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 have talked to a decent number of the local 40k players and most seem to really like the new game modes, but what do you guys think? I have played several games with the new tactical objectives and I like how the games play out deciding if it's worth trying to take enemy out completely or to go for early victory points and take attacks when the opportunity presents itself.

Tacks another 30+ minutes onto your game and removes skilled players' ability to form strategies that require more than a single turn to implement. In essence, it's GW pandering to their intended 12 year old customer base.

It's annoying enough to have to roll a D66 multiple times at ANY point in the game, let alone 5 times in a player turn. At least when you do it on the Boon table or something like that, it's the result of a player choice. The Tactical Objectives roll just happens...

I like them. It creates the necessity of responding to a unexpected situation - turning the game more dynamic.

But it slows the game. I wouldn't play them when I'm tired or in the last game of the day, but in the first, bring it!

I agree Vector, not saying they are perfect or that I would play them every game but it seems like a nice change of pace game and makes people decide what objectives to go for and what objectives to pass on.

It seems like it will add a lot of replay enjoyment to the game for me. I have the ipad version so its pretty easy to just quickly roll the dice, highlight my current missions and highlight the other dumped or completed ones on the page. I can do all but the first one on that list while waiting for my opponent to do his movement phase.

I really don't think it would really add a half hour to the game, even if it does I usually don't play when a half hour would make a huge difference.

Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.

(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)

Orktavius wrote:
Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.

(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)

I think owning thousands of dollars in GW product makes me a customer. I built a 3,000+ pt IG army out of tourney and escalation league winnings, so it's not as if I only have 3rd edition models.

That said, it's none of your business to tell me whether or not I'm entitled to an opinion. I've been playing 40k for 21 years. I've bought 5th edition codices for every army I play. I didn't buy 6th edition codices because they are a ripoff. And I will not be buying 7th edition codices or rulebooks because, as a capitalist consumer, I don't have to buy fething garbage.

Changing circumstances every turn on the game precludes long-term strategy. This is a fact. You cannot plan to achieve objectives you haven't received yet. Tactical Objectives make the game myopic. Was it really necessary to follow me to a completely different thread, to whine to me because my opinion isn't your opinion?

I like the idea of them, but there needs to be some changes. The objectives, 3 on your side three on theirs, is crazy. There should be more rules on making them further apart, and in no mans lands.

Also, some of the cards are dumb, and the D3 is as well, need some changes there.

I think one of the different types for objectives should be turned in at the beginning of your turn rather than end. Probably Take & Hold.

These are the best thing to happen to the game ever.

It's the one thing that has been added that punishes boxed up gunlines.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
It seems like it will add a lot of replay enjoyment to the game for me.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The Eternal War missions were getting quite boring for me. These new missions add not only a new way to play the game, but to play it a bit differently everytime.

Maelstrom missions are easily my favorite missions already. Totally new mode to play the game in. I have already played with tertiary objectives so I like how you can use them for that purpose also.

As a huge fan of Deadzone I can't help but feel that GW ripped these straight from that game.

I personally detest the tactical objectives because of the completely random nature in which you are given them. It is entirely possible to open up with a hand of objectives that you can not score nor will you ever be able to score. Destroy an enemy flier, the opponent has no fliers, destroy a building, no buildings on the table, etc. Then your opponent can open up with a hand that scores them 3-5 VP on first turn. It is all based purely on luck and completely ignores player skill.

The idea is great, the execution, like most GW products, is terrible.

I don't care who stole from whom. I Just like it.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.

(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)

I think owning thousands of dollars in GW product makes me a customer. I built a 3,000+ pt IG army out of tourney and escalation league winnings, so it's not as if I only have 3rd edition models.

That said, it's none of your business to tell me whether or not I'm entitled to an opinion. I've been playing 40k for 21 years. I've bought 5th edition codices for every army I play. I didn't buy 6th edition codices because they are a ripoff. And I will not be buying 7th edition codices or rulebooks because, as a capitalist consumer, I don't have to buy fething garbage.

Changing circumstances every turn on the game precludes long-term strategy. This is a fact. You cannot plan to achieve objectives you haven't received yet. Tactical Objectives make the game myopic. Was it really necessary to follow me to a completely different thread, to whine to me because my opinion isn't your opinion?

nah I came here to vote that I like the variety that maelstrom missions adds since reacting to new objectives as they come up on the battlefield generally requires someone to be skilled enough to make on the fly decisions. What's the saying No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy? I don't care that your opinion is not mine, I just like how you think you can tell me the game I love is garbage when you have zero investment in it. Frankly you've gotten 21 years of enjoyment out of a game that by your own omission you've mostly been playing with models you got for free...but the moment they change it so you don't like it you act like your entitled to demand they fix it to your standards even though you're not going to spend a dime anyway. Like I said, It's like listening to someone who doesn't vote complain about who got elected.

