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.

One thing I always question with pro-40k players is *why* they like the game, with all the ambiguous rules and the lack of balance everywhere. Everything I've seen indicates tactics don't matter as much as what unit you take and there's no way so done who picks a bad unit they like will beat someone who takes good units because they're good. I don't know about everyone else bit I play wargames to use strategy and tactics to win, not just pick the right combination and have that be all I need.

Tactics are simply the manipulations of your current forces/conditions to do your best to win.

In addition "balance" is not really possible in the realm of 40k. There are too many external variables that alter the value of any given unit that without removing options you wont get much more balance. Now could they do a little better on points costs? Definately. But I like the level of variety and personal choice in the books. I find that the problem is not the armies themselves(except for some older books) but the win conditions that make it so certain armies reign supreme. However missions in the main rulebook have to be too simple to really get at those different angles.

But the game is balanced enough that I have fun 95% of the time. The problem I find is that people dont know how to play very well and blame "balance" for a lot of the issues they face. Or when they make bad lists. No game can "balance" for that.

 Leth wrote:


In addition "balance" is not really possible in the realm of 40k.

No. It is absolutely possible. You don't need to remove options, or water them down, or limit customization. You just need to make a real attempt at playtesting and crunching numbers. I've seen players on this forum make fan dexes that were of a higher quality than GW in terms of internal and external balance, and had more options.

The problem I find is that people dont know how to play very well and blame "balance" for a lot of the issues they face. Or when they make bad lists. No game can "balance" for that.

What? No. People aren't blaming balance for anything. Balance is an issue because we're forced to negotiate power levels of our lists, or run into gimmicky, broken lists that revolve around a loophole in the rules.

And the game can absolutely be balanced for that. It'd greatly cut down on the number of people who accuse others of being WAAC, and put more control of the game's outcome in the hands of the player than in who brought the most powerful combination of units.

You can't use balance to ignore people because you think they don't play well enough. Its absurd. Don't assume things of other people. Everyone I know doesn't blame balance for their losses; they blame balance for being an active detriment to their enjoyment of the game for several reasons.

The good 'ole "You just don't know how to play it right" argument.

objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.

WayneTheGame wrote:
One thing I always question with pro-40k players is *why* they like the game, with all the ambiguous rules and the lack of balance everywhere. Everything I've seen indicates tactics don't matter as much as what unit you take and there's no way so done who picks a bad unit they like will beat someone who takes good units because they're good. I don't know about everyone else bit I play wargames to use strategy and tactics to win, not just pick the right combination and have that be all I need.

When you water-down 40K so much ("tournament style") using limited FOC, no dataslates, no FW, just the basic 3 missions of rulebook, typically too little terrain, everything perfectly "fair", nothing random, nothing unexpected, no alternative modes of play or Expansions - the result is a dice game where typically the best 'list' wins.

What gets me is that the same folks that water-down their 40K in such a manor are the ones claiming it's not a 'narrative' game, or that it's not 'realistic' enough. How many 'real' wars have been fought where everything was perfectly "fair"? And frankly the idea that an adult human standing across from me, would be bent out of shape because he drew one card that was "unfair", knowing that I have the same chances of drawing poorly, is just so ridiculous and laughable to me.

blaktoof wrote:
objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.

I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.

Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.

thraxdown wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.

I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.

Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.

But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.

 MWHistorian wrote:

thraxdown wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.

I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.

Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.

But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.

So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

thraxdown wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.

I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.

Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.

But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.

So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.

No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29
Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.

What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

thraxdown wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.

I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.

Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.

But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.

So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.

No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29
Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.

What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.

You literally have no concept on strategy which is insulting to history as you claim to have studied war.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

thraxdown wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.

I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.

Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.

But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.

So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.

No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29
Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.

What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.

You literally have no concept on strategy which is insulting to history as you claim to have studied war.

Please enlighten me then.
This might help you though.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Strategy_vs_Tactic
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-strategy-and-a-tactic.htm

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

thraxdown wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.

I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.

Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.

But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.

So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.

No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29
Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.

What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.

