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 probably in the minority, but I didn't like 8th Edition tactical objectives, and these remind me of those. For me, changing objectives each turn and managing a card deck detract from the game.

I wasn't fond of Maelstrom either, but it was because some of the objectives were just unobtainable.

"Kill an enemy Psyker." Cool. I'll ask my Necron opponent which of his units are psykers...

This, on the other hand, appears to be far more thought through, leaving fewer (if any) roadblocks to scoring, and turning Secondary Objectives into one-and-done things rather than things you build your list around (despite their name, secondary objectives are primary in Matched Play 40k due to how much influence they have, which is ridiculous).

Stands to reason then that GW would come out with a well realised set of mission rules and then basically not talk about them, promote them in any way, and essentially act as if they don't exist. They never do miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity...

Voss wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I watched the tabletop tactics game where they use the tempest of war deck and it honestly looks like great fun. I'm really looking forward to trying the deck and I'm really surprised that GW hasn't done more marketing for it. It kind of flew under the radar a bit.

Yeah, I'm kind of puzzled. I don't think I saw anything other than 'yeah, you can also buy this thing today among our other releases, but we aren't really going to tell you anything about it.'

It certainly seems the sort of release that should've had at least one article about it on WHC - and maybe even a W+ battle report to showcase it?

I wonder if there'll be anything about it in the next couple of issues of White Dwarf.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wasn't fond of Maelstrom either, but it was because some of the objectives were just unobtainable.

"Kill an enemy Psyker." Cool. I'll ask my Necron opponent which of his units are psykers...

Easy fix: discard an objective that is impossible to achieve due to lists' compositions and draw another card. That's how we've always played it.

Maelstrom was the only reason why 7th was somehow playable, even outside competitive metas.

I vastly prefer random objectives every turn than selecting secondaries pre-game and shaping the list according to that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

This, on the other hand, appears to be far more thought through, leaving fewer (if any) roadblocks to scoring, and turning Secondary Objectives into one-and-done things rather than things you build your list around (despite their name, secondary objectives are primary in Matched Play 40k due to how much influence they have, which is ridiculous).

Can't remember who it was, but one of the sites (maybe goonhammer) crunched the numbers on this and win/loss is nearly always based on who scores the most primary. I would like to see them keep tweaking the secondaries though, as with all things regarding GW rules, the basic concept is decent, but their execution is poor.

what I dislike most about the secondaries is that i have to think before playing. I mean when i finaly arrive at the table i want to start deploying and playing. Not trying to calculate which secondary might be possible for the most VPs based on match up.

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:
what I dislike most about the secondaries is that i have to think before playing. I mean when i finaly arrive at the table i want to start deploying and playing. Not trying to calculate which secondary might be possible for the most VPs based on match up.

That is easily avoidable, just like with sports, you need to train. If you play enough games and your army is good, you don't have to think a lot about what to do. And vs specific match ups there is sometimes only one proper way to do an opening and play the game. Or there is two depending if you went first or second vs an army like tau for example. Training removes the need to think and recalculate everything from scratch for each game.

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:
what I dislike most about the secondaries is that i have to think before playing. I mean when i finaly arrive at the table i want to start deploying and playing. Not trying to calculate which secondary might be possible for the most VPs based on match up.

Well no, the vast majority of secondaries are chosen during listbuilding while maybe a lone secondary is dependant on the opponent's list and it's typically a choice between 3-4 secondaries, with one of them typically the best option by a large margin that is immediately spotted. There's not really much need to think anything once you get to the table. The thinking is done before arriving, during listbuilding.

I hate to tie listbuilding to objectives instead: during listbuilding I'd like to create a force that could face any kind of game with any possible objective to score. It's a kind of randomness that helps keeping the game more healthy.

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:
what I dislike most about the secondaries is that i have to think before playing. I mean when i finaly arrive at the table i want to start deploying and playing. Not trying to calculate which secondary might be possible for the most VPs based on match up.

Watch a battle report on Youtube if you don't want to think. You have always needed to think for Maelstrom, objective placement and deployment was an especially important part of the game when tables were larger.

Karol wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:
what I dislike most about the secondaries is that i have to think before playing. I mean when i finaly arrive at the table i want to start deploying and playing. Not trying to calculate which secondary might be possible for the most VPs based on match up.

That is easily avoidable, just like with sports, you need to train. If you play enough games and your army is good, you don't have to think a lot about what to do. And vs specific match ups there is sometimes only one proper way to do an opening and play the game. Or there is two depending if you went first or second vs an army like tau for example. Training removes the need to think and recalculate everything from scratch for each game.

Time is and always will be a factor. But the only time it took our group as long as now to start deploying and playing was during the random WL and PSI area, and that feels to much.
I play 8+ armies vs. basically all other armies except Custodes and besides points i do not know what the oponent will play nor the mission till we meet up.

Blackie wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:
what I dislike most about the secondaries is that i have to think before playing. I mean when i finaly arrive at the table i want to start deploying and playing. Not trying to calculate which secondary might be possible for the most VPs based on match up.

