). Great (but restrictive) for dioramas, less so for play.

[Forum Explorer]

The issue is that anything that can read as "free 15 points if enemy builds a list one way" is bad. It can be balanced by having free 15 points on the other side, but... I don't think it's good design.

I agree that it is bad design. The problem is that it already exists. Space Marines get an easy 15 points. If you are facing Imperial Knights, you get an easy 15 points. The two options are either revamp those secondaries, or give everyone an easy 15 point secondary to make up for it.

The former is the better design choice, but I don't have high hopes for that, because GW keeps making those sort of secondaries, mostly by accident.

[Keraunograf]

I agree that it is bad design. The problem is that it already exists. Space Marines get an easy 15 points. If you are facing Imperial Knights, you get an easy 15 points. The two options are either revamp those secondaries, or give everyone an easy 15 point secondary to make up for it.

The former is the better design choice, but I don't have high hopes for that, because GW keeps making those sort of secondaries, mostly by accident.

I'm on the "throw all of the secondary objectives out and just play with primaries" camp personally, and that's how I've been playing with a couple friends.

We also do bottom of round scoring rather than top. Bonus: Makes netlisting kind of pointless since it's just a different meta.

There's some discussion of using 2019 ITC secondaries instead, but that seemed like more work to integrate.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm on the "throw all of the secondary objectives out and just play with primaries" camp personally, and that's how I've been playing with a couple friends.

We also do bottom of round scoring rather than top. Bonus: Makes netlisting kind of pointless since it's just a different meta.

There's some discussion of using 2019 ITC secondaries instead, but that seemed like more work to integrate.

For integrating the ITC secondaries, why not just do it more or less straight? Maybe make them 5 points total rather than 4, but just have them be worth less points overall and see how that goes.

[Avaris]

If you have played GT missions so far you know that, due to the way primary objectives are currently set up, the whole 'board control is super important now' isnt exactly true. Holding 2 objectives (as in, deploy zone +1) IS important, but then that doesn't require mobility at all. Between dense cover, boosted wound counts and statlines and obscuring terrain, Marines can sit on their original objectives forever (or can Infiltrate on the further away ones from T1). IF you play in planet bowling ball you get shot to pieces virtue of new and upgraded weapon profiles, IF you play on 'fun and interactive' meaningful terrain world you have a hellishly hard time keeping them from scoring 10 Primary VPs/round. So when the ATVs and whatnot rush out and cap a third consistently for the last 5 VPs, you NEED to outrace them on secondaries or you drown.

However, secondaries like their special faction one which are both progressive and trivial (its an easier Linebreaker ffs) mean they keep closing the Secondaries distant without any possible counterplay as they're just running their regular game plan. There is no list building accomodation, no risk, no situational decision. Kill things, rush the middle, dont die, get points. Regardless of it being strong or weak, it promotes more of the 'go fish' style of play of late 8th where each side just did their own thing trading potshots into a frantic tiebreak at match end. Which was awful and ruined everything.

Now, of course, this might be taken as negative and decrying anything GW does; however, I'd welcome people's opposing point of views if they can provide actual play experience that differs from this, or actual reasoning beyond 'well I dont feel that way so you should not say those things'.

The ATVs are a good point: I had so far been thinking in terms of units of 5 standard marines or similar, and the ease of getting that wholly within 6” of the centre, but fast units with a relatively small footprint are much easier.

Really, the question is ‘how reliably does this score 15?’ I look forward to seeing the data on that once it is actually in play, but having thought through the maths a bit more suspect it is too reliable at that. I think it’s reasonable to assume you will score the full 5 morale points each game. Kill points I would guess you might score 4 of the 5? How many times does a character/monster/vehicle survive to get killed in turn 5? Which leaves needing to score the ‘unit in centre’ on 3 of the 5 rounds, which will also be trivial with stuff like ATVs. So 15 points feels quite easy.

So if it turns out in play that the objective regularly scores the full 15, that’s bad. If it tends to cap out at 10, there’s an element of risk there. Really, this makes me want to look at the variability in scores on each secondary objective: is an objective that scores 12 every game better or worse than one that varies between 9 and 15 points?

