Beta-lstrom

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.

**Wayniac**

My only real problem with the maelstrom Southwest the fact that it was too random. Even with their changes, it made little or no sense why in the middle of a battle you would suddenly be told to switch gears out of the blue

**Tyranid Horde**

I think every game of Maelstrom I had in 8th was a mess, as more often than not me or my opponent would draw the nuts and steam roll really early on.

That being said, I didn't play maelstrom at the end of 8th, where it's been praised, so who knows, maybe it's a good thing.

**harlokin**

Wayniac wrote:
My only real problem with the maelstrom Southwest the fact that it was too random. Even with their changes, it made little or no sense why in the middle of a battle you would suddenly be told to switch gears out of the blue

"Ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die"....well that's what Vect says anyway

**vipoid**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
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.

So much this.

If objectives are going to change mid-battle, I want it to be a natural process. If Army A decides to take a hill, it should be because of the way Army B has deployed/moved - perhaps Army A wants a better firing arc, or maybe taking the hill would cut off Army B's tanks due to the surrounding terrain being impassable. Whatever the case, I want it to be based on what is actually going on on the table - not because the commanding officer has a woodpecker in his brain.

**Tyel**

I think Maelstrom was a good tonic to ITC's "we've basically solved this game and you should play these 3 lists". Uncertain objectives did encourage more flexible lists than "I'm going to castle in the corner and nuke everything off the table".

But it was still a function of who drew which cards in the best order. I.E. "Oh look I've drawn kingslayer in turn 3, just before I attempt to kill the enemy warlord" versus "I've drawn it on turn 1 and its essentially a dead card".

Yes, they brought in rules to try and mitigate this - but without wanting to crunch the probabilities, you still seemingly got screwed reasonably often. And 40k isn't like a card game where being screwed on the draw just means you quickly lose but can just play again 5-10 minutes later.

**tneva82**

Wayniac wrote:
My only real problem with the maelstrom Southwest the fact that it was too random. Even with their changes, it made little or no sense why in the middle of a battle you would suddenly be told to switch gears out of the blue

Real commanders were certainly thinking same thing often enough

**JohnnyHell**

Vector Strike wrote:
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!

Message them politely. Bolter Discipline got put online free after similar feedback was received about its preview in WD.

**VladimirHerzog**

AnomanderRake wrote:

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.

well its more of a "is my army fast" vs "is my army resilient.

resilient armies can opt to keep both "take" and "hold" objectives while fast ones can skip on "holds".
Or you can bring both aspects in your list.

For example : Drukhari wych cult would skip on "holds". Drukhari wych + coven would keep both because they can obtain both of them.

But apart from these 12 objectives, just being able to remove the impossible ones is a godsend.

At the end of 8th, i had much more fun than right now with that ITC-type of missions.

Keep in mind, this is coming from a casual player.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

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.

i'm guessing the cards will change.....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
My only real problem with the maelstrom Southwest the fact that it was too random. Even with their changes, it made little or no sense why in the middle of a battle you would suddenly be told to switch gears out of the blue

depends how you interpret it. Maybe HQ got new intel and is now telling you that theres an HVT you need to secure on objective 6 ASAP.

**Daedalus81**

Vector Strike wrote:
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!

It isn't exactly expensive, but it will be up on the internet pretty quickly, too.

**catbarf**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Maybe HQ got new intel and is now telling you that theres an HVT you need to secure on objective 6 ASAP.

Or maybe you're suddenly being told to capture a hill because intelligence has identified a piece of materiel on it that they want retrieved before it can be scuttled.

Or maybe you're being ordered to defend your rearguard because there's threat of a flanking force. Maybe that force doesn't even exist.

Or maybe you're being told to advance because command is under pressure to displace an enemy AA position before air superiority can be leveraged.

Or maybe your orders to advance are suddenly rescinded due to political concerns (maybe national, maybe risk of green-on-blue) way beyond your pay grade.

Or maybe your orders don't make a lick of sense because they're based on actionable intel coming from sources & methods outside your need-to-know.

