Ian, Rich, Mike, Kev, Paul, whoever... Re: Claiming Objectives

[Opforce3]

here's a plan: same scoring as normal 40k, but instead of troops choices, make it infantry (of any kind). because lets be honest, infantry are what secure locations. superheavies and tanks would be horrible at holding a location. armies without them would not be able to function. infantry have downsides, but they can always be overcome (via transports, alternate deployment methods, etc) in order to keep up with the rest of the army in both mobility and firepower.

chase's scoring of 1/7/20 is my other vote for an alternate scoring method.

[General Leevous]

here's a plan: same scoring as normal 40k, but instead of troops choices, make it infantry (of any kind). because lets be honest, infantry are what secure locations. superheavies and tanks would be horrible at holding a location. armies without them would not be able to function. infantry have downsides, but they can always be overcome (via transports, alternate deployment methods, etc) in order to keep up with the rest of the army in both mobility and firepower.

chase's scoring of 1/7/20 is my other vote for an alternate scoring method.

Agreed this makes the most sense out of anything. Of course anything else can contest is my other add on...

[Opforce3]

yeah, i forgot to mention that. anything should be able to contest

[Chase]

The only real concern I have with that is the likelihood that objectives will not be scored at all due to constant contesting.  A very difficult to kill super heavy or gargantuan creature under this method can now not score for himself, but can essentially lock an objective down and prevent the other team from scoring. For what I’d imagine is a considerable amount of time.  Is this any better than allowing them to score?  In my opinion it creates a very low scoring game.  Is this okay?

I would like objectives to be scored more often than in previous years and would like to come up with some sort of system that reflects that and doesn’t also strongly favor taking super heavy units for purposes of scoring / contesting.

I am very, very firmly of the belief that super heavy units should not be (by far) the strongest scoring / contesting pieces regardless of there point cost to a player.  The fact that they are incredibly resilient along with their footprint issues (both being too small and too large with respect to the 6“ radius scoring zones) create for a piece that is simply too good at something it was never intended to do upon design.


Really, I like the normal scoring rules a lot.  I love the fact that only troops (infantry) can score.  Again, however, we face the issue of  super heavies simply shutting things down one way or another (in this case, contesting) and being too good at it due to being so difficult to remove.

Is there a way to deal with this that is both good and fair?  Can we have things cancel each other out somehow?  I guess that sort of boils down to assigning points to each type of model that can not score and can only contest.


The reason this is so important and requires so much discussion is because failing to come up with a good, fair scoring system effectively ruins the event assuming each team is trying to win.  Presenting a system that is easily manipulated isn’t great, especially when easily manipulating it involves taking more “big things”.   If the scoring system is to be manipulated, I’d MUCH rather see it manipulated by infantry for what I think are obvious reasons. 

I think it’s much, much easier to address any abusive scoring tactics that involve infantry than it is super heavies… For instance, only models that are actually within (the model itself is >50% inside) the scoring area count as scoring.  So it wouldn’t matter if you’ve got a squad of 100+ zombies, guardsmen, whatever, only the 10ish models that are actually within the 6” radius would count as scoring.  (I realize this is not in line with the way GW typically scores things and I‘m 100% okay with that)

So… how can we revise the contesting rules?  Is a revision required or should we just stick to “troops (infantry) score, everything else contests”?  Will this lead to a very low scoring game?  I want a high scoring, back and forth type, aggressive, volatile game.

[the_trooper]

Current rules would allow for lots of contesting and little to no actual scoring.

Also, a clearer definition of infantry would be good too.  Dreadnoughts move as infantry, are they infantry?  Assault Squads can have jump packs and move as jump infantry are they infantry?  Plague of zombies datasheet- are they considered infantry for scoring purposes?  Daemon Princes can move as infantry or as jump infantry (wargear dependent) but are monstrous creatures are they infantry?

Saying troops only score makes things a lot clearer/simpler to the players.

[blantyr]

Current rules would allow for lots of contesting and little to no actual scoring.

