First game of 7th with my Sisters vs. Guard and had a blast. The maelstrom missions are brilliant, and for me are by far the best thing about the new edition. No more boring, dry missions waiting for turn 5/6 to come along to do a last minute objective grab. I felt like I was being rewarded for being aggressive with my army, something that Sisters aren't really known for. We had a two table set up with the other table a 6th edition table as my other friends in the gaming group are reluctant to try 7th, but the maelstrom missions had them really interested.
We played 2k points and both used just one main detachment in the end, plus I had an inquisitor allied in. Having said that when I was putting together my list I felt like I had loads of options, what with being able to effectively ally with myself. Also included a titan, who was pretty awesome despite costing 750 points, having the D nerf, and getting blown up in the last turn. I feel like the D rules are pitched perfectly now, and vehicles are just the right amount of survivable.
Also enjoyed the new psychic phase, I felt like it added something to the game, what with choosing how many dice to roll to try to avoid the double 6 and my opponent attempting to deny blessings.
Lobomalo wrote: You had a Titan in a normal 2k game? So mean, so mean.
Welcome to the 7th edition is awesome wagon
Cleared it with my opponent first so he could tailor a list to take it out, he was really unlucky with his rolls or the titan would have been gone bottom of turn two and things would have been really different. Two vendettas and some bad boy Pask'd up Leman Russ' opened up on it but his dice let him down, both in shooting and also cover saves from smoke and camo nets in my turn. After that it was really hard for him, until in the last turn he rolled two 6s for pen table results and blew the titan up! Removing the ignores cover from D weapons has made them spot on imo. Taking a titan is a high risk strategy as if it gets taken out early you're facing a huge uphill battle.
Shhhh keep it down if the haters hear you they will pounce!!! I'm glad you loved it. I do as well. Its a great edition and I only have 4 games in so far. Maelstrom of War for life!!
Wish the folks at my local store were so enthusiastic. Played two games and both times the losing side has moaned from the beginning before packing up on turn 3. Nothing to do with 7th, but we start the game and they clearly aren't even playing the mission, just reverting to the slugfest mentality. By turn 3, my team was up 10 vp to 1.
I really like the 7th ed changes, but these guys decide on turn one that they've lost, and spend the whole game moaning about how bad their dice are.
TheSilo wrote: Wish the folks at my local store were so enthusiastic. Played two games and both times the losing side has moaned from the beginning before packing up on turn 3. Nothing to do with 7th, but we start the game and they clearly aren't even playing the mission, just reverting to the slugfest mentality. By turn 3, my team was up 10 vp to 1.
I really like the 7th ed changes, but these guys decide on turn one that they've lost, and spend the whole game moaning about how bad their dice are.
Yes. The veterans, struggle hard in my experience. Less tactical forethought and more fist fights, at least this is how it is at my shop, I cannot say for others
lobbywatson wrote:Shhhh keep it down if the haters hear you they will pounce!!! I'm glad you loved it. I do as well. Its a great edition and I only have 4 games in so far. Maelstrom of War for life!!
Haha, I'm sure the cynics will show up soon
Lobomalo wrote:I have been undefeated in my playgroup when we play Maelstrom missions.
Partially this is because my friends focus more on killing me where I focus on getting as many objectives as I can.
Yeah it takes lots of armies out of their comfort zones [castle and roll dice]. Had to be really offensive with my Sisters [started all of my troops on the board in transports and zoomed them up] and I usually play them quite defensively, keeping troops in reserve.
We played one of the width length missions, I forget the name atm but we had 3 buildings spread out with an objective on each side and difficult terrain craters between them.
Using my friends DA army I rushed the 50 tactical marines in their Rhinos to the buildings, unloaded them, took the buildings and prevented him from getting a single objective. He did get first blood because of the terminators but at the end of turn 3 the score was 10-1
I like the new rules as well. I've played a few games so far with a pretty good mix of armies on both sides and a lot of the tweaks that have been made seem spot on. The changes to jink and FMC grounded tests have really tightened things up.
Thanks for sharing your experience, I've not played with D weapons under the new rules yet so I'm pleased to hear that they've been re-balanced better.
Lobomalo wrote: We played one of the width length missions, I forget the name atm but we had 3 buildings spread out with an objective on each side and difficult terrain craters between them.
Using my friends DA army I rushed the 50 tactical marines in their Rhinos to the buildings, unloaded them, took the buildings and prevented him from getting a single objective. He did get first blood because of the terminators but at the end of turn 3 the score was 10-1
Can you come and do a clinic for the players at my flgs? They spend all their points on terminators that just walk slowly towards my battle lines, it's mind boggling that the marine players don't splurge on tactical squads. They think they can win with just terminators. But even if each of his terminator squads killed one of my squads per turn, I'd still have enough squads to claim more objectives than them.
This has been exactly our experience as well... we also love the Maelstrom of War missions but it does require coming out of that old slugfest comfort zone.
TheSilo wrote: Wish the folks at my local store were so enthusiastic. Played two games and both times the losing side has moaned from the beginning before packing up on turn 3. Nothing to do with 7th, but we start the game and they clearly aren't even playing the mission, just reverting to the slugfest mentality. By turn 3, my team was up 10 vp to 1.
I really like the 7th ed changes, but these guys decide on turn one that they've lost, and spend the whole game moaning about how bad their dice are.
Yes. The veterans, struggle hard in my experience. Less tactical forethought and more fist fights, at least this is how it is at my shop, I cannot say for others
Lol, if only they were good at the slugfest. Then they could rampage and I could score vps and everyone could be happy. But they're all stuck on Death Stars, which suck against my IG.
Gonna agree the new missions are pretty great. Not sure why anyone would complain about scary changes though, the original 6 missions are still in there if someone really wanted to play them.
My only problem is that GW ran out of the dang mission cards. The chart is an okay substitute, but using a deck of cards works a lot better. I ended up borrowing someone's deck of magic the gathering cards and sticking post-it notes to each one with the mission card effects.
Yea, I just love how it encourages alternate army composition builds.
Also winning i all about the win objectives. Deathstars worked because of last editions win objectives and nothing more. They were never that good outside of that.
Now that those win objectives have changed you either play a different list or you will most likely lose.
How do you do half the missions as sob? You don't have psykers , you can't destroy units in melee , you have low range shoting , even destroying whole units with it should be problematic at 1500pts.
Well we play discard cards you literally cant complete. For all the cards you cant complete they have a lot of similar ones (cant kill a psyker, flier, build, etc)
There are no destroy units in melee, only issue a challenge ones(even then sisters armies have the tools to kill in melee via hench sqauds)
If you are doing the missions correctly most of the objectives should be placed towards the middle of the board where you want to be advancing towards anyway as a sisters player which will also force them to come to you.
Leth wrote: Well we play discard cards you literally cant complete. For all the cards you cant complete they have a lot of similar ones (cant kill a psyker, flier, build, etc)
There are no destroy units in melee, only issue a challenge ones(even then sisters armies have the tools to kill in melee via hench sqauds)
If you are doing the missions correctly most of the objectives should be placed towards the middle of the board where you want to be advancing towards anyway as a sisters player which will also force them to come to you.
I wouldnt be to worried about it.
Couldn't agree more. After our first game we house ruled the same thing. Can't be done chuck the card away. Immediately draw a new one. It actually makes it pretty balanced.
I almost got tabled Monday night and I still won 9-8. My buddy even though he "lost" loved it. He couldn't believe how fresh it made it.
The cards I have found are a must have. I can't imagine doing it without them. Seems like the book keeping would be a major pain.
I must say the way objectives work in 7th intrigues me, they sound much better than the vanilla objective grab in 5th and 6th at any rate, which I never really enjoyed tbh. I should really try a game and see if I can import some of the ideas into my games of 2nd.
Would any of you guys who've played 7th say the objectives have a more narrative feel to them, other than 'stand on random points 1-6 because' ?
warspawned wrote: I must say the way objectives work in 7th intrigues me, they sound much better than the vanilla objective grab in 5th and 6th at any rate, which I never really enjoyed tbh. I should really try a game and see if I can import some of the ideas into my games of 2nd.
Would any of you guys who've played 7th say the objectives have a more narrative feel to them, other than 'stand on random points 1-6 because' ?
I find it fun because in my head I forge a narrative even in competative games.
So for example if I get an objective in my table half I imagine my men are supposed to defend a strategic point. If it is in their zone I feel like I have to take out an enemy asset.
Middle we are both trying to control territory. If you get other cards you can easily imagine it on the tabletop. I have a lot of fun with it and I can do that while playing a super competitive game.
I do wonder if the objective taking aspect of the game would be better if they couldn't be taken by units that turbo boosted, ran, or moved flat out. It seems silly that little jetbike units can just run around taking points each turn (and I play Eldar).
I've played a few games of 7th. 2 games of the old missions, and one maelstrom of war.
Commentary for the old missions in 7th, the rule set feels tighter and the games play better, everything scoring is cool and the I've encountered zero problems with the psychic phase.
I haven't experienced 'unbound' as my club has stated that pick up games should be battle forged, anyone wanting to play unbound is advised to pre-arrange or risk not getting a game, which seems to be a good policy.
The maelstrom of war game was a blast, I think I want to play these missions as my default choice, although it is annoying that I don't have the cards.
Overall I'm loving 7th, the games feel much more dynamic and interesting.
Here's another post in favor of 7th edition.
The rule set works better, especially with everything scoring.
Maelstrom of war is definitely a blast.
Overall, certainly a change for the better.
The fact I'm a daemons player and haven't lost a game in 7th has absolutely no bearing on my opinion!
I do think that a toning down of summoning, Eldar and (to a lesser extent) Tau is all that it would take to really get the game back on the straight and narrow.
First try of Maelstrom last weekend, and loved it. My buddies and I create stories to our games as a matter of course, so the shifting emphasis around the field that the cards created gave us plenty of scope to story tell. However, if you aren't the sort that makes up background like that you might find the objectives feel artificial.
Also, I made up my own set of cards. Printed off a summary of each one, laminated and cut out. Because they're summaries, I need to check in for details on some objectivese, but it definitely made it easier to keep track.
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: First try of Maelstrom last weekend, and loved it. My buddies and I create stories to our games as a matter of course, so the shifting emphasis around the field that the cards created gave us plenty of scope to story tell. However, if you aren't the sort that makes up background like that you might find the objectives feel artificial.
Going to have to disagree there. I love having a good background for games - but this implementation of tactical objectives is anything but tactical or narrative. There are proposed ways to fix it (in this threadiirc) but as is, really don't like the system. Peregrine summed up my opinions on the "narrative" of objective cards with this post:
Peregrine wrote: So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*
evildrcheese wrote: I've played a few games of 7th. 2 games of the old missions, and one maelstrom of war.
Commentary for the old missions in 7th, the rule set feels tighter and the games play better, everything scoring is cool and the I've encountered zero problems with the psychic phase.
I haven't experienced 'unbound' as my club has stated that pick up games should be battle forged, anyone wanting to play unbound is advised to pre-arrange or risk not getting a game, which seems to be a good policy.
The maelstrom of war game was a blast, I think I want to play these missions as my default choice, although it is annoying that I don't have the cards.
Overall I'm loving 7th, the games feel much more dynamic and interesting.
D
If people aren't overly nasty and just trying to bring the most broken list they can unbound really is no big deal, not having super scoring troops can actually hurt quite a lot. I would recommend trying some games of it before ruling it out completely, I know a lot of people at the flgs(including the people who run it) that I go to often were adamant about them being a bad thing but as we have looked at it unbound really is not so bad.
Going to have to disagree there. I love having a good background for games - but this implementation of tactical objectives is anything but tactical or narrative. There are proposed ways to fix it (in this threadiirc) but as is, really don't like the system. Peregrine summed up my opinions on the "narrative" of objective cards with this post:
Peregrine wrote: So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:
Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*
So you only have one unit in your army? Makes a lot more sense when in one turn one unit takes an objective then moves on, and another unit moves up to secure the same part of the battleground,. Also, some people make a lot of the unachievable objectives, but the rules allow you to discard, or you can put in place a very simple house rule.
Which is the problem - us needing to fix the rules.
Yeah that hasn't been our experience at all, and many who have actually been playing these missions find them pretty suitable.
As for the narrative part - if you're putting a science fiction toy army down on a science fiction toy battlefield, and you cannot come up with at least a dozen reasons you might work towards a certain objective at a given time during the science fiction imaginary battle - well you just lack imagination.
Loved the two 7th Ed games i've played so far as well. Will be doing a Maelstrom based mission this weekend coming.
The flow is good I like the layout of the rulebook. Not much flipping around. As a Tyranid player the psychic phase is great as it makes me remember to do psychic stuff.
Such rapidly changing objectives actively detracts from the single battle as it eliminates multi-turn strategy and becomes ridiculous as fast units jet from one objective to another and then back again which does *not* represent a good narrative inside a battle. It might make for more action as it punishes gunlines and defensive play, but it's bad for the narrative and strategy - and there are other ways to improve the action without these crippling side effects.
I was going to apologise for impugning the sort of narrative you like with your battle and admit I was too black and white, but you're flat out denying that people who say they enjoy the narratives they get from the new missions can be having good narratives.
You're being narrow minded at this stage and there's no real point to conversing with you.
Leth wrote: Also if it is an opinion than it is not a matter of right or wrong and thus not worth debating.
All people have opinions but not all opinions are equally valid and not all opinions are equally shared, hence debate.
There will be people who like and people who don't like each new edition. Though it seems to me that many of the 7th edition changes are more divisive and IMO divisive changes are not a good thing. Things that create rifts in the community because a large portion of people don't like them aren't good for the community and aren't good for the health of a game.
I had a fairly positive first game as well last weekend.Now we did play 7k each for our first game but I love all the wacky stuff that goes on. Having a fighter crash directly on a primarch is hilarious. Especially when he simply swipes it out of the sky and keeps going. It worked to my favor but still not a fan of carry over wounds from challenges. Stupid he can hit people and not get hit back.
Col. Dash wrote: I had a fairly positive first game as well last weekend.Now we did play 7k each for our first game but I love all the wacky stuff that goes on. Having a fighter crash directly on a primarch is hilarious. Especially when he simply swipes it out of the sky and keeps going. It worked to my favor but still not a fan of carry over wounds from challenges. Stupid he can hit people and not get hit back.
You can hit the guy in the challenge, he is just the last guy that can be allocated wounds.
However if he is the only guy left, you can smack him all you want
About the best analogy I've heard relating to 7th ed is
"If 6th Ed was 60% good, then 7th Ed is 80% good"
I've enjoyed both games I've played so far, Even if I've not played a Maelstrom mission due to lack of cards. But I've very much looking forward to the chance too!
Ralis wrote: About the best analogy I've heard relating to 7th ed is
"If 6th Ed was 60% good, then 7th Ed is 80% good"
I've enjoyed both games I've played so far, Even if I've not played a Maelstrom mission due to lack of cards. But I've very much looking forward to the chance too!
Firstly, that's not an analogy. Secondly, eh, I think 6th ed was about 50% good and 7th about 50% good, they just shuffled what was good and what was bad.
Leth wrote: Deathstars worked because of last editions win objectives and nothing more. They were never that good outside of that.
Um no. This is not true. scoring objectives is a wonderfull gain and a bonus, and can win the games, but that is not the only reason people take a deathstar.
Since you have obviously never faced a seerstar, let me give you the round up. They shoot 6-9 S9 guns at you re rolling to hit. Then they charge with 25+ wounding on 2s re rolling to hit attacks. sometimes re rolling to wound, and sometimes making you re roll amro saves.
Then they jump out of combat thanks to hit and run and eat another unit next turn.
The seer star can reliably kill a unit every turn. Whether it be tanks, MCs, or infantry, its gone or at least severely diminished.
@OP The maelstrom missions are great as long as neither you or your opponent is play eldar. Then there just plain stupid.
I enjoyed the new missions as well. I love sending my units forwards to take the fight to the enemy and now I get rewarded for it by going for objectives. Also I made my own deck of objective cards with everything that is on the the "official" deck in about 30 minutes using index cards and a pen.
portugus wrote: I enjoyed the new missions as well. I love sending my units forwards to take the fight to the enemy and now I get rewarded for it by going for objectives. Also I made my own deck of objective cards with everything that is on the the "official" deck in about 30 minutes using index cards and a pen.
Index cards! Heresy! Good idea though. I've had no problem using the dice system and pen/paper though.
I also love having a real tactical reason to move my troops forward, off the gunline. And infiltrators and scouts are super important now since they can plop on an objective before turn one, or outflank onto a backfield objective.
Leth wrote: Deathstars worked because of last editions win objectives and nothing more. They were never that good outside of that.
Um no. This is not true. scoring objectives is a wonderfull gain and a bonus, and can win the games, but that is not the only reason people take a deathstar.
Since you have obviously never faced a seerstar, let me give you the round up. They shoot 6-9 S9 guns at you re rolling to hit. Then they charge with 25+ wounding on 2s re rolling to hit attacks. sometimes re rolling to wound, and sometimes making you re roll amro saves.
Then they jump out of combat thanks to hit and run and eat another unit next turn.
The seer star can reliably kill a unit every turn. Whether it be tanks, MCs, or infantry, its gone or at least severely diminished.
@OP The maelstrom missions are great as long as neither you or your opponent is play eldar. Then there just plain stupid.
Yep and the mission win conditions of last edition that had kill points being a significant part of the score prevented people from taking MSU, which was the main counter to death stars. The death star being able to contest multiple objectives was also part of what enabled them to win. A death star will kill 1, maybe 2 units a turn. When there are 20 units on the tables they will lose because they got a 1000 points invested into killing a 35 point rhino or drop pod every turn which they have to try and kill if they want to win.
Those str 9 guns dont ignore armor so are not likely to kill much outside of failed rolls. Those re-rols to hit, re-rolls to wound, and re-rolling armor saves all require psychic powers now that are not reliable at all, you are very unlikely to get the perfect storm of powers off every turn.
Also I have played against(and sometimes beat) all of the death stars of old, when you change the win conditions to something not relying on last turn contests they tend to not hold up as well.
Lobomalo wrote: We played one of the width length missions, I forget the name atm but we had 3 buildings spread out with an objective on each side and difficult terrain craters between them.
Using my friends DA army I rushed the 50 tactical marines in their Rhinos to the buildings, unloaded them, took the buildings and prevented him from getting a single objective. He did get first blood because of the terminators but at the end of turn 3 the score was 10-1
Can you come and do a clinic for the players at my flgs? They spend all their points on terminators that just walk slowly towards my battle lines, it's mind boggling that the marine players don't splurge on tactical squads. They think they can win with just terminators. But even if each of his terminator squads killed one of my squads per turn, I'd still have enough squads to claim more objectives than them.
Gladly. I'll dance around them all game lol. Really, against DA, Terminators are only scary on that initial turn they Deep Strike, which didn't help him much as he chose turn 2 to do it, and he went second, which allowed me time to kill off every bike he had except for the one he put with Sammael lol
I like the idea of the objective cards, but think some slight improvements could be made. Maybe being able to remove 3 cards before the game starts and your opponent removes 1 more from your deck.
The first time I played using the objectives we started off with 6 cards and I drew 3 objective cards and 3 impossible cards. Of the 3 objectives I could claim 2 with the third being in the far back corner.
My opponent on the other hand drew the one for psychic powers in a GK army, a few for his objectives, and another for d3 points for killing 3 units. This really did skew the battle really early on.
We just house rules that any cards that are impossible can be instantly discarded and re-drew. Keeps it simple without having to go through the deck each game
Also for the tournament this weekend I recommended that all D3s be set at two
I just don't like the objectives if you aren't using cards, since it's a lot of extra book keeping especially since there are three different kinds of "Objective 1 good" .
I like the idea of "every turn matters" and tallying up points for what you did in your turn. However, it could have been done completely differently in my opinion. Objectives lay down the same way before table sides are picked and points are earned for each turn you control an objective. Maybe even make mission specific ones that give points for removing entire units of a specific FOC slot.
Leth wrote: Deathstars worked because of last editions win objectives and nothing more. They were never that good outside of that.
Um no. This is not true. scoring objectives is a wonderfull gain and a bonus, and can win the games, but that is not the only reason people take a deathstar.
Since you have obviously never faced a seerstar, let me give you the round up. They shoot 6-9 S9 guns at you re rolling to hit. Then they charge with 25+ wounding on 2s re rolling to hit attacks. sometimes re rolling to wound, and sometimes making you re roll amro saves.
Then they jump out of combat thanks to hit and run and eat another unit next turn.
The seer star can reliably kill a unit every turn. Whether it be tanks, MCs, or infantry, its gone or at least severely diminished.
@OP The maelstrom missions are great as long as neither you or your opponent is play eldar. Then there just plain stupid.
Yep and the mission win conditions of last edition that had kill points being a significant part of the score prevented people from taking MSU, which was the main counter to death stars. The death star being able to contest multiple objectives was also part of what enabled them to win. A death star will kill 1, maybe 2 units a turn. When there are 20 units on the tables they will lose because they got a 1000 points invested into killing a 35 point rhino or drop pod every turn which they have to try and kill if they want to win.
Those str 9 guns dont ignore armor so are not likely to kill much outside of failed rolls. Those re-rols to hit, re-rolls to wound, and re-rolling armor saves all require psychic powers now that are not reliable at all, you are very unlikely to get the perfect storm of powers off every turn.
Also I have played against(and sometimes beat) all of the death stars of old, when you change the win conditions to something not relying on last turn contests they tend to not hold up as well.
My whole post was relating to when you said that deathstars worked last edition....
This edition they got worse. And I agree.
Savageconvoy wrote: I like the idea of the objective cards, but think some slight improvements could be made. Maybe being able to remove 3 cards before the game starts and your opponent removes 1 more from your deck.
The first time I played using the objectives we started off with 6 cards and I drew 3 objective cards and 3 impossible cards. Of the 3 objectives I could claim 2 with the third being in the far back corner.
My opponent on the other hand drew the one for psychic powers in a GK army, a few for his objectives, and another for d3 points for killing 3 units. This really did skew the battle really early on.
Yeah, objective cards seem like one of the largely accepted things about 7th. The consensus seems to be that they could have been tuned up a bit before release. Some people have taken to make the changes and others are frustrated that these fixes are required in the first place. I just really wish GW would play-test this game just a ing little bit.
Most of the changes mentioned are pretty unambiguous, which is why it's not worth groaning over in many people's opinions. But if someone at GW had sat down and posed a couple of scenarios to the rules authors, there wouldn't even be a discussion. It's like the rules team is sitting in a room stoned and one guy occasionally blurts out a good idea and everyone else "woahs". Then the next day they read back the notes and copy them into the game verbatim.
EDIT: OP thanks for the story. It is also interesting to hear different people's perspectives on this stuff.
Personally it seems like an easy way to subtly increase the cost of the rules.
They sell the psychic power cards since it makes it easier to keep track of during every game. Now they make a table so obscene to keep track of you're almost required to use cards just to save you several minutes mid game.
I'm surprised they haven't started trying to sell Warlord Trait cards as well honestly.
Or you make laminated cards with the character on it and then just put a dot next to it each mission and then wipe it off.
Or you just make your own.
There are plenty of things that you can do without having to buy the cards. They are a convenience. Like I printed off a bunch of copies of diviniation last edition and made my own cards since I have so many with it. I will probably do the same this edition once a good scan shows up. I bought the cards and tactical cards because they are nice to have and make my life easier.
Plus they are like 8 bucks, in the scheme of things it is miniscule for what they offer. People are more upset around here about the cards being sold out more than anything else.
I played my first two games of 7th ed. this last weekend. First was my IG vs Orks 1875 pts. The Morkanaught went down to my Knight Errant. I was really surprised by how weak the new Ork toy was. He was avenged by a dread and some killakans. We played Maelstrom: Cloak and Shadows it was meh. The Orks got the better hand and I got gak. We house ruled trading in impossible objectives immediately. The cards I had forced me into a gunline stance because of the location of the objectives. Game ended in a tie.
Second game was against Inquisition/IG mech vet with Yarrick. Maelstrom: Spoils of War was annoying. I got the better hand and jumped out to a large lead but was unable to keep him from tabling me.
My take aways for 7th edition.
The psychic phase was a complete disappointment. I love psykers. I include them in every army even when they really sucked back in 3rd. But I couldn't help but feel he was a waste of points.
The Maelstrom Cards are not dynamic, they are random. I don't like them. They are an equalizer in that they force you to play in a random way, kind of like when you first started playing and had no idea what tactics or strategy were. So if you want to Forge the Narrative: Play like a 12 yr old, then I can see them being useful for you.
Wyverns are ridiculous. The kind of no-brainer choice that ruins game balance.
Crimson Devil wrote: I played my first two games of 7th ed. this last weekend. First was my IG vs Orks 1875 pts. The Morkanaught went down to my Knight Errant. I was really surprised by how weak the new Ork toy was. He was avenged by a dread and some killakans. We played Maelstrom: Cloak and Shadows it was meh. The Orks got the better hand and I got gak. We house ruled trading in impossible objectives immediately. The cards I had forced me into a gunline stance because of the location of the objectives. Game ended in a tie.
Second game was against Inquisition/IG mech vet with Yarrick. Maelstrom: Spoils of War was annoying. I got the better hand and jumped out to a large lead but was unable to keep him from tabling me.
My take aways for 7th edition.
The psychic phase was a complete disappointment. I love psykers. I include them in every army even when they really sucked back in 3rd. But I couldn't help but feel he was a waste of points.
The Maelstrom Cards are not dynamic, they are random. I don't like them. They are an equalizer in that they force you to play in a random way, kind of like when you first started playing and had no idea what tactics or strategy were. So if you want to Forge the Narrative: Play like a 12 yr old, then I can see them being useful for you.
Wyverns are ridiculous. The kind of no-brainer choice that ruins game balance.
Except random is sort of the point. In battle only a few set objectives are set in stone, others become available randomly throughout combat, this is incredibly dynamic as you never know what objectives you need to work towards next
That's another thing we learned. Either go all psyker or no psyker. Had a few games where it was one or two psykers against a GK list where just about every unit adds dice to their pool. It's really depressing watching a farseer have to throw all of his dice into a single spell just to prevent a bunch of henchmen psykers from denying it with overwhelming dice.
Doesn't make it a good idea for a game. I wouldn't object to a mechanic that could alter conditions of the game during play. The cards are a bad way to do it.
Not seeing how it is a bad idea either. I have seen overwhelming support and favor for the cards as a matter of fact, only the staunchest, traditionalist veterans seem to feel otherwise in my experience
Lobomalo wrote: I have seen overwhelming support and favor for the cards
I think this may be an exaggeration. I think more posts saying they like the scoring element every turn as opposed to last round scoring. However the majority I think generally houserule to skip over bad cards or just remove them entirely and plenty have voiced concern over how bad draws severely impact the game. I wouldn't straight out say that the cards are getting almost universal positive support, but that with a few minor changes (that should have been included) that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Except random is sort of the point. In battle only a few set objectives are set in stone, others become available randomly throughout combat, this is incredibly dynamic as you never know what objectives you need to work towards next
"Random" is certainly "dynamic" but the point was it has nothing to do with a narrative battle. Generally in a real-life skirmish you have a clearly defined long-term goal (don't die, kill the other guy, get from Point A to Point B, hold point C) and your actions, your enemy's actions, and the terrain you're fighting over naturally create short-term objectives along the way (we can flank their position if we take this hill, etc).
The Maelstrom cards are like an almost-but-not-quite attempt at artificially injecting those secondary objectives into the game (since 6th edition showed that in 40k, without artificial means, deathstars and gunlines make every battle look the same regardless of objectives). I am ok with this in theory. In practice, GW just needed to playtest their stupid cards more than once or twice. It's nice that the cards exist, because it means players with even an ounce of creativity can put together better house rules for them than GW bothered to write.
It also amazes me that GW's marketing has completely twisted the concept of a narrative game in some players' minds. In a narrative game, you come up with a backstory, set up a scenario that may or may not be balanced, and play it out to see how the story unfolds using a flexible but ultimately fair ruleset. The important thing is that your decisions really make sense within the game, and you help create a story through your actions. In GW bizarro land, your narrative game starts off with your army's leader gaining random abilities, then the battle takes inexplicable turns at the whim of D66 charts and cards, and all the while players have to go through mental gymnastics to explain what the heck is happening.
Lobomalo wrote: Not seeing how it is a bad idea either. I have seen overwhelming support and favor for the cards as a matter of fact, only the staunchest, traditionalist veterans seem to feel otherwise in my experience
Only people who play eldar or agaisnt eldar dont like them, which is basically everyone in the competitive environment.
