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.

If you like "competitive" games, ignore unbound armies and ignore maelstrom tactical objectives.

GorillaWarfare 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)

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.

Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.

I like the concept but not the execution. We've been trying the following in our first few games.

Maelstrom Hold'em

One objective in each deployment zone. The rest evenly spaced along the center line ideally coinciding with terrain features.


Both players get dealt 2 cards. As missions are completed restore your hand to 2 cards.

Then a 5 card hand is dealt that both players try and complete missions from. As missions are completed restore this hand to 5.

At any time if a card is dealt which can in no way be completed discard it and draw a replacement.
Cards which dictate you receive D3 points award 2 if completed. Too much randomness for randoms sake IMO.

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

Well yeah, but that's kind of stating the obvious. But the poll here was asking "do you like tactical objectives", not "have tactical objectives made you ragequit".

They're a great idea and are great for mixing things up, once in a while.

On the other hand, half the cards just say, go to objective 1-6...
Not very creative. Among the rest, some are unfulfillable, which is lame, but still, all in all, it's pretty good.

Could've been done alot better, though. The maelstrom missions themselves are much too copy + paste. They could've done alot with those cards, but instead they just repeeat the same process with a few subtle changes.

I like them. Just wish the table deployments were randomized like the Eternal missions, rather than specified for each Maelstrom mission.

While it seems a bit repetitive for have 3 copies each of "control objective X" there is a reason for it. Once you score a particular tactical objective, it goes away and you can't get that mission again. Having multiples gives you the chance to get points several times for holding a particular objective, rather than say once you score that objective once, you can then abandon it because you will not be able to score on it again.

not hard to just randomize them, I have done some with the pre-chosen some with random

Played another Maelstrom mission. Again: Awesome.

I like the addition of TacOs as an option, especially because they mitigate the I-win-button that is First Blood. When I get back from this current deployment, I will use a Texas Hold'em style of card selection. Three cards face up on turn one, then the river and flop on three and four respectively. Players claim the TacO card as they complete them.

I wonder if those ones not liking the Tacticals are the same ones whining about assault not being viable.

Guess what these missions do? They make assault armies viable!

Also, unfulfillable objectives aren't much of a problem, you can just redraw those at the end of turn. It's a set back, but not a crippling one.

Tactical missions should be the standard for tournament play, with a bit of changes to make those less random (mulligan, draw 2 choose 1, d3=2 etc.)

krodarklorr wrote:

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

What? Nids are just top dogs when it comes to tactial objectives. As long as you don't play nidzilla.

They single handedly nerfed the tau gunline that unto itself has made me enjoy them. I feel that certain units I wouldn't of otherwise use have a place now (we'll some of them anyway). And it actually is motivating me to try mixing allies up and seeing what I get and it's making me excited to experiment in higher point games. So I'm calling these a success.

I think a better way to play them is a neutral hand of 6 that is refilled if one is completed. These cards should be face down and only discarded if they can't possibly be completed (if you pickup a card that can't be completed at all you are allowed to draw a random one from the takedown deck). This makes it more "equal" and makes you go one objective at a time.

I think I'm going to enjoy 40k a lot more in 7th than I will in 6th. 6th was shaping up to be a real ---- show and I was dreading playing regularly under 6th rules because my local meta had a serious problem with eldar seal clubbing builds and helldrake spam. With 7th I feel my problems are much mote distant as nobody really plays chaos daemons here and there are even some fun whacky builds. So I am going to be happier than a cat in a shoebox, thanks gw!

 knas ser wrote:


Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.

I agree with this . Playing against a good player is awesome . Even playing against a medicore player , but with a list build around powerful combos is good , because it helps with learning the game . Losing because your opponent got a better starting hand or because GW decided that your army won't be able to do half the missions , while your opponents does all of them , is a HUGE problem.

This is our second weekend of playing 7th and I see a patern come up. If I get objectives based around assault/psychic powers on my starting hand, I lose the game . If any of non Tau or AM opponents get , extra scoring points for dominating objectives cards on their hands they win . And there is nothing I can do about it. AM can't melee , they don't have fast and tough scoring troops and with just two psykers I don't have enough power dice to cast anything and have big problems with stoping other armies which seem to have around 13 or more power dice.


