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.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They do not reduce a players decisions, they add an entirely different set of decisions that are needed to compete.Also, anything where there is a winner and loser can be competitive, all you need to be doing is trying to be better at it than other people. The competitive nature of anything is purely held in the mind of those competing. So we are not wrong. I eat every day, I don't try to out eat my friends, that doesn't mean that people training to eat competitively are wrong in thinking that they are being competitive. You keep saying we are wrong, when in order for that to be the case, we would have to be lying about how we feel about the game.

The trick is typically someone experienced and has a plan would beat someone else fairly consistently when it's is more decision based than some chance mechanic.
Games add a chance element to allow for some uncertainty.
Could you determine when things left to chance have gone too far and meaningful choices have been taken from the player?
A simple flow chart of logical objective outcomes could create a much more cohesive narrative and still have unknown elements.
I am under no obligation to make GW games better on my spare time by working on it or writing the story for competitive play.
I will fire up my X-wing, Battletech, Bridge Commander or freaking Risk before I would consider the slot machine called Maelstrom will scratch the tactical itch.

Your criticism is grating only due to the fact that it is simply an opinion, yet you keep stating it as fact. You say "maelstrom missions reduce player decision, and replace it with a random die roll" that would only be the case if you lost the moment you didn't try to achieve the objective. The act of making that decision, is *gasp* a decision! Those die rolls generate and additional set of decisions that competent players utilize in their overarching battle plan, because they have adapted to the idea that a little random effect is not what loses every game.

Yeah, I go into a shell game pretty confidently too.
Is it just me or when playing that scenario I feel like I am in some evil GW scavenger hunt?
You are busy, got things to do, but was there a plan?

Those who are saying why they left 7th ed are indeed saying that, those who are picking it up for the first time in a long time (or ever) are asking what their army is doing or what to buy next. While those of us who haven't left don't feel the need to come and explain why we're still playing, we don't need you to know. I cannot grow bored of a hottly debated topic, I enjoy debate as much as I enjoyed chess, go, MTG, and mageknight, and still enjoy DND, 13th age, and risk 2210. See, I do play other games

So there is the "still playing in-crowd"?
Here, I will explain my only reason for playing:
Design a scenario, make a series of pass/fail objective tree logic.
Lay out the whole reason for the scrap, I make a freaking PowerPoint with graphics and sounds... how I roll.
Play with friends who go into it pedal to the metal.
Much carnage ensues, it is glorious.

I respectfully state the randomized, eclectic, gumball machine of Maelstrom I have little use for.
Rock-paper-scissors can be very competitive but why bother? Really?
What is politely not being said is 40k is already hard to consider a competitive game system rather than a random outcome generator.
Adding another randomizing element just makes what few concrete choices that have impact, mean all the less.

I must state you are quite determined to find it fun and not see the error of your ways.
Hehe... good for you!
It is gaming after all, just also allow that others look for different challenges and I genuinely give this a pass... different strokes for different folks.

I have been of that mindset front the get-go, but any time I point to the possibility of competitive minded players using maelstrom style missions(not even the core rulebook version, but any iteration of them) I am told that I am wrong. Different strokes for different folks, yes, but my opinion is valid. The fact that the majority of the major tournaments in the country(you know, the ones where competitive players practice and hone their lists over the course of a year, travel cross country, and pay money to attend. Those guys) are utilizing these style of mission objectives. I said that those guys should be adapting their lists to better compensate for a competitive edge in that environment. Then I was told that these events that include those style of missions are "not really competitive" a "joke" and more recently compared to a coin toss that shouldn't be taken seriously. I don't know his entire history, but I don't think my primary detractor has been the host or sponsor of these "Grand Tournament" events, doesn't seem to compete in them, may not even play the game in general anymore( which is sad if true, because it appears to mean a lot to him) and seems to be of the belief that his opinion on the subject is more valid than the hundreds and hundreds of people who attend.

This conversation keeps plodding on because I refuse to allow the thread to end with him telling me that I am wrong he is right and I then quietly wonder off and leave him feeling superior. :/

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
but my opinion is valid

Why? Why should anyone consider your opinion valid? Since you're apparently such a fan of tournament credentials perhaps you could post a list of which major tournaments you have organized and/or won? Or is your last remaining argument that nobody can force you to stop posting your opinion?

 Peregrine wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
but my opinion is valid

Why? Why should anyone consider your opinion valid? Since you're apparently such a fan of tournament credentials perhaps you could post a list of which major tournaments you have organized and/or won? Or is your last remaining argument that nobody can force you to stop posting your opinion?

