Hidden Agendas. New official rules for secondary objectives.

[Overread]

11 minutes ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

@Overread have you not had games turned around by having access to re-rolls you wouldn't normally get. If you know that you have 2-3 re-roll hits that any of your units can use at any point, that is definitely having an upper hand advantage. Or am I putting too much emphasis on their effectiveness? 

Oh aye it can change things no doubt, but its not the same as, say, getting another 200 points in models to take etc... In general any system that rewards an in-game bonus for prior game victories is going to have some form of inherent unbalance creep in. I think the potential of a single re-roll isn't as broken a means of reward than many others. So perhaps it might be good to think of it as the lesser of many evils. 

Plus lets not forget the triumph  table can be ignored if the event wants and they can focus on just having the hidden objective as another scoring  layer. 

[ianob]

I am assuming the triumph part of it is only for use in campaigns and not tournaments. That seems like a given. It absolutely can’t be intended for tournament play that you get rerolls in your next game for an agenda in the previous.

[Xasz]

My first impulse is scraping the Triumph part and just award some addition tournament points (like 2, in a 0-10 system, something small but enough that players want to do them).

In addition, it could be an convenient decider, after tournament points and units killed (in points).

Although, I'm not sure how practical all this is. As it adds another layer and I've got the feeling that players already have their hands and minds full with rules spread across several books, realms, warscroll updates, FAQs...

[Ravinsild]

57 minutes ago, Xasz said:

My first impulse is scraping the Triumph part and just award some addition tournament points (like 2, in a 0-10 system, something small but enough that players want to do them).

In addition, it could be an convenient decider, after tournament points and units killed (in points).

Although, I'm not sure how practical all this is. As it adds another layer and I've got the feeling that players already have their hands and minds full with rules spread across several books, realms, warscroll updates, FAQs...

Well it’s just once per map, right? 

I think it’s really cool. I just straight up enjoy stuff like this. It adds a little bit of flavor on top. 

Ive played battle for the pass (randomly rolled) 3 times already, it’s the same map over and over. With this it’s still the same map but now with a tiny twist  super exciting! 

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

you lose the game because you happened to draw poorly while your opponent is luckier 

Soooo ... Same thing as pretty much every level of GW gaming ever.

[SwampHeart]

4 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Soooo ... Same thing as pretty much every level of GW gaming ever.

Unless we're referring to luck in the sense of 'if you have an updated book or not' this is a pretty patently false statement. It reads as largely incendiary and aimed at belittling people who enjoy a different aspect of the hobby than you. I don't know that that's your intent but it doesn't come across as much of anything else. 

[Sleboda]

Nah. Just saying that random draws, random pairings, random table assignments, random effects, etc. are, have been, and probably always will be a core part of GW gaming and all of those things can hose one player or the other, so this being a thing doesn't really seem out of place or worthy of being rejected on the stated basis.

You're adding a whole lot of hate that isn't there.

[svnvaldez]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Nah. Just saying that random draws, random pairings, random table assignments, random effects, etc. are, have been, and probably always will be a core part of GW gaming and all of those things can hose one player or the other, so this be thing doesn't really seem out of place or worthy of being rejected on the stated basis.

You're adding a whole lot of hate that isn't there.

My preference would be straight from the book missions stating that realmscape are always a roll a 1 and use SOS as a tie breaker... and I certainly think that is something that ppl can bring  attention to and lobby for on platforms like podcasts.

But that is not the game GW is promoting nor has it ever promoted that.

At its core AOS is a semi balanced game with beautiful models. There are so many better tournaments games out there LOL and Chess are 2.

What I do want is guidance on how to use realms and how to use secondaries... in that sense the last 2 articles have crushed it out of the park. I hope this means that people will at least know what sidemissions are in places when they turn up to an event and we can all take relief that we are playing official AOS in the direction layer out by GW.

