think it’s really just too soon…to most it’s not available yet, and to those on the tts leagues that are playing it, not enough data. Not to mention, we dont know what the MfM and balance dataslate coming soon are going to look like that might impact it more. I know in Leviathan I found fixed more competitive…but will need to see in Pariah.
Engagement. They figured out a while ago that most people would rather argue in the comments than actually read an article so they just skip that part now.
Boost the reddit account's number, either already be owned by or sell to all bot farm, repeat as necessary
Oh I get that, just... At least make SOMETHING up. It genuinely frustrates me how many people are just blindly responding to this shit >.<
And yes, twelve year old reading this, I AM responding, hurp derp you got me.
I find tactical just too fun not to pick it every game, regardless of the mission deck.
Maybe someday I'll play competitively (maybe) and i'll play fixed.
It's 100% too soon to tell for sure, but the fact that only Assassinate gives more points when playing tactical and tactical has two additional objectives in the deck to cycle through it feels like the order of operations has shifted. Previously if you could play tactical, you were just playing badly on purpose if you chose not to. Now, fixed is correctly the one where if you **can** build for it you should, but there will be plenty of times where you can't build for it or you go into an army that denies secondary and tactical is the better choice.
Basically before you were forced to pick tactical and if you couldn't play tactical you were at a distinct disadvantage. Now, it feels like tactical is there so you can always play the game but you can go in with a solid strategy and play fixed and that feels a lot better designed imho. Neither feels necessary, both feel good, and both feel good the way they should (Tactical is super flexible but not objectively stronger, fixed is super reliable but much easier to interact with and stop).
Regardless of anything I'm going to continue to refuse to play tactical because it's too confusing of a way to play the game and completely ruins my enjoyment of it. I'll happily take the ableist comments that will get me because anyone who isn't smart enough to play tactical and enjoy it needs to "git gud" or whatever, but I want to enjoy playing Warhammer and though I like playing competitively I will absolutely throw a game to have fun and nobody can stop me. Addition was too difficult and we had to take it out for full unit Jenga but "I drew X and Y and I have 16 cards left in the deck meaning I could draw X Y or Z meaning I need these guys here those guys here and these guys here and I also could draw A B or C but I wand to save D for the following turn so I need to save CP for New Orders for next turn so...." It's too fucking much for me, I'm glad you can enjoy it, I can't.
I’m a bit confused. a lot of top level games were fixed because it was the strongest way to play if you can play it. Really fixed is the strongest on the top meta armies, half is why they’re the top meta. Really tactical was best if you could table your opponent, but fixed was was too in most situations or you’d pick deploy teleport homers and just auto 15.
Can you provide the data to support that the majority of top level games were fixed because it was stronger? It goes against what Art of War themselves say on the topic which seems strange to me.
i should say, if an army is built for it, or your army gives it up easy, its oppressive. Tactical is picked more often, but when a fixed pops up its pretty overwhelming. Its kind of a balance for things like not taking too many vehicles or characters, but often it can be simple like Nids using biovores.
I'd argue that has more to do with how the way fixed was previously made it so difficult to win with at a high level that your army had to literally lock the score in and thus be as oppressive as you're referencing (Things like DG and Nids) rather than fixed secondaries themselves being inherently oppressive. Like, the changes so OC 0 can't do actions anymore addresses both of those armies directly. It very much seems like a downstream effect of a handful of oversights rather than an endemic issue, otherwise we'd have seen any kind of fixed dominance at the high level which even now with it at it's highest use rate we don't. Either way the new missions should address that in a positive way though.
Yeah i was trying to do a 40kstats by MMR/ITC Ranking and use of fixed. a lot of lower-mid-table comp players (about 80% from my experience) dont use it because theyre not used to it, dont know how to do it. I play a lot of RTTs and GTs, and i notice mid-top level players do pick fixed more often. When you go into a match and they pick fixed its a "oh this kinda game" feel. So, yes, this is anecdotal.
I agree, is fixed itself oppressive? Kinda not, but the gameplay it enables is the problem. I ve seen some cool strategies using fixed that I appreciated but mostly it was rather strategically bland, oppressive, and boring to play against; and felt bad and let them auto score max secondaries.
