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.

 Jaxler wrote:
I feel like meal storm ID better, but I'd prefer people sometimes rolled for eternal was vs mealstorm, and then rolled for which mission. I really feel like when making a list, the danger of it ending up as a kill point game should be a real concern. The only reason I run MSU tau is because I know I'll never run into an eternal war game.

The kind of missions you get in eternal war are far more varried too, which forces you to at least be prepared for a verity of circumstances, as apposed to raw field control on certain stages of the game.

How so? 1/6 is literal kill points, 1/6 is run up and grab an objective, then play keep away, and 4/6 are table your opponent and grab objectives on Turn 5.

The thing that bugs me most about Maelstrom is that I can draw a card, drive a trukk to an objective and get a point, and there is nothing the opponent can do.

There isn't any thinking involved, or risk. Yes, I get the point, Yes, the trukk dies next turn, if the opponent chooses it.

The only strategy is attempting to place armies so they can snatch & grab, which does require some thinking, but not much, IMHO. My list is a mixture of dedicated trukks and deffkoptas, which are great units, but they don't get used in any grand scheme. They just sit and wait, and then one goes out on a suicide mission, which always succeeds. I don't even need to roll a die...just drive up and get the point.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
I feel like meal storm ID better, but I'd prefer people sometimes rolled for eternal was vs mealstorm, and then rolled for which mission. I really feel like when making a list, the danger of it ending up as a kill point game should be a real concern. The only reason I run MSU tau is because I know I'll never run into an eternal war game.

The kind of missions you get in eternal war are far more varried too, which forces you to at least be prepared for a verity of circumstances, as apposed to raw field control on certain stages of the game.

How so? 1/6 is literal kill points, 1/6 is run up and grab an objective, then play keep away, and 4/6 are table your opponent and grab objectives on Turn 5.

Kill points is something you should be prepared for, same with grabbing and stealing a relic. Sitting and holding objectives are pretty much about making a survivable list.

Frankly, I feel like being made to worry about different problems is fine. Sometimes it's good to have an uphill battle, as apposed to being tailored to eternal war's game of holding as much of the table as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:
The thing that bugs me most about Maelstrom is that I can draw a card, drive a trukk to an objective and get a point, and there is nothing the opponent can do.

There isn't any thinking involved, or risk. Yes, I get the point, Yes, the trukk dies next turn, if the opponent chooses it.

The only strategy is attempting to place armies so they can snatch & grab, which does require some thinking, but not much, IMHO. My list is a mixture of dedicated trukks and deffkoptas, which are great units, but they don't get used in any grand scheme. They just sit and wait, and then one goes out on a suicide mission, which always succeeds. I don't even need to roll a die...just drive up and get the point.

I'd argue the random objective card generation encourages you to play in such a way as to deny your opponent the ability to score as many of the cards as possible, so that when he draws he's more likely to get dead cards. that being said, I feel like it could be enhanced. I feel like you shouldn't get ascendency because you drew it on turn 1 and went first. I feel like first blood should be removed and replaced, and most cards should say "and hold the objective for a turn." If it's something like "hold objective X" ascendency should say "hold twice as many as your opponent for an entire turn."

 JamesY wrote:
I don't minds maelstrom, but in too many games where I feel like I won the battle, I lost the game. Also true the other way around.

For me this is key.

I appreciate how Maelstrom can spice up a bit 40k games, and the idea behind it is good. However, in a typical GW fashion, the execution leavs a lot to be desired.

Maelstrom makes it possible that an army which faces certain annihilation at the end of the game may actually win said game and by a great margin. Sometimes the number of turns being played will brutally affect the final score, and the army winning the battle 11-5 from maelstrom objectives at the end of turn 4 would have probably been wiped out of the table by the end of turn 5.

Ultimately Maelstrom is about fulfilling a randomly generated list of goals. No battle has ever been fought like this, and no battle will likely ever be. You may lose or win the game the very moment you get the first batch of cards from the deck. Sorry but that's not a good system, that's a mess.