The idea that all objectives are intrinsically due to tactical conditions within your tiny little corner of the battlespace doesn't really match what I've seen of real-world combat. 40K depicts such a tiny area of operations that it really doesn't threaten my suspension of disbelief to imagine that there's something going on eight feet that-a-way impacting my objectives on the board.

I didn't like how Maelstrom was totally random, but the idea that mission objectives should always be based on obvious conditions on a tactical level, let alone selectable, has got to have Clausewitz spinning in his grave.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
'That's a nice defensive position you've established, exactly as we ordered.

Unfortunately an Elysian company just came down two klicks north, and unless you abandon your position and get out there to pin the enemy in place ASAP, those Elysians are going to get flanked and spanked.

Sucks to suck.

-Command'

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

catbarf wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Maybe HQ got new intel and is now telling you that theres an HVT you need to secure on objective 6 ASAP.

Or maybe you're suddenly being told to capture a hill because intelligence has identified a piece of materiel on it that they want retrieved before it can be scuttled.

Or maybe you're being ordered to defend your rearguard because there's threat of a flanking force. Maybe that force doesn't even exist.

Or maybe you're being told to advance because command is under pressure to displace an enemy AA position before air superiority can be leveraged.

Or maybe your orders to advance are suddenly rescinded due to political concerns (maybe national, maybe risk of green-on-blue) way beyond your pay grade.

Or maybe your orders don't make a lick of sense because they're based on actionable intel coming from sources & methods outside your need-to-know.

The idea that all objectives are intrinsically due to tactical conditions within your tiny little corner of the battlespace doesn't really match what I've seen of real-world combat. 40K depicts such a tiny area of operations that it really doesn't threaten my suspension of disbelief to imagine that there's something going on eight feet that-a-way impacting my objectives on the board.

I didn't like how Maelstrom was totally random, but the idea that mission objectives should always be based on obvious conditions on a tactical level, let alone selectable, has got to have Clausewitz spinning in his grave.

Maelstrom doesn't do a good job of representing that, though.

Your orders will not change 18 times over the course of a game, and they won't change from 'capture that hill' to 'blow up 3 tanks' to 'engage the enemy in melee' in the span of 3 turns. There are also a pressure to all of those, which the cards don't account for when it tells you to take point 3, and then change gears to blow up 3 tanks next turn.

[Also, those changes you posited are occurring beyond the time scale of the game, which represents a single firefight/instance of enemy contact. After your firefight, you might be given new orders, but during the few minutes of your engagement it's not going to change from "secure building A" to "blow up 3 tanks" to "secure building B" for major reasons outside the scope of your engagement]

**catbarf**

Like I said, I didn't like the level of spastic randomness involved in Maelstrom, or how it often gave objectives that were either instantly completed or impossible to achieve.

But I am totally fine with some randomness to missions, up to and including new objectives revealed in-game. I don't agree that changing objectives are never time-sensitive or always related to emergent conditions of the current engagement. Sometimes decisions made at higher echelons have immediate and urgent requirements that appear irrelevant to the engagement at hand.

Just strike a balance somewhere between Mario Party and ITC.

**jeff white**

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

Second edition says hello with their psychic and wargear cards

Using cards is not the same as being a card game.

Those cards were used mostly for memory help and the randomness was removed for most games. This is how I learned that 40k is not a card game... or at least not a good one.

**Rihgu**

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

Second edition says hello with their psychic and wargear cards

Using cards is not the same as being a card game.

Those cards were used mostly for memory help and the randomness was removed for most games. This is how I learned that 40k is not a card game... or at least not a good one.

Every version of maelstrom that I've seen uses the cards for memory help and/or easy generation. They can be easily generated by rolling dice and looking at the tables, with the cards entirely ignored. Likely, that's how the White Dwarf rules will work (unless they plan on distributing decks of beta playtest cards?) Therefore, they're a dice game, and not a card game.

**Daedalus81**

Rihgu wrote:
Every version of maelstrom that I've seen uses the cards for memory help and/or easy generation. They can be easily generated by rolling dice and looking at the tables, with the cards entirely ignored. Likely, that's how the White Dwarf rules will work (unless they plan on distributing decks of beta playtest cards?) Therefore, they're a dice game, and not a card game.

