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.

^what that guy said. Those random cards and dice rolls have an exactly equal chance to happen to either player. Why is it hard to grasp that the better player is the one who, with forethought and planning, controls the flow of the game, and gaining advantage by holding enough objectives that the draw should land in their favor more often than not. No one is winning these major tournaments by just rushing out and claiming objectives on the fly, NO ONE. That is the nail in the coffin for that theory, it has been proven categorically wrong.

<big edit... error...error...>

 Blacksails wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
To everyone bashing Malestorm, why do you think so many of the big tournys are using Malestrom or modified versions of it?

The key part is modified. When its modified sufficiently, it is functional, but still lacking in balance/player interaction. That, and as you mention, some players may like it.

If impossible objectives are tossed when drawn (kill my pyskers, I have none) the TOs are fairly balanced and make a ton of fun. It makes the game matter as it goes, instead of late game, last turn, objective grabs (cause that was so more tactical than Malestrom... or wasn't).

Don't forget making random VPs a set number. However, neither of those changes puts control in the player's hands. Its still a random objective of varying difficulty, with your opponent doing the same. It could very well mean a game is decided on the ease of completing the cards drawn.

I really see the anti-tactical objective, anti-FW, anti-SH crowd as a dying generation of gamers that either are dug in or simply unwilling to evolve their play-style to a new format.

They're a dying generation because they're moving on to better designed games.

I feel like I have much more control over my game's outcome with Malestorm than everything waiting until the last turn and then only very few lists and codicies excel. For once I can accrue meaningful, game winning points, each and every turn... not just Warlord, Firstblood and then only the last turn (which is a random element too) matters.

You objectively have less control in Maelstrom than any previous mission types. Yes, random game length is random and promotes last minute objectives, but you have far more control over the game's outcome when you're not drawing a random card to tell you what to complete. There is no possible way you can argue that a random mechanic telling you what you can or can't complete to get VPs somehow puts more control in the player's hands than letting them simply decide for themselves.
If players could simply select the objectives they'd like to go after, I'd buy that Maelstrom was better.

Why is everything riding on a clock and a single dice roll to see which turn is last so more strategic, tactical, and balanced than controllable, incremental, scoring throughout the game that allows both killpoint and objective control lists to excel?

Why is everything riding on a random card draw and random VP rolls to determine a winner seen as more strategic, tactical, and balanced than letting the players develop a plan to achieve victory in the last three turns.
Admittedly, neither of the mission formats are ideal and both could be improved dramatically.

All points agreed.
Going to get my "Scum and Villainy" Wave 6 stuff for X-wing tonight.
Typically GW would have been getting this money, not so much lately.
I like to play, it just happens some games involve dice rolling, not being the main action and mechanic like 40k.
What is confused with fun or "control" is both players are equally in the dark of what will happen to them next = drama.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
So, I've been ruminating on the latest tournaments and something occurred to me. Tournament players, in general, don't realise who their opponent is! The game of 40k, with the addition of maelstrom objectives is no longer you versus an opponent, it is now you and your opponent trying to beat the game itself. When you look at the game in that respect, you then begin to understand why adamantium lance and wave serpent spam have been losing ground in the competitive scene. Those lists(as well as most deathstars/ superheavies) are designed to defeat other armies. That isn't how the game plays anymore. With the best army lists involving synergy, and a breadth of units that add tactical adaptability to the army winning out over pure damage output.
So, what do you think, am I wrong in this, or should people start seriously thinking about how to beat the mission instead of the guy across the table from him?

Well nothing is 100% ALL this or all that.

I think it's fair to say that when I play I am doing three things at the start of the game and fast:

1. Evaluate terrain right away. You need to see in your mind the approach pattern for your units. Nothing is more important than figuring this out and watching the bottlenecks (for or against you) for opportunities.

2. I'm evaluating the objectives and determining on WHICH turn I really need to worry about them. I'll give you a hint though: Rarely is my conclusion before turn three and it shows in my deployment style. Both number one and two have nothing to do with the enemy army per se.

