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.

Hello there,

Today was the second game i played with my friend (who plays GK) using Maelstrom missions. My army being Eldar, i´m always floored by the amount of WCP´s GK can accumulate...fe. today, it was 15 + d6 against my 3 + d6 (Farseer on bike), i got ONE power (Guide) of during the four rounds of combat and he didn´t perils even ONCE!

But as you might have noticed in the previous sentence, the game was short and why? Because after i got rid of the two scariest things (Dredknights) and the little scary thing (Interceptors), i was leading already about five points and then it got easier...we played to the end of the fourth (i wanted to see Farseer with Firesabre going at the infantry-squad...and he wiffed ) and in came the hardy handshake, cos the score was about 12-4 for Eldar.

We discussed the game and the GK just can´t match the randomness of the game like Eldar do. Altough, he had Gate of infinity and Levitation, but most of the mobility is gone after the Dreds and the Interceptaz do their 30" jump. Even if you subtract the two good rolls i got from the "get d3 victory points", which was five points total, i still would have it in a bag by a three point margin (and we didn´t bother to count the LB).

One game we played last week, was an Eternal war mission with four objectives and he won that with about the same points actually. The dudes sitting in their Chaimeras hold more weight in those one´s, and the faster army is forced to counter more, not just skimming around the board and collecting points. We had some ideas, how this might get more "balanced" (as only a GW game can ), but that´s another topic...

If you are a GK player, what´s your cure for the Maelstrom Missions? Have you had similar experiences?

OR

If you are fe. an Eldar player, have you danced around the GK to the victory? Did you have harder time in the Eternal War -missions?

- Lost Vyper

I've played a few games against GK using the Maelstrom of War missions. The big difference was the use of Razorbacks. If my opponent got first turn, he essentially had a 12" move + 6" flat out if need be to get onto objectives. Add in shunting Dreadknights, and it was not too difficult to get to objectives. Essentially, he had mobility.

Additionally, it really depends on which Maelstrom mission. If it starts with 6 objectives, it can be a bit difficult. However, if it starts with only 1, it gives the GK player a little bit of time to get into position around various objectives.

Personally its been forcing me to actually take more razorbacks... which lets me max my WC. But Razorbacks aren't exactly bikes now are they

So I've starting taking two Interceptors squads combat squad-ed now. It lets me be more reactionary and provide more varied support for my two DKs.

It tough because points start getting tight having that many shunt units in a list... so I'm forced to use Coteaz again... I don't like henchmen but thats where it puts me.

But yea, GK just have to be very reactionary and know when to use that shunt.

Lost Vyper wrote:
If you are a GK player, what´s your cure for the Maelstrom Missions?

Don't play them? Seriously, it amazes me that anyone actually uses these missions.

Easy access to Gates is a huge boon for maelstrom missions. My Eldar opponent had been t one game and that power alone scored him about 3 VPs and kept his warlord out of trouble.

Marines of any flavor should be able to do just fine in maelstrom missions. Drop pods, rhinos and their variants, and land raiders make a marine army a mobile force.

 Peregrine wrote:

Lost Vyper wrote:
If you are a GK player, what´s your cure for the Maelstrom Missions?

Don't play them? Seriously, it amazes me that anyone actually uses these missions.

Maybe. Just maybe. People find the Maelstrom missions fun?

Just because you don't like them doesn't make them objectively bad, Peregrine. I for one have played several games using Maelstrom missions and found them to be fun and enjoyable each and every time.

I get that you don't like them, and that's fine. Don't force your opinion on someone else as if it were written on stone tablets by God himself. People are entitled to like or not like something based on their own judgement, without having their opinion lessened or called into question. You're free to express your distaste over how the Maelstrom missions are implemented, but don't tell people who enjoy the missions to not play them or that they shouldn't enjoy them when they do, please.

Just my thoughts on that. Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Grey Knights are no less mobile then any other Space Marine army, yes they lack drop pods, but all their power armor can take a rhino or a razorback, and just about everything else can deep strike.

