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.

Wasn't sure if this belongs here or in 'Battle Reports', so if it's the other one, please move it!
I ran a 'Maelstrom' tournament for the FLGS here, and wanted to post an AAR with how the tournament went, my thoughts on making 'Maelstrom' work based on what I learned, and just other things as I re-learn how to run tournaments, and how to do it in 7th.

'Maelstrom' Tournament
1500 pts, 'Maelstrom' Missions
Battle-Forged/Codex Only (This means Formations were restricted to Codex and Codex Supplements. FW/WD/Campaign Formations were not allowed for this event)
No LoW/FW
1st, 2nd, and 3rd places - Painting not scored

* A change was made to allow players to pick 3 objectives after seeing their opponents list. I'll cover WHY this was done later.

14 Players, in final Order, with their lists.
(34) White Scars / Thomas H(30) Skitarii/Cult Mechanicus / Kyle G *BYE R1 for arriving late
(25) Deathwing/Ravenwing / KC H(25) Black Templars / Tyler M
(25) Khorne Demonkin / Adam B
(24) Ultramarines / Bjorn L
(21) Orks / Russ T *BYE R1 for arriving late
(19) Eldar / Aaron F
(16) Necrons / Brian H
(16) Tau / Jonah R
(15) Tau /Eric S
(14) Khorne Demonkin / Dustin C
(11) Necrons / Ryan P
(4) Tau / Geoff L






Automatically Appended Next Post:
FINAL GAME:


Other Various:











More pics can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.991290714242834.1073741867.104770242894890&type=3

On the tournament:
Leading up to the Tournament, there was quite a bit of opposition wherever I posted it, despite being completely transparent about being out of the game, running a tournament, and unfamiliar with all the armies. 16 people still showed up, so I still consider it a success.

There were some legitimate problems though. Most of them had to be handled on the go. The first one, as you'll see from the pics, was Terrain. There was a HUGE lack of LoS blocking terrain. This was not something that could be fixed at the last minute, as the FLGS simply didn't have the Terrain to do it. Along with that, I only had 1/2 hour prior to the tournament to setup the tables/terrain.

So unlike most tournaments, I fixed this by allowing players to change/setup the terrain AFTER both them and their opponents were at the table, instead of fixed terrain. I also did not count this against the time allotted for the round. All of the players there managed to do this in a reasonable amount of time.

It is something that the FLGS managers brought to my attention, and we'll work on it for future events. Just like any store would do.

I'm gonna small /rant here. Somehow, players got the idea that all terrain must be equal on all the boards. Events like the ITC, and Nova have additional rules regarding this, which is fine, but it is not required. While I agree that 7th edition SHOULD have some LoS blocking terrain, it is not a requirement. Both players in a game have to deal with the same battlefield conditions when playing each other. Sure it sucks when an assault army is playing against a shooting army with no LoS blocking terrain, but it also sucks when that Assaulting army has lots of Cover/LoS blocking terrain to counter the shooting? Whats on one table has no impact on whats going on at another table. It's no different than getting paired off against armies that do the same thing. Like a static one vs. a Mobile one, or a Horde one vs. Small unit army. /rant off.

*****

Problems with Maelstrom in a competitive setting:

Now, EVERYONE has a strong opinion on Maelstrom. They either love it or hate it. There are a few in the middle where it's conditional, like it's 'okay for casual', etc. Regardless of feelings on it, it IS a format that exists. Clearly, I'm one of those who think it's the best thing to happen to 40k in a LONG time. It's not without it's flaws, and with as long as this edition has been out, I feel it's time to take a look at making it 'competitive'.

The first problem, actually became very apparent after a few games, which unfortunately happened after I had posted the tournament. That is the tactical objectives themselves. I'm not referring to the randomness or getting something you can't achieve, which are common complaints. I found a legitimate problem with being able to achieve objectives, and it had nothing to do with army lists, but points.

The likelihood of being able to score the range of objectives went down as the points went down. All of the cards could still be achieved based on what opponents brought, but the likelihood of seeing the majority of them in a single game went down with the size of the game. There is no reason to take any of the cards out in a 2500 point game. In a 1000 point game, you're not likely to see Flyers, MC's and Buildings in a single game. This creates more 'un-achievable' objectives regardless of the army being played.

I feel that 1500 is probably the minimum size that a full deck of cards should be played. This is a feeling, and as a TO, I wanted to tip the scales fully in the one direction. I had several options. One was to just pick a group of cards and have everyone remove them from their Deck. Others included, discarding all objectives at the end of the turn, or allowing a 'Mulligan' for a BP penalty, etc. It was too hard to decide without much time for feedback, on which cards those would be, and I didn't want to remove the 'un-achievable' element that is a part of 'Maelstrom'.