3. I'm thinking about what I know of this general and/or his list. Clearly the answer can be "nothing". But Generals and/or their lists can pretty quickly reveal to you how THEY are viewing number 1 and 2 above and THAT is valuable information in the extreme.

During the game itself, you are adjusting to "good" and "bad" events, things that go as planned and those for whom the laughing Gods live. But it's got to be all about the objectives from the time the first dice roll. Eye on the prize. I think you are definitely onto something when you say that the mission is the enemy.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
^what that guy said. Those random cards and dice rolls have an exactly equal chance to happen to either player.

Yes, but in the context of a single game, those odds don't average out, thus each player can still draw wildly different objectives of varying difficulties. The equal chance argument would only hold if you played sufficient matches with the same army and players so that everything averaged out.

Besides, do you not agree that removing the random aspect is universally better? Why accept mediocrity?

Why is it hard to grasp that the better player is the one who, with forethought and planning, controls the flow of the game, and gaining advantage by holding enough objectives that the draw should land in their favor more often than not. No one is winning these major tournaments by just rushing out and claiming objectives on the fly, NO ONE. That is the nail in the coffin for that theory, it has been proven categorically wrong.

The better player will win regardless of the game type. Maelstrom, however, adds an unnecessary layer of random that reduces player skill/decision making into the outcome of the game. In other words, Maelstrom is less useful of a metric for determining who the better player is than a mission type that isn't random.

As an example, imagine if you will a mission type where you earned VPs every turn if you controlled an objective. Each objective would have a different value, and off the top of my head, I'd assign higher points values to harder objectives. That would mean I'd make objectives in my deployment zone worth 1 VP/turn, objectives in the middle worth 3VP, and objectives in the enemy deployment zone worth 4VP. Now you have incentive to move and/or bring mobile elements, while also allowing for more static forces to move into the middle and hold that ground. It removes random nonsense and allows players to develop their own plan with regards to their opponent. That way they're playing with the mission against their opponent.

Obviously that was quick and could use tweaking, but the idea is there.

 Blacksails wrote:
As an example, imagine if you will a mission type where you earned VPs every turn if you controlled an objective. Each objective would have a different value, and off the top of my head, I'd assign higher points values to harder objectives. That would mean I'd make objectives in my deployment zone worth 1 VP/turn, objectives in the middle worth 3VP, and objectives in the enemy deployment zone worth 4VP. Now you have incentive to move and/or bring mobile elements, while also allowing for more static forces to move into the middle and hold that ground. It removes random nonsense and allows players to develop their own plan with regards to their opponent. That way they're playing with the mission against their opponent.

Exactly. If you believe that normal missions are just "kill everything until the last turn and then think about the objectives" (you're wrong, but let's assume it for the sake of argument) then it's very easy to make a system that has scoring every turn without all the stupid randomness of maelstrom missions.

That game would play out exactly like emporer's will, the majority of the game s would end in a draw because the only tactical option is stop him, and get where he is. Everything meets in the middle, and you start seeing people use lists that don't win based off of objectives, they become the leafblowers of old.
Maelstrom FORCES players to move around the table, or try to control most of it, in order to be effective. That requires a definitive plan, which is tactical thinking. Honestly, I am shocked to see how people actively try to deny that is the case.
I keep being told that maelstrom isn't strategic, and isn't balanced, and isn't a viable way to determine player skill. But all the tournaments that are implementing those style missions are being decided by VASTLY different armies. That means that balance has to be there, otherwise, all the top lists would look similar to each other due to everyone knowing what the missions look like and exploiting the same loopholes/ weaknesses. Maelstrom style additions/missions are good for competitive play.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
That game would play out exactly like emporer's will, the majority of the game s would end in a draw because the only tactical option is stop him, and get where he is.

Err, lol? Emperor's will is a draw because there are only two objectives, and it's easy for each player to camp their entire army on one objective and guarantee no worse than a draw unless they're tabled. That's not the case if you have objectives spread out all over the table. Camping excessively on a single objective leaves the rest of the table open to your opponent, and guarantees a loss.