Well no, the vast majority of secondaries are chosen during listbuilding while maybe a lone secondary is dependant on the opponent's list and it's typically a choice between 3-4 secondaries, with one of them typically the best option by a large margin that is immediately spotted. There's not really much need to think anything once you get to the table. The thinking is done before arriving, during listbuilding.

I hate to tie listbuilding to objectives instead: during listbuilding I'd like to create a force that could face any kind of game with any possible objective to score. It's a kind of randomness that helps keeping the game more healthy.

My thinking is for an army list is:
a) did i just recently finished painting something?
b) is there a style I want to try (mechanized, infantry etc.)?
c) Do I have the tools to take on different types of units, can i move to objectives?
d) any synergy i can created following the 3 above

and list done. I do not care about the secondaries, thus this new mission type is a god send, as it cuts away.

vict0988 wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:
what I dislike most about the secondaries is that i have to think before playing. I mean when i finaly arrive at the table i want to start deploying and playing. Not trying to calculate which secondary might be possible for the most VPs based on match up.

Watch a battle report on Youtube if you don't want to think. You have always needed to think for Maelstrom, objective placement and deployment was an especially important part of the game when tables were larger.

I like to think in the game not 15+minutes before starting to setup.
Ok which secondary will give me with this table setup, deployment zones and enemy army the highest chance to score any points?
I figured that I always take one secondary from the army i play and then mostly just engange and no priosners.

This is as everything meta dependent, and I only play against mates with whom I play since 3rd edition so we know how we like to play and the secondaries are disliked in our group in their current form.

Karol wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:
what I dislike most about the secondaries is that i have to think before playing. I mean when i finaly arrive at the table i want to start deploying and playing. Not trying to calculate which secondary might be possible for the most VPs based on match up.

That is easily avoidable, just like with sports, you need to train. If you play enough games and your army is good, you don't have to think a lot about what to do. And vs specific match ups there is sometimes only one proper way to do an opening and play the game. Or there is two depending if you went first or second vs an army like tau for example. Training removes the need to think and recalculate everything from scratch for each game.

While Fwlshadowalker has already responded, the point is many players have more time available to paint than they do to play. If you are getting in your once a month 40K game, you won't have the training necessary to make quick decisions on Secondaries. Having that taken away via the Tempest of War Secondary Deck makes getting to moving models and rolling dice much faster.

If someone focuses on painting then why do they care how their gaming ends up with. Imagine if I suddenly said that painting takes too much time. I would like to sit down and just paint a GD winning , or at least a local paint event, winning army. If you don't put in the work in to something, you do not get the results. It is rather simple.

Time is and always will be a factor. But the only time it took our group as long as now to start deploying and playing was during the random WL and PSI area, and that feels to much.
I play 8+ armies vs. basically all other armies except Custodes and besides points i do not know what the oponent will play nor the mission till we meet up.

I don't know. Don't play 8 armies at the same time then? In sports school around year two, even if you are very succesful you are told to pick max 2 things, and you really have to be a genius to do 2, most people just do one thing. No one is doing track and field and wrestling at the same time. Or pole vault and football.

Karol wrote:
If someone focuses on painting then why do they care how their gaming ends up with. Imagine if I suddenly said that painting takes too much time. I would like to sit down and just paint a GD winning , or at least a local paint event, winning army. If you don't put in the work in to something, you do not get the results. It is rather simple.

Time is and always will be a factor. But the only time it took our group as long as now to start deploying and playing was during the random WL and PSI area, and that feels to much.
I play 8+ armies vs. basically all other armies except Custodes and besides points i do not know what the oponent will play nor the mission till we meet up.

I don't know. Don't play 8 armies at the same time then? In sports school around year two, even if you are very succesful you are told to pick max 2 things, and you really have to be a genius to do 2, most people just do one thing. No one is doing track and field and wrestling at the same time. Or pole vault and football.

really? you don't understand why someone that paints a lot would want an enjoyable game when they do find time to play?

That's a very weird take.

It's indicative of Karol and the apparent Gaming Hellscape he finds himself in.

Nod, smile, and move on - just don't engage...

40k isn't a sport, and the desolate wasteland that Karol (and apparently 90% of the world's TFGs) occupy is not a normal place.

 Blackie wrote:
Easy fix: discard an objective that is impossible to achieve due to lists' compositions and draw another card. That's how we've always played it.

Cool, but that's a house rule, and this new set makes such a thing unnecessary. It's an improvement. An upgrade.

Karol wrote:
If someone focuses on painting then why do they care how their gaming ends up with.

Can't do two things at once? Can't care about painting and playing?

 Platuan4th wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Because you're (presumably) a friendly game rather than a tournament match,

Karol doesn't believe friendly matches exist and that life is a constant competition against literally everyone else.

It pretty much is. You compete with other people for a husband/wife. You compete with coworkers for raises, promotions, etc. You probably compete in your hobbies whether it's showing your car, playing pool, bowling league, adult soccer/baseball leagues, poker night, 40k, etc. You compete with your neighbors to have the greenest yard or best xmas decorations. It doesn't mean you can't play 40k for fun but I'm not sure what society you're living in that competition for literally everything isn't a daily part of your life. The people who are successful at everything they do are also the type that are highly competitive and make their kids cry when playing board games Tom Brady style. It seems like it's Brits that complain the most about wanting fluffhammer. I guess the American sense of competition doesn't prevail over there (which is probably why we're America and not the colonies of West Britain...)