One thing that intrigues me is terminator armor says a rhino or razorback cannot transport them, but seems to say nothing about chimerias. I wonder about the feesability of using Chimeras to transport grey knight Paladins and keeping the henchman squad on a backfield objective

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Just because you don't like them doesn't make them objectively bad, Peregrine.

No, you have that backwards. They aren't objectively bad because I dislike them, I dislike them because they're objectively bad. GW took a decent idea (asymmetrical missions) and completely ruined it with unbelievably bad execution. If not for the utter disaster of the psychic phase they would easily be the worst thing about 7th edition. And so it amazes me that people play them, discover how badly designed they are, and ask "how can my army win" instead of "why am I playing such a terrible mission".

I've enjoyed the way Frontline included a select few of them into their tournament missions.

I wouldn't play them out of the book though. I really don't like the way they designed them. Especially the D3 cards. If we both complete the same three objectives why would one of us get a potential 6 more points for it?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Just because you don't like them doesn't make them objectively bad, Peregrine.

No, you have that backwards. They aren't objectively bad because I dislike them, I dislike them because they're objectively bad. GW took a decent idea (asymmetrical missions) and completely ruined it with unbelievably bad execution. If not for the utter disaster of the psychic phase they would easily be the worst thing about 7th edition. And so it amazes me that people play them, discover how badly designed they are, and ask "how can my army win" instead of "why am I playing such a terrible mission".

How many game did it take to come to that conclusion?

Cause I actually find the Maelstrom Missions fun, and they have been quite a leveller at my club where those who insist on fielding Deathstars and OP unit spam have started losing because those things aren't as important to winning in Maelstrom.

 azreal13 wrote:
How many game did it take to come to that conclusion?

Zero, just like it wouldn't take any games to come to the conclusion that "flip a coin instead of playing, the winner wins the game" is a bad rule. The mission objectives are so badly designed that it was immediately obvious how stupid they are, and every battle report involving them immediately confirmed that opinion. Just to make them even remotely playable you have to add a house rule for removing impossible objectives (and whoever is responsible for that one should have been fired for their unbelievable incompetence), and even once you do that they're way too random.

Cause I actually find the Maelstrom Missions fun, and they have been quite a leveller at my club where those who insist on fielding Deathstars and OP unit spam have started losing because those things aren't as important to winning in Maelstrom.

Sure, if the goal is to level the playing field they're great. Until all of those death star players switch to playing fast MSU armies designed to cycle through cards as fast as possible the game will be very level. In fact it will be almost perfectly level, with the winner being decided by whoever rolls better on the objective table. Why you think this is a good thing I have no idea.

 Peregrine wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
How many game did it take to come to that conclusion?

Zero.

Good to know.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Just because you don't like them doesn't make them objectively bad, Peregrine.

No, you have that backwards. They aren't objectively bad because I dislike them, I dislike them because they're objectively bad. GW took a decent idea (asymmetrical missions) and completely ruined it with unbelievably bad execution. If not for the utter disaster of the psychic phase they would easily be the worst thing about 7th edition. And so it amazes me that people play them, discover how badly designed they are, and ask "how can my army win" instead of "why am I playing such a terrible mission".

Again, that's your opinion. I'm not a game designer, and last time I checked, you aren't either. If that's incorrect, do feel free to correct me by the way.

You don't like how they're implemented and the execution of the missions as a whole. That's fine. I happen to disagree with you. Every Maelstrom of War mission I've played thus far has been extremely close, back and forth turn by turn.

I happen to like how they're implemented, and the execution of them as well. You can think or say what you will of me, but my opinion is just as valid as yours is, despite the fact that it's dissenting.

In closing, telling people how to play the game is, in my opinion, kind of a douche move don't you think?

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

 Red__Thirst wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Just because you don't like them doesn't make them objectively bad, Peregrine.

No, you have that backwards. They aren't objectively bad because I dislike them, I dislike them because they're objectively bad. GW took a decent idea (asymmetrical missions) and completely ruined it with unbelievably bad execution. If not for the utter disaster of the psychic phase they would easily be the worst thing about 7th edition. And so it amazes me that people play them, discover how badly designed they are, and ask "how can my army win" instead of "why am I playing such a terrible mission".

