Goatboy’s Warhammer 40k: We Need To Talk Terrain, Missions & Points
Goatboy here with some thoughts on where the current 40k scene is going, with terrain, missions, and points.
I am happy to see events moving along and the meta/tournament style forming and solidifying. These are good things and hopefully showcase a chance for a healthy future as we continue to see new books, updated pieces, and a returning player base actually playing the game. Of course, as I sit here as a computer chair general I don’t think everything is perfect right now, and here are some thoughts.
Terrain Trends
First – the terrain always seems to be a big issue in any event. If you’ve run an event or thought about starting one you know terrain is the biggest hassle to getting something started. It takes an army to make all those hills, broken down buildings, and Ork fortresses. Overall it feels like most events are getting into the idea that having good hiding places based terrain is the way to go. I am happy about this and hopefully, I will continue to be happy about these changes as I get to go to more events throughout the year. Still – it always feels like while good gameplay terrain doesn’t always fit in the same mold of cool as hell looking terrain. I am sure as we move along and these obscuring buildings start to show up more will be happier – but it is something I always think about. I got some info on the GW event terrain and I like it because it reminds me of the old 4th edition abstract terrain with a focus on making it look cool instead of a misshapen circle with some trees on it.
Missions Need Help
Second – the 40k missions are just – well kind of boring. There are still too many non-interactive ones that are too good not to take. Why even try to murder your opponent when you can easily get your points, barely interact, and never risk losing the game. I saw a few games where one player was easily enough ahead to basically ignore whatever the opponent did and still win. Having the game end on both players having high scores doesn’t always constitute a close game. It makes me think it was a mostly non-interactive game as each player’s set-up missions didn’t matter too much or wasn’t “stoppable”. This can be frustrating especially for the older armies that don’t compete in the new 9th landscape of movement, board control, and MSU.
I have talked about this before – but I still think we need to look at missions from the top down and either force some kind of mission-specific scoring system that forces players to interact or some other “interaction” secondaries that are just as easy to do then the non-interaction “action” scoring options. It seems to be the biggest complaint from some other Grognards that feel like the game can be won by just having a ton of wounds in the middle as you control more objectives. Or control just enough to get 10 points a turn. You grab a few secondaries the opponent can’t stop and you got yourself your sweet 60-80 points that is needed to win a lot of games.
Now I don’t want this to go back to the old ITC missions that gave you points for killing and killing more – I just think we need to think of things that reward you for doing something to your opponent. Think about how some armies that are fast and good at hiding can just pick some movement options, the ROD mission, and then To the Last for some expensive things you never get a chance to touch. All 3 of those are things and opponent can’t really stop if the player is decent enough to control the game narrative.
I like most of the new armies’ missions as they feel like they are set up to do things the armies like to do. A few are too easy – but sometimes having an easy 12 points can be a good thing for an army that can struggle with some of the book options. It is the weakest part of the game currently and really a kind of boring game within a game where the better player can win by either tricking you into picking a bad option by how you present your army or just having 3 that they can guarantee to always get.
Help us!
Faction Points Balance
Overall I think 9th works pretty well. As a whole, the game is pretty consistent and bar some annoyances with the missions I feel it works out pretty well. It really is a game that flourishes with good Terrain and once we get a better handle on army strength levels and missions I feel it will be in a great place. The strength of an army is the final piece to this and something I wish was a lot more – tested. We live in a game that isn’t something you can just run to the store and throw on a table to win with. With points based on painting, you need to invest a lot of time into building your army and then painting or getting it painted. Time is a hard investment to quantify with people and that is where this game gets a lot of enjoyment and a ton of frustration from. I wish we had all armies either on a decent enough footing with each other or at least everyone having a somewhat level playing field with Missions, strats, and sweet rules.
The next event I have is the New Orleans GW event as I just locked in my hotel this week. I am excited to try out the GW events especially before I get to play the Austin event. It will give me some practice and let me think – maybe I can hang with the top dogs. I mean who am I kidding right? My job, in any event, is to try and win more than lose as those days of getting to the top 8 and trying to survive all those games are long gone from my daddy-addled brain. Between 40+ hrs of work, 2 kids at home, and a household it gets hard to remember all the rules and interactions.
What do you think? Is everything perfect and I am just an old troll clacking away at my keyboard? Do you think we just need some small tweaks? Is Cawl to blame for all this mess?
