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.

Have been playing the new missions with cards in our play group, cycling through armies and the different missions and they feel so incredibly random. To the point where I feel like my army list doesnt matter, nor what I am doing on the table matters its all being lucky with cards.

So what are other people doing?

- playing as is out of the box?
- playing with a modified deck?
- changing the rules of play (discard/pickup)?
- not playing them at all?

A friend and I came up with about the same conclusion that it's mostly too random to really make it worth playing. All strategy is really tossed out the window in favor of a turn by turn play style.

We've tried playing with it as a secondary with the standard Eternal War mission as a primary, but that became a bit of awkward book keeping and still made it very turn by turn focused.

We've also tried playing with a single deck that everyone drew from, but I think that compounded the issue with the cards. Basically whoever draws the bad cards (kill a superheavy or building) increases their opponent's odds of getting a more useful card.

We Play Frontline Gaming"s BAO missions which better integrate them.

My group has been playing them as written and having a blast. I think they make things more interesting than just sit and shoot til dead and makes more units viable. What I have found though is the typical tournament list will suffer in them as it is no longer about killing but about taking the objectives you are given each turn. For an example, a friend of mine played a guy that was using a Necron list with 5 night scythes and tuned for tournaments with his Dark Angel 6 tac squad list plus some termies. The Necron player conceded turn 3 because he simply couldn't get any points.
I play Blood Angels and my all jump pack list has been a ton of fun. Even when I have been down to 2 models left I wasn't out of the game. Last editions I would have conceded or not even played certain lists. Overall I think the Maelstrom missions are the best thing to happen to my 40K enjoyment.

I've been thoroughly enjoying this format as well. Games seem to be closer, and the shoot 'em up aspect of 40k reasonably reduced in importance. I enjoy having small objectives/ miniature missions that I have to accomplish in a turn or two. I also enjoy attempting to thwart my opponents efforts and reduce their intake of fresh cards. Thus far, Maelstrom Missions have been the most fun I've had with 40k since my younger years.

I've just been playing the 6 missions from 6th edition, Crusade they're called, I think?

More because our group only plays at 1000 points right now and we are still learning the rules. Malestrom is just too much to handle right now. Too many things to keep track of

Full hand muligan before turn 1 starts and discard as many as you want at the end every turn. It is still random and doesn't work for some armies, but limits those games where you end up with kill flyer ,cast psychic powers, do melee when your army is tau and opponent has 0 flyers.

We have mostly stopped playing them. The idea is great, but it needs to be re-worked.

We generally discard cards that are impossible to achieve. Kill an enemy psyker when none exist, cast a psychic power, etc. It has to be impossible over the course of the game though, not just discarded because it is not your army's strong suit.

Discarding cards that we can't achieve and when something says that you won D3 victory points we play it as 2 VP, because the victory points awarded for PRIMARY! objective shouldn't be random.
altough i really like maelstrom of war, it is just too chaotic for me

We just made a rule that if you can't complete an objective (cast a psychic power but you have no psykers), you discard it and redraw. My closest games have all been maelstrom games, usually decided by 1 point.

ThatSwellFella wrote:
Discarding cards that we can't achieve and when something says that you won D3 victory points we play it as 2 VP, because the victory points awarded for PRIMARY! objective shouldn't be random.

We play the same thing. Immediately replacing literally impossible cards helps make it a lot easier. We're probably going to avoid that mission where the maximum goes down every turn since it also tends to suck. It's still exceedingly random and we largely restrict it to when we're playing goofier lists for the hell of it.

I've been playing with these quick houserules to try and lessen the amount of "I get this VP, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it!" situations that come up with the stock rules.
It gets really bland when you generate an objective at the top of the turn, then achieve it at the end of the turn, and your opponent has no way to deny you or involve himself in any way.

Maelstrom Changes
Achieving Tactical Objectives:
You score Victory Points for achieving Tactical Objectives at the beginning of your turn, before new Tactical Objectives are generated. Read all Tactical Objectives as “beginning of your turn” instead of “end of your turn”. Normally, this means you will have to achieve your objective during your own turn, then survive through your opponent's turn before claiming any Victory Points.

Tactical Vengeance
When achieving Tactical Objectives that require destroying enemy units, casting powers, forcing moral checks, issuing challenges, or other objectives that do not involve Objective Markers, make note of which units or characters achieved these objectives. You may only score Victory Points for these objectives if the units that achieved them are not destroyed or falling back at the start of your turn.

Could you Repeat that Sir?
Tactical Objectives that are impossible to complete (Such as destroying a Flyer when there are no Flyers in the current game) may be immediately discarded and regenerated.


