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.

So if instead of generating maelstrom objectives at the start of each player turn you generated both players objectives at the start of the game turn and then scored the point if at the end of the game turn you fulfilled the conditions, would that make maelstrom more fun/balanced?

I was thinking it would add more tactics to the game and less "I win because I happen to get score the objectives I am standing on and you don't get to do any thing to stop me"

So I would like to see what the rest of dakka thinks.

The inherent problem with this suggestion is that you're not really analyzing how this will be helpful.

The established rule, as it sets, has the benefit of already being established. Ergo, you're arguing the affirmative side of the debate, and it is your responsibility to make it clear Why you think it is necessary to change the rule, or at the very least how your suggested rule change is more beneficial than the rule as is.

Once you outline Why you think this is a good idea, then people can learn your reasons and choose to agree or disagree with them, and/or add their own reasons why the change should or should not be implemented and/or considered.

It would give the second turn player a distinct advantage. It is easier to stop a player scoring a certain objective if he gets no moves after it to counter what you have just done.

Honestly, if you want to remove Player 1's advantage in maelstrom, it's pretty easy;

Don't randomly generate objectives.

It's simple. At the start of the game, the players pick primary objectives from the list of maelstrom objectives that aren't just 'score objective x.' They pick up to the maximum number of objectives they could possibly draw in a single game.

Whenever they would draw an objective, they pick one of their pre-chosen 'primary' objectives instead. They keep it until they score it or until they'd normally be allowed to discard an objective, then they pick another one.

As for the 'score objective x' ones, you just Get those at the end of any Player turn in which you held said objective, scoring each one a maximum of three times. This means you'd score at the end of your turn And at the end of your opponent's turn.

That way, both players are forced to deal with their opponent just getting points for starting on an objective, unless they blast them off of it. However, it also means that camping a single objective for the whole game is a much less sound strategy.

if you are not scoring them till the end of the game turn then can easily forget what happened in the past players turn which will cause arguments of who scored what. you are adding complications to the game that do not need to be there. I do not see how this will hinder the player that went first other then they will know what the other player is going to try to do giving even more of an advantage to the first player.

Another easy fix, all objective markers count as 2 VP at the end of the game.

Here are some of my takes on the missions that I have play test often and tend to balance the scoring

http://lightofterra.wix.com/blog#!home/mainPage

ChapertMasterRagnaValick wrote: if you are not scoring them till the end of the game turn then can easily forget what happened in the past players turn which will cause arguments of who scored what. you are adding complications to the game that do not need to be there. I do not see how this will hinder the player that went first other then they will know what the other player is going to try to do giving even more of an advantage to the first player.

The only difference will come from secure objective x cards, as all the others once score couldn't be unscored (for example 'kill a flyer' if you kill a flyer then you would just add that point to your total immediately because even if you waited till the end of the game turn your opponent couldn't stop you anyway.) So there really wouldn't be any confusion in who is scoring what because the only things that would be calculated at the end of the game turn would be secure objective x.

And the boon this would give to the 2nd player would be they would have the chance to counter objective grabs after they happen but before their opponent gets the point, whereas 1st's advantage would be knowing what 2nd's objectives are during 1st's turn letting him preemptively counter.

Necroes wrote:Honestly, if you want to remove Player 1's advantage in maelstrom, it's pretty easy;

Don't randomly generate objectives.

It's simple. At the start of the game, the players pick primary objectives from the list of maelstrom objectives that aren't just 'score objective x.' They pick up to the maximum number of objectives they could possibly draw in a single game.

Whenever they would draw an objective, they pick one of their pre-chosen 'primary' objectives instead. They keep it until they score it or until they'd normally be allowed to discard an objective, then they pick another one.

As for the 'score objective x' ones, you just Get those at the end of any Player turn in which you held said objective, scoring each one a maximum of three times. This means you'd score at the end of your turn And at the end of your opponent's turn.

That way, both players are forced to deal with their opponent just getting points for starting on an objective, unless they blast them off of it. However, it also means that camping a single objective for the whole game is a much less sound strategy.

The problem there is the non secure objective x cards vary wildly in how hard or easy they are to get, they also vary in difficulty based on what army you have. For example any psyker army would almost always choose "cast a psyker power" or armies with good cc would take "kill stuff in melee" and "issue a challenge," mean while non psyker shooting armies could effectively never score any of those so it would just become a game of who can fulfill the most objectives(as in how many different kind can you complete) or who can hold the most objectives (which would come down to who is faster, meaning no real net change to maelstrom.)

TheSilo wrote:Another easy fix, all objective markers count as 2 VP at the end of the game.

I would potentially be okay with that too. although that would make really close to eternal war missions.