Except random is sort of the point. In battle only a few set objectives are set in stone, others become available randomly throughout combat, this is incredibly dynamic as you never know what objectives you need to work towards next
"Random" is certainly "dynamic" but the point was it has nothing to do with a narrative battle. Generally in a real-life skirmish you have a clearly defined long-term goal (don't die, kill the other guy, get from Point A to Point B, hold point C) and your actions, your enemy's actions, and the terrain you're fighting over naturally create short-term objectives along the way (we can flank their position if we take this hill, etc).
The Maelstrom cards are like an almost-but-not-quite attempt at artificially injecting those secondary objectives into the game (since 6th edition showed that in 40k, without artificial means, deathstars and gunlines make every battle look the same regardless of objectives). I am ok with this in theory. In practice, GW just needed to playtest their stupid cards more than once or twice. It's nice that the cards exist, because it means players with even an ounce of creativity can put together better house rules for them than GW bothered to write.
It also amazes me that GW's marketing has completely twisted the concept of a narrative game in some players' minds. In a narrative game, you come up with a backstory, set up a scenario that may or may not be balanced, and play it out to see how the story unfolds using a flexible but ultimately fair ruleset. In 40k bizarro land, your narrative game starts off with your army's leader gaining random abilities, then the battle takes inexplicable turns at the whim of D66 charts and cards, and all the while players have to go through mental gymnastics to explain what the heck is happening.
As someone who has been in combat I find the maelstrom randomness irritating and stupid.
Except random is sort of the point. In battle only a few set objectives are set in stone, others become available randomly throughout combat, this is incredibly dynamic as you never know what objectives you need to work towards next
"Random" is certainly "dynamic" but the point was it has nothing to do with a narrative battle. Generally in a real-life skirmish you have a clearly defined long-term goal (don't die, kill the other guy, get from Point A to Point B, hold point C) and your actions, your enemy's actions, and the terrain you're fighting over naturally create short-term objectives along the way (we can flank their position if we take this hill, etc).
The Maelstrom cards are like an almost-but-not-quite attempt at artificially injecting those secondary objectives into the game (since 6th edition showed that in 40k, without artificial means, deathstars and gunlines make every battle look the same regardless of objectives). I am ok with this in theory. In practice, GW just needed to playtest their stupid cards more than once or twice. It's nice that the cards exist, because it means players with even an ounce of creativity can put together better house rules for them than GW bothered to write.
It also amazes me that GW's marketing has completely twisted the concept of a narrative game in some players' minds. In a narrative game, you come up with a backstory, set up a scenario that may or may not be balanced, and play it out to see how the story unfolds using a flexible but ultimately fair ruleset. In 40k bizarro land, your narrative game starts off with your army's leader gaining random abilities, then the battle takes inexplicable turns at the whim of D66 charts and cards, and all the while players have to go through mental gymnastics to explain what the heck is happening.
As someone who has been in combat I find the maelstrom randomness irritating and stupid.
Hell, man, thank you for serving! (and not so secretly, thank you for backing me up on this, all the history books I read will always pale in comparison to what you've actually done, but I know these cards are crap for wargaming with the way GW has written them)
Savageconvoy wrote:That's another thing we learned. Either go all psyker or no psyker. Had a few games where it was one or two psykers against a GK list where just about every unit adds dice to their pool. It's really depressing watching a farseer have to throw all of his dice into a single spell just to prevent a bunch of henchmen psykers from denying it with overwhelming dice.
For me, that's pretty realistic. A whole army of psykers is going to find it pretty easy to shut down one opposing psyker. They might get the odd blessing through [hence needing 6s to block] but are very unlikely to get any offensive spells off. Much more realistic than one psyker casting blessings with impunity and only being very rarely denied the chance to blow stuff up with warp power.
As someone who has been in combat I find the maelstrom randomness irritating and stupid.
Pretty sure things never go perfectly in war, like in Black Hawk Down where they drive round for miles getting shot trying to reach objectives. Again, for me pretty realistic. Definitely more so than hanging back for four turns then turbo-boosting onto objectives to win.
As someone who has been in combat I find the maelstrom randomness irritating and stupid.
Definitely more so than hanging back for four turns then turbo-boosting onto objectives to win.
Yes, so now its turboboost around onto objectives every turn, for a guaranteed win. Such a change.
I haven't seen that really play out in such a way yet, but I'd love for my Eldar playing friends to bring more jet bikes instead of some other units heh.
I think the turn by turn actually hurts jetbikes, or at least makes people take more than the minimum 3 man squad.
I recently had a team game where a guy lost his jetbikes early on because he was trying to swoop in and grab objectives for an easy point and had to restrain my team mate from diving forward with Piranha just to get a single objective.
And to the Black Hawk down comment, it's more like this:
They assemble a small armed force for searching and securing 6 known areas suspected of holding supplies or hostages or whatever. During the first half hour of combat they decided they only care locations 4 and 6 and that one of the Sergeants wants to punch an enemy officer in the face. After that half hour they celebrate having two locations and the sarge gives up his dream for tactical reasons.
Then suddenly the word gets passed around the radio that enemy aircraft are now the most important along with fortified buildings and location 2.
After a half hour units report back to command stating that there are no enemy aircraft, no buildings are being fortified, and objective 2 is beyond reach behind enemy lines.
Next half hour the army decides that 4 is important again, they're still on the hunt for enemy aircraft, have discarded the idea of taking out enemy buildings, and have given up on 2.
You all make it sound like there is one squad running around after objectives like a headless chicken. A saner strategy would be to manoeuvre your army so it can challenge as many objectives as possible. Fast things may be able to grab some early points but they'll likely expose themselves if they do.
I've not tried Maelstrom missions but I'm looking forward to the challenge.
As someone who has been in combat I find the maelstrom randomness irritating and stupid.
Definitely more so than hanging back for four turns then turbo-boosting onto objectives to win.
Yes, so now its turboboost around onto objectives every turn, for a guaranteed win. Such a change.
I haven't seen that really play out in such a way yet, but I'd love for my Eldar playing friends to bring more jet bikes instead of some other units heh.
I in fact wasnt talking just about jet bikes. Wave serpents do it just as well, although it would forfit a turn of shooting. But hey, a turn of shooting for a victory point? Fair enough.
As someone who has been in combat I find the maelstrom randomness irritating and stupid.
Definitely more so than hanging back for four turns then turbo-boosting onto objectives to win.
Yes, so now its turboboost around onto objectives every turn, for a guaranteed win. Such a change.
I haven't seen that really play out in such a way yet, but I'd love for my Eldar playing friends to bring more jet bikes instead of some other units heh.
I in fact wasnt talking just about jet bikes.
Wave serpents do it just as well, although it would forfit a turn of shooting. But hey, a turn of shooting for a victory point? Fair enough.
I haven't seen that play out either but I suppose it's certainly possible. You do however highlight exactly why these missions work, because you have to make a _choice_; you actually have to think, during the game, and not just at the list building phase. Fair enough indeed.
Savageconvoy wrote:That's another thing we learned. Either go all psyker or no psyker. Had a few games where it was one or two psykers against a GK list where just about every unit adds dice to their pool. It's really depressing watching a farseer have to throw all of his dice into a single spell just to prevent a bunch of henchmen psykers from denying it with overwhelming dice.
For me, that's pretty realistic. A whole army of psykers is going to find it pretty easy to shut down one opposing psyker. They might get the odd blessing through [hence needing 6s to block] but are very unlikely to get any offensive spells off. Much more realistic than one psyker casting blessings with impunity and only being very rarely denied the chance to blow stuff up with warp power.
As someone who has been in combat I find the maelstrom randomness irritating and stupid.
Pretty sure things never go perfectly in war, like in Black Hawk Down where they drive round for miles getting shot trying to reach objectives. Again, for me pretty realistic. Definitely more so than hanging back for four turns then turbo-boosting onto objectives to win.
Wait, are you telling a combat vet how real battles are?
Wait, are you telling us that Orks are not real? C'mon dude seriously?
It's a futuristic miniatures wargame designed to carry out narrative battles, no actual combat experience is required to play; but some imagination is.
Gunzhard wrote: Wait, are you telling us that Orks are not real? C'mon dude seriously?
It's a futuristic miniatures wargame designed to carry out narrative battles, no actual combat experience is required to play; but some imagination is.
Yeah it's a game, but it's supposed to be a war game. When even your mission objectives give up all pretense of making sense you get even further from that idea. That's OK though, 40k has never been very good for simulating combat. Every step away from that and towards making pew pew noises with dinobot models makes that clear, and makes the game more honest with itself in a way.
Also there's a difference between suspending disbelief over green skinned aliens (the game setting) and suspending disbelief over why your army is being made to run around in a schizophrenic fervor during a 10 minute long battle (the game itself). Bad mechanics are bad whether you buy into the back story or not.
Edit: Just have to add this, because I'm so tired of seeing it said: there is nothing narrative about 40k. NOTHING. There are ZERO narrative elements to 40k. There's no campaign system, your units don't gain experience or skills, nothing about the mechanics of the game really encourages roleplaying - everything is clunky mechanisms for moving units and dealing damage to the enemy while trying to carry out objectives that are essentially symmetrical. You have to use your imagination to add narrative to a 40k game, but you can do that with ANY wargame. I cannot repeat this enough, nothing about 40k is inherently narrative driven. Any good wargame can be used to construct and play out a narrative, and some are specifically designed to do it. 40k is not one of them.
Furthermore, there are plenty of elements of 40k that can actually IMPEDE any narrative you're trying to create. Things like random warlord traits and psychic powers, where the leaders of your army, the characters you probably most identify with and whose exploits you build a story around, learn potentially useless skills picked out of a hat just before battle begins. Or the Maelstrom cards, where any possible story behind the battle is immediately destroyed by the ever-changing crap you're tasked with doing each turn. Games Workshop actually go out of their way to make it HARDER to construct a narrative during a game of 40k these days.
The heaviest burden on your imagination isn't suspending disbelief at the existence of orks, it's coming up with reasons why your warlord has had a personality change since your last battle, and why you can't tell whether the random terrain you're walking into is about to eat you until you're literally inside it, and why the heck your army doesn't have an actual objective in this skirmish, it's just running around jumping on hot spots and shooting down planes to score imaginary points every 30 game-seconds. Those are the things that require true suspension of disbelief, and mental gymnastics to form any kind of narrative around.
Seriously, don't use the word "narrative" again until you've thought about what it actually means.
I dont get the examples being used against these cards.
One unit in your army isnt running back and forth, your whole army should be working to maximize the gaining these card benefits. So instead of one unit running back and forth, you will probably have units heading to these objectives anyways with support spread between the advancing parties.
No idiot would send a his whole force at one objective knowing he may need to take the one on the other end of the field next.
Its nothing like headless chickens. If you play it properly and play it to win, you wont have darting armies moving in unison to get one objective at a time.
I think they are ok, just a bit too random maybe but still. Its not like these objectives are being given to just one squad in your force (unless you only have one squad) so your army can work on the premise that one objective can become important. rather than focusing on the objective at hand 100%.
Swastakowey wrote: I dont get the examples being used against these cards.
One unit in your army isnt running back and forth, your whole army should be working to maximize the gaining these card benefits. So instead of one unit running back and forth, you will probably have units heading to these objectives anyways with support spread between the advancing parties.
No idiot would send a his whole force at one objective knowing he may need to take the one on the other end of the field next.
Its nothing like headless chickens. If you play it properly and play it to win, you wont have darting armies moving in unison to get one objective at a time.
I think they are ok, just a bit too random maybe but still. Its not like these objectives are being given to just one squad in your force (unless you only have one squad) so your army can work on the premise that one objective can become important. rather than focusing on the objective at hand 100%.
Yeah, you're really missing the point. Yes, you don't literally send your whole army after every objective every turn. And random objectives do tend to break up gunline armies by forcing you to move and cover more options. But if you had to try to imagine your game of 40k as a battle (crazy talk, I know), what would you say is going on? What possible coherent story could you make out of your random smattering of objectives, some of which are plain stupid? Seriously, cast psychic powers, gain points?
Random cards might force you to be quicker and more flexible, but so does a game of whack-a-mole. The mission cards as implemented just make it even less of a wargame and more of a plain old game. One more disconnect from being a wartorn battlefield instead of two people pushing enormously expensive plastic toys around.
No idiot would send a his whole force at one objective knowing he may need to take the one on the other end of the field next.
But an idiot will demand his troops to destroy all enemy building, shoot down his aircraft, and to have a sergeant challenge an enemy officer to fisticuffs when there are no building, no aircraft, and the enemy officer is a walking slaughterhouse.
It's not one unit running back and forth. It's switching objectives and goals randomly. A small force is set up to go claim objectives and deny others. This is dynamic because the enemy is countering your attempts while trying for his own.
It is not dynamic because upper command keeps changing its mind on where to best have a picnic or what enemy unit most needs to suffer high velocity lead poisoning.
Swastakowey wrote: I dont get the examples being used against these cards.
One unit in your army isnt running back and forth, your whole army should be working to maximize the gaining these card benefits. So instead of one unit running back and forth, you will probably have units heading to these objectives anyways with support spread between the advancing parties.
No idiot would send a his whole force at one objective knowing he may need to take the one on the other end of the field next.
Its nothing like headless chickens. If you play it properly and play it to win, you wont have darting armies moving in unison to get one objective at a time.
I think they are ok, just a bit too random maybe but still. Its not like these objectives are being given to just one squad in your force (unless you only have one squad) so your army can work on the premise that one objective can become important. rather than focusing on the objective at hand 100%.
Yeah, you're really missing the point. Yes, you don't literally send your whole army after every objective every turn. And random objectives do tend to break up gunline armies by forcing you to move and cover more options. But if you had to try to imagine your game of 40k as a battle (crazy talk, I know), what would you say is going on? What possible coherent story could you make out of your random smattering of objectives, some of which are plain stupid? Seriously, cast psychic powers, gain points?
Random cards might force you to be quicker and more flexible, but so does a game of whack-a-mole. The mission cards as implemented just make it even less of a wargame and more of a plain old game. One more disconnect from being a wartorn battlefield instead of two people pushing enormously expensive plastic toys around.
Sorry, you've served and you are whining about the randomness of objectives? Where and when may I ask have you served? Outside of WW2 every conflict the US has been in has been a series of random objectives that the soldiers don't really know much about as they shouldn't have been there in the first place, hence why we lost Vietnam, Korea was a standstill, Iraq 1/2 were failures. Had objectives been clearly defined and thought out, the results of these would be different.
I understand that you do not like the cards and you think there is no narrative in the game and that is fine, you have a right to your opinion. Except it is based on zero logic and more emotion than anything else. You sound more like an angry vet ranting about how normal people will never understand what you went through blah, blah blah. It isn't helpful to the discussion and is flat out offensive to a degree.
You don't like something, that's okay. State your opinion and move along, no reason to sit there and belittle others simply because they can find something of value from this and you cannot.
And as for strategy, not to be a douche or anything, but since when does a grunt have an impact on the strategy of a battleground? You are given orders from someone on high who, more often than not isn't even on the ground with you, these orders are relayed down the pipeline until it gets to your squad captain, which is who you hear the orders from.
Back to the thread. This thread is about how and why people love 7th. If you feel otherwise, why not create a thread talking about why you hate 7th and leave those who like it be?
You have 3 objective cards.. 1 kill psyker, 1 hold Objective 2 and one hold objective 1 (for example).
The commander has asked that these objectives are currently priority. The objectives need to be taken and psykers are a huge threat if any are present. The enemy have no psykers, so you confirm there are no psykers and they go ok and give you something else to look out for. Which ends up being another one of the cards. So you have that in mind as you go to claim the objectives.
What if the objectives are places where enemy movement is expected, so every time you get an objective card your commander is asking you to make sure no new enemy movement has been noticed when you check it.
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative
if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
I see what you mean, but I thinks it far better than the mysterious objectives we never played. I think it can work, but it can also make no sense at all.
You have 3 objective cards.. 1 kill psyker, 1 hold Objective 2 and one hold objective 1 (for example).
The commander has asked that these objectives are currently priority. The objectives need to be taken and psykers are a huge threat if any are present. The enemy have no psykers, so you confirm there are no psykers and they go ok and give you something else to look out for. Which ends up being another one of the cards. So you have that in mind as you go to claim the objectives.
What if the objectives are places where enemy movement is expected, so every time you get an objective card your commander is asking you to make sure no new enemy movement has been noticed when you check it.
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative
if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
I see what you mean, but I thinks it far better than the mysterious objectives we never played. I think it can work, but it can also make no sense at all.
You get 3 cards. One of them is to kill the Psyker. Here is a narrative that shouldn't be too difficult to understand.
"The enemy has a sniper hidden somewhere in the buildings over there, we need you to go find him and take him out."
"Sir, the sniper is already dead."
"In that case we proceed to stage two, we need to push forward into the city and capture the communications relay. It is likely to be heavily fortified by enemy units so expect resistance."
"Yes sir."
"Once you secure the communications relay, we need to cut off the power grid to the city."
You see, with a little effort, you can make a narrative, that literally took 30 seconds to do.
@lobmalo
I think you may have quoted the wrong user. Regardless, the user you quoted is a UK flag, so if I've missed something and he has served, then, historically, our track record is very different to the US.
With regard to topic, I think Maelstrom is almost there, both as a concept and as a means of disrupting some of the less fun armies to play against.
I favour variety in my lists, I seldom spam, in fact I rarely take more than two of any unit, and I find with the spread of speed, offence and defence I tend to have available with those lists, MOW missions suit me well (I'm 3:0 in 7th so far, and, with no false modesty, not really had a close game yet)
But, if they break your suspension of disbelief, for whatever reason, then that's a bad thing, all I can suggest to those who do is, if you're lucky enough to have regular opponents, try a few small mods to try and fix that. (The best I've heard is one set of cards as "bonus points" to last the whole game, rather then be redrawn turn to turn as they're completed and free discards of useless objectives)
You have 3 objective cards.. 1 kill psyker, 1 hold Objective 2 and one hold objective 1 (for example).
The commander has asked that these objectives are currently priority. The objectives need to be taken and psykers are a huge threat if any are present. The enemy have no psykers, so you confirm there are no psykers and they go ok and give you something else to look out for. Which ends up being another one of the cards. So you have that in mind as you go to claim the objectives.
What if the objectives are places where enemy movement is expected, so every time you get an objective card your commander is asking you to make sure no new enemy movement has been noticed when you check it.
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
I see what you mean, but I thinks it far better than the mysterious objectives we never played. I think it can work, but it can also make no sense at all. Like telling a Commissar to engage in hand to hand with a tyranid huge monster.
You get 3 cards. One of them is to kill the Psyker. Here is a narrative that shouldn't be too difficult to understand.
"The enemy has a sniper hidden somewhere in the buildings over there, we need you to go find him and take him out."
"Sir, the sniper is already dead."
"In that case we proceed to stage two, we need to push forward into the city and capture the communications relay. It is likely to be heavily fortified by enemy units so expect resistance."
"Yes sir."
"Once you secure the communications relay, we need to cut off the power grid to the city."
You see, with a little effort, you can make a narrative, that literally took 30 seconds to do.
Which is right, thats pretty much what I said. Except what if you keep drawing the same card you cant complete. Like shoot an aircraft down. You tell the commander there is no aircraft, so he tells you again to shoot down the aircraft. While yes it can help represent confusion it can also be really stupid. Imagine a psykic farseer or whatever who can see into the future blah b;lah and he keeps telling a force to kill something that isnt there.
I see both sides have a point. I for example wouldnt have an issue with it and quite enjoy the cards so far, but I can also (as someone who prefers historic games where its sometimes an attempt at simulation) see how its really stupid to have also.
Like everything GW does, for everything good they do, it has draw backs. The draw back with this is the narrative has to be stretched depending on the cards you pull. Like orderign a Tau commander to fight hand to hand against a Huge Tyranid monster.
azreal13 wrote: @lobmalo
I think you may have quoted the wrong user. Regardless, the user you quoted is a UK flag, so if I've missed something and he has served, then, historically, our track record is very different to the US.
With regard to topic, I think Maelstrom is almost there, both as a concept and as a means of disrupting some of the less fun armies to play against.
I favour variety in my lists, I seldom spam, in fact I rarely take more than two of any unit, and I find with the spread of speed, offence and defence I tend to have available with those lists, MOW missions suit me well (I'm 3:0 in 7th so far, and, with no false modesty, not really had a close game yet)
But, if they break your suspension of disbelief, for whatever reason, then that's a bad thing, all I can suggest to those who do is, if you're lucky enough to have regular opponents, try a few small mods to try and fix that. (The best I've heard is one set of cards as "bonus points" to last the whole game, rather then be redrawn turn to turn as they're completed and free discards of useless objectives)
I may have misquoted someone but the rest of my comment stands, got really niffed with some of the outright hostile comments in this discussion.
So far though, I haven't seen any Eldar even win a MoW to be honest, especially when they are playing against any Space Marine chapter as the simply bunker up in buildings nearby to the bulk of the objectives and slaughter anything that moves. Horde armies are better suited than speed based armies from what I have seen so far.
azreal13 wrote: @lobmalo
I think you may have quoted the wrong user. Regardless, the user you quoted is a UK flag, so if I've missed something and he has served, then, historically, our track record is very different to the US.
With regard to topic, I think Maelstrom is almost there, both as a concept and as a means of disrupting some of the less fun armies to play against.
I favour variety in my lists, I seldom spam, in fact I rarely take more than two of any unit, and I find with the spread of speed, offence and defence I tend to have available with those lists, MOW missions suit me well (I'm 3:0 in 7th so far, and, with no false modesty, not really had a close game yet)
But, if they break your suspension of disbelief, for whatever reason, then that's a bad thing, all I can suggest to those who do is, if you're lucky enough to have regular opponents, try a few small mods to try and fix that. (The best I've heard is one set of cards as "bonus points" to last the whole game, rather then be redrawn turn to turn as they're completed and free discards of useless objectives)
I may have misquoted someone but the rest of my comment stands, got really niffed with some of the outright hostile comments in this discussion.
So far though, I haven't seen any Eldar even win a MoW to be honest, especially when they are playing against any Space Marine chapter as the simply bunker up in buildings nearby to the bulk of the objectives and slaughter anything that moves. Horde armies are better suited than speed based armies from what I have seen so far.
Maybe in friendly games, but in competitive games, Eldar are still top dog.
azreal13 wrote: @lobmalo
I think you may have quoted the wrong user. Regardless, the user you quoted is a UK flag, so if I've missed something and he has served, then, historically, our track record is very different to the US.
With regard to topic, I think Maelstrom is almost there, both as a concept and as a means of disrupting some of the less fun armies to play against.
I favour variety in my lists, I seldom spam, in fact I rarely take more than two of any unit, and I find with the spread of speed, offence and defence I tend to have available with those lists, MOW missions suit me well (I'm 3:0 in 7th so far, and, with no false modesty, not really had a close game yet)
But, if they break your suspension of disbelief, for whatever reason, then that's a bad thing, all I can suggest to those who do is, if you're lucky enough to have regular opponents, try a few small mods to try and fix that. (The best I've heard is one set of cards as "bonus points" to last the whole game, rather then be redrawn turn to turn as they're completed and free discards of useless objectives)
I may have misquoted someone but the rest of my comment stands, got really niffed with some of the outright hostile comments in this discussion.
So far though, I haven't seen any Eldar even win a MoW to be honest, especially when they are playing against any Space Marine chapter as the simply bunker up in buildings nearby to the bulk of the objectives and slaughter anything that moves. Horde armies are better suited than speed based armies from what I have seen so far.
Maybe in friendly games, but in competitive games, Eldar are still top dog.
Not for Maelstrom, not even close. Tau and Eldar have been getting creamed by almost everything out here. Eternal War missions are a different story though.
You have 3 objective cards.. 1 kill psyker, 1 hold Objective 2 and one hold objective 1 (for example).
The commander has asked that these objectives are currently priority. The objectives need to be taken and psykers are a huge threat if any are present. The enemy have no psykers, so you confirm there are no psykers and they go ok and give you something else to look out for. Which ends up being another one of the cards. So you have that in mind as you go to claim the objectives.
What if the objectives are places where enemy movement is expected, so every time you get an objective card your commander is asking you to make sure no new enemy movement has been noticed when you check it.
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative
if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
I see what you mean, but I thinks it far better than the mysterious objectives we never played. I think it can work, but it can also make no sense at all.
You get 3 cards. One of them is to kill the Psyker. Here is a narrative that shouldn't be too difficult to understand.
"The enemy has a sniper hidden somewhere in the buildings over there, we need you to go find him and take him out."
"Sir, the sniper is already dead."
"In that case we proceed to stage two, we need to push forward into the city and capture the communications relay. It is likely to be heavily fortified by enemy units so expect resistance."
"Yes sir."
"Once you secure the communications relay, we need to cut off the power grid to the city."
You see, with a little effort, you can make a narrative, that literally took 30 seconds to do.
Yeah, you just have to work a little harder than in any other mission system I've ever seen to imagine it almost makes sense. Not that bad!
You have 3 objective cards.. 1 kill psyker, 1 hold Objective 2 and one hold objective 1 (for example).
The commander has asked that these objectives are currently priority. The objectives need to be taken and psykers are a huge threat if any are present. The enemy have no psykers, so you confirm there are no psykers and they go ok and give you something else to look out for. Which ends up being another one of the cards. So you have that in mind as you go to claim the objectives.
What if the objectives are places where enemy movement is expected, so every time you get an objective card your commander is asking you to make sure no new enemy movement has been noticed when you check it.
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative
if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
I see what you mean, but I thinks it far better than the mysterious objectives we never played. I think it can work, but it can also make no sense at all.
You get 3 cards. One of them is to kill the Psyker. Here is a narrative that shouldn't be too difficult to understand.
"The enemy has a sniper hidden somewhere in the buildings over there, we need you to go find him and take him out."
"Sir, the sniper is already dead."
"In that case we proceed to stage two, we need to push forward into the city and capture the communications relay. It is likely to be heavily fortified by enemy units so expect resistance."
"Yes sir."
"Once you secure the communications relay, we need to cut off the power grid to the city."
You see, with a little effort, you can make a narrative, that literally took 30 seconds to do.
Yeah, you just have to work a little harder than in any other mission system I've ever seen to imagine it almost makes sense. Not that bad!
Dude that was 30 seconds of effort while I was eating a sandwich, typing with one hand. It isn't difficult at all.
Swastakowey wrote: I dont get the examples being used against these cards.
One unit in your army isnt running back and forth, your whole army should be working to maximize the gaining these card benefits. So instead of one unit running back and forth, you will probably have units heading to these objectives anyways with support spread between the advancing parties.
No idiot would send a his whole force at one objective knowing he may need to take the one on the other end of the field next.
Its nothing like headless chickens. If you play it properly and play it to win, you wont have darting armies moving in unison to get one objective at a time.
I think they are ok, just a bit too random maybe but still. Its not like these objectives are being given to just one squad in your force (unless you only have one squad) so your army can work on the premise that one objective can become important. rather than focusing on the objective at hand 100%.
Yeah, you're really missing the point. Yes, you don't literally send your whole army after every objective every turn. And random objectives do tend to break up gunline armies by forcing you to move and cover more options. But if you had to try to imagine your game of 40k as a battle (crazy talk, I know), what would you say is going on? What possible coherent story could you make out of your random smattering of objectives, some of which are plain stupid? Seriously, cast psychic powers, gain points?
Random cards might force you to be quicker and more flexible, but so does a game of whack-a-mole. The mission cards as implemented just make it even less of a wargame and more of a plain old game. One more disconnect from being a wartorn battlefield instead of two people pushing enormously expensive plastic toys around.
Sorry, you've served and you are whining about the randomness of objectives? Where and when may I ask have you served? Outside of WW2 every conflict the US has been in has been a series of random objectives that the soldiers don't really know much about as they shouldn't have been there in the first place, hence why we lost Vietnam, Korea was a standstill, Iraq 1/2 were failures. Had objectives been clearly defined and thought out, the results of these would be different. Those are wars, not battles. Big difference. And that's not why we lost.
I understand that you do not like the cards and you think there is no narrative in the game and that is fine, you have a right to your opinion. Except it is based on zero logic and more emotion than anything else. Except real world experience? You sound more like an angry vet ranting about how normal people will never understand what you went through blah, blah blah. It isn't helpful to the discussion and is flat out offensive to a degree. I find your willful ignorance offensive. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying, don't say the random cards are like war, because they're not. You may find them fun, that's fine, but realistic and narrative they are not.
You don't like something, that's okay. State your opinion and move along, no reason to sit there and belittle others simply because they can find something of value from this and you cannot. Like telling me that I'm just an angry vet and then trying to argue about real battle with me?