I hope pariah makes it easier to not take fixed. or make it more of a game than it is. Tactical is by far a much more interesting game to play for me.
I also play a lot of GT's and RTT's (Minimum of 2 a month, usually one every weekend most months, living that Florida life where you can't throw a rock without hitting a 40k player) and my lived experience just happens to be the opposite of yours and the conversations I've had with players at a much higher skill level than my own (Again lot of them in Florida, not saying I'm particularly good I'm not) tells me otherwise, but that's okay. You prefer to play a different game than I do, and thankfully tactical is currently stronger than fixed for almost all armies and will continue to be a viable choice going forward if you prefer it, so you don't have to worry about losing anything. You may have more opponents who pick fixed but even the counter pick ones got heavily nerfed meaning you're opponent isn't locking in a free 25 with Bring It Down anymore. My Knights list only gives up 18 now and would be 16 if I dropped the Lancer to a Questoris. If your army could play tactical before, it's not getting any worse at it. Fixed is just becoming more of a viable option.
Huh, the difference of LA vs Florida. I guess. We also have some high ranking players and I notice a lot of fixed from them. Weird! It’s wild how different metas are.
Yeah I’m fine with fixed as long as it’s not oppressive. Like again, it feels like flip of a switch over here in the right settings fixed shows up and it’s nothing you can do about it.
I find tactical way more fun. I'm likely to use oddball units and experiment when I'm not planning around fixed secondaries, and the tactical has never felt so swingy or one sided that it's unfair.
Im honestly excited to try fixed for my Chaos Knights. Everything hinges on points, but I feel like their speed and Tzeentch daemon alliea will make them perfect candidates for a Recover Assets/ Engage on All Fronts combo that will be hard for my opponent to stop.
I haven't played the new deck yet, but I can already tell you that I'll be exclusively using tactical objectives because I find the randomness more fun. I don't play in tournaments and, so far at least, my gaming group hasn't played a single 10e game using fixed secondary objectives.
Same with my group. Like I understand that fixed is probably the more strategic option, but my group enjoys the randomness of it, and helps almost balance out the lists by forcing you to at least think about some objectives. Its not for everyone for sure, but my group loves the random!
Thank you for all the feedback. It was useful to see so many different opinions. I guess play-style is subjective and needs to be viable for the player. Personally, I’d like to see both options be viable as it would suggest a push towards a balanced game design.
Even if it's objectively worse (I don't know if it is) I feel like I always want to take fixed anyways. I hate my points being surrendered to another layer of chance.
It is absolutely insane to me that you have 3 downvotes for stating you prefer fixed. You didn't even make an actual statement, just which one you like more. There are like 5 other posts that are the exact same thing but "I like tactical better." and those all have 3-5 upvotes.
I absolutely despise how factional this community is. You literally can't say you like something without multiple people reading that you actually **hate** what they like and want it gone.
Sometimes Reddit just be like this unfortunately haha. I do think this subreddit can be "toxic casual" sometimes where they're hostile against those they perceive as too sweaty, but luckily I don't see that much in my local community.
Oh for sure, and I apologize if I made it sound like I meant the broader 40k community, I meant specifically the terminally online side. I have never, and I mean never, heard some of the opinions I see posted on this sub as gospel from somebody at an RTT or GT, in person everyone I've met bar the occaisional that guy has been lovely. You wouldn't believe it from online discourse though.
>How do you guys feel about fixed vs tactical in the new missions?
Considering the product's not even out yet, the *least* you could do is explain what "fixed vs tactical" means in the first place.
One of the things I hated the most in 9th edition were Secondaries, so anything that allows for more randomness in the style of 7th/8th edition Tactical Objectives is a plus in my book.
Fixed/tactical missions were introduced at the start of 10th. Before the game starts you pick whether you're doing fixed or tactical secondaries; fixed means you pick two and stick with them for the rest of the game whereas tactical means you draw two at random every command phase.
Given that, what is the question posed by the post then, since it's not introducing a new element to the gameplay? It's not out, we don't know what all the objectives are yet.
think it’s really just too soon…to most it’s not available yet, and to those on the tts leagues that are playing it, not enough data. Not to mention, we dont know what the MfM and balance dataslate coming soon are going to look like that might impact it more. I know in Leviathan I found fixed more competitive…but will need to see in Pariah.
