Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I really hoped that the Maelstrom of War missions would have led to a fresh way to play 40k. But after over a dozen games, I've come to realize that they're just ridiculous as a score-keeping method in a strategy game, and barely better than that at forging narratives.

That said, I have managed to come up with a narrative for the last game I played.


Intercepted Imperial Transmissions begin
+++++++

++ Imperial HQ: Col. Sanders, we are under a coordinated aerial attack
by eldar pirates. It is vitally important that you destroy these aircraft.

++ Col. Sanders: Roger that HQ, but the eldar don't appear to have any
aircraft near our location. Please advise.

++ Imperial HQ: Uh, well... never mind that. I'm sending you coordinates
for several key locations, you must hold them all. And, if you could
possibly kill something with your bayonets, that would probably help
morale.

++ Col. Sanders: All six locations sir? But you know I only have five
squads of men, and we're carry heavy firepower, are you sure bayonets
are the best choice?

++ Imperial HQ: Nevermind all that - kill something, anything, with your guns, then. Or
your bayonets. Just kill something. Also, we changed our mind, you
don't need to get to all those coordinates.

++ Col. Sanders: We have managed to shoot down a unit of eldar bikes, is
that enough? Please advise with further instructions.

++ Imperial HQ: Col. Sanders, advance with all your forces at once, the Eldar have some sort of fortification near you. Take their territory, and destroy that fort.

++ Col. Sanders: Uh, negative HQ, no fort here. We're advancing, but taking heavy fire doing so...

++ Imperial HQ: Col. Sanders, are you receiving? Col. Sanders??


+++++++++

A later Inquisitional investigation revealed that the comm room had been taken over by the ADHD children of certain 'camp followers'.

Col. Sanders was lost with all men.

You need to Forge The Narrative(TM!) harder!

Great thread - exalted! I'd like to see more Narratives like this being Forged. Unfortunately they won't be featuring Col Sanders...

Also, if you'd agreed in advance to to play a "fluffy" game that showed how the cumbersome bureaucracy of the Imperium sends unprepared troops to their doom, then you Forged the Narrative very well. Congratulations!

I've been enjoying the way Frontline implemented them in their BAO mission pack.

Definitely not a fan of playing them directly out of the book.

An apt description of 7th edition

Maelstrom Missions are the only rule ever to change the game from being entirely based around static gunlines. They are to be lauded and appreciated.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Maelstrom Missions are the only rule ever to change the game from being entirely based around static gunlines. They are to be lauded and appreciated.

You appear to have no knowledge of the history of the game, or winning strategies. Static gunlines have only infrequently been the dominant approach to the game, and with 5-of-6 Eternal War missions being based on collecting objectives, both 6th and 7th edition weren't gunline dominant without the need for Maelstrom's candyland approach to the game.

Imma do this next game I play. Seriously. Well, nevermind, that would require me to play Maelstrom of War again. Meh, no thanks.

 Redbeard wrote:
Static gunlines have only infrequently been the dominant approach to the game, and with 5-of-6 Eternal War missions being based on collecting objectives, both 6th and 7th edition weren't gunline dominant without the need for Maelstrom's candyland approach to the game.

You and I have vastly different, perhaps even opposing, experiences with the game then.

For the last 27 years, I've seen more games won by the models that never moved than by those that did.

Assault armies were unquestioningly superior in 3rd and 4th over static gunlines with consolidations into new combats and the old area terrain and LoS rules, armies like IG certainly didn't dominate games during those editions. 5th probably had the most reasonable parity of the "post 2E" era.

I wouldn't count anything from RT or 2E in looking at that issue.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
Static gunlines have only infrequently been the dominant approach to the game, and with 5-of-6 Eternal War missions being based on collecting objectives, both 6th and 7th edition weren't gunline dominant without the need for Maelstrom's candyland approach to the game.

You and I have vastly different, perhaps even opposing, experiences with the game then.

For the last 27 years, I've seen more games won by the models that never moved than by those that did.

How are they winning? Do they just play purge the alien and emperor's will all the time? Or do they just play mission-less?

Regardless, maelstrom as it is in the book is beyond silly, and makes some downright dumb situations. Even with us house ruling that dead cards are discarded and replaced immediately, we still have things like a player getting 3 VP a turn for the first couple turns just for staying near his 3 objectives.

++ Imperial HQ: Col. Sanders, we are under a coordinated aerial attack
by eldar pirates. Ensure there are no aircraft in the area immediately.

++ Col. Sanders: Roger that HQ, the eldar don't appear to have any
aircraft near our location. Please advise.

++ Imperial HQ: Excellent, I'm sending you coordinates
for 3 (at most) key locations, you must secure these positions for now.

++ Col. Sanders: We have taken 2 positions, the other one is contested, what shall we do now sir?

++ Imperial HQ: Ensure you bring your guns to bear on the enemy, ammunition will be en route so fight hard. Keep trying to take that final position.