And as for strategy, not to be a douche or anything, but since when does a grunt have an impact on the strategy of a battleground? In small battles, all the time. You are given orders from someone on high who, more often than not isn't even on the ground with you, these orders are relayed down the pipeline until it gets to your squad captain, which is who you hear the orders from. You know this from personal experience? Because that's not how it was when I was in Iraq.
Back to the thread. This thread is about how and why people love 7th. If you feel otherwise, why not create a thread talking about why you hate 7th and leave those who like it be?
I assume you were talking to me?
Sorry, you're completely wrong. Stop trying to tell me what combat is like. I've seen combat and it isn't random objectives we don't know about. I don't even know where you're getting this from. These random carts take away game strategy and make it a new strategy each turn. I get that you like it, that's fine. I'm not belittling anyone, but you know nothing about real war. Is this game real war? No. I don't expect it to be. But I do expect it to make sense. There's a suspension of disbelief and this breaks it.
And I'm a published historian that studies warfare. Your historical examples are highly inaccurate. Go get educated.
Lobomalo wrote: Edited. Debating the merits of war is not a part of these forums and is not constructive at all.
Word of advice. If you are looking for realism in a game, you need to relax and maybe take a step or two back.
No,that's not what's happening.
Real world parallels were attempted to be drawn with 40K, someone with real world experience explained that it isn't the case. Someone, apparently without real world experience, disputed that.
Let me know when we get chainswords, huge dudes in power armor dropping from orbit to engage in close combat with their chainsaw swords and axes. while daemons manifest themselves onto the table.
It is a fantasy game, that really holds no parallels to anything realistic. Any attempt to do so seems like an exercise in futility.
If you dont like the maelstrom missions then alter them or dont use them. It seems like enough people enjoy them that it was a good idea to include them in the rule book.
Lobomalo wrote: Edited. Debating the merits of war is not a part of these forums and is not constructive at all.
Word of advice. If you are looking for realism in a game, you need to relax and maybe take a step or two back.
No,that's not what's happening.
Real world parallels were attempted to be drawn with 40K, someone with real world experience explained that it isn't the case. Someone, apparently without real world experience, disputed that.
azreal13 wrote: @lobmalo
I think you may have quoted the wrong user. Regardless, the user you quoted is a UK flag, so if I've missed something and he has served, then, historically, our track record is very different to the US.
With regard to topic, I think Maelstrom is almost there, both as a concept and as a means of disrupting some of the less fun armies to play against.
I favour variety in my lists, I seldom spam, in fact I rarely take more than two of any unit, and I find with the spread of speed, offence and defence I tend to have available with those lists, MOW missions suit me well (I'm 3:0 in 7th so far, and, with no false modesty, not really had a close game yet)
But, if they break your suspension of disbelief, for whatever reason, then that's a bad thing, all I can suggest to those who do is, if you're lucky enough to have regular opponents, try a few small mods to try and fix that. (The best I've heard is one set of cards as "bonus points" to last the whole game, rather then be redrawn turn to turn as they're completed and free discards of useless objectives)
I may have misquoted someone but the rest of my comment stands, got really niffed with some of the outright hostile comments in this discussion.
So far though, I haven't seen any Eldar even win a MoW to be honest, especially when they are playing against any Space Marine chapter as the simply bunker up in buildings nearby to the bulk of the objectives and slaughter anything that moves. Horde armies are better suited than speed based armies from what I have seen so far.
Maybe in friendly games, but in competitive games, Eldar are still top dog.
Not for Maelstrom, not even close. Tau and Eldar have been getting creamed by almost everything out here. Eternal War missions are a different story though.
Um no. Not at all. In fact in Mealstrom I do betetr than EW missions. Wave serpents+jet bikes= insta whatever objective I pull is mine.
Creamed by everything out there? Are you listening to your self?
Go play any good eldar player, and come back.
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative
if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
You can only draw or roll up a card/objective once. You will never have to kill 2 psykers or blow up two planes in any mission. Each player has to have their own deck / roll their own objectives re-rolling if you get a double. Forge away.
Maelstrom Missions are very cool. I enjoy the game and the Maelstrom Missions seem to take away the feeling of beating each other up and more a feeling of desperately trying to follow orders from high command, taking hit 422 and so on while under fire. I just love the idea of being a small part of a much larger battle, just trying to secure the sector and apprehend important targets.
Fun. And winning and losing doesn't feel as adversarial. I dunno. i love that part of it.
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative
if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
You can only draw or roll up a card/objective once. You will never have to kill 2 psykers or blow up two planes in any mission. Each player has to have their own deck / roll their own objectives re-rolling if you get a double. Forge away.
Well that changes heaps. Well I look even more forward to using them. I dont see a problem then.
I'm pretty sure nobody was "mocking vets" here, though perhaps mocking the ridiculous anger poured at folks daring to enjoy the game.
Most of us, at least in the US, are very proud of our vets; but being a vet makes you an authority on futuristic fictional warfare narratives, as much as being bondage sex deviant makes you an authority on Slaanesh Daemon behavior.
Further you can't tell someone the games they play are not "narrative" games just because your games are not. So many folks, perhaps in the pursuit of "competitive", water down 40k so much into a game where everything is perfectly accounted for, no dataslate, no fw, strict 1850 points, nothing random, no mystery objectives, basically nothing they cannot plan for at list building. In this case I totally understand why they feel a detachment from any narrative.
But for you vets pining the realism chant - please tell me the last time you saw a war/battle/skirmish where the terrain was perfectly equal, the objectives where perfectly equal matched, the two armies where perfectly balanced to one another, and all variables where perfectly accounted for (nothing random or unexpected happened).
Gunzhard wrote: I'm pretty sure nobody was "mocking vets" here, though perhaps mocking the ridiculous anger poured at folks daring to enjoy the game.
Most of us, at least in the US, are very proud of our vets; but being a vet makes you an authority on futuristic fictional warfare narratives, as much as being bondage sex deviant makes you an authority on Slaanesh Daemon behavior.
Further you can't tell someone the games they play are not "narrative" games just because your games are not. So many folks, perhaps in the pursuit of "competitive", water down 40k so much into a game where everything is perfectly accounted for, no dataslate, no fw, strict 1850 points, nothing random, no mystery objectives, basically nothing they cannot plan for at list building. In this case I totally understand why they feel a detachment from any narrative.
But for you vets pining the realism chant - please tell me the last time you a war/battle/skirmish where the terrain was perfectly equal, the objective where perfectly equal matched, the two armies where perfectly balanced to one another, and all variables where perfectly accounted for (nothing random or unexpected happened).
No mocking was intended, mocking ridiculousness though, definitely
MWHistorian illustrates exactly my problem with the random battle cards. I said earlier objectives change outside battles and so are good for a campaign, but the change inside an actual battle is little or nonexistent. So not only are they unrealistic, but they don't encourage a narrative as random != story.
If people enjoy them, great. That enjoyment likely comes from the change in gameplay required, ie. a more active approach. You can get more active gameplay by other means - holding objectives should definitely award points each turn, that will make people play much more actively. But changing those objectives randomly is *not* conducive to realistic, or (imo) even fun gameplay. The only randomness in objectives should be decided before the game, that way you can keep your opponent guessing what your goals are, while you're guessing what theirs are based on what they're doing.
Gunzhard wrote: though perhaps mocking the ridiculous anger poured at folks daring to enjoy the game.
Source? Seriously, please quote some of this anger, I haven't seen it.
Except random is sort of the point. In battle only a few set objectives are set in stone, others become available randomly throughout combat, this is incredibly dynamic as you never know what objectives you need to work towards next
"Random" is certainly "dynamic" but the point was it has nothing to do with a narrative battle. Generally in a real-life skirmish you have a clearly defined long-term goal (don't die, kill the other guy, get from Point A to Point B, hold point C) and your actions, your enemy's actions, and the terrain you're fighting over naturally create short-term objectives along the way (we can flank their position if we take this hill, etc).
The Maelstrom cards are like an almost-but-not-quite attempt at artificially injecting those secondary objectives into the game (since 6th edition showed that in 40k, without artificial means, deathstars and gunlines make every battle look the same regardless of objectives). I am ok with this in theory. In practice, GW just needed to playtest their stupid cards more than once or twice. It's nice that the cards exist, because it means players with even an ounce of creativity can put together better house rules for them than GW bothered to write.
It also amazes me that GW's marketing has completely twisted the concept of a narrative game in some players' minds. In a narrative game, you come up with a backstory, set up a scenario that may or may not be balanced, and play it out to see how the story unfolds using a flexible but ultimately fair ruleset. The important thing is that your decisions really make sense within the game, and you help create a story through your actions. In GW bizarro land, your narrative game starts off with your army's leader gaining random abilities, then the battle takes inexplicable turns at the whim of D66 charts and cards, and all the while players have to go through mental gymnastics to explain what the heck is happening.
Wow, I don't get the whole forging the narrative thing either but you said it perfectly. Gorka morka or Necromunda have forging the narrative elements. I cannot see it in 40k
Go back and read Calgarspimphand's high blood pressure rant on the previous page.
I did. His opinion has no real merit to this thread. We are talking about why we like 7th, not pointing out the unrealistic features in a futuristic miniature game of plastic figures.
Go back and read Calgarspimphand's high blood pressure rant on the previous page.
I did. His opinion has no real merit to this thread. We are talking about why we like 7th, not pointing out the unrealistic features in a futuristic miniature game of plastic figures.
Yeah sorry, that was directed at Yonan who sought an example of this anger hah.
So far the new tactical objectives seem to make each game more interesting and even doing the same mission on the same table feels different as sometimes I pull a bunch of objectives that make me play more defense than offense by grabbing what I can and denying my opponent or playing more aggressively and rushing to score as many points as I can as fast as possible.
I do understand why some people don't like them though, so it's nice that the old missions are still in place and untouched so groups who don't want to play the new type of mission are not required to play them, while those of us that like them can play either.
my only complaint is that I wish they would get more of those cards soon, they produced far to few of them.
As someone who has been in combat I find the maelstrom randomness fun and fresh.
Lobomalo, asking about the time someone spent at war is akin to asking about political preference or how much money they make and should be avoided, specially in open forums such as this. Also saying the time we spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc to a soldier as essentially a waste of time is a great way to generate hate. It may have been a waste, it may have been a failure. It may have saved the world from nuclear war, doesn't matter this isn't a thread about real wars.
Yonan, I believe this is what he was referring to. He said nothing about you except that you should look at Calgarspimphand's post on the previous page.
Gunzhard wrote: Wait, are you telling us that Orks are not real? C'mon dude seriously?
It's a futuristic miniatures wargame designed to carry out narrative battles, no actual combat experience is required to play; but some imagination is.
Yeah it's a game, but it's supposed to be a war game. When even your mission objectives give up all pretense of making sense you get even further from that idea. That's OK though, 40k has never been very good for simulating combat. Every step away from that and towards making pew pew noises with dinobot models makes that clear, and makes the game more honest with itself in a way.
Also there's a difference between suspending disbelief over green skinned aliens (the game setting) and suspending disbelief over why your army is being made to run around in a schizophrenic fervor during a 10 minute long battle (the game itself). Bad mechanics are bad whether you buy into the back story or not.
Edit: Just have to add this, because I'm so tired of seeing it said: there is nothing narrative about 40k. NOTHING. There are ZERO narrative elements to 40k. There's no campaign system, your units don't gain experience or skills, nothing about the mechanics of the game really encourages roleplaying - everything is clunky mechanisms for moving units and dealing damage to the enemy while trying to carry out objectives that are essentially symmetrical. You have to use your imagination to add narrative to a 40k game, but you can do that with ANY wargame. I cannot repeat this enough, nothing about 40k is inherently narrative driven. Any good wargame can be used to construct and play out a narrative, and some are specifically designed to do it. 40k is not one of them.
Furthermore, there are plenty of elements of 40k that can actually IMPEDE any narrative you're trying to create. Things like random warlord traits and psychic powers, where the leaders of your army, the characters you probably most identify with and whose exploits you build a story around, learn potentially useless skills picked out of a hat just before battle begins. Or the Maelstrom cards, where any possible story behind the battle is immediately destroyed by the ever-changing crap you're tasked with doing each turn. Games Workshop actually go out of their way to make it HARDER to construct a narrative during a game of 40k these days.
The heaviest burden on your imagination isn't suspending disbelief at the existence of orks, it's coming up with reasons why your warlord has had a personality change since your last battle, and why you can't tell whether the random terrain you're walking into is about to eat you until you're literally inside it, and why the heck your army doesn't have an actual objective in this skirmish, it's just running around jumping on hot spots and shooting down planes to score imaginary points every 30 game-seconds. Those are the things that require true suspension of disbelief, and mental gymnastics to form any kind of narrative around.
Seriously, don't use the word "narrative" again until you've thought about what it actually means.
Objectives scoring every round I don't think it would work well for 40k. Say we roll 5 objectives, one player places 3 in his deployment and gunlines scoring every turn winning while you have to charge across the board getting shot and does nothing to stop him gaining points. Say you get the 3 objectives, even if you are a close combat army wouldn't you rather have them in your deployment so you can score on them winning? Say you get 4 objectives, well then you each sit on two hoping for First blood, Line Breaker and Warlord.
Anyway I agree with the OP. I've had fun and no boring gunlines yet. Lets me bring in my themed not so competitive lists and stand a chance if I play the mission.
the firts time i played 7th ed was like a month ago, it was the mission 6 of the maelstorm if i am not wrong, i was playing my hairy space truck drivers (space wolves ) vs tyranids, i totally lose, and the thing is... i loved it ; because i builded a list ready to kill things in an alpha strike, but on mid game i totally understod i was going to lose for come to play with a single minded list, after that game begin to make new list having on account mobility, speed and endurance, new variables to consider beyond just throwing dices to kill things, this concept gives a new perspective to the game and reinforces the role of each unit: elites again are for cleaning the new objetives, troops consolidate the posibles futures objetives and fast attack have a role of counter reacthing the movement of the enemy, and besides give more importance to dedicated transports, becuase you gonna need that flexibility and movement to control the objetives you consider are more valuable.
A fresh and new experience i could said, and if you find impossibles cards, just house rule the discard then draw a new one, easy
portugus wrote: Yonan, I believe this is what he was referring to. He said nothing about you except that you should look at Calgarspimphand's post on the previous page.
I read the post, but I can't see what part of it is the "ridiculous anger poured at people enjoying the game" so I was seeking clarity on exactly what part of it made him think that. All I can see is dislike of the mechanics.
portugus wrote: Yonan, I believe this is what he was referring to. He said nothing about you except that you should look at Calgarspimphand's post on the previous page.
I read the post, but I can't see what part of it is the "ridiculous anger poured at people enjoying the game" so I was seeking clarity on exactly what part of it made him think that. All I can see is dislike of the mechanics.
It like, no longer matters man, lets get back to talking about the edition instead of the people playing the edition.
I got 4 tournaments on 4 back to back weekends coming up and I am pumped up. First one is using the maelstrom cards as primary(local friendly event), second one is using the Alternate missions, third is using eternal war with maelstrom secondary, and the fourth is using the nova style missions.
Gonna see if my army can do well across all the different formats.
One thing I always question with pro-40k players is *why* they like the game, with all the ambiguous rules and the lack of balance everywhere. Everything I've seen indicates tactics don't matter as much as what unit you take and there's no way so done who picks a bad unit they like will beat someone who takes good units because they're good. I don't know about everyone else bit I play wargames to use strategy and tactics to win, not just pick the right combination and have that be all I need.
Tactics are simply the manipulations of your current forces/conditions to do your best to win.
In addition "balance" is not really possible in the realm of 40k. There are too many external variables that alter the value of any given unit that without removing options you wont get much more balance. Now could they do a little better on points costs? Definately. But I like the level of variety and personal choice in the books. I find that the problem is not the armies themselves(except for some older books) but the win conditions that make it so certain armies reign supreme. However missions in the main rulebook have to be too simple to really get at those different angles.
But the game is balanced enough that I have fun 95% of the time. The problem I find is that people dont know how to play very well and blame "balance" for a lot of the issues they face. Or when they make bad lists. No game can "balance" for that.
In addition "balance" is not really possible in the realm of 40k.
No. It is absolutely possible. You don't need to remove options, or water them down, or limit customization. You just need to make a real attempt at playtesting and crunching numbers. I've seen players on this forum make fan dexes that were of a higher quality than GW in terms of internal and external balance, and had more options.
The problem I find is that people dont know how to play very well and blame "balance" for a lot of the issues they face. Or when they make bad lists. No game can "balance" for that.
What? No. People aren't blaming balance for anything. Balance is an issue because we're forced to negotiate power levels of our lists, or run into gimmicky, broken lists that revolve around a loophole in the rules.
And the game can absolutely be balanced for that. It'd greatly cut down on the number of people who accuse others of being WAAC, and put more control of the game's outcome in the hands of the player than in who brought the most powerful combination of units.
You can't use balance to ignore people because you think they don't play well enough. Its absurd. Don't assume things of other people. Everyone I know doesn't blame balance for their losses; they blame balance for being an active detriment to their enjoyment of the game for several reasons.
WayneTheGame wrote: One thing I always question with pro-40k players is *why* they like the game, with all the ambiguous rules and the lack of balance everywhere. Everything I've seen indicates tactics don't matter as much as what unit you take and there's no way so done who picks a bad unit they like will beat someone who takes good units because they're good. I don't know about everyone else bit I play wargames to use strategy and tactics to win, not just pick the right combination and have that be all I need.
When you water-down 40K so much ("tournament style") using limited FOC, no dataslates, no FW, just the basic 3 missions of rulebook, typically too little terrain, everything perfectly "fair", nothing random, nothing unexpected, no alternative modes of play or Expansions - the result is a dice game where typically the best 'list' wins.
What gets me is that the same folks that water-down their 40K in such a manor are the ones claiming it's not a 'narrative' game, or that it's not 'realistic' enough. How many 'real' wars have been fought where everything was perfectly "fair"? And frankly the idea that an adult human standing across from me, would be bent out of shape because he drew one card that was "unfair", knowing that I have the same chances of drawing poorly, is just so ridiculous and laughable to me.
blaktoof wrote: objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.
I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.
Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.
blaktoof wrote: objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.
I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.
Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.
But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.
blaktoof wrote: objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.
I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.
Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.
But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.
So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.
blaktoof wrote: objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.
I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.
Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.
But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.
So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.
No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29 Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.
What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.
blaktoof wrote: objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.
I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.
Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.
But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.
So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.
No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29 Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.
What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.
You literally have no concept on strategy which is insulting to history as you claim to have studied war.
blaktoof wrote: objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.
I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.
Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.
But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.
So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.
No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29 Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.
What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.
You literally have no concept on strategy which is insulting to history as you claim to have studied war.
blaktoof wrote: objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.
I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.
Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.
But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.
So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.
No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29 Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.
What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.
So then "5+ 40K turns" is military jargon I just don't understand? ...why does your story/narrative/"operation" have to end once this single game (5+ turns) is concluded? ...funny, you listed several 'goals' as part of your overall "strategy".
I'm beginning to think you don't really understand how the cards work, or certainly haven't experienced them first hand. Most turns, even when you are doing well, you are not generating "3 random objectives", but you can always discard one bad/unhelpful card. If I have a big payout card that I can reach/attain in 3 turns (or longer) I'll hold on to it. Some times it's more 'strategic' to wait and get a possible bigger payout then achieving a quick goal while maybe also sacrificing other possible choices.
blaktoof wrote: objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.
I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.
Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.
But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.
Not necessarily. Say my opponent deploys in a way that his slow foot slogging soldiers are going to struggle to reach objectives 1 thru 5, my strategy is to take out his two fast units as quickly as possible to hamper his ability to score anything besides objective 6. And if you have to change your strategy at some point, that doesn't exactly strike me as a bad thing. I know some of the most fun I've had is when the random things go against you, your plans have been shot to hell, but you still find a way to scrape one the a win. While having a plan come together is satisfying also, I still find the most joy when things change and I somehow overcome it*
*unless I lose then random objectives and rules are stupid
Based on the wiki article, that seems to be a very good assessment of strategy vs tactics. What article did you link to? Oh yeah, you just said "no it's not!"
Musashi363 wrote: Based on the wiki article, that seems to be a very good assessment of strategy vs tactics. What article did you link to? Oh yeah, you just said "no it's not!"
Does that wiki mention it's relevance to 40K? ...is there a wiki that gives examples of wars where nothing unexpected (random) happened, or where the goals / missions / strategies never changed on the fly? ...or what the official military measurement is for "5+ 40K game turns"? ...or for Orks, Tyranids, droppods etc etc...?
Musashi363 wrote: The discussion is about tactics vs strategy. Does that change because it's magically 40K now?
First, that's not what the discussion was about at all, that's just a claim our war expert made to try and prove a point - and yes it does matter that it's magically 40K; all of this is about 40Klol.
We could discuss cheddar versus mozzarella as well, and look to wiki for insights - but that isn't really relevant to 40K.
It being 40k doesn't change the definition of strategy and tactics. I don't know how else to say that. You may enjoy the cards. I'm glad you do. I hope enough people continue on with 40k so GW can fix itself. But that's not what I'm arguing against. I'm saying that the cards prohibit what I find enjoyable in a strategy game, mainly, the strategy part.
This is a pointless conversation. Anyone with critical thinking skills and get from this what they chose. I'm out.
It's just that your reference to 'realism' via strategy versus tactics (who cares?) is a double-edged sword, and frankly I'm pretty sure you don't even fully understand how the cards work based on your comments here.
I think the easiest way to look at is when you're building a list, laying down objectives, and deploying you're planning on how to capture objectives and deny them.
But once cards start getting drawn it changes. Instead of going after all objectives you're only concerned with a few, or some enemy unit is an even bigger target, or you have this odd desire to destroy buildings that don't exist.
The game starts giving you random goals to achieve that sometimes don't make any sense or are just way too one sided. A GK drawing the psychic card is going to benefit way more than the Necron player drawing it.
So the fact that you are forging the narrative in Grimdark 40K changes the definition of strategy and tactics? No wonder 40K sucks as a strategy and tactics game.
It is funny that every discussion on this topic says there is no tactics or strategy. We all know the contents of the cards in the deck. So if we get a bad card should we not be trying to stop the other side from achieving their objective? (strategy I think)
As the majority of the cards are for objectives should not the overall strategy be to capture as many of the objectives as possible and have units that can blast those we cannot reach to deny. (strategy?)
We also know that certain units can give us points or lose points so we have to protect or attack them.
So once the strategy is determined then tactically we have to deal with what is thrown at us.
Also saying the cards do not belong in wargaming. They have been there since the 50's in historicals. The is not as random as people make it as you need to be prepared for it.
Savageconvoy wrote: I think the easiest way to look at is when you're building a list, laying down objectives, and deploying you're planning on how to capture objectives and deny them.
But once cards start getting drawn it changes. Instead of going after all objectives you're only concerned with a few, or some enemy unit is an even bigger target, or you have this odd desire to destroy buildings that don't exist.
The game starts giving you random goals to achieve that sometimes don't make any sense or are just way too one sided. A GK drawing the psychic card is going to benefit way more than the Necron player drawing it.
I can't see why two players wouldn't agree that you can immediately discard an objective that is impossible to achieve
WayneTheGame wrote: One thing I always question with pro-40k players is *why* they like the game, with all the ambiguous rules and the lack of balance everywhere. Everything I've seen indicates tactics don't matter as much as what unit you take and there's no way so done who picks a bad unit they like will beat someone who takes good units because they're good. I don't know about everyone else bit I play wargames to use strategy and tactics to win, not just pick the right combination and have that be all I need.
When you water-down 40K so much ("tournament style") using limited FOC, no dataslates, no FW, just the basic 3 missions of rulebook, typically too little terrain, everything perfectly "fair", nothing random, nothing unexpected, no alternative modes of play or Expansions - the result is a dice game where typically the best 'list' wins.
What gets me is that the same folks that water-down their 40K in such a manor are the ones claiming it's not a 'narrative' game, or that it's not 'realistic' enough. How many 'real' wars have been fought where everything was perfectly "fair"? And frankly the idea that an adult human standing across from me, would be bent out of shape because he drew one card that was "unfair", knowing that I have the same chances of drawing poorly, is just so ridiculous and laughable to me.
You're over generalizing a lot and using loaded words.
I think people in general who don't OWN their losses AND their wins are disingenuous. It's not about all the why's and wherefores. You win or you lose. That's all. Who cares how? The HOW could have happened to either one of you. So just play.
WayneTheGame wrote: One thing I always question with pro-40k players is *why* they like the game, with all the ambiguous rules and the lack of balance everywhere. Everything I've seen indicates tactics don't matter as much as what unit you take and there's no way so done who picks a bad unit they like will beat someone who takes good units because they're good. I don't know about everyone else bit I play wargames to use strategy and tactics to win, not just pick the right combination and have that be all I need.
When you water-down 40K so much ("tournament style") using limited FOC, no dataslates, no FW, just the basic 3 missions of rulebook, typically too little terrain, everything perfectly "fair", nothing random, nothing unexpected, no alternative modes of play or Expansions - the result is a dice game where typically the best 'list' wins.
What gets me is that the same folks that water-down their 40K in such a manor are the ones claiming it's not a 'narrative' game, or that it's not 'realistic' enough. How many 'real' wars have been fought where everything was perfectly "fair"? And frankly the idea that an adult human standing across from me, would be bent out of shape because he drew one card that was "unfair", knowing that I have the same chances of drawing poorly, is just so ridiculous and laughable to me.
You're over generalizing a lot and using loaded words.
I think people in general who don't OWN their losses AND their wins are disingenuous. It's not about all the why's and wherefores. You win or you lose. That's all. Who cares how? The HOW could have happened to either one of you. So just play.
Hmm I'm not sure how any of your comment here has anything to do with my comment. But for sure I don't agree with, "You win or you lose. That's all. Who cares how?". For me and many, the 'how' is the only thing that matters.
In addition "balance" is not really possible in the realm of 40k.
No. It is absolutely possible. You don't need to remove options, or water them down, or limit customization. You just need to make a real attempt at playtesting and crunching numbers. I've seen players on this forum make fan dexes that were of a higher quality than GW in terms of internal and external balance, and had more options.
The problem I find is that people dont know how to play very well and blame "balance" for a lot of the issues they face. Or when they make bad lists. No game can "balance" for that.
What? No. People aren't blaming balance for anything. Balance is an issue because we're forced to negotiate power levels of our lists, or run into gimmicky, broken lists that revolve around a loophole in the rules.
And the game can absolutely be balanced for that. It'd greatly cut down on the number of people who accuse others of being WAAC, and put more control of the game's outcome in the hands of the player than in who brought the most powerful combination of units.
You can't use balance to ignore people because you think they don't play well enough. Its absurd. Don't assume things of other people. Everyone I know doesn't blame balance for their losses; they blame balance for being an active detriment to their enjoyment of the game for several reasons.
Like I said, in my experience. Also I dont have a problem with the games "balance" so any arguements to that regard are not going to make sense to me. Do I believe there are units that are more powerful than others? Sure. Do I believe that codexs age badly? Sure. Is it possible that they could do better? Sure. Everything has flaws and if we can throw on our big boy pants we can get together and make it workable for ourselves instead of 100% requiring someone else to do it for us, or we can quit. However I am happy with my product so I continue to support it flaws and all. Any flaws that I find with the game are vastly overshadowed by the benefits that I get. However I recognize that some people like to focus on the flaws to the exclusion of anything else so I understand
In addition "balance" is not really possible in the realm of 40k.
No. It is absolutely possible. You don't need to remove options, or water them down, or limit customization. You just need to make a real attempt at playtesting and crunching numbers. I've seen players on this forum make fan dexes that were of a higher quality than GW in terms of internal and external balance, and had more options.
The problem I find is that people dont know how to play very well and blame "balance" for a lot of the issues they face. Or when they make bad lists. No game can "balance" for that.
What? No. People aren't blaming balance for anything. Balance is an issue because we're forced to negotiate power levels of our lists, or run into gimmicky, broken lists that revolve around a loophole in the rules.
And the game can absolutely be balanced for that. It'd greatly cut down on the number of people who accuse others of being WAAC, and put more control of the game's outcome in the hands of the player than in who brought the most powerful combination of units.
You can't use balance to ignore people because you think they don't play well enough. Its absurd. Don't assume things of other people. Everyone I know doesn't blame balance for their losses; they blame balance for being an active detriment to their enjoyment of the game for several reasons.
Like I said, in my experience. Also I dont have a problem with the games "balance" so any arguements to that regard are not going to make sense to me. Do I believe there are units that are more powerful than others? Sure. Do I believe that codexs age badly? Sure. Is it possible that they could do better? Sure. Everything has flaws and if we can throw on our big boy pants we can get together and make it workable for ourselves instead of 100% requiring someone else to do it for us, or we can quit. However I am happy with my product so I continue to support it flaws and all. Any flaws that I find with the game are vastly overshadowed by the benefits that I get. However I recognize that some people like to focus on the flaws to the exclusion of anything else so I understand
As long as you're OK the problems that make the game less fun for others don't matter?
blaktoof wrote: objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.
