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

If you want a HIGHLY strategic game, 40k is not for you. That being said, MoW does force a particular playstyle and fast, tactical units will win out.

I have only played MoW missions since 7th hit, because they are more fun. As has been posted many times, a little tweaking goes a very long way here. Eternal missions just mean "hide your stuff and run out turn 5," which of course rewards the "smash everything" playstyle. At least in MoW, anything short of a full wipe doesn't guarantee a win; the broken player CAN still win on points.

This isn't a criticism of either, as I play Eldar and can do well in either type of mission. My games have been MUCH closer with MoW missions, though, because they (perhaps artificially) balance the game a bit by giving more targetted objectives to play instead of simply "play for the endgame."

 Deadshot wrote:

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

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

Well I think some of the orders are sort of "iN the absence of immediate important objectives, kill". so its not that its more important. Its that High command hasnt yet ascertained a higher value tagret and are telling you "weapons free boys"

Every battle report I've read that involved a Malstorm mission has been very one sided. A lot of games dont go past turn four as a guy ends up with a ten point lead just because of lucky card draws.

I personally hate playing games where your victory conditions/resources etc, are dependent on luck. It removes most long game play statigies out of the game and in some cases makes it impossible to win when your opponent gets lucky and gets 2-3 VPs a turn just by hanging out on their home objectives.

Infact I think that Malstorm mission are even more dependant on list building than standard games. You load up on fast moving units and character killers and your probably good to go especially if you tailor your deck to match the strengths of your.

Try reading this one then:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/610375.page

It's pretty much how all my maelstrom games go. The one who makes most of his objectives wins the game. In that particular report, I neglected my objectives and aimed to table my opponent and got a loss in return.

Also note that most 10 point leads stem from lucky rolls on the often criticized d3 cards, as well as the 3+d6 cards which are sometimes just a little to easy to archive. If you houserule those, even a lucky draw won't put you far into the lead.

Unless your opponent gets an avarge or bad draw. A bad draw turn 1 more or less makes the game even for fast armies. For slow armies like AM , one may as well go gg and go home.

Before we heavily house ruled the draw mechanics. Our games looked more or less like this. first turn two MSU armies rushs objectives and the one who had the better draw starts cycling through missions and by the time it gets to those hard to do ones , if it gets avarge rolls the game makes no sense past turn 4, if it gets realy good rules on the d3 and d6, the game can end turn 1.

I had games where I was 12-0 turn 1, with kill flyer and kill MC in hand and my opponent having neither.

I've seen the scores swing wildly and that's the fun of it. Certain missions do this less. Some more. Luck of the draw plays a part, but so do dice.

But it's fun and I prefer Maelstrom to normal games because there's NOTHING saying that the end result wouldn't have been the same! Good Generals tend to win, do they not?. Do they lose a game now and again in Maelstrom? Sure. Not a lot of the time but certainly it can happen. Here's my question though: if your opponents are having a good time, and maybe stealing one now and again, don't you KINDA want that to happen if you're really good at the game? I mean does it cost you anything to lose outside a tournament really? No. No one is going to tell me that because they beat me in a Maelstrom mission that I am any worse at the game. My pride doesn't hinge on a game here or there of maelstrom missions. But more people are playing 40K lately BECAUSE of Maelstrom in part.

I was on a 5 game win streak and got beat by the person who I would say is the worst general at our store, perennially. I was happy for him because the playing field was substantially even'd between us and he hasn't beaten me but one other time in the entire time I've known him, which is years and years! I didn't feel at all smaller for it. It was an exciting game, the pressure mounted and I just couldn't quite pull it out. I didn't give him an inch, I wasn't being soft and he took it. We both had a great time and he'll be back for more, trust me. that victory meant a lot for his confidence and I hope our next game is a nail biter too.

 Jancoran wrote:
I've seen the scores swing wildly and that's the fun of it. Certain missions do this less. Some more. Luck of the draw plays a part, but so do dice.

