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.

KurtAngle2 wrote:
You didn't even bother to read the Maelstrom Beta Rules correctly since you disregarded the fact that each category has to be assigned an Alpha/Beta/Gamma category and you DO NOT GET a random objective from each table but rather you roll three times a D3/D6 to choose the category and THEN the objective (which can for the most part be easily manipulated with 1CP Stratagems)

Okay, I kind of missed your post as I was looking to respond to Jidmah.

This is partially unfair. I stated at the start of the thread that I only read the rules with the intent of showing that I did not have them for reference. So most of this is from memory, with the intent of getting a discussion going. If you have a copy of the Beta Rules handy then please feel free to correct me where I am wrong, as I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive.

- There are Six different categories, that are similar to the Secondary Objective concept in Matched Play, where players are instructed to write which 3 they're going to use based on their armies playstyle. Like the Matched Play mission Primary/Secondary Objectives, the separation of Alpha/Beta/Gamma have zero impact on priority in scoring the objective. This reduces the number of available objectives from 36 down to 18 and they're set for the game. These do NOT CHANGE throughout the game. I only saw 1 mission that referenced using all 6.
- At the start of the Round, you then roll a D3 for which of the CHOSEN categories you will pull the objective from. It's possible to generate all 3 objectives from the same table. If you get a repeat, then you have to generate another one. If you get one that is 'Unachievable', then you get to SELECT a replacement for it.
- Like the Matched Play mission. You only have the 1 turn to score them, where in Maelstrom, you got to keep it until you scored it (or opted to discard it). Yes, you can pay to keep an unscored one to avoid the randomness, but there is also a decent chance you'll see it again anyways.
- Since the game is only 5 turns as well, you'll only ever see 15 of the 18 available objectives, and there nothing preventing repeats.

If I missed anything, please feel free to correct me. It seems this version of Maelstrom has little to do with what Maelstrom was, and is little more than another version of the Matched Play mission. I simply do not see the point when we already have a Matched Play mission for those that prefer that style.

 Jidmah wrote:
My group wasn't "struggling with the concept". We almost exclusively played maelstrom for a long time, and during one after-game dinner one player complained about how the deck always decided the winner, so we decided to monitor that. During the next 30 games across seven players, a whooping 21 were completely one-sided with one person running away with a huge VP lead and the game being decided by turn 3, with no chance for the other player to catch up. Slightly less than half of those were won despite the losing player completely dominating the game. Only 9 games were considered close games by both players.
Thus, we decided to switch to CA2018's eternal war and the problem all but disappeared.

Unachievable objectives were only part of the problem. If one player drew only d3 VP objectives and the other didn't, the first player would simply win unless he got crushed. Bad mission design that had players snowball if they could quickly score objectives/hold mission markers didn't help either.

The CA2019 iteration of Maelstrom only required your army to be able to archive 18 objectives, and both players would usually go through most of their deck over the course of a game, so luck of the draw was minimized. The main reason why few people switched back was because eternal war missions were quite good at that time.
It is true that CA2019 felt like it had just a single maelstrom mission, but due the pandemic, that problem never came to bear.

I also fail to see what allies have to do with anything. Not everyone could take allies to begin with, and allies won't do jack for you if your three objectives are kill a psyker, a vehicle and a unit with FLY and my army is 100% ork infantry and the weirdboy blew himself up turn 1.

This is already getting off topic, since Maelstrom is effectively dead at this point. I'm not saying the potential for the one sided games wasn't there. You're kind of illustrating my point though. Your group played it, and perceived the mission design and objectives as a problem. It was unrealistic to expect it to be fully functional in the first draft of it. I stand by what I said though and that there were no 'Unachievable Objectives' at the start of 7th.

Not doing jack if your 3 Objectives were Kill a psyker, a vehicle, and a unit with FLY when your opponent didn't bring ANY of those was not a flaw of the game but was something that your opponent chose to control when he brought his list. I'm not saying it didn't suck, but it FINALLY incorporated a competitive aspect that had been missing from the previous missions. That was a risk/reward based on a player's list choice. I'll give an example. In all of the previous editions, players would often bring a unit for a specific task. Anti-Tank would be the most common one for example. The great thing about Maelstrom is that it made taking the unit a risk because you'd now be required to play an opponent who was bringing something for them to be good at and then see the objective. Choosing to complete the objective before it even showed up was one of the most tactical decisions a player could make. No, not everyone saw it this way, and I'm not here to change your mind.

When looking to see how players were adapting to Maelstrom, there was zero discussion on playing it and doing better. It was always about fixing a problem that didn't really exist, and I'll explain why. Like Competitive Matched Play in 9th, lists are narrowed down to finding that combination that works best in that format. Players are forced to choose between bringing what they want to succeed vs. what they need to succeed. Maelstrom was the first mechanic to address this issue and allow players a path to victory by bringing what they actually enjoyed. We saw a variety of lists start to succeed, and not just the popular Netlists.