Everything meets in the middle, and you start seeing people use lists that don't win based off of objectives, they become the leafblowers of old.

Only if you have stupid players with no imagination. In reality the mission would reward fast units, outflanking, etc, to get to those high-VP objectives in your opponent's deployment zone. And no, it wouldn't reward leafblowers because the leafblower archetype depends on being able to camp in its own deployment zone for most of the game and focus on killing stuff. That's suicide in a game where failing to move out and at least contest the center objectives means handing your opponent a major scoring advantage and making it almost impossible to come back even if you can kill most of their army.

Maelstrom FORCES players to move around the table, or try to control most of it, in order to be effective.

So does every other mission type with multiple objectives scattered around the table. The only difference is that non-maelstrom missions allow the players to evaluate which objectives are important, while maelstrom missions replace those decisions with random dice.

That means that balance has to be there, otherwise, all the top lists would look similar to each other due to everyone knowing what the missions look like and exploiting the same loopholes/ weaknesses.

Alternatively, it means that GW is publishing new stuff so quickly that players don't have time to figure out what the perfect list is before a new release changes the metagame and negates all of their planning. And given the poor state of balance in general in 40k I think it's a lot more likely that the list diversity is a sign of an underdeveloped metagame instead of maelstrom missions magically overcoming all of the major balance issues and creating a fair metagame for each army archetype.

Maelstrom style additions/missions are good for competitive play.

No, they're awful for competitive play and any tournament that uses them is a joke. Replacing player decisions and strategy with random dice is the opposite of good competitive mission design.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
That game would play out exactly like emporer's will, the majority of the game s would end in a draw because the only tactical option is stop him, and get where he is. Everything meets in the middle, and you start seeing people use lists that don't win based off of objectives, they become the leafblowers of old.

Which is no different than existing lists that rely on vastly superior firepower to eliminate the enemy. Further, my example would have roughly 5 or 6 objectives.

Maelstrom FORCES players to move around the table, or try to control most of it, in order to be effective.

No it doesn't, because its random. In other words, my opponent and I could draw cards for objectives in our own deployment zone and something simple that doesn't require moving, like shooting down a flyer. Further, trying to control most of the board to cover your bases would result in the exact same scenario as the one you decried not a sentence earlier about my theoretical mission.

That requires a definitive plan, which is tactical thinking. Honestly, I am shocked to see how people actively try to deny that is the case.

No, it requires a reaction. You literally can't go into the game with a plan because you dont' know what your objectives are until you draw your cards, which also happen to change dramatically as the game goes on. My example requires significantly more planning than simple card reactions.

I keep being told that maelstrom isn't strategic, and isn't balanced, and isn't a viable way to determine player skill. But all the tournaments that are implementing those style missions are being decided by VASTLY different armies. That means that balance has to be there, otherwise, all the top lists would look similar to each other due to everyone knowing what the missions look like and exploiting the same loopholes/ weaknesses. Maelstrom style additions/missions are good for competitive play.

You're also ignoring the fundamental balance issues with the armies themselves. Armies like Eldar Wave Serpent will be superior at any mission type assuming player skill is mostly equal. That's not a quality that's mission dependent; those units are just flat out better per point than mmost other options in other books at shooting, taking, and holding ground.

The simple fact is that a mission variant that does not depend on random mechanics is superior to one that does in determining player skill, as one independent of random mechanics is decided purely on player input.

Ok, I am going to stop trying to change peoples minds about normal maelstrom. So, let's work at an idea that adds more player decision to the mix.
Game ends turn 6max, ends on 4+ on turn 5
Every player gets 3 cards at the start of each turn, but cannot discard them.
Objectives are placed per deployment rules.
Now, here's the kicker. Each player, at the beginning of the game, selects 3 of the 6 categories in the deck( they can use faction specific decks as well) those are the only cards in their deck. Now, you have the reactionary approach to changing tactical situations, while still having the player input of overall strategy due to predetermining you overall goals. If a player wants the big risk/ big reward style, then he can choose to include that subset of cards, if you wanna crush your enemy, choose those objectives, wanna hold ground all game with hordes or may, pick the first three sets and hunker down.
All objectives are worth 2 points to whomever holds them at the end. First blood, etc are still in play

What do we think about that, as an option?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What do we think about that, as an option?

