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 regularly complain about Maelstrom missions and now I want to rework them.

I know about the missions used at NOVA Open and I like the concept, but I want to do something slightly different.


The issues I have with Maelstrom:

- Winning Maelstrom is a lot about what you draw an not much about how you deal with it (either you can fulfill your objectives 'easily' or you can't at all). (Example: Generating the markers one is holding anyway while the other player generates the marker where your 60 conscripts are multiple times.)
- It's snowballing too hard. If you can't fulfill an objective for whatever reason, you are at serious disadvantage. You can achieve less total points for each objective you can fulfill immediately.
- As a consequence of the point above, you can't really react to your opponents objectives. Your best bet is to place 3 objectives into your deployment zone and put lots of chaff on them.
- Melee armies are have a lot of trouble scoring objectives by the design of the melee phase and the mission design.
- Otoh you should not win with one model left if the opponent still has half of his army because of the points, but otoh, you should not lose because you were tabled.


What I want maelstrom to be:

It should be about board control. Killing your enemy is fine, but it should just help you winning games, not win them outright.
It should make every unit-type usable, but it should invalidate 'mono-lists', all forces forward assault lists as well as gunlines.
The tactical objectives you generate should be commands you got from the commanders of the operation.
I want to keep the 6 markers to designate the objectives.

I didn't 'design' anyrhing yet, I wanted to start the brainstorming process with this thread.

What I came up with until now:

- Divide the board into 3 sections: Your own deployment zone, no mans land and the opponents deployment zone and have the value of an objective marker depend on where it is. This should establish a 'high-risk, high reward' type of game.
-The game ends after turn 4 so tabling is less likely. Being tabled is not autoloss. If you get tabled in turn 3, your opponent still has one turn to score objectives, if you get tabled turn 2, you probably deserve to lose.
- Only the 6 markers should score you points, no more points for killing something your opponent didn't even bring in his list or making orks fail a morale test. So no first blood or warlord kill either.
- Behind enemy lines, hold the lines, supremacy (maybe requiring 4 markers instead of 3) and domination still exist as tactical objectives, but they are always active and you have to fulfill them 2 turns in a row to score them.
- Objectives should be generated by choice of the players chosen before the games starts. Something like: 'Choose n (two is my favorite) (different) markers on the board. If you control them at the end of your turn, you get x/y/z points when the marker is in your deployment zone/no mans land/ your opponents deployment zone.'
Bonus points for holding them for consecutive turns should be granted. That way you can allow the players to switch objectives with a small disadvantage and which might be necessary so the players don't let the markers that were not chosen slide.

That's it for now, looking forward to your ideas and feedback.

In the one hand that's all nice and good. Positioning is key, considering risks and interacting with opponent. Other hand, it just about completely removes the essence of maelstrom which is fine if you don't want a swingy wild game

What is the essence of maelstrom for you?

One thing I think would be a good change is making it so you score objectives at the end of the ENEMY turn-that way, your opponent has at least a turn to knock you off an objective or go contest it.

Play ITC. That mostly fixes it.