A truly Competitive ruleset should be working toward any list having a 50% win rate. This is where Allies come in. If a player was making a list and his preferred army didn't have the option to achieve it, then he had the option to take allies to do it. If a player didn't like any of their Heavy Support options, or simply chose to never run with Flyers, Monsters, Psykers, etc, then he was actually rewarded by giving his opponent a dead objective. Rewarding yourself because your opponent didn't allow you to score an objective became the problem, not the solution. Congratulating your opponent for successfully pulling off that tactic instead of grumbling about not being able to score something you came prepared should've been great planning, but failed implementation on your part. That aside, GW did give players a way out. Objectives could be discarded at the end of each turn, and later on, you could replace them as you drew them for CP.

There was no 'Beta Test' for the original 7th ed. Maelstrom. It was just kind of thrown on us and players immediately thought it was a problem to be fixed, instead of playing it and seeing that it was another attempt to improve how Competitive 40k could be. I can't think of anyone who thought it would be perfect on the first go round. When 8th came around they had addressed most of the issues while still keeping the core Maelstrom Competitiveness around. You could still bring what you want, and have the opportunity to succeed. The problems came with CA18/19 as players were being pushed back toward taking lists that were effective at being able to score. With the removal of having the option to make the game more difficult for the opponent objective wise in addition to list choices, we saw the slide back to the problem they tried to address by implementing it.

Every list in 40k should have an equal opportunity to win. No one is refuting that. Maelstrom was a huge, and uncomfortable leap, in that direction. Instead of trying to develop it, everyone jumped to trying to solve it and in the process destroyed it. Which is my motivation for posting this discussion. Maelstrom, at the start of 8th, is what it needs to go back to so we can find a Competitive option for those who don't want to take cookie cutter lists in order to succeed. If you like the Set Game Length, Limited Objectives, or the horrible Ro3, then you already have a format that caters to you. The last thing we need is another copy of the Matched Play mission which is restricting that.

"Congratulating your opponent for successfully pulling off that tactic"

See, this is where you are wrong. I didn't do anything. My opponent didn't do anything. The deck of cards did. There were no tactics, strategy or player agency involved.

All that talk about tactics allies was utterly irrelevant - you obviously had to bring a list that was good at playing maelstrom, and those lists looked different from lists that were supposed to play eternal war or ITC.
Once the initial adapting to the game mode had happened and both players brought lists tailored for maelstrom, the vast majorities were decided by nothing but luck.

I really don't need to discuss this any further. You either refuse to acknowledge or don't understand the problems that maelstrom had.

 Jidmah wrote:
If one player drew only d3 VP objectives and the other didn't, the first player would simply win unless he got crushed.

There is a little bit of the "D3 objective" scenario in these rules, but only 1 in 6 chance to roll it and it is harder to achieve usually. A 1 on the table is always 8 VP. The rest are 5.

The objective groups I would choose seem like it would vary heavily based on who I am facing, which I like.

Holding the Line would be the first for most people I'd imagine, but if say you wanted to be a true DE raiding force and just jump entirely into the opponent's side of the table you could do Seizure, Raid, and Brought Low and completely ignore ( if you can gamble they won't do the same to you ) your own half. Kind of neat.

(These are the Strike Force values - I highlighted some of the particularly easy ones)

Eradication


Heroic Deeds


Holding the Line


Territory Seizure


Raid


Brought Low

I just got my Dwarf today, and finally got to read these missions. I think the strats for interacting with the Maelstrom are interesting because they give you another thing that can be done with command points.

I thought about trying these out- they look like they could provide a few interesting games. But if I did, it would be a lost opportunity to grow my Crusade unless I adapted them. I mean, I could claim an RP for playing, and give everyone an XP for participating in battle, but that's about it unless I do a bit more work and apply XP rewards for objectives.

PenitentJake wrote:
I just got my Dwarf today, and finally got to read these missions. I think the strats for interacting with the Maelstrom are interesting because they give you another thing that can be done with command points.

Yea I've been thinking how people would be spending a fair amount of CP on modifying objectives over other strats. I'm going to give it a whirl this weekend or next.

I think you cant just go and ignore the actual missions and their impact on how you generate objectives. #5 and #6 are vastly different from the others, one being truly random while the other gives an advantage to the Player thats behind in VP.

I hated all but the last Iteration (the Deck building one) because they were so random. 1-4 and 6 of the beta missions appeal to me, and i think ill always try to play #6 as that will lead to close games.

nekooni wrote:
I think you cant just go and ignore the actual missions and their impact on how you generate objectives. #5 and #6 are vastly different from the others, one being truly random while the other gives an advantage to the Player thats behind in VP.

I hated all but the last Iteration (the Deck building one) because they were so random. 1-4 and 6 of the beta missions appeal to me, and i think ill always try to play #6 as that will lead to close games.

Yea, there is some interplay so you have to be careful.