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.

Who has played them, thoughts? I think they look cool but no one seems to be using them.
It seems to me like it would really make the game more dynamic.

You are going to get mixed responses.

Casual gamers love the "added thrill that never knowing what's going to happen!" brings.
Hardcore/competitive gamers hate it for it's slowed levels of randomness, making any sort of plan or strategy useless in the face of whomever has the faster army and gets the best cards wins.

Pretty much everyone agrees that you have to house the missions to all discarding of "impossible" cards. Like kill a psyker or flier when the opponent doesn't have any.

The MoW cards offer a different play style that can provide advantages and disadvantages to various builds. They can be fun but can also be brutal!

Another standpoint (and mine) is that the idea is great, but the execution lacking (to a greater of lesser degree depending on who you talk to). I found the standard missions (with the exception of the relic) to be very boring with 4 wasted turns before a last minute objective grab. The maelstrom missions are a lot of fun, but a little too random. If you draw the right cards you can be 5 VPs up without doing anything. Having said that I'll still be using them over the standard missions, or maybe in conjunction with them a la BAO.

I love 'em, but a quick friendly agreement to discard impossible cards and redraw makes it a lot better IMO. That should've been RAW.

If you want a very tactical experience with maelstorm feel then you should check out the BAO style missions. They did a good job of incorporating the shifting game play but making it more important to have a plan than to have good luck on the draw.

MoW decks are an interesting experience and make the game feel completely different. It also takes a much different type of army to do well in them and does a good job reducing the focus on super units, death stars, and gunlines and putting the focus on mobile flexible armies.

The funny thing is that the end of game scoring objectives games is actually more dependent on fast units snatching objectives than MoW where you need flexible units that can claim objectives multiple turns and/or kill a unit depending on the card drawn. ie in 6ed objective games you need eldar jetibkes and in MoW mobile SM are the type of unit you need.

Only played one game of 7th ed and it was with the Maelstrom cards.
Really enjoyed it. It does add a bit more of a luck/tactical aspect to the usual "top trumps" list building mechanic.
In the game I played it was my Daemons and a friends Crons V Fists and Hands. It broke the game down nicely for each turn and I found it a refreshing change of pace.
As an introduction into 7th I enjoyed it. I don't think it will become my go to mission type but I do recommend giving it a try. If you like it great, if you don't....also great. The world's your crustacean

MoW is the best thing to happen to 40k in a long time. I have not played an eternal war mission since 7th came out.

The problem most players seem to have is that one could player could get really lucky objectives which make it easier for them to win (this has not happened often in my games).

If you play games to prove your superiority over your opponent then this can be a problem.

If you play games because you like to have to think and use tactics and strategy for a couple of hours this is not really a problem.

Most players really are more interested in the result than the game unfortunatly and this is what causes many different "problems" in 40k. (eg spam/deathstar builds which require little thought to play but help get that all important point on the score card).

I'll check out the BAO stuff. I was playing their missions a lot last year.

I do play 40k competitively most often but I think the game sucks as a tournament game. I feel that it's written to be a fun and theatrical experience and it seems these cards would really boost that.

Just reading them makes me think there could definitely be problems though

They're absolutely wonderful if you're playing for fun, and enjoy having insane/awesome shenanigans over having a balanced and competitive game.

I can't tell you how satisfying it is to charge a full squad of Fire Warriors into a nearly dead opposing unit in a last ditch effort to get that damn card "destroy and enemy unit in combat".

Also, I've been playing with neutral buildings to help alleviate the "unattainable" cards, and I've been experimenting with ways to "make" them attainable. You have to have a really accepting opponent, but making one of your models develop psychic powers or the ability to fly at the draw of a card can be pretty awesome.

I've been playing nothing but maelstrom missions in 7th, they make the game much better and make some of the big flaws in the game stand out a lot less. Some of the flaws about the system:

- d3 VP is stupid. Rolling a 3 can easily win you a close game, rolling a 1 can cost you the game because you often take high risks for those additional points. Should be ruled to fixed 2 VP.
- 3+d3 VP cards are way to strong. You hold onto them in hopes of archiving them all game, and if you do, you've simply won the game. I've often had this happen with "score all objectives" cards. If someone draws it and manages to get all six objectives, the game is pretty much over. 3 VP would are enough even for the most difficult tasks.
- Some of the scaling cards are too easy, others are too hard - sometimes depending on what armies are facing each other. One of the cards grants d3 VP for killing characters. During the Waaagh! turn, wiping a unit with a character or two isn't all uncommon for orks, especially with nobz and warbosses bellowing challenges out to sergeants, you'll quickly ramp up character kills. Same goes for daemons or eldar casting three psychic powers in a turn. Both get d3 by simply doing what they were doing anyways. However, destroying three enemy units during the same turn takes a lot of planing, maybe even leaving some unit alive on purpose to kill them later, not to mention killing three units in the same phase.
- Oddly, impossible cards have rarely had a huge impact on my games. Might have more or less impact depending on the exact maelstrom mission.

