+2/-2 tournament points for objectives is too much

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

Fellow T9A gamers, it's finally time for the annual balance update. Not a moment too soon! Find all information about it in our news.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is available! You can read all about it in the news.

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • +2/-2 tournament points for objectives is too much

    As subject, i played some matches and tournaments with the new 0-10 victory table with +2/-2 for objectives and all players agree that +2/-2 is too relevant.
    it's a 4pts difference just for objectives on a 10pts range, so it's HUGE.

    objectives should be important, but not that much.

    it's wrong that a player who won a match 6-4 but lost the objective would lost the match 4-6.....

    objectives should give +1/-1....that match should become 5-5 which is fair and correct....you won but due to the opponent getting the objective, you get a draw which is fair.
  • Hitsugaya Toushiro wrote:

    As subject, i played some matches and tournaments with the new 0-10 victory table with +2/-2 for objectives and all players agree that +2/-2 is too relevant.
    it's a 4pts difference just for objectives on a 10pts range, so it's HUGE.

    objectives should be important, but not that much.

    it's wrong that a player who won a match 6-4 but lost the objective would lost the match 4-6.....

    objectives should give +1/-1....that match should become 5-5 which is fair and correct....you won but due to the opponent getting the objective, you get a draw which is fair.
    The flip side is why didn't you go for the objective instead of killing units / grabbing victory points. This shifts the game play drastically especially for gun line armies -> can no longer bunker in the corner.
    :HE: Beware of the panda....with big guns
  • pk-ng wrote:

    Hitsugaya Toushiro wrote:

    As subject, i played some matches and tournaments with the new 0-10 victory table with +2/-2 for objectives and all players agree that +2/-2 is too relevant.
    it's a 4pts difference just for objectives on a 10pts range, so it's HUGE.

    objectives should be important, but not that much.

    it's wrong that a player who won a match 6-4 but lost the objective would lost the match 4-6.....

    objectives should give +1/-1....that match should become 5-5 which is fair and correct....you won but due to the opponent getting the objective, you get a draw which is fair.
    The flip side is why didn't you go for the objective instead of killing units / grabbing victory points. This shifts the game play drastically especially for gun line armies -> can no longer bunker in the corner.
    i totally agree with the +2/-2 objectives points and i like it a lot but i was thinking that this +2/-2 MAYBE can favour a "avoidance play-style" , i mean a player can play an avoidance list trying to "loose only 4-6" and go for the objectives only winning 6-4

    or trying to loose 3-7 and going for the objectives and make a draw 5-5
  • Yes infact i like the importance of objectives......but +2/-2 (which is a 4pts difference on a 10pts total scale) is too relevant.

    also it's tournament breaking...for example in a little tournament i did, on 2nd match a good player friend of mine played against a noob player and did 6-4....but that player casually (not really expert) had a scoring unit more and so it became a 4-6.

    then another expert player had to fight that noob player (who really lose but won only due to objective) and so avoided stronger opponents and easily won 10-0 and won the tournament.

    same for other tournaments.

    also there are situations when you can play ignoring losing units just because is more important to get an objective because you would really get a 4pts difference....for example if i'm losing 8-2 (1200+ pts) i can throw the remaining 1300pts towards my opponent just to get the objective....no care if i lose 1000pts more, i will not lose anything more but instead if i would get the objective, i would go for a 6-4!
    same for 5-5....i can decide to sacrifice a lot of pts that would make me lose 4-6 (so i'm giving 2pts difference to my opponent) just to get an objective and win 6-4 (4pts difference).
    so in general the objective gives me more pts difference (4pts) than those i can lose by losing units (2pts difference steps)...so it's really stupid to play in that way.


    a +1/-1 would be really better.....a 2pts difference would still be relevant and can't be ignored at all...BUT it wouldn't be that game/tournaments breaking....in my previous examples the 5-5 match wouldn't be altered because if i sacrifice units to lose 4-6 and i get the objective i would return to 5-5 so no profit in doing so....so i would play in a less kamikaze way and try to not sacrifice pts BUT take the objective and try to win 6-4 by strategy.
  • Well then your "expert" player seem to be no so expert afterall otherwise he would have more scoring units? He seem to have designed it for 8th Edition rather than 9th Age where scoring units is actually quite important.

    Why is the grabbing points from killing opponents unit more important than getting objective? Because essentially you are saying that grabbing points should be your primary concern and the secondary concern is getting the objective in which case if I kill enough units with less liability (having a standard increases your liability) I will win.

    This seems to be an 8th edition style of thinking killing units > getting objective. Part of the tactical and strategical finesse is to create a list that can kill or deny points to your enemy and also get objectives.
    :HE: Beware of the panda....with big guns
  • 1)he had a lot of scoring units (zombies etc) but it's not always that easy to getting objectives...you don't simply need more units, there are a lot of gaming situations where the strategy could go wrong and you lose a scoring unit etc etc....so the "he is not expert because he didn't have enough scoring units" argument is really wrong.

    2)i didn't say that the victory points farming is more important than objectives. i said that due to the "easy" nature of scoring objectives, and the 4pts difference between players for objectives, it's really bad watching games resolved in a kamikaze throwing units at the opponent because you would get more tournament points by taking an objective than those you would lose by victory points losed by that kamikaze tactic.
    same for some avoidance/bunker lists that can play towards a 5-5 and with objectives they would get 6-4 or 7-3.
    also it's really bad for team enviroment with that kind of lists.

    i repeat...objectives are important and should be..BUT the 4pts difference is really too much in a 0-10pts scale and make them too much important at the point that you can simply ignore the basic battle just to take them; a +1/-1 (2pts difference) would still be very important and can't be ignored BUT would make matches more balanced.
  • pk-ng wrote:

    Well then your "expert" player seem to be no so expert afterall otherwise he would have more scoring units? He seem to have designed it for 8th Edition rather than 9th Age where scoring units is actually quite important.

