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.

Complex Rules do not = depth

A game can be complex and tactical

A Game can be simple and tactical

The reverse is also true

Morale - you can now make a tactical choice to fall back or not.

Martel732 wrote:
Maelstrom is still pretty remedial compared to ITC maelstrom, in which only get to score at the START of your turn, giving your opponent a turn to react to your scoring move.

I do prefer ITC Maelstrom

 Mr Morden wrote:
Complex Rules do not = depth

A game can be complex and tactical

A Game can be simple and tactical

The reverse is also true

QFT!

Given that a game can be tactical and simple, there's rapidly decreasing benefit to complexity once you've got a tactical game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Maratag - if you believe that Maelstrom is the best way to play 40k, there's nothing I can do to help you.

I'm not asking for your help, i'm asking you to defend your ridiculous position. And in order to do that, I need to make sure we're operating with the same definitions of strategy and tactics.

it's not that hard to wedge a 2 inch piece of acryl between your models. You know why I don't do it? Because it looks gakky on the table and takes ages. And you know what it doesn't take? Skill.
There is no tactical decision involved at all. Either you waste time to ensure you take the minimum damage from blast weapons OR you say "feth it" and just move your minis around how you feel like, being done in 20 seconds instead of 3 minutes but loose two or three times as many models to a blast weapon. It's not a "tactical play", it's just a gakky mechanic.

40K has almost never been tactical in any sense beyond a 'meta'.

 Marmatag wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Maratag - if you believe that Maelstrom is the best way to play 40k, there's nothing I can do to help you.

I'm not asking for your help, i'm asking you to defend your ridiculous position. And in order to do that, I need to make sure we're operating with the same definitions of strategy and tactics.

You've stated that Maelstrom is the best way to play 40k, and you're saying that I've taken the ridiculous position? Dude, I didn't call you out on the sheer stupidity of what you stated, so you shouldn't be talking like that. As before, because that's what you believe, it's pointless trying to define "strategy" or "tactics" for you. I'd have more luck teaching calculus to a cat.

Based on how weapons work, modifiers, characters, leaders in squads, etc, 8th edition is far more tactically superior!! Yes you will have to relearn your unit's strengths, weaknesses, and purposes (much like you do in every major edition change). They got rid of cheese deathstars, which were a one trick pony... this means you will have to play mote tactically like real wargames, or you will lose your leader, benefit bubbles, and open yourself up to charges or crazy weapons.

They also made hurting monstrous creatures and tanks more realistic. A single man with a weapon has taken down a tank (yes, tanks have fallen to automatic weapon fire in iraq). This means you have to be careful of what you move and how you maneuver around the board.

If you tried the game at cons you would know it is far superior than 7th. Change can be good, and this was necessary to keep 40k alive. They have used quite a bit of fan input to make a better 40k.

Also AV is nice and all with clear square boxes for vehicles. But for flyers, eldar vehicles etc that has caused many an argument.

People arguing that blasts do not actually matter because everything is magically spaced out over 2" are playing an imaginaey theoryhammer where they can keep their entire army perfectly spaced versus blasts yet in range to engage the enemy at full force. Add in Deep Strike (run! Oh wait, there's no longer running outside of a move phase), Tank Shock, consolidation only being one d6 (or nothing vs vehicles), or even using flee mechanics to bunch enemies up...

I'll pass on this discussion. Cheers!

"Prove you claim."

Please. I'm not wasting my time proving an opinion to anyone, much less to your nebulous satisfaction. It's completely obvious that Maelstrom is garbage gaming, based on reacting to randomness in game. That you consider mere reaction some sort of tactics or strategy only illustrates how little you understand of either concept.

And with that, I'm done.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
People arguing that blasts do not actually matter because everything is magically spaced out over 2" are playing an imaginaey theoryhammer where they can keep their entire army perfectly spaced versus blasts yet in range to engage the enemy at full force.

I wasn't saying the change to blasts does not matter. I prefer the new system. Spacing your regular MSU squads out isn't hard, and it certainly isn't a "tactical play". I've seen guard blobs spaced out pretty much perfectly, it's fething annoying since it takes ages. I vastly prefer not to have to deal with that crap again soon. Especially with players that are obsessed with achieving 2'' separation everywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
"Prove you claim."