So I picked a number, randomly thought of all the armies that I could and how it would affect the draws. It was difficult for me because of my thoughts on 'Maelstrom' (posted below). There were cards that were not likely to be seen, like the Building or Super Heavy/Garg ones with the restrictions on LoW, and points. There were other that were 'fuzzy', like 'Witch Hunter'. So I settled on 3. I also decided to let the players pick which ones they would remove, based on their opponent. It worked because I saw a pattern on which specific objectives were commonly being removed. I implemented this before the tournament.

The other problem that didn't become visible until I was watching the event go from round to round, was the lack of number of options. There are 6 objectives on the board that potentially affect the VP's as the game goes on, vs. just at the end of the game like previous editions. One solution is to narrow the number of Objectives, so that the options become more achievable.

The ITC has done this, but I never got why it frustrated me till I saw it compared to a straight 'Maelstrom'. Narrowing the number of objectives to increase the possibility of achieving objectives does what it's supposed to, and it narrows the gap between VP's. It has another effect, and that is that it lowers the requirement to have enough units to cover objectives greater than that number. I know there are complaints about the common 'Deathstars' in the ITC, and I never tied it to the Missions until now. With 6 Objectives, large, High Cost units aren't able to cover all the ground that is required when there are that many objectives.

The final problem with the 'Maelstrom' cards that showed it's face during games was the Variable VP objectives. While it works completely fine for 1-­off games, it's not all that great when the score is going to affect a players ranking between rounds. Not because one player got the objective and the other didn't, but because that one player would get so far ahead, or worse, both players get different points for getting and achieving the same objective.

*****

Support for Maelstrom in general

When I laid out all the 'Generic' objectives, I had a good look at all the objectives, which ones were unachieveable, and which ones could be un-achievable. I found that ALL of the objectives where achievable, by all armies involved, when taking Vanilla 40k into account, which is what they're written for. It's becomes a bigger problem than it is, when we put other restrictions, like no CTA allies, 1 LoW, etc when playing games. This is a different topic, so I'll stop there.

Every army CAN make a list to tackle all the objectives. Some do it easier than others, which is not different to armies being able to shoot, assault, move, etc better than other armies. What makes 'Maelstrom' missions great is that every player gets to look at the same cards, and choose which ones they're going to make it as difficult as possible for ANY opponent they play against to get. My current 'Maelstrom' army has evolved to take advantage of that. I have no Vehicles, No MCs, No Flyers, No Psykers, large resilient units, and 1 character that is a pain to get to.

You can agree or disagree with me on this if you want. I often tell people that you need to bring a list and plan for 'Maelstrom', and the first response I almost ALWAYS get is 'How can I plan to deal with 'Kill a vehicle when he has no vehicles, how is that fair?'. It's not, that's the point, but at the same time, it's something that I feel players have some control over, and some responsibility as well. It's not entirely the fault of the format.

The solution that I see on how to make 'Maelstrom' playable is to allow players to discard an un-achievable objective at the start of their turn if A) The objective can't be completed by the end of the game. Or B) The ability to complete the objective was available at the start of the game, is no longer available. I understand the frustration, but I'm completely on the other side of the fence with it. Statement A, is a completely valid argument so long as the objective isn't able to be completed by anyone at the event. Fortifications is the best example, since it's common that no one will bring a fortification, and should be removed from all players options. B) Isn't a complaint, because a player chose to kill whatever the objective was before getting it as an objective, and should be penalized for that decision. The reason I'm on the other side of the fence? Well, when you try to discard a card because I didn't bring any vehicles, you've made your disadvantage my problem. I'm now being penalized for choosing to NOT bring any vehicles when I have the option to. I'm being penalized for playing an army that doesn't have a psyker when you draw the card allowing to you get to one that you can achieve. When I'm stuck with trying to get the same objective because you chose to bring those elements.

It doesn't work because you have the same choice prior to the game to bring the elements that are objectives in your army as much as any one else. Army building shifts from being 'I have this one list and it's really good.' to 'If I take this list, it's going to be easier for my opponent to score VP's'. Run 1­2 Vehicles? It's possible that he might destroy them before he draws that card. Run 5­6? It's not only easier for him to score that VP when he draws it, but also score multiple VPs because of your choice.

