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.

The general opinion of maelstrom objectives seems to be that "Good idea! Needs a little tweaking", so I'm wondering what house rules you guys mightve come up with in your group, if any.
The most straight forward one we've been running at my lgs has been: 'If you draw an impossible objective, immediately redraw it.' Gets around the annoyance of trying to kill flyers or psykers that don't exist.

I've also been thinking about trying out drawing/resolving objectives at the start and end of each game turn, rather than each players turn. Currently, if someone draws a good hand, they can gain a bucket of VPs during their own turn, and their opponent can do nothing about it. If objectives are resolved at the end of the game turn, there's a lot more chance for denial and maneuvering, in the same way that eternal war missions work with the first player getting initiative, and the second player getting the 'hammer'.

Well, in our first tourney in the 7th ed, we will only allow missions 11 to 36. Its all about holding objectives.
The remaining ones are more involved.

If a few people screaming on the internets = "the general opinion" I'd be really surprised.

I'd first try the missions as is, give them a fair chance (more than a few games) and then decide what you'd like to change, if anything.

I think a lot of people are getting caught up with the 'hypotheticals' on these missions with an over-entitled sense of 'fairness'.

Frankly I don't need everything to be perfectly equal/fair all of the time... if I draw a bad card/objective - I can discard it at the end of that turn anyway, and to me it's no different than rolling a 1 to hit... chances are my opponent will also draw a bad card during the game as well.

Life isn't always perfectly fair, warfare sure as heck isn't always perfectly fair - but a good general will still find a way to win. I don't need a 'participation trophy' and unless my opponent is a just a jerk I don't really care if I'm fighting an uphill battle.

That said, the Maelstrom of War cards, in our experience, have actually been very fair haha and have made for some very dynamic games.

 McGibs wrote:
The general opinion of maelstrom objectives seems to be that "Good idea! Needs a little tweaking"

No. That's the opinion by the loudest voices; not the general opinion. Dakka's own opinion poll from a few weeks ago put it at 54% like, 30% dislike, 14% indifferent. The problem with TacOs is that most people haven't figured them out yet. They will. There's no need for house ruling; the rules work fine. If you have issues with them, be selective about which of the six missions you run with them. But they don't need any of this selective card weeding.

Hey now, if the cards work for you, that's fine. This isn't some petition to change the rules for everyone or anything. I'm just curious about what house rules have worked for people who feel the want for something different.

I've played a handful of games with the maelstrom missions unchanged, and both myself and my opponents thought that some of the rules could do with some small tweaks, that's the sort of club I play at.
I've known that other people have had similar reactions, and I'm wondering what solutions they've come up with.
If you find that the maelstrom missions are fine out of the box, then that's alright too, but this isn't the thread to argue what's 'the right way to play'.

 Gunzhard wrote:
If a few people screaming on the internets = "the general opinion" I'd be really surprised.

Never a good way to characterise other viewpoints if you want to be taken seriously.

---

The best thing I've seen is to randomly draw cards before the game to be your mission objectives. These are kept hidden from the other player. Then maybe add an additional mission objective at turn 3 or 4. This has a variety of benefits:
- You can keep your opponent guessing as to what your real mission is
- You can plan ahead multiple turns so the game actually has strategy
- It doesn't involve mad rushing from one objective to another, and therefore;
- doesn't necessitate a large number of fast units whilst penalising slower armies.
- The addition of one more objective mid game is a nice compromise to mix up the play without the complete shemozzle of the current system and still rewards;
- the inclusion of some fast units for additional objectives

How many games have you played with the MoW missions Yonan?

So many of the "loudest" complaints I've seen are from folks that openly ADMIT they don't need to even try the new rules, because A) they've been playing 40k long enough. B) they read some poll online and the 'loudest' folks said XYZ, C) the new rules are not different enough (from what they've heard), D) just reading them I know well enough how it will work, E) they played a game and lost, it's broken.

That's the internets bub... 40K players have literally always been like this hehe, --- flash back to the old GW forums.

 Gunzhard wrote:
How many games have you played with the MoW missions Yonan?

Is it really so hard to find that people don't enjoy them for the reasons stated? Check this thread from last week for numerous reports of people playing them and not liking them, and then discussing ways to improve them.