But it's fun and I prefer Maelstrom to normal games because there's NOTHING saying that the end result wouldn't have been the same! Good Generals tend to win, do they not?. Do they lose a game now and again in Maelstrom? Sure. Not a lot of the time but certainly it can happen. Here's my question though: if your opponents are having a good time, and maybe stealing one now and again, don't you KINDA want that to happen if you're really good at the game? I mean does it cost you anything to lose outside a tournament really? No. No one is going to tell me that because they beat me in a Maelstrom mission that I am any worse at the game. My pride doesn't hinge on a game here or there of maelstrom missions. But more people are playing 40K lately BECAUSE of Maelstrom in part.

I was on a 5 game win streak and got beat by the person who I would say is the worst general at our store, perennially. I was happy for him because the playing field was substantially even'd between us and he hasn't beaten me but one other time in the entire time I've known him, which is years and years! I didn't feel at all smaller for it. It was an exciting game, the pressure mounted and I just couldn't quite pull it out. I didn't give him an inch, I wasn't being soft and he took it. We both had a great time and he'll be back for more, trust me. that victory meant a lot for his confidence and I hope our next game is a nail biter too.

Canceling out skill in favor of luck and chance isn't what I'd call forward progress.

Call it whatever you fancy, as long as you include fun in the title. =)

Maelstrom missions are a great concept but the system in place to utilize the objectives is fairly flawed. That being said having objectives matter every turn makes the game more exciting but it lets random draws/rolls of objectives make or break a battle with very little counterplay.

Something like having 6-9 objectives total at turn 1 and you don't draw any new ones which are scored at the beginning of your turn excluding turn 1. So to capture an objective you must sit and hold it through an enemy turn and can't score before the enemy can do anything. Also it presents a clear list of what's important to both parties so you can make tactical/strategic choices for the entire game.

At the very least requiring a whole turn cycle to capture an objective marker would make run away games a lot harder to pull off (I think)

I love Maelstorm. But I am probably biased as I run a Ravenwing Army.

I think I liked the idea someone posted here about starting the game with X cards, and those being your objectives to accomplish that game. (Sorry, I forgot to quote before leaving the page). I like Maelstrom as it stands due to the constant changing of the objectives, but I also like the idea of you're army going into the game with a static set of goals to achieve, with secondary objectives still being in place.

So if we played a 3 Objective game, I could draw Secure Objective 1, Eliminate a unit in CC, and win a challenge objective. (Tossing any unachievable ones and get a new one from the deck)

I could see playing this two different ways: You gain the VP as soon as you achieve them, or at the end of the game. Granted, this gives certain D3 objective cards more time to be achived (over 5 turns instead of just 1 turn), but it makes them feel better to me. Maybe I'm weird?

Someone here once compared the changing objectives to a commander who has ADD, and keeps changing his mind about what is important to the army to achieve, which takes a lot of the suspension of disbelief out of the game, more so than normal. I might try the 'draw X objectives: Complete them before turn 5 (or 6 if variable length is in effect). Secondary Objectives are ON, so you can get First Blood, Slay the Warlord, Line Breaker, etc to keep more VP in grasp of both players.

I made a few missions where at the start of the game, you draw 6 cards, then on turn 4, you draw 4 more. So its a lot less whack-a-mole and you can actually formulate a stratagy around your objectives, but at the midpoint, there's a bit of a shakeup.

Also, ive been playing that the objectives are achieved at the START of your turn, rather than the end. Meaning that you need to survive your opponent's turn in order to get the VP, rather than the frankly BS mechanic of getting the objective at the start of the turn, then achieving it at the end, with absolutly no input from your opponent. fun.

Here's our houserules in full:
Maelstrom Changes
Achieving Tactical Objectives:
You score Victory Points for achieving Tactical Objectives at the beginning of your turn, before new Tactical Objectives are generated. Read all Tactical Objectives as “beginning of your turn” instead of “end of your turn”. Normally, this means you will have to achieve your objective during your own turn, then survive through your opponent's turn before claiming any Victory Points.

Tactical Vengeance
When achieving Tactical Objectives that require destroying enemy units, casting powers, forcing moral checks, issuing challenges, or other objectives that do not involve Objective Markers, make note of which units achieved these objectives. You may only score Victory Points for these objectives if the units that achieved them are not destroyed or falling back at the start of your turn.