It's no different than being paired off against an army that your army does well against. It's no different than being paired off against an army that your army has an uphill fight against. Why players think they should be rewarded when playing against a player who didn't bring something so he could get that VP still baffles me. If you want all the objectives to be achievable, then you need to make all armies include all the possible elements in the objective deck. As with any modification to Vanilla 40k, this shifts which armies can and cannot do this very well, and after enough games/events, the results would reflect this. Just like any other event.

*****

Making 'Maelstrom' competitive.

There are enough arguments out there right now to drown and bury how to make 'Maelstrom' competetive, with 'It simply cannot be done'. After just the one event, I believe it can be done, it's just going to take time. The format didn't exist until this edition, and there aren't enough people trying to figure out how to make it work. I have some ideas on how to make it competetive, while keeping the feel of the format, that I'll be trying the next time I run the event.

1) One aspect of 'Maelstrom' missions is that the objectives are placed before Deployment Zones are determined, and players pick sides. In this event, I had players place their objectives after setting up Terrain. Then I gave them the mission. This goes back to the older tournament days where missions were placed face down until both sides agreed what the battlefield was. While I didn't start the round clock until the final table had the mission, it slowed the tournament down. Thankfully the players were all on the ball, and I believe the event only went 1/2 hour beyond what it should've because of this.

The solution I'm going to try next time, is to have the objectives down as part of the Terrain. So players will only have to show up to the table, define the terrain (not move it), and the Objectives would be impartially placed as well. I could go so far as setting the objectives in a fixed position on the board regardless of terrain. I don't like that because choosing the DZ based on the best Objectives gets removed since no matter which side a player picks, his objectives are going to be the exact same distance from his opponents. I might try it, but only after the next one.

2) Number of Options to achieve Objectives. After a good discussion on how to try to narrow the VP gap created by 'Maelstrom', there are 3 very appealing options, at least in theory. The one thing we want to avoid is any situation where a player could cycle through his deck and achieve an objective a second time.

A) Create a Static number of Objectives for all the missions, effectively creating a single 'Tournament' Maelstrom mission for all the rounds. We like the idea of having 6 Objectives at all times, and the ability to discard 2 per turn. This reduces the frequency that an opponent will get a full hand of un-achievable objectives, while still rewarding them with a full hand of possibilities for the round and/or future rounds. It will also create some counter ­play as opponents will also have some visibility to make it difficult for either opponent from getting Objectives for future turns.

It also makes it easier to implement genuine secondary objectives to modify the BP score in tournaments.

B) Allow players to the option to discard an entire hand of cards. He must also discard any cards in his hand that he could've achieved if he wants to get rid of more than 1 that he can't. (He'd still have the option to discard the 1 as normal). This will not penalize the player with good cards, because he will still have the benefit of his opponent not scoring anything in the round giving him a lead, but won't create as big a gap because the now handicapped player will not have to stick with cards for future rounds if he doesn't choose to.

This will work with both the set Objectives listed above, or the current format. As both players will have the option, and neither will be able to see all the objectives in their deck in a single game.

C) Basically B, but players will be able to score any objectives they can, and discard all they can't. It balances the complaints because while players might draw cards they can't achieve, they're still forced to hold on to them for the turn at least, instead of being able to draw cards until they get something they can achieve. I personally don't like this because while it does what we're trying to do, I feel it removes the choice of a player having to hold on to cards that he can't get more than A or B. It's a feeling, and not based on any fact.

D) Is a simple modification of the 'Can't re­roll a re­roll' mechanic. You 'Can't re-­draw a re-­draw'. So players would be able to draw a card, if failed to get one they can achieve, then may discard it and re­-draw another card. The result of the second card must be held. I haven't thought too much more on this, as the other 3 are more appealing right now, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.

*****

It's LONG, but I had the time. Thank you to everyone that is interested in 'Maelstrom' tournaments, how to make 'Maelstrom' tournaments work, or just don't mind the perspective, for taking the time to read.

Any Feedback or Questions, or Ideas would also be appreciated.

Thank You!

I didn't realise this was still an issue.

I thought it was pretty universally decided about a week BEFORE 7th ed was released that if you draw a completely unachievable card (could never/no longer achieve it), you discard it and pick a new one (indefinitely, until they get to one they can achieve)

Neither player is 'disadvantaged' - you both have a set of cards in your hand that you can achieve. If you can get 'destroy a vehicle' but your opponent has to re-draw that card, then that's all good - it might be easy for you to kill one of his rhinos while he may get 'kill your Wraithknight', a much harder proposition...

Some people also add "any 'score D3' objectives become 'score 2'", and/or "you may only score 2-3 objectives per turn"

Thank you Trasvi. It appears that a chunk of what I wrote has gone missing, but I talked about the discard thing.