I hope the above post is sarcastic. Not seeing the /s.

There's this other thing called "cooperation" - and it can also take you very far in life.

I don't think he was being sarcastic.

Right, so... dystopian interpretations of American nostalgia and public school sports aside, I really like how general this card set is. No specifics about psykers, factions, etc, and in general its meta and even edition agnostic. Its a self contained scenario generator that you can just run with.

It could perhaps do with a few more primary mission options, but that's really the only complaint.

I would've doubled the primary missions and special rules to add further variety. Hell, double the deployment maps as well.

But I like that there are 20 secondaries, so you're always not going to get 5 of them (unless you mulligan like mad).

And I think making them one-and-done is such a good choice.

Removed - rule #1 please

I was really hoping that this would be something to look forward to, and wish I'd known about it sooner. While there are some sideways 'Improvements' in here, there are still too many elements of 'Matched Play' in here. The Deployment zones are a complete waste like Matched Play since there doesn't seem to be any difference between them once the game begins. You still end up with 2-5 Primary Objectives every mission with Secondaries being a thing of the past. I really don't understand why the commitment to the worst scoring system ever implemented by any game system.

Just release a true 'Maelstrom' set, put back all the rules that have been removed, get rid of the 'Matched Play' ruleset and we can get back to playing 40k again.

Toofast wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Because you're (presumably) a friendly game rather than a tournament match,

Karol doesn't believe friendly matches exist and that life is a constant competition against literally everyone else.

It pretty much is. You compete with other people for a husband/wife. You compete with coworkers for raises, promotions, etc. You probably compete in your hobbies whether it's showing your car, playing pool, bowling league, adult soccer/baseball leagues, poker night, 40k, etc. You compete with your neighbors to have the greenest yard or best xmas decorations. It doesn't mean you can't play 40k for fun but I'm not sure what society you're living in that competition for literally everything isn't a daily part of your life. The people who are successful at everything they do are also the type that are highly competitive and make their kids cry when playing board games Tom Brady style. It seems like it's Brits that complain the most about wanting fluffhammer. I guess the American sense of competition doesn't prevail over there (which is probably why we're America and not the colonies of West Britain...)

And as gw games can't be played competively you just make fool of yourself if you try compete in 40k. You have better shot at traveling over speed of light.

Sounds great, I ordered the pack.

tneva82 wrote:
And as gw games can't be played competively...

And yet are. Every week. Around the world.

Hot takes are one thing, but they come off as rather tepid if they're so demonstrably false that the entire premise falls apart.

 Akar wrote:
Removed - rule #1 please

Wow, that's so not cool.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Easy fix: discard an objective that is impossible to achieve due to lists' compositions and draw another card. That's how we've always played it.

Cool, but that's a house rule, and this new set makes such a thing unnecessary. It's an improvement. An upgrade.

by the end of 8th, you could thin your deck by up to 15 cards in maelstrom, so you wouldnt get these unachievable objectives

Karol wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:
what I dislike most about the secondaries is that i have to think before playing. I mean when i finaly arrive at the table i want to start deploying and playing. Not trying to calculate which secondary might be possible for the most VPs based on match up.

That is easily avoidable, just like with sports, you need to train. If you play enough games and your army is good, you don't have to think a lot about what to do. And vs specific match ups there is sometimes only one proper way to do an opening and play the game. Or there is two depending if you went first or second vs an army like tau for example. Training removes the need to think and recalculate everything from scratch for each game.

Yup, this pretty much sums up how pathetic the current mission design is and adding to that, how the fixed terrain layouts are complete gak. No thought needed, just point and click with the most powerful army list.

The current mission design and fixed terrain layout have not made the game more 'tactical', they have not made the game more 'balanced'. They have only made the game more 'predictable'. I hate that people so often get it so twisted that somehow predictability equates to balance. A game being predictable, a game that does not require thought is no good.

The Tempest of War cards aim to correct this critical flaw (i.e. the current missions), to make the game fun again, to make people think about changing and adapting tactics and actively engage their opponent.

And it's not like 40k even requires training more than handful games. GW games is so simple that as long as you can read english even elementary school kids can figure it out. Only ones who can't are those who can't read english(so non-native speakers generally)

tneva82 wrote:
And it's not like 40k even requires training more than handful games. GW games is so simple that as long as you can read english even elementary school kids can figure it out. Only ones who can't are those who can't read english(so non-native speakers generally)

idk about that, i speak english perfectly yet the way GW writes their rules often requires me to do multiple passes to understand properly

tneva82 wrote:
And it's not like 40k even requires training more than handful games. GW games is so simple that as long as you can read english even elementary school kids can figure it out. Only ones who can't are those who can't read english(so non-native speakers generally)

Yup, my 5 & 8yo nephews had no problem understanding the game...which is actually a total knock on GW.