Could you Repeat that Sir?
Tactical Objectives that are impossible to complete (Such as destroying a Flyer when there are no Flyers in the current game) may be immediately discarded and regenerated.

Game Over Man.
At the end of the game, any Tactical Objectives each player may achieve any remaining Tactical Objectives they have.

I really like the MoW missions. Unfortunately it seems like I get horrible draws each time. The only time I won decisively was when I played it before the cards became more available and I was rolling for the results.

Lately some of the friendly games and tourney games have led to some impossible to catch up results.

ie, opponents first draws are objs in his own zone or within range and mine are garbage draws that aren't achievable in that turn.

Also, I recommend not getting the cards for the specific factions. Orks and Grey knights lose the first six secure objective X cards with gimmicky almost unachievable cards.
I don't know how the SWs cards are but I'm assuming they're no different.

I find that if you're having troubles with your card draws, try taking rolling on the Command warlord table.

I both like and dislike the maelstrom missions.

First off, like many others, we generally play that if the card is impossible to perform (such as destroy an enemy building -- when the enemy didn't bring any) then those are discarded and you redraw. This alone makes the whole thing better.

Second, we always play that the cards are hidden until achieved at which point they are revealed. It just seems to me that you aren't likely to be broadcasting your tactical plans over the open air waves, so why should the enemy now what you're after?

The third thing we're experimenting with is simply drawing a set of cards and using only those (no redraws except under item 1 above) as the goals for the entire game. To help alleviate issues of some cards giving D3 points, those cards are simply set to 1 VP.

Generally I've found the malestrom games have lead to more interesting games though it would appear we haven't had the bad luck some others seem to have had with the draws coming out massively weighted to one player. I also like them as especially with alien races with differing views on tactics and what's important etc e.g. the Eldar needing to assassinate that one model as his grandkids will lead a force against the craftworld if they don't vs the Orks looking for the best fight they can it makes sense that the two armies might well have different objectives.

At my club we've playing with the cards kept secret until achieved too for the same reason clively mentioned.

Like many I enjoy the concept, but the execution is lacking. I have cycled through the 6 missions for MoW playing each twice (except the last one) with 2 different armies. I have lost all but one game that was a tie.

The missions favor fast units and being able to combat squad is a huge bonus if you can camp on 4 to 6 objectives.

So RAW, I find them a little frustrating, potential ways to play (house rules)

As is, just let players toss unscorable cards OR unlimited discard at the end of your turn.
Change scoring to the top of the turn, so players can counter each other. So scoring would not begin until turn 2.

2 players 1 deck options:
1 - Strip the deck before play, if both players cant score a card, it doesnt go in. Still use the blind draw.
2 - open draw. draw 3 cards face up. both players can attempt to score a card. when a card is scored, draw cards back up to 3 cards.

2 players 2 decks
1 - Deck building. Since new codexes have specific cards now, have each player tailor a deck. minimum card count and possibly must take cards.

I think the last option is probably the best one. It's way of playing that works for many games, and it can easily eliminate a large part of the "drawing the wrong cards" problem.

clively wrote:
I both like and dislike the maelstrom missions.

First off, like many others, we generally play that if the card is impossible to perform (such as destroy an enemy building -- when the enemy didn't bring any) then those are discarded and you redraw. This alone makes the whole thing better.

Second, we always play that the cards are hidden until achieved at which point they are revealed. It just seems to me that you aren't likely to be broadcasting your tactical plans over the open air waves, so why should the enemy now what you're after?

The third thing we're experimenting with is simply drawing a set of cards and using only those (no redraws except under item 1 above) as the goals for the entire game. To help alleviate issues of some cards giving D3 points, those cards are simply set to 1 VP.

Not showing the opponent your cards is in one of the missions. But the way i see it, both armies are in some ways trying to both acheive and deny the enemy their orders and in other games we both know what and where the objectives are. So i see no value in hiding them.

Also this doesnt work because not everyone uses cards. The actual mechanic is adice roll. They just HAPPEN to have made a player aid for it. So its kind of a big deal to remember that. "Secret rolls" probably dont sit well with anyone, when you start thinking about it.