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.

Hi all
today i and some friend had a little arguing about "how much tactical objective deck you need"

one faction stated you would need a deck for each player, so everyone can have "specific" deck (ie BA, Orks, SW, etc can have a little customised version of the tact obj deck)
one faction stated you need only one deck for entire match and both of them pick up from the same, and "special" deck (BA, Orks, etc) just substitute their special card to the normal ones

assuming it's not a game changing rule, we started searching around the rulebook but nothing could be found
so
- what's official rules about? and where can i found them?
- what's commonly used to?

ty for your answer

One deck of cards for each person playing

One deck per person. The decks just act as another way to roll on the chart. If you share a deck then you cannot draw the same objective. Whereas if you roll you can.

One per person is best, but if you don't have two then sharing one during a friendly game is better than rolling on the chart because that's crazy time-consuming.

One objective deck per player, but they do not have to be the faction-specific deck. There is a very good reason for this...a couple of the cards are very easy to achieve, like one that only requires that all objectives are discovered. Its more fair if both players have a chance to get that one.

If you insist on playing with the decks, each player should have their own. The table mechanics mean that players getting the same probability of getting any particular objective doesn't happen if they're drawing from the same deck.

...I seriously did not know this, been playing wrong this whole time!

I think using a single deck between two players is just fine.

 Firehead158 wrote:
I think using a single deck between two players is just fine.

Agreed. The table itself has enough duplicates as is. 2 decks sounds great, but is hardly needed.

 Lobukia wrote:

 Firehead158 wrote:
I think using a single deck between two players is just fine.

Agreed. The table itself has enough duplicates as is. 2 decks sounds great, but is hardly needed.

No, two decks are needed, or at least some way to duplicate the cards because there are enough cards that give D3 victory points for simple things. Kingslayer, getting 3 psychic powers off (if you have 3 powers), and holding 3 objectives are just some I can think of off the top of my head and if you are playing one where you draw based on the turn number then you are going to be going through a single deck pretty quickly and it's not fair that both players don't have a chance to get a tactical objective.

You will not come even close in a normal 6 turned game.

"No two decks are needed"

Perfect moment when punctuation radically changes meaning.

 Lobukia wrote:
You will not come even close in a normal 6 turned game.

"No two decks are needed"

Perfect moment when punctuation radically changes meaning.

In a normal game drawing up to 3 objectives and only getting 2 a turn you would draw 11 cards per player so use 22/36 of a single deck, but yeah using 60% of the deck is not even close. What if you play the game where you start at 6 and get less or start at 1 and get more? Each player could realistically draw 13-15 cards thus using 26-30 cards of a single deck. While the first 18 are duplicates the last 18 are not and can swing the game quite a bit with all the d3 awarding ones.

I'm not saying it can't happen or that it's not a valid point. But when's the last time you saw two players break 15 VP? So incredibly rare. I've seen one do it quite a few, but not two. I realistically see 1 deck making for a much more competitive game.

More likely to get a variety of the obj cards up, less likely to get ones that don't apply. YMMV.

The most common scenario in which two decks would change the game is letting one player camp a bit more or rack up more VPs in a roflstomp. That's not good for club play or a friendly.

And the most common scenario in which one deck would change the game is letting one player get the objectives like kill a MC or Vheicle, kill a character, kill the warlord, Kill something during your turn, have the enemy fail a moral test, i could go on but my point is all those easy to achieve points that one player gets and then are unobtainable for the other player.

This is not even including just being able to hold on to a card that then prevents your opponent the ability to draw it.

Kill Flyers. Your opponent doesn't have Flyers, you do.

Grats on denying him that card.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
And the most common scenario in which one deck would change the game is letting one player get the objectives like kill a MC or Vheicle, kill a character, kill the warlord, Kill something during your turn, have the enemy fail a moral test, i could go on but my point is all those easy to achieve points that one player gets and then are unobtainable for the other player.

This is not even including just being able to hold on to a card that then prevents your opponent the ability to draw it.

Good points, but if all scored obj go back into the deck, and you reshuffle each turn, that'd mitigate your concerns somewhat. I've never done that, but you certainly could.

Best solution for 2 players, 1 deck:

You have your deck, shuffle, pick.
Let your opponent roll two dice, have him "borrow" your card(s).
If you need to pick again, take them off of him, re-shuffle, pick again.

Private objectives: Have your opponent find his card(s) and roll his dice behind closed doors

Some cards are easy to achieve, some difficult, some impossible. That itself is a flaw in maelstrom, but this is mitigated by having a large pool of cards to draw from.

With fewer cards, the standard of deviation of difficulty goes up, hence you get more unfair games.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Some cards are easy to achieve, some difficult, some impossible. That itself is a flaw in maelstrom, but this is mitigated by having a large pool of cards to draw from.

With fewer cards, the standard of deviation of difficulty goes up, hence you get more unfair games.

Having more cards doesn't mitigate this. If I have a 1/6 chance of a tough card and you double the pool.... I still have the same odds as before.

If there are more "tough" than "easy" cards, you've actually made it worse.

 Lobukia wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Some cards are easy to achieve, some difficult, some impossible. That itself is a flaw in maelstrom, but this is mitigated by having a large pool of cards to draw from.

With fewer cards, the standard of deviation of difficulty goes up, hence you get more unfair games.

Having more cards doesn't mitigate this. If I have a 1/6 chance of a tough card and you double the pool.... I still have the same odds as before.

If there are more "tough" than "easy" cards, you've actually made it worse.

The point is you have a 1/36 chance to draw any card in the game and as you draw cards this goes lower, but if two players are drawing cards from the same deck you have 1/18 chance of drawing a card.

Also with re-shuffling, that could lead to getting the exact same objective twice for one opponent.