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

 MWHistorian wrote:

tenebre wrote:
love them. We find it makes the game much more strategic and forces us to use our armies in a different way each time.

We also do mulligans for impossible cards.

Strategic means an overall plan for the whole battle. You're thinking tactical. There is no strategy if all you do is react to a new random event each turn.


adjective: strategic

relating to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of achieving them.

i know what strategic means. And i stand by it. planning for the unknown is the most important part of any strategy. All the possible objectives are known (they really are not that varied) therefore you must plan to be able to achieve any of them.

So your strategy is to not know what is going to happen?

Yes, every game.

The only modification we use is you discard and redraw cards that are actually impossible (eg kill an enemy psyker when there never were any).

Maelstrom is the best thing to happen to 40k in 15 years. It mechanically punishes static gunlines who only want to play a game of rolling dice.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
It mechanically punishes static gunlines who only want to play a game of rolling dice.

That has been touted, but in practice we have been finding that to be a really debatable point. Gunlines can still totally lock down all the objectives on their side of the board, requiring the attacking player to go on suicide missions to have any hope of scoring. They also have a much better chance of getting the "destroy an enemy unit" objectives (whereas the "destroy an enemy unit by assaulting" is still very difficult for an assault-based army, just by virtue of this being a shooty edition). And of course, if all else fails they can just table you.

Maelstrom missions are just GWs lazy way of attempting asymmetrical mission design that other games and third parties in the 40k community have done better. Its to up sell another $10 bolt on and then faction specific bolt one afterwards; marketing through mission design. They could then release a book update and invalidate your old cards making you buy more.I can't see why folks would want to buy into that conceptbif they want an actual wargame versus "Force the Narrative" GW random nonsense.

Don't get the hate on gun line armies. They fit the fluff of several factions and are mitigated with proper terrain usage, as was the answer in editions prior. Guard, Tau, and Marines all have gun line fluff built in. I don't see a reason for invalidation of someone's chosen play style.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
It mechanically punishes static gunlines who only want to play a game of rolling dice.

That has been touted, but in practice we have been finding that to be a really debatable point. Gunlines can still totally lock down all the objectives on their side of the board, requiring the attacking player to go on suicide missions to have any hope of scoring. They also have a much better chance of getting the "destroy an enemy unit" objectives (whereas the "destroy an enemy unit by assaulting" is still very difficult for an assault-based army, just by virtue of this being a shooty edition). And of course, if all else fails they can just table you.

This only happens with the typical wasteland plains of the savannah terrain setup (which i see every time i go into a store on at least one table). If you use a city based setup like most stories portray which lots of terrain, full on gun-line armies cant win at all.They simply cant see enough of the enemy to do enough damage to win and aren't mobile enough to capture any objectives.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Not to be nitpicky or anything, but if so many people like the Maelstrom missions then why do people need to house rule in mulligans?

The system already has a way to cycle cards and even warlord traits based around cycling cards. If you're changing it to just the easy points, then it really eliminates the point of the cards.

Basically why even use the cards? Has anyone tried just playing the 6th ed style games with objective scoring each turn? You have the Big Guns and Scouring for earning extra points killing things and a few warlord traits for earning points in challenges I believe. If people suggest just milling through cards until you get something you can use, then you're ignoring the actual mechanics built into that system.

I don't believe anyone said they were discarding for easy cards - the common sense approach to Maelstrom is to discard impossible cards: e.g. Cast a psychic power when you're Tau.

And yes, I've played live scoring objectives, and it's fun as well. I enjoy Maelstrom more though. I wouldn't throw out a whole set of missions just because they require a simple house rule. Do you play your AoW games with mysterious objectives?

Maelstrom missions were a very good attempt at shaking the game up and making it more dynamic. They force you to move inefficiently and dont let you castle up, favoring mobility and durability over massive firepower. IMO this is a good thing for the game.

They are however, incredibly random and can easily give an advantage to one player who gets a lucky draw. This of course means, you never know how the game will end, since someone can easily make a comeback with some good draws.


I like them overall. They do need tweaks though for everyday play. The mandatory "throw it out if you cant do it" is a must.

It also works well if you combine with the old Eternal War missions and remove cards based on what your doing. Example being: Your playing Purge the Alien, so you discard all cards that have to do with killing units (since you should be doing that anyway) and only leave the capture objective, challenge, and placement cards.

I'm not playing them currently. I really didn't want to buy more cards after spending $85 on a new rule book.

 Thokt wrote:

I don't believe anyone said they were discarding for easy cards - the common sense approach to Maelstrom is to discard impossible cards: e.g. Cast a psychic power when you're Tau.

As I stated, there is already a mechanic they built in to discard cards. Discarding anything outside of this just defeats the entire purpose of that mechanic and a few warlord traits.
I've said it before that using playing cards and counting points up for each objective is a much more balanced and easier way to play.
No, it doesn't make sense that an objective is to cast a psychic power if your Tau. It doesn't make sense for anyone, since not every army will or should have to include psykers. So really why would they put that, the flyer, the building, and a few other choice cards into the huge pile?
Why not just have all those options and have people make a deck of about 15?

Do you play your AoW games with mysterious objectives?

We did. Then the entire idea of having to keep track of objectives and having them explode randomly was too time consuming and stupid. It felt more like playing against the book than against my opponent.
They were sacked. Then the people responsible for suggesting using them were sacked.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Yes, every game.

The only modification we use is you discard and redraw cards that are actually impossible (eg kill an enemy psyker when there never were any).