Initially, I felt the same way about not getting achieveable objectives. Even played for a while where I even did that, and I still look at the the cards in the bottom of my draw deck that I know I won't get to. (Only if I know that my opponent won't gripe about how that's would be cheating as well). I never heard that it became universally accepted though, just a lot of comments that it's the only way it works.

I felt that was true until I started playing them straight. I got turned down for a long time, because no one wanted to play straight Maelstrom, but I got lucky and didn't have to wait long before finding several players who just wanted to play and didn't care. After about 3 mos. of playing things started happening to the game.

1) Lists and tactics evolved differently. Some armies had to completely re-think their battle plan to accommodate being mobile, still provide damage, and be prepared change tack, and Table Opponents in order to win. It's the main drive behind why I think trying to combine the two different formats doesn't work, because they require different lists.

2) ObSec became a bit more relevant. It didn't happen ten in games, since the way it's currently setup, you get to just blast your opponent off an objective then score points. However, I have seen an ObSec unit roll up to a contested objective, and ignore the unit that was contesting it and kill whatever they wanted anyways.

3) The higher the points go, the easier it becomes to field High Cost units and Deathstars. Straight missions kept this in check because they can't be in 3 places at once. I already mentioned this. The result was that these power units became less common. The 'How does anyone deal with that?' units became a handicap, because of their difficulty getting objectives, even when acheivable ones were drawn. Since it became less likely to see those units, other units not normally taken started showing up. Kroot for example, became somewhat valuable because they could infiltrate closer to objectives, or force an opponents infiltrators back. Much better treatment than the Mobile Cover/speed bump joke that most players treat them as.

4) The HUGE one, was that we all started looking at making it difficult for our opponents to get any objective we could. MSU armies for example, appear at first to give an advantage, because of having so many options and opportunities to claim objectives. The drawback was that it made it easier to get other objectives. Some of which gave bonuses for multiples. Only then did we realize that it wasn't the card that was completely unfair, but that we were trying to pin the blame on our frustration at something other than our choice to bring that list.

This was also taken away when you discarded objectives till you got one that you can get. At the time, there weren't as many Army Decks as there are now, but with 1/2 the objective deck as 'Secure X' they had the highest probability of showing up, and this gave an unfair advantage to the armies that can do them. As you get more achieveable objectives, you not only score VPs, but accelerate your card advantage which actually created more of a VP gap. Again, this was a result of trying to 'Fix' the format to work for our lists as opposed to modifying our lists.

5) This was the biggest one. We started having fun again. Games were no longer frustrating based on playing the same competitive army list, against the other players competitive army list every week. The players who refused to play because of the common complaints we still see like 'I don't like the thought of losing because of XXX card' or 'He won because he drew better cards than me' became excuses. They would always default to that first, before even thinking that his opponent might actually be good, had a better list, thought ahead and made better choices. It also quickly sorted out who was playing to play, and who was playing to win. These players found it harder to find games, because no one wanted to go back to playing games with more controlled games, with predictable outcomes, where the dice were the only random factor. At least for casual games.

So the trick now, at least for me, is trying to capture all that in a Tournament. I believe it can be done, it's just a matter of time, and it's going to require some time, and some willing 40k players. I was nervous about it at first because I am now trying to move from being casual back toward a more competitive. This was the 3rd event I've run for the FLGS, but the first one I did where I advertised it outside of the store, in addition to being the first Maelstrom event.

I got 14 players, some still holding grudges, and making comments about 'That's not fair'. Again, they all supported the event, and no one rage quit. I noted them all down, and listed the big ones. The trick is trying to figure out how to narrow the gap between VPs while trying to retain as much of the Maelstrom feel.

In the case of random VP objectives, the flat 1,2,3 values is one thing I'm looking at. Another solution is to allow the full Random VP amount, but that becomes the set value for the game, in case the opponent draws the same card. He'll get the same VP as the other guy did,for acheiveing the same objective. If the opponent doesn't, the he isn't penalized for getting it. These are just thoughts, and won't know until I get a few more games in.

Right now, I'm just working on a functional Maelstrom Scenario based on what I learned so I can play test that before making adjustments. I might find that I won't need to.

Thank You again for the comment, I appreciate it.

Thanks for posting your thoughts and findings. A couple points to add:

If you give players the option of discarding multiple cards, it diminishes the desire to roll on anything but the Strategic chart for Warlord traits and Scriers Gaze is less useful.

I would recommend 6 fixed locations for the objective. The board can be divided into 6 sections and you can place an objective centrally into each one.