Again, that's your opinion. I'm not a game designer, and last time I checked, you aren't either. If that's incorrect, do feel free to correct me by the way.

You don't like how they're implemented and the execution of the missions as a whole. That's fine. I happen to disagree with you. Every Maelstrom of War mission I've played thus far has been extremely close, back and forth turn by turn.

I happen to like how they're implemented, and the execution of them as well. You can think or say what you will of me, but my opinion is just as valid as yours is, despite the fact that it's dissenting.

In closing, telling people how to play the game is, in my opinion, kind of a douche move don't you think?

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

I agree. Games with Maelstorm missions turn out way better in practice than they do on paper. A few issues here and there sometimes but 90% of the time they are pretty cool.

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Again, that's your opinion.

No, it's fact. They're objectively bad design and flawed in ways that even GW's idiot writers should have been able to avoid. You may occasionally be able to have a fun game with them despite the flaws, as long as neither player takes a list designed to exploit the system, but that doesn't make them good missions.

Ah, I see. So everything everywhere has to be utterly perfect and without flaw to be in any way functional?

Answer = No.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Again, that's your opinion.

No, it's fact. They're objectively bad design and flawed in ways that even GW's idiot writers should have been able to avoid. You may occasionally be able to have a fun game with them despite the flaws, as long as neither player takes a list designed to exploit the system, but that doesn't make them good missions.

I'd forgotten what it's like to play wall ball... Thanks for the reminder.

I'm not asking you to change your opinion. Nowhere in any of my replies have I tried to convince you that you're wrong, or I'm right, or that you should give Maelstrom missions a chance.

What I AM asking you to do is respect that I disagree with you and not continue to berate those who share the same opinion I do: That Maelstrom missions are in-fact fun and enjoyable more often than not.

Also, it's *not* fact, it's your opinion. I suggest you consult your dictionary (www.dictionary.com is a wonderful tool, you should use it, since you obviously know about tools) to discern the difference between fact, and opinion. Everyone has opinions. Yours is no better, worse, or more/less valid than any other opinion.

Just my thoughts on that. Thanks, and take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

 azreal13 wrote:
Ah, I see. So everything everywhere has to be utterly perfect and without flaw to be in any way functional?

There's a big difference between "utterly perfect and without flaw" and "not so obviously and fundamentally flawed that the average baby could write better rules by smearing its food all over the page".

Both sides here are correct. There are things about the Maelstrom missions that are truly, objectively bad writing. And people can still enjoy them.

Focusing on killing the opponent's army will still almost always win a Maelstrom game. If you have board control, and they don't, you get to collect points, likewise, they don't.

It doesn't matter how fast they are if there's 1 of them.

I've been getting a lot of games in with my GK in 7th, specifically playing the Maelstrom missions. I've won as much or more than I've lost, and I've had fun both ways. It's nice being able to score as you go, rather than playing for last turn.

It's very possible for the draws to award you a win very early on. I had a game where the enemy ended the game with a handful of Troops nowhere near an objective, and I still had multiple active killing units, because he repeatedly drew missions he could accomplish immediately, often without even doing anything he wasn't already going to do, while I kept drawing objectives he was squatting on, or impossible ones. I had a Shadowsword deleting one or more units a turn and he still won in a tide of free victory points. Turn one, he scored five of them, and all of mine were literally impossible from the deployment. Successive turns saw me struggling to turn over one or more as we had to discard down, while he continued to chomp through multiple objectives while being shot and charged to pieces. I only saw about 10 cards while he saw half his deck. He successfully just hid from me all game since two turns let him vault out to a ludicrous VP lead I had no way to block, and basically just needed to keep a single marine alive to win. It ended with the broken remnants of two Tactical squads going to ground inside pieces with great LOS blocking. The fact that this sort of game is possible and beyond the control of the players during the game is a strong indicator of a very, very poorly designed mission set.

