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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I don't see why maelstrom would take away from the tactical aspect of the game.

Because it's basically just reacting to random stimuli, not executing a plan to achieve a definite objective.

How so? Sure, a lot of the cards can be random draw and your opponent drawing the same Secure Objective X card can be annoying, but I've still had to be tactical to score the other cards. For example, choosing whether or not to run your unit to get Objective X because it would put you out in the open to get shot, or having to choose between trying to get 3 units to run or focusing all your firepower on one unit to kill him or push him off an objective.

This is actually why I like the new tactical objectives cards. They're bigger points, but often harder to score.

Randomness is part of battle. I like both types, but mostly prefer maelstrom because there's more anticipation for me in "What do I need to do next?" Most of my experience with Eternal War has been at events with rounds going to time, so I have to make weird and bad plays in case the game ends on my opponent's turn. If I have time to finish an eternal war game, it's very fun! I just like maelstrom more.

Overall I like EW missions best as they are cleaner and less chance to win based on luck of the draw. I also play very fast armies, so I always feel I have too much of an advantage in Maelstrom missions.

That being said, if I have 4+ hours to play and am playing a regular opponent that I know and is at my same comfort level of rules knowledge, Maelstrom games can be tons of fun.

 BossJakadakk wrote:
Randomness is part of battle.

Uncertainty is part of battle, but your goals and objectives should not be random.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I don't see why maelstrom would take away from the tactical aspect of the game.

Because it's basically just reacting to random stimuli, not executing a plan to achieve a definite objective.

How so? Sure, a lot of the cards can be random draw and your opponent drawing the same Secure Objective X card can be annoying, but I've still had to be tactical to score the other cards. For example, choosing whether or not to run your unit to get Objective X because it would put you out in the open to get shot, or having to choose between trying to get 3 units to run or focusing all your firepower on one unit to kill him or push him off an objective.

This is actually why I like the new tactical objectives cards. They're bigger points, but often harder to score.

some objectives are harder, some can also be impossible, or absolutely trivial, but ultimately you are just reacting to random orders as they come in a random order, often with no regard for the enemy's actions, as opposed to the older style missions centered around entering an engagement with a coherent goal and battle plan like an actual battle.

My last Maelstrom game was The Spoils of War. That deck of cards really didn't like me, everything went to my opponent one way or another. I did achieve slay the Warlord, at least he couldn't take that one off me lol

maelstrom is more enjoyable, eternal war means gun line usually wins

I prefer set objectives that are agreed on prior to the game / are at least set and of equal value to both players.

Random objective cards that alone can hamstring a player and force them to lose make it difficult to enjoy the game.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I don't see why maelstrom would take away from the tactical aspect of the game.

Because it's basically just reacting to random stimuli, not executing a plan to achieve a definite objective.

How so? Sure, a lot of the cards can be random draw and your opponent drawing the same Secure Objective X card can be annoying, but I've still had to be tactical to score the other cards. For example, choosing whether or not to run your unit to get Objective X because it would put you out in the open to get shot, or having to choose between trying to get 3 units to run or focusing all your firepower on one unit to kill him or push him off an objective.

This is actually why I like the new tactical objectives cards. They're bigger points, but often harder to score.

some objectives are harder, some can also be impossible, or absolutely trivial, but ultimately you are just reacting to random orders as they come in a random order, often with no regard for the enemy's actions, as opposed to the older style missions centered around entering an engagement with a coherent goal and battle plan like an actual battle.

But even then, Eternal War is not all sunshine and roses. Majority of the time, it's shoot shoot shoot until Turn 5/6, then make a mad dash to hold the objectives.

I actually like the ITC style, it's a good mix of per turn scoring and planning for the long battle with no randomness.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BossJakadakk wrote:
Randomness is part of battle.

Uncertainty is part of battle, but your goals and objectives should not be random.

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "random." I agree with you, I just also enjoy the game when goals can change, new objectives realized. I like when the narrative goes "Oh snap bruh something new came up you gotsta gotsta do tha thang." Unfortunately maelstrom can be (read: is for me every time) incredibly hit or miss. So many games lost simply because my opponent keeps getting cards to claim objectives on his side, and I get cards to claim those same objectives, or something similar. Eternal war is really nice to just know what you're there to do, and do it. Like I said though, my experience thus far with EW is mostly 2-3 round games because of time constraints. So I'll have like 2 rounds of shooting and then make moves where I have to leave guys out in the open and hope they survive because time is gonna be called on my opponent's turn.