Please. I'm not wasting my time proving an opinion to anyone, much less to your nebulous satisfaction. It's completely obvious that Maelstrom is garbage gaming, based on reacting to randomness in game. That you consider mere reaction some sort of tactics or strategy only illustrates how little you understand of either concept.

And with that, I'm done.

Well I for one enjoy Maelstrom. "reacting to randomness" is kind of a thing in 40k, isn't it? But that's personal preference I guess.

However Maelstrom isn't just reacting, it's also playing to the mission. If it's the frontloaded one (Deadlock?) you'll want to use a different overall strategy and be way more aggressive than on the Escalation one where you want to be in a strong position later on when you can earn more points. On the one with the "you get a card per objective you hold" one you might want to flank with your Landspeeder Storms to prevent your enemy from gaining any cards next turn, but probably throw away the 40 points per speeder to do that.

If, however, you only ever charge blindly towards the cards you get, it's purely reactive of course. But that's not the correct way to play them.

Of course I'm not saying Maelstrom missions are the pinacle of tactical warfare, but they're not purely random garbage gaming either. It's not even close to Monopoly, which i would consider actual random garbage gaming. There's no decision making nor skill involved at all "always buy, always build whenever possible" - that's the whole strategy to it.

nekooni wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
People arguing that blasts do not actually matter because everything is magically spaced out over 2" are playing an imaginaey theoryhammer where they can keep their entire army perfectly spaced versus blasts yet in range to engage the enemy at full force.

I wasn't saying the change to blasts does not matter. I prefer the new system. Spacing your regular MSU squads out isn't hard, and it certainly isn't a "tactical play". I've seen guard blobs spaced out pretty much perfectly, it's fething annoying since it takes ages. I vastly prefer not to have to deal with that crap again soon. Especially with players that are obsessed with achieving 2'' separation everywhere.

Inversely, that Guard Squad is dead in the water once it loses a Chimera, due to there only being one access point for 10 models; kill the transport, hit the passengers with a Wyvern or something like that.

The point is that there were many scenarios that explicitly prevent being able to space out your models in such a way, and it's not like you won't be spacing models out meticulously in order to get perfect rapid-fire range either...oh wait.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
People arguing that blasts do not actually matter because everything is magically spaced out over 2" are playing an imaginaey theoryhammer where they can keep their entire army perfectly spaced versus blasts yet in range to engage the enemy at full force.

I wasn't saying the change to blasts does not matter. I prefer the new system. Spacing your regular MSU squads out isn't hard, and it certainly isn't a "tactical play". I've seen guard blobs spaced out pretty much perfectly, it's fething annoying since it takes ages. I vastly prefer not to have to deal with that crap again soon. Especially with players that are obsessed with achieving 2'' separation everywhere.

Inversely, that Guard Squad is dead in the water once it loses a Chimera, due to there only being one access point for 10 models; kill the transport, hit the passengers with a Wyvern or something like that.

The point is that there were many scenarios that explicitly prevent being able to space out your models in such a way, and it's not like you won't be spacing models out meticulously in order to get perfect rapid-fire range either...oh wait.

Yet again - how is spacing them out a tactical play? That was the claim I'm refuting. It's a "do it whenever possible or die to the wyverns". that's not a tactical decision, nor is the limitation of a wrecked Chimeras exit points a tactical decision.

And would you care explain to me why I have to space out my marines/guardsmen/whatever for rapid fire? I move them into 12 inch range , I don't space them out. There's "moving toward the enemy until all models are in 12 inch range", and theres "doing that AND trying to get all models 2 inches apart from each other". The later takes much more time, and it's no longer necessary in 8th edition. Which I prefer.

There are scenarios where spacing out isn't disadvantageous or is required; prepping for melee with large units, abilities requiring b2b contact/small auras (KFFs/etc), keeping models close to a leader to allow more LOS counters...the game doesn't actually play as a perfect Thin Red Line unless you're doing certain builds (Necrons, Barkstar, etc). And if you're running say, a Gladius, unit coherency arguments become academic as most your units are meched up like it's 5th ed. Perfect spacing itself may not by itself promote some deep complex strategic choices but reducing all blasts into glorified Exorcist Launchers does have real impact; blobguard will be a literal as well as a figuritive term as you see large conscript blocks marching b2b alongside each other.