It still involves random dice as a substitute for player decisions, and is therefore bad design. Why should anything about maelstrom missions be salvaged? Just accept that it's a stupid concept and throw it out entirely.

 Peregrine wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What do we think about that, as an option?

It still involves random dice as a substitute for player decisions, and is therefore bad design. Why should anything about maelstrom missions be salvaged? Just accept that it's a stupid concept and throw it out entirely.

I have no need to throw out anything, I am in the majority on this issue. Tournaments are adding more and more elements of this game design, because people want it. I have never once told you how to play, I have been defending my position on these missions for three pages and all you have done is tell me I am playing wrong. Do not think to tell me what I should do, and do not think you speak for all tournament players either. Your attitude and condescending nature have led me to believe you are simply being rude for the sake of it. If you cannot be an adult about a discussion on little toy soldiers, then please refrain from speaking to me.

As a POTENTIAL option among options I think its fine. i wouldnt want it this way every game.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE I HAVE A RIGHT TO ENJOY MAELSTROM MISSIONS

No.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

I have no need to throw out anything, I am in the majority on this issue.

You can not with any certainty make this claim. There's plenty of evidence suggesting a large portion of players think Maelstrom is a joke, and another that heavily modifies it, meaning it is not certain there's a majority that are fine with Maelstrom.

I have never once told you how to play, I have been defending my position on these missions for three pages and all you have done is tell me I am playing wrong. Do not think to tell me what I should do, and do not think you speak for all tournament players either. Your attitude and condescending nature have led me to believe you are simply being rude for the sake of it. If you cannot be an adult about a discussion on little toy soldiers, then please refrain from speaking to me.

No one has told you how to play either. You're confusing a discussion about the pros and cons of Maelstrom with people telling you you're a bad person who plays wrong. No one is telling you how to play or that you're playing wrong. You're taking this personal when the discussion is about the rules, which is something entirely different from discussing you and your behaviour. Don't get so defensive.

No is being rude, and everyone is behaving like an adult. If anything, this recent post of yours is the least cosntructive and least polite one in the discussion. Maybe you need to take a step back and re-evaluate what's been said.

Maelstrom a joke? Eh... last time i checked, most major tournaments are now adopting some form of it.

I think you overstate yourself in the FACE of much proof.

Its common usage in tournaments doesn't make it any less of a joke.

I was indeed told by peregrine to "accept it as a stupid design, and scrap it" that is what set me off, and I apologise. I didn't mean to be rude, but I felt he was insulting my opinion and intelligence, thereby raising my ire. Again, I am sorry for my outburst.

 Jancoran wrote:
Maelstrom a joke? Eh... last time i checked, most major tournaments are now adopting some form of it.

"Everyone else is doing it" isn't very convincing proof. If most major tournaments are including maelstrom missions then it just means that most major tournaments are not serious competitive events.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I was indeed told by peregrine to "accept it as a stupid design, and scrap it" that is what set me off, and I apologise. I didn't mean to be rude, but I felt he was insulting my opinion and intelligence, thereby raising my ire. Again, I am sorry for my outburst.

It is stupid design. You liking it or not is a seperate thing altogether, as you can still have plenty of fun with sub-par stuff, but Maelstrom is bad game design. I enjoy the Super Mario Bros movie a lot, but it is well and truly a horrible film.

 Blacksails wrote:
Its common usage in tournaments doesn't make it any less of a joke.

But it actually does,

 Jancoran wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Its common usage in tournaments doesn't make it any less of a joke.

