Diamond objectives and objectives too far

Mush started some great discussion on objective placement. Recently I've seen a few comments on a diamond placement, but I haven't seen the initial reference. If anyone can point it out I would be appreciative. I have a few thoughts based on name, but I'd like to verify what I'm thinking.

Also, this made me think about objective placement being too far away. I have been putting objectives in the far corners to maximize my mobility. However, I've noticed several enemy generals that cut their losses on far objectives. They deem the benefits not worth the risk and turn the game into a race to tabling. IE, they focus on destroying my units rather than trying to score objectives. It has mixed results, but my main thought/question is whether others have found a sweet spot for objective separation. Is there enough room to spread the enemy army, but close enough to keep them trying.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

I like it when an enemy focuses on tabling in an objective game.

If he has the ability to table you then you were never going to win regardless - and if he doesn't then he's handing you the game.

Agreed. But I'd like to make it more enticing to have them try for an objective rather than feel it is impossible. I've noticed it in a few games where my opponent would simply say it isn't possible and move to a different tactic. Have others run into similar issues?

Sometimes it's just worth giving up an objective because of overall game plan. You never need all the objectives to win. A competent general isn't going to be drawn into splitting their forces and give you that big advantage just to have an objective on turn 2 that they don't need until turn 5. I actually like watching opponents place their objectives, as it usually means you can get a sense of their game plan and plan accordingly, even as far back as deployment.

Thor665 wrote:

I like it when an enemy focuses on tabling in an objective game.

If he has the ability to table you then you were never going to win regardless - and if he doesn't then he's handing you the game.

Do you not see opponent's doing both? As in, trying to table you whilst still holding as many objectives as possible.

I'm not so sure I agree with the 'if he can table you, you never could win' statement.

The Shredder wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

I like it when an enemy focuses on tabling in an objective game.

If he has the ability to table you then you were never going to win regardless - and if he doesn't then he's handing you the game.

Do you not see opponent's doing both? As in, trying to table you whilst still holding as many objectives as possible.

Sure, it's how I play - but there is a difference between trying to table me and tabling me.

Jimsolo wrote:

I'm not so sure I agree with the 'if he can table you, you never could win' statement.

Let me know about all the times you won versus an opponent that tabled you and I'll reassess my concept

What about times I won against an opponent who could have tabled me?

(Did I misunderstand the premise? I thought you said that if the opponent had the ability to table you, you couldn't win anyway. Is that not right?)

I think you misunderstood me or I did not make myself clear.

The OP presented an issue;

"Far apart objectives hurt me because then the opponent focuses on tabling me while ignoring objectives"

From that, two possibilities;

1. The opponent tables you and wins.
2. The opponent fails to table you, in which case you can win by objectives they ignored.

If #1 is true - you were not going to win anyway, because the opponent can table you.
If #2 is true - then you win.

You are now saying that there is an opponent that in theory could table you but didn't. That means he couldn't table you - and has nothing to do with what I meant. It doesn't matter if an opponent tries to table you, it matters if they can table you.
Make sense?

I mean, there *are* other possibilities like;

3. Opponent tries to table you - you table opponent.

But those are immaterial to the raised issue about the placement of objectives, just like an opponent who could theoretically table you but doesn't - that doesn't matter to how you place objectives unless you have logic for how objective placement can hinder his capability to table you (which, for my money, simply suggests poor opponent play awareness).

Thor665 wrote:

If he has the ability to table you then you were never going to win regardless

This is the part that is tripping me up. Don't most armies have the ability to table most other armies? It's a very rare game where I look at it and can honestly say, 'one side is incapable of tabling the other.' Is that not true in your games?

The Cubs have the ability to win the series this year. It doesn't mean their opponents can't win regardless.

(Or was I misunderstanding the quote?)

Side note: do we have a confused smilie?

I feel you are still conflating 'chance' with 'successfully doing so'.
I don't know hoe to make myself any more clear than I did in my last post though.

How about replace the words 'has the ability' in my quote with 'If he can'?
Does that make my point clear to you?

EDit - though, the way you're taking it - replace 'if he can' with 'If he absolutely achieves the goal of' and then I think that will clear up any confusion.

Yeah, basically you're taking 'ability' and taking it in the loosest sense, whereas the only issue to an opponent having a tabling plan for you is successful completion of said plan - otherwise the plan is a failure. Tabling is an absolute, it either happens or it doesn't - Schrodinger's tabling has no bearing on my win.

Makes sense?

Thor665 wrote:

1. The opponent tables you and wins.
2. The opponent fails to table you, in which case you can win by objectives they ignored.

If #1 is true - you were not going to win anyway, because the opponent can table you.
If #2 is true - then you win.