I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.
Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.
But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.
So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.
No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29 Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.
What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.
So then "5+ 40K turns" is military jargon I just don't understand? ...why does your story/narrative/"operation" have to end once this single game (5+ turns) is concluded? ...funny, you listed several 'goals' as part of your overall "strategy".
I'm beginning to think you don't really understand how the cards work, or certainly haven't experienced them first hand. Most turns, even when you are doing well, you are not generating "3 random objectives", but you can always discard one bad/unhelpful card. If I have a big payout card that I can reach/attain in 3 turns (or longer) I'll hold on to it. Some times it's more 'strategic' to wait and get a possible bigger payout then achieving a quick goal while maybe also sacrificing other possible choices.
To use the raid as our central example:
If the raid had occurred using maelstrom missions, then halfway through the raid they would have had to destroy some random building they didn't even know existed previously, then near the end they would have had to kill some second person on the other side of the city, who they also didn't know about.
The reason why people are arguing that this is a hinderance to strategy is because you can't plan for it. A large part of strategy is in the planning: having a disposition of forces such that they can achieve goals X, Y, and Z efficiently. It is very rare for the goals of a mission to dramatically change in the midst of the mission itself- there is almost never some major new objective outlined, one that /should/ have been known in advance (see examples above.)
That it is 40k or not 40k doesn't really matter for this. There's nothing specific to the 40k universe that would make those basic military principles change.
Savageconvoy wrote: I think the easiest way to look at is when you're building a list, laying down objectives, and deploying you're planning on how to capture objectives and deny them.
But once cards start getting drawn it changes. Instead of going after all objectives you're only concerned with a few, or some enemy unit is an even bigger target, or you have this odd desire to destroy buildings that don't exist.
The game starts giving you random goals to achieve that sometimes don't make any sense or are just way too one sided. A GK drawing the psychic card is going to benefit way more than the Necron player drawing it.
Ok lets say you have a normal AM list at 1500pts . Your opponet opened up with psychic powers/destroy unit with shoting and one or two cards that give him VP for home objectives. You have the melee , psyker and get his objective cards . What do you do now , other then discard one , knowing next turn he will have 3 new cards to play.
Savageconvoy wrote: I think the easiest way to look at is when you're building a list, laying down objectives, and deploying you're planning on how to capture objectives and deny them.
But once cards start getting drawn it changes. Instead of going after all objectives you're only concerned with a few, or some enemy unit is an even bigger target, or you have this odd desire to destroy buildings that don't exist.
The game starts giving you random goals to achieve that sometimes don't make any sense or are just way too one sided. A GK drawing the psychic card is going to benefit way more than the Necron player drawing it.
Ok lets say you have a normal AM list at 1500pts . Your opponet opened up with psychic powers/destroy unit with shoting and one or two cards that give him VP for home objectives. You have the melee , psyker and get his objective cards . What do you do now , other then discard one , knowing next turn he will have 3 new cards to play.
Not much really to do other than hope that cycling a single card will help you out. This is the problem I have with the game. It replaces the strategy with a random deck/table.
It's easy enough to house rule that you cycle impossible cards, but it's even easier for GW to think "Some armies won't have psykers... lets give them a way to help with the random deck" and just write a rule to remove cards that won't have an affect or just make the game turn by turn objective capturing.
If the raid had occurred using maelstrom missions, then halfway through the raid they would have had to destroy some random building they didn't even know existed previously, then near the end they would have had to kill some second person on the other side of the city, who they also didn't know about.
The reason why people are arguing that this is a hinderance to strategy is because you can't plan for it. A large part of strategy is in the planning: having a disposition of forces such that they can achieve goals X, Y, and Z efficiently. It is very rare for the goals of a mission to dramatically change in the midst of the mission itself- there is almost never some major new objective outlined, one that /should/ have been known in advance (see examples above.)
That it is 40k or not 40k doesn't really matter for this. There's nothing specific to the 40k universe that would make those basic military principles change.
Ah-hah... this pretty much confirms what I already know about many (not all) so-called "competitive" players... if you cannot plan for it at the list-building/copying phase, it's broken.
So excuse my lack of understanding with regards to "military principles" - but what do the military books say regarding 40kturns? ...so it's "strategy" if we roll for the objectives (randomly) at the beginning of turn 1, but NOT strategy if we maybe/choose/get-opportunity to roll for another objective on turn 2?
Even now in the distant past (in relation to 40K) despite my lack of military understanding - I know that we can get rapid intel, highly technical surveillance, advanced communications and rapid re-deployment to new target priorities... is this wrong?
Gunzhard wrote: I know that we can get rapid intel, highly technical surveillance, advanced communications and rapid re-deployment to new target priorities... is this wrong?
Short answer is yes.
While we do have updates to information very fast, you can't expect every troop on the ground to get instantaneous updates about every issue on the field. Say for example I deploy with the intent of rushing forward to capture objectives then draw my initial cards. I get the one for shooting down aircraft/FMC , a home objective, and a challenge. Now every troop in my army now changes their entire plan to advance slower and more carefully since they have more time, keep on the look out for any enemy aircraft, and someone has to punch an enemy officer in the face. It made more sense in 6th where you were trying to capture/deny any objective you could and your army kept focus on this until the end. Turn by turn objectives means that everyone understands they have no logistical data aside from a few blurbs and are actively checking their tweets in between reloading to see if orders completely change what they're doing.
Imagine each objective was worth 1 point for each turn you had it.
There is strategy in deploying troops and planning to take objectives while denying others, while your points build up. The means you accomplish this will change with your opponent's actions, but you still control the overall goal for your army.
With random objectives you can try to spread yourself thin, or just hop on whatever cards you get. The strategy is almost non-existent since you have no idea where you will go next turn, how you will get it, and so on for each turn after.
Oh god, I just realized something. Is this why so many casual players love this? Because it's less and less strategy and more and more like shoots and ladders?
If the raid had occurred using maelstrom missions, then halfway through the raid they would have had to destroy some random building they didn't even know existed previously, then near the end they would have had to kill some second person on the other side of the city, who they also didn't know about.
The reason why people are arguing that this is a hinderance to strategy is because you can't plan for it. A large part of strategy is in the planning: having a disposition of forces such that they can achieve goals X, Y, and Z efficiently. It is very rare for the goals of a mission to dramatically change in the midst of the mission itself- there is almost never some major new objective outlined, one that /should/ have been known in advance (see examples above.)
That it is 40k or not 40k doesn't really matter for this. There's nothing specific to the 40k universe that would make those basic military principles change.
Ah-hah... this pretty much confirms what I already know about many (not all) so-called "competitive" players... if you cannot plan for it at the list-building/copying phase, it's broken.
So excuse my lack of understanding with regards to "military principles" - but what do the military books say regarding 40kturns? ...so it's "strategy" if we roll for the objectives (randomly) at the beginning of turn 1, but NOT strategy if we maybe/choose/get-opportunity to roll for another objective on turn 2?
Even now in the distant past (in relation to 40K) despite my lack of military understanding - I know that we can get rapid intel, highly technical surveillance, advanced communications and rapid re-deployment to new target priorities... is this wrong?
I'm not sure that anyone used the term 'broken,' but I certainly didn't. All I said was that it reduced elements of strategy- indeed, composition of forces is a huge element of strategy.
This is not a binary strategy/not strategy thing, either. This is a /less/ strategy thing, or a /more/ strategy thing. This is a question of how important your /planning/ was. The more you know about your objectives the earlier in the game, the more strategy is available. The less information you have the later in the game, the /less/ important many strategic concerns are. So yeah, there's less strategy when you add another objective on turn 2 than there would be if you only had them on turn one, and less strategy rolling the objective on turn 1 than if you knew ahead of the game, etc etc.
That's not wrong, but it's all relative. 'Rapid' now might mean more along the lines of hours, as opposed to days/weeks. Even so, I'm trying to figure out an instance where that kind of thing would influence strategy, as opposed to tactics. After all, what you are suggesting is that, in the middle of battle, some new intel suggests that the central objective that you're fighting over is suddenly not the only central objective, and that there's something new. That's an incredible failure of previous intel. There are a few examples I can imagine where there might be a failure of that magnitude (raiding a small cult, and then finding out mid-stride that there's some important MacGuffin that needs to be secured), but that would be very rare.
Beyond even that, what are the chances that this new objective is even in the area that you're fighting? Given the universe, it's far more likely that it's somewhere else entirely. And things like target priorities tend to be in the realm of /tactics/ not strategy. The overall objective might be 'kill all the mans,' in which case target priority is simply a tactical concern. A strategic example of target priority changing would be doing the Osama raid then finding Mecha-Hitler or something. And again, that requires a previous, incredible, intel failure.
Oh god, I just realized something. Is this why so many casual players love this? Because it's less and less strategy and more and more like shoots and ladders?
It's funny because so many of the casual players I know can actually think, and react, and play the game even when something "unfair" happens like a poor card draw, or bad dice roll. Yet too many (not all) of the so-called "competitive" players think just building/copying the most top-tier army list will yield them a win - which is "less strategy"?
BoardroomHero wrote:A strategic example of target priority changing would be doing the Osama raid then finding Mecha-Hitler or something. And again, that requires a previous, incredible, intel failure.
This made me chuckle... but you have to admit - in the 40K universe, this is actually something that might very likely happen.
BoardroomHero wrote:A strategic example of target priority changing would be doing the Osama raid then finding Mecha-Hitler or something. And again, that requires a previous, incredible, intel failure.
This made me chuckle... but you have to admit - in the 40K universe, this is actually something that might very likely happen.
Oh yeah- that's why I gave the cult-MacGuffin example above. I still think it'd probably be pretty rare though, and it does reduce some strategic consideration.
I'm not arguing that this kinda' thing is /bad/ or /good/, I'm just saying that it doesn't represent that kinda' things that happen IRL all that often, and even in the 40k universe I'd expect it to be rare. Further, I'm arguing that it does decrease the importance of some strategic elements.
Of course, then you don't get surprise Mecha-Hitler, so it's a give and take. (I think if each side had to choose the 'surprise' objectives well in advance, and then they were only revealed at certain points, it'd be a fair bit better, but that's neither here nor there).
It's funny because so many of the casual players I know can actually think, and react, and play the game even when something "unfair" happens like a poor card draw, or bad dice roll. Yet too many (not all) of the so-called "competitive" players think just building/copying the most top-tier army list will yield them a win - which is "less strategy"?
I don't think ANY competitive player plans on just winning with their list. I know they try to make their list work the best way they know how before the game starts, so they can handle most challenges they face and can handle a random roll or enemy action just fine. Competitive players want a game to play WITH another player. This is a game that you have to actively play against like it was another enemy.
To answer your loaded question, the answer is the competitive player is the more strategic. The competitive player has his list and knows what he's planning to do with it and trying to do as much as he can within that plan until the end game. The casual player is playing turn by turn, with no clear goal in mind. What objective do I care about the most? I don't know, because I haven't drawn a card for it.
It's like having a turf war, except nobody knows which turf they want and they keep changing their minds. This is two armies showing up, not knowing what they're fighting about, and making up a reason every so often for the sake of fighting.
blaktoof wrote: objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.
I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.
Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.
But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.
So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.
No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29 Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.
What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.
So then "5+ 40K turns" is military jargon I just don't understand? ...why does your story/narrative/"operation" have to end once this single game (5+ turns) is concluded? ...funny, you listed several 'goals' as part of your overall "strategy".
I'm beginning to think you don't really understand how the cards work, or certainly haven't experienced them first hand. Most turns, even when you are doing well, you are not generating "3 random objectives", but you can always discard one bad/unhelpful card. If I have a big payout card that I can reach/attain in 3 turns (or longer) I'll hold on to it. Some times it's more 'strategic' to wait and get a possible bigger payout then achieving a quick goal while maybe also sacrificing other possible choices.
To use the raid as our central example:
If the raid had occurred using maelstrom missions, then halfway through the raid they would have had to destroy some random building they didn't even know existed previously, then near the end they would have had to kill some second person on the other side of the city, who they also didn't know about.
The reason why people are arguing that this is a hinderance to strategy is because you can't plan for it. A large part of strategy is in the planning: having a disposition of forces such that they can achieve goals X, Y, and Z efficiently. It is very rare for the goals of a mission to dramatically change in the midst of the mission itself- there is almost never some major new objective outlined, one that /should/ have been known in advance (see examples above.)
That it is 40k or not 40k doesn't really matter for this. There's nothing specific to the 40k universe that would make those basic military principles change.
Well I assume the random objectives are just there to represent a change on the battlefield. Helicopter goes down and half your team needs to find a different ride out of the battle. To represent this the game says "capture objective 2". Your goal is to win the game, the objectives just represent things you would need to accomplish in order to do that.
It's funny because so many of the casual players I know can actually think, and react, and play the game even when something "unfair" happens like a poor card draw, or bad dice roll. Yet too many (not all) of the so-called "competitive" players think just building/copying the most top-tier army list will yield them a win - which is "less strategy"?
I don't think ANY competitive player plans on just winning with their list. I know they try to make their list work the best way they know how before the game starts, so they can handle most challenges they face and can handle a random roll or enemy action just fine. Competitive players want a game to play WITH another player. This is a game that you have to actively play against like it was another enemy.
To answer your loaded question, the answer is the competitive player is the more strategic. The competitive player has his list and knows what he's planning to do with it and trying to do as much as he can within that plan until the end game. The casual player is playing turn by turn, with no clear goal in mind. What objective do I care about the most? I don't know, because I haven't drawn a card for it.
It's like having a turf war, except nobody knows which turf they want and they keep changing their minds. This is two armies showing up, not knowing what they're fighting about, and making up a reason every so often for the sake of fighting.
Yes the player that requires everything to be 'perfectly accounted for' prior to the battle is more strategic... hmm well that just blows my mind dude. Here is where we meet that double-edged sword with 'realism'... so it's totally unrealistic/un-strategic that we might know/receive intel on our enemy on various 'game turns' - but it's totally realistic that we know everything about our opponent prior to the battle? ...and it's totally realistic that nothing unexpected happens, nothing changes during our initial plan?
Yes the player that requires everything to be 'perfectly accounted for' prior to the battle is more strategic.
Oh wow it's almost like I NEVER SAID THAT
I said that they make a list they know how to work with and want to play against an enemy working against their list and their plan. Having a clearly defined mission(s) works towards this. Having two players not know what their actual plan is until randomly deciding which objectives are important to who is not strategy.
so it's totally unrealistic/un-strategic that we might know/receive intel on our enemy on various 'game turns' - but it's totally realistic that we know everything about our opponent prior to the battle? ...and it's totally realistic that nothing unexpected happens, nothing changes during our initial plan?
It's realistic to change the movement of troops and the front lines to take a less defended position or fight in a more suitable terrain.
It's realistic if you have to storm a castle and change your plan of entry and exit based on guard locations and fortifications/locks.
It's realistic that if your opponent has ambush units pop out and shoot into your squad that you put focus to minimize their threat.
It's unrealistic to tell every squad as they assaulting Normandy beach on D-Day that they suddenly have to keep marching around because locations change importance ever 15 minutes. It's unrealistic to pass on the word to destroy enemy buildings and aircraft when intel says there are none and the skies are clear.
Yes the player that requires everything to be 'perfectly accounted for' prior to the battle is more strategic.
Oh wow it's almost like I NEVER SAID THAT
I said that they make a list they know how to work with and want to play against an enemy working against their list and their plan. Having a clearly defined mission(s) works towards this. Having two players not know what their actual plan is until randomly deciding which objectives are important to who is not strategy.
so it's totally unrealistic/un-strategic that we might know/receive intel on our enemy on various 'game turns' - but it's totally realistic that we know everything about our opponent prior to the battle? ...and it's totally realistic that nothing unexpected happens, nothing changes during our initial plan?
It's realistic to change the movement of troops and the front lines to take a less defended position or fight in a more suitable terrain.
It's realistic if you have to storm a castle and change your plan of entry and exit based on guard locations and fortifications/locks.
It's realistic that if your opponent has ambush units pop out and shoot into your squad that you put focus to minimize their threat.
It's unrealistic to tell every squad as they assaulting Normandy beach on D-Day that they suddenly have to keep marching around because locations change importance ever 15 minutes. It's unrealistic to pass on the word to destroy enemy buildings and aircraft when intel says there are none and the skies are clear.
Oh, Ok. I think it's clear however that you don't understand how the cards work.
The objectives don't just keep randomly changing. You don't roll 3 new cards/objectives each turn. You ACHIEVE objectives, which will give you a new card (regardless of how many turns it took you to achieve) and you can turn in 1 card that is not helpful to you each turn.
I've never seen anyone send "every squad" to an objective but apparently you know more about 'strategy' than me.
So in real life battle - after you achieve an objective, uhh like what happens - the battle is over and people shake hands? ...or do you move onto another objective (which is exactly how the cards work btw)?
Yes the player that requires everything to be 'perfectly accounted for' prior to the battle is more strategic.
Oh wow it's almost like I NEVER SAID THAT
I said that they make a list they know how to work with and want to play against an enemy working against their list and their plan. Having a clearly defined mission(s) works towards this. Having two players not know what their actual plan is until randomly deciding which objectives are important to who is not strategy.
so it's totally unrealistic/un-strategic that we might know/receive intel on our enemy on various 'game turns' - but it's totally realistic that we know everything about our opponent prior to the battle? ...and it's totally realistic that nothing unexpected happens, nothing changes during our initial plan?
It's realistic to change the movement of troops and the front lines to take a less defended position or fight in a more suitable terrain.
It's realistic if you have to storm a castle and change your plan of entry and exit based on guard locations and fortifications/locks.
It's realistic that if your opponent has ambush units pop out and shoot into your squad that you put focus to minimize their threat.
It's unrealistic to tell every squad as they assaulting Normandy beach on D-Day that they suddenly have to keep marching around because locations change importance ever 15 minutes. It's unrealistic to pass on the word to destroy enemy buildings and aircraft when intel says there are none and the skies are clear.
Oh, Ok. I think it's clear however that you don't understand how the cards work.
The objectives don't just keep randomly changing. You don't roll 3 new cards/objectives each turn. You ACHIEVE objectives, which will give you a new card (regardless of how many turns it took you to achieve) and you can turn in 1 card that is not helpful to you each turn.
I've never seen anyone send "every squad" to an objective but apparently you know more about 'strategy' than me.
So in real life battle - after you achieve an objective, uhh like what happens - the battle is over and people shake hands? ...or do you move onto another objective (which is exactly how the cards work btw)?
Well I assume the random objectives are just there to represent a change on the battlefield. Helicopter goes down and half your team needs to find a different ride out of the battle. To represent this the game says "capture objective 2". Your goal is to win the game, the objectives just represent things you would need to accomplish in order to do that.
But those are all things that you should know about in advance. Part of your strategy is saying things like 'I am using helicopters, for reasons X, Y, and Z. Is is possible that one will go down, and we will do X, Y, and Z if it does. We have supporting elements Q and R available if an extraction is required, and they'll be here and here.
In the 'random mission' system, you don't know what these sorts of variables are until you've already committed, and even /then/ they're changing after. It's incredibly rare for something completely random/unforseeable to occur. 'Helicopter goes down' is not one of those things. Hell, 'helicopter goes down' isn't even a strategic change, the major objectives are still exactly the same, it's just the method by which they will be accomplished changes.
I don't think ANY competitive player plans on just winning with their list. I know they try to make their list work the best way they know how before the game starts, so they can handle most challenges they face and can handle a random roll or enemy action just fine. Competitive players want a game to play WITH another player. This is a game that you have to actively play against like it was another enemy.
To answer your loaded question, the answer is the competitive player is the more strategic. The competitive player has his list and knows what he's planning to do with it and trying to do as much as he can within that plan until the end game. The casual player is playing turn by turn, with no clear goal in mind. What objective do I care about the most? I don't know, because I haven't drawn a card for it.
It's like having a turf war, except nobody knows which turf they want and they keep changing their minds. This is two armies showing up, not knowing what they're fighting about, and making up a reason every so often for the sake of fighting.
Competitive players are definitely in it for the strategic challenge. It's why they all take Blood Angels and Sisters armies, so they can show off their tactical genius and not be accused of running a cheese list. Oh, wait.
Savageconvoy wrote: Oh god, I just realized something. Is this why so many casual players love this? Because it's less and less strategy and more and more like shoots and ladders?
Nah, we love it because it's fun, which we can have without needing to face stomp our opponent, or even have while losing.
Yes the player that requires everything to be 'perfectly accounted for' prior to the battle is more strategic.
Oh wow it's almost like I NEVER SAID THAT
I said that they make a list they know how to work with and want to play against an enemy working against their list and their plan. Having a clearly defined mission(s) works towards this. Having two players not know what their actual plan is until randomly deciding which objectives are important to who is not strategy.
so it's totally unrealistic/un-strategic that we might know/receive intel on our enemy on various 'game turns' - but it's totally realistic that we know everything about our opponent prior to the battle? ...and it's totally realistic that nothing unexpected happens, nothing changes during our initial plan?
It's realistic to change the movement of troops and the front lines to take a less defended position or fight in a more suitable terrain.
It's realistic if you have to storm a castle and change your plan of entry and exit based on guard locations and fortifications/locks.
It's realistic that if your opponent has ambush units pop out and shoot into your squad that you put focus to minimize their threat.
It's unrealistic to tell every squad as they assaulting Normandy beach on D-Day that they suddenly have to keep marching around because locations change importance ever 15 minutes. It's unrealistic to pass on the word to destroy enemy buildings and aircraft when intel says there are none and the skies are clear.
Oh, Ok. I think it's clear however that you don't understand how the cards work.
The objectives don't just keep randomly changing. You don't roll 3 new cards/objectives each turn. You ACHIEVE objectives, which will give you a new card (regardless of how many turns it took you to achieve) and you can turn in 1 card that is not helpful to you each turn.
I've never seen anyone send "every squad" to an objective but apparently you know more about 'strategy' than me.
So in real life battle - after you achieve an objective, uhh like what happens - the battle is over and people shake hands? ...or do you move onto another objective (which is exactly how the cards work btw)?
Well I assume the random objectives are just there to represent a change on the battlefield. Helicopter goes down and half your team needs to find a different ride out of the battle. To represent this the game says "capture objective 2". Your goal is to win the game, the objectives just represent things you would need to accomplish in order to do that.
But those are all things that you should know about in advance. Part of your strategy is saying things like 'I am using helicopters, for reasons X, Y, and Z. Is is possible that one will go down, and we will do X, Y, and Z if it does. We have supporting elements Q and R available if an extraction is required, and they'll be here and here.
In the 'random mission' system, you don't know what these sorts of variables are until you've already committed, and even /then/ they're changing after. It's incredibly rare for something completely random/unforseeable to occur. 'Helicopter goes down' is not one of those things. Hell, 'helicopter goes down' isn't even a strategic change, the major objectives are still exactly the same, it's just the method by which they will be accomplished changes.
But it's similar in the game in that you prepare for different scenarios. There's a good chance you'll have to get an objective in the enemy's deployment zone, or you'll have to down a flyer or kill an enemy character, why is it not strategy to take all of this into account when list building, deploying and trying to obtain the objectives?
Oh, Ok. I think it's clear however that you don't understand how the cards work.
You draw cards at the beginning of the first turn and after scoring at the end of the turn you discard. You're allowed to discard a single card at the end as well and then draw new ones based on how many objectives you control, a maximum hand size, or a preset number. Not hard to understand the mechanics, but it doesn't make sense regardless.
The objectives don't just keep randomly changing.
You capture one objective, set the card down and then draw another one telling you to now focus on that objective. You don't know what objective it will be, or if it is an objective. That's changing your plan randomly on how to place your army and what direction to focus on. You are not making the decision to go after objectives that are weakly defended or offer a tactical advantage. You are going after objectives because a card tells you to. This is ultimately how they work. Since you can't actively hold/deny 6 objectives each turn you need cards to tell you which ones are important at that specific time. It's not a strategic plan, it's a random plan.
I've never seen anyone send "every squad" to an objective but apparently you know more about 'strategy' than me.
You must have misunderstood me. During a 6th edition game, you knew what the goal was at the beginning of the mission and each unit acts independently to carry out the overall plan. Now you don't know what the overall plan is until you draw each card. You send troops into battle and then tell each squad what is important in that specific moment.
Say you have to press hard to get Objective 2 for a single turn. After that turn you pull back that unit and have them rush to another objective because it's randomly decided this. Your entire army, down to each squad, is aware of these completely random changes in the overall battle plan.
Well I assume the random objectives are just there to represent a change on the battlefield. Helicopter goes down and half your team needs to find a different ride out of the battle. To represent this the game says "capture objective 2". Your goal is to win the game, the objectives just represent things you would need to accomplish in order to do that.
But those are all things that you should know about in advance. Part of your strategy is saying things like 'I am using helicopters, for reasons X, Y, and Z. Is is possible that one will go down, and we will do X, Y, and Z if it does. We have supporting elements Q and R available if an extraction is required, and they'll be here and here.
In the 'random mission' system, you don't know what these sorts of variables are until you've already committed, and even /then/ they're changing after. It's incredibly rare for something completely random/unforseeable to occur. 'Helicopter goes down' is not one of those things. Hell, 'helicopter goes down' isn't even a strategic change, the major objectives are still exactly the same, it's just the method by which they will be accomplished changes.
But it's similar in the game in that you prepare for different scenarios. There's a good chance you'll have to get an objective in the enemy's deployment zone, or you'll have to down a flyer or kill an enemy character, why is it not strategy to take all of this into account when list building, deploying and trying to obtain the objectives?
Taking it all into account is a strategic, that's true. However, because of how random they are, it's difficult to prepare for any of them with any consistency. If there were fewer, or they were better defined, or you knew about them further in advance, sure.
Oh, Ok. I think it's clear however that you don't understand how the cards work.
You draw cards at the beginning of the first turn and after scoring at the end of the turn you discard. You're allowed to discard a single card at the end as well and then draw new ones based on how many objectives you control, a maximum hand size, or a preset number. Not hard to understand the mechanics, but it doesn't make sense regardless.
The objectives don't just keep randomly changing.
You capture one objective, set the card down and then draw another one telling you to now focus on that objective. You don't know what objective it will be, or if it is an objective. That's changing your plan randomly on how to place your army and what direction to focus on. You are not making the decision to go after objectives that are weakly defended or offer a tactical advantage. You are going after objectives because a card tells you to. This is ultimately how they work. Since you can't actively hold/deny 6 objectives each turn you need cards to tell you which ones are important at that specific time. It's not a strategic plan, it's a random plan.
I've never seen anyone send "every squad" to an objective but apparently you know more about 'strategy' than me.
You must have misunderstood me. During a 6th edition game, you knew what the goal was at the beginning of the mission and each unit acts independently to carry out the overall plan. Now you don't know what the overall plan is until you draw each card. You send troops into battle and then tell each squad what is important in that specific moment.
Say you have to press hard to get Objective 2 for a single turn. After that turn you pull back that unit and have them rush to another objective because it's randomly decided this. Your entire army, down to each squad, is aware of these completely random changes in the overall battle plan.
Here is what you are missing, - you get to decide.
To quote your earlier post, you are still "play(ing) WITH another player". You have to decide - do I go for (achieve) this objective, do I hold onto this objective for later (which means - it's not changing btw), or do I instead focus on my opponent - by killing his key units, killing his warlord, denying him objectives etc...
Even the fastest (and luckiest) army in 40K will not be changing all of it's objectives every turn, and nobody has witnessed this happen yet either.
So again I ask - if you have just one objective to be achieved over 5+ game turns - what happens when you achieve it? (is that strategic or realistic?) To be fair, it could be depending on your narrative, but likely once you achieve an objective, you move on to the next one. Why does it make you a tactical wizard to plan once for that objective over 5+ turns, but not on several turns?
To throw something into the discussion, at least one of the missions is poorly made (imo). Good idea, but poorly executed.
Mission 3, cloak and shadows or something like that. You hide your mission cards from your opponent.
Problem #1: There is a little to much trust factor here. (this is only if you roll the powers) Sense your opponent cant see what you roll, you (or your opponent) could not do what the dice actually rolled, and do a mission that they can easily achieve.
Problem #2: Even if you and your opponent keep it fair, it is SUPER easy to score your objective cards. Sense you dont know what your opponents cards were, you have no way of trying to counter it. I just did a game with this, and every card we got (that wasnt impossible) Was scored. Why? Because I coudnt counter my opponents cards and he coudnt counter mine.