While reserving my own opinion on the subject, it seems an awful lot like you're doing exactly what you're accusing him of, and in an incredibly hostile manner, to boot. If I were you, perhaps I'd worry less about padding my post count, and instead spend that time on a little personal reflection. Why should anyone consider anything you say valid in the least, as it seems you're only interested in crapping on what others think, and inflating your own sense of self-superority

 Peregrine wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
but my opinion is valid

Why? Why should anyone consider your opinion valid? Since you're apparently such a fan of tournament credentials perhaps you could post a list of which major tournaments you have organized and/or won? Or is your last remaining argument that nobody can force you to stop posting your opinion?

I already stated a lack of playing at tournaments, I simply follow them. I also pointedly noticed that EVERY RECENT MAJOR TOURNAMENT IN THE COUNTRY SEEMS TO BE FOLLOWING A PATERN! I only have to keep repeating myself about it because you keep telling me I'm wrong, and when I tried to meet you on a middle pointt by suggesting ways to adjust the system, you brushed me off like I was apetulant child. If my belief that the maelstrom style missions are being used, and should be planned for is wrong, then why are they repeatedly being used at the top cometitive level, and the winners of these tournaments are the ones who are taking it into account in the list building phase?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I also pointedly noticed that EVERY RECENT MAJOR TOURNAMENT IN THE COUNTRY SEEMS TO BE FOLLOWING A PATERN!

Sure, and that just means that every single major tournament is wrong. Kind of like how every major tournament used to ban FW rules, which was a stupid policy. Or how every major tournament used to have comp scoring and other "soft" scores as a major component of the overall winner, which was a stupid way to do things. The fact that maelstrom missions are popular doesn't in any way negate criticism of them.

I only have to keep repeating myself about it because you keep telling me I'm wrong, and when I tried to meet you on a middle pointt by suggesting ways to adjust the system, you brushed me off like I was apetulant child.

Yes, I dismissed your idea because it was a terrible idea. I have no obligation to meet you in the middle just because your new idea was slightly less terrible than the original idea. It still contained the broken game mechanic of random objectives, so why shouldn't I criticize it?

If my belief that the maelstrom style missions are being used, and should be planned for is wrong, then why are they repeatedly being used at the top cometitive level, and the winners of these tournaments are the ones who are taking it into account in the list building phase?

Because that's a blatant straw man. Nobody is claiming that you shouldn't prepare for maelstrom missions if you're masochistic enough to attend a tournament with them, our point is that maelstrom missions are terrible for competitive play and shouldn't be used.

It cannot be a straw man if it is in the Friggin thread title that I created! This discussion wasn't supposed to be about peregrine and L.B. don't like all the same game play styles in 40k, it was supposed to be a discussion on the changing meta being driven by the maelstrom style missions used by various tournaments and what those changes entailed. Do you wanna talk about that now, so we stop headbutting each other over something that doesn't really matter. Also, you live in America, if you happen to be in northeast Ohio, would you like a game? I'm totally cool if you wanna do eternal war

Meh, I've lost interest in this argument anyhow. It comes down to opinion and because of that you can play house rules all you want. I'll play either Eternal War Missions or Maelstrom just fine.

 Inkubas wrote:
Meh, I've lost interest in this argument anyhow. It comes
down to opinion and because of that you can play house rules all you want. I'll play either Eternal War Missions or Maelstrom just fine.

My group switches it up a lot, we have an escalation league going now, gonna end with team Apocalypse xenos vs imperium

Our groups about coming up with ongoing campaign with background fluff and everything.
I've completed 5th Company of Dark Angels and am working on 1st and 2nd as well as an Imperial guard Regiment. A close friend has a massive chaos warband.

@peregine, I'm so sick of your internet bullying putting the onus for your weak arguments on the wrong party. Just because you wear down someone on a forum by apparently having more time to throw walls of contary text that attack others opinions does not mean you're making better arguments. It just mean we roll our eyes, wait a couple pages to see if you're still ranting, and see if actual discussion gets to take root in the debris left from your antagonist entrenchment.

Let us hear it please. What tournaments have you been to that sucked (as you say) because of maelstrom? What sequence of bad draws/rolls undid a solid tactical plan of yours. When did you, the better general lose due to objective draws, or as the inferior player how'd a great draw get you the win?

