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.

 Zed wrote:
It's a good time, unless your army was one of those that parked itself in it's deployment zone until turn 4 and went for a walk once everything was dead.

Or unless you like to play a game that emphasizes player decisions and strategy instead of random dice. The primary criticism of maelstrom missions in this thread has nothing to do with "my army isn't as good anymore" and is just as valid no matter what army you enjoy playing.

The problem we're now having is with the definition of "competitive" apparently being incredibly narrow

How exactly is it a narrow definition? Those of us who hate maelstrom missions have already proposed alternative mission types, so don't try to portray this as some kind of "competitive = gunline with turn 5 objective claiming" stereotype.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zed wrote:
It's a good time, unless your army was one of those that parked itself in it's deployment zone until turn 4 and went for a walk once everything was dead.

Or unless you like to play a game that emphasizes player decisions and strategy instead of random dice. The primary criticism of maelstrom missions in this thread has nothing to do with "my army isn't as good anymore" and is just as valid no matter what army you enjoy playing.

The problem we're now having is with the definition of "competitive" apparently being incredibly narrow

How exactly is it a narrow definition? Those of us who hate maelstrom missions have already proposed alternative mission types, so don't try to portray this as some kind of "competitive = gunline with turn 5 objective claiming" stereotype.

How you deal with the mission at hand IS a player decision, that is where your thinking has fallen off. You absolutely have to make decisions based on the draw and what units are available at the time in order to succeed. Are some easier than others, yes, but hat doesn't eliminate the fact that decisions and strategy play a very active role in the outcome of maelstrom style missions. Also, I put out a variant mission type for maelstrom, you derided the concept as stupid and told me I should forget the whole thing. Your alternative mission types have only been variants of eternal war missions, which cater to a slower moving, shooty play style, just like the lists that dominated 6th ed. Any game where a viable strategy can include totally ignoring 3/4 of the phases in the game, is going to be a bad one.

The way I see it war is random. Maelstrom is random. Ergo Maelstrom fits the game type. This isn't like chess where people start up with the exact same force and it comes to player skill. Some armies are generally better (rule wise) and don't require a lot of skill. Personally, I don't feel that the way 40k is right now is very tournament friendly. Heck, when I see what people buy/bring and the lists that are made, I can't help but think of Darth Vader vs a bunch of Ewoks. Can they win? Sure! Will they? Nope.

 Inkubas wrote:
The way I see it war is random. Maelstrom is random.

No, war isn't random. You don't attack random targets because the dice told you to, you attack carefully-planned targets that benefit your overall strategy for the war, or you defend against your enemy making similarly-rational attacks. And you certainly don't have a battle where neither side has any idea why they're here until the shooting starts, and the objectives for both sides change at random every few seconds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You absolutely have to make decisions based on the draw and what units are available at the time in order to succeed.

Key point: based on the draw. Yes, you still make decisions in a maelstrom mission, but some of the decisions you get to make in a non-maelstrom mission are replaced by random dice in a maelstrom mission. I really don't see why you think this means that maelstrom missions involve more strategic depth.

Also, I put out a variant mission type for maelstrom, you derided the concept as stupid and told me I should forget the whole thing.

Exactly, because it was a bad idea. Any maelstrom variant that includes the core mechanic of replacing player decisions with random dice is a bad idea. It might be slightly less terrible than RAW maelstrom, but that doesn't mean that anyone should use it.

Your alternative mission types have only been variants of eternal war missions, which cater to a slower moving, shooty play style, just like the lists that dominated 6th ed.

No they don't, and I already explained how those proposed missions force you to move out aggressively and claim objectives as fast as possible. And the dominance of gunlines in 6th had very little to do with the mission types and a lot to do with specific shooting units being overpowered and limited terrain on the average tournament table.

Any game where a viable strategy can include totally ignoring 3/4 of the phases in the game, is going to be a bad one.

Fortunately there are ways to fix that problem that don't include random dice replacing player decisions. We've even explained some of those options for you.

Just something to consider:

What is the difference between your opponent drawing Maelstrom Objectives that are all locations he is already sitting on, and you rolling all 1s for the saving throws of your Unit that otherwise has a 2++?

