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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
My issue with new mael is that it's going to take more time. Now every game tailor deck. Gw keeps slowing down already slowest edition ever

How is it the slowest edition ever when "games are over by turn 3"?

Number of turns != time spent playing. Duh. If you play less turns but each turn takes longer(and top of that pre-game stuff) then it obviously takes more time.

Earth calling for simple logic, earth calling for simple logic!

I never thought about it from that point of view. But I think you are right. If psychic powers were random generated, any game against some armies would go for 5 min longer.

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
My issue with new mael is that it's going to take more time. Now every game tailor deck. Gw keeps slowing down already slowest edition ever

How is it the slowest edition ever when "games are over by turn 3"?

because it takes 2.5 hours to get to turn 3?

That's almost never the case when chess clocks are running.

Thinking about the Maelstrom deck-building mechanic consider Warhammer Underworlds for a moment; "score objective (X)" cards are considered the worst things in the game and never taken because the objectives are randomly distributed and if the one you've got the number assignment for is in your opponent's board it's effectively unscorable.

So asking you to cut from 36 down to 18 #11-36 from the generic deck are already just gone, which means you have 24 cards if you're playing a one-faction army (more if you're souping) to cut down to 18, at least 6 of which will probably be unscorable; so there isn't any deck-building, really, you're just being handed a smaller deck that's going to be the same for every player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
My issue with new mael is that it's going to take more time. Now every game tailor deck. Gw keeps slowing down already slowest edition ever

How is it the slowest edition ever when "games are over by turn 3"?

because it takes 2.5 hours to get to turn 3?

That's almost never the case when chess clocks are running.

Why would you need chess clocks to make turns go faster when one side's always tabled by turn 3 anyway?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why would you need chess clocks to make turns go faster when one side's always tabled by turn 3 anyway?

Agreed. The only thing that chess clock prevents is the psychological & physiological warfare employed by horde army players intentionally slow playing their turn to wear their opponents out mentally and physically, rather than actually playing the game.

It's extremely painful and hard to maintain focus when your opponent takes 45~60 min turns premeasuring, measuring & re-measuring and then rolling hundreds of dice.

Why would you need chess clocks to make turns go faster when one side's always tabled by turn 3 anyway?

Because I have seen a person do a 40min turn, knowing their opponent have to leave in 1:20, knowing that moving slow will get them droping out of the game and the orc player getting store even points practicaly for free?

Games ending turn 3 is a problem of its own, but when my turn maybe takes 15 min, someone with 200 models or more can make us pay for 2 hours of playing, just by trying to space out his models.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Why would you need chess clocks to make turns go faster when one side's always tabled by turn 3 anyway?

If people are getting tabled by turn 3 then the game reached a conclusion and there's not really an "issue".

But that isn't the case. I checked on all the NOVA streams and those games went to turn 5 by a strong majority with none of the games ending on turn 3 or earlier, so chess clocks keep people moving.

yeah well there is the small thing of being full tabled on turn 3, and being left with a no longer working army on turn 3, and opponents dragging the game on to get max points. So there is that too.

Plus tabling in tournaments is going to happen less often, because people are not bringing armies that can be easily tabled to events that have paid entry.

I love the new system for the tactical objective cards, sets them up as a much more viable tournament format.

Now if only I could play a game of 40k where any mission at all might matter because some side is not tabled or nearly tabled by turn 5.

Like, all this is great, but at this point I feel like I could be playing on a 1500$ terrain table completely packed to the brim and still have most stuff just gonzo turn 2. you could play "Everything is in cover the whole game, everything out of 18" is out of line of sight, all charge rolls are -2" and you'd probably still go to tabling turn 5 if you used the new marine stuff.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I love the new system for the tactical objective cards, sets them up as a much more viable tournament format.

Are tournament people really going to concede randomness in their mission when they've already got ITC?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I love the new system for the tactical objective cards, sets them up as a much more viable tournament format.

Are tournament people really going to concede randomness in their mission when they've already got ITC?

I wa talking about smaller tournaments who don’t use ITC rules and use tactical objectives. The local playerbase where I play loathes ITC missions.

If you aren't playing with the unique faction objectives you are playing with house rules which is automatically less balanced because all unique faction objectives were created to perfectly balance the faction for competitive play reeeeee. ITC is still better for competitive and now Maelstrom is poor-mans ITC instead of roulette, I'll continue playing ITC and CA18 Maelstrom.