One battle rep I watched generated 7 maelstrom objectives before the game (after deployment, I think) and assigned them to game turns. Both sides could score them, but only on the mission's assigned turn.

I don't remember the details but it added a lot of complexity and planning, as either side could choose which objectives to go for or defend against. Any objectives that were impossible for either player were re-drawn. It was still random, but far less so.

I haven't played a game like that, but I think I will suggest it next time I get the chance.

 Korinov wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
I don't minds maelstrom, but in too many games where I feel like I won the battle, I lost the game. Also true the other way around.

For me this is key.

I appreciate how Maelstrom can spice up a bit 40k games, and the idea behind it is good. However, in a typical GW fashion, the execution leavs a lot to be desired.

Maelstrom makes it possible that an army which faces certain annihilation at the end of the game may actually win said game and by a great margin. Sometimes the number of turns being played will brutally affect the final score, and the army winning the battle 11-5 from maelstrom objectives at the end of turn 4 would have probably been wiped out of the table by the end of turn 5.

Ultimately Maelstrom is about fulfilling a randomly generated list of goals. No battle has ever been fought like this, and no battle will likely ever be. You may lose or win the game the very moment you get the first batch of cards from the deck. Sorry but that's not a good system, that's a mess.

I hear people say so often that it balenced out armies that might be vastly different power levels. All I hear when people say this is that "rng can be brutal."

I don't MIND Maelstrom, but it is far less balanced than Eternal War.
Maelstrom has TWO factors that become luck-based. Eternal War only has to deal with dice.

It's not so much about balance for me than it is about it's dynamic nature. It's no less of a wreck than anything else GW puts out, but I like how it plays in principle.

 Korinov wrote:

Ultimately Maelstrom is about fulfilling a randomly generated list of goals. No battle has ever been fought like this, and no battle will likely ever be. You may lose or win the game the very moment you get the first batch of cards from the deck. Sorry but that's not a good system, that's a mess.

Maelstrom missions makes me think of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. How Hitler kept changing the objectives for his army groups. So in that respect Maelstrom replicates the generalship of a madman pretty well.

 JimOnMars wrote:
One battle rep I watched generated 7 maelstrom objectives before the game (after deployment, I think) and assigned them to game turns. Both sides could score them, but only on the mission's assigned turn.

I don't remember the details but it added a lot of complexity and planning, as either side could choose which objectives to go for or defend against. Any objectives that were impossible for either player were re-drawn. It was still random, but far less so.

I haven't played a game like that, but I think I will suggest it next time I get the chance.

Sounds interesting. I'm going to try that.

No, its not.
Maelstrom is less tactical. A coherent army plays differently striving to annihilate or overrun the enemy. The stupid occupation of mission objectives drawn randomly is not what I like.

As someone who's not yet played a maelstrom mission, could you not house rule it to remove the stupid objectives?

Personally I agree Maelstrom is awesome.

My personal Pro's :
- Random Objectives can make it easier for balanced armies to win over cheese ( I have personally drawn and won in tournaments when ive been almost obliterated by cheese armies because I completed more objectives)
- Deters some static gunline armies (from my experience anyway)
- Encourages taking units and combinations you'd usually ignore (Eg taking Skyclaws or DE Reavers to nab objectives when youd usually not use them )
- Keeps things interesting by forcing last minute game plan changes
- Can create the base for some seriously hair raising moments ( Tied game, opponent draws risky card, etc etc )

Cons :
- Drawing cards you cannot accomplish (Eg destroy enemy building )
NOTE: I have a personal rule I discuss with my opponents, that if they draw a card they could not physically complete based on our lists, discard and redraw, though I have played against Nazi's who say NO ! You drew it tough luck.
- Drawing a string of dud cards extremely hard or unlikely to do
- Your enemy drawing a string of D3 easily accomplished cards

Of course, these are my personal opinions and views based on my personal gaming experiences

And of course, NOTHING beats playing a d'bag who is hyper competitive and brought the cheese to win, and you end up stealing victory from him with your humble peasant force in a last minute score D3 objective grab and rolling that sweet 6

I much prefer maelstrom. If all you are doing is running out with suicide squads you will start losing games pretty quick. I claim some objectives, threaten others, and sometimes ignore one or two. My overall goal is to be ready for any objective that shows up. We do use the houserule of "if you couldn't do it with the army lists at the start of the game, discard it." So I do see where the issue may be there, but otherwise it is a much more fun experience on the tabletop.