 KiloFiX wrote:
What is the difference between your opponent drawing Maelstrom Objectives that are all locations he is already sitting on, and you rolling all 1s for the saving throws of your Unit that otherwise has a 2++?

The fact that one is much less likely than the other, and the fact that one is rolling to replace a player decision while one is rolling to resolve the outcome of a player choice.

Feels like you are splitting hairs. The game is random. War is random. You can make all sorts of plans only to have some 'act of fate' that just screws with you. Part of war is being dynamic. So, to me, having random objectives makes it feel like war. For example: You have tanks that need to get to a city to assist your troops. A random mudslide causes the roads to be impassible. Tanks can't advance. Now what? That's random. You adapt. Your ability to adapt makes you a good general. Are there scenarios where you can't win? Heck yea!

And if you're going to say that EVERYTHING is planned then I can say that people plan around maelstrom missions. How's that different?

The point of maelstorm is force you to adapt to changing conditions.

It's not like you must throw away your current battle plan and rush across the board to claim an objective. You just get a bonus point if you're capable of doing it. And it's up to you to decide if splitting force to achieve this additional VP is worth it or you're better off delaying till later or plain discarding an objective.

Don't forget, that concentrating force and killing your opponent will cripple his ability to controle the board => will allow you more freedom. But at the same time, if you get too carried away with killing, you won't accomplish many objectives. If all you needed before was MAX killing power and something to quickly capture a few objectives turn 5, you now have to ballance between killing power and board controle with all it's movement, threat range and area denial tricks. The games are more tactically complex now, imo.

 Inkubas wrote:
For example: You have tanks that need to get to a city to assist your troops. A random mudslide causes the roads to be impassible. Tanks can't advance. Now what? That's random. You adapt.

Except that's not what happens in maelstrom missions. Remember, a game of 40k represents a few minutes of "real" time at most. So your tanks are approaching the city, and the mudslide wipes out the road. Ok, time to find a different route. Except now 30 seconds later the mudslide disappears and you're ordered to go back down the original road. But wait, another minute has passed, the mudslide is back, and you've just received orders to stay where you are and shoot down enemy aircraft (which may or may not exist). Oops, you were too slow, now forget about the road and your tanks and cast a psychic power. Which one? Who cares, just cast one, the war depends on you! No, forget all of that, go back to the original road. And now the game is over, so I guess let's all go back home and pretend this never happened.

See the problem with this? Your objectives change randomly, without any connection to events that happened earlier in the game, what each side's units are doing, etc. That's not a coherent simulation of the unpredictability of war, it's an army run by a raving lunatic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
You just get a bonus point if you're capable of doing it.

It's not just a bonus point, it's the only way to win the game. You either score VP as fast as possible, or you lose the game. If you treat it as just a nice bonus then you'll lose every time against a player who aggressively scores VP and cycles through the cards as fast as possible.

If all you needed before is MAX killing power and something to quickly capture an objective turn 5, now you have to ballance between killing power and board controle with all it's movement, threat range and area denial tricks.

And, again, you don't need idiotic random tables to do this. All you need to do is have objectives scored every turn instead of once at the end of the game. There, now you've accomplished all of the good parts of maelstrom missions without all the ing stupid parts.

 Peregrine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
You just get a bonus point if you're capable of doing it.

It's not just a bonus point, it's the only way to win the game. You either score VP as fast as possible, or you lose the game. If you treat it as just a nice bonus then you'll lose every time against a player who aggressively scores VP and cycles through the cards as fast as possible.

I treat it exactly this way and don't have problems with my footslogging orkses.

What? Ok. You're not drawing cards every 5 seconds. Let's play this out. Most missions have first blood, line breaker, and slay the warlord. That's three points right there that I'll either try to obtain or deny.

Turn 1.

I draw the following: obtain objective 1, kill warlord, obtain 4, and destroy a building.

Cool. I see that objective 1 is easy. I'm there. Objective 4, however, is all the way near my opponents massive army and may be hard for me to obtain. So, I ignore it and destroy a building is impossible. I move my units to try to get first blood and score objective 1 for two points. I toss the destroy building objective.

Opponent Turn 1.

He/She/It draws the following: Obtain objective 3, obtain 3, obtain 4, and destroy a unit in assault.