[Forum Explorer]

The ATVs are a good point: I had so far been thinking in terms of units of 5 standard marines or similar, and the ease of getting that wholly within 6” of the centre, but fast units with a relatively small footprint are much easier.

Really, the question is ‘how reliably does this score 15?’ I look forward to seeing the data on that once it is actually in play, but having thought through the maths a bit more suspect it is too reliable at that. I think it’s reasonable to assume you will score the full 5 morale points each game. Kill points I would guess you might score 4 of the 5? How many times does a character/monster/vehicle survive to get killed in turn 5? Which leaves needing to score the ‘unit in centre’ on 3 of the 5 rounds, which will also be trivial with stuff like ATVs. So 15 points feels quite easy.

So if it turns out in play that the objective regularly scores the full 15, that’s bad. If it tends to cap out at 10, there’s an element of risk there. Really, this makes me want to look at the variability in scores on each secondary objective: is an objective that scores 12 every game better or worse than one that varies between 9 and 15 points?

Well it depends on what it takes to actually score it. If it doesn't take anything (IE, kill stuff I want to kill anyways) and it can reliably score 10 points? Than it's really good. But stuff like investigate sites or mental interrogation can pretty reliably get 12 points, but the cost of taking an action to do so means they aren't nearly as good.

What I'm finding is that I'll typically pick whatever secondaries match these requirements.

1. Kill something (either assassinate, or bring it down), even if that's only worth 8 points.
2. On Every Front or Line Breaker
3. Either mission specific, Investigate Sites, the one where you do an action in each zone, or thin their ranks if there is enough models.

[Avaris]

Thinking on whether the ‘Oaths of Moment’ allows tactical play, I think I can see what GW were going for there, but much less convinced it will actually be achieved with how the game plays in reality:

• Morale: I’d guess the idea was that the enemy can attempt to force morale failures by reducing a unit of 10 to 2 or 3. Except that marines can just run MSU. So stopping it is not really achievable with any reliability. Note that it does also require not falling back, which might allow for locking shooty units in combat, but with vehicles now able to shoot in combat that is much less of a thing.
• Kill points: playing against a marine army running this objective, you know that they need at least one of your characters/vehicles/monsters to be available to kill each round. So you can theoretically take more risks with them. If you have 5 eligible targets for this objective, you can have them all engaged, knowing that the Marine player can’t kill them all in turn 1 if they want to score max points from the objective. But this feels risky, given the objective can be maxed out without achieving any kill points. So again, I can see the tactical option aimed for, but it is not a strong one.
• Hold centre: as the opponent, kill whichever marine unit is within 6” of the centre. Gives an element of target prioritisation, and is focussed on where a lot of fighting is likely to be happening anyway. What is interesting about this part of the objective is that it scores at the end of battle round, so is much easier for the Marine player to achieve if they go second, as they can just drive an ATV in. If the Marine player goes first, they have to be confident whatever unit they put there will last, and needing to be wholly within limits number of units that can score: you can’t have multiple units each tagging into the centre with one model.

So yeah, can see where GW thinks there might be tactical options, much less sure if they are there in reality. I’m increasingly convinced the objective would be much better for the game if the hold centre bit only gave 1 vp, not 2.

[LeSwordfish]

I like Secondary Opinions, or perhaps i could suggest "Objective Reality"

I would be disappointed by "oh **** its a new edition" or whatever for reasons of pure negativity as discussed. It's not even a joke.

[Cheesegear]

Am I a heretic and a blasphemer if I believe that models generally look better with simple matte black bases rather than more complex terrain? I'm not sure why I feel this way, but I do.

'Black goes with everything', so no, you aren't wrong.
A very frustrating part of painting, is reaching a point where you realise that the base is part of the model, and then seeing that the colour of your base doesn't 'mesh' with the colour scheme of your Chapter, and the whole thing looks jarring. This happened to me when I was painting my BumbleBees (Yellow Necrons), and I was placing green crystals on the bases - 'cause Necrons, right? - then when I sat back to look at all my fine work...WTF...Bright Yellow and Bright Green looks horrific...What have I done!? My Yellow Necrons would look a lot better on a dark-red base (like Martian soil), because the base is part of the model.