Maybe combining the two would be for the best.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe combining the two would be for the best.

It's actually incredibly fun to do this.

I can never draw cards in Maelstrom missions that I have a realistic chance of scoring. The cards hate me and that's why I hate maelstrom.

A great example of this was my third game at a tournament this weekend, We're playing a Deadlock variant mission, I draw 6 cards and get only cards that are held by my opponent deep in his deployment zone, Supremacy and Dominion. I ended up scoring no points from cards because I could only discard one per turn.

 jreilly89 wrote:


But even then, Eternal War is not all sunshine and roses.

absolutely, Big Guns and Scouring especially, and anything using KP's. The Eternal War missions arent perfect, but have far less issues with randomness, incoherency, and record keeping/constant rules references relative to Maelstrom.

I get liking some dynamics in the mission and asymmetric goals, but Maelstrom is just such an awful implementation that the old style EW missions, despite their flaws, appeal much more.

Majority of the time, it's shoot shoot shoot until Turn 5/6, then make a mad dash to hold to hold the objectives

Thats one way to look at it, though I think thats more a reflection of the meta than anything else. Really it should be "early game is breaking the enemy force, late game is claiming the objectives from said broken enemy force". Thats how battle traditionally plays out.

I actually like the ITC style, it's a good mix of per turn scoring and planning for the long battle with no randomness.

The ITC missions are definitely wayyyyyyy better than the book Maelstrom missions, but still suffers from many of the same issues.

 BossJakadakk wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BossJakadakk wrote:
Randomness is part of battle.

Uncertainty is part of battle, but your goals and objectives should not be random.

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "random." I agree with you, I just also enjoy the game when goals can change, new objectives realized. I like when the narrative goes "Oh snap bruh something new came up you gotsta gotsta do tha thang." Unfortunately maelstrom can be (read: is for me every time) incredibly hit or miss. So many games lost simply because my opponent keeps getting cards to claim objectives on his side, and I get cards to claim those same objectives, or something similar. Eternal war is really nice to just know what you're there to do, and do it. Like I said though, my experience thus far with EW is mostly 2-3 round games because of time constraints. So I'll have like 2 rounds of shooting and then make moves where I have to leave guys out in the open and hope they survive because time is gonna be called on my opponent's turn.

If anything I would have thought Maelstr would be a bigger issue with time restraints, having to draw and record new objectives and whatnot. Thats said, if time is consistently that much of an issue, I would think there are other issues if 2-3 turn games are the norm, are you usually playing very large games?

Maelstrom is immense fun, but it is far too random for competitive play.

TBH I think GW needs to look at Malifaux for game scenarios.

You get one overall Objective for both players( the Eternal War Mission) and then each player picks 2 out 5 randomly generated secondary objectives( well 4 random and one you can always take) that will generally take a few turns to accomplish for their army.

Both styles run to time for the events I'm currently playing in. 90 minute rounds, and people like to take their time setting up (which annoys me but apparently only me so I just let it slide). For maelstrom, though, I just feel like more actually happens in those 2-3 game turns. These events are 1000 points, so more should really happen in 90 minutes, but like I said, people are kinda lax on the set up. I go to play the game, not to spend half of each round talking. Talking is fine, just, let's continue the game. Maybe I'll talk to the TO about this and see if anyone else has an issue, or if he thinks it's an issue for these events.

But within those 2-3 rounds, I feel like more exciting things happen in the maelstrom missions than in the eternal war ones.

The 'junk' cards are part of the design; that's why the Tactical Warlord traits are mostly card manipulation mechanics.

I like Maelstrom because of the ongoing scoring. I've played games with my Tyranids where I managed to win but get nigh wiped out in the process, and you can't do that in Eternal War. The opportunity to force your opponent into a pyrrhic victory is awesome, and levels the playing field.

Also, as well as mobility, it favours range and board coverage. Randomized objectives also means that you're typically engaging in sub-optimal target solutions, which means the games typically explore more the game's 'space' than Eternal War, which is really just one optimal solution vs another. t6

To be fair to Maelstrom, you do know what cards you could be drawing, so it is a good idea to consider these cards with list design, objective placement, deployment and movement.

Drawing cards that require crossing the battlefield to score objectives should hardly be a surprise.

nareik wrote:
To be fair to Maelstrom, you do know what cards you could be drawing, so it is a good idea to consider these cards with list design, objective placement, deployment and movement.

Drawing cards that require crossing the battlefield to score objectives should hardly be a surprise.