Oh snap. They own four so that's one point already there. They position the units they have to get objective 3 for two more points. Now they have the lead.

Turn 2

I draw the following: Manifest psychic (can't - darn), Kill Warlord, take down flier and I still have the previous objective #4.

So here's where I start to go tactics mode. If I kill the warlord I get two points which gives me the lead. If the warlord is near objective four then I can get 3 points and secure a stronger lead. However, I may over expose myself and leave myself open to a counter attack. I know that I can't let the lead stay but I need to be aggressive. I can't play gun line and sit on the objectives for an easy win. I choose to risk my units and go for a warlord kill. I fail. However, I do gain Objective 4. Now it's tied.

This goes back and forth with the cards changing the entire play style so I'm not just shooting at units from a distance and waiting for turn 4-5 to jet pack to a last minute objective for the win. I need to be dynamic. Ergo (even though random) mission evens the game out a bit.

Now, let's use a real world example with tanks, planes, boats and good ol fashioned troopers.

I have a war to win. I notice that enemy has a high commanding officer in this city I'm trying to conquer. This asset is highly defended. Nearby is another city that has access to fuel that I need for my armor division. There is also a munitions factory nearby. I choose to take out the nearby city to obtain fuel for my armored vision to assault the highly defended enemy commander. During this attack the weather becomes horrid and supplies are cut. My troops are now stuck with no reinforcements in hostile land. The enemy sees this and has the following options: attack the troops stranded to weaken me further and repel the forces there, or attack my rear guard to cut out any lines of retreat. They choose the latter. Now the weather becomes awful and the troops they sent over become stranded. I now have the following options: take the city for fuel, attack the enemy (now surrounded), push for the enemy high command.

This is what I mean. Both scenarios changed on a drop of a hat. In both the advantage (through no fault) can change by chance. A good commander adapts. The only thing that maelstrom does which I don't see in the Eternal war missions is change the game play. Prior to that, I can bring an awesome guard/tau gun line and just sit back. If I had the objectives I wouldn't need to do anything. The opponent would need to come to me and certain armies would be at a very visible advantage.

Maelstrom turns a mediocre wargame into an expensive game of Whac-a-mole.

 Inkubas wrote:

He/She/It draws the following

Are you playing against mark of Slaanesh Spawns or something?

 Inkubas wrote:
Now, let's use a real world example with tanks, planes, boats and good ol fashioned troopers.

Except, again:

1) A game of 40k is a few minutes of "real" time at most. There just isn't time for objectives to change 15+ times (three objectives a turn for 5 turns).

2) In your example there's still a chain of cause and effect. No such thing exists in maelstrom games, you get new objectives completely randomly, without any connection at all to previous events or what each side's units are doing.

Prior to that, I can bring an awesome guard/tau gun line and just sit back. If I had the objectives I wouldn't need to do anything.

And, again, this is easy to change without resorting to stupid ideas like maelstrom objectives. You don't need to replace player decisions with random dice to force people to move out of their own deployment zone, and I've already mentioned examples of how to do that.

It is up to the players to decide the cause and effect, a 40k games isn't a battle being fought, it is a small part of a much larger battle. You need to shoot down a plane, enemy doesn't have one, they do, just not in this vicinity. Your high command would darn well tell you to shoot one down if you see the one that has been eradication your troops in another area. Cast a psiker power, the enemy is doing something to cause warp issues on the planet, draw energy away from that asap! (For the tau/necrons that would simply be a warning, unless they have new converts to the greater good/mind shackled slaves)

The only thing tying his examples to one another is the story behind it. That mudslide didn't disappear engineers got it. But by the time they did, that flyer started threatening the whole platoon, keep the tanks back while it is dealt with. Turns out it veered south, move up! Games workshop gave you a backdrop, then gave you a means to add more chaos and fluidity to the battle at hand. They SHOULD NOT have to give you the exact mission, story, and background for every fight (You have altar of war for that) if you need an objective one turn, and not the next, it was too heavy/dangerous to move, mark it with a beacon and get back until reinforcement can move up. You need it again? The transmitter is malfunctioning, get someone over there to set up a new one? Enemy on the objective you need? Push them out of the area to see what they are protecting.

