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.

geargutz wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Maelstrom might be the best way to balance the game, even though, admittedly, there are games where you're just not lucky with the cards and lose consequently.

I see a rather obvious contradiction here...

Yeah, the contradiction is that people ,who play a game where everything is determined by the roll of a dice , don't want a random chance card mechanic.
I Personaly prefer maelstrom. I play orks, I often fight opponents who would wipe me in eternal war. With a lucky draw of maelstrom cards I can win a game if I focus my list on speed. Often it seems those who have gunline armies ot just a better codex complain the most about maelstrom, they hate that they have to leave their adl or vsg and trudge up the battlefield, while my troop bikes grab objectives.
"The one thing about chaos...is its fair "

There's a difference between random variation on a D6 with a limited set of outcomes, and random variation on a D66 chart with results that can repeat, may not even be possible (oh my opponent brought no flyers...sweet), may be entirely trivial/automatic (have a Daemon army cast a psychic power...that was hard...), and that often are completely antithetical to the core aspects of a particular faction (e.g. telling Tau they need to kill something in close combat...why?), etc ad nauseum.

There's nothing fair or balancing about maelstrom. It's a crapshoot that emphasizes hardy MSU builds zipping around the board and that's about it.

geargutz wrote:
Yeah, the contradiction is that people ,who play a game where everything is determined by the roll of a dice , don't want a random chance card mechanic.

There's a huge difference between "roll tons of dice, with the overall outcome being a bell curve that favors neither player" and "draw a small number of random cards, with a huge variance in power". I'm also opposed to single game-changing rolls like random psychic powers, for the same reason.

"The one thing about chaos...is its fair "

It's also chaos. You aren't playing a game anymore, you're just rolling a D6 to see who wins. If the only way you can win is to draw better cards than your opponent why even bother playing the game at all?

Yep, whether it be cards or dice this game still relies on chance. If you want to play a game with no chance except whether you choose black or white then play chess, or checkers.
I still think maelstrom is in itself a balance mechanic, I am more open to hybrid missions, but I loathe trying to play against eternal war.
Eternal war favors shooty armies
Maelstrom favors speed and sometimes melee
Guess which is more overpowered this edition

geargutz wrote:
Yep, whether it be cards or dice this game still relies on chance.

Please, go back and read what I said instead of making false dilemmas between "as the game is now" and "no randomness at all". There is a huge difference between rolling lots of dice for normal game mechanics and maelstrom cards.

I still think maelstrom is in itself a balance mechanic

Only if you consider "the game is so random that nothing matters besides what cards you draw" to be a balance mechanic. Dumbing everything down and letting 10 year olds with their space marine starter sets feel like they're "winning" is not a mechanic we should admire.

Guess which is more overpowered this edition

Eldar jetbikes vote for "speed and shooting".

-Once per game, a player may discard their whole hand instead of just one card
-You can only complete 2 Tactical Objectives per turn
-You can only complete 1 "Secure Objective X" of the same number per turn
-Cards that are impossible to complete can be discarded upon drawing them
-D3 Victory Points = 2

The best package of balancing tweaks for Maelstrom I've found, with over 120 games of 7th edition played. Makes it more sensible.

As standard it's good for casual gaming but not much else.

PS. Why do I see so many native English speakers misspelling "Maelstrom"?

I vastly prefer Maelstrom of war because I hate playing agaisnt or as static gunlines, and maelstrom really rewards you for taking action.

Yes the randomness can be a bit annoying, but this is a tabletop game so randomness is expected. (Furthermore, the excitement gained from having a random objective outweighs the balancing issue).

I play Blood Angels (so I am a bit biased) but honestly as such a low tier army most competitive armies can blow me out of the water with pure firepower, so I love that Maelstrom gives me a fighting chance.

- Recently I managed to beat a 30k mechanicum army which i doubt i could ever do in an eternal war mission.

Fortunately for me Maelstrom of war is the standard at my flgs so its not ever an issue.

Well looking at the vote bar, so far most prefer maelstrom, that could change when more vote, but so far it seems many like the concept of the random chance of cards.
As far what I've stated so far is just my own belief and knowledge. You welcome to your own.