++ Col. Sanders: One unit rushed position one sir, they where cut down quickly. Still no progress on that final position.

++ Imperial HQ: Ensure there are no defenses near your position. It needs to be clear before reinforcements and ammo arrive.

++ Col. Sanders: Negative HQ, no fort here. The enemy foire is increasing, sir.... SIR!.... AFbvgdasfcjbndeskfnksenf!!!!!

++ Imperial HQ: Col. Sanders, are you receiving? Col. Sanders??


Thats more like how it goes. It feels like you havent played a game of Maelstorm before.... While I agree its not perfect. Its certainly not as stupid as your example. The only issue I have is when the enemy draws cards that are super easy while I am stuck with much harder ones. Other than that it isnt as random and changing as people who seem to never have played it make it out to be.

I'm not a fan of any mechanic that takes away from my ability to 'forge my narrative'. I can create my own story just fine without a constant changing set of objectives that may or not be achievable.

Not to mention the obvious balance issues it creates.

Swastakowey wrote:
Thats more like how it goes. It feels like you havent played a game of Maelstorm before.... While I agree its not perfect. Its certainly not as stupid as your example. The only issue I have is when the enemy draws cards that are super easy while I am stuck with much harder ones. Other than that it isnt as random and changing as people who seem to never have played it make it out to be.

No, that's actually how the game went. First turn, my cards were "hold all objectives", "destroy an enemy flier" (they had none), and "destroy an enemy in assault". I discarded the flyer one, drew into "destroy a fortification/gun emplacement". (they had none)

Why do you claim I haven't played the game? And, the text of your counter example implies that I'd score points for their lack of flyers and forts - which is not true. Have you played maelstrom missions much?

 Redbeard wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
Thats more like how it goes. It feels like you havent played a game of Maelstorm before.... While I agree its not perfect. Its certainly not as stupid as your example. The only issue I have is when the enemy draws cards that are super easy while I am stuck with much harder ones. Other than that it isnt as random and changing as people who seem to never have played it make it out to be.

No, that's actually how the game went. First turn, my cards were "hold all objectives", "destroy an enemy flier" (they had none), and "destroy an enemy in assault". I discarded the flyer one, drew into "destroy a fortification/gun emplacement". (they had none)

Why do you claim I haven't played the game? And, the text of your counter example implies that I'd score points for their lack of flyers and forts - which is not true. Have you played maelstrom missions much?

How can you hold all points with only 3 cards? Where there only 2 objectives? I havent seen a card that says hold all objectives? Unless I am being dumb.

Good point on the second one. My example does imply they succeeded in their mission, but if you where told to watch flyers and there happened to be one, you succeeded yes? But I doubt you will get a big pat on your back for it. However if you shot down a flyer you also succeeded but actually get praised (and subsequently some victory points etc). Or is that too much narrative?

Or you know... dont play maelstorm.



With some minor change in wording, a narrative can easily be forged. If you write it smartly, it works out fine. If you write it with humor and stupidly, well thats how it comes out.

I have only seen a couple of close Maelstrom games. 90% of the games are one sided b/c one player can easily score and the other can't. So I bring my table you lists to Maelstrom games and just win thru attrition.

 Swastakowey wrote:

How can you hold all points with only 3 cards? Where there only 2 objectives? I havent seen a card that says hold all objectives? Unless I am being dumb.

Apparently, the second thing. Objective #46: Domination: Score d3+3 Victory Points if you control every objective marker on the table at the end of your turn.

Good point on the second one. My example does imply they succeeded in their mission, but if you where told to watch flyers and there happened to be one, you succeeded yes? But I doubt you will get a big pat on your back for it. However if you shot down a flyer you also succeeded but actually get praised (and subsequently some victory points etc). Or is that too much narrative?

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Objective #63, Scour the Skies, simply states score 1 Victory Point at the end of the turn if at least one enemy Flyer or Flying Monstrous Creature was removed as a casualty during your turn. If your opponent neglected to bring flyers to the game, you're SOL.

Or you know... dont play maelstorm.

Well, we can agree on that.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

How can you hold all points with only 3 cards? Where there only 2 objectives? I havent seen a card that says hold all objectives? Unless I am being dumb.

Apparently, the second thing. Objective #46: Domination: Score d3+3 Victory Points if you control every objective marker on the table at the end of your turn.

Good point on the second one. My example does imply they succeeded in their mission, but if you where told to watch flyers and there happened to be one, you succeeded yes? But I doubt you will get a big pat on your back for it. However if you shot down a flyer you also succeeded but actually get praised (and subsequently some victory points etc). Or is that too much narrative?

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Objective #63, Scour the Skies, simply states score 1 Victory Point at the end of the turn if at least one enemy Flyer or Flying Monstrous Creature was removed as a casualty during your turn. If your opponent neglected to bring flyers to the game, you're SOL.