And what considerations would you give your list to counter or optimize casting a psychic power or declaring a challenge....




"So I charged with my THSS termies and my opponent issued a challenge, luckily I had prepared for this with how I built my list and placed my objectives, even though neither of those things factored in at all or event remotely stood a chance in preventing my opponents use of the card, but I'm just going to finish this sentence by saying tactical a lot. tactical, tactical, tactical"



There's an argument to be made for heavily modified maelstrom as part of an overall scenario with a known primary objective, but randomly picking up cards takes nothing into context. It also adds nothing if the card isn't even really requiring anything, its basically just gifting free vp's.

I like the idea behind Maelstrom. Things change on the battlefield rapidly, and you may have to run back to seize that objective that you thought would be of no use. But it was implemented quite poorly. Far too often one player or another gets shafted when they draw poorly, and get a bunch of cards that they can't achieve. Then their opponent gets 20 of "secure this objective that you already have". So, I like the idea behind it, but getting screwed over game after game by those cards has turned me off of it.

 Crablezworth wrote:

nareik wrote:
To be fair to Maelstrom, you do know what cards you could be drawing, so it is a good idea to consider these cards with list design, objective placement, deployment and movement.

Drawing cards that require crossing the battlefield to score objectives should hardly be a surprise.

And what considerations would you give your list to counter or optimize casting a psychic power or declaring a challenge....




"So I charged with my THSS termies and my opponent issued a challenge, luckily I had prepared for this with how I built my list and placed my objectives, even though neither of those things factored in at all or event remotely stood a chance in preventing my opponents use of the card, but I'm just going to finish this sentence by saying tactical a lot. tactical, tactical, tactical"



There's an argument to be made for heavily modified maelstrom as part of an overall scenario with a known primary objective, but randomly picking up cards takes nothing into context. It also adds nothing if the card isn't even really requiring anything, its basically just gifting free vp's.

Try killing their psykers before the card is played. Or accept the fact that occasionally you willose a point to these situations and play around them. That would be the same as complaining that the tau got a "kill something in the shooting phase" they are playing to their armies strengths, and it garnered them a victory point.

You issue the challenge instead. If they draw the card and are in good position to get the charge, then they will score a point. If they draw the card but don't have a decent charge, you either run away to keep it from happening or charge yourself and issue the challenge. Either way you will shut them down from scoring the point. Hell, you challenging them forces them to either accept and keep their (possible) beatstick in the flight or deny to keep them alive a turn possibly costing them the unit. Also, it says to successfully issue a challenge. You can deny them. If your captain here's over the com that the enemy is trying to find their location, they may be willing to back up a bit to keep them guessing.

 Peregrine wrote:
You know you aren't going to get that proof, because GW's vision for 40k is "sell lots of space marines". The rules aren't meant for competitive tournament play, but they also aren't meant for casual "kitchen table" play, narrative play, etc. They're just something you look at once and get inspiration for how awesome the new space marine kit is.

As I said before, which is again, a fact, you cannot dictate what is what to whom. For GW their ruleset is doing its job for narrative and casual play, and I know individuals who agree that they have great casual games with the ruleset. You disagreeing doesn't change this. You have your expectations, someone has theirs, and that's that. Neither is more right or wrong.

If we're looking at a wargame as a source of fun and happen to enjoy random elements and narrative scenarios that aren't necessarily balanced, then random factors are consired a good thing for said person in a wargame. A person might not care about the measure of tactical ability or be interested in the background at all. We instantly have 2 different subjective views, fact.

 Peregrine wrote:
Those random elements are NOT fun in narrative gaming, because they replace the story with random die rolls.

Maybe not for you, but for someone else they might be enjoyable. Again you are no more correct than anyone else, might aswell stop trying. That's your subjective view, nothing else.

 Peregrine wrote:
And honestly, if you don't care about the tactical aspect or the background fiction why are you playing 40k? If all you care about is rolling dice and seeing what numbers you get it's a lot cheaper to just buy a pile of D6s and roll them. In fact, you could even buy some other kinds of dice to roll to add some variety to the numbers you get.

Someone might just enjoy the models, or care about playing but not be interested if the game is balanced, the basis of said tactical aspect argument.

 Peregrine wrote:
Nope.

Yep, randomness in any game being good or bad is subjective, sorry. Nothing you say changes it.