Randomness being a good or a bad thing is nothing more than a subjective view. That's how it really is.

Some want things to be less random, to others the random factors are fine.

Altough I'd say, if you take into account GW's philosophy with the game the ones wanting less randomness are in a way more in the wrong. Their subjective views, demands and expectations are somewhat polar opposite to the company producing the game, balance not being a big concern and most of the content simply being created for variety and additional fun (like the unbalanced campaign scenarios, they're not there for chess level tournament play.)

Thing is, some people just don't realize they're expecting a factory producing blue cars to suddenly start producing red ones and then they get mad/disappointed/bitter. That's what it comes down to.

And no, the good old days are an invalid argument. I've seen the fictional good old days and stuff was broken back then aswell, you were just younger and more inexperienced back then or then it's just the passing of time making your memories more positive.

Gak was broken as hell back then too, period.

 sfshilo wrote:
So Maelstrom is much better when you allow people to build from a deck. Just tell them to pick 15 cards to draw from so you do not have "junk" cards.

That wouldn't work that well without some extra house ruling since cards like "cast a power" or " turbo boost x units" still exist. :\

 Runic wrote:
Randomness being a good or a bad thing is nothing more than a subjective view. That's how it really is.

If we're looking at a wargame as a reflection of background material and a test of tactical ability, then no, it's not a subjective view. Randomness for its own sake only detracts from that kind of experience.

If you just want an excuse to play with plastic armymen, well, randomness isn't a problem. The question is, why does one need a defined ruleset with ~60 books for that?

And no, the good old days are an invalid argument. I've seen the fictional good old days and stuff was broken back then aswell, you were just younger and more inexperienced back then or then it's just the passing of time making your memories more positive.

Gak was broken as hell back then too, period.

I don't think anyone is denying there was broken stuff in previous editions, there very much was. In fact, that was one of the driving factors in the 2E-3E reboot, stuff just got too insane and the ruleset needed a reboot. The problem is that they've not only let it get back to that state, but far beyond it with the current edition. I can't think of anything in previous editions that can match the "brokenness" that's not only possible but commonplace in the current edition.

As bad as say, 2E Space Wolves & Eldar were, or 3.5E CSM's and 4E invincifalcon Eldar, or 5E GK's, nothing matches the absurdity that the game allows in 7E, except possibly 2E Virus Grenades, which GW retroactively told everyone to not use and forget it even existed

 Runic wrote:
Thing is, some people just don't realize they're expecting a factory producing blue cars to suddenly start producing red ones and then they get mad/disappointed/bitter. That's what it comes down to.

It's more like expecting a factory that produces cars with no engine in them and half the metal parts rusted away to start producing functional cars. GW's design principles aren't just bad for one particular group of players, they're bad for everyone. They're making a game with all the depth and quality of those silly games you get on the back of cereal boxes, except they're charging people hundreds of dollars for the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Remulus wrote:
(Furthermore, the excitement gained from having a random objective outweighs the balancing issue).

Which is a very superficial sort of excitement. Maybe it's fun the first time it happens, but you pretty quickly realize that you aren't accomplishing anything when you get that random objective. It's like sitting alone at the table rolling a D6 and then celebrating how awesome it is every time you roll a 6. Personally I find it much more exciting to claim normal objectives, since then it's a triumph of beating my opponent or the last-second drama of whose squad will win the fight over it on the final turn of the game. IOW, things we as players have control over, not a random deck of cards declaring one of us to be the winner.

Calm down bro. The exciting thing isn't the "OH look, i drew a random card!' The excitement stems from coming up with new tactics on the fly to achieve whatever card you drew.


See, you completely misinterpret what people find engaging with maelstrom of war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


Which is a very superficial sort of excitement. Maybe it's fun the first time it happens, but you pretty quickly realize that you aren't accomplishing anything when you get that random objective. It's like sitting alone at the table rolling a D6 and then celebrating how awesome it is every time you roll a 6.

I honestly can't believe you are dumb enough to think this is the 1 reason people like maelstrom of war.

 Remulus wrote:
The excitement stems from coming up with new tactics on the fly to achieve whatever card you drew.