For those reasons, players can pull far ahead simply by the amount of VP they can generate by drawing the right cards. If all d3 would be turned into 2VP and all 3+d3 into 3VP, drawing a dud isn't that bad anymore, since the range of cards would be between 0-3 VP rather than 0-6VP. I'd also completely remove scaling cards, by putting nothing but the 1VP option on them, so you can't score large amounts of points by simply playing your game.

I really like the maelstrom missions. As a first attempt at this sort of thing I think they are fantastic. That being said, there are some balancing issues that the regular rules don't solve.

Maelstrom missions have a lot of potential in the future.

In my opinion it is a LOT of fun to play Maelstrom missions. I have had some tremendously enjoyable games playing them. This being said, I don't think they have a place in a tournament setting. At least, not right out of the box... I know the BAO used a modified maelstrom mission which is actually a lot of fun and quite balanced.

I think playing the maelstrom yet getting points for eternal war missions is the way to go. Very balanced and entertaining without just rolling dice. Gun lines just don't work as well here

raoiley wrote:
Who has played them, thoughts? I think they look cool but no one seems to be using them.
It seems to me like it would really make the game more dynamic.

most of our games are now maelstrom. very fun.

If you like a highly strategic game, Maelstrom is not for you.
If you want quick reactions to random events, Maelstrom is for you.

I have played both since 7th ed and I would vote for the male storm missions. People around me don't seem to like to play them, but I think they are really a lot more fun. Makes it feel more like a "game". The "regular" play games from 6th Ed seemed like in many ways the game was won as you built a list you bring rock and opponent brings scissors, the "game is somewhat acedemic.

With the malestorm missions the outcome happens on the table as you play the game.

Played Maelstrom today and my opponent almost overcame a 13-1 deficit in the last 2 turns. (Including bonus points for holding objectives at the end). The maelstrom cards make the game go back and forth and rarely allow any one person to be destroyed every turn. (He eventually pulled up to 13-10).

They are bittersweet.

The main allure to them is that it can allow an army that isn't normally competitive to win games easier than before. For instance, my Orks tend to lose most times against our Tau player, despite me getting better and bringing better lists. It also makes the game feel more dynamic than just sitting and shooting. You actually have to DO something. You have to risk units to get those points. It makes for more interesting games.

And this is where the bitter part comes in. It's VERY random. I've played games where I draw ALL the right cards, and my opponent didn't get a damn thing. It can be painfully one sided, or balanced and even. It's all up to fate at that point.

I do my best to play with all Secondary Objectives as well, to give each player more chances to obtain VP outside of just the cards.

One way to make it more fair is house rules. We usually will remove all cards from the deck that do not apply to the current game (Such as the ones requiring you to blow up buildings or take out MC or fliers, especially if your opponent isn't bringing any of them). It helps reduce dead draws and makes the Missions far better than they already are.

That's basically been my observation. We've played them just about every way possible. Playing just maelstrom strictly RAW can be very lopsided. Playing with minor house rules such as removing the cards that don't apply and counting all D3 victory points as 2 makes them fun and balanced. Playing them with house rules and eternal war scoring also is the most fun I've ever had with 40k.

Toofast wrote:
That's basically been my observation. We've played them just about every way possible. Playing just maelstrom strictly RAW can be very lopsided. Playing with minor house rules such as removing the cards that don't apply and counting all D3 victory points as 2 makes them fun and balanced. Playing them with house rules and eternal war scoring also is the most fun I've ever had with 40k.

Yeah there are some good little balancer house rules out there actually but I don't care. I enjoy the heck out of that style of game and there are good strategies I am starting to learn that are different from those I would use in regular games so I have found a new cat and mouse to play with.