My only wins in two weeks were to tau and nid players , and only because the nid player didn't know he can't charge after flying and the tau player has a list with eldar ally which no longer are BB and the riptide nerf doesn't help him either.

Also, unfulfillable objectives aren't much of a problem, you can just redraw those at the end of turn. It's a set back, but not a crippling one.

only if your opponents army can't do objectives too . Otherwise what your saying is that your opponent getting a free turn isn't crippling. If my opponent gains 8-9VP on his turn , then I get non on my because I can't do any of the missions or doing them would risk me losing my army on next turns and then on my opponents turn 2 he has a new set of cards which he can now use and I only discarded one , then am in some deep trouble .

Getting 3 objectives you can't complete in your hand means being quite unlucky AND having some issues with list building. Also if you read my post i actually said that for competitive scenarios you NEED to put some derandomizer stuff in the cards, like mulligan which would solve the problem you just mentioned.
Sure a 1 VP setback is not a good thing, but it's far from game deciding.

Spoletta wrote:
Getting 3 objectives you can't complete in your hand means being quite unlucky AND having some issues with list building. Also if you read my post i actually said that for competitive scenarios you NEED to put some derandomizer stuff in the cards, like mulligan which would solve the problem you just mentioned.
Sure a 1 VP setback is not a good thing, but it's far from game deciding.

It's not all that much against the odds to get "secure objective x" where x is the objective deepest in the enemy zone, along with "kill a psyker" when you're playing against necrons, and "kill a unit in assault phase" when you're playing a shooty list. It wouldn't be SO terrible if you could drop the whole hand at the end of your turn, but no, you have to slowly discard these ridiculous objectives 1 at a time and hope that your 1 new draw the next turn is something a bit more realistic.


Here's my attempt at a better maelstrom mission:

New Orders

-Before starting this mission, remove any "secure objective x" cards from any tactical objective decks, or reroll them if using the table to generate them.

-Each player uses their own deck of tactical objectives. (Or their own chart, independent of what their opponent rolls.)

-Both players start with no tactical objectives. (hereafter shorted to "tacO's")

-At the end of any turn in which a player holds an objective, he may generate a new tacO for each objective he holds. These tacO's can not be claimed until the end of the player's NEXT turn, immediately before generating new tacO's for that turn. There is no maximum hand size for the tacO cards in this mission. TacO's that are impossible for a player to complete are discarded, and a new one immediately generated.

-At the end of the game, each player receives 1 VP for each 3 tacO's that have been generated, but not completed. The objectives themselves, however, do NOT award any VP in this mission.

Tactical Objectives were a brilliant answer to a number of problems plaguing the game. Armies that turtle, ignore transports for the sake of more guns, are comprised of only a few units for the sake expensive deathstars or Lords of War, are unbound, or start mostly in reserve are all hamstrung by MoW TacOs. They require a radical rethink of list building and play, so of course the initial reaction is going to have some strong negativity. Accommodating for an MoW game is going to take some time as we all figure out which units and strategies work best in them. No longer is list building about damage output vs survivability - mobility and objective denial have to figure in the mix as well.

The complaints about randomness are fair - as no one likes to lose having otherwise played a perfect game - but I feel like that was mitigated by the saturation of "objective X" cards, the ability to discard and the very different rules for TacOs in each mission. Can you get a really pisspoor draw? Sure. Can you lose a game because your opponent had consistently better draws? Yeah. But anyone who thinks that any 12 year old player can luck out and win any game because of it hasn't considered how much list building is going to affect not only how you obtain your nearly impossible objectives, but how well it does at denying your opponent his lucky ones.

I, for one, can't wait to see what this does to the overall meta for the folks who use them.

Asymmetric objectives (like Deadzone as mentioned) is a great idea - having them change every turn so you can't plan strategies in a strategy game is silly. The chance of adding the occasional additional objective would be fine. The current system is ridiculous and there's no way I'm playing them as is. There may be a way to modify them to be usable, but I haven't seen any good suggestions yet.

Theoretically the idea of being ready to adapt to changing circumstances sounds like a good idea - it is at a basic level. When it comes at the cost of overall strategic gameplay it's definitely not worth it.

 Vector Strike wrote:
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!

There are better ways to make the game more dynamic and random objectives is one of the worst ways to do it.

Eg. the unit activation in warpath. Super easy to implement, doesn't add silly random stuff and makes the game ultra dynamic.