Calling 40K a card game is a common insult thrown around, because I guess it demonstrates how beneath them the game is. Near as I can tell most of them don't actually play and if you follow the logic most everything we play is a card game.

*shrug*

**AnomanderRake**

Daedalus81 wrote:
...if you follow the logic most everything we play is a card game...

Having cards in a wargame isn't particularly innovative or unusual (heck, 2e 40k was loaded with decks of cards). The reason people claim 8e/9e is "a card game" is that they feel the card-game elements have come at the expense of the wargame, to the point where the special-power-cards you drop during play matter more what your units are or how you've positioned them.

**Racerguy180**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
...if you follow the logic most everything we play is a card game...

Having cards in a wargame isn't particularly innovative or unusual (heck, 2e 40k was loaded with decks of cards). The reason people claim 8e/9e is "a card game" is that they feel the card-game elements have come at the expense of the wargame, to the point where the special-power-cards you drop during play matter more what your units are or how you've positioned them.

This, so very very much this!
All of the stupid "well akshually, I have this strat that let's me do this super-duper thingy" needs to go very very far away. Banished back to the cesspool of MTG, from whence it came.

**Rihgu**

I've never played a card game where I have my entire deck/library/what have you available to me at all times.

I guess I really fail to see what makes stratagems or maelstrom of war a card game as opposed to any kind of activated ability.

I mean, hell, Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings has cards, which you arrange and draw to play units, and some of those cards have special effects when you draw them, and I still wouldn't consider that a "card game".

This conversation feels like people would be calling Dnd 5e a "card game", because a lot of the combat comes down to using your class abilities. Oh, you scored a critical hit with your paladin and you're going to play your super duper smite card to deal a billion damage? Well, the Lich counters with their Holy Resistance Spell Card, making them take half Radiant damage!

"My sorcerer uses his Wild Magic Card to give me advantage on my next Spell Attack, and then uses his Empower Spell Metamagic Card to boost the dice!"

yea, we can certainly boil anything we want down to a card game by calling "activated effects" "cards".

**Daedalus81**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
...if you follow the logic most everything we play is a card game...

Having cards in a wargame isn't particularly innovative or unusual (heck, 2e 40k was loaded with decks of cards). The reason people claim 8e/9e is "a card game" is that they feel the card-game elements have come at the expense of the wargame, to the point where the special-power-cards you drop during play matter more what your units are or how you've positioned them.

I think 8th had some clunky implementations, but the management of a resource and a thoughtful application is very wargame. When all you did was VotLW and Cac or you can spam list building in a way that CP generation was irrelevant? Yea, terrible. But when you can develop a strategy pre-game, asses the opponent, and then make a tactical plan on how you're going to make it work and apply the resource at the right times. Then as usual every plan is the first casualty so you have to adjust on the fly. And at the same time you have to monitor your opponent's resource and have a general idea of what they may try to do and try to force them into expenditures favorable to you.

That's a better way of approaching a game than "I have a Lash DP - cast spell and make things go smush with pie plates".

**catbarf**

Rihgu wrote:
I've never played a card game where I have my entire deck/library/what have you available to me at all times.

I guess I really fail to see what makes stratagems or maelstrom of war a card game as opposed to any kind of activated ability.

I mean, hell, Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings has cards, which you arrange and draw to play units, and some of those cards have special effects when you draw them, and I still wouldn't consider that a "card game".

This conversation feels like people would be calling Dnd 5e a "card game", because a lot of the combat comes down to using your class abilities. Oh, you scored a critical hit with your paladin and you're going to play your super duper smite card to deal a billion damage? Well, the Lich counters with their Holy Resistance Spell Card, making them take half Radiant damage!

"My sorcerer uses his Wild Magic Card to give me advantage on my next Spell Attack, and then uses his Empower Spell Metamagic Card to boost the dice!"

yea, we can certainly boil anything we want down to a card game by calling "activated effects" "cards".

'Card game' is a convenient shorthand for referring to game mechanics that emphasize special abilities over the fundamental qualities of maneuver that define both real war and traditional wargames. It's the sense of a metagame that drastically affects the battlefield but is based entirely on abstract concepts like command points, which selectively supercharge units in ways that challenge suspension of disbelief for us grognards. The less maneuver matters and the more abilities + abstract resources drive the game, the more it feels like a card game than a wargame.

