Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/28 19:45:09
Subject: A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
AllSeeingSkink wrote: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.
Peregrine wrote: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.
Yeah, Maelstrom is pretty much that. It is simply a different game, requiring a different list for optimal results, and certainly doesn't make sense from the perspective of forging a narrative.
I too prefer a more traditional "kill thy enemy", "capture the flag", or "hold these positions" type scenario (because it makes for a better story) -- but I have a couple of friends who enjoy the Maelstrom thing, and I'm happy to to entertain them when they're in the mood. Usually, we decide whether Maelstrom missions are on the table or not, for the night, though.
Regarding Warlord traits: we do a thing in our (friendly) group where if your warlord survives the game, he can keep his warlord traits for the next game if the player chooses. It reduces the randomness, and gives us an incentive to keep our warlords alive and have people dive in front for those look out sir rolls  Obviously, this would not translate into any sort of tournament or pickup setting. But, in a group of friends, it's pretty cool.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/28 22:18:42
Subject: A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
OK, now that we've gotten over the dispute about maelstrom in general, I find it interesting the the top lists include infiltrators in significant numbers. I had seen that a large chunk of battle reports where people used the LVO format were trying to get the infiltrate warlord trait, do you think utilizing actual infiltrators may have given them an edge?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/28 22:58:20
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Stoic Grail Knight
|
Vaktathi wrote: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.
I tend to find myself searching for and typically agreeing with Vaktathi's points in these threads. His background seems more than sufficient to stymie any "but you haven't played enough" comments and more of the points are well-reasoned and explained.
Like most things with 40k these last couple of editions, the game seems to be moving back to its roots as a DnD style, "roll a D20" style game. That would be fine and all except for the exorbitant costs of playing the game, with rules at an all-time high and armies bigger than ever. Heck, at least 1st and 2nd knew what they were and the game played at a reasonable size for what is what. Playing an increasingly random game with models running over the $100 price point is making a lot of people balk, and we've seen a lot of confusion over what role the tournament organizers need to take to move the game back in the direction it was in previous editions (aka with a semblance of balance and player decision-making).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/28 22:59:49
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/28 23:40:26
Subject: A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought
|
Lobukia wrote: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.
What is listed here they "cherry-pick" what is reasonable.
Not much different than making your own scenario would you not say?
For goodness sake, in RPG's they had random encounter tables.
The big generic list is garbage because it is divorced from the type of scenario.
Maelstrom mission options for specific types of scenarios could create more intelligent applicable objectives.
It is like when we argue over rules, we go by RAW or everything else is custom which is a different game than our of the BRB.
Why Peregrine is so rabid about saying the whole thing is wrong is rather than US work hard to make it work, GW could have made it very nice with only a little work... but didn't.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/28 23:40:45
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 01:45:58
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/595167.page
That's still probably the most read thing I've ever posted and that analysis was before the cards even landed.
At this point I'm in 100% agreement with peregrine's stated criticism and the point still stands even when you modify and objectively improve maelstrom, it's still flawed.
We hear the word tactical bandied around all the time in context of maelstrom, I just have that feeling "I don't think it means what you think it means"
"of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end."
Careful planning involves foresight and intelligence on the objective being specific is inherently context sensitive and in no way general like, say: "kill something, anything" or "challenge someone, anyone".
The story or fluff element in the game generally involves explaining the context leading up to the battle and possibly what either side in the conflict intends to do. It may even explain what the objective counters on the board represent IE this one represents x army holding the refinery, this objective counter represents x army holding the bridge, and so on and so on. Generally speaking, this can improve the enjoyment of a game for one or both parties but it's not information that's particularly relevant when it comes to the score of the game. It can be made to matter in the context of a campaign but as most games are one off and played in a narrative vacuum the amount of enjoyment added is pretty subjective.
You could take the approach I've just described which is "fluffy" and in the spirit of the game and all that and add in maelstrom and I personally think it's an objectively worse experience in the context of not justs competitive play but in an accurate depiction of how armies fight battles and achieve objectives (narrative forging). Instead of either party potentially formulating a rough or basic strategy or battle plan that may or may not change over the course of the game IE one player thinks to themselves "I'll camp on the refinery and try and flank the bridge" ; in the context of maelstrom, they're being sent all over the damn place while tangentially being micromanaged to do random tasks like slapping the enemy with white gloves or showing off how rad their space magic skills are and even if you remove the really arbitrary ways of scoring victory points as some have, you improve things but your force is still being commanded by a schizophrenic whose incredibly indecisive. In fairness it's not like being decisive is an incredibly valuable character trait for those in leadership positions, most of all combat where situation have a tendency to be far more acute than say business or politics. That's not to say every plan survives contact with the enemy, but in the case of maelstrom, command IS THE ENEMY.
