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.

But that is not what the rules say , how you should be playing. I am confused.

That seems like a potentially decent fix MarkCron. Mixes things up a little but doesn't sacrifice multi-turn strategies.

Having played using the cards once they were released, its awesome having these in the game.

One question though, didn't see a rule for a objective limit for each player so say we draw 3 objectives turn and god forbid can't do any of em, in theory we could have like 15 cards in hand?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.

So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:

Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*

hahaha good way to describe how it felt in my narrative two weeks ago! Seriously, the maelstrom missions are terrible in practice.

Makumba wrote:

STOP CHARACTERISING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH AND READ WHY THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNHAPPY, INSTEAD OF MAKING LITTLE JABS ABOUT THEM ONLY CARING ABOUT WINNING. IT IS RUDE.

Isn't it the normal thing to do . Any group always tells that other groups are non human canibals that eat their babies , who are at best using up oxygen for other people. It has worked like that since the dawn of time and it probably be such till the end days.
It is a perfect argument . Talking about what rules are bad or if they are bad or if they could be better could end up with someone winning or losing. But if you accuse someone of not realy being a human , you automaticly win the whole argument , because any given by non people are void. That is also why terms like WAAC are used. Why explain anything , while calling something a WAAC wins the argument in your favor.

It might seem so, however the people like myself who are against random cards and Allies, Unbound, etc on the whole do not wish to deny these to the people who might like them. We merely wish them not to be compulsory for everyone.

In my case there is also an element of wanting GW to do their job but that is a separate thing and not a reflection or comment on any players.

To be honest, I'm looking through the objectives now and they don't seem like a bad idea, just I don't like that they are totally random as if you draw/roll really well you can get easy VP. I like the concept, but I dislike the execution. Also it would be a simple change IMO to allow an immediate discard or re-roll if you draw something that isn't appropriate (e.g. the destroy flyer card when your opponent has no flyers).

I personally loved the old 2nd Edition Mission Cards, and I think that's what these objectives should have been. I get that they want to allow for more than just "kill the enemy" kinds of things and give your army a reason to be on the battlefield, but the randomness is a bit too much.

MarkCron wrote:I like them. I think that having the cards makes a big difference to playability and it is exciting to have differing objectives come up.

Having said that we have modified the use of them - each player has two hidden objectives and there is a pool of 4 face up objectives which either player can achieve.

a) At the start of the game, each player receives 2 missions, which are their secret ones.

b) At the start of the first player turn, 2 objectives are dealt face up into the pool.

c) At the start of the second player turn, the pool is increased to the full four missions.

d) Any impossible objectives are discarded and the player can replace immediately.

We are thinking of combining this with a relic mission as well to see what happens.

Makumba wrote:But that is not what the rules say , how you should be playing. I am confused.

It's a house rule to address the most glaring deficiencies.

Yonan wrote:That seems like a potentially decent fix MarkCron. Mixes things up a little but doesn't sacrifice multi-turn strategies.

Yep. And thinking about it, if you combined this with the Scouring, so that the objectives had additional VP if you had them at the end of the game, it would be really interesting.

There's a lot of comments that it takes strategy out of the game, which I don't agree with. I've played nothing but Maelstrom missions (with the ditch impossible objective house rule) and I think that they are much more strategic and tactical than the standard missions. Let's be honest, how many eternal war missions came down to First Blood?

In a Maelstrom mission, you have several layers of tactics and strategy which affect list design significantly.

Firstly, look at the sequence of play - you deploy with a view to getting as many objectives as you can. Half of these missions are "secure x" - so you need to have a way to get to all the objectives quickly. But, at the same time, you also have to move in such a way that you have set yourself up to do the same thing in the next turn....after the opponent moves. So, immediately, you have to guess what the opponent is going to do, and you don't have another 4 turns if you make a mistake. As an example I was playing Crons against a Ravenwing bike list and by end of T2 I had a handy lead with outer objectives held by non superscoring units. My superscoring units were repositioning, and due to some poor run rolls happened to be outside 3", except for a Ghost ark. T3, Domination came up and the opponent used superscoring units to secure the objectives, and it was only a couple of jink saves that prevented him from getting Dominion, which would have put him in the lead. As it was, he easily got Supremacy, and he was back in the game with a vengeance.