When you play the game with the goal of ensuring you don't have a bad draw, you will see the more tactical side of maelstrom. If you have a bunch of suicide units to run and grab, you won't be scoring those points because I will be there to stop you. When I place terrain and objectives, at least half of the objectives will be near walls or buildings that allow for unit protection that forces enemies to close in order to root them out.


More terrain, more thought about what your army will do, more fun and tactics in maelstrom missions.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Maelstrom is a random mess that favors the fortunate over the skillful. It also contains cards that have victory conditions that can be literally be impossible to achieve. It favors already powerful armies and punishes armies with a lack of mobility. Is Eternal War any better? Only somewhat so but I'd rather play eternal war where at the very least I won't be screwed over by a bad draw of cards.

I disagree. Maelstrom favors the prepared over the unprepared. It takes quite a lot of skill to capitalize on bad hand, while same skill applies to playing better at any game. I've found that being better at Maelstrom allows me to win against players rather than their armies.

SJ

I have to agree with you.

There are only 36 cards, many of which are duplicates. You know what you and your opponent might draw and can pre-plan accordingly.

The cards are also random in poker, but I hardly think that makes it a game lacking in skill; The cards give Maelstrom a layer of contingency planning that Eternal war simply doesn't have.

In honesty, I often I find this a layer too much. If I want a quick or easy game, for example, I'll play an Eternal war mission.

Is the solution maybe a combination of the two?

I'll admit, I've not really thought this out, but EW means hiding until the end and grabbing the objectives at the last minute (which is easier if you go second) but factoring in random game length, and maelstrom means running about randomly grabbing x one turn and y the next.

Instead, why not have an objective or 2 each that you need to control at the end of the game. This is what the battle is over, some strategically important objective. You could have the same objectives, or different ones, so you have to defend too. These are you primary objectives and score more points.

Then you have randomly drawn maelstrom style ones for secondary objectives that are fewer points (but enough to still be relevant). These could be drawn at the start of turn 2 and 4 (so not changing all the time) and stay in play until achieved. Could be shared or different for each side.

I'm sure this will take a little tinkering, as I've really not thought it through, but the idea is to take the best of both styles of mission.

I like to imagine my Imperial Guard getting these nonsensical orders from some nob in orbit and trying to follow them. Last game I started with the mission card where I had to get into the enemy's deployment zone, so the whole army duly moved forward, or ran forward, and then got decimated in my opponent's turn. The next mission card was to kill the enemy psyker- my opponent didn't have one, but the poor bloody infantry didn't know that. The Lieutenant in charge decided that an enemy Tech Marine looked a bit dodgy, and sent the whole army after him. Needless to say, I haven't won a game of 7th ed yet.

I think you can justify Maelstrom in a narrative way. An example would be Rynn's world BL book in which Kantor is desperately trying to reach certain places to secure an orbital grav plate so that reinforcements can arrive. It literally was an all or nothing series of objectives that didn't matter if troops died while trying to achieve it.

Maelstrom to me is like a smaller battle in the context of a larger war and during that battle objectives in smaller fights change minute to minute based on the needs of the greater battle.

In the current 40k landscape of wildly varying power levels, Maelstrom also serves as an equaliser. Is that wrong? Probably. But does it make for a good game? I think yes.

Eternal war is definitely better for evenly balanced armies though and in a narrative way they represent situations where objectives are secondary to annihilating the enemy.
I've also played maelstrom games and been tabled turn 5 despite winning on points.