Having the cards, which I realize are out of stock, could alleviate your Problem#1... just draw from a shuffled deck.
Problem#2 is a different kind of game, and going back to some earlier examples in this thread - your opponent likely won't know all of the things that you are trying to achieve in any combat anyway... but remember it works both ways for both sides.
Here is what you are missing, - you get to decide.
To quote your earlier post, you are still "play(ing) WITH another player". You have to decide - do I go for (achieve) this objective, do I hold onto this objective for later (which means - it's not changing btw), or do I instead focus on my opponent - by killing his key units, killing his warlord, denying him objectives etc...
Let me try and explain this as clearly as possible. If there are six objectives, laid out equally by the players, both sides deployed, and then the game starts where objectives are earned at the end of each turn, this is my opponent and myself playing against each other.
If there are six objectives, that I don't know what will matter and when (or if), and my opponent doesn't either then we aren't playing against each other, we are playing against each other and against the game.
I do not know what objectives I will draw, or what my opponent will draw. To go on the offensive or the defensive is based on what you're drawing, not based on your opponent.
Even the fastest (and luckiest) army in 40K will not be changing all of it's objectives every turn, and nobody has witnessed this happen yet either.
What do you mean? Some missions require only 3 objective cards. I've seen them all earned or discarded in a single turn multiple times. That means that what the plan was for turn 1 can be completely different by turn 2, and the player won't know until new cards are randomly drawn.
So again I ask - if you have just one objective to be achieved over 5+ game turns - what happens when you achieve it? (is that strategic or realistic?) To be fair, it could be depending on your narrative, but likely once you achieve an objective, you move on to the next one. Why does it make you a tactical wizard to plan once for that objective over 5+ turns, but not on several turns?
... I'm not sure what you're asking. If there are 6 objectives and you earn a point for each one you control at the end of the turn, every turn, then you have a lot of motivation to aggressively control/defend/deny objectives. If you're asking what makes this realistic/strategic is that the scenario could involve getting weapon caches, hostage based, gathering intel from terminal, or some thing along those lines. The point is the goal is clearly defined, but not the means to get to it.
What really makes it strategic is your opponent has the same plan in mind and is actively trying to counter you. To me this is better and more intense than cards randomly deciding if I should go on the offensive, defensive, and so on.
Here is what you are missing, - you get to decide.
To quote your earlier post, you are still "play(ing) WITH another player". You have to decide - do I go for (achieve) this objective, do I hold onto this objective for later (which means - it's not changing btw), or do I instead focus on my opponent - by killing his key units, killing his warlord, denying him objectives etc...
Let me try and explain this as clearly as possible. If there are six objectives, laid out equally by the players, both sides deployed, and then the game starts where objectives are earned at the end of each turn, this is my opponent and myself playing against each other.
If there are six objectives, that I don't know what will matter and when (or if), and my opponent doesn't either then we aren't playing against each other, we are playing against each other and against the game.
I do not know what objectives I will draw, or what my opponent will draw. To go on the offensive or the defensive is based on what you're drawing, not based on your opponent.
You are still playing the SAME game... you still play linebreaker, first blood, slay the warlord, and of course wipe out! ...but there are (possibly) other objectives you can CHOOSE to reach for, fight for, or ignore in lieu of other goals; and your opponent can do the same. It sounds to me like you want something a bit easier and not being able to plan out the entire battle at list-building is slightly more challenging.
Even the fastest (and luckiest) army in 40K will not be changing all of it's objectives every turn, and nobody has witnessed this happen yet either.
What do you mean? Some missions require only 3 objective cards. I've seen them all earned or discarded in a single turn multiple times. That means that what the plan was for turn 1 can be completely different by turn 2, and the player won't know until new cards are randomly drawn.
Really you've seen an army get all (3) objectives every turn? ...Impressive, I'd love to see a batrep where that happens.
So again I ask - if you have just one objective to be achieved over 5+ game turns - what happens when you achieve it? (is that strategic or realistic?) To be fair, it could be depending on your narrative, but likely once you achieve an objective, you move on to the next one. Why does it make you a tactical wizard to plan once for that objective over 5+ turns, but not on several turns?
... I'm not sure what you're asking. If there are 6 objectives and you earn a point for each one you control at the end of the turn, every turn, then you have a lot of motivation to aggressively control/defend/deny objectives. If you're asking what makes this realistic/strategic is that the scenario could involve getting weapon caches, hostage based, gathering intel from terminal, or some thing along those lines. The point is the goal is clearly defined, but not the means to get to it.
What really makes it strategic is your opponent has the same plan in mind and is actively trying to counter you. To me this is better and more intense than cards randomly deciding if I should go on the offensive, defensive, and so on.
Except when the objectives are hidden, which is not every mission, you are still "actively trying to counter" your opponent - or instead you are killing him, or trying to achieve another goal.
NO we aren't. He draws Objective 2, 4, and cast psychic powers. I draw objective 1, kill a building, and issue a challenge. This is not based on either army dynamic or the mission in general. This is a random event and we are playing seperate objectives and goals. We are really playing two different games, with independent decks. Fighting over board space is SECONDARY to the deck.
It sounds to me like you want something a bit easier and not being able to plan out the entire battle at list-building is slightly more challenging.
Be careful with those straw men, they are fire hazards. I have not stated this once. I have stated that I want a game that isn't based on randomly changing what parts of the fields will be important. I want to play a game where my opponent knows exactly what his plan will be and I will be able to face him on equal terms and see who can out play the other. Does that at all sound like I only want the game to be about list building? Do you honestly think that making a straw man is better than actually addressing what I'm saying?
Really you've seen an army get all (3) objectives every turn? ...Impressive, I'd love to see a batrep where that happens.
The mission let you draw 3 each turn, earn 2 and discard another, 3 next turn and you have a chance to do the same. Some Warlord traits even help you cycle faster. There are easy ways to cycle through cards. Do you need a batrep to show you how to do this?
Even if every mission had the cards laid out right in front of you, it doesn't make it better to counter your opponent since he draws and scores on his turn. That means that I could risk a scoring unit to push forward to prevent him from holding Objective 2 and he won't draw it on his turn, nor I on mine. So I'd risk a unit on an objective that randomly won't matter. This isn't how a strategic game should be played. It shouldn't be based on objective whack-a-mole. It should be two players with clearly laid out plans and working against each other to see who can come out on top.
You were saying about strawmen? ...you assume that ever card you draw is achievable in the same turn or you just draw new ones. You assume a lot.
It should be two players with clearly laid out plans and working against each other to see who can come out on top.
This doesn't sound like war at all to me; and in any form of strategy game 'clearly laid out plans' seldom go uninterrupted by your opponent, unforeseen challenges, other (random) events, etc...
Gunzhard wrote: You were saying about strawmen? ...you assume that ever card you draw is achievable in the same turn or you just draw new ones. You assume a lot.
That's not a straw man... I said it can be easy to cycle through cards. I stated that when you're drawing random new cards you're changing your goals from the previous turn. Certainly not every turn, and not when drawing a bad starting hand that you will have to discard one at a time if they are impossible. My point is only that you set up and then randomly decide your plan of action through cards. Each card you draw randomly shapes your goals, not you and not your opponent.
This doesn't sound like war at all to me; and in any form of strategy game 'clearly laid out plans' seldom go uninterrupted by your opponent, unforeseen challenges, other (random) events, etc...
Right, which is what I'm in full support of. Reserves, outflanking, D6 based system, and a few other random traits are fine. But when neither you or your opponent have a clear plan of action, it stops being a game of two opponents competing against each other. What about this is hard to understand.
This doesn't sound like war at all to me; and in any form of strategy game 'clearly laid out plans' seldom go uninterrupted by your opponent, unforeseen challenges, other (random) events, etc...
Right, which is what I'm in full support of. Reserves, outflanking, D6 based system, and a few other random traits are fine. But when neither you or your opponent have a clear plan of action, it stops being a game of two opponents competing against each other. What about this is hard to understand.
Weren't you the one throwing around 'shutes and ladders' as an insult? ...heh it sounds to me, like that is really what you are after. Perfectly laid out boundaries, both you and your opponent can freely create your 'clearly laid out plans of action' without any risk of unexpected (random) stuff, nothing will happen that will force you out of your box / comfort zone; just you and your perfectly planned for - enemy, and nothing else - just like real war right (MWHistorian?).
The arguments here have totally gone full circle into a spiral of madness... So it's totally unrealistic that an objective may change between '40K game turns' per military doctrine, but it's realistic (and somehow challenging?) that two forces would meet with perfectly laid out plans and nothing unexpected would happen? I guess I don't get it... for years (as long as 40k had an online community in fact) I've seen folks angrily pine over hypothetical doomsday scenarios that rarely ever come up - while the rest of us play the game and have fun. It's time for me to go paint some minis!
Please, for the love of all that is good in the world, strategy does not mean "win in the list building." Stop saying that. That's only a part of strategic playing. I'm going to have to put you on ignore from now on.
This is what killed my interest in 40k back in 2011. The new Sisters dex had come out, and I liked it, and I posted such on the forums. And then everyone else tried to shut me down and told me that the Codex was bad and I was a bad person for liking it.
You people are awful. The second anyone posts anything positive about 40k, at least half a dozen of you have to jump on them and try to convince them how it's actually a bad thing. So, just stop, okay? Just fricking STOP this gak, and actually TRY to let people have fun with a game for once?
I don't think anyone in this thread has said you're not allowed to have fun, but a lot have said that if you're having fun that's great, I'm not though so I'm going to talk about why not.
I like the Maelstrom of War missions. IMO, potentially scoring on each turn is much more balanced than shooting up the enemy then moving out to the objectives on turn 5.
I don't know why everyone treats the cards as something you have to do as soon as you draw them. You should look at the cards in your hand and determine a strategy to maximize your victory points over the course of the game. I have held a card for an entire game to take advantage of the d3 points. In a team game I played, I told my blood angel teammate: "Can you control objective 6 in 2 turns? OK, then work on that, I'm going to go to objective 4 and once we have those we can score the supremacy card"
It might help to think of it in terms of having 6 objectives and deciding how to prioritize them. Just because you don't have a card for an objective doesn't mean you don't want to control that objective. You want to deny the possibility of your enemy scoring that objective whether he has the card or not (yet), and be prepared to control the objective if you draw the card. If you control the objectives, you have a better chance of scoring the Supremacy card for example, as well as objective secured cards you draw. Try to set up the situations where you can capitalize on the situational cards (witch hunter, assassinate, etc) but don't allow yourself to be distracted just because you draw one of those on turn 2. If you play it this way, you won't get the sense of running around like a chicken with your head cut off.
As far as real life examples, everyone keep giving an example of a single squad frantically running from objective to objective. A company sized force (closer to the scope of a 40k game) can have quite a few different objectives during an operation, which can all change due to the actions of the enemy and/or adjacent friendly units.
- Secure the intersection at Checkpoint Alpha in order to provide freedom of movement for C Company (who are off the board to your left)
- [1st squad secures the intersection]
- Roger, checkpoint alpha secured
- FRAGO, Charlie has contact, proceed to grid xxxxxxx, observe and report
- [2nd squad moves to grid xxxxxxxx]
- Be advised there is enemy air in sector (turns out to be false)
- Alpha Company (off the board to your right) has crossed Phase Line Vengeance, attack Objective Xenos
- [1st and 2nd squads attack the objective and secure it]
- Eliminate the following enemy HVTs in your sector (enemy leadership)
- [The CO knife fights the enemy leader and kills him. Well.... OK not every card has a real-life analogy]
That didn't really take much imagination or thought.
None of this is going to change OP's mind that he had a fun game with Maelstrom.
Sure some people hate the randomness of the Maelstrom missions but really it's in the name:
Maelstrom - a situation in which there are a lot of confused activities, emotions, etc.
You guys are complaining / arguing about oranges tasting like oranges and in regards to the OP pointless and off topic in this thread.
Great some of you don't like the randomness of Maelstrom missions. You have the original missions still where where you can have your strategic and narrative games.
Equally great some of you have Maelstrom missions where you can enjoy some chaotic battles that you can easily write stories for. (Not talking about warlord traits, they suck for planning/story telling.)
Also I don't agree with the chutes and ladders statement, I think Maelstrom missions are more like Blackjack or Poker (random and exciting) and the regular missions or competitive play is more like Stratego (lots of strategies and as much as 40k can be balanced for both players or at least more so than Maelstrom).
Now people we don't need a Mod to tell us to create a new thread for why Maelstrom is horrible for strategy or to get back on topic do we?
I have to wonder if people playing the new missions have played other games with real asymmetrical mission design. Almost every player who has said they like it usually adds in the fact they must house rule it (remember, $85 rules that you're editing to make fun...) such that if you get an objective that's literally impossible, it's ditched. Most of the game modes within said mission are just about a revolving door of objective grabbing with a few relatively easy "gimmes." However, the fact that these are completely random and can be weighted for or against a player with barely any player ability to control this means it's random for random-sake and not controlled probability, like your dice rolling.
Real asymmetrical mission design is happening in other games and was happening in the 40k tournament scene prior to 7E where you could have players each having an overarching goal, but one player could be scoring objectives each turn while the other scored traditionally. That was, your army could be designed for a strategy in mind AND you could play to it on the table without being left to fate. Another game that does this well is Malifaux. While you may not always have to reveal you strategy to the opponent, you score more points if you do, making it even more of a mind game. There is an overall shared game objective and players choose two "schemes" from a pool of five that they both share.
After these missions are decided, then do players build their armies to play the game!
So you will always build an army on missions that you enjoy and excel at playing and your opponent will too. It's a great means to balancing a game out and ensuring that players will always get something close to their relative strength or desired outcome in the game. What Games Workshop has done is a half-hearted attempt at game design and mildly succeeded in selling you more trinkets to go along with it.
I can see why someone would enjoy the new mission structure, but knowing it fails miserably at real asymmetrical design and what it could have been in comparison to homebrew missions already in the 40k scene and what exists in other games means it's just another practice of futile frustration. There will be those games you do get boned with bad cards the entire game and your opponent can clear his hand first turn, making it all but silly to play out the rest of the game. Plus, you might not have an army equipped for said missions and the game types still favor the same flavors we saw in 7E. What's worse is it would probably bring back even harder forms of MSU spam, everyone's favorite of 5E, right?
TheKbob wrote: I have to wonder if people playing the new missions have played other games with real asymmetrical mission design. Almost every player who has said they like it usually adds in the fact they must house rule it (remember, $85 rules that you're editing to make fun...) such that if you get an objective that's literally impossible, it's ditched.
Barely even counts as a house rule it's s obvious. And the rules allow for unachievable cards to be discarded if you stick by the rules. Maelstrom missions are absolutely fine for PUGs.
After these missions are decided, then do players build their armies to play the game!
So you will always build an army on missions that you enjoy and excel at playing and your opponent will too. It's a great means to balancing a game out and ensuring that players will always get something close to their relative strength or desired outcome in the game. What Games Workshop has done is a half-hearted attempt at game design and mildly succeeded in selling you more trinkets to go along with it.
Obviously wouldn't work with 40k. You're comparing two different types of games with different scale battles. Couldn't really expect my opponent to wait while I put together my list, and I'd have to bring a tom of models.
TheKbob wrote: I can see why someone would enjoy the new mission structure, but knowing it fails miserably at real asymmetrical design and what it could have been in comparison to homebrew missions already in the 40k scene and what exists in other games means it's just another practice of futile frustration. There will be those games you do get boned with bad cards the entire game and your opponent can clear his hand first turn, making it all but silly to play out the rest of the game. Plus, you might not have an army equipped for said missions and the game types still favor the same flavors we saw in 7E. What's worse is it would probably bring back even harder forms of MSU spam, everyone's favorite of 5E, right?
Didn't feel like that in my game. Some turns went well for my opponent, some went well for me. My opponent couldn't rely on a gunline, which made my army [Sisters] more competitive and balanced things out a little. Also it felt like every turn mattered, rather than just the last. No-body is saying these missions are perfect, but that they are a positive step forward and can be refined in future editions. There's also a lot of scope for using them in a different way to that in the rulebook.
TheKbob wrote: I have to wonder if people playing the new missions have played other games with real asymmetrical mission design.
That's what makes it so frustrating. Deadzone did mission objective cards so much better and allowed for asymmetrical gameplay with great strategic and tactical depth. It's a far more accurate portrayal of objectives for a combat mission which makes it far more engaging to play with and dare I say it, forge a narrative with.
Gunzhard wrote: Having the cards, which I realize are out of stock, could alleviate your Problem#1... just draw from a shuffled deck.
Problem#2 is a different kind of game, and going back to some earlier examples in this thread - your opponent likely won't know all of the things that you are trying to achieve in any combat anyway... but remember it works both ways for both sides.
Which is why the game ended in a tie. We both had no advantage over the other, so we did equally well.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote: One more disconnect from being a wartorn battlefield instead of two people pushing enormously expensive plastic toys around.
Well, to be fair, the back blurb on the new 40K rules set basically says that it's the latter. The "hobby" is collecting enormously expensive plastic toys, the game is just tacked on now to give you something to do with them, so 40K is (at least in the minds of whoever's in charge right now) just two (or more) people pushing enormously expensive plastic toys around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lobomalo wrote: Sorry, you've served and you are whining about the randomness of objectives? Where and when may I ask have you served? Outside of WW2 every conflict the US has been in has been a series of random objectives that the soldiers don't really know much about as they shouldn't have been there in the first place, hence why we lost Vietnam, Korea was a standstill, Iraq 1/2 were failures. Had objectives been clearly defined and thought out, the results of these would be different.
Disregarding the politics part of that, the real issue with the wars you note is that America didn't bring the full weight of its military to bear (and politics did have a part in that, too). If "rules of engagement" weren't around and the military was allowed to just go out and win the war, most of those would have been different. Actually, Iraq 1 *was* a military success, it ended with the Iraqi military crushed. Iraq 2 is... kind of hard to say much about without devolving into politics. It's not really something you could win with a military, so it's not something you could compare well to 40K.
Gunzhard wrote: I know that we can get rapid intel, highly technical surveillance, advanced communications and rapid re-deployment to new target priorities... is this wrong?
Short answer is yes.
While we do have updates to information very fast, you can't expect every troop on the ground to get instantaneous updates about every issue on the field. Say for example I deploy with the intent of rushing forward to capture objectives then draw my initial cards. I get the one for shooting down aircraft/FMC , a home objective, and a challenge. Now every troop in my army now changes their entire plan to advance slower and more carefully since they have more time, keep on the look out for any enemy aircraft, and someone has to punch an enemy officer in the face. It made more sense in 6th where you were trying to capture/deny any objective you could and your army kept focus on this until the end. Turn by turn objectives means that everyone understands they have no logistical data aside from a few blurbs and are actively checking their tweets in between reloading to see if orders completely change what they're doing.
Imagine each objective was worth 1 point for each turn you had it.
There is strategy in deploying troops and planning to take objectives while denying others, while your points build up. The means you accomplish this will change with your opponent's actions, but you still control the overall goal for your army.
With random objectives you can try to spread yourself thin, or just hop on whatever cards you get. The strategy is almost non-existent since you have no idea where you will go next turn, how you will get it, and so on for each turn after.
Oh god, I just realized something. Is this why so many casual players love this? Because it's less and less strategy and more and more like shoots and ladders?
An epiphany at last! Refreshing, is it not? It's a bit like playing backgammon...over the course of many games the better player will emerge victorious, but in a single match up the inferior player has an excellent chance of winning due to the game's reliance on die rolls. GW's incessant randomization has the same effect, leveling the playing field so anybody can win any given game. Whether one approves of this is a matter of personal taste.
An epiphany at last! Refreshing, is it not? It's a bit like playing backgammon...over the course of many games the better player will emerge victorious, but in a single match up the inferior player has an excellent chance of winning due to the game's reliance on die rolls. GW's incessant randomization has the same effect, leveling the playing field so anybody can win any given game. Whether one approves of this is a matter of personal taste.
Absolutely you will see in a little while the certain players winning the majority if not all of the games. Nothing is hidden and anything called random can be prepared for, for the most part. So few people talk about denying the opponent which is big. Also in 5 of the 6 scenarios both players must have displayed their hands. (and in one of them both can play objectives cards in either hand).
This style is not for everyone but you can win most of the time with the right strategy and lists.
But you're not suppose to win the game. Winning is rude and should be avoided at all costs. You're suppose to forge a narrative where both sides lose, that is the only way to be winners in GW's eyes.
It's funny to me that the 'anti-narrative' crowd think of themselves as being tactically superior.
You don't get to call yourself any sort of tactician, when you require the most watered down version of the game, with basic 3 missions, nothing unexpected (random) where you might have to think on the fly, everything controlled and everything you can plan for in your list - while simultaneously wielding one of the current top tier lists... that just means you need a handicap.
TheKbob wrote: That was, your army could be designed for a strategy in mind AND you could play to it on the table without being left to fate. Another game that does this well is Malifaux. While you may not always have to reveal you strategy to the opponent, you score more points if you do, making it even more of a mind game. There is an overall shared game objective and players choose two "schemes" from a pool of five that they both share.
After these missions are decided, then do players build their armies to play the game!
So you will always build an army on missions that you enjoy and excel at playing and your opponent will too. It's a great means to balancing a game out and ensuring that players will always get something close to their relative strength or desired outcome in the game. What Games Workshop has done is a half-hearted attempt at game design and mildly succeeded in selling you more trinkets to go along with it.
Glad you brought this up, I stole liberally from those objectives for an apocalypse game (no pre-draw and plan army though!) and it was funny as heck.
Almost everyone did not want to reveal their objectives and everyone drew the worst cards possible:
SOB saint had to die in challenge (??!!),
SM:BT had to kill Ork warlord,
Squats (modified for 6th edition) had to hijack a CSM troop transport (Landraider and wait until unoccupied),
DE had to hold ground,
Orks had to occupy enemy deployment zone a certain number of units (was going to do it anyway).
It was a mess and VERY fun since sitting back and destroying the other guy was not vital to the objectives, the Squats stalking the landraider had many very confused and the player laughing his guts out.
Trying to kill a SOB saint on purpose is harder than one would think, we just thought the player was insane bloodthirsty.
There are very good ideas in those objectives, the GW list is rather... uninspired in comparison but a step in the right direction (just missed the plot though...)
<edit> Gosh-darn - ON TOPIC 7th is not that different than 6th with more flexibility for army selection, what I listed above in a modified "house" game could closely be done in 7th (including making a functioning Squat army from bits and pieces of codexes) so the fun is there...
It's funny to me that the 'anti-narrative' crowd think of themselves as being tactically superior.
You don't get to call yourself any sort of tactician, when you require the most watered down version of the game, with basic 3 missions, nothing unexpected (random) where you might have to think on the fly, everything controlled and everything you can plan for in your list - while simultaneously wielding one of the current top tier lists... that just means you need a handicap.
It's funny to me that the 'anti-narrative' crowd think of themselves as being tactically superior.
You don't get to call yourself any sort of tactician, when you require the most watered down version of the game, with basic 3 missions, nothing unexpected (random) where you might have to think on the fly, everything controlled and everything you can plan for in your list - while simultaneously wielding one of the current top tier lists... that just means you need a handicap.
You can notice the negativity past all the hyperbole and the forest of straw men? Your perception is keener than mine.
This is what killed my interest in 40k back in 2011. The new Sisters dex had come out, and I liked it, and I posted such on the forums. And then everyone else tried to shut me down and told me that the Codex was bad and I was a bad person for liking it.
You people are awful. The second anyone posts anything positive about 40k, at least half a dozen of you have to jump on them and try to convince them how it's actually a bad thing. So, just stop, okay? Just fricking STOP this gak, and actually TRY to let people have fun with a game for once?
If not, then just go to the Warp.
:: slams door on her way out ::
Hence why I got out of this conversation lol. There is too much negativity on the internet as a whole and it bleeds out. This edition is amazing, I have been having a blast and as have those I have been playing with. Those who do not like it are a select group, more of a subtype of wargamer to be honest that simply are never going to be satisfied until things go back to the way they used to be.
I agree, Lobomalo. This forum is extremely negative. (cue someone calling me a hypocrite for posting negatively about their negativity). I lurk on here mostly to marvel at the hate and read some of the few constructive posts before the negative people hijack them.
Our group has been having a great time with 7th so far. I've played since 2nd edition and for me each edition has been better than the last. I fought a battle against a Revenant titan recently and it was really fun. I didn't win but I had a good chance too had I not rolled so lousy. I saw someone beat a Stompa with 10 meks in it the other day by playing to the objective cards. I think if players get some practice in and break out of their old set ways, they will find that 7th is not so bad after all.
It's funny to me that the 'anti-narrative' crowd think of themselves as being tactically superior.
You don't get to call yourself any sort of tactician, when you require the most watered down version of the game, with basic 3 missions, nothing unexpected (random) where you might have to think on the fly, everything controlled and everything you can plan for in your list - while simultaneously wielding one of the current top tier lists... that just means you need a handicap.
We just REALLY don't like Apocalypse.
I CAN design a list for the whole APOCALYPSE scene. But what people who dislike that stuff are REALLY saying is that they DON'T wanna' play Apocalypse type games. If we wanted that flavor of game, we'd ask you for it.
Personally I dont think that's asking for a Handicap. I think its just a really fundamental difference of opinion on how many people we want to be able to enter and stay in this hobby.
Lobomalo wrote: Those who do not like it are a select group, more of a subtype of wargamer to be honest that simply are never going to be satisfied until things go back to the way they used to be.
I only recently started wargaming, I have no idea how they used to be - I just know that 40k rules could be so much better. I love 40k, I dislike GW due to the policies and actions and the rules due to their cumbersome nature and lack of balance. That seems quite a reasonable distinction to me and quite rational.
Mentat wrote: I think if players get some practice in and break out of their old set ways, they will find that 7th is not so bad after all.
How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.
There is nothing that is any more "poorly thought out" in 7th than there was in previous editions. Each edition has had issues that people complained about incessantly. I'm sorry that certain deathstars don't work anymore but its time to rethink lists and playstyles when a new edition comes out. Honestly if you want a more balanced system with better scenarios there are a lot of games that do those things better. But for me and most of our group, nothing beats 40k for fun games.
Mentat wrote: There is nothing that is any more "poorly thought out" in 7th than there was in previous editions.
In addition to the previous poorly thought out stuff, there is the addition of the psychic phase and battle cards which are both deeply flawed so yes, there *are* more poorly thought out things since not only does GW not fix existing problems, they introduce new ones. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy them (I enjoy the anime Sword Art Online for example, but I accept that it's bad), but enjoying them doesn't mean they're not bad.
There is at least a chance that blessings wont work now. As opposed to the slight chance they wouldnt in last edition. I like this psychic phase better and it somewhat reminds me of 2nd edition. If you are talking about daemonology.... well its not worth it for most non daemons. I have fought daemons but they only had about 18 warp charges. I have not fought a daemon force optimized for summoning yet but i look forward to that. Im not convinced its as bad as made out to be by the panicnet.
Unbound doesnt concern me either.
Overall i think this is my favorite edition so far, but still need to get some more games in.
Lobomalo wrote: Those who do not like it are a select group, more of a subtype of wargamer to be honest that simply are never going to be satisfied until things go back to the way they used to be.
I only recently started wargaming, I have no idea how they used to be - I just know that 40k rules could be so much better. I love 40k, I dislike GW due to the policies and actions and the rules due to their cumbersome nature and lack of balance. That seems quite a reasonable distinction to me and quite rational.
Mentat wrote: I think if players get some practice in and break out of their old set ways, they will find that 7th is not so bad after all.
How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.
Actually, I was quite satisfied with 6th, even with its faults. I've been playing since RT and I like change when its for the better. 2nd was a huge change but it was better. 5th was better than 4th, etc. It's not change we don't like, it's arbitrary changes that don't improve the game that we don't like. What pushed me away was GW pushing further away from balance, making escalation a part of the actual game, lack of structure for army building, obvious cash grab edition, and too expensive. One of those by themselves wouldn't do it but all together, yes.
And I'm completely up for trying new things. I've been trying other games. Big changes but I've found they have better rules and I have more fun with them for less money.
Stop characterizing people with complaints, Lobomalo. (badwolf?)You clearly don't understand anything we've been saying. You may think the game is fun and that's fine, but at least try to understand why people are leaving.
You know, I think I'd be far less forceful in my opposition if GW fans would stop mischaracterizing me and actually took the time to understand what's going on.
MWHistorian wrote: And I'm completely up for trying new things. I've been trying other games. Big changes but I've found they have better rules and I have more fun with them for less money.
Stop characterizing people with complaints, Lobomalo. (badwolf?)You clearly don't understand anything we've been saying. You may think the game is fun and that's fine, but at least try to understand why people are leaving.