If I wanted to play a Napoleonic game...I'd do that. If I wanted large blocks of melee infantry...there's Field of Glory.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Perfect spacing itself may not by itself promote some deep complex strategic choices but reducing all blasts into glorified Exorcist Launchers does have real impact; blobguard will be a literal as well as a figuritive term as you see large conscript blocks marching b2b alongside each other.

Which means at long last 40k can have movement trays.

nekooni wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
People arguing that blasts do not actually matter because everything is magically spaced out over 2" are playing an imaginaey theoryhammer where they can keep their entire army perfectly spaced versus blasts yet in range to engage the enemy at full force.

I wasn't saying the change to blasts does not matter. I prefer the new system. Spacing your regular MSU squads out isn't hard, and it certainly isn't a "tactical play". I've seen guard blobs spaced out pretty much perfectly, it's fething annoying since it takes ages. I vastly prefer not to have to deal with that crap again soon. Especially with players that are obsessed with achieving 2'' separation everywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
"Prove you claim."

Please. I'm not wasting my time proving an opinion to anyone, much less to your nebulous satisfaction. It's completely obvious that Maelstrom is garbage gaming, based on reacting to randomness in game. That you consider mere reaction some sort of tactics or strategy only illustrates how little you understand of either concept.

And with that, I'm done.

Well I for one enjoy Maelstrom. "reacting to randomness" is kind of a thing in 40k, isn't it? But that's personal preference I guess.

However Maelstrom isn't just reacting, it's also playing to the mission. If it's the frontloaded one (Deadlock?) you'll want to use a different overall strategy and be way more aggressive than on the Escalation one where you want to be in a strong position later on when you can earn more points. On the one with the "you get a card per objective you hold" one you might want to flank with your Landspeeder Storms to prevent your enemy from gaining any cards next turn, but probably throw away the 40 points per speeder to do that.

If, however, you only ever charge blindly towards the cards you get, it's purely reactive of course. But that's not the correct way to play them.

Of course I'm not saying Maelstrom missions are the pinacle of tactical warfare, but they're not purely random garbage gaming either. It's not even close to Monopoly, which i would consider actual random garbage gaming. There's no decision making nor skill involved at all "always buy, always build whenever possible" - that's the whole strategy to it.

I am also on the boat with Maelstrom is more tactical than eternal war missions...

With Maelstrom you had to think about movement a lot more to be able to react to the changing objectives, while Enternal War you are thinking a turn or two ahead.. in Maelstrom you had to think a turn or two ahead but be flexible depending on where the points were at.

 John Prins wrote:

 amanita wrote:

Fourth, I find it funny when people say how unrealistic it is for a unit to have a single heavy weapon and then can't shoot with the rest of the models at another type of threat from another direction. This absolutely correct. However, it is just as unlikely that any unit would be able to systematically choose to shoot at individual targets from any direction with complete coordination, especially in the heat of battle within scant moments. In our group we allow split fire between two targets with a passed leadership test to indicate the discipline of better training with certain units. So in principle I like split fire, I just think GW made it way too easy.

The way I look at it, this should be covered by the basic training of ANY guy you're handing heavy weapons to. While a machine gunner might be happy to shoot at what his buddies are, the guy with a bazooka should be shot on the spot by his sarge for doing the same thing. You're right in that the unit's leadership makes those decisions, but if you've trained your guys well enough, you heavy weapons crew doesn't fire without orders anyways.

Ultimately, though, this split fire rule adds player agency, which is a good thing. Making it unreliable via a Leadership test isn't tactical, it's random. So now units have a choice; throw in their heavy firepower with the squad in hopes of wiping out the enemy unit, or split off the fire to higher priority targets, maybe leaving some opposition alive to shoot back. That's value added tactics IMO, as it forces people to make decisions, but doesn't totally punish them by forcing them to shoot an entire squad at a unit most of them can't hurt just to get the Lascannon shot in.

Edit: Also let's not forget that the 'strikes first' rule makes counter-assault a viable tactic for shooty armies - even Tau. You probably won't win the CC, but you'll keep the enemy in place (hopefully through their turn) and reduce their numbers so they can be mopped up with shooting on your next turn.

