News:

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: "Chapter Approved" rules  (Read 514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline magenb

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1372
  • Country: au
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
"Chapter Approved" rules
« on: August 13, 2017, 05:58:47 PM »
Has any one started playing by the chapter approved (Matched Play Updates Coming in Chapter Approved – Warhammer Community) snippets yet? Just wondering what people are thinking of using to hold objectives now?

Offline Fenris

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2137
  • Country: se
  • Armies: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Aeldari
Re: "Chapter Approved" rules
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2017, 07:43:28 PM »
I've played with the "first turn" thing, because alpha strike armies have dominated.
"Boots on the ground" seems fine, and the OS did not really matter before.
I don't think it will be very decisive now either, especially as it does not apply to transports nor any present jetbikes that I know of.
Ego in propria persona, non compos mentis.

Offline SeekingOne

  • Exarch
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1470
  • Country: ru
  • May Hoeth guide our ways...
  • Armies: Eldar (Saim-Hann), Space Wolves
Re: "Chapter Approved" rules
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2017, 02:31:44 AM »
Personally, I always thought - and still think - that the division of units into "Battlefield roles" in most cases is artificial and far-fetched. And thus slapping the ObjSec rule onto all Troops indiscriminately feels a questionable decision to me.

In fact, there does exist an opportunity to raise 40k to a whole new level of balance by introducing a similar rule with just one important difference: instead of giving ObjSec rule to Troops, it should've been given to all Infantry. And also, ObjSec rule itself is silly tbh. A much more appropriate way to implement the same idea is what we had in 5th: make it so that only Infantry can control objectives, and other unit types can only contest them.

IMO, a rule like this would fundamentally change the appearance of 40k armies, shifting them towards having a strong infantry core, and thus making them simultaneously perform in more balanced way and look more like proper armies.
I fight against Chaos and for Order, because it means fighting for Life against Death. There is no other battle truly worth fighting.

"If it's not for a tournament then play whatever it is that you like. Without the pressure of having to utterly destroy your opponent it opens up alot more opportunity to have fun." - Lazarus

Offline Partninja

  • Warlock
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2632
Re: "Chapter Approved" rules
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2017, 05:41:16 AM »
I'm fine with obsec being only on troops. It gives units that a lot of people would prefer to skip over something extra.

Offline SeekingOne

  • Exarch
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1470
  • Country: ru
  • May Hoeth guide our ways...
  • Armies: Eldar (Saim-Hann), Space Wolves
Re: "Chapter Approved" rules
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2017, 06:01:10 AM »
It's surely better than nothing. What I meant is that in my experience it's all Infantry (rather than just Troops) that needs "something extra" to encourage people to take more of it.
I fight against Chaos and for Order, because it means fighting for Life against Death. There is no other battle truly worth fighting.

"If it's not for a tournament then play whatever it is that you like. Without the pressure of having to utterly destroy your opponent it opens up alot more opportunity to have fun." - Lazarus

Offline Cavalier

  • One Archon to Rules Test Them All | High Corsair Prince of Painting | Warlock
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2514
  • Country: us
  • Renegade Autarch
  • Armies: Eldar, Dark Angels, World Eaters
Re: "Chapter Approved" rules
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2017, 08:13:03 AM »
I understand Obsec for purposes of game balance, but I've never liked the way typical games of 40k are scored. I've said this many times, but the whole five random points on a map thing has always felt abstract and uninspired.

Also why a bunch of infantry can hold a random point on the board as opposed to a tank or knight titan has always bothered me. Especially playing Eldar. They last thing I want to do is try and contest a hill in the middle of nowhere with some Storm Guardians against a squad of Space Wolves when I've got a unit of Wraithguard available to me.

I really wish they'd go for something more narrative like take and hold terrain features and somehow incorporate the old Victory Points system where the amount of stuff you killed nets you actual points. IMO the amount/value of the stuff you kill should always reward you towards scoring the game (i.e. something beyond the obvious value of eliminating units).

In contrast I love Slay the Warlord, Linebreaker, First Blood etc.

That being said they've got the narrative stuff pushed way up the line in terms of relevance this edition. Its probably time to start looking in that direction for missions going forward. It'd just be cool to have regular matched play make just a tiny step forward in a more narrative direction- at least in terms of scoring the game.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 08:16:37 AM by Cavalier »
Check out my army! Eldar Corsair Army

I'm also on the Splintermind Podcast! http://www.facebook.com/splintermindpodcast/

Offline Rhyleth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Country: us
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: "Chapter Approved" rules
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2017, 03:13:39 PM »
Personally, I always thought - and still think - that the division of units into "Battlefield roles" in most cases is artificial and far-fetched. And thus slapping the ObjSec rule onto all Troops indiscriminately feels a questionable decision to me.

It made sense when introduced in 40k3. Now that the detachment system lets you use any type of force organisation with barely any restriction, and usually get a benefit in command points for non-Troops centred detachments, it's not very clear to me what purpose it serves, especially as objectives simply aren't as important. Most games end with most of the defeated army being destroyed as it is.