Why do so many think that the game on table is the only thing happening on the planet. Believe it or not, you CAN forge the narative.
Edit for readability.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


Believe it or not, you CAN forge the narative.

Believe it or not, you CAN do all of that without the forced mechanic of random cards that change all the time so you have to constantly tweak your own narrative. Instead, let the players create their narrative without forcing them to come up with excuses and justifications.

Mealstrom like real war?
Hold on, I'm laughing.....



Still laughing.


Um...no. Just no. I've been to war. In a battle you're not running around like chickens with their heads cut off changing objectives every minute. It's usually a pretty clear goal you're working for. "Take that house." "Secure that intersection." Etc. The interesting stuff should happen in how you achieve that one goal.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Mealstrom like real war?
Hold on, I'm laughing.....



Still laughing.


Um...no. Just no. I've been to war. In a battle you're not running around like chickens with their heads cut off changing objectives every minute. It's usually a pretty clear goal you're working for. "Take that house." "Secure that intersection." Etc. The interesting stuff should happen in how you achieve that one goal.

But, over the course of the war, that house or intersection become irrelevant, then are needed again later. As a game, months of time would take too long, this is a war simulation (sort of) that randomness is exaggerated to add drama and dynamicism to the game. The discussion has turned from "should the tournament crowd be changing strategies to deal with maelstrom style missions" to
"those missions are stupid"
"Nu-uh"
"Yeah huh!"
"NU-UH!"
the differences within the community are an example of how good the game is, we can all have a good time playing totally dissimilar game styles within the exact same core game. Despite the lack of headway the discussion has made, thank you all for taking the time to have it

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

But, over the course of the war, that house or intersection become irrelevant, then are needed again later.

Exactly, over the course of the war. A long time. Not a small part of a larger battle.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Yes, although most only incorporate a maelstrom light approach. The fact of the matter is that lists that don't stand a chance of wiping out their opponent are winning tournaments by simply being flexible enough to win. I think this is going to change how people plan their armies as these list become more common.

The goal of the game is to score enough victory points to win, not to table your opponent. A good list will achieve victory, not kill everything else in 6 hours of dice rolling. Unless that's what you and your opponent define as the purpose of the game

 Peregrine wrote:
Except that's not what happens in maelstrom missions. Remember, a game of 40k represents a few minutes of "real" time at most. So your tanks are approaching the city, and the mudslide wipes out the road. Ok, time to find a different route. Except now 30 seconds later the mudslide disappears and you're ordered to go back down the original road. But wait, another minute has passed, the mudslide is back, and you've just received orders to stay where you are and shoot down enemy aircraft (which may or may not exist). Oops, you were too slow, now forget about the road and your tanks and cast a psychic power. Which one? Who cares, just cast one, the war depends on you! No, forget all of that, go back to the original road. And now the game is over, so I guess let's all go back home and pretend this never happened.

This is awesome, by the way.

So, in your eyes Eternal War missions are the only legitimate way for player skill to be a factor, Maelstrom is unrealistic, and skill exists in great enough metrics to make the tournament scene fair and balanced regardless army (as long as we are talking about EWM). Am I correct in this summary? Oh and Maelstrom is too random to be realistic as objectives do not change that fast in real life. Correct?

ONLY is overstating this.

 Inkubas wrote:
So, in your eyes Eternal War missions are the only legitimate way for player skill to be a factor

No. There are other potential mission ideas that would be good for competitive play, they just don't include maelstrom-style random objectives.

Oh and Maelstrom is too random to be realistic as objectives do not change that fast in real life.

Exactly. Maelstrom missions are incredibly unfluffy and directly contradict the "forge a narrative" approach to gaming. This would be fine if they were the best possible competitive missions and greatly enhanced competitive tournament games, but they aren't. So we have a mission concept that is poorly suited to competitive games and doesn't even have the redeeming factor of "it's a great story" to make up for it. This leaves us with no reason to use maelstrom missions besides "GW said we could".

Wow, and here I thought I had given a definite story, revolving around maelstrom objectives, that wasn't farfetched or in any way stretching the imagination. Turns out it was ignored because it invalidated a couple preconceived notions about how to effectively forge a narrative that can change over the course of the game, as opposed to, "here is our goal, don't change tactics or strategies unless the enemy does something crazy" a narrative in any game should not be guaranteed as definitive at the start of every story.