Or you know... dont play maelstorm.

Well, we can agree on that.

In all my games I have never picked that card up. Ill check my deck...

I know the game type has problems. I just feel those problems are exaggerated when they can easily be explained (well in my opinion). The real problem is your opponent getting points for sucking his thumb while you have to move mountains to get yours. I think if you wrote the narrative in a more serious manner it wouldnt be that bad at all. Or at least not as slowed as your narrative makes it out to be.

Not perfect, but not face slappingly stupid. Most of the time

Everyone I've ever played 7th with (35-40 people) immediately house ruled the objective cards to auto discard and redraw any card you cannot complete. If you draw kill a psyker or flyer and enemy doesn't have any, discard and redraw. They should've put that in the rule book to begin with but I don't know why people act like they're helpless to the set in stone rules when 1 easy house rule makes maelstrom games fun. Every maelstrom game I've played has been close. The last one I played, I almost tabled the enemy but only won 11-10 on points. I have had fun every single time. If you hate them that much and can't make one simple house rule to balance them, just play eternal war. Nobody is forcing you to play maelstrom when there are 6 other missions you can play.

I guess it raises the question of why bother in the first place if you're working against the rules? Or rather, the rules are working against you?

If I wanted to create a seriously awesome narrative for a game, I'd probably sit down and create my own mission with some sort of asymmetrical goals tailored for myself and my opponent.

Or for pick up games, the standard missions still work well for creating a game with plenty of room to write a story.

 Blacksails wrote:


If I wanted to create a seriously awesome narrative for a game, I'd probably sit down and create my own mission with some sort of asymmetrical goals tailored for myself and my opponent.

This gets results.

What the OP should have been was "Maelstorm did not work for me so I decided to forge my narratives I would do (insert cool narrative mission/story here)"

More productive and worth while. If narrative is what you enjoy then doing that is a lot of fun.

Right, on that we agree.

Though, as Redbeard was getting that, Maelstrom doesn't achieve its objective of making for a better 'narrative' game. It just makes it a random game.

Believe it or not, there are more incompetent commanders than Col. Sanders:

Shas'o: By the ethereals, the orks are charging our lines! Quick, Shas'ui, cast a psychic power!

Shas'ui:...

Shas'o: Oh no, they are almost in rapid fire range! Fire Warriors, throw down your pulse rifles and charge them!
And dont forget to challenge the nob!

They should extend this to other wargames:



The point being that randomness gets in the way if you're playing a narrative/pure fluff game as it can throw up totally bizarre elements that just don't fit in the "story" or general logic. Good luck to anyone who has to explain, for example, why their Guardsmen suddenly jumped out of the nice safe trench and legged it up the field...probably some sort of mass insanity. They could have copied Deadzone and introduced mission cards with broad goals (DZ has things like giving different amount of VPs for killing particular unit types, keeping at least half your force alive for a set time etc) that you have for the entire game and don't show to your opponent till the end.

Yep Redbeard, I'm glad you tried it to see for yourself if you like it but you describe exactly what a number of us (including you iirc) thought would happen. It's completely illogical and ruins all immersion into the game, regardless of the shift in gameplay it provides. Forging a narrative with random objectives done in this fashion is just as ridiculous as you described. It's actively detrimental to it.

The gameplay shift can be done better by writing actual competent rules. Objectives can also be done in a fashion to encourage more active gameplay without being totally illogical. GW is just horrible at rule writing - and was probably rushed trying to get it out before the end of financial year report so couldn't refine it.

I find it funny how much traditionalists rail on maelstrom when bao had a 40k maelstrom tournament and everyone who went rather enjoyed themselves. And ya know what it wasn't just populated by scumbags(eldar) and talking salmon (tau). How's that grab you?!

So is "Traditionalist" the new slang for "Hater"?

Apparently you are not aware the BAO changed the Maelstrom missions so they actually work. They don't use the cards as presented in the rulebook.

Imperial News Network:

Today it was announced that the Astra Militarum won a major victory against a teror raid by Eldar Pirates. While such news is not unusual, the fact that the Victory against a numerically superior invading force was won by the outposts Canteen staff and swarthy conscript KP crew is worth noting.

Led by their top chef Col. Sanders, The kitchen staff charged into the fray and drove off the Eldar terrorists.

Sadly, the much beloved Col. Sanders lost his life in the noble defense of Outpost Franchise. His noble sacrifice has not gone unnoticed. By order of General Consumer, Col. Sanders has been posthumously awarded the 5 Star Ribbon of the Zagut and been nominated for the Order of the Original Golden Breast.

End story


Suddenly hungry,
ff

 Crimson Devil wrote:
So is "Traditionalist" the new slang for "Hater"?

Apparently you are not aware the BAO changed the Maelstrom missions so they actually work. They don't use the cards as presented in the rulebook.

I've heard there are quite a lot of rules that can be made to work by changing them.