You're the one on attack here. You put forward your dislike. Yet all of your arguments sound like everyone other gamer I know that didn't want to play maelstrom... Before they actually got a half dozen games of it under their belt. I seriously am doubting your credentials on knowing this method isn't a good experience, because right now it sounds like you lack the experience to make that assertion.

You know what happens to most who have tried it? They liked it once they wrapped their head around the ebb and flow it creates. They started saying so to local TOs, local RTTs started using it more and more and then GTs adapted it because of all the positive experiences. That is what happened. After thousands of games played, veteran players who do the tourney thing, found it a superior mode of gameplay.

So let us hear how you can back your position with actual gameplay and test games... or are you just reading something in a book and then blowharding about something others have done as an armchair quarterback?

 Lobukia wrote:
UR SO NEGATIVE!!!!!!!!

Too bad.

Let us hear it please. What tournaments have you been to that sucked (as you say) because of maelstrom? What sequence of bad draws/rolls undid a solid tactical plan of yours. When did you, the better general lose due to objective draws, or as the inferior player how'd a great draw get you the win?

I've played enough games with maelstrom missions to understand how they work. When I first saw them in the 7th edition rulebook I suspected they'd suck, and when I played games with them they had exactly the flaws I expected. Beyond that we're not going to turn this into a "my is bigger than yours" contest about who has won enough tournaments.

Yet all of your arguments sound like everyone other gamer I know that didn't want to play maelstrom... Before they actually got a half dozen games of it under their belt.

Oh hey, coincidentally those arguments also sound exactly like the people that tried maelstrom missions and hated it. Perhaps there are valid reasons to dislike them besides "you haven't tried it enough"?

Our last event dropped maelstrom missions entirely after too many wonky games and the record keeping taking too much time.

 Peregrine wrote:


I'LL PROVE YOUR POINT WITH ALL CAPS

The basis of my argument is I don't want to like this and I some how think all tourneys suck even though others like them, cause reasons

So not even anecdotal experiences? You just demanded another's posters credentials and tourney resume and then decide not to change this into a discussion about actual games played within a few posts of each other. Please don't be a lawyer, ever.

It's not that your too negative, it's that all you have is negativity. You're not making actual points that even have enough substance to be argued against. How can you explain the growth and expansion of ITC/BAO format (which you've played before, right?) if objectives generated each turn are so stupid, why are top level players and veteran players flocking to this new style if it's so bad? Why are tournaments like the LVO having record growth? Why are club events and RTTs being asked to switch? I'm not saying barebones maelstrom is perfect, but I've yet to see anyone besides Adepticon running it that way (for good reason).

Maybe people aren't looking to recreate Fallujah and just want dynamic gameplay
Maybe the extremely rare awful draws are just extremely rare
Maybe the OPs point about maelstrom in tournaments shouldn't be straw-manned away with arguments about unmodified TOs, which isn't what we're talking about here
Maybe in game, instead of just on paper, many have found TOs to actually be pretty predictable and controllable and your hyperboles are just that
Maybe other solutions like asymmetrical missions just haven't stacked up to modified maelstrom (which does have some asymmetrical elements to it)?

Maybe the extremely rare awful draws are just extremely rare

only they aren't. Unless you play a msu fast moving army that is build to burn through as many mission objectives per turn.

What tournaments have you been to that sucked (as you say) because of maelstrom?

Well am not peregrin, but top of my had. Last tournament in 7th, lost my first game doing more objectives then my opponent, but rolling 1-2VPs per turn even on d6 ones , while my opponent got max. Lost the second game, because my opening hand had destroy through melee, get my opponent base objective and kill the warlord, while playing IG vs WS+IH ally. Won my third game, because the same happened to my opponent.
Mealstorm is good for armies that have fast moving MSU, if they are very resilient or very cheap it works even better. Eldar love mealstorm missions. I don't count how many games I lost, because I got slay the warlord+other bad mission, while my opponent rocks take objectiv. I had games where after my opponents turn one, he was 11+VP pts ahead of me. Such system is much worse then the mission one. Ah and I am playing house ruled mealstorm, with discard after drawing. I doubt anyone can call unchanged mealstorm rules good.

 Lobukia wrote:
You just demanded another's posters credentials and tourney resume and then decide not to change this into a discussion about actual games played within a few posts of each other.

Sigh. I demanded credentials as a response to their "how many major tournaments have you won" demand. I don't think credentials have any place here, but if someone is going to demand mine as an excuse to dismiss my argument then they'd better post some pretty amazing ones to justify their own.

It's not that your too negative, it's that all you have is negativity.