Indifferent. It definitely gives a player who's having a bad game a greater opportunity to stage a comeback, but they also increase your odds of just getting totally boned on the cards. Overall, not enough experience with them to say definitively.

Like their concept, hate their execution.

"I hate it" is not sufficient to describe my dislike for the system. The idea might have had some value if GW's rule authors weren't complete ing idiots, but unfortunately they are and the execution of the idea is just plain awful. Having objectives that are literally impossible to complete in some situations (like "kill a flyer" if your opponent didn't bring any flyers) is so unbelievably stupid that it makes the average baby smearing paint all over the walls look like a competent game designer, and even if you house rule away the worst of the cards you're still stuck with two major problems:

1) They aren't balanced. Let's say I roll "hold objective 1-2" and "issue a challenge", while you roll "hold objective 1-2" and "destroy a flyer". Objectives 1 and 2 are both in your deployment zone, and thoroughly camped with your units. Oh, and I'm playing Tau, while you're playing gunline IG with plenty of AA to kill my flyer that's about to arrive. I'm screwed because all you have to do is continue to do what you're doing to earn easy points, while I have little hope of claiming your objectives any time soon and issuing a challenge would be suicide. Even if I'm playing better than you and therefore deserve to win you have a huge advantage simply because you rolled better objectives.

2) They change way too quickly. Asymmetrical objectives could be interesting, if they were decided once at the start of the game and never changed. Variable objectives could be interesting if they changed occasionally. But instead we get a game where the objectives change every turn with no connection to what's going on in the actual game. It completely destroys any feeling of narrative play when every turn brings new objectives: claim objective 1, now come back and claim objective 4, no wait, go back and take 1 again, now forget the objectives and kill those flyers (and no points if you killed them on a previous turn). That's not a coherent mission, it's just a bunch of random garbage. You might as well just simplify things and roll a D6 every turn to see how many VP you get.

In short: they suck, I will be very happy if I never have to use them.

I don't like the randomness of it. I like clear, logical objectives like "take that hill!" or "Secure that farmhouse!" I don't like objectives dictated by a drunk commander with tourettes.

@Nuggz



So.. how do you plan on playing 7th or how did you play 6th? Did you go to the interwebz and 'found' the books as pdf's?

I had an interesting idea for a twist on it, though it would only work with the cards (or if you trust your opponent to make unsupervised die rolls). Basically, you would generate objectives several in advance, but they wouldn't be revealed until you could achieve them. That way you can plan ahead and set up for future maneuvers, but your opponent can't react to them until they enter play.

Personally, I really like them. The Eternal War missions are fine, but I've been playing missions like these since 5th Edition. 6th mixed it up a little with the Scouring and the Relic missions, but it's still the same old missions as always, fight over X objectives that don't even matter until the last turn anyway. I'm really pleased with an objective system that forces you to keep on your toes, although I wish there weren't objectives that are potentially impossible to pull off (one of them is something like "successfully manifest a psychic power," which is a great card to draw for the armies that don't use psykers).

I think with a little tweaking, like maybe just having a houserule that lets you throw out cards that you can't possibly achieve as soon as you draw them, it's a great system.

 Bludbaff wrote:
I had an interesting idea for a twist on it, though it would only work with the cards (or if you trust your opponent to make unsupervised die rolls). Basically, you would generate objectives several in advance, but they wouldn't be revealed until you could achieve them. That way you can plan ahead and set up for future maneuvers, but your opponent can't react to them until they enter play.

So...just roll them/draw the cards and keep them hidden from your opponent? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

The first game I played with the new edition, I must say it was really fun using the Tactical Objectives. I soon came to realize a couple things though.

1. The only semi-balanced Maelstrom of War mission is the one where you can complete eachother's objectives. Meaning, if you get a gakky hand turn one, you still have options, depending on what your opponent drew.

2. Never use Tactical Objectives while using Tyranids. They just don't have the mobility to be effective. At all.

Other than that, if you're playing a fast army, sure, they're all well and good. If you're not, stick to Eternal War missions.

I play drop pod SW and tactical objectives are great

Plonk a pod on each one and I win...