I should clarify; if a squad fails it leadership test it counts as having moved. So then it could not shoot its heavy weapons. So a tactical choice with risks had to be made beforehand. Not random. The new way has no penalties, therefore no risks, therefore no decisions beyond 'shoot small arms at troops' and 'big stuff' at vehicles and monsters. Less tactical.

Is armor facing confirmed to be gone? Perhaps there will be a rule for shooting armor from the rear takes away more wounds?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Tactical play is more at a higher level like refused flank or symetrie de position.

It heavily depends on the missions. Maelstrom missions are less tactical since the occupation of mission objective does not necessarily require to outmaneuver the enemy.

Maelstrom is non-strategic, non-tactical play. It's basically garbage gaming, due to the churn in random objectives drawn mid-game.

Compared to Maelstrom, AoS / 8E is guaranteed to be a more tactical, more strategic game.

Is it confirmed that 8th ed has no/less maelstrom missions?
If so, this would be great.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Tactical play is more at a higher level like refused flank or symetrie de position.

It heavily depends on the missions. Maelstrom missions are less tactical since the occupation of mission objective does not necessarily require to outmaneuver the enemy.

Maelstrom is non-strategic, non-tactical play. It's basically garbage gaming, due to the churn in random objectives drawn mid-game.

Compared to Maelstrom, AoS / 8E is guaranteed to be a more tactical, more strategic game.

Is it confirmed that 8th ed has no/less maelstrom missions?
If so, this would be great.

How would that be great? You can literally just not play them. You're taking options away from players that enjoy Maelstrom, and that's a great thing to you?

7th didn't really have tactics unless you hit rock vs rock or scissors vs scissors.

OR you're someone who plays at the higher end of tournament play then the tactic is 'avoid the deathstar until I win on points'

7th was barely a game by the end of it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Maratag - if you believe that Maelstrom is the best way to play 40k, there's nothing I can do to help you.

I'm not asking for your help, i'm asking you to defend your ridiculous position. And in order to do that, I need to make sure we're operating with the same definitions of strategy and tactics.

You've stated that Maelstrom is the best way to play 40k, and you're saying that I've taken the ridiculous position? Dude, I didn't call you out on the sheer stupidity of what you stated, so you shouldn't be talking like that. As before, because that's what you believe, it's pointless trying to define "strategy" or "tactics" for you. I'd have more luck teaching calculus to a cat.

My cats can both do calculus, and are professional warhammer players as well. The big fat orange one in fact can defeat any army put on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
"Prove you claim."

Please. I'm not wasting my time proving an opinion to anyone, much less to your nebulous satisfaction. It's completely obvious that Maelstrom is garbage gaming, based on reacting to randomness in game. That you consider mere reaction some sort of tactics or strategy only illustrates how little you understand of either concept.

And with that, I'm done.

I found maelstrom a bit ridiculous in that you have 6 turns to get anything done, why the hell would I switch objectives in the middle of what is essentially a short, sharp encounter between forces.

so much hate for maelstrom missions. I personally preferred them and while sure some objectives are random if you are actually playing a campaign or forging a narrative they can make sense or be told as a story to make sense.

in scenario of space marines trying to taking back imperial worlds as a campaign: draw objective 3, auspex sensors indicate something of value inside those ruins, possible STC readings do not recognize. possibility of value of acquisition greater than taking back the planet reroute to secure immediately.

or same scenario. scout spotters report movement in that wooded area, sensor sweep indicated presence of explosives. be advised possible ambush point, tanks cannot proceed until forest cleared, squad proceed to purge hostile, radio when secured so advance can continue.

or for orks

"there be somthing shiny in them there rubble lets loot it boys"

or elder

"oh I used to live there 2500 years ago, I left my favorite pair of socks there due to being in a hurry I wonder if they are still there, yes I see the mahn-key their lives are worth less than my socks, listen to your exarch you insolent welp"

as for the eternal war missions some of them are just to one sided... kill point orks vs gerey knights... well this is not worth playing for the ork player with 17 units on the field vs the grey knights player with 6.

It's going to be way more tactical than bunching up your Reborn Warhost to take 9000+ shots per game turn, or running into your enemy with an invisible electro displacing deathstar. Fact.