You know, I think I'd be far less forceful in my opposition if GW fans would stop mischaracterizing me and actually took the time to understand what's going on.
I think this is pretty spot on. Suggesting people don't like change is a silly assertion. It's a much larger change to drop GW games to go play a new game which many people - vets and new players like myself - have been doing. That pretty clearly shows that change isn't the problem.
One of those by themselves wouldn't do it but all together, yes.
Rule problems are like guardsmen. One isn't a problem. You can even deal with 10, but 100?
You don't find it enjoyable anymore, then decided to move on, and that is perfectly reasonable.
Trying to convince me that mission cards and the psychic phase are crap, because you think they are, is not appropriate in a thread titled "Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it"
Please have that discussion in a thread where it is on topic, so people whoe are interested in that topic can discuss it, without blatantly annoying people who don't.
adamsouza wrote: You don't find it enjoyable anymore, then decided to move on, and that is perfectly reasonable.
Trying to convince me that mission cards and the psychic phase are crap, because you think they are, is not appropriate in a thread titled "Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it"
Please have that discussion in a thread where it is on topic, so people whoe are interested in that topic can discuss it, without blatantly annoying people who don't.
Part of why the OP enjoyed it was the mission cards. It was suggested that the cards were good for people who liked a background for why they were fighting, and if you don't like a background for why you're fighting then they're pointless. That's pretty insulting, especially given one of the reasons we say we don't like the cards is because we think they do the opposite of that. Don't forget it takes two to tango - if no one wanted to discuss the cards on the "pro" side here, there would be no discussion. So not only is it on topic, but your assertion that it's us "negatives" derailing is also false.
Lobomalo wrote: Those who do not like it are a select group, more of a subtype of wargamer to be honest that simply are never going to be satisfied until things go back to the way they used to be.
I only recently started wargaming, I have no idea how they used to be - I just know that 40k rules could be so much better. I love 40k, I dislike GW due to the policies and actions and the rules due to their cumbersome nature and lack of balance. That seems quite a reasonable distinction to me and quite rational.
Mentat wrote: I think if players get some practice in and break out of their old set ways, they will find that 7th is not so bad after all.
How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.
Actually, I was quite satisfied with 6th, even with its faults. I've been playing since RT and I like change when its for the better. 2nd was a huge change but it was better. 5th was better than 4th, etc. It's not change we don't like, it's arbitrary changes that don't improve the game that we don't like. What pushed me away was GW pushing further away from balance, making escalation a part of the actual game, lack of structure for army building, obvious cash grab edition, and too expensive. One of those by themselves wouldn't do it but all together, yes.
And I'm completely up for trying new things. I've been trying other games. Big changes but I've found they have better rules and I have more fun with them for less money.
Stop characterizing people with complaints, Lobomalo. (badwolf?)You clearly don't understand anything we've been saying. You may think the game is fun and that's fine, but at least try to understand why people are leaving.
You know, I think I'd be far less forceful in my opposition if GW fans would stop mischaracterizing me and actually took the time to understand what's going on.
We understand what you are saying, what we don't understand is why you rushed in here to crap on peoples' enjoyment? ...for what? ...why?
I've played since RT as well. I've seen the same arguments you've made with every big change over the lifespan of this game, as I'm sure you have. You've made it to 6 editions, and surprisingly, you were, "quite satisfied with 6th" (haha). If you don't like what many of us, actually playing the game, find to be huge improvements, good for you - you can still play 6th that you are quite satisfied with.
It seems like so many people here want us all to quite playing; and instead understand that it's just not fun / realistic / strategic and join you at home in your misery, slinging negativity on forums.
How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.
Let me help you, since you are new to the game. You mentioned some other great games that 40k could be like; ...if you are holding out for some tight tournament edition style ruleset with 40K, just play that 'other' game, because 40K has NEVER been that (and never even hinted at that) in nearly 30 years.
It's never been perfect but rational adults with basic human communication can make it work wonderfully, that slow FAQs / updates / imperfections have always been a part of this game; if that is too much for you - Crapping on some kid's enjoyment here won't fix that.
How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.
Let me help you, since you are new to the game. You mentioned some other great games that 40k could be like; ...if you are holding out for some tight tournament edition style ruleset with 40K, just play that 'other' game, because 40K has NEVER been that (and never even hinted at that) in nearly 30 years.
It's never been perfect but rational adults with basic human communication can make it work wonderfully, that slow FAQs / updates / imperfections have always been a part of this game; if that is too much for you - Crapping on some kid's enjoyment here won't fix that.
I've already come to that conclusion a year or more ago - I play Dreadball, will play Deadzone when I paint up my guys, and will probably get at least one more of: DZC, X-Wing or Warmahordes. However, me playing those games doesn't mean that I can't hope that 40k gets better, or that I can't discuss my problems with it, or indeed why I love the setting and the miniatures. I'm a very capable man - I can do *two* things! ; )
Please quote where I crapped on someones enjoyment, I'd like to see it. You didn't show me last time I asked, but I figure it's worth another shot.
How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.
Let me help you, since you are new to the game. You mentioned some other great games that 40k could be like; ...if you are holding out for some tight tournament edition style ruleset with 40K, just play that 'other' game, because 40K has NEVER been that (and never even hinted at that) in nearly 30 years.
It's never been perfect but rational adults with basic human communication can make it work wonderfully, that slow FAQs / updates / imperfections have always been a part of this game; if that is too much for you - Crapping on some kid's enjoyment here won't fix that.
I've already come to that conclusion a year or more ago - I play Dreadball, will play Deadzone when I paint up my guys, and will probably get at least one more of: DZC, X-Wing or Warmahordes. However, me playing those games doesn't mean that I can't hope that 40k gets better, or that I can't discuss my problems with it, or indeed why I love the setting and the miniatures. I'm a very capable man - I can do *two* things! ; )
Please quote where I crapped on someones enjoyment, I'd like to see it. You didn't show me last time I asked, but I figure it's worth another shot.
Not to make this into some stupid personal thing ...you've been quite civil, as have most in this discussion; but to me if someone is very happy about something, and you seek to bring him down, and prove that he is just wrong - that's crapping on him (even if done in a civil manner).
Not everyone has been civil though, and the "last" time you asked the example was given to you, you just chose to ignore it.
We don't want to stop them having fun - we've said repeatedly not only that you can have fun with a bad system, but we're happy you're having fun with it. It's just that we're not, and this is why. I wasn't going to enter into the thread, despite some "brace yourselves, the whingers are coming!" posts such as:
lobbywatson wrote: Shhhh keep it down if the haters hear you they will pounce!!!
but this was what I replied to which started the objective cards discussion:
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: However, if you aren't the sort that makes up background like that you might find the objectives feel artificial.
That was not just incorrect but pretty insulting. We love backgrounds for our games - we just don't feel the cards provide for it, and we said why. My reply seems very clear and polite to me:
Yonan wrote: Going to have to disagree there. I love having a good background for games - but this implementation of tactical objectives is anything but tactical or narrative. There are proposed ways to fix it (in this threadiirc) but as is, really don't like the system.
I looked for the "ridiculous anger", I couldn't see it. If it was there, surely you could have quoted it - specifically - to illustrate it. Since you didn't, I had no option but to write your statement off as hyperbole - which if you can't back up your assertion of me "crapping on" peoples fun here, I'm going to have to do the same. I had no intention of doing that, if you can show me where I have I'd like to know so I don't make the mistake again.
You have just proven that you are just as capable of going back and reading the previous comments; you don't need me to do it for you. ...read Calgarspimphand's comments and tell me there is no anger there, even if you agree with him.
There have been even more insulting comments coming for your camp (shoots and ladders) but who really cares? ...what do you think you are solving here?
I did read it, I saw no anger - at players - there. I saw it at the rules. That's a very important distinction. People have repeatedly called those of us that dislike certain aspects of the rules whiners and what not. That's an attack on the player - we're attacking the game.
Yonan wrote: I did read it, I saw no anger - at players - there. I saw it at the rules. That's a very important distinction. People have repeatedly called those of us that dislike certain aspects of the rules whiners and what not. That's an attack on the player - we're attacking the game.
Ok great Yonan; being told we just don't understand combat realism, or strategy, or that we seek to play shoots and ladders because we are incapable of tactics is attacking the game. This is getting stupid now. Selectively read whatever you want. Have fun playing other games, while I enjoy 40K.
You can enjoy 40k all you want. I don't really care what you play or how.
My 20th anniversary with 40k will be in August. And I find myself closer to the end than the beginning. I bought the 2nd edition box set with my first paycheck from a new job. My very first experience was a veteran telling me not to play Space Wolves if I wanted to play at all because they were so broken. I persevered and played a lot over the years and championed 40k like some of you guys in this thread. So I feel I understand you, but I believe you are refusing to understand me. I don't want a previous edition like some have accused me of. I can easily play that if it were the case. I don't mind rules changing. What I want is a rule set that matches the quality of the miniatures they produce. What I'm getting instead is misdirection about forging narratives and such. What I need is GW to do is to stop pissing on my boots and tell me its raining.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for the record I know GW will never do it. They are determined to reduce the value to money ratio to the thinnest possible. Knowing that doesn't stop me from being frustrated by it.
I have yet to play 7th edition, but have it on order and it should come in soon. I was wondering for those who have played it has the new missions affected how you build lists and if so what kind of changes have you had to make. Also with the new rules what is in your opinion the best change?
TheKbob wrote: I have to wonder if people playing the new missions have played other games with real asymmetrical mission design. Almost every player who has said they like it usually adds in the fact they must house rule it (remember, $85 rules that you're editing to make fun...) such that if you get an objective that's literally impossible, it's ditched.
Barely even counts as a house rule it's s obvious. And the rules allow for unachievable cards to be discarded if you stick by the rules. Maelstrom missions are absolutely fine for PUGs.
Just wanted to swing by and rub the nose in this one to make a point: If it's such an obvious house rule, why isn't it in the book? Or are we ready to admit that the rules are bad and paying $85 for something that needs to be "obviously" house-ruled is a stinker?
TheKbob wrote: I have to wonder if people playing the new missions have played other games with real asymmetrical mission design. Almost every player who has said they like it usually adds in the fact they must house rule it (remember, $85 rules that you're editing to make fun...) such that if you get an objective that's literally impossible, it's ditched.
Barely even counts as a house rule it's s obvious. And the rules allow for unachievable cards to be discarded if you stick by the rules. Maelstrom missions are absolutely fine for PUGs.
Just wanted to swing by and rub the nose in this one to make a point: If it's such an obvious house rule, why isn't it in the book? Or are we ready to admit that the rules are bad and paying $85 for something that needs to be "obviously" house-ruled is a stinker?
To be fair, it is kind of obvious really. Our group figured that you'd remove things you couldn't do as they would be a waste of a draw
Just wondering about your house rule Lobomalo (and any others who do so). How would you handle the situation where at the start of the game, that objective was possible but after a few turns became impossible. For example to destroy a flyer but the flyer has crashed himself mid game? Do you discard the card if you draw it midgame? Or do you only remove the cards at the beginning. And wouldn't you be worried about increasing the relative frequency of the other cards?
milkboy wrote: Just wondering about your house rule Lobomalo (and any others who do so). How would you handle the situation where at the start of the game, that objective was possible but after a few turns became impossible. For example to destroy a flyer but the flyer has crashed himself mid game? Do you discard the card if you draw it midgame? Or do you only remove the cards at the beginning. And wouldn't you be worried about increasing the relative frequency of the other cards?
Frequency has never really been an issue. We simply remove the ones we cannot do, for example none of us run MC so we simply take it out. If one of us did and it died before the card was drawn, so be it. IIRC there are some cards that give points as long as the unit was taken out in the game at any time, not just that turn. Can't remember which it is atm though
That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...
Crimson Devil wrote: getting instead is misdirection about forging narratives and such. What I need is GW to do is to stop pissing on my boots and tell me its raining.
Automatically Appended Next Post: .
and if they told you the truth, which is that they dropped almost half the value of their stock value since 6E came, and TOLD you that the only saving grace for the company during that time were Dividends, would you listen? There's more to this than just a wish to piss on your bioots. Now I've seen the dividends and i know they are making money hand over fist. But if you're a CEO with stock price dropped in half, what exactly are your options at that point? Not many. KEEP making money and when stocjk rises again, perhaps you can let up.
Gunzhard wrote: That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...
Actually, you're only able to discard if you complete an objective. Says so under the discarding and objective heading. You don't get to do it every turn simply if you want to.
Lobomalo wrote: To be fair, it is kind of obvious really. Our group figured that you'd remove things you couldn't do as they would be a waste of a draw
And again, not addressing the issue. If it's an obvious fix, why isn't it in the rulebook? Why are you excited to be paying $85 for a set of rules that you must make obvious fixes towards?
Gunzhard wrote:That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...
Really? Dunno about you, but watched and read battle reports of Maelstrom games where one guy gets 2~3 impossible cards along with 2~3 "get this objective in your enemy deployment zone" styles while the other player gets 2~3 stupid, easy ones along with the objectives they sit on. Great, awesome game. Wonderful design.
Spoiler:
And you never addressed playing games with real asymmetrical design that makes the game actually work versus random card pull/dice rolling. If you haven't played said games or missions, I highly suggest either grabbing the tournament missions floating around from 6E or proxying Malifaux. The rules for Malifaux are $15, so nothing terrible.
Crimson Devil wrote: getting instead is misdirection about forging narratives and such. What I need is GW to do is to stop pissing on my boots and tell me its raining.
Automatically Appended Next Post: .
and if they told you the truth, which is that they dropped almost half the value of their stock value since 6E came, and TOLD you that the only saving grace for the company during that time were Dividends, would you listen? There's more to this than just a wish to piss on your bioots. Now I've seen the dividends and i know they are making money hand over fist. But if you're a CEO with stock price dropped in half, what exactly are your options at that point? Not many. KEEP making money and when stocjk rises again, perhaps you can let up.
I dont like it. but I understand it.
You make a good point. It is understandable, but I don't think I'm very sympathetic to their plight anymore. GW has squandered too much good will from it's customer base over the years. I feel they are currently feeling the inevitable outcome of their policies.
Gunzhard wrote: That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...
Actually, you're only able to discard if you complete an objective. Says so under the discarding and objective heading. You don't get to do it every turn simply if you want to.
you might want to reread the section titled "Discarding Tactical Objectives" - especially the second sentence.
Gunzhard wrote: That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...
Actually, you're only able to discard if you complete an objective. Says so under the discarding and objective heading. You don't get to do it every turn simply if you want to.
you might want to reread the section titled "Discarding Tactical Objectives" - especially the second sentence.
I have. Read the first one. You cannot discard until AFTER you finish an objective. It's fairly clear, don't just skip over it.
Discarding Tactical Objectives
"Once a Tactical Objective has been achieved, it is discarded. After all Tactical Objectives
that have been achieved are discarded, the player whose turn it is can select one of his
remaining Active Tactical Objectives (if any) and choose to discard it – this scores no
Victory Points. Discarded Tactical Objectives cease being Active and you cannot generate
or achieve these objectives for the remainder of the game."
That is verbatim. Don't simply skip over sentences you disagree with or think unimportant, that happens too much on these forums as it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gunzhard wrote: 7th Edition Rulebook page 137 - the last paragraph titled "Discarding Tactical Objectives":
In summary -
...after you discard the cards you've achieved, you can select one remaining (if any) and discard it - if you choose.
TheKolb - if hypothetical doom and gloom possible scenarios are keeping you from trying something, that just might be fun, well - that's on you dude.
But that 'house rule' is absolutely unnecessary... the rulebook has already got that covered.
To reiterate:
"Once a Tactical Objective has been achieved, it is discarded. After all Tactical Objectives
that have been achieved are discarded, the player whose turn it is can select one of his
remaining Active Tactical Objectives (if any) and choose to discard it – this scores no
Victory Points. Discarded Tactical Objectives cease being Active and you cannot generate
or achieve these objectives for the remainder of the game."
It gives you a specific timing as to when they can be discarded. Don't take out just a portion of the rule and misquote it like that, it does not help anyone.
Gunzhard wrote: That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...
Actually, you're only able to discard if you complete an objective. Says so under the discarding and objective heading. You don't get to do it every turn simply if you want to.
you might want to reread the section titled "Discarding Tactical Objectives" - especially the second sentence.
I have. Read the first one. You cannot discard until AFTER you finish an objective. It's fairly clear, don't just skip over it.
I don't think that is what is says at all, you're putting a funny interpretation on the rule... "after all Tac Ob that have been achieved are discarded (<--- this could be zero), the player whose turn it is can select one of his remaining... (if any)... ...". The reason it comes AFTER is because it is possible that you achieve ALL of your objectives and have NO cards left to discard.
Lobomalo wrote:
To be fair, it is kind of obvious really. Our group figured that you'd remove things you couldn't do as they would be a waste of a draw
And again, not addressing the issue. If it's an obvious fix, why isn't it in the rulebook? Why are you exciting to be paying $85 for a set of rules that you must make obvious fixes towards?
To be fair, if you need a rulebook to tell you step by step what you can and cannot do, maybe you should stop playing games in general. It's an inference that you discard what no player can achieve, critical thinking really. Also I can see GW not mentioning it at all because the bulk of their player base has at least one model of every single objective. It really only becomes an issue for new players or brand new armies.
Gunzhard wrote: That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...
Actually, you're only able to discard if you complete an objective. Says so under the discarding and objective heading. You don't get to do it every turn simply if you want to.
you might want to reread the section titled "Discarding Tactical Objectives" - especially the second sentence.
I have. Read the first one. You cannot discard until AFTER you finish an objective. It's fairly clear, don't just skip over it.
I don't think that is what is says at all, you're putting a funny interpretation on the rule... "after all Tac Ob that have been achieved are discarded (this could be zero), the player whose turn it is can select one of his remaining... (if any)... ...". The reason it comes AFTER is because it is possible that you achieve ALL of your objectives and have NO cards left to discard.
Feels like YMDC all over again. You cannot take out portions of a sentence and try and make it an argument, especially when you are discarding relevant parts that disprove your argument. You cannot achieve zero objectives, you need an actual number, therefore if you cannot achieve an objective, you cannot discard an objective. But this is Dakka and people have different ideas when it comes to interpretation of the English language.
TheKolb - if hypothetical doom and gloom possible scenarios are keeping you from trying something, that just might be fun, well - that's on you dude.
But that 'house rule' is absolutely unnecessary... the rulebook has already got that covered.
See, here's the funny thing, because it IS random, I may never have that happen. Or I could have it happen every single game I play. There is nothing remotely tactical about random. Where as your comment still doesn't address the fact you can achieve the same game dynamics of differing objectives through better asymmetrical game design found in homebrew missions planned for major 40k tournaments or other miniatures games.
I don't need to play something to know whether it'll be fun for playing as much 40k as I have. I don't want to micromanage objectives with dice rolls or getting stuck with another $8 for cards or spend the time to make my own. I can just play Malifaux instead to scratch the same itch. Or play the missions that were being developed by 40kTOs.
TheKolb - if hypothetical doom and gloom possible scenarios are keeping you from trying something, that just might be fun, well - that's on you dude.
But that 'house rule' is absolutely unnecessary... the rulebook has already got that covered.
See, here's the funny thing, because it IS random, I may never have that happen. Or I could have it happen every single game I play. There is nothing remotely tactical about random. Where as your comment still doesn't address the fact you can achieve the same game dynamics of differing objectives through better asymmetrical game design found in homebrew missions planned for major 40k tournaments or other miniatures games.
I don't need to play something to know whether it'll be fun for playing as much 40k as I have. I don't want to micromanage objectives with dice rolls or getting stuck with another $8 for cards or spend the time to make my own. I can just play Malifaux instead to scratch the same itch. Or play the missions that were being developed by 40kTOs.
Then you are free to do that. For others, random is fun, tactical and strategic. To be honest, no competition is without randomness. otherwise things become predictable and therefore end up in draws.
Feels like YMDC all over again. You cannot take out portions of a sentence and try and make it an argument, especially when you are discarding relevant parts that disprove your argument. You cannot achieve zero objectives, you need an actual number, therefore if you cannot achieve an objective, you cannot discard an objective. But this is Dakka and people have different ideas when it comes to interpretation of the English language.
I'm no English expert but I'm pretty sure that's not a mutually exclusive relationship... the number of achieved objectives can be zero, and further look on page 124 in the Tactical Traits and reason #1 "Tactical Genius".
Feels like YMDC all over again. You cannot take out portions of a sentence and try and make it an argument, especially when you are discarding relevant parts that disprove your argument. You cannot achieve zero objectives, you need an actual number, therefore if you cannot achieve an objective, you cannot discard an objective. But this is Dakka and people have different ideas when it comes to interpretation of the English language.
I'm no English expert but I'm pretty sure that's not a mutually exclusive relationship... the number of achieved objectives can be zero, and further look on page 124 in the Tactical Traits and reason #1 "Tactical Genius".
Yeah, this is going to end up just like YMDC, another pointless argument with people looking for loopholes for something they want to do.
That trait does not give you permission to discard whenever you want though, especially as the section explicitly telling you how and when to discard is already mentioned.
TheKolb - if hypothetical doom and gloom possible scenarios are keeping you from trying something, that just might be fun, well - that's on you dude.
But that 'house rule' is absolutely unnecessary... the rulebook has already got that covered.
See, here's the funny thing, because it IS random, I may never have that happen. Or I could have it happen every single game I play. There is nothing remotely tactical about random. Where as your comment still doesn't address the fact you can achieve the same game dynamics of differing objectives through better asymmetrical game design found in homebrew missions planned for major 40k tournaments or other miniatures games.
I don't need to play something to know whether it'll be fun for playing as much 40k as I have. I don't want to micromanage objectives with dice rolls or getting stuck with another $8 for cards or spend the time to make my own. I can just play Malifaux instead to scratch the same itch. Or play the missions that were being developed by 40kTOs.
Great dude... you should do that. We can only hope no small person rushes in to announce that your way of playing (that they've never tried) is wrong, still not perfect, and could be better like game XYZ, because 40K has literally NEVER been suited to tournament play despite decades of TO's trying to cram 40K's square peg into their round holes.
TheKolb - if hypothetical doom and gloom possible scenarios are keeping you from trying something, that just might be fun, well - that's on you dude.
But that 'house rule' is absolutely unnecessary... the rulebook has already got that covered.
See, here's the funny thing, because it IS random, I may never have that happen. Or I could have it happen every single game I play. There is nothing remotely tactical about random. Where as your comment still doesn't address the fact you can achieve the same game dynamics of differing objectives through better asymmetrical game design found in homebrew missions planned for major 40k tournaments or other miniatures games.
I don't need to play something to know whether it'll be fun for playing as much 40k as I have. I don't want to micromanage objectives with dice rolls or getting stuck with another $8 for cards or spend the time to make my own. I can just play Malifaux instead to scratch the same itch. Or play the missions that were being developed by 40kTOs.
Great dude... you should do that. We can only hope no small person rushes in to announce that your way of playing (that they've never tried) is wrong, still not perfect, and could be better like game XYZ, because 40K has literally NEVER been suited to tournament play despite decades of TO's trying to cram 40K's square peg into their round holes.
Went to a tournament once, just to watch a friend play. Not good at all, fun watching everyone fight over a 1/4 " though, very funny indeed.
Great dude... you should do that. We can only hope no small person rushes in to announce that your way of playing (that they've never tried) is wrong, still not perfect, and could be better like game XYZ, because 40K has literally NEVER been suited to tournament play despite decades of TO's trying to cram 40K's square peg into their round holes.
First, someone doesn't know their past, Games Workshop supported tournaments for three editions and still holds them at Warhammer World. Second, GW is the one rushing in and saying "this is the best way ever to play our game, it just so happens to include another $8 add-on to not make it super tedious, enjoy!" For the record, I'd never interrupt someones game. I let them do as they please. But this is a forum where we discuss and share ideas.
So, great, you enjoy an obvious cash grab and a crappy attempt at asymmetrical game design. Don't get upset when other people say it can and has been done better to a much better level of fairness and design.
Great dude... you should do that. We can only hope no small person rushes in to announce that your way of playing (that they've never tried) is wrong, still not perfect, and could be better like game XYZ, because 40K has literally NEVER been suited to tournament play despite decades of TO's trying to cram 40K's square peg into their round holes.
First, someone doesn't know their past, Games Workshop supported tournaments for three editions and still holds them at Warhammer World. Second, GW is the one rushing in and saying "this is the best way ever to play our game, it just so happens to include another $8 add-on to not make it super tedious, enjoy!"
So, great, you enjoy an obvious cash grab and a crappy attempt at asymmetrical game design. Don't get upset when other people say it can and has been done better to a much better level of fairness and design.
Dude why are you complaining? Seriously. You realize that the tactical objectives are entirely optional right? You don't even need to buy the stupid cards, just roll a dice. If you would rather not play with them, here it's easy to fix.
"Hey man, I don't wanna play Maelstrom man, I don't like the objectives man, can we play the way we did back in the 90s" (You)
"Sure man, just let me finish playing with those who like to adapt and play something new then I'm all yours" (Adaptive player)
Great dude... you should do that. We can only hope no small person rushes in to announce that your way of playing (that they've never tried) is wrong, still not perfect, and could be better like game XYZ, because 40K has literally NEVER been suited to tournament play despite decades of TO's trying to cram 40K's square peg into their round holes.
First, someone doesn't know their past, Games Workshop supported tournaments for three editions and still holds them at Warhammer World. Second, GW is the one rushing in and saying "this is the best way ever to play our game, it just so happens to include another $8 add-on to not make it super tedious, enjoy!"
So, great, you enjoy an obvious cash grab and a crappy attempt at asymmetrical game design. Don't get upset when other people say it can and has been done better to a much better level of fairness and design.
I've played in tournaments since 2nd edition, I know their past. GW's minimal "support" of tournament play (now that was a "cash grab") has waxed/waned throughout the years but it's never been reflected in their rules. The words "tournament play" have never been mentioned in a 40K rulebook.
I still can't find where it says, "this is the best way ever to play our game"... and he $8 add-on is totally optional and in no way required.
Dude why are you complaining? Seriously. You realize that the tactical objectives are entirely optional right? You don't even need to buy the stupid cards, just roll a dice. If you would rather not play with them, here it's easy to fix.
"Hey man, I don't wanna play Maelstrom man, I don't like the objectives man, can we play the way we did back in the 90s" (You)
"Sure man, just let me finish playing with those who like to adapt and play something new then I'm all yours" (Adaptive player)
Well, the dice is super tedious and another bad design by Games Workshop, but that's just a minor points.
Rather, it's more because it adds one more layer of a game being a non-starter. If I want to play Eternal War or Alter of War missions, but my opponent wants to play Maelstrom only, well then I guess we don't play. And I like how you snidely insult me. You're a self admitted newbie to this game. I have played in many different scenes, stores, and states for years and played in a great variety of campaigns and tournaments. I also play multiple different games. So I'd say I'm more "adaptive" than a gaming newbie.
Dude why are you complaining? Seriously. You realize that the tactical objectives are entirely optional right? You don't even need to buy the stupid cards, just roll a dice. If you would rather not play with them, here it's easy to fix.
"Hey man, I don't wanna play Maelstrom man, I don't like the objectives man, can we play the way we did back in the 90s" (You)
"Sure man, just let me finish playing with those who like to adapt and play something new then I'm all yours" (Adaptive player)
Well, the dice is super tedious and another bad design by Games Workshop, but that's just a minor points.
Rather, it's more because it adds one more layer of a game being a non-starter. If I want to play Eternal War or Alter of War missions, but my opponent wants to play Maelstrom only, well then I guess we don't play. And I like how you snidely insult me. You're a self admitted newbie to this game. I have played in many different scenes, stores, and states for years and played in a great variety of campaigns and tournaments. I also play multiple different games. So I'd say I'm more "adaptive" than a gaming newbie.
You're really not, based on your comments, you are a hardcore wargaming vet who cannot accept the changes being done to this game. I am new to THIS game. 40k. I have been wargaming much longer than I have been playing 40k, this is a recent thing for me.
I have also been playing other competitive games for over twenty years now. We adapt, or we die off. It is as simple as that.
If you want to continue playing and have a chance against the new wave of players, learn to accept the things you cannot change, grow, evolve. Don't sit there and whine or pout.
I've played in tournaments since 2nd edition, I know their past. GW's minimal "support" of tournament play (now that was a "cash grab") has waxed/waned throughout the years but it's never been reflected in their rules. The words "tournament play" have never been mentioned in a 40K rulebook.
I still can't find where it says, "this is the best way ever to play our game"... and he $8 add-on is totally optional and in no way required.