 Ordana wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I love the new system for the tactical objective cards, sets them up as a much more viable tournament format.

Are tournament people really going to concede randomness in their mission when they've already got ITC?

America is probably a lost cause, for the rest of the world that actually plays 40k these missions are nice.

The ITC is an ecosystem now and they certainly derive revenue from it. It behooves them to improve alongside CA (something which they have influence over) - as they have previously. I have no doubt that many of the ideas presented will make it into ITC.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I love the new system for the tactical objective cards, sets them up as a much more viable tournament format.

Are tournament people really going to concede randomness in their mission when they've already got ITC?

They probably should, but they won't. Tailoring secondaries and scoring the way they do in ITC serves to further remove decision making from the actual game by making it all happen before the game. You just have to remember what secondaries your netlist needs against the other netlist, all established before the game even begins, all discussed and critiqued in forum threads.

One question for the masses, when playing Malestrom, do you guys place objectives in order (1 through 6) or do you just randomly grab one to place? I don't think the rules specify. If the latter (which is how I usually play it), it will be tough to "plan" for objectives since you really have no control over the one you place.

We usually have one player sit down 1,3,5 and the other 2,4,6.

Or, depending on the objective markers, we just arrange them to fit in with the table before anyone picks the table.

If there is a relic (center of the table) objective, I always make it number 1.

The numbers themselves don't matter until you draw a card requiring it though so you can just toss them randomly or do them in order if you so please.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
If there is a relic (center of the table) objective, I always make it number 1.

The numbers themselves don't matter until you draw a card requiring it though so you can just toss them randomly or do them in order if you so please.

If you can chose what cards are in your deck it starts to matter tho.
If objectives are placed as
123
456
You could remove 1 and 4 from your deck to not have to worry about the left side of the table.

With a full deck your right, it doesn't really matter.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I love the new system for the tactical objective cards, sets them up as a much more viable tournament format.

Are tournament people really going to concede randomness in their mission when they've already got ITC?

ITC!=world. Outside US it's not even most common format.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
If there is a relic (center of the table) objective, I always make it number 1.

The numbers themselves don't matter until you draw a card requiring it though so you can just toss them randomly or do them in order if you so please.

There's some edge cases where it does matter but not big ones. Necrons have card that tells them to capture odd/even ones so if you set all even ones you can use that one to your advantage for example.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I love the new system for the tactical objective cards, sets them up as a much more viable tournament format.

Are tournament people really going to concede randomness in their mission when they've already got ITC?

Hopefully yes. Not everyone plays ITC in the first place and for many people (including me) the lack of randomness in ITC missions makes them boring and far too much of a "solved" problem. Maelstrom's biggest strength and weakness was always its randomness and I'm happy to see GW steering Maelstrom towards something slightly less random with more player agency. Additionally, it looks like there are new terrain rules in CA which deal with enclosed buildings so maybe the ITC guys will see sense and get rid of the stupid magic boxes rules.

Really excited to try the new CA2019 missions, they all sound very good.

Slipspace wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I love the new system for the tactical objective cards, sets them up as a much more viable tournament format.

Are tournament people really going to concede randomness in their mission when they've already got ITC?

Hopefully yes. Not everyone plays ITC in the first place and for many people (including me) the lack of randomness in ITC missions makes them boring and far too much of a "solved" problem. Maelstrom's biggest strength and weakness was always its randomness and I'm happy to see GW steering Maelstrom towards something slightly less random with more player agency. Additionally, it looks like there are new terrain rules in CA which deal with enclosed buildings so maybe the ITC guys will see sense and get rid of the stupid magic boxes rules.

IMO if maelstrom manages to make objectives random while removing the "you lose because cards hate you" factor, it would be the best way to play. The main reason why I stopped playing maelstrom was because I felt too many games were decided by who drew more easy objectives. Before the last CA, I often was forced to table my opponent because he or she scored 4+ VP per turn, with that option gone, we often had games where the one player conceded turn three because the other player had already hit 20 VP while the other player had 3-5, despite dominating the game.

One thing the OP didn't mention is that each card in your deck must be unique. Not a problem with the faction specific decks where each card already is unique but the generic tactical objectives deck as two examples of each Secure Objective X card, so you can't have two Secure Objective 1 cards in your deck.