Well yes, maelstrom missions suck. What do you want, an empty list of all the good things about them just so we can satisfy some arbitrary need for "balance"?

You're not making actual points that even have enough substance to be argued against. How can you explain the growth and expansion of ITC/BAO format (which you've played before, right?) if objectives generated each turn are so stupid, why are top level players and veteran players flocking to this new style if it's so bad? Why are tournaments like the LVO having record growth? Why are club events and RTTs being asked to switch?

I don't know, maybe people have decided that 40k is not a very competitive game so screw having a serious event let's just drink some beer and roll some dice? But the popularity of maelstrom missions is not proof that they're good. If there's anything good about them then you should be able to discuss it without having to resort to "but people like them!" as your only argument in their defense.

Maybe people aren't looking to recreate Fallujah and just want dynamic gameplay

Sure, if "dynamic" is a synonym for "random" in your opinion. Good mission design encourages dynamic gameplay. Bad mission design enforces it by having random stuff happen every turn just for the sake of having mandatory new events.

Maybe the OPs point about maelstrom in tournaments shouldn't be straw-manned away with arguments about unmodified TOs, which isn't what we're talking about here

I'm not straw manning it into an argument about unmodified maelstrom missions. RAW maelstrom missions suck more than modified ones, but the modified ones still have the same flaw of replacing player decisions with random dice. And that's the core of my argument, I'm not relying on criticism of idiocy like rolling "kill a psyker" when your opponent's army has no psykers. I'm aware that most tournaments fix the worst of these problems, but the missions still suck.

Yeesh. Peregrine obviously doesn't like Maelstrom because it introduces too much randomness. I think that's a fine point of view. I think it's an equally valid point of view for some folks to enjoy Maelstrom games, whether in just-for-fun play, or competitive play.

I mean, 40k does have randomness, but random doesn't mean that it's a coin toss. As an example, poker and blackjack are highly random games, yet skill clearly separates successful and unsuccessful players. Just because a game has randomness doesn't mean that there's a lot to do, and ways to win, it just changes the dynamic, skills, and strategies.

If that's not your cup of tea (or if it is), fine, but no need to bash on people with the opposite point of view. Just elect to play or not play those games

It's worth pointing out that 40k, and most tabletop wargames, do involve a pretty high degree of randomness -- because there's dice. If you want a game where a significantly superior player will win 100% of the games, pick a game that isn't subject to luck.

Even with Maelstrom, over 10 games, a much better player with a much better list will still win almost all of them; a much better player with an equal list, will still win most of them. The troubles come when the skill level is closer, and the lists are closer, making it such that a mediocre player has more of a chance against a more experienced player, when both of the players have reasonable armies.

*shrug* -- I don't even think that's a bad thing. It doesn't bother me, because life works this way -- in professional sports, "anything can happen" and the better team can lose (though if they were to play a series, instead of a single game, the odds are much better that the superior team comes out on top). On the other hand, I know players that just don't like to lose to elements out of their control.

I don't like Maelstrom not only because it adds randomness but also because, to me, I feel it takes away from the actual tactical aspect of the game. It just becomes a mad dash for the objectives. Having a few properly defined objectives outlined is more conducive to a tactical game than just randomly assigning objectives as they come.

Since Talys brought up professional sports, I think maelstrom is like a ball game where the goal posts just randomly pop up somewhere on the boundary then 5 minutes later they pop up somewhere else. Rather than the strategy of moving the ball around the ground against your opponent's defence (or vice versa) you just have to get lucky and hope the goal pops up next to you while you have the ball.

There's good randomness and then there's bad randomness. The people complaining about random are mostly people who have been playing wargames long before maelstrom came around and are familiar with random aspects of wargaming... but it shouldn't be surprising things like random warlord traits, excessively random charge distances and continually changing random objectives get more flak than other types of randomness.

I tend to think in the context of a tournament, maelstrom is bad. I think it'd be best to invent half a dozen missions that you think are reasonably balanced and roll with it and just throw out GW's system. But there's obviously a balance, you don't want to have to invent an entirely new rule system that varies too much from the core sustem to have your tournament otherwise it becomes a barrier to entry.

Peregrine raises an excellent point

People too often equate Maelstrom's random nature with somehow being "dynamic". Well, in the strict literal sense of the word "dynamic" that's true, but the result isn't anything structured or balanced, it's just anarchic dice rolling with a fair amount of disconnect between tabletop performance and actual outcome.