You mean tactics like "move a scoring unit onto the objective the card told me to claim" or "cast one of the psychic powers I'm already going to cast" or "discard this because my Tau army isn't getting into melee"? Maelstrom involves less coming up with tactics on the fly because the random draw tells you 90% of what you need to do.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Remulus wrote:
The excitement stems from coming up with new tactics on the fly to achieve whatever card you drew.

You mean tactics like "move a scoring unit onto the objective the card told me to claim" or "cast one of the psychic powers I'm already going to cast" or "discard this because my Tau army isn't getting into melee"? Maelstrom involves less coming up with tactics on the fly because the random draw tells you 90% of what you need to do.

Add to that you can be rewarded points for literally doing nothing with a unit.


I can look back on past battle reports and see good and bad luck, but I can also see the good and bad decisions I made. "I should have targeted them isntead" "I should have fallen back and ceded that flank" and so on, in maelstrom it's almost pointless to look back on choices made, because from a sheer causality point of view there is far more often nothing that could have been done regardless due to cards drawn. That's far and away different that final causality scoring like with crusade, I've tied crusade with 2 models left on the board as the end result of a hard fought battle and careful maneuver.

All the people complaining about gunlines best be playing on tables with a good amount of los blocking terrain or need to reconsider what's making their games suck.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If we're looking at a wargame as a reflection of background material and a test of tactical ability, then no, it's not a subjective view. Randomness for its own sake only detracts from that kind of experience.

Maelstrom is fun to play; but a bit random.

My housemate and I play it almost exclusively now.

The mission where you draw cards equal to the number of objectives you hold seems like a good idea - but it tends to be won/lost early on and almost impossible to come back from losing.

We houserule to discard cards that are irrelevant (e.g. no psykers/fliers/buildings).

Changing the D3 to 2 is a good idea though, the swings that generates are a bit... daft.

Perhaps all 12 missions should be available and you randomly generate one? That would balance up armies designed specifically for one type.

Maelstrom, always. Eternal War are boring.

I have only tried playing Maelstrom once and it was one of the worst games of Warhammer 40,000 I have played. I won the game by moving bikes and a trukk back and forth across the board scoring the two middle table objectives. During the game, there were no tactics or hard decisions, it was just roll, consult, play whatever objective you got, repeat. I have had games where I was tabled without destroying a single enemy unit that were more fun because I could look back and think about what I did wrong, what my opponent did right, and how I can change that in future games. With maelstrom, that kind of assessment is almost meaningless because there is nothing you could have done except "roll better objectives".

This is not to say that eternal war missions are perfect. They have their own problems that push them towards favouring certain armies, but I still find them more enjoyable than the mess that is maelstrom.

Why didn't your opponent stop you from doing that? Maybe, because they weren't thinking tactically about what was happening...

Glad to see maelstrom in the lead!

 Remulus wrote:
Calm down bro. The exciting thing isn't the "OH look, i drew a random card!' The excitement stems from coming up with new tactics on the fly to achieve whatever card you drew.


See, you completely misinterpret what people find engaging with maelstrom of war.

That's pretty much "engaging Peregrine 101". He doesn't agree with you so he'll spend 16k posts arguing about how his interpretation is the only one worth considering. He'll rebut everything you say, often going way off track with bizarre comparisons due to his view that your opinion is totally invalid, but watch what you say about him or he'll run to the mods.

I'm honestly interested in seeing a thread where it's just Peregrine vs Traditio vs Martel762 on a critical issue such as forge world legality in regular games.

 MarsNZ wrote:
That's pretty much "engaging Peregrine 101". He doesn't agree with you so he'll spend 16k posts arguing about how his interpretation is the only one worth considering. He'll rebut everything you say, often going way off track with bizarre comparisons due to his view that your opinion is totally invalid, but watch what you say about him or he'll run to the mods.

IOW: "STOP HAVING OPINIONS I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE TALK ON A FORUM FOR TALKING!!!"