The Randomness of the objectives probably doesn't appeal to certain personality types but it very MUCH appeals to me because I adapt really well during the course of games and I also build lists that are very built for a more flexible game plan. Rare is the day when I NEED a game to go a CERTAIN way for me to win, so Maelstrom Missions do not intimidate. i enjoy the losses too because I dont have to feel nearly as bad about it for one, and for two, I see a lot more interesting enemy builds now. If tyheres one EXCELLENT thing I can say about those missions, its that I just REALLY enjoy how you can play a MUCH greater variety of lists and be successful in those missions.

what kind of house rules are people using to balance it out?

what about stacking your deck similar to magic? you still have to shuffle im sure, but if the deck is stacked decently then at least the shuffle should still be half-assed balanced, no?

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
If you play games because you like to have to think and use tactics and strategy for a couple of hours this is not really a problem.

No, it's a problem because maelstrom missions suck for creating a game with lots of strategy and thinking. The constant randomness almost completely eliminates strategy, instead of having to come up with a plan to win the game over 5-7 turns you're desperately rushing across the table to do what your cards tell you to do. You don't have to think about which objective gives you the best chance of successfully holding it until the end of the game, you just let the dice tell you which one to go claim. And you don't have to worry about previous successes or failures having any impact on your next move, when you get a new objective it will have absolutely nothing to do with what has happened previously in the game. Finally, if you have some luck with the objective dice all you have to do is just collect easy VP from the objectives you already hold, while your opponent is constantly struggling to get across the table and claim the hard ones.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
Played Maelstrom today and my opponent almost overcame a 13-1 deficit in the last 2 turns. (Including bonus points for holding objectives at the end). The maelstrom cards make the game go back and forth and rarely allow any one person to be destroyed every turn. (He eventually pulled up to 13-10).

This is not a good thing. If you gain a decisive lead over your opponent you should be rewarded with a near-certain win. The ability to get lucky with the objective dice and make a comeback like that means that player decisions are irrelevant. You might as well skip playing the actual game and just roll objective dice to see who gets better ones.

Actually played any in the intervening weeks since I asked and you said not, Peregrine?


At the OP.

They're cool, yes, they have the capacity to screw you over, but on balance most of the time they add something to the game, and they can even add viability to units that lacked it previously, specially small, fast units.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Actually played any in the intervening weeks since I asked and you said not, Peregrine?

No, and I never will, just like I don't need to eat a plate of rotting food with shards of broken glass in it to be allowed to say that it doesn't taste very good. Some things are just obvious without having to suffer through them first-hand.

and they can even add viability to units that lacked it previously, specially small, fast units.

Small fast units were already extremely valuable for last-turn objective grabs.

Oh look, the rotting food and glass metaphor again

If you're going to ejaculate all over the forum with opinions of something you have no first hand experience of, kindly at least do those of us condemned to endure it the courtesy of doing so with fresh material once in a while.

raoiley wrote:
what kind of house rules are people using to balance it out?

what about stacking your deck similar to magic? you still have to shuffle im sure, but if the deck is stacked decently then at least the shuffle should still be half-assed balanced, no?

I never would have even thought of that possibility (stacking) until I saw people post the idea online. what is WRONG with people? Seriously?

Well one way to handle it is just to count em beforehand. Easy enough. You can also just share a deck which we did at first. I saw nothing wrong with it.

but man if you have to start worrying about THAT kind of thing in a CASUAL game I mean.. sheesh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

raoiley wrote:
what kind of house rules are people using to balance it out?

1. replace any "impossible" objectives (ie kill a flyer when the enemy took none to begin with)
2. In your round one, you can mulligan all or some of the cards, reshuffle and draw again. Evens the START of the game a bit. Of course don't forget: Tactical Objectives aren't drawn until it IS your actual turn.
3. Make all D3 cards worth 2.

These are some of the house rules Ive heard.

I sort of have a love-hate relationship with them. I love that there are personalised objectives for each army but hate the constant replacement of them. IMO the best way to have each army draw 7 cards (with 7th Ed Codexes simply using the ones in their Codex) and keep them for the entire game. No replacement or constant redrawing or reorganising.

I dont think that would be as fun. Its not about fairness. Its about the challenge and the fun variety you get to see in units when Maelstrom is going on. It breeds a different way of playing and looking at lists that I think is just a value that cant be quantified.

 Jancoran wrote:
I dont think that would be as fun. Its not about fairness. Its about the challenge and the fun variety you get to see in units when Maelstrom is going on. It breeds a different way of playing and looking at lists that I think is just a value that cant be quantified.

It isn't in the interest of fairness. It makes more sense. The GK, SW and Orks in particular it makes more sense to keep static objectives. Those objectives won't change in a real battle so why is "No Witnesses!" suddenly secondary to "kill 5 units this turn?"