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.

The thing about Maelstrom is that different things become OP for different reasons (e.g. Swooping Hawks, with the ability to reach every objective every turn, or Drop Pods, with the ability to get to and sit on every objective turn one).

Maelstrom is an interesting alternate play mode, and it does discourage deathstars, but it isn't a one-stop fix to everything.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The thing about Maelstrom is that different things become OP for different reasons (e.g. Swooping Hawks, with the ability to reach every objective every turn, or Drop Pods, with the ability to get to and sit on every objective turn one).

Maelstrom is an interesting alternate play mode, and it does discourage deathstars, but it isn't a one-stop fix to everything.

Had this talk recently with a buddy. I love Maelstrom because it evens out some of the power levels (in terms of I can get almost tabled and still win by objectives), however the random draws can totally favor one person and gak over the other.

There is no one stop fix everything method but there are some that can go a long way:

I'd like to see an online living point system where GW updates points costs as time goes on. You'll never get right straight of the bat so adapt as necessary along the way.
Also unlocking detachments/formation bonus has to have a points cost (see AoS)
Reducing of rule scattering and by extension bloat. Right now even your basic stuff can have its rules spread out in 5 places.
More effort spent on clear rules writing.
More effort on preventing power creep.


Maelstrom random objectives can screw you over and this is especially a problem for people who don't get to play more than once every 2 months (like me of late).

Yeah Maelstrom is a good idea with poor execution. The idea of evolving objectives is a good one, the idea of opponents not necessarily having the same objective is a good one, but the implementation is poor because of what some objectives are, and the fact that they are random.

If I draw objectives I am sitting on, and you don't I get a huge advantage.

If you want to look at a better implementation, look at games like malifaux, where there is 1 shared mission (worth 4 points max), and then secondary objectives (worth max of 3 points each) that are chosen from a pool of randomly determined objectives that are chosen at the start of the game.

So if you had things like shared objectives (you could do claim numbered objectives, and you score 1 point for each objective you can control for 1 game turn starting on turn 2, but you cannot claim the same objective twice. Or claiming table quarters scoring 1 point per turn if you have at least 2 quarters. etc) and then separate objectives (line breaker, slay the warlord, kill heavy support choices, kill fast attack, kill troops etc.) and you select 2 such choices based on your army and your opponents army.

Malestorm is a good idea, but due to its randomness, it shouldn't be the sole factor in winning a game.
Hopefully 8th edition will have "mixed" missions as the standard. So end of the game objectives, with mid-game points being earnable.

ITC mixed missions are very good.

the ITC fixed objectives plus maelstrom are good, but more book keeping than just a deck of cards, but if it works and makes the game fun for you go for it. I just have zero interest in kill teams ever again unless it gets changed to % of units lost. orks guard and tyranids usually have a big if not impossible hill to climb to make that work while a GK paladin army or imperial knight list is probably just always going to win it.

yup kill points is a bad mission unless it is combined with other missions. So if you have kill points + objectives, you can try to play one side of the mission to overcome the KP disadvantage.

that would be a cool way to play.

Each turn, 6 objective cards are drawn and displayed; player whos turn it is discard all their objectives

The players whose turn it is chooses 1 objective and takes it.
Player whose turn it isnt gets to kill one of the remaining cards.
Alternate

I honestly think that kill points should be a secondary objective in every mission, rather than a mission alone. So you get 1 point each for Slay the Warlord, Linebreaker, First blood and 1 point for every enemy unit completely destroyed.

I'd like the book to only have 6 main mission (instead of 12) and simplified Maelstrom objective for at least 4 of those missions. You could do a 2D6 chart, so 2-12 and release 11 matching cards for those who want to draw cards instead. You shuffle that cards if you go through all 11.

-

The problem with always KP is that it encourages deathstars because they do well in KP missions. If I take a high KP army then I start behind (usually first blood is easier to get in this case as well).

I've come to hate KPs. A models points cost should be used instead. It's just fairer. It's why we have these points in the first place.

More mission types are usually good. However each has its own balance issues and different kinds of lists needed.

Btw hasn't this thread gone a bit OT of late. It started as a discussion about AoS mechanics making their way into 40K ( good if you ask me, evil incarnate as far some posters seem concerned) and is now a general chat about the state of 40k and design philosophy?

Good point, I'll ask a question then to see if we can get back OT:

If 40K 8th ed goes full-on AoS with all the same stats and mechanics, how would people feel if this allowed players to play both games together?