Second, you have to track the remaining objectives - so you can focus your diminishing forces on objectives that are likely to come up. Note that if you are rolling on the table, the remaining objectives that you have will be different to the other player - this leads to asymmetrical objectives as the game goes on. If you are using cards, both players will have the same objectives if you are only using 1 deck (which is also a good balancer btw).

Third, you need to carefully think about the use of your non superscoring units and how to protect them and the objectives you are likely to need.

Fourth, where do you allocate your firepower? Kill the psykers (a no brainer playing demons) or the superscoring units? What about if it is an SM list? When do you kill the drop pods? Do you kill their mobility first? How much do you reserve for the "assassinate" objectives, which can occur at any time?

In the deployment phase, a key question is where you put the objectives to take advantage of your list strengths or minimise the opponents. Remember, this is something that affects every game turn, not just the last one.

Overall, tactical objectives imho are far more interesting and tactically challenging than the Eternal war missions. Clearly, some tweaks are needed (eg ditch impossible ones (eg kill psyker when no psykers exist) and replace immediately).

I also think they are fluffy, because it makes perfect sense that missions change often during a battle, particularly after you have secured an objective.

MarkCron wrote:
So, immediately, you have to guess what the opponent is going to do, and you don't have another 4 turns if you make a mistake.

And this is exactly the problem. You have to guess what your opponent is going to do in reaction to a random objective roll that hasn't happened yet. Depending on which objective(s) they roll their actions could be completely different, which means you can't make any kind of reasonable strategy to counter it. You just have to guess blindly and hope that you've got enough firepower in the general area to fight back. And then of course your strategy for the next turn will be completely independent of whatever is happening this turn, since both of you will have new objectives. Contrast this with a game with fixed objectives, where you know your opponent's end goal but you have to figure out a strategy that plays out over several turns. That's requires a lot more analysis and prediction than just randomly guessing "left half of the table or right" before every roll on the random objective table.

I also think they are fluffy, because it makes perfect sense that missions change often during a battle, particularly after you have secured an objective.

No, it's not fluffy at all. Read any real-world historical account of a battle, you'll notice that the overall objectives are constant and only the details of executing a strategy change in response to changing opposing strategies. If there is a sudden change of objectives in the middle of a brief skirmish (and remember, a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, not hours/days) it almost certainly won't happen more than once, and it won't be a completely random change that had absolutely nothing to do with what had been happening previously. With random objectives in 40k it's completely different, and you don't have anything remotely resembling a coherent strategy. Here's my previous attempt at the fluff involved:


Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*

Sure, it might be funny to tell the story of the poor guardsmen stuck under the paranoid and insane commissar, and laugh at their desperate struggle to accomplish anything of value while avoiding execution for failure. But that's only going to be funny once. When it becomes the story of every single battle it's just annoying and gets in the way of enjoying the narrative.

 Peregrine wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
So, immediately, you have to guess what the opponent is going to do, and you don't have another 4 turns if you make a mistake.

And this is exactly the problem. You have to guess what your opponent is going to do in reaction to a random objective roll that hasn't happened yet. Depending on which objective(s) they roll their actions could be completely different, which means you can't make any kind of reasonable strategy to counter it. You just have to guess blindly and hope that you've got enough firepower in the general area to fight back. And then of course your strategy for the next turn will be completely independent of whatever is happening this turn, since both of you will have new objectives. Contrast this with a game with fixed objectives, where you know your opponent's end goal but you have to figure out a strategy that plays out over several turns. That's requires a lot more analysis and prediction than just randomly guessing "left half of the table or right" before every roll on the random objective table.

I also think they are fluffy, because it makes perfect sense that missions change often during a battle, particularly after you have secured an objective.