Also, a clearer definition of infantry would be good too.  Dreadnoughts move as infantry, are they infantry?  Assault Squads can have jump packs and move as jump infantry are they infantry?  Plague of zombies datasheet- are they considered infantry for scoring purposes?  Daemon Princes can move as infantry or as jump infantry (wargear dependent) but are monstrous creatures are they infantry?

Saying troops only score makes things a lot clearer/simpler to the players.

Only troops score would be simpler, but I think a lot of people don't like it.

Toughness based models might be split into infantry, monstrous, jump infantry, jetpacks, bikes, jetbikes, beasts, cavalry, artillery, swarms and gargantuan.

Armor based models might be split into walkers, flyers and bland stuff.

I'll strongly suggest flyers not in hover mode can't score or contest.  Other than that, folks might want to plop the various above types into the score, contest and neither buckets.

I'm not sure I'd want to explain to the carnifex why he can't score. 

[Logan007]

Current rules would allow for lots of contesting and little to no actual scoring.

Also, a clearer definition of infantry would be good too.  Dreadnoughts move as infantry, are they infantry?  Assault Squads can have jump packs and move as jump infantry are they infantry?  Plague of zombies datasheet- are they considered infantry for scoring purposes?  Daemon Princes can move as infantry or as jump infantry (wargear dependent) but are monstrous creatures are they infantry?

Saying troops only score makes things a lot clearer/simpler to the players.

I've never been a fan of only counting troop choices as scoring units.

[Chase]

Current rules would allow for lots of contesting and little to no actual scoring.

Yeah, that's what I was worried about.  Is there an easy way to solve this?

Also, a clearer definition of infantry would be good too.  Dreadnoughts move as infantry, are they infantry?  Assault Squads can have jump packs and move as jump infantry are they infantry?  Plague of zombies datasheet- are they considered infantry for scoring purposes?  Daemon Princes can move as infantry or as jump infantry (wargear dependent) but are monstrous creatures are they infantry?

Saying troops only score makes things a lot clearer/simpler to the players.

I have been considering what to do with this...  Part of me wants all "infantry" to score.  In this case, any model with a Unit Type referred to as "infantry" of any kind would count as scoring.

An easier way is to just call “troop choices” scoring units.

Personally, I like the Unit Type: Infantry (Jump Infantry, whatever) method because I like the idea of special characters and stuff like them claiming objectives.  It may end up being an unnecessary complication though.


I’m much more interested in getting a method of scoring down that I think everyone at the table can feel good about and not manipulate very easily.

[Chase]

I'll strongly suggest flyers not in hover mode can't score or contest. 

One thing I can promise is that flyers that are flying will not score or contest.

[the_trooper]

I have been considering what to do with this...  Part of me wants all "infantry" to score.  In this case, any model with a Unit Type referred to as "infantry" of any kind would count as scoring.

An easier way is to just call “troop choices” scoring units.

Personally, I like the Unit Type: Infantry (Jump Infantry, whatever) method because I like the idea of special characters and stuff like them claiming objectives.  It may end up being an unnecessary complication though.


I’m much more interested in getting a method of scoring down that I think everyone at the table can feel good about and not manipulate very easily.

Just "infantry" would leave out all beasts, jet bikes, bikes, monstrous creatures (including Daemon Princes, Normal Summoned Greater Daemons from codex CSM, carnifexes, etc).

The 1/7/20 method while I don't necessarily agree with it works better than trying to define what is acceptable infantry.

Also, I would move away from the only x number from this squad is within 6" of the objective so the other y number of the same squad do not count.  That is pretty far from normal 40k ruling.

[Chase]

Just "infantry" would leave out all beasts, jet bikes, bikes, monstrous creatures (including Daemon Princes, Normal Summoned Greater Daemons from codex CSM, carnifexes, etc).