And I find it hilarious that you think I'm "running to the mods" when I've got a stack of moderator warnings and temp bans a mile high. If people are getting moderator attention for arguing with me it's their fault for blatantly breaking forum rules, not because the mods are my personal tool for silencing disagreement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Why didn't your opponent stop you from doing that? Maybe, because they weren't thinking tactically about what was happening...

Because their opponent didn't know that it would be possible to go back and forth between those two objectives. It's very hard to, for example, stop your opponent from claiming objective #6 in three turns when neither player knows that objective #6 is going to be active until two turns later. A perfectly executed strategy to stop the "back and forth between the middle two objectives" strategy would have turned out to be completely ineffective if the random objective cards came up "hold an objective in your deployment zone" and "cast a psychic power".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Runic wrote:
If someone disagrees, prove me wrong and show me evidence that GW's vision of 40K is a balanced game meant for competitive tournament play. Or even just a balanced game.

You know you aren't going to get that proof, because GW's vision for 40k is "sell lots of space marines". The rules aren't meant for competitive tournament play, but they also aren't meant for casual "kitchen table" play, narrative play, etc. They're just something you look at once and get inspiration for how awesome the new space marine kit is.

If we're looking at a wargame as a source of fun and happen to enjoy random elements and narrative scenarios that aren't necessarily balanced, then random factors are consired a good thing for said person in a wargame. A person might not care about the measure of tactical ability or be interested in the background at all. We instantly have 2 different subjective views, fact.

Those random elements are NOT fun in narrative gaming, because they replace the story with random die rolls. Maelstrom missions are bad for tournament gaming but they're so much worse in any kind of story-based game. And it's the same with things like random warlord traits and random psychic powers. If you want an enjoyable story-based experience one of the first things you do in 40k is throw out all of the stupid randomness.

And honestly, if you don't care about the tactical aspect or the background fiction why are you playing 40k? If all you care about is rolling dice and seeing what numbers you get it's a lot cheaper to just buy a pile of D6s and roll them. In fact, you could even buy some other kinds of dice to roll to add some variety to the numbers you get.

Randomness being good or bad in a game is subjective.

Nope. There's a reason why game design is a profession and random people aren't as good at writing rules as the professionals. And that reason is that good game design is NOT subjective.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Glad to see maelstrom in the lead!

Typical, Eternal got a bad draw of cards and now can't catch up.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Glad to see maelstrom in the lead!

Typical, Eternal got a bad draw of cards and now can't catch up.

Ok, that was funny!

Also, I constantly keep units within striking distance of the center objectives. While there are 3 of each of those cards, there are also several cards that reward holding multiple objectives. So yes, the tactic would indeed involve stopping them from being able to move back and forth at will to claim points. You have to prepare to stop what they are going to do while simultaneously setting yourself up to take advantage of the cards you draw. If you play a maelstrom game with no planning, you will lose. Period.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If you play a maelstrom game with no planning, you will lose. Period.

How do you plan against cards like: Hungry for Glory or Domination ?
For those types of cards are the ones who get you into a deadlock not the claim objective x cards.

 Peregrine wrote:

Randomness being good or bad in a game is subjective.

Nope. There's a reason why game design is a profession and random people aren't as good at writing rules as the professionals. And that reason is that good game design is NOT subjective.

Erm, yeah, good game design is subjective. Some things aren't subjective, like whether a rule is written poorly leading to ambiguity. But whether the actual underlying mechanics are good or bad is totally subjective.

If we get away from 40k for a second, look at some WW2 games, some are more random but also more realistically representing that there wasn't some all seeing and all knowing general hovering over the battlefield giving orders to each individual soldier. Other rule sets are less random, more abstract but also less realistic, just accepting that a lot of real factors of war go away when you have an omnipotent general.

Which one is "better" is entirely subjective, I prefer the latter because I like control, I know some people who prefer the former because to them it gives them a more authentic experience.

 oldzoggy wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If you play a maelstrom game with no planning, you will lose. Period.

How do you plan against cards like: Hungry for Glory or Domination ?
For those types of cards are the ones who get you into a deadlock not the claim objective x cards.