But it actually does,

But it actually doesn't.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I was indeed told by peregrine to "accept it as a stupid design, and scrap it" that is what set me off, and I apologise. I didn't mean to be rude, but I felt he was insulting my opinion and intelligence, thereby raising my ire. Again, I am sorry for my outburst.

I have peregrine on ignore. It solves that problem. havent seen his posts in a couple years probably.

I'm pretty sure the nay Sayers on this thread have never actually played on a state or national level, so have no real understanding on how an actual tournament mind set works. People that go to the big tournaments and rank well are playing at a very different level than people that only play at their local club events. Big Tourney players build their lists to specific events, built around the event's publish missions (if any), with a focus on reducing randomness via combo'ing abilities with redundant synergies so that the lose of specific units has minimal impact while good choices have great potential. Just look at the winning lists from any recent major tournament, are those lists you would see at your friendly local game store? Not so much.

The shift from cut throat lists based on point efficient codexes of yesterday to cut throat lists based on point efficient codexes of today is still there, as it always has been, because playing to the mission/table/your strength has never changed. What we are seeing now is a shift at the local level to a more national or international outlook of game play. As in, successful 40k players have to be prepared to win versus any opponent on a variable table with variable objectives; those that can master this are top table players, while those that can't, aren't.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Marlstrom. But the more I play it, the better I play it, the more successful I'll be versus an opponent that does not.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Personally, I'm not a fan of Marlstrom. But the more I play it, the better I play it, the more successful I'll be versus an opponent get does not.

SJ

Indeed. Liking it is one thing but mastering the list building and such that's required to deal with it is still an essential skill if you wanna' be elite.

I concur, some people tell me otherwise. There is strategy and depth to maelstrom style missions, arguably more so than eternal war missions. As is evident by the conversation. If every player had then option to chose their entire object five every fight, then no one would have to adapt or change strategies. Then you are ENTIRELY reliant on the chosen armies ability to do one thing so well that their tactic cannot be stopped. Then it becomes a 3 army tournament all over again. I am done looking at a report where every list will face an almost exact mirror list at one point or another in national events. Weren't you?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If every player had then option to chose their entire object five every fight, then no one would have to adapt or change strategies. Then you are ENTIRELY reliant on the chosen armies ability to do one thing so well that their tactic cannot be stopped.

This is just nonsense. If the game has five objectives and my starting plan is "claim #2 and #4, contest at least two of the other three" then I still have to adapt to new circumstances. If my opponent makes a decisive move to take #2 away from me and I lose my scoring units then I have to have a backup plan to get those points from a different objective, or at least be sure to keep my opponent from claiming any objectives so that I can win despite only claiming #4. Similarly, if my opponent leaves #3 unprotected then it's going to greatly improve my chances of winning if I'm flexible enough to adapt my plan and claim #3. The only difference between normal missions and maelstrom missions is that these decisions are all being made by the players instead of the dice. I don't really see how it's an improvement to replace "I see that #3 is vulnerable, maybe I should change my plan and go take it" with "I rolled 'claim #3', now I'll go claim it".

Then it becomes a 3 army tournament all over again. I am done looking at a report where every list will face an almost exact mirror list at one point or another in national events. Weren't you?

What does this have to do with maelstrom missions? Adding randomness doesn't remove netlisting, it just changes which specific list is copied over and over again because it's the best at winning maelstrom missions. If GW slows down the pace of new releases enough for people to finish playtesting and develop new lists before the next release changes everything you will probably see the exact same kind of netlisting in maelstrom events.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If every player had then option to chose their entire object five every fight, then no one would have to adapt or change strategies.

This statement entirely ignores the other army on the table.

Picking your objectives would allow you to make a decision to win a fight you might otherwise not be able to if the opposing army was a rock to your scissors. It would allow you to either play to your own strengths, or against your opponent's weaknesses.

But really, the proof is in the pudding when many other popular games don't have this problem with missions or game balance, and thus have varied armies that win because player decisions and input win the day, and not luck of the draw or maximizing strong units.