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Tacks another 30+ minutes onto your game and removes skilled players' ability to form strategies that require more than a single turn to implement. In essence, it's GW pandering to their intended 12 year old customer base.

Huh. I managed to say all that without moving my lips!


What the Ninja said.

Not a fan.


The cards themselves may have value but the way they've been implemented, taking no context into account they're basically useless and it's a game of "who gets the best cards".

teban wrote:
@Nuggz

Spoiler:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.

(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)

I think owning thousands of dollars in GW product makes me a customer. I built a 3,000+ pt IG army out of tourney and escalation league winnings, so it's not as if I only have 3rd edition models.

That said, it's none of your business to tell me whether or not I'm entitled to an opinion. I've been playing 40k for 21 years. I've bought 5th edition codices for every army I play. I didn't buy 6th edition codices because they are a ripoff. And I will not be buying 7th edition codices or rulebooks because, as a capitalist consumer, I don't have to buy fething garbage.

Changing circumstances every turn on the game precludes long-term strategy. This is a fact. You cannot plan to achieve objectives you haven't received yet. Tactical Objectives make the game myopic. Was it really necessary to follow me to a completely different thread, to whine to me because my opinion isn't your opinion?

So.. how do you plan on playing 7th or how did you play 6th? Did you go to the interwebz and 'found' the books as pdf's?

I'm pretty sure it's against Dakka rules to espouse (or admit to) piracy.

so has any of you that "liked" maelstrom missions actually PLAYED them? They are awful and completely take the players out of the game. That was my experience as well as the handful of people I have played against. They are terrible for normal everyday play.

Orktavius wrote:
Forces a general to react to changing game conditions and ensure in the list building process he maximizes his/her chances to be able to rush out and take far off objectives as the game demands, easy as hell to keep track with the cards unless $10 Canadian is to rich for your blood or you are like many unfortunate people and illiterate so writing down your objectives isn't an option. I mean, if skill is sitting on your side of the board shooting at your enemy until turn 4 and then rushing objectives then MAN I have totally had the definition of skill wrong for years and thank you for enlightening me mr. Non-customer Nuggz.

(if you are wondering if why your not buying a model since 3rd is a factor it's because it's like people who don't vote bitching about elected who got elected)

There are already changing game conditions in the form of what the enemy is trying to do and what the enemy is able to accomplish, in contrast with what you are able to accomplish.

In an ideal world there would be no arbitrary objectives. The rules of the game should cause 'objectives' to form naturally. These would be areas on the board that give you a distinct advantage in destroying the enemy, so one would be motivated to capture those locations and hold them, or at the very least deny them to the enemy.

40ks rule set is far from that though. All guns usually are in range of the enemy to being with, and there is no penalty for range. There is no real benefit for holding the high ground. There is no way to outflank the enemy to gain bonuses ( or give them penalties ).

Edit: All that being, I think tactical objectives are a good idea. I don't think 40k's rules will be changing anytime soon, so this added objective variant helps to shake things up.

You know what sucks? Having a different mission every turn which can be made more or less difficult to achieve based on moves I made earlier in the game because of whichever mission I was trying to achieve at that time.

You know what doesn't suck? Having one (or two) missions, determined at the start of the game, which stay the same for the duration of the game. Now I can plan a strategy, and a counter strategy (since my opponent has missions of his own). I can look at the moves my opponent is making in the first few turns to guess at what his ultimate objective is. I can plan. I can think. It would be just like the random-draw mission cards from 2nd Edition.

Oh wow...

Congratulations, 7th Edition.... you've actually made me nostalgic for 2nd Edition. In the 15+ years I've gamed since 3rd Edition was released, you are the very first thing that has made me actually wish I was playing 2nd Ed. So, yay for you, I guess.

While I like the idea of adding additional objectives and changing requirements to the game, they are simply too random, and favour certain forces.

Getting a couple of cards for the objectives you hold, while the enemy gets ones for objectives he doesn't hold (or can't possibly complete) gives you an immediate advantage - which you can then improve on because you cycle the objectives faster than your opponent, why has a limited turnover of his unachievable ones.

In addition, certain armies massively benefit from the maelstrom of war games - Eldar immediately spring to mind, having decent survivability and firepower, combined with massive manoeuvrability. Conversely shooting armies are hit hard (I'm not complaining) - as are foot assault forces (who certainly didn't need another nerf).

I don't get it. If people don't like Maelstrom of War Missions and Tactical Objective cards just use the Eternal War Missions.

Or is that just too simple?