So then "5+ 40K turns" is military jargon I just don't understand? ...why does your story/narrative/"operation" have to end once this single game (5+ turns) is concluded? ...funny, you listed several 'goals' as part of your overall "strategy".

I'm beginning to think you don't really understand how the cards work, or certainly haven't experienced them first hand. Most turns, even when you are doing well, you are not generating "3 random objectives", but you can always discard one bad/unhelpful card. If I have a big payout card that I can reach/attain in 3 turns (or longer) I'll hold on to it. Some times it's more 'strategic' to wait and get a possible bigger payout then achieving a quick goal while maybe also sacrificing other possible choices.

 MWHistorian wrote:

thraxdown wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.

I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.

Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.

But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.

Not necessarily. Say my opponent deploys in a way that his slow foot slogging soldiers are going to struggle to reach objectives 1 thru 5, my strategy is to take out his two fast units as quickly as possible to hamper his ability to score anything besides objective 6. And if you have to change your strategy at some point, that doesn't exactly strike me as a bad thing. I know some of the most fun I've had is when the random things go against you, your plans have been shot to hell, but you still find a way to scrape one the a win. While having a plan come together is satisfying also, I still find the most joy when things change and I somehow overcome it*





*unless I lose then random objectives and rules are stupid

Based on the wiki article, that seems to be a very good assessment of strategy vs tactics. What article did you link to? Oh yeah, you just said "no it's not!"

 Musashi363 wrote:
Based on the wiki article, that seems to be a very good assessment of strategy vs tactics. What article did you link to? Oh yeah, you just said "no it's not!"

Does that wiki mention it's relevance to 40K? ...is there a wiki that gives examples of wars where nothing unexpected (random) happened, or where the goals / missions / strategies never changed on the fly? ...or what the official military measurement is for "5+ 40K game turns"? ...or for Orks, Tyranids, droppods etc etc...?

The discussion is about tactics vs strategy. Does that change because it's magically 40K now?

 Musashi363 wrote:
The discussion is about tactics vs strategy. Does that change because it's magically 40K now?

First, that's not what the discussion was about at all, that's just a claim our war expert made to try and prove a point - and yes it does matter that it's magically 40K; all of this is about 40K lol.

We could discuss cheddar versus mozzarella as well, and look to wiki for insights - but that isn't really relevant to 40K.

It being 40k doesn't change the definition of strategy and tactics. I don't know how else to say that. You may enjoy the cards. I'm glad you do. I hope enough people continue on with 40k so GW can fix itself. But that's not what I'm arguing against. I'm saying that the cards prohibit what I find enjoyable in a strategy game, mainly, the strategy part.

This is a pointless conversation. Anyone with critical thinking skills and get from this what they chose. I'm out.

It's just that your reference to 'realism' via strategy versus tactics (who cares?) is a double-edged sword, and frankly I'm pretty sure you don't even fully understand how the cards work based on your comments here.

I think the easiest way to look at is when you're building a list, laying down objectives, and deploying you're planning on how to capture objectives and deny them.

But once cards start getting drawn it changes. Instead of going after all objectives you're only concerned with a few, or some enemy unit is an even bigger target, or you have this odd desire to destroy buildings that don't exist.

The game starts giving you random goals to achieve that sometimes don't make any sense or are just way too one sided. A GK drawing the psychic card is going to benefit way more than the Necron player drawing it.

So the fact that you are forging the narrative in Grimdark 40K changes the definition of strategy and tactics? No wonder 40K sucks as a strategy and tactics game.

It is funny that every discussion on this topic says there is no tactics or strategy. We all know the contents of the cards in the deck. So if we get a bad card should we not be trying to stop the other side from achieving their objective? (strategy I think)

As the majority of the cards are for objectives should not the overall strategy be to capture as many of the objectives as possible and have units that can blast those we cannot reach to deny. (strategy?)

We also know that certain units can give us points or lose points so we have to protect or attack them.

So once the strategy is determined then tactically we have to deal with what is thrown at us.

Also saying the cards do not belong in wargaming. They have been there since the 50's in historicals. The is not as random as people make it as you need to be prepared for it.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think the easiest way to look at is when you're building a list, laying down objectives, and deploying you're planning on how to capture objectives and deny them.

