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.

I'm sure quite a few of you will be interested in this. What are you hoping they change or don't change? This is your opportunity to shape it so don't sit it out if you want it badly.

Guess I'll be picking up my first WD in a long time.

Any content that provide different approaches to play the game is welcome.

I like that they actively ask for feedback on that one.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I like that they actively ask for feedback on that one.

Yea, it is quite nice. I do hope it works out well and they continue to expand on the concept. It's been a while since the last beta rules.

Maelstrom of war was my favourite way to play 40k before 9th. looking forward to seeing what they do.

I traditionally have disliked this way of playing, but we're at a point where the 9th missions just feel so "samey" and games are already starting to feel like the end of 5th did where it's "been there, done that" that I'm really looking forward to this as a way to mix things up. Could be a real breath of fresh air!

Also, good on them for requesting feedback!

Good that they're taking feedback on this, and I do look forward to seeing some Malestrom games. I'm a bit dubious however as the cards themselves seemed just too random to really make any narrative of, and I would like to see a default rule of "if you absolutely cannot score the card you just picked*, discard it and draw another".

*ie; you're up against Tau and drew a "score point for every Psyker you kill" card.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Good that they're taking feedback on this, and I do look forward to seeing some Malestrom games. I'm a bit dubious however as the cards themselves seemed just too random to really make any narrative of, and I would like to see a default rule of "if you absolutely cannot score the card you just picked*, discard it and draw another".

*ie; you're up against Tau and drew a "score point for every Psyker you kill" card.

the end of 8th maelstrom already fixed that by letting you select a minimum of 18 cards from your deck that you would use this game.

It was honestly pretty close to a perfect system at the end of 8th.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Good that they're taking feedback on this, and I do look forward to seeing some Malestrom games. I'm a bit dubious however as the cards themselves seemed just too random to really make any narrative of, and I would like to see a default rule of "if you absolutely cannot score the card you just picked*, discard it and draw another".

*ie; you're up against Tau and drew a "score point for every Psyker you kill" card.

the end of 8th maelstrom already fixed that by letting you select a minimum of 18 cards from your deck that you would use this game.

It was honestly pretty close to a perfect system at the end of 8th.

And then had hand of 5 cards from which you chose to battlefield. During that only once was I seriously screwed with my cards. But then again I would have been screwed in 9e there as well. Can\t get to objectives, can't score whether it was then or now.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
...the end of 8th maelstrom already fixed that by letting you select a minimum of 18 cards from your deck that you would use this game.

It was honestly pretty close to a perfect system at the end of 8th.

I liked the idea of the deck-building version, but in practice the pool of cards was pretty terrible; if you were playing mono-Codex you only had 42 cards to pull from, and depending on your army 20-23 of those could just be dead cards (the eighteen cards that require you to take or hold one of the six numbered objectives were really dependent on how you ended up distributing objectives randomly around the table), so you were making an 18-card deck out of a pool of at most 22 cards. If they'd also done an expansion card pack or two to create a broader pool of objectives it'd be much better.

No need for maelstrom, open war deck is all you need.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
...the end of 8th maelstrom already fixed that by letting you select a minimum of 18 cards from your deck that you would use this game.

It was honestly pretty close to a perfect system at the end of 8th.

I liked the idea of the deck-building version, but in practice the pool of cards was pretty terrible; if you were playing mono-Codex you only had 42 cards to pull from, and depending on your army 20-23 of those could just be dead cards (the eighteen cards that require you to take or hold one of the six numbered objectives were really dependent on how you ended up distributing objectives randomly around the table), so you were making an 18-card deck out of a pool of at most 22 cards. If they'd also done an expansion card pack or two to create a broader pool of objectives it'd be much better.

you always had the same amount of cards, you had to use the deck from your warlord's faction. And the take/hold cards were not terrain dependent since you thinned your deck before placing the objectives IIRC.

For me, Maelstrom missions need to work with Crusade. If they don't, I personally have no use for them.

I also think "6 Missions playable at any size of game" is a step backwards. I like having missions written for specific game sizes. I think that was one of the best features of 9th.

I'll try them out- I do like the idea of missions that change during battle (objective decks). There might by a way to push narrative of the deck building process.

I'll be getting the Dwarf anyways- I almost always do. Charadon Flashpoint hasn't started as strong as Argovon did- there's no campaign system, and the rule content doesn't seem to have the same time/experience links that stuff had in the Argovon campaign. I think they do 4 gamers every other month, so the 40k version won't be there in February- I think they're doing an AoS one though, so FEB would be its debut.