You provide an interesting response to having unachievable cards in regards to army design. You make an interesting case regarding MSU in obtaining multiple objectives but being susceptible to losing multiple units as an opposing objective.

I have had fun games with Maelstrom, but it has gotten such a bad reputation. However, all the "fixes" appeared to create other issues.

Great write up and good food for thought.

Thank you Sarigar.

When you change anything from Vanilla, it always creates more issues than what it's trying to solve. The MSU is just one example. The Deathstar one I listed above is another. In the Tournament scene, it's clear that the majority of players don't like the rules as they are. Which I'm actually okay with, since this hasn't really changed when the editions did. Any change is always going benefit someone, while hurting someone else. I know a guy who bought 5 Wraithknights before they were made LoW. Guess how often he plays with them?

How many rules can we change and still call it 40k? While I'm not opposed to changing the rules for events, I've found that answering this question is a very fuzzy line that no 2 players will ever agree on, myself included. An good example is 'Mysterious Objectives'. I completely get why players don't use them, or don't like the random elements they add to a game. I played a game a few weeks ago where 5 of the objectives were trapped. It made things interesting, and gave me an advantage because I was playing Decurion Crons where RP made it easier than my opponent to sit on the objectives.

My point simply is this though. It's still around after an edition change. We're past the L2P 7th stage, so how much longer are we going to ignore that it is 40k? Again, this is fine to change. Where I scratch my head is when we're still trying to ignore things that do exist, and are still trying keep things that are gone. Area Terrain is a touchy subject, and I still see that Area Forests are still default, because one piece of GW terrain has a rule. There are still attempts to incorporate some sort of VP system based on the value of the unit, which hasn't been around for a while.

So that's where I sit currently. Which brings me to your point about fixed objectives. It's right up there with equal / symmetrical terrain, and static definitions for all similar pieces of terrain. Not everyone agrees with me, but when you implement these, then it diminishes the strategy behind choosing a DZ based on Terrain, and now objectives. This is why I dislike the Nova format so much. What's the point, when regardless of which deployment type or side I pick, My opponent is going to have the same terrain as me, and he's going to be exactly the same distance from all the objectives as me.

I completely understand that it's not 'fair'. I also understand that in an effort to make things 'Competetive', we have this desire to remove random elements to make things 'fair'. How far can we go before we still call it 40k? Why do we think that drawing cards we can't get, or having objectives blow up causing us to lose a game is unfair? Why do we still think that rolling dice better than our opponent is still fair, when it's still a random element? Why do we think that the current Codexes are fair compared to outdated ones? What are we doing to make it fair for players who want to play older Codexes and want a fair shot at winning?

It didn't use to be like this, and it changed at some point while I was away. Do we make a list for each army and require all players to have those models, and play only those that list to make it fair? This is what I see trying to happen everywhere. Your list won't be the best available if you don't bring this in your army. Look at any 'New Player' or 'What to get next' thread. Most of the advice ignores what a player has or wants to get, and tells them to get what we see common in events. Since I play Crons, Wraiths/Harvests are common. People view them as the best thing, and some go so far as saying you won't be top tier without them.

Again, not opposed to that happening, but I see these type of lists as being top tier because we've created an environment that they excel in. Put those rules back in the game, and it changes that. The result of doing that shows you the difference between 40k players, who will bring a list to meet the environment. The grumblers will complain because they don't know how to that, then blame it on the format and not their inability to change to meet the format. This again is fine, but please don't pretend that the reverse isn't true.

Thanks again for providing genuine feedback. I hope you look at my reasoning and critique and provide feedback. I've written a generic 'Maelstrom' scenario that I'm almost done with before play testing. I feel excited that I might have one that is very functional, but I'm still looking for questions that I can't readily answer, to affect that.

Cheers!

The fixed objective idea has less to do with symmetrical terrain and more to do with time. Folks can easily place objectives then roll for table sides, but there has become so much more 'stuff' in a game of 7th deity than any other edition. We play with the same points valtas we did in 3rd and 4th, yet have more models, more rules ,more pregame rolls, more gotcha moments with all the army combinations that exist , yet still try to play the game in the same 2 1/2 to 3 hours.

We have 12 missions in the rulebook and I think a lot of it is actually playable at 1500 point armies in a 2 to 2 1/2 hour time limit. For a typical one day event you can pick 2 Eternal War and 1 Maelstrom mission.

With revgards to terrain, I think the local group needs to come to a concensus to rules and then have players sign up to provide a table worth of terrain to help offset the burden to a TO or shop to provide it all. Offer prize support for the best table, such as a combination of aesthetic and playability. This offers a variety of tables as I always enjoyed this better than massed symmetrical tables.