They still supported it. And Warhammer World is enforcing strict Force Organization requirements for their tournaments today. If "Unbound" was so super fair and balanced, they'd not need to say anything. But you and I both know that's a load of krootox feces.
It's the new hotness. Of course it's the "best way to play our game". And given that they used a terrible design of a d66 (lol,wat) table to "draw" cards, you're stuck adding more time to game prep hucking dice to make missions. So you design something so incredibly tedious and then offer an $8 add-on, and BAM! More sales! Cash grab, more like it. And if the rumors are true about the Orks, then everyone gets cards and new missions! Let's add a deck building game to 40k, now, huzzah!
Still haven't addressed why this is somehow better than asymmetrical design as I have proposed it.
Wouldn't it be in GW's best financial interest to at least throw tournament players a bone seeing as how that's (I assume) a sizable portion of the clientele and does a lot to drum up support and excitement for their product? Or at least not chase tournament type players away?
You're really not, based on your comments, you are a hardcore wargaming vet who cannot accept the changes being done to this game. I am new to THIS game. 40k. I have been wargaming much longer than I have been playing 40k, this is a recent thing for me.
I have also been playing other competitive games for over twenty years now. We adapt, or we die off. It is as simple as that.
If you want to continue playing and have a chance against the new wave of players, learn to accept the things you cannot change, grow, evolve. Don't sit there and whine or pout.
You could be a world champion in 40k for all I care, right now, you're just some old guy who can't let go.
Well, you don't show it. I play multiple games and understand what's good and what's not in a game's design. Random for random-sake is not good game design. There's nothing about being adaptive. The mission set still plays to strong, fast armies versus slow or weaker ones.
You're being completely derogatory, so discuss the matter and not myself. I will refer you to Rule #1.
Edit: And I laughed at "new players" to Warhammer 40k. We'll see how well that idea is working for them in about 3 weeks.
Feels like YMDC all over again. You cannot take out portions of a sentence and try and make it an argument, especially when you are discarding relevant parts that disprove your argument. You cannot achieve zero objectives, you need an actual number, therefore if you cannot achieve an objective, you cannot discard an objective. But this is Dakka and people have different ideas when it comes to interpretation of the English language.
I'm no English expert but I'm pretty sure that's not a mutually exclusive relationship... the number of achieved objectives can be zero, and further look on page 124 in the Tactical Traits and reason #1 "Tactical Genius".
Yeah, this is going to end up just like YMDC, another pointless argument with people looking for loopholes for something they want to do.
That trait does not give you permission to discard whenever you want though, especially as the section explicitly telling you how and when to discard is already mentioned.
I can totally understand your interpretation of this rule but I don't think it is definitive, and I certainly don't think that is the intent, especially given the Warlord Traits "Tactical Genius".
And further - I'd hardly consider it exploiting a loophole for advantage - when it's basically the same as the 'house rule' you suggested. To me the rule reads pretty clear though - you can always discard one (if you have any left).
You're really not, based on your comments, you are a hardcore wargaming vet who cannot accept the changes being done to this game. I am new to THIS game. 40k. I have been wargaming much longer than I have been playing 40k, this is a recent thing for me.
I have also been playing other competitive games for over twenty years now. We adapt, or we die off. It is as simple as that.
If you want to continue playing and have a chance against the new wave of players, learn to accept the things you cannot change, grow, evolve. Don't sit there and whine or pout.
You could be a world champion in 40k for all I care, right now, you're just some old guy who can't let go.
Well, you don't show it. I play multiple games and understand what's good and what's not in a game's design. Random for random-sake is not good game design. There's nothing about being adaptive. The mission set still plays to strong, fast armies versus slow or weaker ones.
So you're being completely derogatory, so either discuss the matter and not myself. I will refer you to Rule #1.
I have been discussing the matter. Dude, you aren't even on topic of the thread. This thread is about why people love 7th. Not why some people have to find issues with every change they experience as if its the end of the world.
You haven't discussed anything positive in fact, you have been negative the entire time.
You lack the ability to adapt. In game design, random is good. It is the only way to ensure true balance between two players because trust me, I've done it in other games, when you take out the random element, you will find players who will find a way to manipulate everything to their advantage.
I just played a game the other day using a friends GW. Took down the Tau player who has reigned supreme for months now at our store, simply through turtling and playing slow. Your analysis of the missions, is wrong.
Now, get back on topic, stop whining and start respecting the tone of the thread that the op was trying to achieve.
You're really not, based on your comments, you are a hardcore wargaming vet who cannot accept the changes being done to this game. I am new to THIS game. 40k. I have been wargaming much longer than I have been playing 40k, this is a recent thing for me.
I have also been playing other competitive games for over twenty years now. We adapt, or we die off. It is as simple as that.
If you want to continue playing and have a chance against the new wave of players, learn to accept the things you cannot change, grow, evolve. Don't sit there and whine or pout.
You could be a world champion in 40k for all I care, right now, you're just some old guy who can't let go.
Well, you don't show it. I play multiple games and understand what's good and what's not in a game's design. Random for random-sake is not good game design. There's nothing about being adaptive. The mission set still plays to strong, fast armies versus slow or weaker ones.
You're being completely derogatory, so discuss the matter and not myself. I will refer you to Rule #1.
Edit: And I laughed at "new players" to Warhammer 40k. We'll see how well that idea is working for them in about 3 weeks.
They're losing money because the die hard players who have been here since 1st and 2nd are unhappy about the changes that have occurred in a game they loved, so they quit, good riddance. Honestly, if you are so unhappy with something that you need to whine about it and quit simply because things aren't the way you like them, you are being nothing more than an immature child.
Things are expensive, that alone stops new players from joining, so what. It won't kill the game, people have been saying that for over ten years. Stocks rise, stocks fall. People will continue to buy and play what they want, that has zero bearing on this thread.
Feels like YMDC all over again. You cannot take out portions of a sentence and try and make it an argument, especially when you are discarding relevant parts that disprove your argument. You cannot achieve zero objectives, you need an actual number, therefore if you cannot achieve an objective, you cannot discard an objective. But this is Dakka and people have different ideas when it comes to interpretation of the English language.
I'm no English expert but I'm pretty sure that's not a mutually exclusive relationship... the number of achieved objectives can be zero, and further look on page 124 in the Tactical Traits and reason #1 "Tactical Genius".
Yeah, this is going to end up just like YMDC, another pointless argument with people looking for loopholes for something they want to do.
That trait does not give you permission to discard whenever you want though, especially as the section explicitly telling you how and when to discard is already mentioned.
I can totally understand your interpretation of this rule but I don't think it is definitive, and I certainly don't think that is the intent, especially given the Warlord Traits "Tactical Genius".
And further - I'd hardly consider it exploiting a loophole for advantage - when it's basically the same as the 'house rule' you suggested. To me the rule reads pretty clear though - you can always discard one (if you have any left).
Except it isn't an interpretation. It is explicit wording telling you when and how you can do something. Any changes to this becomes a house rule, which we all have done from what I can see. It sucks being stuck with something you cannot do. But, following the rules as they are written, you are not allowed to discard simply because you want to.
I have been discussing the matter. Dude, you aren't even on topic of the thread. This thread is about why people love 7th. Not why some people have to find issues with every change they experience as if its the end of the world.
You haven't discussed anything positive in fact, you have been negative the entire time.
You lack the ability to adapt. In game design, random is good. It is the only way to ensure true balance between two players because trust me, I've done it in other games, when you take out the random element, you will find players who will find a way to manipulate everything to their advantage.
I just played a game the other day using a friends GW. Took down the Tau player who has reigned supreme for months now at our store, simply through turtling and playing slow. Your analysis of the missions, is wrong.
Now, get back on topic, stop whining and start respecting the tone of the thread that the op was trying to achieve.
Games Workshop has to give me something to love to be positive. They shuffled the rules around with no reason to it and then charged a higher price.
Again, you don't know me. Discuss the matter. Random for random-sake is not good in a game; unless you're confusing the thought of a random table versus a die roll. Weighted probability is the heart of all war gaming, whatever the RNG means is (dice, cards, etc.). It's how we determine results. Making your warlord or psycher confused each game by which talent is theirs or spell power they now know is not good design. Neither is "ever changing series of events" as that plays well to fast, mobile armies and plays poorly to slower or weaker ones. A pool of fixed objectives that are shared between the players means they can choose their army and then choose which mission suits their over all armies strategy. A slower, tougher army may look for the long haul of holding ground or the midfield; to score objectives every turn. A faster army may lean more towards the traditional means of scoring objectives at the end of the game as they operate on a "snatch and run" motif.
My analysis of the missions are spot on. Tau are not a mobile force and the Maelstrom missions will not play well with them. Their mobile units, like Crisis Suits, Vespids, and Kroot, lack durability to withstand for long portions of the game unless they spam one man units and hope to just hold to gain a card. That's not adaptability, that's just asinine. On the inverse, the Eldar still excel in these missions with their fast, insanely durable tanks. The Necrons also enjoy these missions with their Av13 Wall list, which was solid in 6E and would be stupid in 7E Maelstrom games.
As for the tone, I'll let you know after I play my first game of 7th. It's not different enough from 6th to know I'll not "love" it and I know the Maestrom missions are poorly designed.
And you need to read that full series of articles if you just say "stock rises and stocks fall." It shows your ignorance on the subject matter at hand. We have a 32+ page discussion on the subject on this here site filled with intelligent business types. The same story is being said by many different folks across many different forums and blogs; anyone with business sense knows GW is in a bad position. Whether you like the game or not, this doesn't change the facts of that situation.
MWHistorian wrote: Wouldn't it be in GW's best financial interest to at least throw tournament players a bone seeing as how that's (I assume) a sizable portion of the clientele and does a lot to drum up support and excitement for their product? Or at least not chase tournament type players away?
By GW's behavior and the behavior they are encouraging in their zealots. I would say they don't believe the Tournament players are a significant part of the base. Or in their arrogance they don't believe people will leave. Either way, once the competitive players start to migrate to other games in mass we might see a mad scramble by GW to get them back. Or prove Lobomalo and his ilk correct that they aren't welcome or will be missed.
And they still don't realize that we're saying why we're unsatisfied with the game because the GW defenders keep characterizing the critics and misunderstanding why they have problems.
NOT reasons people complain:
Inability to change
hate 40k WAAC players
A group hive mind and/or conspiracy
I have been discussing the matter. Dude, you aren't even on topic of the thread. This thread is about why people love 7th. Not why some people have to find issues with every change they experience as if its the end of the world.
You haven't discussed anything positive in fact, you have been negative the entire time.
You lack the ability to adapt. In game design, random is good. It is the only way to ensure true balance between two players because trust me, I've done it in other games, when you take out the random element, you will find players who will find a way to manipulate everything to their advantage.
I just played a game the other day using a friends GW. Took down the Tau player who has reigned supreme for months now at our store, simply through turtling and playing slow. Your analysis of the missions, is wrong.
Now, get back on topic, stop whining and start respecting the tone of the thread that the op was trying to achieve.
Games Workshop has to give me something to love to be positive. They shuffled the rules around with no reason to it and then charged a higher price.
Again, you don't know me. Discuss the matter. Random for random-sake is not good in a game; unless you're confusing the thought of a random table versus a die roll. Weighted probability is the heart of all war gaming, whatever the RNG means is (dice, cards, etc.). It's how we determine results. Making your warlord or psycher confused each game by which talent is theirs or spell power they now know is not good design. Neither is "ever changing series of events" as that plays well to fast, mobile armies and plays poorly to slower or weaker ones. A pool of fixed objectives that are shared between the players means they can choose their army and then choose which mission suits their over all armies strategy. A slower, tougher army may look for the long haul of holding ground or the midfield; to score objectives every turn. A faster army may lean more towards the traditional means of scoring objectives at the end of the game as they operate on a "snatch and run" motif.
My analysis of the missions are spot on. Tau are not a mobile force and the Maelstrom missions will not play well with them. Their mobile units, like Crisis Suits, Vespids, and Kroot, lack durability to withstand for long portions of the game unless they spam one man units and hope to just hold to gain a card. That's not adaptability, that's just asinine. On the inverse, the Eldar still excel in these missions with their fast, insanely durable tanks. The Necrons also enjoy these missions with their Av13 Wall list, which was solid in 6E and would be stupid in 7E Maelstrom games.
As for the tone, I'll let you know after I play my first game of 7th. It's not different enough from 6th to know I'll not "love" it and I know the Maestrom missions are poorly designed.
And you need to read that full series of articles if you just say "stock rises and stocks fall." It shows your ignorance on the subject matter at hand. We have a 32+ page discussion on the subject on this here site filled with intelligent business types. The same story is being said by many different folks across many different forums and blogs; anyone with business sense knows GW is in a bad position. Whether you like the game or not, this doesn't change the facts of that situation.
From a business point I'd agree, except I've been playing long enough to see games rise and fall multiple times forcing people to jump ship only to regret it later. It happened with MtG numerous times over the last 15 years or so, yet still they go, strong as ever. The pricing is an issue, no denying that, but this has been an issue for a very very long time.
But look at it another way, who else is making detailed plastic mold models at such a professional level? Forgeworld charges just as much if not more and I've seen the models in other wargames, they aren't half as good in comparison, though I'd make arguments for Warmachine.
Your analysis is based on faulty data if you have yet to play them. Witnessing games being player or talking about them later does not equal actual experience. Play the game, play the new missions and objectives. And not just one or two, give it a few games for a few weeks and then come back. Until then, everything else you say on the subject has no basis and is pointless.
MWHistorian wrote: Wouldn't it be in GW's best financial interest to at least throw tournament players a bone seeing as how that's (I assume) a sizable portion of the clientele and does a lot to drum up support and excitement for their product? Or at least not chase tournament type players away?
By GW's behavior and the behavior they are encouraging in their zealots. I would say they don't believe the Tournament players are a significant part of the base. Or in their arrogance they don't believe people will leave. Either way, once the competitive players start to migrate to other games in mass we might see a mad scramble by GW to get them back. Or prove Lobomalo and his ilk correct that they aren't welcome or will be missed.
Happened in MtG, happened in D&D, not wargames I'll grant, but the games keep running and the veterans do come back. They can't help themselves. Give them enough time, let the tantrums die down and once they accept that it won't go back to the way it was, the whines will become grumbles and they'll crawl back to the shops and try and find that niche they used to fill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: And they still don't realize that we're saying why we're unsatisfied with the game because the GW defenders keep characterizing the critics and misunderstanding why they have problems.
NOT reasons people complain:
Inability to change
hate 40k WAAC players
A group hive mind and/or conspiracy
You would be right if the bulk of the players complaining across multiple forums were not the veterans of the game. From what I can tell, the biggest dissenters have played a minimum since 2nd. Where as people starting in 5th or 6th from what I've seen here, on other forums and in person, are fine with 7th and only miss the brokennes that was the gun line.
From a business point I'd agree, except I've been playing long enough to see games rise and fall multiple times forcing people to jump ship only to regret it later. It happened with MtG numerous times over the last 15 years or so, yet still they go, strong as ever. The pricing is an issue, no denying that, but this has been an issue for a very very long time.
But look at it another way, who else is making detailed plastic mold models at such a professional level? Forgeworld charges just as much if not more and I've seen the models in other wargames, they aren't half as good in comparison, though I'd make arguments for Warmachine.
Your analysis is based on faulty data if you have yet to play them. Witnessing games being player or talking about them later does not equal actual experience. Play the game, play the new missions and objectives. And not just one or two, give it a few games for a few weeks and then come back. Until then, everything else you say on the subject has no basis and is pointless.
You want something positive and we can agree upon? GW models are pretty snazzy, this I agree. There are many from the Fantasy line that I snap up just to paint and display. If that game didn't require a billion troops to make armies, I'd be playing Vampire Counts.
Forgeworld is greatly overpriced. Insanely. What Japan is doing with large, plastic (more durable) fully articulate models is insane. And at 1/8 the cost of Forgeworld. I love me some Forgeworld models. I really, really want a DKoK army full of artillery pieces and tractors. Amazing aesthetic! But the 1850 list I want is also $1,850. Dollar per point. *sigh*
And I will not play Maelstrom of War. It's a common fallacy for one to assume that just because you haven't tried it, doesn't mean you won't like it. If it came up, sure, I might give it a-go, but I won't go out of my way to attempt it. It's random for random-sake and that is the epitome of poor game design. I would first offer my opponent one of the simpler asymmetrical missions proposed at the end of 6E and see if they'd rather do that much simpler, but still tactically satisfying mission type that allows the player to play to the strengths of their strategy versus random nonsense.
From a business point I'd agree, except I've been playing long enough to see games rise and fall multiple times forcing people to jump ship only to regret it later. It happened with MtG numerous times over the last 15 years or so, yet still they go, strong as ever. The pricing is an issue, no denying that, but this has been an issue for a very very long time.
But look at it another way, who else is making detailed plastic mold models at such a professional level? Forgeworld charges just as much if not more and I've seen the models in other wargames, they aren't half as good in comparison, though I'd make arguments for Warmachine.
Your analysis is based on faulty data if you have yet to play them. Witnessing games being player or talking about them later does not equal actual experience. Play the game, play the new missions and objectives. And not just one or two, give it a few games for a few weeks and then come back. Until then, everything else you say on the subject has no basis and is pointless.
You want something positive and we can agree upon? GW models are pretty snazzy, this I agree. There are many from the Fantasy line that I snap up just to paint and display. If that game didn't require a billion troops to make armies, I'd be playing Vampire Counts.
Forgeworld is greatly overpriced. Insanely. What Japan is doing with large, plastic (more durable) fully articulate models is insane. And at 1/8 the cost of Forgeworld. I love me some Forgeworld models. I really, really want a DKoK army full of artillery pieces and tractors. Amazing aesthetic! But the 1850 list I want is also $1,850. Dollar per point. *sigh*
And I will not play Maelstrom of War. It's a common fallacy for one to assume that just because you haven't tried it, doesn't mean you won't like it. If it came up, sure, I might give it a-go, but I won't go out of my way to attempt it. It's random for random-sake and that is the epitome of poor game design. I would first offer my opponent one of the simpler asymmetrical missions proposed at the end of 6E and see if they'd rather do that much simpler, but still tactically satisfying mission type that allows the player to play to the strengths of their strategy versus random nonsense.
Having played both myself, I can actually say for certain how the games play out and no, they don't favor the highly mobile, unless you're playing with Chaos who are simply slow. Eldar do not dominate as others have claimed because, if both players had sense when placing objectives as the game allows you to do, you can make sure to have a balance for both players so the game isn't a scramble. I don't think Maelstrom is good for a PUG, you can't trust people you don't know, they only care about winning. As for your supposed fallacy, I'd agree if I didn't prove people wrong weekly by making them try or do something they don't like to do. It's my job actually as both a teacher and a mentor, I make people try things they think they'll hate and I make them do things they think they won't like. No fallacy, actual real world experience.
Having player Maelstrom with my group, the highly mobile armies are the first to lose as the best strategy for them is always the turtle in the center area of the map, within range of every objective. We actually end up tabling a lot faster in Maelstrom than we ever did in Eternal War as people are now forced to come out and move around the map.
I have been discussing the matter. Dude, you aren't even on topic of the thread. This thread is about why people love 7th. Not why some people have to find issues with every change they experience as if its the end of the world.
You haven't discussed anything positive in fact, you have been negative the entire time.
You lack the ability to adapt. In game design, random is good. It is the only way to ensure true balance between two players because trust me, I've done it in other games, when you take out the random element, you will find players who will find a way to manipulate everything to their advantage.
I just played a game the other day using a friends GW. Took down the Tau player who has reigned supreme for months now at our store, simply through turtling and playing slow. Your analysis of the missions, is wrong.
Now, get back on topic, stop whining and start respecting the tone of the thread that the op was trying to achieve.
Games Workshop has to give me something to love to be positive. They shuffled the rules around with no reason to it and then charged a higher price.
Again, you don't know me. Discuss the matter. Random for random-sake is not good in a game; unless you're confusing the thought of a random table versus a die roll. Weighted probability is the heart of all war gaming, whatever the RNG means is (dice, cards, etc.). It's how we determine results. Making your warlord or psycher confused each game by which talent is theirs or spell power they now know is not good design. Neither is "ever changing series of events" as that plays well to fast, mobile armies and plays poorly to slower or weaker ones. A pool of fixed objectives that are shared between the players means they can choose their army and then choose which mission suits their over all armies strategy. A slower, tougher army may look for the long haul of holding ground or the midfield; to score objectives every turn. A faster army may lean more towards the traditional means of scoring objectives at the end of the game as they operate on a "snatch and run" motif.
My analysis of the missions are spot on. Tau are not a mobile force and the Maelstrom missions will not play well with them. Their mobile units, like Crisis Suits, Vespids, and Kroot, lack durability to withstand for long portions of the game unless they spam one man units and hope to just hold to gain a card. That's not adaptability, that's just asinine. On the inverse, the Eldar still excel in these missions with their fast, insanely durable tanks. The Necrons also enjoy these missions with their Av13 Wall list, which was solid in 6E and would be stupid in 7E Maelstrom games.
As for the tone, I'll let you know after I play my first game of 7th. It's not different enough from 6th to know I'll not "love" it and I know the Maestrom missions are poorly designed.
And you need to read that full series of articles if you just say "stock rises and stocks fall." It shows your ignorance on the subject matter at hand. We have a 32+ page discussion on the subject on this here site filled with intelligent business types. The same story is being said by many different folks across many different forums and blogs; anyone with business sense knows GW is in a bad position. Whether you like the game or not, this doesn't change the facts of that situation.
From a business point I'd agree, except I've been playing long enough to see games rise and fall multiple times forcing people to jump ship only to regret it later. It happened with MtG numerous times over the last 15 years or so, yet still they go, strong as ever. The pricing is an issue, no denying that, but this has been an issue for a very very long time.
But look at it another way, who else is making detailed plastic mold models at such a professional level? Forgeworld charges just as much if not more and I've seen the models in other wargames, they aren't half as good in comparison, though I'd make arguments for Warmachine.
Your analysis is based on faulty data if you have yet to play them. Witnessing games being player or talking about them later does not equal actual experience. Play the game, play the new missions and objectives. And not just one or two, give it a few games for a few weeks and then come back. Until then, everything else you say on the subject has no basis and is pointless.
MWHistorian wrote: Wouldn't it be in GW's best financial interest to at least throw tournament players a bone seeing as how that's (I assume) a sizable portion of the clientele and does a lot to drum up support and excitement for their product? Or at least not chase tournament type players away?
By GW's behavior and the behavior they are encouraging in their zealots. I would say they don't believe the Tournament players are a significant part of the base. Or in their arrogance they don't believe people will leave. Either way, once the competitive players start to migrate to other games in mass we might see a mad scramble by GW to get them back. Or prove Lobomalo and his ilk correct that they aren't welcome or will be missed.
Happened in MtG, happened in D&D, not wargames I'll grant, but the games keep running and the veterans do come back. They can't help themselves. Give them enough time, let the tantrums die down and once they accept that it won't go back to the way it was, the whines will become grumbles and they'll crawl back to the shops and try and find that niche they used to fill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: And they still don't realize that we're saying why we're unsatisfied with the game because the GW defenders keep characterizing the critics and misunderstanding why they have problems.
NOT reasons people complain:
Inability to change
hate 40k WAAC players
A group hive mind and/or conspiracy
You would be right if the bulk of the players complaining across multiple forums were not the veterans of the game. From what I can tell, the biggest dissenters have played a minimum since 2nd. Where as people starting in 5th or 6th from what I've seen here, on other forums and in person, are fine with 7th and only miss the brokennes that was the gun line.
Again with your unnecessary rudeness. Why are you taking critcisms to GW so personally? We aren't throwing tantrums.
What does them being veterans have anything to do with it? Their criticisms are still just as valid. Maybe them being veterans they have more experience into judging what makes a good game or not? So, shouldn't veterans and tournament people be a bad indicator if they same the game sucks? Many times its the veterans that steer new people to the game. If they're steering them away...
Also, with D&D many people left after 4th edition to the point that D&D is having to do a massive reboot just to in the game.
MWHistorian wrote: And they still don't realize that we're saying why we're unsatisfied with the game because the GW defenders keep characterizing the critics and misunderstanding why they have problems.
NOT reasons people complain:
Inability to change
hate 40k WAAC players
A group hive mind and/or conspiracy
It is hard to have a conversation with someone who disrespects you from the beginning. We are nothing more to them than cartoonish villains out to destroy their fun. Because we have that power apparently.
Having played both myself, I can actually say for certain how the games play out and no, they don't favor the highly mobile, unless you're playing with Chaos who are simply slow. Eldar do not dominate as others have claimed because, if both players had sense when placing objectives as the game allows you to do, you can make sure to have a balance for both players so the game isn't a scramble. I don't think Maelstrom is good for a PUG, you can't trust people you don't know, they only care about winning. As for your supposed fallacy, I'd agree if I didn't prove people wrong weekly by making them try or do something they don't like to do. It's my job actually as both a teacher and a mentor, I make people try things they think they'll hate and I make them do things they think they won't like. No fallacy, actual real world experience.
Having player Maelstrom with my group, the highly mobile armies are the first to lose as the best strategy for them is always the turtle in the center area of the map, within range of every objective. We actually end up tabling a lot faster in Maelstrom than we ever did in Eternal War as people are now forced to come out and move around the map.
I'm an engineer, so measurable and distinct are my thought patterns. I do things that have the best and most efficient outcome as trying something just to try it could end in failure (loss of life, equipment, productivity, etc.) Game types in 40k aren't asparagus where you can try it once and move on, I might be forced to sit through those missions if I want to play a game determining on who or where I play. And that's No Bueno. And I care about winning, it's why I play. I'm not "TFG," but 40k is a player vs player game, not an RPG. The rules mention your "opponent." We can play to have fun, goof, but we are both playing to win.
And that just suggest maybe your group isn't playing right. I could very easily bring my standard Eldar list I have planned and probably clean up in Maelstrom simply because it is focused on mobility.
I couldn't care less if you criticism GW actually, I just don't want to read about people whining and complaining. Nobody has time for that really. Especially in a topic talking about the positive things in the game. You want to complain, do it in a complain thread. Also, I have not begun to be rude yet, trust me, you'll know. There will be red markings all over my posts, and as they are not there yet...
Why are you so sensitive about the comments about veteran players? Could it be there is truth to them?
There was a psychological study a while back that focused on peoples reactions to things they heard or read and how their initial reaction, defensive in your case, shows a sensitivity to the subject in question. So, why, as a veteran player are you unhappy? I am giving you free room to complain about everything you see wrong with the game, I will be, for the next hour or so, your therapist, I will help you get to the bottom of your issues with GW and how, you as an individual, as a human being, a rational creature can get over it and learn to deal.
Being a veteran doesn't give you more experience on what makes a game good or not actually. It gives you experience on how things used to be back in the day. People have this insane idea that experience = knowledge and this is simply not the case and is proven every day around the world that just because you have been around longer, it does not mean you know more than others.
Also D&D, I have no idea where you got your info about people leaving, I had more games played when 4th came out than 2nd or 3rd combined.
Having played both myself, I can actually say for certain how the games play out and no, they don't favor the highly mobile, unless you're playing with Chaos who are simply slow. Eldar do not dominate as others have claimed because, if both players had sense when placing objectives as the game allows you to do, you can make sure to have a balance for both players so the game isn't a scramble. I don't think Maelstrom is good for a PUG, you can't trust people you don't know, they only care about winning. As for your supposed fallacy, I'd agree if I didn't prove people wrong weekly by making them try or do something they don't like to do. It's my job actually as both a teacher and a mentor, I make people try things they think they'll hate and I make them do things they think they won't like. No fallacy, actual real world experience.
Having player Maelstrom with my group, the highly mobile armies are the first to lose as the best strategy for them is always the turtle in the center area of the map, within range of every objective. We actually end up tabling a lot faster in Maelstrom than we ever did in Eternal War as people are now forced to come out and move around the map.
I'm an engineer, so measurable and distinct are my thought patterns. I do things that have the best and most efficient outcome as trying something just to try it could end in failure (loss of life, equipment, productivity, etc.) Game types in 40k aren't asparagus where you can try it once and move on, I might be forced to sit through those missions if I want to play a game determining on who or where I play. And that's No Bueno. And I care about winning, it's why I play. I'm not "TFG," but 40k is a player vs player game, not an RPG. The rules mention your "opponent." We can play to have fun, goof, but we are both playing to win.
And that just suggest maybe your group isn't playing right. I could very easily bring my standard Eldar list I have planned and probably clean up in Maelstrom simply because it is focused on mobility.