[Yoshiya]

They seem interesting but some of them just seem a bit too easy for certain armies to get. Secret Mission being the only one with a downside seems a bit weird too though I guess they were trying to take into accounts things like Soulscryers, Stormcast (especially Vanguard Chamber) etc.

[svnvaldez]

15 minutes ago, Yoshiya said:

They seem interesting but some of them just seem a bit too easy for certain armies to get. Secret Mission being the only one with a downside seems a bit weird too though I guess they were trying to take into accounts things like Soulscryers, Stormcast (especially Vanguard Chamber) etc

 

I agree but I do feel like the article made it clear that for tournaments play these are added points after a game and only a minimal amount (3 extra points where a major win is 30 and presumably a major loss is 0)

Yes these should be straight tie breakers rather than extra points... but if you are adding paint and sports scores and using reasonable point spreads... ie the best painters only getting 10 more points than the guy who tried very hard and got it up to an appropriate standard these sidemissions will not stop the guy who goes 6-0 dropping to 4th like at NOVA...

The middle of the pack gets muddled yes, Ppl who should get 6th come 10th since they are all dropped a game... but the way the article laid it out these points should not have a 4-1 player beating a 5-0 (assuming both armies are painted).

I feel like this article is aimed at fixing the mess that is NOVA and Acon players packs.

 

[Ravinsild]

52 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Nah. Just saying that random draws, random pairings, random table assignments, random effects, etc. are, have been, and probably always will be a core part of GW gaming and all of those things can hose one player or the other, so this be thing doesn't really seem out of place or worthy of being rejected on the stated basis.

You're adding a whole lot of hate that isn't there.

When my Morghasts charge an isolated juicy target... attack 5 times each (10 attacks), and then whiff all but 2 hits and whiff all the wounds... 3/3/-2/3 ;-;

Somehow this keeps happening to me. I need new dice m8...

[eekamouse]

Curious if you were to add these to one-off Matched Play games how it could work.

Off the top of my head, score VPs as normal (defined in the scenario). Each player can choose two hidden objectives before the game. You get 2vp for each objective on top of the VP from the scenario.

1vp? 3vp? 

2vp seems like it would balance with most of the scenarios.

[Lior'Lec]

17 minutes ago, eekamouse said:

Curious if you were to add these to one-off Matched Play games how it could work.

Off the top of my head, score VPs as normal (defined in the scenario). Each player can choose two hidden objectives before the game. You get 2vp for each objective on top of the VP from the scenario.

1vp? 3vp? 

2vp seems like it would balance with most of the scenarios.

     Another idea (maybe better for matched narrative style games) would be to select one at the beginning of the game and then select another (new) one during your hero phase the turn after completing your objective. It would give the battle a more fluid feeling of a changing situation and if you happen to get hosed the first/second turn you aren’t restricted to a ploy that is no longer feasible. Maximum of 3 secret objectives achieved worth 1, 2, and 3 vp respectively. And no player can select a secret that’s already been chosen/fulfilled (by either player).

[King Taloren]

Just now, Lior'Lec said:

     Another idea (maybe better for matched narrative style games) would be to select one at the beginning of the game and then select another (new) one during your hero phase the turn after completing your objective. It would give the battle a more fluid feeling of a changing situation and if you happen to get hosed the first/second turn you aren’t restricted to a ploy that is no longer feasible. Maximum of 3 secret objectives achieved worth 1, 2, and 3 vp respectively. And no player can select a secret that’s already been chosen/fulfilled (by either player).

It’s an interesting idea but it does have the issue that some (ie most) are only scored at the end of the game so it isn’t really that useful to allow someone to pick new ones after completion of one. And depending on how close you are to succeeding one already it would be too easy to choose certain ones qhen you are almost there like linebreaker or attrition.

If they were closer to the triumph and treachery objectives then it wouldn’t be that much of a problem. Like put a wound on the enemy general, or steal an objective.