I've played the Schemes of War mission from White Dwarf several times and I find it to be really good, it cuts down on the randumness massively without becoming completely automatic. Sorting 18 cards out is pretty quick and easy if you have even a basic understanding of your army, as a Drukhari player the Secure X cards and Kill Something cards are pretty much guaranteed to be in my deck every time with the likes of Advance, Area Denial and Behind Enemy Lines finding their way in as well. Frankly I've found it to be quicker and easier to sort out than ITC secondaries.

It'll be interesting to see how the Eternal War changes shake out. By the sound of things your now going to be figjhting to get your opponent off objectives rather than fighting to get onto them as you need to hold an objective through your opponents turn to score.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
If there is a relic (center of the table) objective, I always make it number 1.

The numbers themselves don't matter until you draw a card requiring it though so you can just toss them randomly or do them in order if you so please.

If you can chose what cards are in your deck it starts to matter tho.
If objectives are placed as
123
456
You could remove 1 and 4 from your deck to not have to worry about the left side of the table.

With a full deck your right, it doesn't really matter.

I would say that you should always pick your cards before determining deployment, otherwise both players are effectively just going to be picking easy to score objectives that they know they'll be holding at the start of the game. I've had that happen once and it didn't make for a good game.

 Imateria wrote:
One thing the OP didn't mention is that each card in your deck must be unique. Not a problem with the faction specific decks where each card already is unique but the generic tactical objectives deck as two examples of each Secure Objective X card, so you can't have two Secure Objective 1 cards in your deck.

I've played the Schemes of War mission from White Dwarf several times and I find it to be really good, it cuts down on the randumness massively without becoming completely automatic. Sorting 18 cards out is pretty quick and easy if you have even a basic understanding of your army, as a Drukhari player the Secure X cards and Kill Something cards are pretty much guaranteed to be in my deck every time with the likes of Advance, Area Denial and Behind Enemy Lines finding their way in as well. Frankly I've found it to be quicker and easier to sort out than ITC secondaries.

It'll be interesting to see how the Eternal War changes shake out. By the sound of things your now going to be figjhting to get your opponent off objectives rather than fighting to get onto them as you need to hold an objective through your opponents turn to score.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
If there is a relic (center of the table) objective, I always make it number 1.

The numbers themselves don't matter until you draw a card requiring it though so you can just toss them randomly or do them in order if you so please.

If you can chose what cards are in your deck it starts to matter tho.
If objectives are placed as
123
456
You could remove 1 and 4 from your deck to not have to worry about the left side of the table.

With a full deck your right, it doesn't really matter.

I would say that you should always pick your cards before determining deployment, otherwise both players are effectively just going to be picking easy to score objectives that they know they'll be holding at the start of the game. I've had that happen once and it didn't make for a good game.

This cannot happen.

The order goes:

1) Create the deck
2) Position objectives
3) Roll to see who decides the deployment type and the side.

You don't know which objectives will be available to you when creating the deck.

 Imateria wrote:
One thing the OP didn't mention is that each card in your deck must be unique. Not a problem with the faction specific decks where each card already is unique but the generic tactical objectives deck as two examples of each Secure Objective X card, so you can't have two Secure Objective 1 cards in your deck.

That's not true. The first column is called "Capture and Control" and the second is "Take and Hold". So the cards are still unique, despite doing the same thing.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
One thing the OP didn't mention is that each card in your deck must be unique. Not a problem with the faction specific decks where each card already is unique but the generic tactical objectives deck as two examples of each Secure Objective X card, so you can't have two Secure Objective 1 cards in your deck.

That's not true. The first column is called "Capture and Control" and the second is "Take and Hold". So the cards are still unique, despite doing the same thing.

It says each unique NAMED objective. The role is there to cover this specific example.

Do we have the exact rules text on that?

"No more than one copy of each uniquely named tactical objective can be included in your deck."

Also, would like to point out that the raven guard assault centurion alpha is almost impossible with these rules. Almost all alpha strikes are actually really hard to pull off.

I pray this is the beginning of the end for the ITC missions. They are a big part of the reason that "competitive" 40k in the USA is a gak show since secondaries are fundamental changes to the nature of the game.

But people put way too many laurels on ITC and FLG so I doubt they will change anytime soon and continue to skew the playerbase with their terrible, bland missions that push listbuilding over play.