Ok, we'll start with domination. If you have been trying to ensure area control from the start, and that includes the placement of your own objectives, then you have to ask yourself if the points warrant that level of push to claim the one or two objectives you aren't constantly threatening. My normal strategy is to have units able ti threaten at least 4 objectives at all times. Whether it is fast units with my Harlequins/space wolves or by literally holding them with bodies with my orks. It is the best way to ensure the deck doesn't screw up your game. If the domination card gets pulled, and I am behind by 2 or more points, I will drive to claim the objectives with melee units (which I try to keep midfield to threaten and push as the need arises) the benefit of melee is it will let me have a better chance of driving off the opponent. It's much harder to claim an objective if you rely too much on ranged units.

In regards to hungry for glory, I always have characters in my units. If my enemy doesn't, and didn't from the start, I would ask to redraw just as I would if a flyer or psyker based card popped up. If I killed all of their characters already, then I am probably in a pretty good position so not being able to score that one point shouldn't deck my game plan.

Most of the cards reward killing an enemy unit or claiming objectives. Focus on these cards and treat the others as a unneeded bonus and your tactics should do fine.

I don't see why maelstrom would take away from the tactical aspect of the game. Eternal War missions for me as a CSM player would mean: hide the whole game and try to make your obsec units survive so that you can claim objectives in the last turn. With maelstrom I need to move, I have to try to follow the cards and get enough points and then try to not get tabled. With CSM in eternal war I won't be able to get enough kill points against Necrons, and I won't be able to keep my obsec units alive against Tau. On the other hand, Tau and Necrons in Maelstrom are also forced to move and not just form a gunline. It makes for a dynamic exciting gameplay.

Maelstrom is an exquisite example of GW randumb, at its worse. The true tragedy is that the reasons people like it are 99% of times more than valid (see as an examle the poster just above me), and a sign of the terrible quality of 40k as a game in general.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Glad to see maelstrom in the lead!

Typical, Eternal got a bad draw of cards and now can't catch up.

This is a little jewel of a post.

I like both, so I tend to roll randomly. Eternal War missions have a greater reward for having a game-long plan, and it's fun to know what you're fighting towards at the end of the game. Maelstrom missions have a greater reward for having short-term adaptability, and it's fun to be put in unusual situations where you might take a risk in order to score some more points. The missions themselves are varied enough that we don't know whose going to have the advantage ahead of time.

As for downsides, there are fewer Eternal War missions that I enjoy than there are Maelstrom missions. I dislike Purge the Alien, Big Guns Never Tire, and Big Guns Never Tire - the Fast Attack version. The only Maelstrom mission I don't enjoy is the one where you keep the missions hidden, because there's not much point to it.


EDIT: Took a while to think this through a bit more. Essentially, I like how the game ends more when it's close with an Eternal War game. Maelstrom games that are close tend to feel more like I was cheated by random chance, often due to some good d3 rolls, or poor pulls from the Maelstrom deck. Conversely, I like how the game flows more with Maelstrom, since you have to start taking risks right away, while with Eternal War the game flows a little less, as it's easy to become "locked" if the game hits an early tipping point.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I don't see why maelstrom would take away from the tactical aspect of the game.

Because it's basically just reacting to random stimuli, not executing a plan to achieve a definite objective.

Eternal War missions for me as a CSM player would mean: hide the whole game and try to make your obsec units survive so that you can claim objectives in the last turn. With maelstrom I need to move, I have to try to follow the cards and get enough points and then try to not get tabled. With CSM in eternal war I won't be able to get enough kill points against Necrons, and I won't be able to keep my obsec units alive against Tau. On the other hand, Tau and Necrons in Maelstrom are also forced to move and not just form a gunline. It makes for a dynamic exciting gameplay.

Both Tau and Necrons are likely to have more mobility and resiliency and the ability to perform in a Maelstrom mission over CSM's. Right now as a CSM player I'd understand I don't stand much of a chance against either, but I'd far more take my chances with the older style missions than with Maelstrom against a foe that can play "whack-a-mole" far better than my CSM's can.

Eternal War missions have their problems, especially with Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring still retaining the 6E downsides for taking HS or FA units without having their 6E bonuses (somebody copy-pasted the missions without thinking about the scoring changes that were made...), but Maelstrom certainly isn't any better.