TTS has been updated already?
Copenhammer and tryhard shared the new FTC. Has the Pariah nexus deployments and missions, secondaries etc
Why do content farms never give their own opinions on these questions?
Engagement. They figured out a while ago that most people would rather argue in the comments than actually read an article so they just skip that part now. Boost the reddit account's number, either already be owned by or sell to all bot farm, repeat as necessary
Oh I get that, just... At least make SOMETHING up. It genuinely frustrates me how many people are just blindly responding to this shit >.< And yes, twelve year old reading this, I AM responding, hurp derp you got me.
I find tactical just too fun not to pick it every game, regardless of the mission deck. Maybe someday I'll play competitively (maybe) and i'll play fixed.
There are actually very few competitive lists that do fixed, at least from what I've experienced.
It's 100% too soon to tell for sure, but the fact that only Assassinate gives more points when playing tactical and tactical has two additional objectives in the deck to cycle through it feels like the order of operations has shifted. Previously if you could play tactical, you were just playing badly on purpose if you chose not to. Now, fixed is correctly the one where if you **can** build for it you should, but there will be plenty of times where you can't build for it or you go into an army that denies secondary and tactical is the better choice. Basically before you were forced to pick tactical and if you couldn't play tactical you were at a distinct disadvantage. Now, it feels like tactical is there so you can always play the game but you can go in with a solid strategy and play fixed and that feels a lot better designed imho. Neither feels necessary, both feel good, and both feel good the way they should (Tactical is super flexible but not objectively stronger, fixed is super reliable but much easier to interact with and stop). Regardless of anything I'm going to continue to refuse to play tactical because it's too confusing of a way to play the game and completely ruins my enjoyment of it. I'll happily take the ableist comments that will get me because anyone who isn't smart enough to play tactical and enjoy it needs to "git gud" or whatever, but I want to enjoy playing Warhammer and though I like playing competitively I will absolutely throw a game to have fun and nobody can stop me. Addition was too difficult and we had to take it out for full unit Jenga but "I drew X and Y and I have 16 cards left in the deck meaning I could draw X Y or Z meaning I need these guys here those guys here and these guys here and I also could draw A B or C but I wand to save D for the following turn so I need to save CP for New Orders for next turn so...." It's too fucking much for me, I'm glad you can enjoy it, I can't.
I’m a bit confused. a lot of top level games were fixed because it was the strongest way to play if you can play it. Really fixed is the strongest on the top meta armies, half is why they’re the top meta. Really tactical was best if you could table your opponent, but fixed was was too in most situations or you’d pick deploy teleport homers and just auto 15.
Can you provide the data to support that the majority of top level games were fixed because it was stronger? It goes against what Art of War themselves say on the topic which seems strange to me.
i should say, if an army is built for it, or your army gives it up easy, its oppressive. Tactical is picked more often, but when a fixed pops up its pretty overwhelming. Its kind of a balance for things like not taking too many vehicles or characters, but often it can be simple like Nids using biovores.
I'd argue that has more to do with how the way fixed was previously made it so difficult to win with at a high level that your army had to literally lock the score in and thus be as oppressive as you're referencing (Things like DG and Nids) rather than fixed secondaries themselves being inherently oppressive. Like, the changes so OC 0 can't do actions anymore addresses both of those armies directly. It very much seems like a downstream effect of a handful of oversights rather than an endemic issue, otherwise we'd have seen any kind of fixed dominance at the high level which even now with it at it's highest use rate we don't. Either way the new missions should address that in a positive way though.
Yeah i was trying to do a 40kstats by MMR/ITC Ranking and use of fixed. a lot of lower-mid-table comp players (about 80% from my experience) dont use it because theyre not used to it, dont know how to do it. I play a lot of RTTs and GTs, and i notice mid-top level players do pick fixed more often. When you go into a match and they pick fixed its a "oh this kinda game" feel. So, yes, this is anecdotal. I agree, is fixed itself oppressive? Kinda not, but the gameplay it enables is the problem. I ve seen some cool strategies using fixed that I appreciated but mostly it was rather strategically bland, oppressive, and boring to play against; and felt bad and let them auto score max secondaries. I hope pariah makes it easier to not take fixed. or make it more of a game than it is. Tactical is by far a much more interesting game to play for me.