But I will definitely give maelstrom 2.0 a try. There were a lot of things I liked about it in 8th.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

you always had the same amount of cards, you had to use the deck from your warlord's faction. And the take/hold cards were not terrain dependent since you thinned your deck before placing the objectives IIRC.

I'm curious what "cards" we will use for this since there are no longer any official cards available.

Random objectives, assigned mid-battle, often completely disconnected from the forces present or the basic mission narrative, are always going to have problems. It doesn't do much for immersion, often exactly the opposite. They're inherently basically impossible to balance, and they just make everything feel...messier.

Assymetric objectives and games can be great. Card decks for randomized objectives however, which historically have included a large array of hamfisted/pointless/non-sequitur tasks, is just an extra layer of RNG complexity and record keeping, and more card deck SKUs to stock.

It's great that GW doing this as a beta and asking for feedback, when I get a chance I'll take a look at the objectives, but I suspect ultimately it's going to be a trimmed down version of what we've seen before, maybe a bit less swingy or less straight up stupid cards, but with all the same fundamental problems intact.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Random objectives, assigned mid-battle, often completely disconnected from the forces present or the basic mission narrative, are always going to have problems. It doesn't do much for immersion, often exactly the opposite. They're inherently basically impossible to balance, and they just make everything feel...messier.

Assymetric objectives and games can be great. Card decks for randomized objectives however, which historically have included a large array of hamfisted/pointless/non-sequitur tasks, is just an extra layer of RNG complexity and record keeping, and more card deck SKUs to stock.

It's great that GW doing this as a beta and asking for feedback, when I get a chance I'll take a look at the objectives, but I suspect ultimately it's going to be a trimmed down version of what we've seen before, maybe a bit less swingy or less straight up stupid cards, but with all the same fundamental problems intact.

I've had similar feelings in the past. 8th did a decent job even if it needed more tweaks. I'll poke at what they have, but I'll refrain from heavy feedback myself, because I don't want to pollute the idea into something that my brain prefers over what a different group would enjoy more.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

you always had the same amount of cards, you had to use the deck from your warlord's faction. And the take/hold cards were not terrain dependent since you thinned your deck before placing the objectives IIRC.

I'm curious what "cards" we will use for this since there are no longer any official cards available.

i assume WD is going to have a list of objectives in it or that theyll release them in a pdf somewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Random objectives, assigned mid-battle, often completely disconnected from the forces present or the basic mission narrative, are always going to have problems. It doesn't do much for immersion, often exactly the opposite. They're inherently basically impossible to balance, and they just make everything feel...messier.

Assymetric objectives and games can be great. Card decks for randomized objectives however, which historically have included a large array of hamfisted/pointless/non-sequitur tasks, is just an extra layer of RNG complexity and record keeping, and more card deck SKUs to stock.

It's great that GW doing this as a beta and asking for feedback, when I get a chance I'll take a look at the objectives, but I suspect ultimately it's going to be a trimmed down version of what we've seen before, maybe a bit less swingy or less straight up stupid cards, but with all the same fundamental problems intact.

Did you try playing with the end of 8th maelstrom system? It worked quite well and really made the game enjoyable (by "soft-forcing" TAC lists).

I actually don't recall if I played the last 8th ed iteration of Maelstrom now that I think about it, if I did I didn't stand out to me one way or another. It's been so long since I've set foot in a game shop now

40k is not a card game. To play otherwise is heresy.

 jeff white wrote:
40k is not a card game. To play otherwise is heresy.

You mean 9th edition?

 jeff white wrote:
40k is not a card game. To play otherwise is heresy.

Second edition says hello with their psychic and wargear cards

Oh god no.

I don't want to see maelstrom of war back, that was terrible. Whatever I think of 9e missions, they're infinitely better than that.


It's bad for the game's strategic depth [essentially no strategic planning availability], bad for the game's tactical depth [essentially no interaction], bad for the game's player-determined-outcome-determination [when what cards you draw and when determines the game in essence], bad for the logic/narrative of the game ["Take that hill! Forget that, kill 3 tanks! Never mind that, hold half the board!], bad for the game being objective based [the only reliable strategy is to kill everything and take the entire board], and bad for the game's general fun [see the aforemention everything]

As for positive points... uh... I can't think of any.