You are now saying that there is an opponent that in theory could table you but didn't. That means he couldn't table you - and has nothing to do with what I meant. It doesn't matter if an opponent tries to table you, it matters if they can table you.
Make sense?

Though that is what I said here.
I thought it was clear on the distinction I meant.

It seems like you're using 'can' to mean 'does.'

In which case, yes, it now makes complete sense.

I think.

Quote :

Also, this made me think about objective placement being too far away. I have been putting objectives in the far corners to maximize my mobility. However, I've noticed several enemy generals that cut their losses on far objectives. They deem the benefits not worth the risk and turn the game into a race to tabling. IE, they focus on destroying my units rather than trying to score objectives. It has mixed results, but my main thought/question is whether others have found a sweet spot for objective separation. Is there enough room to spread the enemy army, but close enough to keep them trying.

Any thoughts?

Too abstract to really give a definitive 'sweet spot' but the basic strategy is solid, IF you've built to capitalize and he hasn't. Its just one of those things you really have to evaluate on a case by case basis.. mission, terrain, opponents army, your army etc. Avenues to victory. If possibly I always try to play both fronts because many armies I face are not designed or capable of diverting resources to playing the mission while still be able to focus sufficient firepower on killing me. Creates a nice conundrum since most DE forces are quite capable of both.

Jimsolo wrote:

It seems like you're using 'can' to mean 'does.'

In which case, yes, it now makes complete sense.

I think.

Well, i just whipped out the 'can' in my sentence. And it is a viable use of the word.

"If I can score more points I win the game"
"If I can table you I win the game"

They both imply more than simply the theoretical ability to do the task to achieve the goal - both require the completion of the task to achieve the later stated effect.

Lol, semantics, veering off-topic.

Point being: if your opponent focuses on trying to table you, you can still win the game against him.

If I have bulky combat units with a big footprint, like grotesques or a CTC, I try to clump the objectives up like Mush shows. With Reavers or Venomspam, I like to have them spread out a bit, so I can take advantage of the mobility. Especially if I brought allied ObSec Windriders.

Jimsolo wrote:

Point being: if your opponent focuses on trying to table you, you can still win the game against him.  

I absolutely agree.

Jimsolo wrote:

If I have bulky combat units with a big footprint, like grotesques or a CTC, I try to clump the objectives up like Mush shows.  With Reavers or Venomspam, I like to have them spread out a bit, so I can take advantage of the mobility.  Especially if I brought allied ObSec Windriders.

I would agree, but would describe it as; the less MSU you are the more condensed you want the objectives.

Quick follow up: is there more to the diamond placement?thanks for comments.

Myrvn, you're over thinking this "diamond objectives"... use your judgment and place objectives to your advantage.

Thats pretty much what I thought, but wasn't sure if there was a prior discussion...

None that actually makes any sense - it's why deployment tacticas are difficult to write. Your army, the opponent's army, the terrain, and the mission *all* affect deployment. Any actual hard tactical based "rule" for deployment of anything would be either quite convoluted or misleading.

Thor665 wrote:

None that actually makes any sense - it's why deployment tacticas are difficult to write. Your army, the opponent's army, the terrain, and the mission *all* affect deployment. Any actual hard tactical based "rule" for deployment of anything would be either quite convoluted or misleading.

Exactly. The variables involved make it something that is too complicated to attempt to have a hard-set rule for. However in saying that there are obvious conclusions you can draw based upon asking questions to yourself during objective placement and deployment.

I am relatively still a beginner general (under 20 games thus far), but already when playing against less competent players I can determine things.

Generally as I have only got experience with 1 army so far (orks) I just have a think about what the opponent perceives about my army and how I would deal with myself, from that I can then usually predict some of his game plan and go from there.

Questions I ask;
Do I have MSU and mobility enough to simply play the mission?
Does the mission do me any favours? IE the one with each turn reducing the number of tact cards, for my Orks with MSU I can generally have 3-4 objectives covered turn 1 dependant on placement, which often will give me a nice VP boost at the start, allowing for maximum card changes through my hand - giving you more choices the following turn.
What is my opponents situation (basically what are they thinking about the game type, how they will handle my army) - this can often be the most revealing.

Any other questions you guys typically ask?

*Do i have slow but slaughtering units? (I.e: grots or talos) in which case, is useful for the mission type to create a "mosh pit" of objetive where my opponent must face my close combat units?

In previous editions, I used to quite enjoy clumping objectives in one area, then deploying on the opposite half of the board. The theory was that I would know where the opponent wanted to be (near the objectives) and could thus split his army, and defeat it in detail. Then swoop on the objectives in the late game.

I'm finding this significantly less effective in the Maelstrom paradigm though

I play a Deep Strike, close quarters army, so I tend to try to always put my objectives as close to the ones my opponent is setting up as possible.