The other issue I have with the vanilla maelstrom missions is that using constantly generated objectives is incredibly spastic, and the battle has no overarching flow or pace. Its just like whackamole, with units running all over the place trying to score. I've made a few missions to try and set up the majority of objectives before the game, so each player can devise some sort of strategy as the game progresses. These both use standard mission deployment/gamelength/etc rules.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
The first has shared objectives between the two players, and is geared to include all 6 objective markers (the random nature of the cards can sway the balance too heavily). 6 objectives are drawn at the start of the game, and as players achieve them, they are removed. 6 more objectives are drawn at the start of the 4th turn, and thats it. With both players fighting over the same dwindling objectives, the battles are pretty fierce.

Head to Head
Tactical Objectives
Before the game, create an Objective Deck. Select one sequence of the “Secure Objective 1-6” Tactical Objective Cards, and randomly select 6 other Tactical Objective Cards. Shuffle these 12 cards together as the Objective Deck.

At the start of the game, one player draws 6 Tactical Objectives from the Objective Deck, and displays them where both players can see them. Starting with the first player, each player may choose to discard and regenerate one Tactical Objective (generated from outside the Objective Deck)
At the start of the 4th game turn, display the remaining 6 Tactical Objective Cards from the Objective Deck. Starting with the first player, each player may choose to discard and regenerate one Tactical Objective.

Both players can achieve any of the Tactical Objectives during the start of their turn, which immediately removes that objective from the game.
Multiple Tactical Objectives valuing a shared Objective Marker can only be achieved once per turn.

Both players must be able to achieve all objectives. Any impossible objectives are immediately regenerated from outside the Objective Deck.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The second mission I've done is simmilar and simpler, each player draws 6 objectives on turn 1, then 4 more on turn 4. Without the objectives constantly popping in and out of existence, its a lot easier to form a cohesive strategy through the course of the game, instead of just chasing VPs the entire time.

Strategos
Tactical Objectives
At the start of their 1st turn each player generates 6 Tactical Objectives.
At the start of their 4th turn, each player generates 4 additional Tactical Objectives.

 Thokt wrote:
I've been thoroughly enjoying this format as well. Games seem to be closer, and the shoot 'em up aspect of 40k reasonably reduced in importance. I enjoy having small objectives/ miniature missions that I have to accomplish in a turn or two. I also enjoy attempting to thwart my opponents efforts and reduce their intake of fresh cards. Thus far, Maelstrom Missions have been the most fun I've had with 40k since my younger years.

I like the format as well, it makes the games a lot more tactical and rewards players that can think on their feet and respond to changing situations quickly. Is it more important to try to capture and objective, or to deny my opponent his objective?

The only things we do to modify it are 1)discard impossible objectives immediately and redraw; and 2) once an objective has been achieved it's removed from the deck (ie, "capture objective 2" can be drawn by both players, but once it's achieved by either one it gets removed; we do this so that you aren't just running back and forth from one objective to another over and over again with your one skimmer racking up victory points).

These are great as it allows almost my entire force to be destroyed, but since I racked up points early I can cling to the lead. Discarding impossible cards is a given, but the random nature can make the game very entertaining. Getting a point for each objective you control at the end of the game can make the game a bit less random as the secondary objectives and 6 other objectives are known and up for grabs.

 Thokt wrote:
We generally discard cards that are impossible to achieve. Kill an enemy psyker when none exist, cast a psychic power, etc. It has to be impossible over the course of the game though, not just discarded because it is not your army's strong suit.

This. And while I like rolling a d12 to decide the mission (1-6 is Altar of war 1-6, 7-12 is Maelstrom 1-6) a lot of local players like playing Maelstrom more.

I don't like them, but it's a matter of opinion. It's not the kind of game I like. It might be fun for some people and power to them, but I want something that's more determined by the player and not randomness. The details look like they need some house ruling but for me it's more the core concept I don't like. To each his own though.

The group I play with, myself included, love them. We do play that you can immediately discard and redraw a truly unachievable card, and we play that both players draw from one deck unless one of the players has their race specific deck, and we have fully integrated it into our local tournaments as VPs. That was pulled off by combining Kill points AND the maelstrom cards in one category on our point list. If you're interested in the details you can find them on the tnwargamer site in the section for tournaments in Knoxville TN.

I like them, they force you too decide which is more important every turn, your objectives? Or killing stuff in order to cripple your opponents ability to score their objectives. And sometimes forces you to do things that you would never normally do , leading to interesting and hilarious results.