And that seems to be what we are stuck with, ludicrous pre- conceived notions on what is competitive, and what isn't. You will notice that those of us who are proponents of maelstrom have NEVER told anyone else that their ideas of competitive gaming are stupid or invalid. We have been entirely on the receiving end of that. There are a great deal of players who believe the maelstrom style missions are legitimate (including actual tourney players who are also being told they are wrong on other threads) while several others point out that they are not and that they no longer play.

Why should your opinion be a valid one? Why listen to people who claim the game is broken garbage, and then try to claim the way I play is stupid. I wouldn't ask someone who has never had a long term relationship for advice on how to keep a girlfriend. Though, to be fair most people in their situation wouldn't in good taste tell me that my happy marriage was stupid because our relationship works differently than theirs did.
T.L.D.R. stop telling people they are wrong about maelstrom missions being competitive, we feel they are another legitimate source of competition, as is yours. All you are doing is trying to force us to play the way you do, and that is not acceptable.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wow, and here I thought I had given a definite story, revolving around maelstrom objectives, that wasn't farfetched or in any way stretching the imagination.

You gave one, but it had nothing to do with 40k. I've said it several times already, but I guess I'll say it again: a 40k game represents a few minutes of "real" time at most. That isn't enough time for the weather to change multiple times, troops to get diverted to different cities and back again, etc. Any story about the fluff of maelstrom objectives needs to account for the fact that the battle happens in less time than it takes to write a post about it.

And that seems to be what we are stuck with, ludicrous pre- conceived notions on what is competitive, and what isn't.

Yes, because competitive games have been around for decades and people have put a lot of work into developing them. The fact that one of GW's stupid ideas is immediately labeled "uncompetitive" doesn't mean that people are closed-minded, it just means that the idea is so obviously bad we can reject it without much debate.

You will notice that those of us who are proponents of maelstrom have NEVER told anyone else that their ideas of competitive gaming are stupid or invalid.

IOW, STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should your opinion be a valid one? Why listen to people who claim the game is broken garbage, and then try to claim the way I play is stupid. I wouldn't ask someone who has never had a long term relationship for advice on how to keep a girlfriend. Though, to be fair most people in their situation wouldn't in good taste tell me that my happy marriage was stupid because our relationship works differently than theirs did.

IOW, ONLY POSITIVE OPINIONS THAT AGREE WITH ME ARE VALID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

T.L.D.R. stop telling people they are wrong about maelstrom missions being competitive

No. Maelstrom missions aren't competitive. I'm not going to lie to people just to satisfy your obsessive need to be surrounded by positive comments on your ideas.

we feel they are another legitimate source of competition

Too bad. Just like the people who believe that the earth is 6000 years old or that 1+1=5 you are wrong.

All you are doing is trying to force us to play the way you do, and that is not acceptable.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that criticizing bad ideas was the same as holding a gun to your head and forcing you to stop playing maelstrom games.

If we feel they are competitive, we are right. You have only stated and opinion, not even a provably the most prevalent one. Yes competitive gaming has been around for ever, but for a large chunk of that, the ONLY objective was to kill the opponents soldiers. You are akin to the players of yesteryear that thought the idea of there being a spot on the ground that is more important than killing the enemy is stupid. You will be brushed aside, just as they were, and be slowly rendered irrelevant. The maelstrom format, and 7th ed in general, are bringing people back to the game. I watch batreps in the morning while feeding my kids, and there is an influx of new blood out there, enjoying the game, against all your wishes.
As an aside, I don't care about you being negative, or disagreeing with my opinion. But you constantly trying to belittle my position due to the lack of factual backing for yours is grating on me. I have been told this is my first time being "Perigrined" and that I should block you as most others have due to being unable to compromise, or admit that others positions have merit. I will not. Discourse should always be had, even if you find your opposition to be unnecessarily antagonistic.

Feel free to keep being snarky, I will not be silenced.

Edited for autocorrect

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If we feel they are competitive, we are right.

No you aren't. The fact that you label an uncompetitive game "competitive" doesn't mean that your label is automatically correct.

