Priority Orders Received

[Frosty the Pirate]

Bit of an interesting Rules question/interaction here. We ran into this last weekend and after reading and re-reading I'm really not quite sure what to make of it.

While playing with Tactical Objectives on Saturday, I received "Priority Orders Received" as a tactical objective, which asks me to immediately draw a bonus tactical objective and to achieve that bonus objective using only my warlord.

I then proceeded to draw "Advance" as my bonus tactical objective, which states to have no units from my army in my deployment zone to score a victory point.

After reading and re-reading we really had ZERO idea how those cards would "combine" (we basically just discarded priority orders received and played on).

Afterwards we were discussing it a little, and as worded, it sounds like I would of been able to move my warlord out of my deployment zone and score 4 VP (1 for Advance and 3 for Priority Orders Received). Which seems pretty overpowered especially considering my warlord effectively has a jump pack. (Through I realise not all warlords are so lucky)

What do you guys think? I know there are probably other tactical objectives that might combine weirdly with Priority Orders Received.

[Jack Shrapnel]

well this is an example why tactical objectives aren't for tourney play.

But if you're looking for an even remotely way of balancing that combo, I'd say just redraw what the priority objective is, as the warlord couldn't possibly move all of your units out of the deployment zone by himself alone. So it is not achievable by the warlord, as both cards conflict with one another. The alternative would not be move the warlord to gain 4 VP because frankly that's not what the card says at all. it says no units from your army. if priority orders means only the warlord can do it, that means the warlord now has an impossible task... so redraw

seems a lot more fair then saying "well, sorry, you just get an impossible card, sucks to be you".

[ohgodsnakes]

I'm not a fan of Priority Orders Received as a card... There are a couple other times where this kind of thing comes up.

What if your warlord is purely a support character with little offensive capabilities? Aun'Va is definitely not going to get Big Game Hunter, let alone Blood and Guts. Or combat characters without Fly getting Scour the Skies, or the shooting one.

How does it work with Kingslayer, or psychological warfare?

Overall, a kinda poopy card.

[LizardTau]

Or something like domination. Your warlord can't hold all objectives. Lol

[Frosty the Pirate]

Yeah, it sounds like redrawing will solve the problem most of the time.

I just had no idea what could be considered a good/fair solution for weird interactions like that (only my second game using tactical objectives)

[ohgodsnakes]

I honestly might just see if my opponent would be ok with removing the card from the deck entirely for the game.

[Jack Shrapnel]

Under almost all circumstance that I can think of, tactical objectives are more for "narrative" play, as they're pretty random and not exactly balanced. For example in some of the missions if you get a bad initial draw, you're stuck with unable to grab any points (or even discard for new cards) while your opponent with a lucky draw racks up the points. Talk about a heavy dose of salt to eat if this is the final round of a tourney and you basically lost without even getting to make a decision or have a chance!

So I would say any time you go into a tactical objective game, treat it as fair as you can and emphasize the fun factor (ie: toss out crap/unusable cards, make decisions that push the game forward for fun - like with priority objectives etc.) As much as it says "tactial" in the card description, think of this more in terms of "random objectives" and you're more accurate.

I've been to tournies where tactical objectives are used, and gotta say, was NOT a fan, because even the wins just seemed hollow when it's literally whether or not you draw good cards. I don't want to play a single hand of blackjack for 2 2/12 hours either

[raceygaming]

I think the card was twisted from its original concept into the unwieldy monster it is now.

I would think you could put it back in order if you just changed it to "when you draw this card roll a D6, if ONLY your warlord controls that objective..." It more now you have to move your warlord around the table and put it at risk.

[raceygaming]

Feb 13, 2018 14:00:42 GMT -5 Jack Shrapnel said:

Under almost all circumstance that I can think of, tactical objectives are more for "narrative" play, as they're pretty random and not exactly balanced. For example in some of the missions if you get a bad initial draw, you're stuck with unable to grab any points (or even discard for new cards) while your opponent with a lucky draw racks up the points. Talk about a heavy dose of salt to eat if this is the final round of a tourney and you basically lost without even getting to make a decision or have a chance!

So I would say any time you go into a tactical objective game, treat it as fair as you can and emphasize the fun factor (ie: toss out crap/unusable cards, make decisions that push the game forward for fun - like with priority objectives etc.) As much as it says "tactial" in the card description, think of this more in terms of "random objectives" and you're more accurate.

I've been to tournies where tactical objectives are used, and gotta say, was NOT a fan, because even the wins just seemed hollow when it's literally whether or not you draw good cards. I don't want to play a single hand of blackjack for 2 2/12 hours either

Ya I know I played Chris at a tactical objective tournament in 6th and by turn 2 the game was over cause I had draw all easy gun line objectives that let my tau just hang out, while his crons where forced to do the craziest things to score 1 point. It isn't bad for a Saturday game at a tournament you would need to do some MAJOR modifications to fix it the balance.