Honestly, the little quote about objectives changing in the blink of an eye isn't really accurate.
Objectives don't randomly change because command flipped a coin to determine how much they want that hill. Objectives are determined by the strategic and tactical pressures of the battlefield.
A hill might become immediately desirable because it provides a commanding position to cut the line of an enemy retreat from, or it might become no longer desirable because friendly forces are in full retreat and capturing it would leave whatever unit did so surrounded in enemy territory. The cards and fundamentally missing the point, that objectives change because of the situation.
While you could say that the cards represent the successes or lack thereof of friendly forces engaging on the battlefield outside the board, A: your forces are only engaging your opponents forces and within the space and time a condition like "we want that hill so that an artillery battery from elsewhere in the field can occupy it to fire upon enemy forces elsewhere in the field" is sufficiently outside the chronological scope of a match to not change dynamically B: new objectives tend to be the consequence of success or lack thereof on the previous objectives not "well, we failed to take the hill in front of us, so the next objective is now the bridge beyond it", and C: it fundamentally just doesn't do a good job of portraying that anyway with the selection of available objectives.
And that because is much better modelled by fixed objectives that the players choose to pursue or not pursue as the situation on the battlefield dictates their achievability or lack thereof.

I loved the way Maelstrom worked towards the end of 8th, so if it's anything like that I'll be happy.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
...the end of 8th maelstrom already fixed that by letting you select a minimum of 18 cards from your deck that you would use this game.

It was honestly pretty close to a perfect system at the end of 8th.

I liked the idea of the deck-building version, but in practice the pool of cards was pretty terrible; if you were playing mono-Codex you only had 42 cards to pull from, and depending on your army 20-23 of those could just be dead cards (the eighteen cards that require you to take or hold one of the six numbered objectives were really dependent on how you ended up distributing objectives randomly around the table), so you were making an 18-card deck out of a pool of at most 22 cards. If they'd also done an expansion card pack or two to create a broader pool of objectives it'd be much better.

you always had the same amount of cards, you had to use the deck from your warlord's faction. And the take/hold cards were not terrain dependent since you thinned your deck before placing the objectives IIRC.

That's what I mean. Since you build your deck before setting up the table you have no idea whether objective #x is going to be accessible or somewhere you'll never get to it, so the incentive is to bring none of the 18 capture/hold #x cards. On top of that kill-psykers and make-an-enemy-fail-morale are pretty much always dead cards, and depending on your army kill in melee/kill at ranged may be dead cards, and cast-psychic-powers is a dead card for most armies, which leaves you with usually a 21-22 card pool to get your 18 from.

All the opponent specific cards you know whether to add or not a# you knew opponent list when making deck though. I never had problem filling 18. Actually more often was around 22

I prefer asymmetrical objectives bland missions we have in 9th.

tneva82 wrote:
All the opponent specific cards you know whether to add or not a# you knew opponent list when making deck though. I never had problem filling 18. Actually more often was around 22

I don't think you should have 22 objectives if you're permitted 18. Fundamentally, the fewer objectives you have, the more reliable your scoring will be, and the better you will be able to develop and execute on a coherent strategy for the game.

Maelstrom as it was at the end of 8th was the best way to play the game, IMO. The current missions, just like the ITC missions they're based on, have the problem of all being essentially the same mission with the secondaries too easy to "game" to the point that they're also often almost fixed depending on your army composition.

The modified Maelstrom decks were a very good blend of just random enough to force you to think on your feet but not completely stupid like they were at the start of the edition. All the complaints about the objectives changing at the blink of an eye or being nonsensical simply never appeared in our games. Firstly, there's no requirement to complete all objectives the turn you draw them and it's very unlikely you will, so you can see some of them as immediate objectives and some as longer-term. There were quite a few ways to manipulate both your hand and your in-play objectives which further mitigated against bad draws. GW also did a great job of utilising the nature of the card mechanics themselves through things like hidden objectives, reshuffling and vetoing cards.

Crucially, the vast majority of my games using the system at the end of 8th were close right up to the final turn.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
All the opponent specific cards you know whether to add or not a# you knew opponent list when making deck though. I never had problem filling 18. Actually more often was around 22

I don't think you should have 22 objectives if you're permitted 18. Fundamentally, the fewer objectives you have, the more reliable your scoring will be, and the better you will be able to develop and execute on a coherent strategy for the game.

18 was minimum. Not maximum. When there's good variety you can score and 18 doesn't cover enough cards for whole game neccessarily...

Maelstrom of War was fun as hell. It was pretty sad to see it go... nice to see it coming back!

My only gripe with this is that it's behind white dwarf instead of being released for free - thus, getting way more people to test it!

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


you always had the same amount of cards, you had to use the deck from your warlord's faction. And the take/hold cards were not terrain dependent since you thinned your deck before placing the objectives IIRC.

Some factions had a set of really bad set of cards though, very much suited for 8th ed rule set and how armies looked in 8th ed. But maybe it will work different with 9th ed.

My only gripe with this is that it's behind white dwarf instead of being released for free - thus, getting way more people to test it!

making people pay twice and doing your work for you is like making them pay 3 times. Every boss will like an employee that makes such a thing happen in reality.