Other than beasts, because I don’t know what you’re referring to, I am okay with this.  People don’t like the fact that bikes and jet bikes cant score.. If we go this route I’m sure I’ll hear lots about that, but the thing is, they aren’t infantry and the game doesn’t recognize them as such.  Things like Dreadnoughts, Daemon Princes, Greater Demons, and Carnifexes definitely aren’t infantry and the game doesn’t recognize them as such.

The 1/7/20 method while I don't necessarily agree with it works better than trying to define what is acceptable infantry.

I’m interested in why you don’t agree with 1/7/20.  It’s important for me to hear.  

I also don’t understand the difficulty in determining what is considered “infantry”.  I’m told the game does it for you.  It looks like the entries in the back of each Codex tell you what is considered what.  The Dark Eldar book doesn’t but the Eldar book is there to sort that out.  I’d imagine the Necron book doesn’t  either due to being so old.  The 40k Rulebook has an entry for what it considers each Unit Type but I didn’t read through it.

Also, I would move away from the only x number from this squad is within 6" of the objective so the other y number of the same squad do not count.  That is pretty far from normal 40k ruling.

In my opinion allowing anything that’s touching the 6” radius to score “completely” can only increase manipulation of any scoring system we use.

I want the objectives to be claimed due to good moves and hard fought battles, not who can slap the biggest, baddest, largest model or squad on it.  Fight tooth and nail over them… you know?

If people are encouraged to take any given thing because it’s “very good” at claiming objectives then there is something wrong with the way the scoring is handled.  Right?

[the_trooper]

Other than beasts, because I don’t know what you’re referring to, I am okay with this.  People don’t like the fact that bikes and jet bikes cant score.. If we go this route I’m sure I’ll hear lots about that, but the thing is, they aren’t infantry and the game doesn’t recognize them as such.  Things like Dreadnoughts, Daemon Princes, Greater Demons, and Carnifexes definitely aren’t infantry and the game doesn’t recognize them as such.

Ah, I was looking in the main rule book but I see what you mean.  If that is the case, why not just use things with a wound that are not gargantuan?  This way bikes, beasts and monstrous creatures can be included.  Just no armor values for scoring purposes.  I'm not too fond of it since it leaves out things like dreadnoughts and other vehicles capable of scoring but it simplifies it.

I’m interested in why you don’t agree with 1/7/20.  It’s important for me to hear.  

I think there is too much fear surrounding superheavies.  The points balance out and as far as scoring purposes since they are a huge point sink.  They are already brought into line, why do it further?  Also, a dreadnought (walker vehicle) can kick around infantry all day long, why should it not be the value of 10 men?

In my opinion allowing anything that’s touching the 6” radius to score “completely” can only increase manipulation of any scoring system we use.

It can give models with a larger base a smaller amount near the objective.

I want the objectives to be claimed due to good moves and hard fought battles, not who can slap the biggest, baddest, largest model or squad on it.  Fight tooth and nail over them… you know?

If people are encouraged to take any given thing because it’s “very good” at claiming objectives then there is something wrong with the way the scoring is handled.  Right?

236 horrors, not even d weapons will get them off objectives.  They can deepstrike and have a ranged ability.  So they are the perfect camping unit on objectives.  I'm sure someone better at math hammer can find and even better unit to abuse.  Heh, the new tervigon.  It makes infantry on the go.

The original scoring system in apoc where everything is scoring and it's 1/10/30 works well for this example as well since it only takes 30 single models to contest something exponentially more in point cost.  If it does not cost exponentially more, it will die to a round of shooting since the lesser super heavies only have 2-3 structure points.

[Logan007]

Also, I would move away from the only x number from this squad is within 6" of the objective so the other y number of the same squad do not count.  That is pretty far from normal 40k ruling.

In my opinion allowing anything that’s touching the 6” radius to score “completely” can only increase manipulation of any scoring system we use.

I want the objectives to be claimed due to good moves and hard fought battles, not who can slap the biggest, baddest, largest model or squad on it.  Fight tooth and nail over them… you know?