    Why is the grabbing points from killing opponents unit more important than getting objective? Because essentially you are saying that grabbing points should be your primary concern and the secondary concern is getting the objective in which case if I kill enough units with less liability (having a standard increases your liability) I will win.

    This seems to be an 8th edition style of thinking killing units > getting objective. Part of the tactical and strategical finesse is to create a list that can kill or deny points to your enemy and also get objectives.
    The problem is that not every army can bring the same scoring unit. A vampire will naturally have a lot of scoring, while a wood elves will struggle a lot.
    6" to score is also a big problem: you have to push your opponent in his deployment zone sometimes, or completely destroy his unit. Not so easy at all.

    And why free reform unit can't claim objective? Some armies rely on skirmish+fast cavalry unit (SE first of all) and are forced to play big blocks, ruining the armies. I know that's done to (rightfully) nerd avoidance, but it's too much. Some others armies, on the other and, don't have to change nothing in their playstile.

    Make it +1/-1 or just say that big blocks in the way now. SE can't be competitive with +2/-2, impossible to get high points in tournament
  • albertoalter wrote:

    pk-ng wrote:

    Well then your "expert" player seem to be no so expert afterall otherwise he would have more scoring units? He seem to have designed it for 8th Edition rather than 9th Age where scoring units is actually quite important.

    Why is the grabbing points from killing opponents unit more important than getting objective? Because essentially you are saying that grabbing points should be your primary concern and the secondary concern is getting the objective in which case if I kill enough units with less liability (having a standard increases your liability) I will win.

    This seems to be an 8th edition style of thinking killing units > getting objective. Part of the tactical and strategical finesse is to create a list that can kill or deny points to your enemy and also get objectives.
    The problem is that not every army can bring the same scoring unit. A vampire will naturally have a lot of scoring, while a wood elves will struggle a lot.6" to score is also a big problem: you have to push your opponent in his deployment zone sometimes, or completely destroy his unit. Not so easy at all.

    And why free reform unit can't claim objective? Some armies rely on skirmish+fast cavalry unit (SE first of all) and are forced to play big blocks, ruining the armies. I know that's done to (rightfully) nerd avoidance, but it's too much. Some others armies, on the other and, don't have to change nothing in their playstile.

    Make it +1/-1 or just say that big blocks in the way now. SE can't be competitive with +2/-2, impossible to get high points in tournament
    SE can do it. I've seen it multiple times.
    :HE: Beware of the panda....with big guns
  • pk-ng wrote:

    albertoalter wrote:

    pk-ng wrote:

    Well then your "expert" player seem to be no so expert afterall otherwise he would have more scoring units? He seem to have designed it for 8th Edition rather than 9th Age where scoring units is actually quite important.

    Why is the grabbing points from killing opponents unit more important than getting objective? Because essentially you are saying that grabbing points should be your primary concern and the secondary concern is getting the objective in which case if I kill enough units with less liability (having a standard increases your liability) I will win.

    This seems to be an 8th edition style of thinking killing units > getting objective. Part of the tactical and strategical finesse is to create a list that can kill or deny points to your enemy and also get objectives.
    The problem is that not every army can bring the same scoring unit. A vampire will naturally have a lot of scoring, while a wood elves will struggle a lot.6" to score is also a big problem: you have to push your opponent in his deployment zone sometimes, or completely destroy his unit. Not so easy at all.
    And why free reform unit can't claim objective? Some armies rely on skirmish+fast cavalry unit (SE first of all) and are forced to play big blocks, ruining the armies. I know that's done to (rightfully) nerd avoidance, but it's too much. Some others armies, on the other and, don't have to change nothing in their playstile.

    Make it +1/-1 or just say that big blocks in the way now. SE can't be competitive with +2/-2, impossible to get high points in tournament
    SE can do it. I've seen it multiple times.
    please PM me that list-game.
    Maybe my meta is different from yours but seems to be that SE has really ha d time with that, without being forced into those awful multi-blocs list
  • pk-ng wrote:

    Regardless of list, if SE have problems capturing objectives then it's either a) list problem b) play style problem or c) AB problem.
    no, it's also a problem of a Rulebook that push too much in a direction about playstile of the whole game. Objective, nerd to free reform ecc...
    It seems to me that the whole game is now move fast as you can (vanguard everywhere) and hit as hard as possible (much attack-multi wound)
  • Harder does not mean you cannot and doesn't skew against certain army. You can always create list to capture objectives. Objectives have never been an important factor for warhammer since the aim of the game was the smash the other opponent. Adding objective gives an extra dynamic. It is AS important to get objective as it is the smash the opponent.
    :HE: Beware of the panda....with big guns
  • Warhammer has set the paradigm that the most important thing by far in every battle is destroying the enemy army. That doesn't necessarily make sense as controlling other objectives would often be more important. In order for the objectives to matter, they have to have a fairly big effect. You're essentially saying that objectives shouldn't matter, which just means we shouldn't have them. Of course, it may be that in some battles the only thing that would matter would be destroying the enemy army. But that wouldn't be every battle.