As for the tournament argument, a lot of larger events that aren't adepticon or located in vegas aren't exactly growing. From my perspective I'm only interested in attending or running far more restrictive events. Maelstrom isn't even on the radar for me, it's bad mission design. For the sharp tongue peregrine possess, there's an awful lot of sniping and nastiness going right back at him. The whole "your opinion hurts my feelings thus you're being negative" thing is pretty dated. One thing that never gets old is the "don't let the door hit you on the way out of 7th" thing, which would be funny if the game wasn't less enjoyable than past iterations and as such a lot of players are leaving.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/03/01 01:57:04
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 02:02:15
Subject: A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
This thread wasn't supposed to be whether or not anyone thought maelstrom was competitive.
And I do, in fact, have a predetermined strategic goal, score victory points. Just because the system changes what you need to do turn by turn doesn't mean I don't go into the game with a strategy and plan to enable me to win.
I wish I had never needed to defend the concept of this system, the thread won't let it go, and no one is actually talking about what is in the title.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/01 02:02:47
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 02:07:50
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
So your carefully laid strategy or battle plan is to have more vp's than your opponent? Let me guess, your tactic of choice is doing what you're told in a timely manner.
ladies and gentleman, I think we just lost cabin pressure.
"So, what do you think, am I wrong in this, or should people start seriously thinking about how to beat the mission instead of the guy across the table from him?"
You asked, when you didn't like what you heard you got defensive and now it's basically an accusation of being off topic because apparently the topic of the thread requires the same level of obedience as the maelstrom cards.
|
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2015/03/01 02:19:38
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 02:20:58
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
But if I get 'kill something, anything' and I choose what I want to kill, I have a specific objective and use tactics to achieve it. I also use tactics to prepare for the unknown next turn, using as much information as possible. You can say maelstrom tactics are simplistic, or limited, or gamey but you cant say that tactics are not involved. The worst problem with maelstrom is how badly it impacts balance.
|
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 02:34:04
Subject: A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought
|
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:I wish I had never needed to defend the concept of this system, the thread won't let it go, and no one is actually talking about what is in the title.
We are talking about it, you appear to need to remedy the title.
"A discussion on strategies to win Maelstrom in tournaments."
There, done, not so hard now?
I would suggest avoiding words like "needed", "mindset" and "competitive": they are all fighting words.
Carefully look at list that is allowed in the tournament, try to cover all bases with your army list (ie horde) and hope you are lucky.
I would suggest learning "natural" rolling to help your odds.
At first blush, Elder look best to succeed.
Done.
Now I can move along and take a cold shower.
|
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 02:41:47
Subject: A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
This
|
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 02:50:13
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Crablezworth wrote:So your carefully laid strategy or battle plan is to have more vp's than your opponent? Let me guess, your tactic of choice is doing what you're told in a timely manner.
ladies and gentleman, I think we just lost cabin pressure.
"So, what do you think, am I wrong in this, or should people start seriously thinking about how to beat the mission instead of the guy across the table from him?"
You asked, when you didn't like what you heard you got defensive and now it's basically an accusation of being off topic because apparently the topic of the thread requires the same level of obedience as the maelstrom cards.
I did ask that, the answer that made me defensive was that these missions are stupid, you can't play them competitively, and that any tourney that uses them is a joke. Not one of those things answered the question that was posed.
I then stated the opposite opinion, which is what those things were, and was told I was wrong. Both of the sides then proceeded to spend 4 pages being told they are wrong(my side) or trying to defend the mission style as a viable play style that requires thought. Those of us who do think maelstrom missions are acceptable for competitive play never once said other types of mission are invalid. Also note that I have tried to steer the conversation back on topic a few times, only for someone else to drop in and say that these missions are random nonsense that are making the game unplayable. If that was the conversation I wanted, it would have been what was asked. It's like everyone who dislikes those missions are waiting around for someone to mention them so they can show up and tell anyone that enjoys them they are should stop using them, because it is ruining the game for people they don't play against.