To be fair to our gruff feathered friend, you don't need to have played Maelstrom missions to see their flaws. They do play towards MSU armies. If you're MSU and highly mobile, you'll probably do very well.

We already knew that the Grey Knights are a bit overcosted. With 20+ pts in a single wound, standard toughness marine with no special save, they get out numbered pretty quickly. They can beef back up with Razorback spam or leverage acolytes, but that's not necessarily the list you want. With the Grand Master losing the "scoring" buff, which for 7E scoring is Objective Secured for all intents and purposes, you're losing a lot of staying power in a low model count army.

I'd say Grey Knights are definitely behind the curve in Maelstrom, but a strong contender in standard.

I like Maelstroms, i have won and lost those. I feel, that the idea is great, execution is bad. It´s a clear reminder, that GW doesn´t test play, AGAIN. BUT...we have made a pack, in our FLGC, that we´ll wait until everybody has played these missions and then we´ll start the house ruling...first ideas so far :

Kingslayer : Can only be achieved, IF the WL is killed while the card is at your disposal and grand only +1 VP (and SWL of course)

Every d3 card is automatically 2 VP´s. Cos that´s still catchable (is that a word btw )

You can discard every card which you are not able to score anywayz, and i mean fe. "Kill a flyer", if an opponent doesn´t have a flyer...

Other idea, was to keep the scoring after a GAME TURN...then again, who begins has an advantage on the first round...

- Lost Vyper

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Focusing on killing the opponent's army will still almost always win a Maelstrom game. If you have board control, and they don't, you get to collect points, likewise, they don't.

It doesn't matter how fast they are if there's 1 of them.

No it doesn't. My army can't do maelstrom missions very well and the as Peregrin said a fast moving MSU army gets a lot more points , then an army that isn't fast MSU.

And then if they are fast MSU that you can kill, you then win through tabling them....oh, and GK GM still make things "super" scoring, as they score as if they were troops. Objective Secured is a part of scoring as if you were tTroops, in a bound CAD / Allies list.

Alright, ignoring about whether the Maelstrom are good or not, I do like them and I am a GK. I see no reason why the GK should have a problem with those missions and actually, I win Maelstrom missions more than Eternal War missions at least right now.

If you have a shunting army, you can teleport around the board and I bring everything else via deep strike. If you are running other things, you are probably running armor that will be able to help with that.

DS is so useful in Maelstrom, and I have no problem siezing objectives. As others pointed out, you also have to be strategic with your shunting as well with the only ones that go in full to take on your enemy are DKs but even then a DK siezing an objective is an intimidating thing.

While maelstrom missions tend to favor MSU, the rest of the game does not, as MSU tends to get wiped out pretty quickly. Truth is, any army can work well with maelstrom missions, you just have to make use of transports and avoid gunline builds. Since everything scores, its pretty easy to incorporate some mobile objective grabbers in most 1500 point armies.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
While maelstrom missions tend to favor MSU, the rest of the game does not, as MSU tends to get wiped out pretty quickly. Truth is, any army can work well with maelstrom missions, you just have to make use of transports and avoid gunline builds. Since everything scores, its pretty easy to incorporate some mobile objective grabbers in most 1500 point armies.

Unless you can MSU at relatively cheap cost and still bring power house swings; GK MSU of a Coteaz CAD with Razorspam/Chimera Spam Warbands and then a standard GK CAD of 3+/2+ save guys and heavy support/flyers is a strong ass army and includes target saturation plus a ton of Objective Secured.

Eldar can do the same thing with a CAD of 6x Jetbike squads and then CAD out another.

Tyranids can now do with the Rippers.

All the while, if you focus on the insanely cheap MSU units, you'll get hammered to death by the heavy hitters, of which they can now double down on thanks to 7E rules. And Objective Secured is the new black. Standard scoring is nice, but "I Win" scoring is better. Deep striking rippers, I imagine, for a quick one turn grab, is hilarious. And the more firepower you aim at the rippers, the less you're aiming at the FMCs eating your lunch.

For MSU, it´s about 51p / 1 VP for Eldar (a bike unit for those who don´t play Eldar)...