 Nithaniel wrote:
In the current 40k landscape of wildly varying power levels, Maelstrom also serves as an equaliser. Is that wrong? Probably. But does it make for a good game? I think yes.

Agreed. My Eldar (non-cheese foot sloggers) would normally batter my bro's Orks, but with Maelstrom it becomes pretty close. Of course, it depends on the luck of the draw as well.

That's why I think a mix of the two might give a split of benefiting the better army (whether it's better because it's Taudar, or just a better general/list builder) and still having the random chance of a worse army getting a lucky objective draw.

 obithius wrote:
I like to imagine my Imperial Guard getting these nonsensical orders from some nob in orbit and trying to follow them. Last game I started with the mission card where I had to get into the enemy's deployment zone, so the whole army duly moved forward, or ran forward, and then got decimated in my opponent's turn. The next mission card was to kill the enemy psyker- my opponent didn't have one, but the poor bloody infantry didn't know that. The Lieutenant in charge decided that an enemy Tech Marine looked a bit dodgy, and sent the whole army after him. Needless to say, I haven't won a game of 7th ed yet.

From the sounds of it, you win every game of 40k, even if your army loses!

 Griddlelol wrote:
As someone who's not yet played a maelstrom mission, could you not house rule it to remove the stupid objectives?

If you HAVE to house rule it, it doesn't function in the first place.

Just in case there wasn't enough random for the sake of random in this game, they added random mission objectives that reward you with a random amount of points. All of the fun! Forge the narrative! I love it when my opponent draws cards for the objectives they're already sitting on while I draw things like shoot down a flyer or destroy a fortification when the enemy doesn't have any of those. Or when it makes me issue a challenge even though I'm playing space elves against khorne and getting into close combat is the last thing I want to do. Yes, Maelstrom is awesome... You might as well just roll off to see who wins and save 3 hours of your lives.

Maelstrom of War feels way too much like random victory points handed out from a deck of cards.

The randomness involved in it makes it severely less enjoyable for me, yes your game plan is constantly changing but what can you do when ur opponent draws godly objective cards that are easy to obtain and can award multiple vp points

Losing with 17 to 1 on a Contact lost maelstrom mision (enemy is DE) is the very oposite to fun. Especially when your only lost unit is.. um a rhino... and the enemy is turboboosting to every possible objective thta gives you an extra card. Some malestorm missions are really poorly designed.
However, due to the lack of cards in me I most often play Eternal War and those mission "modes" are so damn BORING.

I can't explain in a civilised way how much I loathe maelstrom, and so I won't bother.
Let's just suffice to say that making everything random is not a good way to balance things, nor is it fun. 40k already doesn't need all that much skill or tactics, and maelstrom sucks even the last little bit of intelligence out of it by just leaving the winner to random chance.
40k needs more missions, but randomness needs to be limited as much as possible.

 obithius wrote:
Needless to say, I haven't won a game of 7th ed yet.

Guard are fast becoming Orks 2.0. Another NPC faction designed for humour or providing redshirt bolt-catchers rather than actual playability.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I can't explain in a civilised way how much I loathe maelstrom, and so I won't bother.
Let's just suffice to say that making everything random is not a good way to balance things, nor is it fun. 40k already doesn't need all that much skill or tactics, and maelstrom sucks even the last little bit of intelligence out of it by just leaving the winner to random chance.
40k needs more missions, but randomness needs to be limited as much as possible.

Same here.

Maelstrom is great in concept as it makes playing to the objective a more constant focus and doesn't follow the typical Eternal War issue of ignore the missions until turn 4 then start parking on objectives hoping the game ends. The issue is the execution is terrible and requires house rules to make it remotely playable. Change a couple of rules like the nearly universal "discard unscoreable objectives" as well as some stuff like scoring objectives at the start of a turn (so your required to sit on the objective during your opponents turn) and being able to fulfill objective requirements during the opponents turn like winning an assault or destroying a vehicle.