So many of the "loudest" complaints I've seen are from folks that openly ADMIT they don't need to even try the new rules

When they were released, people saw them and said "this won't be good" because we know enough about the game, and games in general, to know pretty well how things will pan out. Now a month or so later we've had some games and found out *shock horror* that what we initially thought was bad design, turned out to be - to us - bad design.

That's the internets bub... 40K players have literally always been like this hehe, --- flash back to the old GW forums.

I agree. People have always been dismissive of others issues when they don't share them. I'm happy that some people are enjoying the game. This thread is about house rules those of us who don't like them can use to get us to like them.

Do you have anything substantive to offer about the proposed changes I mentioned?

 Gunzhard wrote:
How many games have you played with the MoW missions Yonan?

So many of the "loudest" complaints I've seen are from folks that openly ADMIT they don't need to even try the new rules, because A) they've been playing 40k long enough. B) they read some poll online and the 'loudest' folks said XYZ, C) the new rules are not different enough (from what they've heard), D) just reading them I know well enough how it will work, E) they played a game and lost, it's broken.

That's the internets bub... 40K players have literally always been like this hehe, --- flash back to the old GW forums.

Actually I have played them. I'm just frankly not into them. I like the idea but several things just becoming grating. The rolling, the random perks for certain armies, making things more random. Just not my cup of tea. I love the concept but just feel the execution leaves something desired.

But ya' know I like my tea. Some people will enjoy my particular flavor and some won't even like tea

I'll tell you what I know Yonan because I've seen it first hand.

With nearly every big change GW has made (and many small ones too) the community has responded the same:

A) the initial sky is falling freak out
B) the extreme resistance to change, which leads to
C) the refusal to adapt, which leads to
D) the rules working against you, which leads to
E) I hate these rules.

But eventually, it's all ok. The game still isn't perfect, but it's all ok.

So far I'm loving the MoW missions but I may end up hating them just the same, but they need a fair chance.

And your suggestions; dude just play the Eternal War missions if that is what you want...

 Gunzhard wrote:
I'll tell you what I know Yonan because I've seen it first hand.

With nearly every big change GW has made (and many small ones too) the community has responded the same:
A) the initial sky is falling freak out
B) the extreme resistance to change, which leads to
C) the refusal to adapt, which leads to
D) the rules working against you, which leads to
E) I hate these rules.

Of course "the community" has individual members that each react in part some of these ways as it's made up of tens of thousands of people. When you generalise in your discussion such things that aren't applicable to the people you're talking to, it doesn't do much for the conversation.

But eventually, it's all ok. The game still isn't perfect, but it's all ok.

Sales figures indicate otherwise.

Shameless self-promotion, but I really want to try this the next time I get in a game: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/598758.page

...but I haven't tested it so it might be utter crap.

Ahh the sales figures... in the bubble where GW exists magically outside of the European and American economies that both nearly collapsed and are limping back to life, and outside of the mini wargame market that now contains many excellent games in the way of competition, while more keep coming...

 Gunzhard wrote:
Ahh the sales figures... in the bubble where GW exists magically outside of the European and American economies that both nearly collapsed and are limping back to life, and outside of the mini wargame market that now contains many excellent games in the way of competition, while more keep coming...

Uh, what? That's... exactly what's going on. Economic trouble and increasing competition are major factors in GWs poor turnout in the past several years. No one is disputing that. What is alarming is that GW does not seem to be acknowledging it.

...but I digress.

Read my previous post for my own Tactical Objective house rules.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Ahh the sales figures... in the bubble where GW exists magically outside of the European and American economies that both nearly collapsed and are limping back to life, and outside of the mini wargame market that now contains many excellent games in the way of competition, while more keep coming...

... exactly? Other wargame companies sales are rapidly increasing whilst GWs are rapidly shrinking. The tabletop game $$$ are there, but people aren't giving them to GW which is exactly why - no, it's not all ok.

 McGibs wrote:
'If you draw an impossible objective, immediately redraw it.' Gets around the annoyance of trying to kill flyers or psykers that don't exist.

This is it for me. While I would like a system that provides an overall game objective (to remedy the situation described by Xca|iber as "objective ADHD") as other people have mentioned, I don't know exactly how this could be implemented smoothly.