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.

I like the idea of breaking up gun lines with mealstorm missions, but I don't like to win/lose on a few bad draws nor play a complete random game.
And I do like the variation in games presented in the old battle missions book. Would this combination of the two feel like a fun and fair mission to you ?

Random battle mission and both players gain the advantage if only one side would gain it in the mission unless it is a important part of the mission due to unusual deployment etc.
Player who wins this mission gets 1 point

Meal storm cards are used
player who would win the mealstorm cards mission gets 1 point

Standard 7th edition secondary objectives are used to determine the winner in case of a tie.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those not familiar with the battle missions they are 30 missions that are comparable with eternal war missions but tend to have some minor special rules and alternative deployment methods

I don't know the battle missions, but local tournaments always combined a mealstrom with a normal mission and the secondary objectives. First blood was usually replaced with King of the Hill ( 1 point for the player with a troop choice closest to the center).

just add all the points from mealstrom (D3 = 2) to the points of the normal mission (i.e. 3 points per objective) at the end of the game.

And once per game after drawing cards you may discard all your cards and draw again but 1 card less than normal.

Its similar to how ITC does it which seems to be well received. I think half the points coming from maelstrom and half from a primary objective is a good compromise.

I am a huge advocate for this. I've tested it out a few times, and each time combining the two resulted in the narrowest game. (Usually if the game had been only one or the other, a different player would have won.)

Side note:When did everyone start spelling maelstrom 'mealstorm?'

lol that's probably an autocorrect error that the poster didn't attempt to fix (or didn't see)