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 predict this thread will end well.

Im about to try it properly tonight. In theory they seem pretty interesting. Both of us are infantry heavy footsloggers so hopefully the missions make things interesting.

So far im leaning towards yes though.

I like it. Lots of gak is happening on the table, people move units back and forth trying to do their objectives. It's like a dynamic objective game mode compared to bland team deathmatch / capture and hold. 40k became absurdly stagnant gameplay-wise with games depending only on last turn objective contest/grab and/or tabling the enemy. Now it's much more dynamic and fancy. Maybe the execution could be done a bit more reasonably like allowing people to discard those objective cards that can't be fulfilled due to literal inability to fulfill the conditions, but it's still a step in the right direction in my opinion. At least now something's happening on the table.

I like it. The new cards actually add a dimension of tactics to the game rather than a turn 5/6 grab of objectives to win the game. Now you actually need to think how to use the cards in your hand to your advantage.

I haven't played them yet, but I see both good and bad sides to the maelstrom missions. on the good side, it makes the game a lot more dynamic. you have no idea what your objectives are going to be coming into the game, so you have to design a force that's flexible, mobile and durable. to me, that sounds interesting. movement matters more, being adaptable matters more... bringing a static gunline list is probably not going to win you games anymore.

on the bad side, objectives are extremely random. a few lucky cards can reward one player with an insurmountable lead in points for simply being in the right place at the right time. conversely, having bad luck with your cards could mean you are unable to score points for the entire game, no matter how well you play. that doesn't sound like a fun game feature. I'm not sure how I'd fix that, but it seems like a glaring flaw in the design and it would make me hesitate to play it.

Overall i think it was fun.

Not having to focus entirely on killing an opponent and just locking them in place to steal objectives was nice.

Though getting functionally useless objectives suck but its rare so no issue.

Only played one game so far, but I really enjoyed the dynamic nature of the game. Looking forward to playing more.

I haven't had the chance to play them yet, but watching some battle reports with them used, looks like this will be my default game mode from here on out. Old objective games sucked. I had to last for 5 turns and HOPE I had enough points to win, as I often didn't get many kill points. This mode, I feel, will be a golden opportunity for Orks to really get in the mess of things as well.

Any game mode that forces less copy & paste gun line lists, I'm all for. It forces both players to get off their arse and MOVE. My only gripe is if you get tabled, despite having more VP, you still 'lose'. I know from GW's whole push on narrative, it would be technically impossible for an army who was wiped out to 'win'. Even if someone tables me, if I have more VP, I'll count that as a win in my book. I played the game.

I know people have been gripey about the dead draws on objectives, but that happens from time to time in any game. Be it a card game, or otherwise. You'll sometimes get something useless. Just got to roll with it, or make that made dash to get those VP. Unless GW makes more objective cards, and makes it so players can 'build a deck' of their ideal objectives, then we have to go with what's been dealt. (though I can foresee 'custom objective decks' defeating the whole purpose of this mode, and would just allow people to be gun liners yet again)

I like the concept a lot, but the execution is poor. We've played about 10 maelstrom missions, and in about half of them one side ran away with the game due to the luck of the draw. With some tweaks it might work better (maybe a card drafting component before the game begins). As it stands, it's far too luck-based.

I will say, I do think the objective cards are fundamentally fine (with a couple exceptions). The "kill an enemy psyker/flyer/building" cards are okay if you have some sort of card drafting mechanism before the game, since it will give players the ability to score depending on what the opponent brings to the table. The ones I don't like are the "manifest a power" card (which is dead weight to the non-psyker factions), and the "discover the mysterious objectives" card, which awards way too many points.

Maybe, if instead of it being random cards they had a probability tree style chart.

So both players have the same objective initially. Then once that objective is completed you roll a D6 and that D6 selects one of 5 branching objectives that you now need to complete. After that you roll again and that result will be on the branch that comes off the last objective you did.

that way you can somewhat plan future objectives as they go in stages and it reduces the luck of the draw, while still having that random element.

Although its just a random thought.

I like the effect they have on the movement phase of the game, much more dynamic. No more castles of fire bases who don't move and just sit there and fire at you crossing the board.

The only things I would change are making everyone bring there own decks (not sure if this is a rule?) and making you re-draw cards you can not achieve (enemy has no fliers etc..)

bodazoka wrote:
]The only things I would change are making everyone bring there own decks (not sure if this is a rule?)