This is speaking for small venues as this is much more manageable as I don't have money on the line and can appreciate the immense risk involved for folks running the large and costly events. Those folks need to appease the majority to ensure attendance or risk significant financial loss. And Maelstrom may not get the attendance they need to cover costs.

Sorry for typos. On a phone with autocorrect.

I don't mind the Typos, you'll see that I'm editing my entries often because I'm usually on an Ipad at work or autocorrect changes things. I appreciate you showing interest, and providing constructive feedback.

The first thing I want to respond to is mixing the missions. I always believed from the start that EW and Mael missions should be kept separate. Most armies have to run completely different lists to be able to win, and depending on the army, having ObSec may or may not become relevant. Trying to combine the two only makes it so that armies have to straddle the two. Like above, any change to the rules favors armies that can do that.

As for everything else, here is the current mission, and it addresses your reply, and hopefully a few others.
There is where I am at. Terrain will be setup prior to the next event. The solution to the Objective problem will also be solved at this time, and Objectives will be setup on the table as well. This will solve both the setup problem, and the time constraint. Since this will be done by someone not in the event, it will be impartial w/o resorting to fixed locations.

Unlike standard Maelstrom missions, where the number of Objectives changes changes per game and per turn in some scenarios, we're going to lock the number of objectives. This is purely for experimental purposes, and is subject to change.

* 5 Objectives increases the probability that you will be able to score 1 of them, since there are multiple copies of the ones that everyone can achieve.
* Players will still have to deal with Objectives based on opponents lists. Players will not be rewarded for replacing a card because their opponent chose not to make it possible to achieve it.
* The ability to not score, pushes the decision back on to the player. It still penalizes him on the turn that he draws the card like in standard Maelstrom, but he now has an option to get rid of it based on his current situation, to avoid being penalized in future turns.

Example: He might have 3 objectives that he can get before the game ends, but lets say only 1 can be completed in the current turn. He knows he will probably get that 1, but will also score the other 2. He can choose to not claim any of them, to get rid of the both of the objectives he can't claim at all. He is now taking a risk, because unlike standard Maelstrom, his opponent can attempt to prevent him from getting that objective.

Note: The other solution, which almost won out, was to allow players to be stuck with all the cards for that turn, then after scoring VP's, they would discard any that they couldn't achieve. I decided against this for reasons I already listed. The biggest one remains in contrast to a common complaint. A player shouldn't be rewarded for completing an objective before he draws it. He already viewed that objective as a threat, and is ahead already by eliminating it early on.

So the 'Maelstrom' portion will be the focus and be used to determine the winner. The Secondary Objectives will be used to break possible ties (or create them as I'm starting to see randomly).

The 'Scenario Objective' will only be added for tournament play. These will be objectives that all players will be able to accomplish regardless of setup, terrain, opponent, etc. These will only be BP modifiers, so their sole purpose to create some disparity between different games. Ie, a player will have to focus on these if he wants to get a better score someone in another game, and others with the same W/L record at the end of the tournament.

I've done some tweaking here and there, and I've come to the point where I feel it's time to playtest, and I'd appreciate any feedback/thoughts on this.

Thank You again. You're covering points that have been discussed, but not mentioned here, which means that I'm on a track. I have yet to see if it's a good one.

Akar, I don't really follow your idea that discarding impossible tacobjs hurts the other player. After all, they both get to discard them. It is true that people might take that into account in list building. I emphasize "might" because I think this concern is fairly secondary compared to the other objectives, so something people would mostly think about a little but not be a primary decision driver. More importantly, I believe most everybody thinks about it the other way. I can't see anybody saying "I'd play this useful psyker but by not doing so I force my opponent onto the Secure and Control cards." Vastly more likely is "Well, this psyker's only useful occasional and he keeps giving my opponent the kill psykers card, so he's shelved." I don't really see a problem with that. In fact, it's a solid strategic decision point in making a list.

I'm a neutral supporter of Maelstrom. The overall idea is interesting and has some advantages, but there are a lot of problems with both the GW implementation and even fixed versions. Things like discarding impossible cards and setting the value of the D3 points cards are really just the most superficial issues, easily fixed. More problematic are all the tactical objectives that reward you just for making a play, rather than successfully achieving some goal. Also fundamental, one of the good points about Maelstrom is that it neuters deathstar units a bit. But in the short term, it also has exactly the opposite issue: Mobile MSU armies, like Gladius Marines and Eldar that are already currently really strong are really really strong at Maelstrom.