The game has changed. In tournament play, you now HAVE to worry about maelstrom style fluid objectives for most major events. These are facts. Armies now must rely on different units to achieve their goals, which allows for greater variance in lists. If the meta was simply waiting for people to find the new "netlist" then it would be newer codecies and old power lists at the top of the heap. They are not even close.

What you are seeing is people figuring out that a list that is DIFFERENT than what other people are bringing is what will win. That means that the meta shifts will swing wildly with every tournament. The new meta is tactically well rounded lists with different units performing different functions. Spamming the same unit will only give you so much flexibility. Using death stars and superheavies will not take you to the top table anymore. This change is good. Anyone who doesn't believe so is oblivious to the truth.

Whether you like or dislike maelstrom missions, they have introduced new and interesting challenges that good tabletop generals will work towards, while people reliant on spammy lists and death stars will grumble on about it being "uncompetitive"

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The game has changed. In tournament play, you now HAVE to worry about maelstrom style fluid objectives for most major events. These are facts. Armies now must rely on different units to achieve their goals, which allows for greater variance in lists.

So? Making stupid missions can change how you try to win the game, nobody is disputing this. The issue is that maelstrom missions are a joke in a supposedly "competitive" event.

If the meta was simply waiting for people to find the new "netlist" then it would be newer codecies and old power lists at the top of the heap.

Why? The fact that people are still trying to find the best list doesn't mean that the old lists developed under previous mission rules will be automatic candidates.

What you are seeing is people figuring out that a list that is DIFFERENT than what other people are bringing is what will win. That means that the meta shifts will swing wildly with every tournament.

Alternatively, GW is releasing new stuff so fast that the metagame keeps changing and nobody has time to settle on the perfect list before the rules change and they have to start over. You see this a lot in MTG, soon after a new release you have a really diverse metagame as people make their best attempt to guess at what the best option is as fast as possible. Then over time the metagame converges on a few winners as people test all the speculative list thoroughly and figure out which ones work best. It's just an inevitable consequence of the metagame taking time to develop and identify the best options.

The new meta is tactically well rounded lists with different units performing different functions. Spamming the same unit will only give you so much flexibility. Using death stars and superheavies will not take you to the top table anymore. This change is good. Anyone who doesn't believe so is oblivious to the truth.

What does this have to do with netlisting? A list with a diverse range of units and no spamming can still be a netlist if it's a close copy of similar lists. And I don't understand why a metagame where superheavies and death stars are weak is such a great idea. Shouldn't the ideal be one where those strategies are also viable?

Whether you like or dislike maelstrom missions, they have introduced new and interesting challenges that good tabletop generals will work towards, while people reliant on spammy lists and death stars will grumble on about it being "uncompetitive"

Nice straw man there. It's possible to be opposed to idiotic randomness without being your WAAC spammer stereotype.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The game has changed. In tournament play, you now HAVE to worry about maelstrom style fluid objectives for most major events.

Agreed, Maelstrom is a part of 40k now, and long may it shine. It's a good time, unless your army was one of those that parked itself in it's deployment zone until turn 4 and went for a walk once everything was dead.

The problem we're now having is with the definition of "competitive" apparently being incredibly narrow- and in all honestly I think everyone involved here is now in "Bashing head against a brick wall" territory. It has been a spectacularly amusing read though, so I've derived some utility from it at least.

But to answer your initial question again, since it's clear your group enjoys Maelstrom and plays it a lot (much like mine):

Assuming you consider Maelstrom to be competitive (and go to tournaments involving it, even if it makes you some kind of lesser being ), you need fast, fairly resilient units that can cross the board quickly to be wherever is important at the time. Board control is key, and proactive thinking is required to both help you claim points and deny them to your opponent. Examples of armies that do this well are pretty much anything on bikes, Eldar or DE, Drop Pod Marines, Slaaneshi CSM/Daemons, Trukk Orks, some Mech Guard, and probably a lot else.

EDIT: Oh, and Objective Secured is vital, of course. Especially entertaining on Drop Pods.