Makumba wrote:

 knas ser wrote:


Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.

I agree with this . Playing against a good player is awesome . Even playing against a medicore player , but with a list build around powerful combos is good , because it helps with learning the game . Losing because your opponent got a better starting hand or because GW decided that your army won't be able to do half the missions , while your opponents does all of them , is a HUGE problem.

If winning is the only thing a player is interested in, I can see it being a bit frustrating sometimes. Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges. Sure some of these challenges will be impossibgle to acvhieve, but you can give it a shot and see what happens

 Flinty wrote:
Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.

So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:

Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*

krodarklorr wrote:

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

What? Nids are just top dogs when it comes to tactial objectives. As long as you don't play nidzilla.

For those of you who have clearly explained why you don't like them, I can definitely see where you're coming from, and too much randomness is a concern of mine. But overall, I really like the random objectives. So far I've only played one game of 7th, but I really enjoyed it. The cards have made me get out of my comfort zone and try things that I wouldn't have done otherwise. I don't think it really ruins long-term strategy planning over the course of the game. It becomes part of your long term strategy to be flexible and keep your options open. I agree that some of them feel a little too random, and I don't like D3 rolls for determining victory points, but for the most part, I like what random objectives have done for the game.

 Flinty wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 knas ser wrote:


Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.

I agree with this . Playing against a good player is awesome . Even playing against a medicore player , but with a list build around powerful combos is good , because it helps with learning the game . Losing because your opponent got a better starting hand or because GW decided that your army won't be able to do half the missions , while your opponents does all of them , is a HUGE problem.

If winning is the only thing a player is interested in, I can see it being a bit frustrating sometimes.

See this really pisses me off. No matter how many times actual objections are explained, the very next post someone will repeat their assumption that people are upset because they're not "winning." It's like there's some actual mental block. Which critic anywhere in this thread has expressed that the problem is losing? My post? Re-read it more carefully this time. The problem as clearly stated is not losing - both scenarios I list involve that so if you apply a little logic you'll see this cannot be the issue. No the problem is that the outcome (winning or losing) is not the result of skill.

The other chief objection is that they negate actual pre-game strategy or turn-to-turn planning.

And yet everytime someone complains about balance, unclear or poor rules, lack of tactical or strategic range in the game, someone leaps in with a vaguely superior-sounding comment about "if you only care about winning" or similar.

I wrote a comment that did not say or imply I only cared about winning. Somone else wrote that they agreed with me and again didn't at all express that the problem was losing. And then you reply about people only caring about winning.

STOP CHARACTERISING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH AND READ WHY THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNHAPPY, INSTEAD OF MAKING LITTLE JABS ABOUT THEM ONLY CARING ABOUT WINNING. IT IS RUDE.

People are complaining about the apparent lack of decent playtesting and development.

Or is that just too simple?

STOP CHARACTERISING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH AND READ WHY THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNHAPPY, INSTEAD OF MAKING LITTLE JABS ABOUT THEM ONLY CARING ABOUT WINNING. IT IS RUDE.

Isn't it the normal thing to do . Any group always tells that other groups are non human canibals that eat their babies , who are at best using up oxygen for other people. It has worked like that since the dawn of time and it probably be such till the end days.
It is a perfect argument . Talking about what rules are bad or if they are bad or if they could be better could end up with someone winning or losing. But if you accuse someone of not realy being a human , you automaticly win the whole argument , because any given by non people are void. That is also why terms like WAAC are used. Why explain anything , while calling something a WAAC wins the argument in your favor.

If winning is the only thing a player is interested in, I can see it being a bit frustrating sometimes. Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges. Sure some of these challenges will be impossibgle to acvhieve, but you can give it a shot and see what happens

Forging the narrative is not possible unless you can somehow force everyone to play a bad army or at least write the army lists for them , probably re-rolling or re-playing any accidental too bad or too good rolls . Aside for someone doing this while playing by himself , the only time when I can imagine someone pulling that of is either a pre build store game at a GW or a store owner enforcing his will on a whole community.

An AM army in 6th ed had nothing to forge against eldar or tau , unless the eldar build a melee list and the tau a vespid spam . Ah and by melee I mean a banshee list , not the melee deathstar with baron eldar did make in 6th.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.

So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:

Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*

Hey, it seems you understand 'forging the narrative' just right.