Edited for autocorrect.
/rant
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/01 03:04:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 03:15:14
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought
|
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:I did ask that, the answer that made me defensive was that these missions are stupid, you can't play them competitively, and that any tourney that uses them is a joke. Not one of those things answered the question that was posed. <snip> If that was the conversation I wanted, it would have been what was asked. It's like everyone who dislikes those missions are waiting around for someone to mention them so they can show up and feel anyone that enjoys them they are should stop using them, because it is ruining the game for people they don't play against./rant
Hoo-boy.
Lets look at the title again shall we:
"A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player."
Many feel or identify themselves as competitive players.
Some are refuting that any mindset change on their part are needed.
Some go a step further and feel Maelstrom is a bad mission since strategy is more limited and the degree of competitive edge there is debatable.
Some go further than that to say 40k is a farce as a strategic game all together.
It is now getting into a debate of you being "competitive" enough for the label since you enjoy the random objective generator system.
You may be labeled as "fluff-bunny" by this court (I already have you figured for one...).
Can you at least not see the minefield you walked into of your own making?
You used a lot of loaded words in the title: you literally asked for it.
Fun stuff, let me know when you post on politics or religion please, it would be a similar train-wreck I would suspect.
|
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 03:19:10
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Talizvar wrote:Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:I did ask that, the answer that made me defensive was that these missions are stupid, you can't play them competitively, and that any tourney that uses them is a joke. Not one of those things answered the question that was posed. <snip> If that was the conversation I wanted, it would have been what was asked. It's like everyone who dislikes those missions are waiting around for someone to mention them so they can show up and feel anyone that enjoys them they are should stop using them, because it is ruining the game for people they don't play against./rant
Hoo-boy.
Lets look at the title again shall we:
"A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player."
Many feel or identify themselves as competitive players.
Some are refuting that any mindset change on their part are needed.
Some go a step further and feel Maelstrom is a bad mission since strategy is more limited and the degree of competitive edge there is debatable.
Some go further than that to say 40k is a farce as a strategic game all together.
It is now getting into a debate of you being "competitive" enough for the label since you enjoy the random objective generator system.
You may be labeled as "fluff-bunny" by this court (I already have you figured for one...).
Can you at least not see the minefield you walked into of your own making?
You used a lot of loaded words in the title: you literally asked for it.
Fun stuff, let me know when you post on politics or religion please, it would be a similar train-wreck I would suspect.
Dude, fair enough. You're right. I'm still new to forums period, I realise what I had said in the title was as enflamitory as it is until now. My bad everybody. Maybe a later thread in tactics later to discus what I thought I was going to discuss in here
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 04:01:24
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought
|
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:Dude, fair enough. You're right. I'm still new to forums period, I realise what I had said in the title was as enflamitory as it is until now. My bad everybody. Maybe a later thread in tactics later to discus what I thought I was going to discuss in here 
I was unsure if you knew the title or not.
Good to know you did not = misunderstanding so all is ok.
Makes me a little sheepish getting on my high-horse.
This was not the discussion you were looking for, move along... nothing to see here....
|
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 04:19:53
Subject: A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Yeah, when I was trying to title the thing, I hit a barrier to how many letters I could use, so I stupidly dropped the "coping with maelstrom" specific part of the strategy change.
Sorry again folks!
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 06:55:23
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Plumbumbarum wrote:But if I get 'kill something, anything' and I choose what I want to kill, I have a specific objective and use tactics to achieve it.
Something, anything would be the opposite of specific, it would be quite general in fact. I'm not sure how you can carefully plan for a mission you haven't been given yet.
|
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/01 07:41:26
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Crablezworth wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:But if I get 'kill something, anything' and I choose what I want to kill, I have a specific objective and use tactics to achieve it.
Something, anything would be the opposite of specific, it would be quite general in fact. I'm not sure how you can carefully plan for a mission you haven't been given yet.
It becomes specific right after I chose my target. I give myself a mission, to kill a particular unit and then proceed to plan the required moves, shooting or sth, then execute. Tactics, ussualy not the most elaborate in the world though heh.
Just manevuering your units to gain advantage is tactics.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/01 07:48:09
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/02 06:46:07
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine
|
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Crablezworth wrote:So your carefully laid strategy or battle plan is to have more vp's than your opponent? Let me guess, your tactic of choice is doing what you're told in a timely manner.
ladies and gentleman, I think we just lost cabin pressure.