Yes, that is the rule - each player is using their own deck.

I see why people like how it mixes up the gameplay, but imo it could be done in a more accurate/realistic/fun way. The frequent changing of objectives breaks all the immersion for me as it's just not realistic for a battle which is what a single mission is supposed to represent. Changing objectives, especially how frequently they change, is something that happens between battles so is good for a campaign, not a battle. Randomly allocating objectives before a game that don't change, but that still score each turn will still mix up the gameplay by forcing people to move more and is much more realistic. You could add a single optional additional objective, or changed objective mid game to spice things up, but that's about it

Here's my thought on it, although I've only seen it used in three games. Two of the games were very interesting and dynamic. Both of these were low-point games, I think 750 and 1000. The third game was pretty much decided by the draw, and that game was 3000 points. To me, it seemed that the size of the force directly affected the quality of the game. A large force can reasonably castle up on all three home objectives while threatening the enemy deployment zone. Thus, the game was decided by which side drew more of their home objectives. A small force, on the other hand, can't afford to leave troops sitting on an objective in case you draw it, and thus had to stay mobile. I realize 3000 points is a lot larger than most people ever play, but I think that 1500 or thereabouts might be the inflection point where the static gunline becomes dominant again. I intend to try out Maelstrom some more but my impression thus far is that it's good for small games and not so good for larger ones.

Melevolence wrote:
Unless GW makes more objective cards, and makes it so players can 'build a deck' of their ideal objectives, then we have to go with what's been dealt. (though I can foresee 'custom objective decks' defeating the whole purpose of this mode, and would just allow people to be gun liners yet again)

I think a good compromise would be allowing players to fit in a pre made set (Orks could have their own for example ...) or their own choice of six cards in exchange for one of the categories already there (purge, take & hold, etc)

I quite like them, actually. They add a nice bit of flavor to the game.

It can be incredibly frustrating to get hosed by the cards, but overall I like the system.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It can be incredibly frustrating to get hosed by the cards, but overall I like the system.

The way some of the missions are structured, you just don't have any way to do risk management with the cards - hence the frustrated when you just get screwed the luck of the draw. Games like 40k are fun when you have to make Hard Choices, and the maelstrom mission often fail to offer the player any choices (you drew a crap hand? Sucks to be you!). I'm hopeful that some tournament will come up with tweaks to the missions that fix some of those issues. Maelstrom missions CAN be fun when both players get useful cards.

I will say, one of my favorite things about these maelstrom missions is how they discourage static gunlines and encourage mobility and interaction with the opponent. Our resident IG player has had to come out from behind is aegis defense line and actually try to grab objectives.

I'm loving 'em so far, though I've only played two games in 7th as of yet. Honestly, with a little tweaking, I think it's a great system for making games more dynamic, and forcing armies to have at least some form of mobility, rather than just a boring, static gunline. At my FLGS we allow you to simply redraw any card that you physically cannot complete during the game, like "kill a flier" when the enemy has none, which makes it a little less frustrating.

The new game types made me realize how frigging slow infantry move as I ran about between objectives. I know random points can be awarded by the deck but If you get bad draws you just try to table your opponent, Seems legit to me.

Enjoyed it so much. I was brutaly crushed and there are areas of abuse but having two gunlines march at each other was a cool site to see.

Definite yes from me now.

I have played 18 games of 7th edition so far, and I can fully say the games of Maelstrom have been the most enjoyable

Asymmetrical objectives is great. Continually changing objectives and rolling every turn makes for double ended book keeping if you don't want to buy the cards. 40k never used to require a dry erase board to keep track of everything...

Also disproportionately benefits fast armies that were already top tier, and removes game-long tactical considerations (aka STRATEGY).


Nice fat bowl of "no thanks, Jeff." Have zero interest in ever playing with these in the future.




I'd much rather see a table with army-specific objectives that actually make sense. Everyone gets points for being on objectives each turn, and for wiping enemy units. Some armies get extra points for specific things. For CSM, these would be things like killing characters in challenges. For IG, taking objectives would be a bigger deal. For Orks, something like wiping units in H2H. Tau, wiping units with shooting. These would drive home the spirit of the armies while enhancing the play style. As it is, it feels like they were designed by a schizophrenic meth head with ADD. Having two names for the same mission is simply unnecessarily complicated.

