So you didn't like the Bravery stat and mechanics from previous editions either? It seems similar to Bravery and there were mechanics for manipulating that as well; like "Terror" from the Carnosaur.
O no, bravery was fine (or well.. the principle was fine. It was kind of poorly executed though...)
The issue I have with it also isnt manipulating a stat in itself.
The issue I have with OC is the following:
- It's a very gamey mechanic. It's an arbitrary score, as opposed to something vaguely sensible. For example, there's no real logic as to why the SoB giants, 20 skinks, and 4 carno's all count as having an OC of 20.
- The large amount of variability in terms of OC and general unit power results in scenarios where the mechanic kinda falls apart. For example, you can't straightforwardly "contest" an objective against an SoB. It has an OC of 20, simply getting enough models in range to contest the objective will be hard enough, but on top of that the SoB will kill a bunch of those. Suddenly your skinks are kind of terrible at contesting the objectives, the one thing they're normally good for, not because you got outmanouvered, but because there's a giant ball of stats on the objective you can't possibly compete with. Stacking (de)buffs creates similarly odd scenarios.
- Since it's the main way to score points; you can't really ignore it and focus on other aspects of the game. Combined with 2; that means your opponent simply using a particular strategy has a disproportionate impact on how you play the game.
A simple way to improve the mechanic would be to simply limit the units that can hold an objective to specific roles. E.g. only infantry can hold an objective. It would reduce the gamey nature, by introducing some semblance of logic into the mechanic, and it'd reduce variability because you would no longer need to account for both monsters and skinks trying to contest the same objective.
And yes, it'd mean SoB would not be a functional army, but honestly they shouldn't exist as a proper faction. Their entire concept kinda breaks things.
Think about it this way though — AoS 3 still had Objective Control, even though it wasn't called that. Every model had its own value based on its wound count.
The variant in 3th was slightly better; as it didn't come with as many modifiers, and the amount of units with "weird" OC scores were very limited.
Still didn't particularly like it though.
This allows units to be further flavoured and expanded upon, with some units being able to hold objectives better than others based on their roles. Furthermore, because of the extra rules and abilities that support this expanded-upon system
That could've worked if they had limited it to the likes of skinks, saurus warriors, and steelhelms. While also limiting the OC of other units types (e.g. cavalry). But they really only did that in a handfull of cases. Whatever potential it may have had as a mechanic is largely wasted.
it allows for greater skill expression by the players to swing an objective and a battle in their favour
"skill expression" is the bane of good design. Focusing on it nearly universally results in weird gamey rules that undercut the core of your game.
It's how you get nonsense like the astrolith bearer.
The new Astrolith warscroll, for example, supports this while maintaining its magical flavour. It provides a ward save and increases nearby objective control when a nearby wizard casts a spell. Other "banner bearer" HQs in other armies have been changed too for this new role as OC buff/debuff HQs, which I personally think is a great change that doesn't take away from their thematics.
So let's look at what adding it to the astrolith bearer brings:
Sure, planting a banner helping with objective control makes some thematic sense. But why exactly is a wizard involved? Other than an arbitrary extra layer of difficulty for the "skill expression" what exactly does that add? Is it somehow thematic? Is it actually an interesting challenge to cast a spell next to your banner? Is there any reason for the astrolith and wizard to be close to eachother other than this arbitrary interaction? And if I have the astrolith, wizard, and say a unit of skinks or saurus all standing on that objective, do I actually need this buff to hold the objective or is this only going to happen when that objective is solidly under my control anyway?
Or in other words; what exactly is the point?
I can't speak much to your preference for "gamey" mechanics — this is a tabletop wargame after all, and it's rather subjective as to what numbers seem too gamey and which don't. One could also argue rolling dice to hit a particular number for casting spells or seeing how brave some models are is also a very gamey mechanic. That's up to individual preferences I suppose.
O sure, where exactly you draw the line is always up for debate.
But for example, it's quite clear what the purpose is of rolling for a casting value. It's clear why more powerfull spells require a higher roll, it's clear why powerfull wizards get modifiers.
Now OC for infantry is has some reasonably clear purpose and logic to it. Sure 1 skink has an OC of 1; make sense. A liberator having an OC of 2 makes some kinda sense as well. But why does a carno have an OC of 5? Should a carnosaur even be able to hold an objective? The big dinosaur doesn't have the brains for that. And the oldblood is riding up high, shouldn't he dismount to properly hold the objective? Or what about terradon riders? Presumably they're flying, so how are they holding the objective on the ground below? Similarly, why do foot heroes only have a OC of 2? Shouldn't a curseling be able to easily win against a single liberator and hold the objective?
I would actually make a counterpoint that the -2 objective control is actually a very anti-monster rule for the Oldblood on Carnosaur. If you plop the carno on top of your basic 10-man infantry unit, most of the time their control score will be 11 (10 plus a banner). A -2 to that won't help the carnosaur much, with an OC of 5. However, if you play the Oldblood on Carno as (seemingly) intended against another monster, most monster units have an OC of 5 — just like the Carno. So in that case, the -2 will drop the enemy to 3 while maintaining your score of 5, winning you the objective. So in that case, I would say it's actually designed to be used against monsters as the rest of the model seems to be.
You're being far too generous; GW is lazy and the only reason the carno has it is cuz previously terror affected bravery
Anyways, even if we assume GW for once wasn't just horrificly lazy:
You're forgetting one important thing; the carnosaur is quite good at killing stuff; and most basic 10 man MSU isn't very good at surviving.
With that modifier your carno needs to kill fewer guys to take the objective. It makes him weirdly good at stealing objectives as it should pretty reliably kill 4+ skinks/steelhelms/etc. in a MSU.
Also, if GW wanted to make it an anti-monster thing, they could've just made the rule "-2 OC for enemy monsters". Easy enough a fix to keep the anti-monster theme going, flavour it as the carno being extra territorial against other monsters or something. But they didn't do that.