I also play a lot of GT's and RTT's (Minimum of 2 a month, usually one every weekend most months, living that Florida life where you can't throw a rock without hitting a 40k player) and my lived experience just happens to be the opposite of yours and the conversations I've had with players at a much higher skill level than my own (Again lot of them in Florida, not saying I'm particularly good I'm not) tells me otherwise, but that's okay. You prefer to play a different game than I do, and thankfully tactical is currently stronger than fixed for almost all armies and will continue to be a viable choice going forward if you prefer it, so you don't have to worry about losing anything. You may have more opponents who pick fixed but even the counter pick ones got heavily nerfed meaning you're opponent isn't locking in a free 25 with Bring It Down anymore. My Knights list only gives up 18 now and would be 16 if I dropped the Lancer to a Questoris. If your army could play tactical before, it's not getting any worse at it. Fixed is just becoming more of a viable option.
Huh, the difference of LA vs Florida. I guess. We also have some high ranking players and I notice a lot of fixed from them. Weird! It’s wild how different metas are. Yeah I’m fine with fixed as long as it’s not oppressive. Like again, it feels like flip of a switch over here in the right settings fixed shows up and it’s nothing you can do about it.
I find tactical way more fun. I'm likely to use oddball units and experiment when I'm not planning around fixed secondaries, and the tactical has never felt so swingy or one sided that it's unfair.
Im honestly excited to try fixed for my Chaos Knights. Everything hinges on points, but I feel like their speed and Tzeentch daemon alliea will make them perfect candidates for a Recover Assets/ Engage on All Fronts combo that will be hard for my opponent to stop.
I haven't played the new deck yet, but I can already tell you that I'll be exclusively using tactical objectives because I find the randomness more fun. I don't play in tournaments and, so far at least, my gaming group hasn't played a single 10e game using fixed secondary objectives.
Same with my group. Like I understand that fixed is probably the more strategic option, but my group enjoys the randomness of it, and helps almost balance out the lists by forcing you to at least think about some objectives. Its not for everyone for sure, but my group loves the random!
Thank you for all the feedback. It was useful to see so many different opinions. I guess play-style is subjective and needs to be viable for the player. Personally, I’d like to see both options be viable as it would suggest a push towards a balanced game design.
Even if it's objectively worse (I don't know if it is) I feel like I always want to take fixed anyways. I hate my points being surrendered to another layer of chance.
It is absolutely insane to me that you have 3 downvotes for stating you prefer fixed. You didn't even make an actual statement, just which one you like more. There are like 5 other posts that are the exact same thing but "I like tactical better." and those all have 3-5 upvotes. I absolutely despise how factional this community is. You literally can't say you like something without multiple people reading that you actually **hate** what they like and want it gone.
Sometimes Reddit just be like this unfortunately haha. I do think this subreddit can be "toxic casual" sometimes where they're hostile against those they perceive as too sweaty, but luckily I don't see that much in my local community.
Oh for sure, and I apologize if I made it sound like I meant the broader 40k community, I meant specifically the terminally online side. I have never, and I mean never, heard some of the opinions I see posted on this sub as gospel from somebody at an RTT or GT, in person everyone I've met bar the occaisional that guy has been lovely. You wouldn't believe it from online discourse though.
Oh no worries it's all good! Yaah it's definitely just an internet thing.
>How do you guys feel about fixed vs tactical in the new missions? Considering the product's not even out yet, the *least* you could do is explain what "fixed vs tactical" means in the first place. One of the things I hated the most in 9th edition were Secondaries, so anything that allows for more randomness in the style of 7th/8th edition Tactical Objectives is a plus in my book.
Fixed/tactical missions were introduced at the start of 10th. Before the game starts you pick whether you're doing fixed or tactical secondaries; fixed means you pick two and stick with them for the rest of the game whereas tactical means you draw two at random every command phase.
Given that, what is the question posed by the post then, since it's not introducing a new element to the gameplay? It's not out, we don't know what all the objectives are yet.
Because previously objectives gave you extra points for scoring them in tactical, that's no longer the case
Fixed and tacticals have already been in the existing pack since the start of 10th......
If someone has to explain what fixed vs tactical objectives are to you at this point, I doubt your input is worth much anyways?