No, it's not fluffy at all. Read any real-world historical account of a battle, you'll notice that the overall objectives are constant and only the details of executing a strategy change in response to changing opposing strategies. If there is a sudden change of objectives in the middle of a brief skirmish (and remember, a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, not hours/days) it almost certainly won't happen more than once, and it won't be a completely random change that had absolutely nothing to do with what had been happening previously. With random objectives in 40k it's completely different, and you don't have anything remotely resembling a coherent strategy. Here's my previous attempt at the fluff involved:


Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*

Sure, it might be funny to tell the story of the poor guardsmen stuck under the paranoid and insane commissar, and laugh at their desperate struggle to accomplish anything of value while avoiding execution for failure. But that's only going to be funny once. When it becomes the story of every single battle it's just annoying and gets in the way of enjoying the narrative.

lol I'd love to see jervi's version of operation market garden. "secure the bridges, wait, scratch that, shoot down their planes, wait, nevermind, kill something, anything, I don't care, scratch that, destroy a bunker or something or other, nevermind, go after their command and control, wait, nevermind, go secure those briges"

Constant random objectives kills the strategy of the battle. I'm not a fan.

With light house rules, I like them.

 Peregrine wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
So, immediately, you have to guess what the opponent is going to do, and you don't have another 4 turns if you make a mistake.

And this is exactly the problem. You have to guess what your opponent is going to do in reaction to a random objective roll that hasn't happened yet. Depending on which objective(s) they roll their actions could be completely different, which means you can't make any kind of reasonable strategy to counter it. You just have to guess blindly and hope that you've got enough firepower in the general area to fight back. And then of course your strategy for the next turn will be completely independent of whatever is happening this turn, since both of you will have new objectives. Contrast this with a game with fixed objectives, where you know your opponent's end goal but you have to figure out a strategy that plays out over several turns. That's requires a lot more analysis and prediction than just randomly guessing "left half of the table or right" before every roll on the random objective table.

Yes, it's annoying when you don't know what the enemy is going to do. But you aren't blindly guessing in a Maelstrom mission. There are 6 objectives....you have to protect and secure those ALL THE TIME. You also have to protect your key command and control assets (your warlord and psykers). That isn't uncertain or random. The main issue you seem to have is that you don't know WHEN the enemy is going to make a play for the objective (or even if they will). You have to spread your assets in such a way that you can achieve what you need (secure the objectives) and prevent the enemy from doing the same. That seems highly realistic.

A Maelstrom mission is very similar to the Scouring or Big guns, it is just that you have to control the objective every turn.

 Peregrine wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
I also think they are fluffy, because it makes perfect sense that missions change often during a battle, particularly after you have secured an objective.

No, it's not fluffy at all. Read any real-world historical account of a battle, you'll notice that the overall objectives are constant and only the details of executing a strategy change in response to changing opposing strategies. If there is a sudden change of objectives in the middle of a brief skirmish (and remember, a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, not hours/days) it almost certainly won't happen more than once, and it won't be a completely random change that had absolutely nothing to do with what had been happening previously. With random objectives in 40k it's completely different, and you don't have anything remotely resembling a coherent strategy. Here's my previous attempt at the fluff involved:


Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*But they do claim the objective, otherwise they can't go to the next step because you haven't got another card
Commissar: <*deleted*> WELL DONE! NOW GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen <*deleted*> leave a securing force for their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: <*deleted>THE ENEMY HAVE OVERRUN OUR BROTHERS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to <*deleted*> retake the position the enemy has overrun*
Commissar: <*deleted>KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.Fair point on this one
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*Actually, this is only a problem for AM, everyone else can skip this step
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!Fair point on this one
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*Always been a problem for AM, this

Sure, it might be funny to tell the story of the poor guardsmen stuck under the paranoid and insane commissar, and laugh at their desperate struggle to accomplish anything of value while avoiding execution for failure. But that's only going to be funny once. When it becomes the story of every single battle it's just annoying and gets in the way of enjoying the narrative.

I read that, it was funny. Partially wrong, but funny. I fixed it for you. And in reality, why can't a turn be a full day? New day, new objectives. Seems reasonable?

MarkCron wrote:
The main issue you seem to have is that you don't know WHEN the enemy is going to make a play for the objective (or even if they will).

The problem is neither does your opponent, since they don't know which objective to go for until they roll on the random table. And then once they roll that objective the choice to go for it is pretty much automatic, since the way to win the mission is to cycle through objectives as fast as possible. You aren't anticipating your opponent's strategy, you're anticipating the outcome of the dice.