While I haven't played in a very large well known event the size of something like the LVO in a while, I do play in local events, having won best overall in three of my last four and coming in 2nd the other, so if people are demanding anecdotal credentials, there's mine. The Maelstrom missions very often result in exceedingly wonky games, and people often muck up record keeping making the issue even worse. And while an argument may be made that the randomness should balance itself out, that's only looking at an ultra-macro scale, with humongous variation in any single game being possible, and that results in wonky game outcomes.

Even aside from all these things, there's so much about Maelstrom missions that just feel incredibly forced. There's a huge number than can be "auto-fails" (oh man cast a psychic power...that's hard to do with no psykers...) or "auto-gets" (oh man, cast a psychic power, sweet my army has 6 Psykers!). Why on earth am I getting orders to hold random points on the battlefield just for a single turn (or potentially 3 orders to do so)? Why are my Imperial Guard/Tau/other-non-shooting-army being ordered to kill something specifically in close combat? Why does the method of killing an enemy unit matter?

If it's "dynamic", it's about the most hamfisted and forced method of creating "dynamic" gameplay I've ever seen.

 Talys wrote:
It's worth pointing out that 40k, and most tabletop wargames, do involve a pretty high degree of randomness -- because there's dice.

This is true, but it doesn't really get at the core of the problem. There are two kinds of randomness in a game like 40k:

Good randomness acts as a neutral arbiter of player actions. I shoot a bolter: I want it to hit, you want it to miss. So we roll a die and see who gets their preferred outcome.

Bad randomness acts as a replacement for player choices. My HQ has a variety of possible bonuses. Instead of picking one (based on fluff and/or strategy) from a balanced list where all of them are good in their own ways I roll a die to see if I get an awesome bonus or a weak bonus.

The problem with maelstrom missions isn't just that they're random, it's that they're random in a way that replaces player decisions about which objectives have the most value with rolling a die and letting the random table tell you which ones are important. It takes away an element of strategy vs. counter-strategy and replaces it with passively watching to see what narrative the dice will forge for you. And that's unfortunately how GW seems to want the game to be in 7th.

*shrug* -- I don't even think that's a bad thing. It doesn't bother me, because life works this way -- in professional sports, "anything can happen" and the better team can lose (though if they were to play a series, instead of a single game, the odds are much better that the superior team comes out on top).

Sure, but in those situations there's still a chain of cause and effect. You can look at the game in hindsight and point to where event A went in the "weaker" team's favor, which led to event B and then C and then the "weaker" team winning the game. No such thing exists in maelstrom missions. Why did I just draw "capture objective #3"? Is it because going there puts me in a good position to attack from? Did I just capture the objective next to it, making it a natural second step? Is it the objective on the important road my army needs to hold to secure a path for other units? Is it my best chance to salvage a victory from a defensive position despite being backed into a corner and taking heavy losses? Nope, it's purely random. I could just as easily have drawn "capture objective #4" or "kill a psyker". There's no chain of cause and effect, you just run around the table doing random things until the game finally ends.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/las-vegas-open-hotel-booking/las-vegas-open-2015-warhammer-40k-championships/

About halfway down the page you'll find the missions. Seriously, the vast majority of the complaints here don't exist in tournament maelstrom that has any thought put into it. I'll remind you the OP was about tournament maelstrom not BRB maelstrom.

Yes, those are better than the rulebook ones, but not every event by any means uses something like this, like many/most of the LVO's house rules/restrictions.

The problem of feeling "forced" and unnecessarily random still exists. Mitigated, but still there nonetheless (e.g. why does it matter if I kill a unit this turn, as opposed to having done it the turn before or the turn after?)

 Lobukia wrote:
Seriously, the vast majority of the complaints here don't exist in tournament maelstrom that has any thought put into it.

I just looked at those missions, and most of my criticism still applies. They've removed the really stupid stuff like auto-fail objectives, but they still have the core mechanic of replacing player decisions with random dice.

Oh man, this just keeps on deteriorating. Outstanding.

Noone will change anyone's mind here, folks- as is common when Peregrine gets all nice and salty in a Dakka thread. Fortunately, the game mode both great fun casually, and is in the tournament scene (including the best-known events worldwide) competitively, so those who are willing to utilise it get to have their fun.

As for the rest? Their names will live on in internet forums, and not tournament medals. I'm good with that.

Good randomness acts as a neutral arbiter of player actions. I shoot a bolter: I want it to hit, you want it to miss. So we roll a die and see who gets their preferred outcome.