If people are encouraged to take any given thing because it’s “very good” at claiming objectives then there is something wrong with the way the scoring is handled.  Right?

The problem with "only models" within x inches of an objective is that 40k was never meant to be balanced around model count (which is why small, elite armies like space wolves and grey knights exist along side more traditional horde armies like guard and orks). Lots of armies (and therefore, players) will be at an inherent disadvantage.

For example, at 2k points, I might have 55-60 models (including vehicles) for my space marine army. That's about 1 full troop choice (the infantry platoon) of an imperial guard army. A very large proportion of the guns in Apocalypse that are great at killing guardsmen work just as well against marines.

Also, while there's talk about how difficult it is to kill gargantuan creatures and such. The fact is, while Disorder may have access to more (all) of the gargantuan creatures, The datasheets that Order has access to gives them a huge advantage when it comes to stratagems (the datasheets that disorder gets, while still good, don't really compare on the power level).

Every space marine player could have flank march if they wanted to. Every space marine player could have a vortex grenade if they wanted to. Take 4 commanders and a command squad and you can get 3 extra stratagems. These are all very powerful things that the imperial players have access to that Disorder won't.

[Chase]

I'm sort of at a loss.  I am not 100% happy with any system that has been presented or really even mentioned.


Here's what I know:

I want a system that does not inherently benefit / encourage taking any specific type of model, unit, squad, whatever for purposes of scoring whether it be obvious to most or not.  If this must happen, I would strongly prefer the benefit to be given to something that game defines as "infantry".  I am much more okay with a 250 model squad of “infantry” camping an objective than I am a Reaver Titan, Hierophant, or worse.

I want super heavies and gargantuan creatures to be valued much less in terms of scoring than their point cost to a player might otherwise indicate.  I feel that it is a much, much better idea to "fear" super heavies and gargantuan creatures too much with respect to scoring than not enough.  In terms of scoring, dumbing down their power is a priority.

(If super heavies and gargantuan creatures are used like they have been in the past, I am okay with this.  I am not okay with players using them to score / contest objectives and having them end up being too good at it.  In my opinion, this would severely damage the fun factor of the event.)

I want objectives to be scored often.  Contesting is cool, and should be a valid strategy, but it shouldn't be trivial.  I feel like any contesting rules might make it too easy due to scoring at the top of each player turn.


If these three issues can be ironed out, addressed, anything then I think all the other problems can be easily dealt with.

[Logan007]

I'm sort of at a loss.  I am not 100% happy with any system that has been presented or really even mentioned.


Here's what I know:

I want a system that does not inherently benefit / encourage taking any specific type of model, unit, squad, whatever for purposes of scoring whether it be obvious to most or not.  If this must happen, I would strongly prefer the benefit to be given to something that game defines as "infantry".  I am much more okay with a 250 model squad of “infantry” camping an objective than I am a Reaver Titan, Hierophant, or worse.

I want super heavies and gargantuan creatures to be valued much less in terms of scoring than their point cost to a player might otherwise indicate.  I feel that it is a much, much better idea to "fear" super heavies and gargantuan creatures too much with respect to scoring than not enough.  In terms of scoring, dumbing down their power is a priority.

(If super heavies and gargantuan creatures are used like they have been in the past, I am okay with this.  I am not okay with players using them to score / contest objectives and having them end up being too good at it.  In my opinion, this would severely damage the fun factor of the event.)

I want objectives to be scored often.  Contesting is cool, and should be a valid strategy, but it shouldn't be trivial.  I feel like any contesting rules might make it too easy due to scoring at the top of each player turn.


If these three issues can be ironed out, addressed, anything then I think all the other problems can be easily dealt with.

Alright, if you’re adamant about super heavies and gargantuan creatures from scoring, here’s what I propose:
Use the system I mentioned earlier. Super heavies and gargantuan creatures count as 5 points, no matter their cost.
Score at the bottom of each player turn, rather than the beginning. This will make contesting much harder.