Yes competitive gaming has been around for ever, but for a large chunk of that, the ONLY objective was to kill the opponents soldiers.

You do realize that there are games besides 40k, right? Including games with various objectives and victory conditions? And that even 40k has had objective missions for decades?

You are akin to the players of yesteryear that thought the idea of there being a spot on the ground that is more important than killing the enemy is stupid.

I really fail to see how this is true when maelstrom missions use the same objectives as normal missions, just with a layer of random dice included. Maelstrom objectives aren't some kind of major revolution in how we think about winning battles, they're just another of GW's idiotic "roll more dice to forge a narrative" design.

The maelstrom format, and 7th ed in general, are bringing people back to the game.

Funny how one of the common "why I stopped playing in 7th" complaints is "maelstrom missions suck", along with "I hate all of the extra randomness". Perhaps you're just guilty of confirmation bias and playing with a group of people that share your opinions?

As an aside, I don't care about you being negative, or disagreeing with my opinion.

Then why do you keep complaining about how all the anti-maelstrom side does is criticize maelstrom missions?

But you constantly trying to belittle my position due to the lack of factual backing for yours is grating on me.

I've given you the factual backing: maelstrom missions indisputably take away player decisions and replace them with random dice.

Feel free to keep being snarky, I will not be silenced.

Nobody is trying to silence you, we're just pointing out that your ideas are bad. You're still free to keep posting those bad ideas until you get bored.

They do not reduce a players decisions, they add an entirely different set of decisions that are needed to compete.
Also, anything where there is a winner and loser can be competitive, all you need to be doing is trying to be better at it than other people. The competitive nature of anything is purely held in the mind of those competing. So we are not wrong. I eat every day, I don't try to out eat my friends, that doesn't mean that people training to eat competitively are wrong in thinking that they are being competitive. You keep saying we are wrong, when in order for that to be the case, we would have to be lying about how we feel about the game.
Your criticism is grating only due to the fact that it is simply an opinion, yet you keep stating it as fact. You say "maelstrom missions reduce player decision, and replace it with a random die roll" that would only be the case if you lost the moment you didn't try to achieve the objective. The act of making that decision, is *gasp* a decision! Those die rolls generate and additional set of decisions that competent players utilize in their overarching battle plan, because they have adapted to the idea that a little random effect is not what loses every game.

Those who are saying why they left 7th ed are indeed saying that, those who are picking it up for the first time in a long time (or ever) are asking what their army is doing or what to buy next. While those of us who haven't left don't feel the need to come and explain why we're still playing, we don't need you to know. I cannot grow bored of a hottly debated topic, I enjoy debate as much as I enjoyed chess, go, MTG, and mageknight, and still enjoy DND, 13th age, and risk 2210. See, I do play other games

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They do not reduce a players decisions, they add an entirely different set of decisions that are needed to compete.

No they don't. All of the decisions in maelstrom missions exist in non-maelstrom missions. The difference is that non-maelstrom missions have more player decisions, while maelstrom missions use random dice as a substitute.

Also, anything where there is a winner and loser can be competitive, all you need to be doing is trying to be better at it than other people.

Sigh. Are you seriously going to make this argument?

You keep saying we are wrong, when in order for that to be the case, we would have to be lying about how we feel about the game.

Do you understand the difference between "I play this mission competitively" and "this mission is well designed for competitive play"? The fact that you approach maelstrom missions with a competitive attitude does not in any way contradict the fact that they're poorly designed for competitive games. You can be a serious hardcore competitor about "flip a coin", but that doesn't mean that anyone else should take your competition seriously.

You say "maelstrom missions reduce player decision, and replace it with a random die roll" that would only be the case if you lost the moment you didn't try to achieve the objective.

Err, lol? Do you understand the difference between "replace player decisions with a die roll" and "replace ALL player decisions with a die roll"?

Those die rolls generate and additional set of decisions that competent players utilize in their overarching battle plan, because they have adapted to the idea that a little random effect is not what loses every game.

Except they don't generate additional decisions because all of those "which objective should I go after" decisions exist in non-maelstrom missions. The only difference is that in non-maelstrom missions each player is in full control of the decisions about which objectives they want to attack, while in maelstrom missions that decision is heavily influenced by a random die roll assigning different values to each objective.