I've been using a very different set of Maelstrom tactical objectives in my tournaments. They address those issues, while also trying to enable more strategy but retaining the need to be flexible and adaptable. So, for example, I should be prepared to hunt vehicles because I might draw that objective. But i can scale how much effort I want to put into it. So, I might decide that there's only one easy vehicle to tag this turn so I go for that and then score the objective for 1 point. Alternatively, I might look at the table and see a ton of vehicles I might be able to get in two turns, so I work toward capturing the maximum four points. At the end, the points earned via Maelstrom objectives are then also mapped into battle points rather than being awarded directly, which alleviates a bit the issues with runaway victories.

I have a recent blog post up with more on these issues in Maelstrom, and the rules I've been using:

http://www.rocketshipgames.com/blogs/tjkopena/2015/10/alternate-maelstrom/

 tjkopena wrote:
Akar, I don't really follow your idea that discarding impossible tacobjs hurts the other player. After all, they both get to discard them. It is true that people might take that into account in list building. I emphasize "might" because I think this concern is fairly secondary compared to the other objectives, so something people would mostly think about a little but not be a primary decision driver. More importantly, I believe most everybody thinks about it the other way. I can't see anybody saying "I'd play this useful psyker but by not doing so I force my opponent onto the Secure and Control cards." Vastly more likely is "Well, this psyker's only useful occasional and he keeps giving my opponent the kill psykers card, so he's shelved." I don't really see a problem with that. In fact, it's a solid strategic decision point in making a list.

I'm a neutral supporter of Maelstrom. The overall idea is interesting and has some advantages, but there are a lot of problems with both the GW implementation and even fixed versions. Things like discarding impossible cards and setting the value of the D3 points cards are really just the most superficial issues, easily fixed. More problematic are all the tactical objectives that reward you just for making a play, rather than successfully achieving some goal. Also fundamental, one of the good points about Maelstrom is that it neuters deathstar units a bit. But in the short term, it also has exactly the opposite issue: Mobile MSU armies, like Gladius Marines and Eldar that are already currently really strong are really really strong at Maelstrom.

I've been using a very different set of Maelstrom tactical objectives in my tournaments. They address those issues, while also trying to enable more strategy but retaining the need to be flexible and adaptable. So, for example, I should be prepared to hunt vehicles because I might draw that objective. But i can scale how much effort I want to put into it. So, I might decide that there's only one easy vehicle to tag this turn so I go for that and then score the objective for 1 point. Alternatively, I might look at the table and see a ton of vehicles I might be able to get in two turns, so I work toward capturing the maximum four points. At the end, the points earned via Maelstrom objectives are then also mapped into battle points rather than being awarded directly, which alleviates a bit the issues with runaway victories.

I have a recent blog post up with more on these issues in Maelstrom, and the rules I've been using:

http://www.rocketshipgames.com/blogs/tjkopena/2015/10/alternate-maelstrom/

Very well thought out. What do you utilize for secondary and tertiary to get to a 20 point total score?

 Sarigar wrote:
Very well thought out. What do you utilize for secondary and tertiary to get to a 20 point total score?

Thanks!

Our tertiaries are a slight tweak of the usual ones and some additions; you can earn up to 5 points from:

- 2 points for Slay the Warlord
- 2 points for Linebreaker
- 1 point for First Blood
- 1 point for every 2 unsaved wounds/hull points on a superheavy or gargantuan
- Any codex-specific victory points

For our secondaries, players choose an objective at the start of the mission from 2--4 options, and can earn up to 6 points from it. We have a whole slate of them that we use, things like:

- Breach Points. Choose two terrain pieces at least partially in the opposing deployment zone. Do not
declare these now, but do secretly record your selection unambiguously! Reveal these at game end and
score 3 victory points for each piece that you control, treating them as objective markers. Note that this
means a single unit cannot claim both a primary objective marker and a terrain piece simultaneously.

- Assassination. Score 1 victory point for each opposing character model removed as a casualty or
falling back at the end of the game. Note that this is not limited to just independent characters.

Those secondaries let us throw in some thematic or more niche elements (e.g., special tasks for units with Scout USR) without having really goofy primary missions. More importantly, they let us balance for play/army styles a bit. E.g., for our adapted Kill Points missions there might be an option to assassinate characters and a couple options for holding ground or objective markers. That way the player has a choice to either double down on killing, or fight for ground and earn some points even if they expect to get trounced on Kill Points. For Maelstrom i usually just offer both equally, and try to keep them simpler because there's so much going on anyway.