And in reality, why can't a turn be a full day? New day, new objectives. Seems reasonable?

Because that makes absolutely no sense in the context of the game. My Khorne berserkers are charging at you to slaughter you and harvest your skulls. Turn 1 they move 6" forward and run D6", ignoring shooting entirely in their desperate rush to get into chainsaw range. If turn 2 happens the next day then what exactly are they doing for 24 hours, camping in the middle of the field and waiting patiently until they're allowed to move again? Do my flyers just hover in midair waiting until tomorrow before moving on to the next target? Are my lascannon teams only allowed to fire once per day at a tank, while the tank generously declines to spend the day moving out of its vulnerable position before it gets shot again? The only way to even attempt to make any sense of things is to assume that a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, typically the key moment of a battle.

came up with an interesting house rule, each player draws 3 cards at the beginning of each turn, and chooses only one from what they have and puts it down before the game turn begins, face up. Both players can try and score that objective, and both players have a fair shot. So any given game turn there are 2 tactical objectives that can be achieved.

gealgain wrote:
came up with an interesting house rule, each player draws 3 cards at the beginning of each turn, and chooses only one from what they have and puts it down before the game turn begins, face up. Both players can try and score that objective, and both players have a fair shot. So any given game turn there are 2 tactical objectives that can be achieved.

Again, not an option with pick up games.

 MWHistorian wrote:

gealgain wrote:
came up with an interesting house rule, each player draws 3 cards at the beginning of each turn, and chooses only one from what they have and puts it down before the game turn begins, face up. Both players can try and score that objective, and both players have a fair shot. So any given game turn there are 2 tactical objectives that can be achieved.

Again, not an option with pick up games.

Not everyone plays pick-up games exclusively, so what's the problem with offering an option for those of us that have a regular group?

 Peregrine wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
The main issue you seem to have is that you don't know WHEN the enemy is going to make a play for the objective (or even if they will).

The problem is neither does your opponent, since they don't know which objective to go for until they roll on the random table. And then once they roll that objective the choice to go for it is pretty much automatic, since the way to win the mission is to cycle through objectives as fast as possible. You aren't anticipating your opponent's strategy, you're anticipating the outcome of the dice.

Only if your strategy is only to secure the objectives when you have a card. You could equally have a strategy of denying the objectives all the time - which would be challenging to say the least. However, in missions where you can see the opponents objectives, that's not impossible to do. Also, remember that they only get new objectives if they achieve an active objective (in most missions). So tactically, you can get a big advantage by preventing them from reaching theirs. The question is, is that advantage worth committing a large percentage of your force, perhaps at the cost of your board positioning?

In the games I've played, a far better strategy is to leave the dedicated transports on the objectives, but move the troop units off to form a reserve (or vice versa, depending on where the better cover is). Then you use the non superscoring units to harass the enemy backfield (kill psykers etc), contest objectives which don't have superscoring troops on them (or better still, blast the superscoring troops off). This leaves your opponent having to kill the transport (or troop) in order to meet their objectives.

I find it interesting and challenging to balance my deployment of forces - depending on where the objectives were positioned you need a combo of superscoring plus firepower from non scoring units, which is positioned and mobile enough to make the lightning raid!

One thing is for sure, if you are playing anyone with fast troops (eldar jetbikes, or even ravenwing) the task gets a whole lot more complicated and challenging.

 Peregrine wrote:

And in reality, why can't a turn be a full day? New day, new objectives. Seems reasonable?

Because that makes absolutely no sense in the context of the game. My Khorne berserkers are charging at you to slaughter you and harvest your skulls. Turn 1 they move 6" forward and run D6", ignoring shooting entirely in their desperate rush to get into chainsaw range. If turn 2 happens the next day then what exactly are they doing for 24 hours, camping in the middle of the field and waiting patiently until they're allowed to move again? Do my flyers just hover in midair waiting until tomorrow before moving on to the next target? Are my lascannon teams only allowed to fire once per day at a tank, while the tank generously declines to spend the day moving out of its vulnerable position before it gets shot again? The only way to even attempt to make any sense of things is to assume that a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, typically the key moment of a battle.