But once cards start getting drawn it changes. Instead of going after all objectives you're only concerned with a few, or some enemy unit is an even bigger target, or you have this odd desire to destroy buildings that don't exist.

The game starts giving you random goals to achieve that sometimes don't make any sense or are just way too one sided. A GK drawing the psychic card is going to benefit way more than the Necron player drawing it.

I can't see why two players wouldn't agree that you can immediately discard an objective that is impossible to achieve

You could also, already per the rules, discard an objective that is impossible to achieve at the end of each of your turns anyway...

 Gunzhard wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
One thing I always question with pro-40k players is *why* they like the game, with all the ambiguous rules and the lack of balance everywhere. Everything I've seen indicates tactics don't matter as much as what unit you take and there's no way so done who picks a bad unit they like will beat someone who takes good units because they're good. I don't know about everyone else bit I play wargames to use strategy and tactics to win, not just pick the right combination and have that be all I need.

When you water-down 40K so much ("tournament style") using limited FOC, no dataslates, no FW, just the basic 3 missions of rulebook, typically too little terrain, everything perfectly "fair", nothing random, nothing unexpected, no alternative modes of play or Expansions - the result is a dice game where typically the best 'list' wins.

What gets me is that the same folks that water-down their 40K in such a manor are the ones claiming it's not a 'narrative' game, or that it's not 'realistic' enough. How many 'real' wars have been fought where everything was perfectly "fair"? And frankly the idea that an adult human standing across from me, would be bent out of shape because he drew one card that was "unfair", knowing that I have the same chances of drawing poorly, is just so ridiculous and laughable to me.

You're over generalizing a lot and using loaded words.

I think people in general who don't OWN their losses AND their wins are disingenuous. It's not about all the why's and wherefores. You win or you lose. That's all. Who cares how? The HOW could have happened to either one of you. So just play.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
One thing I always question with pro-40k players is *why* they like the game, with all the ambiguous rules and the lack of balance everywhere. Everything I've seen indicates tactics don't matter as much as what unit you take and there's no way so done who picks a bad unit they like will beat someone who takes good units because they're good. I don't know about everyone else bit I play wargames to use strategy and tactics to win, not just pick the right combination and have that be all I need.

When you water-down 40K so much ("tournament style") using limited FOC, no dataslates, no FW, just the basic 3 missions of rulebook, typically too little terrain, everything perfectly "fair", nothing random, nothing unexpected, no alternative modes of play or Expansions - the result is a dice game where typically the best 'list' wins.

What gets me is that the same folks that water-down their 40K in such a manor are the ones claiming it's not a 'narrative' game, or that it's not 'realistic' enough. How many 'real' wars have been fought where everything was perfectly "fair"? And frankly the idea that an adult human standing across from me, would be bent out of shape because he drew one card that was "unfair", knowing that I have the same chances of drawing poorly, is just so ridiculous and laughable to me.

You're over generalizing a lot and using loaded words.

I think people in general who don't OWN their losses AND their wins are disingenuous. It's not about all the why's and wherefores. You win or you lose. That's all. Who cares how? The HOW could have happened to either one of you. So just play.

Hmm I'm not sure how any of your comment here has anything to do with my comment. But for sure I don't agree with, "You win or you lose. That's all. Who cares how?". For me and many, the 'how' is the only thing that matters.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Leth wrote:


In addition "balance" is not really possible in the realm of 40k.

No. It is absolutely possible. You don't need to remove options, or water them down, or limit customization. You just need to make a real attempt at playtesting and crunching numbers. I've seen players on this forum make fan dexes that were of a higher quality than GW in terms of internal and external balance, and had more options.

The problem I find is that people dont know how to play very well and blame "balance" for a lot of the issues they face. Or when they make bad lists. No game can "balance" for that.

What? No. People aren't blaming balance for anything. Balance is an issue because we're forced to negotiate power levels of our lists, or run into gimmicky, broken lists that revolve around a loophole in the rules.