You can check out a pretty standard mission packet for our events here:

http://www.pagegaming.com/uploads/Warhammer40k/20150621-missions.pdf

Thank you TJ, I appreciate the time your taking to provide your thoughts.

 tjkopena wrote:
Akar, I don't really follow your idea that discarding impossible tacobjs hurts the other player. After all, they both get to discard them. It is true that people might take that into account in list building. I emphasize "might" because I think this concern is fairly secondary compared to the other objectives, so something people would mostly think about a little but not be a primary decision driver. More importantly, I believe most everybody thinks about it the other way. I can't see anybody saying "I'd play this useful psyker but by not doing so I force my opponent onto the Secure and Control cards." Vastly more likely is "Well, this psyker's only useful occasional and he keeps giving my opponent the kill psykers card, so he's shelved." I don't really see a problem with that. In fact, it's a solid strategic decision point in making a list.

I'll try to clairify as best as I can.

The simple answer, Card Advantage. Explaining that is a bit different. In standard Maelstrom, each player has all 36 objectives to deal with. Both players are also stuck with cards they can't achieve, and both players are stuck with removing 1 objective of their choice. Players do have the choice of removing a card that they can achieve. In addition to being able to get through their cards faster, discarding all objectives removes the need for a player to choose.

Only when we come back to the army building aspect, and you compare the objectives based on what your opponent brings, will it potentially be come clear. I'll use my army as an example. I don't run vehicles, psykers, MCs, etc as stated above. Yes, this means that my opponent can't score those VPs. However it doesn't change the total number of objectives a player has to deal with. If you allow a player to discard an objective at the start of the turn and draw another one, then you upset that balance.

The result is that you give one player a 33 card deck, while his opponent can still have all 36. You may argue that this still doesn't matter, since all cards will now be achieveable, but it allows the smaller deck to get to his easier ones faster than his opponent. So I want to avoid that. You do have a point though, and it becomes more noticeable in lower point games. In higher point games, it becomes less significant, but still present, because of the likelihood that more objectives will be able to be completed.

There is another problem that discarding all objectives creates, and it has to do with the different decks. The Generic decks have 18 Standard 'Secure X' objectives, while the faction decks only have 12. Allowing the discard skews the numbers even more by allowing them to remove objectives that they were assigned by their faction, or allowing those who chose the Generic chart to see more of the 'Secure X' objectives which are comparatively easier to achieve.

The solution I have chosen is just one possible one. Another one I already listed to allow all players to discard any number of objectives they can't complete, but I feel this still leans toward what I've just posted, but only play testing will tell. When I find people to play test with, I'll be keeping track of 'how would/if' applications change the current setup. I'm not claiming it's the best, but merely that I'm at a point where I want to find out.

The other alternatives that were discussed:
1- Remove all objectives that can't be completed from both decks at the start of game. (Which is how we saw the possible disparity between total objectives each player had to complete.)
2- If a card gets discarded because it can't be completed, then the opponent gets to discard the same card even if he can get it, if it shows up. (Didn't work because vehicle/psyker heavy armies now prevented their opponent from getting that objective for them not being able to complete it.)
3- Force players to use the same deck, or create one that everyone must use. This removes faction decks, which I'll admit, might be necessary to make it more applicable in a tournament setting. I decided against this route, because it is already being attempted by other TOs, like Adepticon.
4- For each card that a player discards, his opponent gets to discard one of his choice as the turn goes on. Didn't work because how to you deal with a player who discards 3 and his opponent none?
5- Allow a 'Mulligan ' and give them a BP modifier if they do it.

Yes, I'm aware that Eldar are still very good at Maelstrom, but it still affects their lists. The MSU issue is still a problem and I hope this fixes that. Even if it doesn't, I'd rather see MSU vs. MSU games as opposed to Deathstar games. I did notice the Marine formation problem, but still haven't made up my mind on it. It's off topic, but if you want to know, feel free to PM me. The alternative is to only allow CAD detachments. While I feel this is how all 'Competitive' events should be doing, I'm not going to enforce it simply because players won't show, despite not allowing any army to get freebies.

have a recent blog post up with more on these issues in Maelstrom, and the rules I've been using:

http://www.rocketshipgames.com/blogs/tjkopena/2015/10/alternate-maelstrom/

Thanks for this, and I'll have to look at it when I get back in a few days.

Additional thank you for reading. I don't want you to feel like I'm shrugging off your comments. They are valid and I want to show you how I've chosen to resolve them and why. I'm on a road trip so might not respond for a few days, but looking forward to any other points.