I haven't been used Killpoints since the very fist games of 5th
we changed very soon to primary/secondary objective missions with units points cost as tie breaker
used that until in 7th the tournament guys here wanted kill points back to balance death stars


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

If 40K 8th ed goes full-on AoS with all the same stats and mechanics, how would people feel if this allowed players to play both games together?

this would be the only positive part of that change

I don't think I would like it from a fluff stand point. It would potentially be interesting from a game play aspect, but fluff wise it wouldn't really fit because the setting is different.

Full-on AoS wouldn't work because the lack of taking vehicles into account and the system not designed to deal with shooty armies.

Playing both games combined would be a nightmare with biws more powerfull then lasguns???

The cover/terrain system would need tweeking (aka buffing) and a seperate to wound modifier for vehicles would do the trick there.

Otherwise I like the approach GW has taken with AoS Only with the general's hand book. Formations costing points, reduction of rules bloat , basic rules avaible for free, return of movement, etc. Most people seem to be stuck in nightmares of second edition and end times/ AoS "point"lessnes.

The Pitched Battle missions in the GHB look interesting. Half of them look like they could end up being a big brawl in the middle, which would favor deathstars too much, but I'm hoping that deathstars get toned down in 8th anyway. The video battle reports of AoS don't usually look like just a big brawl in the middle, there's usually a bit of that but also a bunch of stuff happening around the flanks and in the backfields too. I haven't played AoS yet though, just watched videos, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.

 Galef wrote:
If 40K 8th ed goes full-on AoS with all the same stats and mechanics, how would people feel if this allowed players to play both games together?

I can see people doing it for a laugh, but I don't like the idea that chainmail and longbows are on an equal level with ceramite and plasma weapons. The two games represent very different power levels.

That said, if someone came up with a fluffy reason why their army of dudes with chainmail and longbows is actually really dangerous then I wouldn't be mad about it. Maybe they're super magical like daemons. Maybe they're from a primitive feudal world so the AdMech made them plasma arrows because that's what they're trained to use. There is definitely a ridiculous streak to 40k, and it's all about having fun so I think it could be fine with a small amount of narrative effort.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
The Pitched Battle missions in the GHB look interesting. Half of them look like they could end up being a big brawl in the middle, which would favor deathstars too much, but I'm hoping that deathstars get toned down in 8th anyway. The video battle reports of AoS don't usually look like just a big brawl in the middle, there's usually a bit of that but also a bunch of stuff happening around the flanks and in the backfields too. I haven't played AoS yet though, just watched videos, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.

 Galef wrote:
If 40K 8th ed goes full-on AoS with all the same stats and mechanics, how would people feel if this allowed players to play both games together?

I can see people doing it for a laugh, but I don't like the idea that chainmail and longbows are on an equal level with ceramite and plasma weapons. The two games represent very different power levels.

That said, if someone came up with a fluffy reason why their army of dudes with chainmail and longbows is actually really dangerous then I wouldn't be mad about it. Maybe they're super magical like daemons. Maybe they're from a primitive feudal world so the AdMech made them plasma arrows because that's what they're trained to use. There is definitely a ridiculous streak to 40k, and it's all about having fun so I think it could be fine with a small amount of narrative effort.

Well, feudal worlds are a thing, and there was a weapon modification in Dark Heresy called Mono that allowed melee weapons and arrows to lose the Primitive characteristic and affect non-Primitive armor. There is definitely precedent.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

That said, if someone came up with a fluffy reason why their army of dudes with chainmail and longbows is actually really dangerous then I wouldn't be mad about it. Maybe they're super magical like daemons. Maybe they're from a primitive feudal world so the AdMech made them plasma arrows because that's what they're trained to use. There is definitely a ridiculous streak to 40k, and it's all about having fun so I think it could be fine with a small amount of narrative effort.

I thought the Stormcast Eternals and Lizardmen were treated as "deamons" of a sort in AoS. An easy fix (which would align well for fluff too) is that the Realms are a pocket universe in the Warp (like the Webway) and has different properties, making the armour and weapons from there seem as strong and powerful as the weapons and armour in the 40K universe.

Still, I hope this doesn't happen. It just doesn't seem right.

I could see Feral Orc army charging a group of Space Marines.

Youn wrote:
I could see Feral Orc army charging a group of Space Marines.

Yeah, I can see that.