LOL! I hadn't thought of it like that - perhaps the flyers and lascannons were sucked into a temporal warp? Fair enough.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
So, immediately, you have to guess what the opponent is going to do, and you don't have another 4 turns if you make a mistake.

And this is exactly the problem. You have to guess what your opponent is going to do in reaction to a random objective roll that hasn't happened yet. Depending on which objective(s) they roll their actions could be completely different, which means you can't make any kind of reasonable strategy to counter it. You just have to guess blindly and hope that you've got enough firepower in the general area to fight back. And then of course your strategy for the next turn will be completely independent of whatever is happening this turn, since both of you will have new objectives. Contrast this with a game with fixed objectives, where you know your opponent's end goal but you have to figure out a strategy that plays out over several turns. That's requires a lot more analysis and prediction than just randomly guessing "left half of the table or right" before every roll on the random objective table.

I also think they are fluffy, because it makes perfect sense that missions change often during a battle, particularly after you have secured an objective.

No, it's not fluffy at all. Read any real-world historical account of a battle, you'll notice that the overall objectives are constant and only the details of executing a strategy change in response to changing opposing strategies. If there is a sudden change of objectives in the middle of a brief skirmish (and remember, a 40k game represents a few minutes of combat, not hours/days) it almost certainly won't happen more than once, and it won't be a completely random change that had absolutely nothing to do with what had been happening previously. With random objectives in 40k it's completely different, and you don't have anything remotely resembling a coherent strategy. Here's my previous attempt at the fluff involved:


Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*

Sure, it might be funny to tell the story of the poor guardsmen stuck under the paranoid and insane commissar, and laugh at their desperate struggle to accomplish anything of value while avoiding execution for failure. But that's only going to be funny once. When it becomes the story of every single battle it's just annoying and gets in the way of enjoying the narrative.

lol I'd love to see jervi's version of operation market garden. "secure the bridges, wait, scratch that, shoot down their planes, wait, nevermind, kill something, anything, I don't care, scratch that, destroy a bunker or something or other, nevermind, go after their command and control, wait, nevermind, go secure those briges"

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Operation Market Garden one of the biggest flops in British military history?

MarkCron wrote:
So tactically, you can get a big advantage by preventing them from reaching theirs. The question is, is that advantage worth committing a large percentage of your force, perhaps at the cost of your board positioning?

Except random objectives makes this less interesting:

In a game with static objectives you still have to choose which objectives to defend and how much to invest into protecting them. If winning the game requires capturing more objectives than your opponent in a game with five objectives then there are lots of potential plans. You could just slaughter everything and claim one objective for a 1-0 win, you could go full defense and camp your three chosen objectives, etc. And in each of these strategies you could use any combination of the five available objectives. And you can try to conceal your strategy until it's too late. For example, you might try to make it look like the focus of your strategy is to win by claiming objectives #1 and #4, but you're actually going to contest #1 with a token unit and capture #3 to win the game. Now I have to guess which objectives to commit to opposing you on, which involves difficult choices about mobility, firepower vs. position, etc. And I simultaneously have to worry about executing my own strategy for capturing enough objectives to win the game, and avoiding your plans to stop me.

In a game with random objectives you have similar uncertainty to deal with, but instead of countering an opposing strategy you're just countering the dice. I'm not moving to attack objective #2, which you've cleverly positioned yourself to defend, because you out-maneuvered me and forced me to attack where you're strongest, I'm doing it because I rolled "claim objective #2". If I had rolled #4 instead, where your defenses are weaker because you couldn't move anything there in time, your plan would have failed because of random dice instead of me out-maneuvering you.

Really, the biggest reason to use random objectives is to help people that are bad at thinking ahead. With random objectives the poor newbie doesn't have to get overwhelmed by trying to think a step ahead of their opponent, they can just let the dice decide whether or not their positioning is good. And since success or failure is largely determined by the dice the poor newbie has a good chance of winning simply by rolling the right objectives, rather than being crushed without any hope of victory.

It depends on what the objectives are and how well the system is implemented. It's reasonable that different armies would have different objectives on a battlefield and it can give a fun game whilst trying to hide but still achieve yours and discover and deny theirs. It shouldn't be down to dice rolling as such in a proper system. Deadzone has random mission cards for each faction that you draw before the game which works well for the most part. It not working here imo is purely due to GW incompetence at rule writing.