For example last battle I drew Kingslayer. And I decided charge my Avatar to a beastie Wolf Lord mounted on a Thunderwolf with storm shield. Well he won, killed him, earned 3+1 points , turned the game in my favor and gave me the win.

I don't quite know why, but Maelstrom feels less random than Altar of War to me. Perhaps I've been burned too many times by games ending at the wrong moment, but I was never quite on board with the park and cross your fingers aspect of objectives in AoW.

I realize drawing cards is obviously a more random mechanic than victory conditions laid out on paper, but Maelstrom lends the feeling that each turn or sequence of turns counts. Even an army reduced to a handful of points can still pull through, and that is very 40k to me.

I like both. Our FLGS is Maelstrom mental at the moment. The slow grow league is non prescriptive, but I've only seen one non-Maelstrom game being played in it. And our local tournament was run as a Maelstrom event. It's a totally different game though. I would bring a very different army list to a Maelstrom tournament (Jetbikes/Bikes are v much king). I enjoy both types of 40k and see them as separate, but related games.

I don't like them, but will play them if my opponent really wants too. Yet I'm becoming more reluctant to actually play at all to be honest. I find because you and your opponent don't necessarily know what your objectives are each turn it is difficult to plan anything in advance. How do you counter a move he doesn't know he is going to make? All you can do is react which isn't the same. Some of you talk about 7th being more tactical. I don't see it, taking advantage of the previous turn's random nonsense isn't tactical, it is just grabbing the opportunities. I just mentally leave the game during his turn now. I am finding 7th 40k very boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It just occurred to me that the Maelstrom Missions are really just "Whac-A-Mole". I do believe that will be my new permanent name for them.

^ See my post.

- playing as is out of the box?

At the moment, yes. With the houserule of discard a card if it's impossible.

The mission where you can steal the other player's objective secured missions is a cool concept. Need to play it more to see how it really pans out.

- playing with a modified deck?

My friend used the Ork deck at the weekend. Seemed neat and one card encouraged him to play a turn a certain way.

- changing the rules of play (discard/pickup)?

As above.

- not playing them at all?

We'll start rolling in the Eternal War missions too. This rewards a more diverse army list if you don't know the mission ahead of time. (1-3 Eternal, 4-6 Maelstrom)

----

Overall, I like them. There's work to be done. We've considering testing the 'end of other player turn/game turn' rather than player turn too.

As two of the three friends I play with have Tau and Imperial Guard I welcome anything that avoids predetermined gunlines.

Oh, and we use the cards. Rolling on a table - more rolling! - is just distracting admin. I like to use cards as a tracking source for everything.

If you house rule the heck out of it, maybe it could be fun (sounds like that's what people are doing). Just doesn't sound fun to me. Does anybody NOT house rule it and still think it's fun?

 Musashi363 wrote:
If you house rule the heck out of it, maybe it could be fun (sounds like that's what people are doing). Just doesn't sound fun to me. Does anybody NOT house rule it and still think it's fun?

Does 'discard if impossible' count me out? I'm having fun with them.

love them. We find it makes the game much more strategic and forces us to use our armies in a different way each time.

We also do mulligans for impossible cards.

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but if so many people like the Maelstrom missions then why do people need to house rule in mulligans?

The system already has a way to cycle cards and even warlord traits based around cycling cards. If you're changing it to just the easy points, then it really eliminates the point of the cards.

Basically why even use the cards? Has anyone tried just playing the 6th ed style games with objective scoring each turn? You have the Big Guns and Scouring for earning extra points killing things and a few warlord traits for earning points in challenges I believe. If people suggest just milling through cards until you get something you can use, then you're ignoring the actual mechanics built into that system.

tenebre wrote:
love them. We find it makes the game much more strategic and forces us to use our armies in a different way each time.

We also do mulligans for impossible cards.

Strategic means an overall plan for the whole battle. You're thinking tactical. There is no strategy if all you do is react to a new random event each turn.


adjective: strategic

relating to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of achieving them.

Well it does affect the overall strategy, though IMO in a bad way.
Since objectives change about being valuable or not, and things like assault and challenges can be influenced more by cards than by actual hopes to win the battle.

But it does change the strategy since you're not really encouraged to defend any one marker or dedicate unnecessary forces to them. Say you have two objectives in your immediate area and 4 troops. Well you won't need to claim both those objectives every turn or deny your opponent every turn so you push your troops forward to gain more potential objectives. Defending them isn't even a logical choice since a lot of the time you won't even know what objective your opponent needs and which to defend.

It changes the strategy into basically spreading yourself as thin as you can. Issue a challenge because a card will give you extra points, not because of the tactical advantage.