I've got an army of old WHFB orcs/orruks. A bunch of them have two choppas and don't look too out of place compared to my slugga boyz. I'm thinking about magnetizing the arms of some of them that have removable arms so that I can swap out shields for sluggas and run them as a Snakebites army. If I decide to get really into it I might make some stikkbomb arrers that I can stick on my arrer boyz to count as shootas for 40k and then take off for AoS.

I'm kind of waiting to see if regular Orruks get an update in AoS. If GW decides to stick with Ironjawz and Bonesplittaz and give regular orcs the Free Peoples treatment then I might just model them permanently into 40k Snakebites.

Earth127 wrote:
Full-on AoS wouldn't work because the lack of taking vehicles into account and the system not designed to deal with shooty armies.

Tell that to the Freeguild, and Bonesplitterz.

Earth127 wrote:
Full-on AoS wouldn't work because the lack of taking vehicles into account and the system not designed to deal with shooty armies.

The Kharadron Overlords say hi!

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
Full-on AoS wouldn't work because the lack of taking vehicles into account and the system not designed to deal with shooty armies.

The Kharadron Overlords say hi!

Sorry, but did the Empire Steam Tank somehow disappear?

I know that Empire Handgunners also got rules.

All of that at AOS launch.

morgoth wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
I don't have a problem with extreme lists running into isssues with counterlists. I have a problem with balanced lists feeling like there's 80% dead weight vs a more extreme list.

But that's the whole point.

You have on average about 30-40% dead weight vs a more extreme list, and you gain the advantage of fairing equivalently against pretty much any list.

It's risk vs reward. Nobody forced you to take a "balanced" list which by nature is "middle of the road" in everything.

There isn't a single strategy game out there which favors a "balanced" list, SC2 for example relies on intelligence + skew, maybe the missing part in 40k is intelligence or interaction in list building.

I wouldn't use SC2 as an example, it's a real-time strategy game with in-match economy being massively important.

In 40k, you build your list many times blind, with no ability to react to your opponents army ingame. One nice way to lessen the effect of this blindness would be just to borrow the concept of sideboard from MtG. Honestly though bringing in sideboard like this would not help much at all, it would massively boost already strong armies IMO.

Economy is the other part which is lacking, currently many armies in 40k can shoot so hard they can in many cases table the opponent in 1-2 turns. I equate this to early rushes. In SC2 usually early rushes occur in situations when other player goes for the long game, building economy and defending, while the opponent opts for early aggression, sacrificing his long term economic potential for early victory. Both strategic, economic choices have drawbacks and rewards.
In 40k the hard shooting, kind of early aggression lists mostly don't suffer obvious drawbacks for the chosen early aggression tactic, as many shooting armies are given exceptionally high mobility together with the shooting (Eldar, Tau), so they can easily shoot hard and still play the long term game, i.e. capturing objectives. All the while still being extremely potent units also in cc, rendering many dedicated cc units useless.
So as bottom line, I'm saying that current 40k with many different units and on many different levels lacks very basic [choice: risk AND reward] interplay, with there essentially being many units which only provide rewards but very little risks. This kind of all reward, no risk element just doesnt exist in SC2, and in any balanced game in general.

Yeah I complain about that a lot. There is no risk in 40k. Or very little risk. Its entirely about reward. Which is actually a game design paradigm that started in the late 2000s.

Middle of the road lists are indeed terrible because competitive players will never create one of these, and instead go for an extreme build in an aspect of the game to win the game before the game starts.

The reason that feels wrong to a lot of people is that its not very organic. Its gamey.

I'd love to rush eldar before they can get the econ to get out their best stuff.

I have an eldar army. But it's dated. I have played it mostly in 2nd and 3rd edition. This means I have a lot of units at this point that have zero use on the table.

For example. I have 10 striking scorpions and 10 howling banshees. I lack vehicles to make them even remotely useful and the striking scorpions are complete garbage at the moment. In theory, if each got their purpose back by having them on warscrolls they might be interesting to use again.

Ghorgul wrote:

Economy is the other part which is lacking, currently many armies in 40k can shoot so hard they can in many cases table the opponent in 1-2 turns.

Not really no.

You can never shoot the opponent off the board in 1 turn, and 2 turns require them to have a really bad list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
Yeah I complain about that a lot. There is no risk in 40k. Or very little risk. Its entirely about reward

That's bullcrap.

Every build out there aims to minimize risk, which implies that there's a ton of risk out there.

Namely, the risk that people will be bringing paper to your rock.