 Yonan wrote:
Deadzone has random mission cards for each faction that you draw before the game which works well for the most part. It not working here imo is purely due to GW incompetence at rule writing.

This is true, in this case it's not really the randomness that's the problem, it's the constant re-rolling of new objectives. A system with static objectives assigned randomly at the beginning would work, as long as both players always get objectives of equal difficulty.

If your objectives change at random every turn you are not strategising you are hoping for the chance to attack targets of opportunity. The problem with that is that it can lead to severe imbalance and occasional boredom, which is not a good thing in a game IMO.

I like the concept.

The execution needs tweaked.

First up, we should have the ability to discard immediately any drawn (or rolled for) objective that is impossible to perform. For example, shooting flyers when the opponent never brought a flyer. Alternatively, we should simply remove those impossible cards from the deck prior to objectives being placed.


Second, most of the time these should be hidden until the action has been performed at which point you reveal them. Having your opponent know your targets most of the game gives them too much intelligence. So I'd rather that be limited to just the mission where you can complete the same objectives as your opponent.

Also, because drop pods are now Objective Secured units, I'd rather the maelstrom missions be modified such that vehicles can never be OS. It's too easy for a marine player to secure or deny all of the numbered objectives T1 and get pretty far ahead with the points.

Here is a bat rep of why i dislike the objectives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ6ilq5P564&list=UUD6cBAinJVKv50pVsKp59qA

MSU gets you only so far, card draw win in the end.

I played my first 7th games over the weekend. I really did not like the Maelstrom of War effect on the game.

It took any concept of mutli-turn strategy out of the game. Instead of thinking ahead where men needed to be, the only real approach was to take highly mobile units that could be anywhere they needed to be on a moment's notice.

I had a unit of eldar jetbikes, and my opponent did not. I won something like 16-6.

This was not really reflective of how the game was going. Instead, I just had a unit that could hop from one place to another quickly, allowing me to cycle through cards much faster than my opponent. Realistically, our game was decided on turn 2, at which point I had seen and scored five cards to his 2. His remaining cards were all either objectives well across a hammer&anvil deployment, or things that were unlikely (declare a challenge, when neither of us were fielding particularly assaulty lists),and he could only discard one/turn.

Meanwhile, I was consistently able to score 2-3 a turn, thanks to the mobility my bikes provided, and he couldn't even plan in advance to contest where they'd go, because I didn't draw new ones until the beginning of my turn. It was more like solitaire than a wargame. At the beginning of my turn, I'd see where I needed to move my unit, move it, and score points, all without interaction from my opponent.

We discussed this after the game, and came up with some ideas to make these more fun and interactive.

1) You may immediately discard and replace any card that is impossible to achieve. (Destroy a fortification if your opponent did not bring one). Not ones that are hard, or unlikely, but truly impossible.

2) All mission objective cards are to remain hidden until scored. Because bluffing is fun, and you shouldn't know what your enemy's plans are ahead of time.

3) You can choose to keep or replace an objective when you score it. Because while requirements in war may change, your commander is not so schizophrenic as to require you to advance 20 yards, and then turn around and retreat 20 yards.

4) For all 'Secure Objective X' cards, replace with the following:

"Reveal this card when one of your units gains control of Objective X. Score 1 Victory Point if you control Objective X at the beginning of your turn. Score 1 Victory Point if you control Objective X at the end of the game."

This makes the process far more interactive, as now scoring a point isn't simply a matter of putting a fast unit there, you have to work to ensure that the unit can remain there, and your opponent has an opportunity to prevent you earning the point.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Here is a bat rep of why i dislike the objectives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ6ilq5P564&list=UUD6cBAinJVKv50pVsKp59qA

MSU gets you only so far, card draw win in the end.

Yeah that was a great example of what's wrong with the cards.

 Jancoran wrote:
Played another Maelstrom mission. Again: Awesome.

That's been my experience as well. All of the Maelstrom games I've played thus far have been fun, and most of them have been close, coming down to the last turn with both sides tied.