Quote
In fact, there does exist an opportunity to raise 40k to a whole new level of balance by introducing a similar rule with just one important difference: instead of giving ObjSec rule to Troops, it should've been given to all Infantry. And also, ObjSec rule itself is silly tbh. A much more appropriate way to implement the same idea is what we had in 5th: make it so that only Infantry can control objectives, and other unit types can only contest them.

That would be welcome, but then we'd be back towards actually having different unit types instead of keywords, and it's clear that for whatever reason GW doesn't want to do that. As it is the number of models rule already favours infantry for both holding and contesting objectives - with the above caveat that objectives aren't all that important.

Quote
IMO, a rule like this would fundamentally change the appearance of 40k armies, shifting them towards having a strong infantry core, and thus making them simultaneously perform in more balanced way and look more like proper armies.

Again, only insofar as objectives matter. As it is it's been suggested that 40k8 favours infantry armies, as they put out more firepower for the cost than other unit types and the removal of the wound table and armour penetration means that weight of fire tends to deal more damage even to 'hard' targets than individually high-power vehicle weapons.

Offline magenb

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1372
  • Country: au
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: "Chapter Approved" rules
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2017, 05:31:57 PM »
I really wish they'd go for something more narrative like take and hold terrain features and somehow incorporate the old Victory Points system where the amount of stuff you killed nets you actual points. IMO the amount/value of the stuff you kill should always reward you towards scoring the game (i.e. something beyond the obvious value of eliminating units).

That would turn objective games even more into just run of the mill purge the alien, so I can see why they leave it out.


A much more appropriate way to implement the same idea is what we had in 5th: make it so that only Infantry can control objectives, and other unit types can only contest them.

Actually I see the current implementation making lists more balanced, too tank heavy and your infantry may die before reaching the objective. Right now you could still field an elite infantry heavy army but you would need to add your opponents troops to target priority to make sure you get the objectives.

You can still use tanks to deny objectives, park a couple of waves on the point and they can't get within 3inches :)


Offline Rhyleth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Country: us
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: "Chapter Approved" rules
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2017, 09:52:05 PM »
I understand Obsec for purposes of game balance, but I've never liked the way typical games of 40k are scored. I've said this many times, but the whole five random points on a map thing has always felt abstract and uninspired.

Also why a bunch of infantry can hold a random point on the board as opposed to a tank or knight titan has always bothered me. Especially playing Eldar. They last thing I want to do is try and contest a hill in the middle of nowhere with some Storm Guardians against a squad of Space Wolves when I've got a unit of Wraithguard available to me.

Narratively, the intent is that these are the units left to control the area once the front line has moved on - you use the big guns and heavy hitters to destroy whatever's contesting the point, then your line infantry hold it while your main force moves to the next. The simple size of 40k maps makes this difficult to portray - mostly the unit that takes a point will by default end up being the one that holds it - but the principle makes a lot of sense.

Quote
I really wish they'd go for something more narrative like take and hold terrain features and somehow incorporate the old Victory Points system where the amount of stuff you killed nets you actual points. IMO the amount/value of the stuff you kill should always reward you towards scoring the game (i.e. something beyond the obvious value of eliminating units).

That sounds unfortunately like 40k2 and goes back to a system that overly rewards killfests. As you say, you're already rewarded for that by eliminating threats that reduce your chances of winning. VPs need to be there to step in and reward you for doing things you wouldn't otherwise get rewarded for - like holding key positions.

Quote
That being said they've got the narrative stuff pushed way up the line in terms of relevance this edition. Its probably time to start looking in that direction for missions going forward. It'd just be cool to have regular matched play make just a tiny step forward in a more narrative direction- at least in terms of scoring the game.

On that note, Konor week 3 has a mission that absolutely should be added to the core roster, as it represents a fairly typical 'breakthrough' tactical situation, the VP system makes sense for both sides, and the strategems are interesting. The one caveat I would add is that it would need to drop the 'extra VP for killing units with a vehicle', as it's too abusable with Knight armies and other all-vehicle forces, making it mathematically impossible for many armies to win if they lose one or two units in the rush to the finish line. Played in the spirit of the mission instead it plays very well, and also has a built-in way to encourage larger numbers of units for the attacker.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 09:53:32 PM by Rhyleth »

Offline Cavalier

  • One Archon to Rules Test Them All | High Corsair Prince of Painting | Warlock
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2514
  • Country: us
  • Renegade Autarch
  • Armies: Eldar, Dark Angels, World Eaters
Re: "Chapter Approved" rules
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2017, 09:09:40 AM »
@Rhyleth- Yeah I liked those missions you are referencing. I played the 2nd one with those modified kill points and loved it.

As for Victory Points, if you had objectives worth say 300-400 points, people would still play for those objectives. They'd represent huge swings... especially if Warlord etc. had similar value. Obviously I haven't worked out the math but I'm sure it could be balanced. As for kill-fests... bring it on! Thats why I play 40k!  ;D ;D ;D

I get what you are saying about what objectives are supposed to represent... but its too abstract for my tastesf. I want something that represents whats happening on the battlefield where my dudes are directly.
Check out my army! Eldar Corsair Army

I'm also on the Splintermind Podcast! http://www.facebook.com/splintermindpodcast/

 


Powered by EzPortal