On the one hand, random missions that are not equal on both sides are dumb.

On the other hand, people being forced to mech up a bit and not just park one unkillable deathstar in the middle of the board is a good thing.

 knas ser wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 knas ser wrote:


Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.

I agree with this . Playing against a good player is awesome . Even playing against a medicore player , but with a list build around powerful combos is good , because it helps with learning the game . Losing because your opponent got a better starting hand or because GW decided that your army won't be able to do half the missions , while your opponents does all of them , is a HUGE problem.

If winning is the only thing a player is interested in, I can see it being a bit frustrating sometimes.

See this really pisses me off. No matter how many times actual objections are explained, the very next post someone will repeat their assumption that people are upset because they're not "winning." It's like there's some actual mental block. Which critic anywhere in this thread has expressed that the problem is losing? My post? Re-read it more carefully this time. The problem as clearly stated is not losing - both scenarios I list involve that so if you apply a little logic you'll see this cannot be the issue. No the problem is that the outcome (winning or losing) is not the result of skill.

The other chief objection is that they negate actual pre-game strategy or turn-to-turn planning.

And yet everytime someone complains about balance, unclear or poor rules, lack of tactical or strategic range in the game, someone leaps in with a vaguely superior-sounding comment about "if you only care about winning" or similar.

I wrote a comment that did not say or imply I only cared about winning. Somone else wrote that they agreed with me and again didn't at all express that the problem was losing. And then you reply about people only caring about winning.

STOP CHARACTERISING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH AND READ WHY THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNHAPPY, INSTEAD OF MAKING LITTLE JABS ABOUT THEM ONLY CARING ABOUT WINNING. IT IS RUDE.

I can't exalt this enough.

A small fix will clear all the angst about Tactical Objectives:
Just allow player re-draw his full hand at the start of every turn instead of just 1, and no-more "unachievable objective hand".
Probably full hand or 41 card, not as many cards as you want, so people don't cherry-pick that much and use this option if situation really sucks, like mulligan in MTG.

Peregrine wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Personally I like the whole "forging a narrative" thing as it gives you great stories and ever-changing tactical challenges.

So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:

Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*

knas ser wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 knas ser wrote:


Yes, but some of us are fine with losing to an opponent because that opponent has out-thought us. We're much less fine with losing to a deck of cards.

I agree with this . Playing against a good player is awesome . Even playing against a medicore player , but with a list build around powerful combos is good , because it helps with learning the game . Losing because your opponent got a better starting hand or because GW decided that your army won't be able to do half the missions , while your opponents does all of them , is a HUGE problem.

If winning is the only thing a player is interested in, I can see it being a bit frustrating sometimes.

See this really pisses me off. No matter how many times actual objections are explained, the very next post someone will repeat their assumption that people are upset because they're not "winning." It's like there's some actual mental block. Which critic anywhere in this thread has expressed that the problem is losing? My post? Re-read it more carefully this time. The problem as clearly stated is not losing - both scenarios I list involve that so if you apply a little logic you'll see this cannot be the issue. No the problem is that the outcome (winning or losing) is not the result of skill.

The other chief objection is that they negate actual pre-game strategy or turn-to-turn planning.

And yet everytime someone complains about balance, unclear or poor rules, lack of tactical or strategic range in the game, someone leaps in with a vaguely superior-sounding comment about "if you only care about winning" or similar.

I wrote a comment that did not say or imply I only cared about winning. Somone else wrote that they agreed with me and again didn't at all express that the problem was losing. And then you reply about people only caring about winning.

STOP CHARACTERISING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH AND READ WHY THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNHAPPY, INSTEAD OF MAKING LITTLE JABS ABOUT THEM ONLY CARING ABOUT WINNING. IT IS RUDE.

The both of you lovely people get an exalt.

I like them. I think that having the cards makes a big difference to playability and it is exciting to have differing objectives come up.

Having said that we have modified the use of them - each player has two hidden objectives and there is a pool of 4 face up objectives which either player can achieve.

a) At the start of the game, each player receives 2 missions, which are their secret ones.

b) At the start of the first player turn, 2 objectives are dealt face up into the pool.

c) At the start of the second player turn, the pool is increased to the full four missions.

d) Any impossible objectives are discarded and the player can replace immediately.

We are thinking of combining this with a relic mission as well to see what happens.