"So, what do you think, am I wrong in this, or should people start seriously thinking about how to beat the mission instead of the guy across the table from him?"
You asked, when you didn't like what you heard you got defensive and now it's basically an accusation of being off topic because apparently the topic of the thread requires the same level of obedience as the maelstrom cards.
I did ask that, the answer that made me defensive was that these missions are stupid, you can't play them competitively, and that any tourney that uses them is a joke. Not one of those things answered the question that was posed.
I then stated the opposite opinion, which is what those things were, and was told I was wrong. Both of the sides then proceeded to spend 4 pages being told they are wrong(my side) or trying to defend the mission style as a viable play style that requires thought. Those of us who do think maelstrom missions are acceptable for competitive play never once said other types of mission are invalid. Also note that I have tried to steer the conversation back on topic a few times, only for someone else to drop in and say that these missions are random nonsense that are making the game unplayable. If that was the conversation I wanted, it would have been what was asked. It's like everyone who dislikes those missions are waiting around for someone to mention them so they can show up and tell anyone that enjoys them they are should stop using them, because it is ruining the game for people they don't play against.
Edited for autocorrect.
/rant
Your experience with this thread is a mirror of my experiences playing maelstrom missions. I go into the game with a plan and expectations of the outcome I want, but instead I come out the other side frustrated, annoyed, and wondering my I bothered.
I think the concept of asymmetrical missions is worth developing further, but this version is inadequate.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/02 18:48:54
Subject: Re:A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Maelstrom isn't non-tactical, it just presents a game where you aren't rewarded for trying to kill 90% of your opponents stuff, instead you have to adapt to the cards that will always be really annoying and present a challenge, here you have to use your skill to make a plan for doing the harder missions.
(I swear, the amount of times I've got perform a physic power while playing Tau though)
|
iGuy91 wrote:You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it.
Elbows wrote:You know what's better than a psychic phase? A psychic phase which asks customers to buy more miniatures... 
the_scotsman wrote:Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming? |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/02 18:56:25
Subject: A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre
Olympia, WA
|
Our House rule is simple. If it was not actually POSIBLE to do the Maelstrom card at turn one of the game, you discard and re-draw. So fo example if you had to kill a Flyer or FMC, but the enemy has none in its list at turn one, then that card is invalid. Now if he took several but lost them the card is still valid.
|
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/02 20:34:29
Subject: A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine
|
Maelstrom requires strategy in both list building and gameplay, and a different kind of strategy at that, compared to say, Eternal War. There is nothing to disagree about, because it's simply the truth.
Aside from that, in its default form it's pretty dumb design ( in my opinion. ) The toned down and improved/pseudo versions you see in tournaments on the other hand are at times even better than the classic Eternal War -missions ( of which a few are really dumb aswell. )
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/02 20:35:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/03 01:24:55
Subject: A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Hope I dont derail this argument too much with a response but I liked this topic.. back around page 1-2.
There is definitely a trend and even a cohesive effort within the larger U.S. tourneys to blend both mission types and I think it's been met with success. We've been shifting over to the ITC missions and now use them almost exclusively. I feel they are a good compromise to the randomness of brb maelstrom and the tired old last turn grabs of 6th. The blended missions keep the game dynamic even if it's not a perfect system, but what about this game is?.. I would hope this approach will continue and evolve over time. I also feel the blended missions support a broader range of list design than anything I've seen over the last 4 editions.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/03 01:25:49
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/03/03 02:04:17
Subject: A discussion on the needed strategical mindset change for the competitive 40k player
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
RunicFIN wrote:Maelstrom requires strategy in both list building and gameplay, and a different kind of strategy at that, compared to say, Eternal War. There is nothing to disagree about, because it's simply the truth.
Aside from that, in its default form it's pretty dumb design ( in my opinion. ) The toned down and improved/pseudo versions you see in tournaments on the other hand are at times even better than the classic Eternal War -missions ( of which a few are really dumb aswell. )
I agree. Anyways, when we play, we usually just pick the mission instead of roll for it -- usually, we'll each just pick one mission, and play the two for the night. The one bright spot for the Tactical Objectives rule is that it makes it more possible for a crappy, oddball, noobish, or incomplete list to actually have a bit more fun (ie a snowball's hope in hell).
All the people I have ever played with discard impossible objectives.
|
|
 |
 |
|