Also, command points add their own layer of tactics into the game.

To me Maelstrom was always a good idea with bad execution. No one I know plays them without any modification (at least throw away impossible to achieve). The other big issue is that they are too random, if I am sitting on objective 2 and draw that twice for scoring that is a huge advantage for no effort. I think if they changed it to something like hold and objective outside your deployment zone,or if they had only each objective in the deck once it would help. I also think if they modeled the objectives off a game like malifaux it would be better.

I found Maelstrom to be perfectly fine for a fun, relaxed game that has at least 2500 points per team, any fewer points than that and it becomes difficult to try and score objectives as you may be literally unable to get anything in range to score.

My problems with Maelstrom come from the few times I played it in a tournament with WAAC players, who kept seeming to get the perfect cards to come out and kept on scoring about half of their objectives on each turn, where I was able to score about 4 points the whole game. I realize that this is a problem with the players and not the game itself, but if I wanted to play a card game and worry about someone being really good at shuffling cards, I would play Magic the Gathering. I have enough concerns watching these same players try to do trick rolls with their dice or being suspicious of them using weighted dice as is, adding in them shuffling cards really well is too grating on me.

To those of you who like Maelstrom, there is nothing stopping you from recreating the exact same mission type in 8th edition if it doesn't get ported over. There might be some minor modifications to make, but it should be very doable.

Breng77 wrote:
To me Maelstrom was always a good idea with bad execution. No one I know plays them without any modification (at least throw away impossible to achieve). The other big issue is that they are too random, if I am sitting on objective 2 and draw that twice for scoring that is a huge advantage for no effort. I think if they changed it to something like hold and objective outside your deployment zone,or if they had only each objective in the deck once it would help. I also think if they modeled the objectives off a game like malifaux it would be better.

tactical supremacy objectives are way better than the normal ones. additionally the discard unachievable ones should have absolutely been in the rules. it is annoying to draw "destroy tank or monstrous creature and destroy a flyer and the opponent has neither my group house ruled that within a week


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
I found Maelstrom to be perfectly fine for a fun, relaxed game that has at least 2500 points per team, any fewer points than that and it becomes difficult to try and score objectives as you may be literally unable to get anything in range to score.

My problems with Maelstrom come from the few times I played it in a tournament with WAAC players, who kept seeming to get the perfect cards to come out and kept on scoring about half of their objectives on each turn, where I was able to score about 4 points the whole game. I realize that this is a problem with the players and not the game itself, but if I wanted to play a card game and worry about someone being really good at shuffling cards, I would play Magic the Gathering. I have enough concerns watching these same players try to do trick rolls with their dice or being suspicious of them using weighted dice as is, adding in them shuffling cards really well is too grating on me.

To those of you who like Maelstrom, there is nothing stopping you from recreating the exact same mission type in 8th edition if it doesn't get ported over. There might be some minor modifications to make, but it should be very doable.

"shuffling really well" aka cheating. yea simple answer to this I shuffle your deck, you shuffle my deck of objectives. in all tournaments I have played using them the tournament eiher had you roll for objectives or provided the cards and they did the shuffle before hand

I don't know.. the OP's concerns never really concerned me too much. Honestly things that concerned me are "fixes" that nobody every asked for, like the wounding table. I've NEVER heard a player, even a kid, say the wounding table was complicated or hard to understand. With the new wounding table, not only can anything wound anything (which I'm completely against) but it makes differences in STR vs T less meaningful because you need double STR or double T to force a 2+ or 6+ to wound. Here's a great example. With the new ruleset, a heavy flamer will wound a Leman russ on 5+, and even reduce it's armor save by 1... so you have... a flamer... doing on average .58 wounds to a russ each time it fires. That doesn't sound bad until you realize that unless they make flamers expensive, this is going to be a major problem if people just start spamming them, and don't give me the argument that they're short ranged, because that's not hard to get around.

My biggest concern is that STR 5 and STR 6 weapons will become the only weapons that really matter, because they'll wound anything all the way up to T10-12 on a 5+, without being prohibitively expensive like lascannons or krak missiles. I'm worried about the game turning into "who can spam the most str 5/6 weapons the cheapest", as THAT will remove tactics from the game.