And for what it's worth, if you want to bring up D&D, the people who denigrate 9th Ed as a 'card game' are probably the same folks who dislike D&D 5th and instead play Pathfinder, for many of the same reasons.

**Rihgu**

I guess I've just never felt in a game of 8th or 8th edition that movement and maneuver didn't matter because of stratagems.

Because of stats like range or defenses, or whatever, sure! It doesn't matter whether I move back or try to flank an Imperial Knight because if I try to escape, it has thrice the movement of my unit and if I try to shoot it's got an invulnerable save so my lascannons are useless.

In the game I played last night over TTS, the game was decided by my opponent's poor deployment + battlefield choices, not by one of us triggering a power combo with stratagems.

I'm overall not a fan of the implementation of stratagems as they are now, but I don't think they make the game any less of a wargame or remove maneuver or whatever. A lot of my problems with stratagems as they are would be resolved by changing the names and flavor surrounding them so they make more sense for what they do.
ex: Veterans of the Long War - either make this a pre-game upgrade stratagem to make units Veterans of the Long War with whatever effect that entails, or name it something like Warp-guided Volley, and give it flavor text like "Some traitor marines have daemonic familiars who guide them to strike their foes where it will hurt the most" - boom, I can instantly immerse myself into that ability giving that effect.

**Stormonu**

The past games I played with Maelstrom were pretty fun.

However, I can see the logic in reducing the ever-changing conditions.

I think the current system could be modified to work - a bit of randomness, but with some order and logic.

Something like:

Draw 3 cards. Card 1 is your primary objective, card 2 is your secondary objective, card 3 is a bonus/optional objective. If you draw an objective you can't complete (like the one above, kill a psyker when facing Tau), redraw until you get something that can complete.

The Primary objective HAS to be completed by the end of the game (or held, if a location). Failure to complete the objective results in a loss regardless of other circumstances. It has a VP value of 3-5 or so, in case both sides complete their primary objective.

The Secondary objective doesn't have to be completed, but adds to VP. If one side completes its secondary but the other does not, the side that did complete their secondary objective wins.

Bonus objectives simply add to VP. If you complete it, you can draw an additional to try and get even more VP. You only draw an additional bonus objective if you complete the first.

It might even be feasible to redraft the deck slightly - certain cards go into a Primary/Secondary deck, and the rest go to bonus objectives.

**Jidmah**

Maelstrom was great when you just wanted a different type of game, and especially the iteration in 8th was great in terms of removing the random part.

I also wonder why so many people as against maelstrom? If you don't like it, just don't play it?
It definitely won't be replacing the tournament missions or crusade...

**Sgt. Cortez**

I never was a fan of eternal War, maelstrom was the default mission style for me from 6-8th edition. Due to imbalances it was also the only way for CSM to win in 6th/7th edition, as there was no way even in casual games against a half decent list of Necrons or the like in these editions.
At the end of 8th they took a lot of the randomness out of the system, I only had one game with that style due to Covid but want to try it more often because the 9th edition missions outside of Crusade are all the same so far. Once you've played 6 games with them you want to move on.
Best way to play is writing your own missions of course, but sometimes you don't have enough time to prepare those - for that maelstrom is perfect.

**H.B.M.C.**

I have Marine, Ultramarine, Tyranid and Chaos cards.

Sure would love to use 'em!

**VladimirHerzog**

Jidmah wrote:
Maelstrom was great when you just wanted a different type of game, and especially the iteration in 8th was great in terms of removing the random part.

I also wonder why so many people as against maelstrom? If you don't like it, just don't play it?
It definitely won't be replacing the tournament missions or crusade...

at the start of 8th, it was pretty bad and i think people got stuck on this and never tried it after GW brought the massive changes to the mode. I much prefer it than ITC-like hat 9th edition missions are right now.

**H.B.M.C.**

I'd love to see an overlay of all the 9th Ed missions showing how 'different' they are with the 4-8 objective marker positions.