You can't go wrong with a matte black base. It probably wont look as nice as a texture-based model. But Hell, there's a trend now to use clear bases because tournaments count the models as being based and you don't have to put any work in. So turns out it doesn't matter what your models look like, as long as you're happy with them.

is an objective that scores 12 every game better or worse than one that varies between 9 and 15 points?

You're essentially asking "How much of a factor, is player skill and match-ups?"

I like Secondary Opinions

I like 'Because Space Marines', but I think I'll go with the above.

[snowblizz]

This happened to me when I was painting my BumbleBees (Yellow Necrons), and I was placing green crystals on the bases - 'cause Necrons, right? - then when I sat back to look at all my fine work...WTF...Bright Yellow and Bright Green looks horrific...What have I done!? My Yellow Necrons would look a lot better on a dark-red base (like Martian soil), because the base is part of the model.

Should done yellow crystals. Or gone with red martian type sand (that's what I planned with my Ork army, greena nd red clash nicely). Artists failure, don't blame the game.


I have to say when people talk about matte black bases I hope you aren't talking about unpainted plastic 'cause that doesn't look nice or disappear in my eye at all. Just the action of clipping one of the sprues tended to leave unsightly marks in the base. I based my Chaos Marines on partly black bases (grey slate cover on top, and volcanic red), but I *painted* my bases black. Every black part showing was in fact painted black.

[Cheesegear]

Should done yellow crystals. Or gone with red martian type sand

Yellow-on-yellow would've been lame.
I went with Martian Ironearth and Carroburg Crimson, with a drybrush of...Something. The red one.

[Avaris]

You're essentially asking "How much of a factor, is player skill and match-ups?"
.

Yes? This seems like a good thing to know?

If there are lots of secondaries that have high reliability at scoring 15 points, that’s bad, as it’s an automatic choice. However, having a mix of secondaries that reliably score 10, and some secondaries that vary between 5 and 15 dependent on player skill and match up, would be healthy for the game. I’d like to see data on how each secondary works on this basis.

[LeSwordfish]

I think a big blob of pure black at the bottom of every model's feet will dominate the model and make the rest of it look worse. I mean, they're your models, your opinion is the one that's important, but I wouldn't like it myself. (And frankly, it will look a bit like you haven't bothered.)

I think this gets to an interesting thing about bases, and about models in general - are they gaming counters or do you want them to look like small warriors? I usually do the rims of all my bases in black, since I think the separation between the texture of the top of the base and the texture of the table looks good, rather than trying to blend in with a battlemat that might be an entirely different colour. (Though I've stopped doing that for my seraphon, since trying to get a nice crisp black line around the top of the base rim for sixty skinks would drive me to drink.)

[Blackhawk748]

Free 15 points vs Imperial Knights is a thing.
Free 15 points vs lore-accurate tyranids is also a thing. (Discounting the psyker and character hunting strategies that disproportionately hurt tyranids with their reliance on psychic characters for synapse.)

These things are so overpowering that they force entire armies out of the meta. What else but likewise free points could make them viable again?

Yes it is, and those should be removed. I understand that this most likely won't happen, but it is the better solution.

[LansXero]

Yes? This seems like a good thing to know?

If there are lots of secondaries that have high reliability at scoring 15 points, that’s bad, as it’s an automatic choice. However, having a mix of secondaries that reliably score 10, and some secondaries that vary between 5 and 15 dependent on player skill and match up, would be healthy for the game. I’d like to see data on how each secondary works on this basis.

'dependant on player skill' is extremely subjective though. Do you mean skill at list-building to include things that can score linebreaker / deploy scramblers? Skill at faction choice for double/triple shooting IF Eliminators scoring Assassinate or IF Dreads scoring Titanslayer? Until most factions are closer to parity, player skill as a whole gets diluted trying to level an uneven playing field. 'reliability at scoring' is also a non-starter. Some factions, like aeldari, can wisp all over the battlefield and score stuff other factions can not. Some factions can do objective-sitting better than others. Some factions CAN do stuff at the cost of playing like second-rate marines, and some factions have tricks / playstyles that just give up free VPs (Imperial Knights).

The real issue is how borked Primaries are, because it puts a huge emphasis on secondaries that they shouldn't have.