[gabbi]

14 hours ago, michu said:

If I'm not mistaken Hidden Agendas are part of Middle-Earth SBG too.

Don't know about Middle Erath, but Dark Age and Malifaux (to name the first that come to mind) have hidden secondary objectives by years. It's a popular concept. Glad to see it implemented into AoS, too. Already printed two copies. Eager to give them a go right in the next game.

[gabbi]

3 hours ago, eekamouse said:

Curious if you were to add these to one-off Matched Play games how it could work.

Off the top of my head, score VPs as normal (defined in the scenario). Each player can choose two hidden objectives before the game. You get 2vp for each objective on top of the VP from the scenario.

1vp? 3vp? 

2vp seems like it would balance with most of the scenarios.

That's how I plan to use them: just earn some amount of extra victory points.  They could work well from a "narrative" point of view, too, adding some twist to the game.

[Ben]

As it says in the article, we will be using these secondary missions at Blood and Glory.  

The points weighting means that if you keep scoring majors then you will be ahead of anyone taking a loss, as it should be.  Where the extra points really come into account is separating the top few players.  

I've seen discussions around this many times over the years and the biggest thing for me is that this 'feels' like a GW way of doing it. 

Less maths and spreadsheets is a good thing.  

[Ravinsild]

32 minutes ago, Ben said:

As it says in the article, we will be using these secondary missions at Blood and Glory.  

The points weighting means that if you keep scoring majors then you will be ahead of anyone taking a loss, as it should be.  Where the extra points really come into account is separating the top few players.  

I've seen discussions around this many times over the years and the biggest thing for me is that this 'feels' like a GW way of doing it. 

Less maths and spreadsheets is a good thing.  

Basically 5-0 beats 4-1 but how do you tell who the winner is if 4 people (somehow) are 5-0? These new points add up for a secret score and whoever had the most total points wins, right? 

[Ben]

correct!

[Overread]

I think the other bonus is that because you know the objective and your opponent doesn't it gives you a chance to achieve your goal without them necessarily realising and being able to counter your attempt. So I can see them being popular in casual games even against more experienced players as the less experienced can still have  a good chance getting their hidden objective. Sure its not "AS" good as winning the whole game, but it gives them a chance to walk away with a victory of sorts rather than a total rout. 

[RuneBrush]

On first read I really like them!  Feels like it should make tournament scoring feel a bit more strategic.

I still think that longer term, battleplans need win / lose conditions that make minor wins/loses occur more often and don't use any type of Kill Points.  Getting a major when the VP's are 19 vs 20 is pretty harsh and we know that the way summoning works now skews KP's

[AaronWilson]

It's a big step from GW to try and reach out the community and say "look, we see you events are struggling with this issue let us try and help"

Do i think the Secondaries they came up with are perfect? No.

Do i think it's a really positive step for GW to reach out try and help there own competitive scene? 100000000000000000% yes. 

[svnvaldez]

8 hours ago, AaronWIlson said:

It's a big step from GW to try and reach out the community and say "look, we see you events are struggling with this issue let us try and help"

Do i think the Secondaries they came up with are perfect? No.

Do i think it's a really positive step for GW to reach out try and help there own competitive scene? 100000000000000000% yes. 

100% spot on... this is the entire point of their post imo.

Secondaries and tie breaks are an issue... gw offered a suggestion that ppl can use and at least agree that it was the idea put forward by GW.

I don’t think there perfect either, but that’s not what’s important. What is important is to have an official standard to look to.

[SoulBlightDryad]

We used these at ClawCon in Missouri. 5 game tourney over 2 days. Players randomly drew 7 and had to secretly choose 1 to accomplish before deployment. They could not attempt the same one twice. Response from everyone in the tournament after was extremely positive. Attendees even made the comments of "every tournament should use these". Not only did they help with scoring, but they were very fun.

[Dead Scribe]

If every tournament used them and they became standard to the game I'd be all for using them.