Yes and both players can influence it. I can put more units in range to wipe out yours or spams weapons that favor me. My opponent can put his dudes in cover or a transport etc. That is good random. How can I influence the missions drawn? My army can't melee, someone else army may not be able to kill stuff with shoting, although I do find that much more rare. If we drew lets say from 2 decks , some from the take objectives deck and some from do other stuff then the problem of not being able to catch up to ones opponent would be much smaller. But it aint the case. If my opponent does 2-3 missions turn one and I do 1 or non, then he better get 2-3 undoable missions else the game is done. Not even in high days of 5th or D destroying games of 6th did I see so many games end turn 2. It also gives huge adventage to people starting, they are drawing first and discarding first , the person going second can't leave a mission to be done on later turn, because he risks that if his opponents clears all 3 in a single turn he will be 3-4 missions behind.

It's a bad mechanic if you're into anything resembling even competition. I disagree with people here claiming that it's not tactical at all, it can provide kind of tactical minigames and specific challenges but surely doesnt add to the balance. It's up there with random psychic powers and warlord traits when it comes to exchanging strategy for luck. GW supposedly tries to lessen the impact of list building on the game but does it in a bad way, why not just make more choices viable instead of dicefest 11. The only sensible reason to add excessive randomness is to artificialy even the field between more and less skilled players, you could probably build a strong case in favour of that in light of GWs hobby casual collection blabber but only if they made similar effort to even the 'buy or die' field.

Msu isn't the only thing that can win maelstrom objectives, swarm lists and area denial are definite competitors.
All randomness is is equal, while your objectives at the start of the game cannot be guessed at with absolute certainty, every round after that becomes more and more predictable. That allows for pre-planning and an over all strategy.

peregrine, I didn't ask for your credentials as a means of proving my point as some sort of fact, I mentioned it because you were treating your half of the discussion as being the only truth in regards to the viability of these style of games in a competitive atmosphere. So you would have to have something besides your personal opinion to feel that you can be
unambiguously right, and I be wrong.
Mokumba, you have the (admittedly random) ability to manipulate the possible outcome with the tactical warlord traits.
The goalposts are stable, they are simply not all activated at the same time. The key to winning is to gain control of more of them, while denying them to your opponent, for the entire duration of the game. You can do that by
Msu objective secured
Board coverage with swarms
Dangerous volume of fire shooting on mobile platforms
Fast hard hitting melee units
And fast moving sacrifice units to deny the opponent their points.
Any game where taking the minimum amount of troops (guys that are supposed to be the mainstay of the army) is generally agreed to be the best possible way to play has some serious issues. These missions have actually changed that, and in my opinion, for the better

I really like the movie "Pathfinder." It's a terrible movie but I like it anyway.
Mealstrom is like that. It's terrible but many find it fun.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's still a terrible mess of randomness and lacks any strategy.

This thread has been a good read. Arguments are starting to just be restated with people "shouting at" each other. It's pretty obvious that both sides might as well be shouting at a brick wall.

I fall into the Peregrine camp that Mealstrom is a very, very poor game mechanic, and that Warlords table makes me want to kick a kitten or fly like Superman. Most of the time, it's "Meh. Whatever. That won't come into play at all during this game".

 Tamwulf wrote:
This thread has been a good read. Arguments are starting to just be restated with people "shouting at" each other. It's pretty obvious that both sides might as well be shouting at a brick wall.

I fall into the Peregrine camp that Mealstrom is a very, very poor game mechanic, and that Warlords table makes me want to kick a kitten or fly like Superman. Most of the time, it's "Meh. Whatever. That won't come into play at all during this game".

I haven't had that be the case, but kicking kittens and flying like Superman is a pretty awesome way to describe mixed feelings. I am going to use that in conversation, probably for the rest of my life


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I really like the movie "Pathfinder." It's a terrible movie but I like it anyway.
Mealstrom is like that. It's terrible but many find it fun.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's still a terrible mess of randomness and lacks any strategy.

But, the way you describe doesn't make it fact. People have stated several strategic ways to play them, there are tournament players who, despite this "fact" and having lists that are "terrible" and "weak" are repeatedly winning serious competitive events. That would mean that A),they are the luckiest person alive, or B) there is a significant amount of strategy that is important to winning events with these type of missions

And sure, the other options that will be offered is they are going to win in spite of or despite the mission style, so that doesn't mean the mission is competitive, if that is the case, then these missions would have to be creating exactly the same level of competition as any other, because otherwise those players wouldn't be winning.