 Klerych wrote:
I like it. Lots of gak is happening on the table, people move units back and forth trying to do their objectives. It's like a dynamic objective game mode compared to bland team deathmatch / capture and hold. 40k became absurdly stagnant gameplay-wise with games depending only on last turn objective contest/grab and/or tabling the enemy. Now it's much more dynamic and fancy. Maybe the execution could be done a bit more reasonably like allowing people to discard those objective cards that can't be fulfilled due to literal inability to fulfill the conditions, but it's still a step in the right direction in my opinion. At least now something's happening on the table.

I agree with what Klerych said. It is a good idea. Dynamic missions should be fun . It gets less fun one someone has an army , that can't move back on forth on the table , which is the case for my army. And the discard mechanism should have been better , the way it is now , it hurts the player who can't do missions more then the on who can. The randomisation is also a very GW thing. Had some games decided turn 1 , where one side completed dominating objectives turn 1 , just because those objectives happen to be near their deployment zone.
But the idea is good. Army specific objectives would be awesome , but considering it takes over 2 years for GW to finish an edition , some armies would have to wait a long time to get theirs.

Maelstrom enforces mobility, and really hurts deathstars. A gunline or a deathstar is going to struggle hard in these missions, and that alone is wonderful.

I've really enjoyed Maelstrom more than the base missions with one, important caveat; if the objective is actually impossible, discard it for free. The ones like "cast a psychic power" or "shoot down a flier;" if these things simply aren't on the table, you shouldn't be penalized. Otherwise, it creates much more tense, dynamic and close games. Every turn matters, each unit matters, and focusing on killing the other guy rarely works.

If you actually discard cards that you cant achieve and you still say the maelstorm missions are good then you are wrong.

You are not actually playing a broken random game mehcanic that has nothing to do with player decision or skill, you are house ruling the mechanic. Which has to happen in my opinion as well to make those missions playable in long term and not a gimmick, in oother ways then "discard whats impossible".

I played a few games in 7th and watched more and i can say that some armies will simply not function any good in these games. We wont see 2 gunline armies marching to each other. We will eldar jetbikes snatching objectives and wave serpents tank shocking others.

As many things from gw the idea is marvellous but the execution is horrible. It needs to be disected and reattached together to make it a long term reliable format with the bad bits cut out.

Except the very same eldar jetbikes who "snach objectives" will find themselves in a serius problem to do so with a bunch of marines sitting on it, or a big blob of guardsman holding a gungline there.

It awards asymmetrical fighting as well as asymmetrical objectives. you don't beat the "jump-happy-snachers" with trying to outrace them, but by going places and holding them with high durability units to prevent any snaching.

You know what cards the enemy is getting (usually), so if your army is not set up to capture them as good, set up to deny your opponent.
That's how tau did so well in 6th, we knew we wont hold any objectives by the end of the game. but neither will you.



As for the discard mechanic, while lacking, seriously cannot be allowed much further discarding power-or it will lead to abuses. if you could rotate your missions too much, what point is there in random missions?
Sure, an unachivable will turn out once in a while, but as long your army is balanced, should not happen often, so the discards could manage it.

 pizzaguardian wrote:
If you actually discard cards that you cant achieve and you still say the maelstorm missions are good then you are wrong.

You are not actually playing a broken random game mehcanic that has nothing to do with player decision or skill, you are house ruling the mechanic. Which has to happen in my opinion as well to make those missions playable in long term and not a gimmick, in oother ways then "discard whats impossible".

I played a few games in 7th and watched more and i can say that some armies will simply not function any good in these games. We wont see 2 gunline armies marching to each other. We will eldar jetbikes snatching objectives and wave serpents tank shocking others.

As many things from gw the idea is marvellous but the execution is horrible. It needs to be disected and reattached together to make it a long term reliable format with the bad bits cut out.

Sorry the Eldar part, inherently false, unless where you play people are still in the mindset of tabling. Eldar hasn't won a Maelstrom game out here using old lists since 7th launched, neither has Tau. Those players, ask to do Eternal War missions now and get a resounding no.

I don't like it. Too random.
I also prefer the broader strategy that comes from playing for an endgame, not a turn by turn scramble for whatever the cards dictate.