Imagine I reply to any of your counterarguments with "randomness in a game being good or bad is subjective" -because it is even if you disagree. Disagreeing doesn't turn a red car into a blue one. I'll go with that so I don't have to repeat it manually for all eternity as you try to counterargument an obvious fact for some reason. Got nothing more to add, I am correct.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


Try killing their psykers before the card is played. Or accept the fact that occasionally you willose a point to these situations and play around them. That would be the same as complaining that the tau got a "kill something in the shooting phase" they are playing to their armies strengths, and it garnered them a victory point.

The larger point is that these are "gimme" free "objectives" that require no skill or intelligence to complete and have very minimal ways an opponent can do anything to stop, making their value as reflections of tactical skill pointless, and their role as a directed battlefield goal rather absurd.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


Try killing their psykers before the card is played. Or accept the fact that occasionally you willose a point to these situations and play around them. That would be the same as complaining that the tau got a "kill something in the shooting phase" they are playing to their armies strengths, and it garnered them a victory point.

The larger point is that these are "gimme" free "objectives" that require no skill or intelligence to complete and have very minimal ways an opponent can do anything to stop, making their value as reflections of tactical skill pointless, and their role as a directed battlefield goal rather absurd.

Agreed. As much as I love Maelstrom, look at the Grey Knights deck. Half the cards are "Cast a psychic power" or "Deepstrike a unit", things entirely built around the army.

Aye, making them goals/objectives in and of themselves is rather silly, when they're simply the natural steps one would take to achieving the actual goal of the battle regardless. Potentially winning a game on objectives like that when you might be left with a broken force with your opponent it total command of the field is particularly absurd.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


Try killing their psykers before the card is played. Or accept the fact that occasionally you willose a point to these situations and play around them. That would be the same as complaining that the tau got a "kill something in the shooting phase" they are playing to their armies strengths, and it garnered them a victory point.

The larger point is that these are "gimme" free "objectives" that require no skill or intelligence to complete and have very minimal ways an opponent can do anything to stop, making their value as reflections of tactical skill pointless, and their role as a directed battlefield goal rather absurd.

Agreed. As much as I love Maelstrom, look at the Grey Knights deck. Half the cards are "Cast a psychic power" or "Deepstrike a unit", things entirely built around the army.

Or even "Recon" which just gives you a free point whenever you draw it, usually. That card makes me feel funny, and definitely makes me understand the "good idea, poor execution" viewpoint. I like the tactical idea behind maelstrom, but yeah it can get out of hand with points that are literally handed to people, while RNG can totally swing the opposite way for the opponent.

Some people like hockey, some people like basketball. High scoring absurdity vs low scoring tactical play.

 Crablezworth wrote:

nareik wrote:
To be fair to Maelstrom, you do know what cards you could be drawing, so it is a good idea to consider these cards with list design, objective placement, deployment and movement.

Drawing cards that require crossing the battlefield to score objectives should hardly be a surprise.

And what considerations would you give your list to counter or optimize casting a psychic power or declaring a challenge....




"So I charged with my THSS termies and my opponent issued a challenge, luckily I had prepared for this with how I built my list and placed my objectives, even though neither of those things factored in at all or event remotely stood a chance in preventing my opponents use of the card, but I'm just going to finish this sentence by saying tactical a lot. tactical, tactical, tactical"



There's an argument to be made for heavily modified maelstrom as part of an overall scenario with a known primary objective, but randomly picking up cards takes nothing into context. It also adds nothing if the card isn't even really requiring anything, its basically just gifting free vp's.

Snipe out psykers / characters before they draw those cards, or accept that your opponent is going to score some VP and focus on scoring more than over investing in countering small value cards they are unlikely to draw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Having gimmie cards encourages the strategy of accumulating a decent amount of points (in case the opponent draws a few gimmies) instead of scoring one goal early on then filling the goal with your players for the rest of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, gimmies also mean novice players get to feel they accomplished something in game, even if they play someone far out of their league.

nareik wrote:
Furthermore, gimmies also mean novice players get to feel they accomplished something in game, even if they play someone far out of their league.

Which is obviously the intent of maelstrom missions: make the game so random that a 10 year old with their first space marine starter set has a chance of winning against even the most experienced veteran, and continuing to buy more boxes of space marines because they're so excited about how they won. Most people grow up and move beyond kid-friendly games like this, it's just unfortunate that large parts of the 40k community haven't.

So....basically gimme's are there to counter other gimme's (in which case we could just dump them and be no worse for wear) and to mollify new players to think they did somethinf...by doing basic unit actions they were already gonna do?

Neither of these sound like good game design.