Maelstrom is the best thing to happen to 40k in 15 years. It mechanically punishes static gunlines who only want to play a game of rolling dice.

So you like the Whac-A-Mole missions because they require your opponent to play in a manner not suited to his codex, thus giving you a better chance to win.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Yes, every game.

The only modification we use is you discard and redraw cards that are actually impossible (eg kill an enemy psyker when there never were any).

Maelstrom is the best thing to happen to 40k in 15 years. It mechanically punishes static gunlines who only want to play a game of rolling dice.

So you like the Whac-A-Mole missions because they require your opponent to play in a manner not suited to his codex, thus giving you a better chance to win.

Nice cheap shot, bub.

 Musashi363 wrote:
So your strategy is to not know what is going to happen?

But anybody that has played Maelstrom should have an idea of what to plan for. Most of the cards are simply focused on grabbing objectives (some are single, others are multiple) , and there is a smaller population that is focused on killing one or more units in a phase. If you build your army and your strategy to grab as many objectives as quickly as possible, and give those units enough teeth to keep the objectives for as long as possible, you're ahead of the game when it comes to Maelstrom. I think too many people tend to focus on those very few cards that may be impossible to complete based on your opponent's list (Kill a Flyer, Kill a Psyker). I've never had a need to discard more than a single card per turn in the games I've played.

 Thokt wrote:

Nice cheap shot, bub.

How is that a cheap shot? Invalidating a play style for armies that aren't built around mobility can really hurt them.
When people talk about a play style or army style being invalidated as a good thing because it lets them play what they want it is fairly hypocritical.

Deriding the poor guy for liking something and assuming he's only in it for easy victories is the exact sort of thing someone would do on the internet and not in person.

On the internet it's a cheap shot, in person it's just a dick move.

 Thokt wrote:
Deriding the poor guy for liking something and assuming he's only in it for easy victories is the exact sort of thing someone would do on the internet and not in person.

On the internet it's a cheap shot, in person it's just a dick move.

And the guy he quoted said that people that play gunlines deserve punishment.
ONLINE.
Online on a forum!
A forum online on the internet!

Good lord, don't be dense. The guy doesn't like playing gun lines and enjoys a mode of play that does not as easily reward that playstyle. I don't think he said anything objectionable, certainly nothing worried of being derided for. Who knows? Maybe he always wins against gun lines too? Why act as if he's just out for easy wins?

I am done though, this is entirely off topic.

Just read a bat rep here where the guy had both. The eternal war mission was worth 4 vps, the maelstrom was worth 3vps and the secondary objectives were worth 1 each. Seems like a good system.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
Just read a bat rep here where the guy had both. The eternal war mission was worth 4 vps, the maelstrom was worth 3vps and the secondary objectives were worth 1 each. Seems like a good system.

I think the BAO runs a similar format.

I personally do not play them. I find them confusing (and I don't have the cards anyways which doesn't help).

I've observed other players at my store playing them multiple times but I don't like it, to me it comes down to sheer randomness who the victor is. While the game is at least 75% luck due to the dice with the rest coming down to skill on the battlefield (what to shoot at first, what to assault etc) and making a good list or synergy between units, it practically comes down to 100% luck with those random objective cards. If you draw bad, even if you have a good series of units on the board its GG, you could have the most powerful and numerous units but if your opponent gets good cards there is nothing you can do.

I prefer Eternal war as it is more streamlined and less luck based.

 Thokt wrote:
Deriding the poor guy for liking something and assuming he's only in it for easy victories is the exact sort of thing someone would do on the internet and not in person.

On the internet it's a cheap shot, in person it's just a dick move.

For the record, I would say it in person. Judge that as you will.

He also does seem to like to win more. Neither IG, nor tau deal well the new missions. Eldar and marines are fast and resilient enough to do it. Nids and orks are fast and swarmy enough to do it. IG does only well if they get a good starting hand and their opponent doesn't get a good one. Otherwise it is a game lost, before it even starts.

Makumba wrote:
He also does seem to like to win more. Neither IG, nor tau deal well the new missions. Eldar and marines are fast and resilient enough to do it. Nids and orks are fast and swarmy enough to do it. IG does only well if they get a good starting hand and their opponent doesn't get a good one. Otherwise it is a game lost, before it even starts.

A change in list Building could also help. Taking more mobile units can really make a difference.

I play Maelstrom almost exclusively. I've only played 2 or 3 games outside of tournies of the old boring missions. But then, I never really liked 6th edition much.

It's good to have 40k itself as one of the reasons to actually keep playing the game.

A quarter of the deck involves controlling objectives you placed. I try to spread them around onto interesting terrain features, but it's just as valid, I think, to place them in your deployment zone. Then, you've got your fast-moving reserves to go and grab the other three as and when required, and some heavy hitters to take down enemy units for the ones involving exterminating units.

Ideally, we'd be playing GM-moderated scenarios using appropriate forces with the hidden events under GM control rather than randomised, but this is a decent second choice.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
A quarter of the deck involves controlling objectives you placed. I try to spread them around onto interesting terrain features, but it's just as valid, I think, to place them in your deployment zone. Then, you've got your fast-moving reserves to go and grab the other three as and when required, and some heavy hitters to take down enemy units for the ones involving exterminating units.

Ideally, we'd be playing GM-moderated scenarios using appropriate forces with the hidden events under GM control rather than randomised, but this is a decent second choice.

If you're doing it right, those objectives are placed prior to any picking of sides/deployment.