Please tell me you live in the vicinity of Southern California because I will drop everything just to prove you wrong. As an engineer, randomness isn't part of your cognitive thought, you'll never accept something unless it linear, written out for you and inarguable in any way. There is no point trying to convince you because you already have your mind made up. It's like arguing with a mathematician, they just don't get it, too literal and no grasp on things that don't conform to rules and expectations. Not an insult, just an observation from others I work with on occasion, both engineers and mathematicians.
Lobomalo wrote: I couldn't care less if you criticism GW actually, I just don't want to read about people whining and complaining. Nobody has time for that really. Especially in a topic talking about the positive things in the game. You want to complain, do it in a complain thread. Also, I have not begun to be rude yet, trust me, you'll know. There will be red markings all over my posts, and as they are not there yet...
Why are you so sensitive about the comments about veteran players? Could it be there is truth to them?
There was a psychological study a while back that focused on peoples reactions to things they heard or read and how their initial reaction, defensive in your case, shows a sensitivity to the subject in question. So, why, as a veteran player are you unhappy? I am giving you free room to complain about everything you see wrong with the game, I will be, for the next hour or so, your therapist, I will help you get to the bottom of your issues with GW and how, you as an individual, as a human being, a rational creature can get over it and learn to deal.
Being a veteran doesn't give you more experience on what makes a game good or not actually. It gives you experience on how things used to be back in the day. People have this insane idea that experience = knowledge and this is simply not the case and is proven every day around the world that just because you have been around longer, it does not mean you know more than others.
Also D&D, I have no idea where you got your info about people leaving, I had more games played when 4th came out than 2nd or 3rd combined.
Having played both myself, I can actually say for certain how the games play out and no, they don't favor the highly mobile, unless you're playing with Chaos who are simply slow. Eldar do not dominate as others have claimed because, if both players had sense when placing objectives as the game allows you to do, you can make sure to have a balance for both players so the game isn't a scramble. I don't think Maelstrom is good for a PUG, you can't trust people you don't know, they only care about winning. As for your supposed fallacy, I'd agree if I didn't prove people wrong weekly by making them try or do something they don't like to do. It's my job actually as both a teacher and a mentor, I make people try things they think they'll hate and I make them do things they think they won't like. No fallacy, actual real world experience.
Having player Maelstrom with my group, the highly mobile armies are the first to lose as the best strategy for them is always the turtle in the center area of the map, within range of every objective. We actually end up tabling a lot faster in Maelstrom than we ever did in Eternal War as people are now forced to come out and move around the map.
I'm an engineer, so measurable and distinct are my thought patterns. I do things that have the best and most efficient outcome as trying something just to try it could end in failure (loss of life, equipment, productivity, etc.) Game types in 40k aren't asparagus where you can try it once and move on, I might be forced to sit through those missions if I want to play a game determining on who or where I play. And that's No Bueno. And I care about winning, it's why I play. I'm not "TFG," but 40k is a player vs player game, not an RPG. The rules mention your "opponent." We can play to have fun, goof, but we are both playing to win.
And that just suggest maybe your group isn't playing right. I could very easily bring my standard Eldar list I have planned and probably clean up in Maelstrom simply because it is focused on mobility.
Please tell me you live in the vicinity of Southern California because I will drop everything just to prove you wrong. As an engineer, randomness isn't part of your cognitive thought, you'll never accept something unless it linear, written out for you and inarguable in any way. There is no point trying to convince you because you already have your mind made up. It's like arguing with a mathematician, they just don't get it, too literal and no grasp on things that don't conform to rules and expectations. Not an insult, just an observation from others I work with on occasion, both engineers and mathematicians.
You're very condescending to anyone you don't agree with.
I was respectful and despite pointing out your rudeness you decide to brag about it. I'm putting you on ignore. Life's too short to deal with condescending rude people that don't take time to understand the other person's argument.
You're very condescending to anyone you don't agree with.
Yes, quite so.
I can enjoy narrative, bad games, and non-linear elements. Again, I play other games, including Malifaux, which does asymmetrical design better. But saying randomness is good is like saying you can apply tactical skill to chutes and ladders. The more you take elements away from a player in a game billed as a strategic wargame, the less it becomes one.
And there is nothing to prove wrong unless you want to play Maelstrom missions until we finally get a game where either you or I crush one another or we house rule the game to make sure that doesn't happen. And if we house rule it, I still bring back to the point on why are we house ruling an $85 game, which has yet to be addressed.
Or if you wanna play Malifaux, which then that's cool. Or Infinity. Or Warmachine. Then we can probably have fun.
This has degenerated into something stupid... but I'll just say this, having played this game since RT (and I was also once an Engineer for the record) - this edition has to be played in order to really know.
The scoring alone, even if you skip the MoW missions, totally changes everything.
Gunzhard wrote: This has degenerated into something stupid... but I'll just say this, having played this game since RT (and I was also once an Engineer for the record) - this edition has to be played in order to really know.
The scoring alone, even if you skip the MoW missions, totally changes everything.
Yes, I know the scoring is a good change. If you have played the missions I have been talking about it that were developed in 6E, they included that very element; scoring at the end of a player and/or game turn versus game end. It's something found in many other miniatures games. I do agree that's a great element. The random card element is not.
I have a feeling we're both on the same page, it's just how you get there. I played it as a controlled variable designed for a level playing field. I am assuming, and could be wrong, that you and others first taste of this style of play is on the random side of the house.
I would purely suggest looking up those missions or just simply giving your opponent a choice... play with 5 standard objectives, one in each deployment zone, 3 in no-man's land, and give the player the decision, before the game starts, to determine how he'd like to score them. Either every player turn for 1pts or end of game for 3pts, per the normal. Then allow a player to escalate one of the secondaries, making either slay the warlord or linebreaker worth 2 pts, and delete first blood since it's broken. Give that a-go. Your game will be simplified, it will be shorter, and it gives an asymmetrical means to play the game. That's a simplification of the rules, but the packets and pdfs are floating around if you want to find them.
I do like that Games Workshop is trying new game design, but instead of making great missions to include in the core rules, or provide them for free as incentive to play they game, they tack on bloated tables and sell you cards. Well I'm already once bitten, twice shy on the concept of cards because my psychic deck, now maybe a year old if that, is worthless. And I don't find rolling many times on a d66 table that enticing of a mechanic.
Gunzhard wrote: This has degenerated into something stupid... but I'll just say this, having played this game since RT (and I was also once an Engineer for the record) - this edition has to be played in order to really know.
The scoring alone, even if you skip the MoW missions, totally changes everything.
Yes, I know the scoring is a good change. If you have played the missions I have been talking about it that were developed in 6E, they included that very element; scoring at the end of a player and/or game turn versus game end. It's something found in many other miniatures games. I do agree that's a great element. The random card element is not.
I have a feeling we're both on the same page, it's just how you get there. I played it as a controlled variable designed for a level playing field. I am assuming, and could be wrong, that you and others first taste of this style of play is on the random side of the house.
I would purely suggest looking up those missions or just simply giving your opponent a choice... play with 5 standard objectives, one in each deployment zone, 3 in no-man's land, and give the player the decision, before the game starts, to determine how he'd like to score them. Either every player turn for 1pts or end of game for 3pts, per the normal. Then allow a player to escalate one of the secondaries, making either slay the warlord or linebreaker worth 2 pts, and delete first blood since it's broken. Give that a-go. Your game will be simplified, it will be shorter, and it gives an asymmetrical means to play the game. That's a simplification of the rules, but the packets and pdfs are floating around if you want to find them.
Did this one before Maelstrom missions and while it is still fun, it works even better for turtle armies in all honesty, well when you're not playing against gun lines. Gun lines excel here as they can simply not make an actual engagement and still win. Both have their merits, the tactical objectives add more of a challenge t the game though. For example, you hold 3 objectives on your side and I have 3 on mine, playing Eternal War style, there is no real benefit to actually moving from these objectives. The cards can force players to move around and secure other objectives, to actually go after an opponent.
I've noticed that even with Eternal War, you've still home brewed a lot of the rules which begs the question, why are you paying money for a game in which you change the rules to fit how you want to play.
Considering Maelstrom missions also contain the secondary objectives in them as well, what difficulty is there in transitioning over, besides your hatred for randomness?
Which begs another question, if you hate randomness so much, why play a game that boils down to pure dice rolls. Especially as you play Eldar.
Gunzhard wrote: This has degenerated into something stupid... but I'll just say this, having played this game since RT (and I was also once an Engineer for the record) - this edition has to be played in order to really know.
The scoring alone, even if you skip the MoW missions, totally changes everything.
Yes, I know the scoring is a good change. If you have played the missions I have been talking about it that were developed in 6E, they included that very element; scoring at the end of a player and/or game turn versus game end. It's something found in many other miniatures games. I do agree that's a great element. The random card element is not.
I have a feeling we're both on the same page, it's just how you get there. I played it as a controlled variable designed for a level playing field. I am assuming, and could be wrong, that you and others first taste of this style of play is on the random side of the house.
I would purely suggest looking up those missions or just simply giving your opponent a choice... play with 5 standard objectives, one in each deployment zone, 3 in no-man's land, and give the player the decision, before the game starts, to determine how he'd like to score them. Either every player turn for 1pts or end of game for 3pts, per the normal. Then allow a player to escalate one of the secondaries, making either slay the warlord or linebreaker worth 2 pts, and delete first blood since it's broken. Give that a-go. Your game will be simplified, it will be shorter, and it gives an asymmetrical means to play the game. That's a simplification of the rules, but the packets and pdfs are floating around if you want to find them.
I would certainly enjoy that type of game, and I'd be open to try it; I've also played the MoW missions repeatedly and they have become an overwhelming favorite in our group.
But when I talk about scoring - I mean the units that can now score (pretty much every unit) - which totally changes the game, as does the Physic Phase which has also been fun, and many other small details. And you know dude - I have to say, I know very few Engineers that draw absolute conclusions without any personally experience (data), but then I've been out of the field for a while.
Gunzhard wrote: This has degenerated into something stupid... but I'll just say this, having played this game since RT (and I was also once an Engineer for the record) - this edition has to be played in order to really know.
The scoring alone, even if you skip the MoW missions, totally changes everything.
Yes, I know the scoring is a good change. If you have played the missions I have been talking about it that were developed in 6E, they included that very element; scoring at the end of a player and/or game turn versus game end. It's something found in many other miniatures games. I do agree that's a great element. The random card element is not.
I have a feeling we're both on the same page, it's just how you get there. I played it as a controlled variable designed for a level playing field. I am assuming, and could be wrong, that you and others first taste of this style of play is on the random side of the house.
I would purely suggest looking up those missions or just simply giving your opponent a choice... play with 5 standard objectives, one in each deployment zone, 3 in no-man's land, and give the player the decision, before the game starts, to determine how he'd like to score them. Either every player turn for 1pts or end of game for 3pts, per the normal. Then allow a player to escalate one of the secondaries, making either slay the warlord or linebreaker worth 2 pts, and delete first blood since it's broken. Give that a-go. Your game will be simplified, it will be shorter, and it gives an asymmetrical means to play the game. That's a simplification of the rules, but the packets and pdfs are floating around if you want to find them.
I would certainly enjoy that type of game, and I'd be open to try it; I've also played the MoW missions repeatedly and they have become an overwhelming favorite in our group.
But when I talk about scoring - I mean the units that can now score (pretty much every unit) - which totally changes the game, as does the Physic Phase which has also been fun, and many other small details. And you know dude - I have to say, I know very few Engineers that draw absolute conclusions without any personally experience (data), but then I've been out of the field for a while.
Drawing any conclusions without supportive data isn't backed in any field tbh.
I would certainly enjoy that type of game, and I'd be open to try it; I've also played the MoW missions repeatedly and they have become an overwhelming favorite in our group.
But when I talk about scoring - I mean the units that can now score (pretty much every unit) - which totally changes the game, as does the Physic Phase which has also been fun, and many other small details. And you know dude - I have to say, I know very few Engineers that draw absolute conclusions without any personally experience (data), but then I've been out of the field for a while.
I will probably like the scoring change, too. Maybe not so much vehicles as I remember what that was like in 5th,... but it certainly gives gravitas to each unit, making them all a little bit better. Everything is scoring in many other games, too, and then they have a weight towards some units to be "super scoring." I think that was a solid, but expected change to the game.
And I do have data as I've read plenty of battle reports, including folks in here. I can read between the "I love this" and "I dislike this" to see the trend, the cards dictate the outcome far more than I'd like. And if you don't house rule them, a bad first hand can make for a completely uneven and not fun game. Plus, I know from my previous data, that random for random-sake is not fun. So don't think I'm just looking at it and say "Nay, good sir!" And would I rather take several hours to play a MoW mission or knock out three Infinity games? I'll go with the latter.
I would certainly enjoy that type of game, and I'd be open to try it; I've also played the MoW missions repeatedly and they have become an overwhelming favorite in our group.
But when I talk about scoring - I mean the units that can now score (pretty much every unit) - which totally changes the game, as does the Physic Phase which has also been fun, and many other small details. And you know dude - I have to say, I know very few Engineers that draw absolute conclusions without any personally experience (data), but then I've been out of the field for a while.
I will probably like the scoring change, too. Maybe not so much vehicles as I remember what that was like in 5th,... but it certainly gives gravitas to each unit, making them all a little bit better. Everything is scoring in many other games, too, and then they have a weight towards some units to be "super scoring." I think that was a solid, but expected change to the game.
And I do have data as I've read plenty of battle reports, including folks in here. I can read between the "I love this" and "I dislike this" to see the trend, the cards dictate the outcome far more than I'd like. And if you don't house rule them, a bad first hand can make for a completely uneven and not fun game. Plus, I know from my previous data, that random for random-sake is not fun. So don't think I'm just looking at it and say "Nay, good sir!" And would I rather take several hours to play a MoW mission or knock out three Infinity games? I'll go with the latter.
What you have is nothing more than a group of opinions, a polling if you would and nothing more. Random adds an element of danger and change to the dynamic of any game and this makes it that much more interesting. There are those who do not like random and this is okay, but realistically, without randomness in a game, it becomes stale and predictable.
The cards prevent cheese armies from dominating the game as is done so often in EW
Did this one before Maelstrom missions and while it is still fun, it works even better for turtle armies in all honesty, well when you're not playing against gun lines. Gun lines excel here as they can simply not make an actual engagement and still win. Both have their merits, the tactical objectives add more of a challenge t the game though. For example, you hold 3 objectives on your side and I have 3 on mine, playing Eternal War style, there is no real benefit to actually moving from these objectives. The cards can force players to move around and secure other objectives, to actually go after an opponent.
I've noticed that even with Eternal War, you've still home brewed a lot of the rules which begs the question, why are you paying money for a game in which you change the rules to fit how you want to play.
Considering Maelstrom missions also contain the secondary objectives in them as well, what difficulty is there in transitioning over, besides your hatred for randomness?
Which begs another question, if you hate randomness so much, why play a game that boils down to pure dice rolls. Especially as you play Eldar.
I agree that the Eternal War missions are equally bad. Hence many tournaments made their own or developed a circuit set of missions. Feast of Blades still used book missions, and while I love those dudes, I don't much care for that choice. Asymmetrical seems to be the new hotness or perfect symmetrical. Meaning either give players a wider range of freedom of choice in the game they play (Malifaux) or lock down a very well defined arena to hold the fight (Warmachine Steamroller Missions). The waffling of GW in between with their missions is where it falls apart.
I am not paying money for the game right now. You are correct in that assertion. The secondary objectives are too minuscule, hence the escalation sense, and first blood is routinely a game decider when a natural conclusion can and should be a draw. Winning because you went first or seized the initiative isn't rewarding. I have not seen anyone happy about winning a game because of first blood.
Because dice rules, as stated previously, are a system of weighted probability reinforced with a RNG. It's a controlled means to have a sense influence on actions that would otherwise be random. The game also still includes absolutes. A weapon that is range 24" will never hit a model 24"+ away. You still have plenty of control over that. Versus something like the Warp Storm table, which can go from hard swings of winning or losing a game for daemons players or just being a tepid breeze. It's why a great deal of them include Fateweaver in their army lists to give a better probability to controlling it.
And to date, I have not started my Eldar. It's still in boxes. I was excited to build them as they are a painters army (and I hobby lots, check my gallery!), but I have no interest in getting the "Oh, Eldar... *sigh + eye roll*" that is the usual response to our pointy eared friends. My list has strong units it, but I have nothing over 2 of anything save 3 man jet bike squads.
Again I really don't think that 'house rule' is necessary, the rules already cover that ...but I'm not going to keep repeating myself, just read back a bit.
Our experience, playing many games so far (I have pictures from several different days in my blog and many more to put up) have not been these hypothetical horror stories the internets have dreamed up. Maybe we've just been lucky so far...
I also play and love Infinity (Haqqislam)... but so far 7th ed has been too much fun to put down.
Gunzhard wrote: Again I really don't think that 'house rule' is necessary, the rules already cover that ...but I'm not going to keep repeating myself, just read back a bit.
Our experience, playing many games so far (I have pictures from several different days in my blog and many more to put up) have not been these hypothetical horror stories the internets have dreamed up. Maybe we've just been lucky so far...
I also play and love Infinity (Haqqislam)... but so far 7th ed has been too much fun to put down.
I know you can discard one card per turn, but if you get a hand of cards that you literally cannot perform, then you are at a severe disadvantage as you can only cycle one per turn AND you cannot cycle them faster by achieving them.
And please don't dismiss them as "dreamed up" unless you consider all the stories here and other places as all equally made up and the only valid response is what you see and experience. Which we know is not the case, otherwise we wouldn't have an education system anywhere. I will gladly let the community work out the kinks and then purchase a means of rules when Games Workshop gets smart and stop charging far too much something that requires an associates in games design, minimum, to correct. I would rather spend my dollars on games and models where there are not rules disputes.
Gunzhard wrote: Again I really don't think that 'house rule' is necessary, the rules already cover that ...but I'm not going to keep repeating myself, just read back a bit.
Our experience, playing many games so far (I have pictures from several different days in my blog and many more to put up) have not been these hypothetical horror stories the internets have dreamed up. Maybe we've just been lucky so far...
I also play and love Infinity (Haqqislam)... but so far 7th ed has been too much fun to put down.
I know you can discard one card per turn, but if you get a hand of cards that you literally cannot perform, then you are at a severe disadvantage as you can only cycle one per turn AND you cannot cycle them faster by achieving them.
And please don't dismiss them as "dreamed up" unless you consider all the stories here and other places as all equally made up and the only valid response is what you see and experience. Which we know is not the case, otherwise we wouldn't have an education system anywhere. I will gladly let the community work out the kinks and then purchase a means of rules when Games Workshop gets smart and stop charging far too much something that requires an associates in games design, minimum, to correct. I would rather spend my dollars on games and models where there are not rules disputes.
Ok first, are you saying you consider Dakka an accurate data pool (for anything lol)? ...where are these batreps?
This "cannon perform" idea doesn't make any sense to me, you are still trying to kill, outmaneuver, and contest your opponent. You can still go for 'slay the warlord' and 'first blood' etc... or just win by a 'wipe-out' while your opponent spreads himself to grab objectives. I've yet to experience this drastic advantage/disadvantage. Sometimes you don't get everything you want - but it usually works out pretty fairly. Anyway you don't even plan to try so I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time here.
Its funny I been wargaming since the late 60's (started very young but my local library had books from Grant and Featherstone). The game is not as random as people claim (you do have to think differently). Used to play Piquet for historical wargames which people cried it was to random due to the use of cards to determine what phase and what player could move. (in theory and it did happen you cold move a unit multiple times and shoot before the other side did).
Well the same people won all of the time in that game.
This is a big change and those that want precise measurement are out of luck with this version. I have also played at least 80 different rule types and read many others. Playtested a dozen so maybe I can call myself an expert like you as my experience is the same. (now we have the old court case with experts contradicting themselves.)
No ones ever talks about denying the otherside victory points so if you have a bad hand you need to stop your opponent. These types of cards go back to the 50's.
I dislike games like Malifaux as it is to much like magic with buffing cards and warmachine are exactly like the old historical ironclad games and Starfleet games. (ships on land).
So I guess we can disagree but those with more open minds and who can think on their feet (does not mean your main plan is not followed just tweeked) will win in this edition.
Ok first, are you saying you consider Dakka an accurate data pool (for anything lol)? ...where are these batreps?
This "cannon perform" idea doesn't make any sense to me, you are still trying to kill, outmaneuver, and contest your opponent. You can still go for 'slay the warlord' and 'first blood' etc... or just win by a 'wipe-out' while your opponent spreads himself to grab objectives. I've yet to experience this drastic advantage/disadvantage. Sometimes you don't get everything you want - but it usually works out pretty fairly. Anyway you don't even plan to try so I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time here.
So your logic is then to dismiss every argument, those on Dakka and other sites, both for and against Maelstrom of War, let alone other topics? Well, then there's no point in talking as you seem to have fallen into the trap that you can't trust or learn anything from anyone else. Or that everyone is making up everything.
Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't negate that it exists. Or that knowledge thus far dictates that the cards determine the game. So your solution is for me to play a statistical significant number of games myself to determine whether or not a mechanic is good, yes? Right, that's smart.
But sure, let's throw out all reason in discussion, you're right.
So I guess we can disagree but those with more open minds and who can think on their feet (does not mean your main plan is not followed just tweeked) will win in this edition.
I can respect your opinion on the other games, but I don't see pure random chance as "thinking on your toes."
Ok first, are you saying you consider Dakka an accurate data pool (for anything lol)? ...where are these batreps?
This "cannon perform" idea doesn't make any sense to me, you are still trying to kill, outmaneuver, and contest your opponent. You can still go for 'slay the warlord' and 'first blood' etc... or just win by a 'wipe-out' while your opponent spreads himself to grab objectives. I've yet to experience this drastic advantage/disadvantage. Sometimes you don't get everything you want - but it usually works out pretty fairly. Anyway you don't even plan to try so I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time here.
So your logic is then to dismiss every argument, those on Dakka and other sites, both for and against Maelstrom of War, let alone other topics? Well, then there's no point in talking as you seem to have fallen into the trap that you can't trust or learn anything from anyone else. Or that everyone is making up everything.
Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't negate that it exists. Or that knowledge thus far dictates that the cards determine the game. So your solution is for me to play a statistical significant number of games myself to determine whether or not a mechanic is good, yes? Right, that's smart.
But sure, let's throw out all reason in discussion, you're right.
So I guess we can disagree but those with more open minds and who can think on their feet (does not mean your main plan is not followed just tweeked) will win in this edition.
I can respect your opinion on the other games, but I don't see pure random chance as "thinking on your toes."
Your first premise is wrong. Cards are not determining the game, how a player reacts to them does.
Your second premise is also flawed. You cannot learn anything from a gaming forum, people use them to vent and spout their own brand of truth and vehemently fight against anyone who brings something positive or logic to any discussion, as is the case with Dakka.
Your third premise is also mistaken as well, you cannot have accurate data without actually going and collecting it, meaning, you cannot say Maelstrom is bad without first trying it, you also have no basis in condemning it based on opinions gather in a forum. There are reasons why the cards are back order for the next month, literally, we cannot buy more until late July. People like them, otherwise they would not buy them as you really do not need them to play the new objectives
Ok first, are you saying you consider Dakka an accurate data pool (for anything lol)? ...where are these batreps?
This "cannon perform" idea doesn't make any sense to me, you are still trying to kill, outmaneuver, and contest your opponent. You can still go for 'slay the warlord' and 'first blood' etc... or just win by a 'wipe-out' while your opponent spreads himself to grab objectives. I've yet to experience this drastic advantage/disadvantage. Sometimes you don't get everything you want - but it usually works out pretty fairly. Anyway you don't even plan to try so I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time here.
So your logic is then to dismiss every argument, those on Dakka and other sites, both for and against Maelstrom of War, let alone other topics? Well, then there's no point in talking as you seem to have fallen into the trap that you can't trust or learn anything from anyone else. Or that everyone is making up everything.
Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't negate that it exists. Or that knowledge thus far dictates that the cards determine the game. So your solution is for me to play a statistical significant number of games myself to determine whether or not a mechanic is good, yes? Right, that's smart.
But sure, let's throw out all reason in discussion, you're right.
Dismiss every argument? ...whoa now don't put words in my mouth. Realistically now, as Engineer, do you have any idea sort of who/what exactly makes up the Dakka population? ...what percentage of casual onlookers, hard core tournament types, hard core casual gamers, very young kids, stubborn old farts, people that are actually playing, people that have an opinion without any experience... I'm not dismissing any argument - but given that I cannot get any sort of accurate estimate of the data - I choose to at least try for myself. You don't - cool, we are done.
And for the record - Yes, I do think it's smart to play a bunch of games to really know for yourself.
Hopefully we are not using any equipment he developed in his career because once it is designed and made if people have an opinion on it he would never have it use it himself.
As for the random cards you know what is in the deck and can plan for it.
Wow. I came to read this thread to see why everyone loves the new edition just as much as I do. In return, I've just read through 7 pages of complete crap. Seriously guys, this is why I stopped reading 40k forums...
Greggy wrote: Wow. I came to read this thread to see why everyone loves the new edition just as much as I do.
Welcome to Dakka, a forum that *isn't* an echo chamber - enjoy your stay!
Hah I was gonna let this go, but the irony... "that *isn't* an echo chamber", says the guy not playing the game for himself but just echoing the stuff other kids are complaining about on the forum hahaha. I needed that, thank you sir.
Greggy wrote: Wow. I came to read this thread to see why everyone loves the new edition just as much as I do.
Welcome to Dakka, a forum that *isn't* an echo chamber - enjoy your stay!
Hah I was gonna let this go, but the irony... "that *isn't* an echo chamber", says the guy not playing the game for himself but just echoing the stuff other kids are complaining about on the forum hahaha. I needed that, thank you sir.
Because we're intelligent beings capable of rational thought, have a reading comprehension higher then that of Games Workshop's writing ability level, and don't particularly care for $85 rule sets?
I dunno, seems like a sound and reasonable thing to consider. Or just label us as 'Whingers and Moaners™' and move on (not implying you are, just the vast majority of people who can't fathom why someone would ever disagree with the great and powerful Gee Dubyah).
Greggy wrote: Wow. I came to read this thread to see why everyone loves the new edition just as much as I do.
Welcome to Dakka, a forum that *isn't* an echo chamber - enjoy your stay!
Hah I was gonna let this go, but the irony... "that *isn't* an echo chamber", says the guy not playing the game for himself but just echoing the stuff other kids are complaining about on the forum hahaha. I needed that, thank you sir.
Because we're intelligent beings capable of rational thought, have a reading comprehension higher then that of Games Workshop's writing ability level, and don't particularly care for $85 rule sets?
I dunno, seems like a sound and reasonable thing to consider. Or just label us as 'Whingers and Moaners™' and move on (not implying you are, just the vast majority of people who can't fathom why someone would ever disagree with the great and powerful Gee Dubyah).
*reading comprehension higher *than* that of Games Workshop...*
Greggy wrote: Wow. I came to read this thread to see why everyone loves the new edition just as much as I do. In return, I've just read through 7 pages of complete crap. Seriously guys, this is why I stopped reading 40k forums...
Greggy wrote: Wow. I came to read this thread to see why everyone loves the new edition just as much as I do. In return, I've just read through 7 pages of complete crap. Seriously guys, this is why I stopped reading 40k forums...
Forums are good for all kinds of reasons. One of them is finding resources to learn and make up your own mind. =)
Good article! But sadly I think the author missed the part where you can't hide models from barrage anymore, thus Thunderfire Cannons and Wyverns could rock such a strategy. But I loved what I believe was called "Beta Strike" by the end of 5th edition, or the full reserve versus nonsense like Dark Eldar who won the roll to go first.
Greggy wrote: Wow. I came to read this thread to see why everyone loves the new edition just as much as I do. In return, I've just read through 7 pages of complete crap. Seriously guys, this is why I stopped reading 40k forums...
The disaffected usually start to move in by page two or three, they can't let an "I like 40k" post go unanswered. Anyway, I'm just happy that one of my threads made 10 pages, even if most of it is moaning. Woot!
It i s a natural human reaction to dislike that which different , and the reaction is the stronger the more the same both parties are. That is why civil wars are always the bloodiest and splits between factions of same groups are always so rough.
Actually I find that the conflict gets worse when personal attacks are incorporated into the discussion. Not directly most times but snide/snarky posts just escalates quickly.
milkboy wrote: Actually I find that the conflict gets worse when personal attacks are incorporated into the discussion. Not directly most times but snide/snarky posts just escalates quickly.
Well, yes. As a prime example, dismissing different opinions to your own as 'whining' is fairly guaranteed to send a thread downhill.
Either way, this thread seems to have run it's course, and is turning into a less civil version of the GW can't win thread, so I think we're done here.
ing little bit. 
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