And the game can absolutely be balanced for that. It'd greatly cut down on the number of people who accuse others of being WAAC, and put more control of the game's outcome in the hands of the player than in who brought the most powerful combination of units.

You can't use balance to ignore people because you think they don't play well enough. Its absurd. Don't assume things of other people. Everyone I know doesn't blame balance for their losses; they blame balance for being an active detriment to their enjoyment of the game for several reasons.

Like I said, in my experience. Also I dont have a problem with the games "balance" so any arguements to that regard are not going to make sense to me. Do I believe there are units that are more powerful than others? Sure. Do I believe that codexs age badly? Sure. Is it possible that they could do better? Sure. Everything has flaws and if we can throw on our big boy pants we can get together and make it workable for ourselves instead of 100% requiring someone else to do it for us, or we can quit. However I am happy with my product so I continue to support it flaws and all. Any flaws that I find with the game are vastly overshadowed by the benefits that I get. However I recognize that some people like to focus on the flaws to the exclusion of anything else so I understand

 Leth wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Leth wrote:


In addition "balance" is not really possible in the realm of 40k.

No. It is absolutely possible. You don't need to remove options, or water them down, or limit customization. You just need to make a real attempt at playtesting and crunching numbers. I've seen players on this forum make fan dexes that were of a higher quality than GW in terms of internal and external balance, and had more options.

The problem I find is that people dont know how to play very well and blame "balance" for a lot of the issues they face. Or when they make bad lists. No game can "balance" for that.

What? No. People aren't blaming balance for anything. Balance is an issue because we're forced to negotiate power levels of our lists, or run into gimmicky, broken lists that revolve around a loophole in the rules.

And the game can absolutely be balanced for that. It'd greatly cut down on the number of people who accuse others of being WAAC, and put more control of the game's outcome in the hands of the player than in who brought the most powerful combination of units.

You can't use balance to ignore people because you think they don't play well enough. Its absurd. Don't assume things of other people. Everyone I know doesn't blame balance for their losses; they blame balance for being an active detriment to their enjoyment of the game for several reasons.

Like I said, in my experience. Also I dont have a problem with the games "balance" so any arguements to that regard are not going to make sense to me. Do I believe there are units that are more powerful than others? Sure. Do I believe that codexs age badly? Sure. Is it possible that they could do better? Sure. Everything has flaws and if we can throw on our big boy pants we can get together and make it workable for ourselves instead of 100% requiring someone else to do it for us, or we can quit. However I am happy with my product so I continue to support it flaws and all. Any flaws that I find with the game are vastly overshadowed by the benefits that I get. However I recognize that some people like to focus on the flaws to the exclusion of anything else so I understand

As long as you're OK the problems that make the game less fun for others don't matter?

 Gunzhard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

thraxdown wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.

I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.

Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.

But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.

So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.

No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29
Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.

What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.

So then "5+ 40K turns" is military jargon I just don't understand? ...why does your story/narrative/"operation" have to end once this single game (5+ turns) is concluded? ...funny, you listed several 'goals' as part of your overall "strategy".

I'm beginning to think you don't really understand how the cards work, or certainly haven't experienced them first hand. Most turns, even when you are doing well, you are not generating "3 random objectives", but you can always discard one bad/unhelpful card. If I have a big payout card that I can reach/attain in 3 turns (or longer) I'll hold on to it. Some times it's more 'strategic' to wait and get a possible bigger payout then achieving a quick goal while maybe also sacrificing other possible choices.

To use the raid as our central example:

If the raid had occurred using maelstrom missions, then halfway through the raid they would have had to destroy some random building they didn't even know existed previously, then near the end they would have had to kill some second person on the other side of the city, who they also didn't know about.

The reason why people are arguing that this is a hinderance to strategy is because you can't plan for it. A large part of strategy is in the planning: having a disposition of forces such that they can achieve goals X, Y, and Z efficiently. It is very rare for the goals of a mission to dramatically change in the midst of the mission itself- there is almost never some major new objective outlined, one that /should/ have been known in advance (see examples above.)

That it is 40k or not 40k doesn't really matter for this. There's nothing specific to the 40k universe that would make those basic military principles change.