I'm a huge fan of how they eliminate the last turn objective grabbing that is typical of many of the Eternal War missions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.

So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:

Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*

You do realize that actual war is full of situations where objectives and goals shift, sometimes with great speed? Minus the part about casting 'space magic', your little conversation doesn't really sound that farfetched. For example: Hamburger Hill (Hill 937) in Vietnam, lives were spent taking some random hill that had little strategic value, only for the hill to be abandoned a few days after the battle. For me, the randomness of the Tactical Objectives is a good stand in for the Fog of War.

My games of 7E using Maelstrom missions have been among the more enjoyable of games I've played recently. I think some tweaks are in order, such as allowing people to discard objectives that are impossible to achieve, but I like the dynamic in general.

 undertow wrote:
You do realize that actual war is full of situations where objectives and goals shift, sometimes with great speed? Minus the part about casting 'space magic', your little conversation doesn't really sound that farfetched. For example: Hamburger Hill (Hill 937) in Vietnam, lives were spent taking some random hill that had little strategic value, only for the hill to be abandoned a few days after the battle. For me, the randomness of the Tactical Objectives is a good stand in for the Fog of War.

Except that:

1) The change in objectives happened days later, while 40k games represent a few minutes of combat. The random objective system has you cycling through 5-10 different sets of orders in the space of a few minutes, with no connection between them. And there's no way that makes any sense.

2) The change in objectives happened once. They didn't decide, the day after abandoning the hill, that they should go back and re-take it, and then halfway through that battle decide that they wanted to go somewhere else instead, and then reject the whole idea of occupying territory in favor of camping around the AA guns hoping a plane would show up. But that's exactly what you can get with random objectives.

GorillaWarfare wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.

(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)

There are already changing game conditions in the form of what the enemy is trying to do and what the enemy is able to accomplish, in contrast with what you are able to accomplish.

In an ideal world there would be no arbitrary objectives. The rules of the game should cause 'objectives' to form naturally. These would be areas on the board that give you a distinct advantage in destroying the enemy, so one would be motivated to capture those locations and hold them, or at the very least deny them to the enemy.

40ks rule set is far from that though. All guns usually are in range of the enemy to being with, and there is no penalty for range. There is no real benefit for holding the high ground. There is no way to outflank the enemy to gain bonuses ( or give them penalties ).

Edit: All that being, I think tactical objectives are a good idea. I don't think 40k's rules will be changing anytime soon, so this added objective variant helps to shake things up.

Sounds like fantasy would be perfect for tou. +1 combat res for charging over high ground. -1 penalty to shooting at over half weapon range. Boneses for flanking and charging the rear. The ability to flee when charged to drow the.enemy out. The almost complete lack of objectives other then the watchtower.

 undertow wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Played another Maelstrom mission. Again: Awesome.

That's been my experience as well. All of the Maelstrom games I've played thus far have been fun, and most of them have been close, coming down to the last turn with both sides tied.

I'm a huge fan of how they eliminate the last turn objective grabbing that is typical of many of the Eternal War missions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.

So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:

Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*

You do realize that actual war is full of situations where objectives and goals shift, sometimes with great speed? Minus the part about casting 'space magic', your little conversation doesn't really sound that farfetched. For example: Hamburger Hill (Hill 937) in Vietnam, lives were spent taking some random hill that had little strategic value, only for the hill to be abandoned a few days after the battle. For me, the randomness of the Tactical Objectives is a good stand in for the Fog of War.

My games of 7E using Maelstrom missions have been among the more enjoyable of games I've played recently. I think some tweaks are in order, such as allowing people to discard objectives that are impossible to achieve, but I like the dynamic in general.

As someone who's actually been to war, No. Just no. The chaos of battle doesn't come from random, pointless crap. Take your Hamburger Hill example. The objective was "Take the hill." It's clear, it makes sense and its a definite goal to work for. In actual battle there's an objective. The chaos comes from all the things you have to do to reach that objective. For example in a 40k battle it could be, take and hold a ruin. Maybe there's a wounded Imperial Guard general there that must be rescued and the DE want to capture him and get info out of him. That's far more narrative and exciting than "random meaningless objectives."