Maelstrom Missions: Nope, thats not narrative gaming.

[daboarder]

So I've had a handful of games of 7th now and I must say, wow, the execution of the maelstrom games is terrible.

They aren't "forging a narrative", they aren't allowing you to enact a story of epic clashes between opposing armies with no compromise, they are an exercise in making an army behave like a schizophrenic rat on crack!

Narrative games are games where the story develops as the mission is played, not ones that actively encourage you to act out of character to obtain victory of some sort.
Missions with asymmetrical but defined roles forge a narrative ie: One army must take and hold objectives the other defend them by eliminating the opposing warlord.

Missions that force you to back up your entire army to cap the objectives in your back half, or to ignore opponents in the shooting phase so that you can kill them in the assault phase are jarring.

For example, my last game, I had an opponent drive his land raider next to a pair of obliterators, and iron stave sorcerer and a defiler, just to cap a point for a turn. Then in my turn I proceeded to kill it in combat, not shooting at it for no other reason than to obtain my own point.....thats just dumb, as dumb as pacing a heldrake in hover and reversing it haflway up the field to cap an objective for a single turn. Or grey knights forgoing shooting at chaos terminators just to run onto an objective before attempting to shoot a flier half way across the field all the while ignoring the mass of terminators bearing down on them. Or having entire armies play keep away while rotating around the table, in a race for the next point until some shmuck pulls the "kill a unit card"

Basically if you want to actually play a game with any form of story, play the echoes and altar missions, cities of death or planet strike, they are all better balanced, have a better narrative and actually encourage you to create a story as opposed to rewarding stupid and short term payoffs

[Kaptain Badrukk]

So I've had a handful of games of 7th now and I must say, wow, the execution of the maelstrom games is terrible.

They aren't "forging a narrative", they aren't allowing you to enact a story of epic clashes between opposing armies with no compromise, they are an exercise in making an army behave like a schizophrenic rat on crack!

Narrative games are games where the story develops as the mission is played, not ones that actively encourage you to act out of character to obtain victory of some sort.
Missions with asymmetrical but defined roles forge a narrative ie: One army must take and hold objectives the other defend them by eliminating the opposing warlord.

Missions that force you to back up your entire army to cap the objectives in your back half, or to ignore opponents in the shooting phase so that you can kill them in the assault phase are jarring.

For example, my last game, I had an opponent drive his land raider next to a pair of obliterators, and iron stave sorcerer and a defiler, just to cap a point for a turn. Then in my turn I proceeded to kill it in combat, not shooting at it for no other reason than to obtain my own point.....thats just dumb, as dumb as pacing a heldrake in hover and reversing it haflway up the field to cap an objective for a single turn. Or grey knights forgoing shooting at chaos terminators just to run onto an objective before attempting to shoot a flier half way across the field all the while ignoring the mass of terminators bearing down on them. Or having entire armies play keep away while rotating around the table, in a race for the next point until some shmuck pulls the "kill a unit card"

Basically if you want to actually play a game with any form of story, play the echoes and altar missions, cities of death or planet strike, they are all better balanced, have a better narrative and actually encourage you to create a story as opposed to rewarding stupid and short term payoffs

Hmmm, not tried it yet I'll admit.
Thinking it could be awesome for Killteam, but IMO to make the games feel truly narrative one should NEVER rely on random number generators.
But then these, like so many other things in this book are a tool you can choose to use, or not use, as you see fit.

[fedratsailor]

I have watched a couple maelstrom games, and so far they are based on the placement of the objective numbers and what your card draw are. I personally don't plan to play any maelstrom games, but if a pickup gamer asked ill give it a try. Its just to random and what Daboarder said, your more worried about the points than actually doing anything strategic or tactical.

[Caitsidhe]

They are truly awful. I used to joke about them adding so much randomness to the game that it would be entirely a disguised version of Candyland, wherein nothing we do really matters. I'm not laughing at that joke anymore. I played another game today. I took 2.5K of CSM/Black Legion against 2.5K of Dark Angels w/Knight. While I was soundly beating my opponent, he spent most of the game 5 points ahead of me because it kept giving him cards for things he was already sitting on or were gimmes. I on the other hand kept drawing cards for things not in our game (like destroying a building and so on). Finally, I had to tell him "I'm sorry but my only way to win is by tabling you." I didn't like that the cards had NOTHING whatsoever to do with tactical demands. We played the scenario where you start with six cards in your hand and your hand size decreases by one each turn.

The game made little sense and I didn't like the fact that I was forced to go the extra effort to table the guy. In a normal mission I would have kept it close so as not to be brutal. Here I had no choice but go full throttle or simply lose. Every game I've played with the new missions has been a nightmare. I had one where I beat my opponent 15 VP to 3 based on the same gimme system. Several others looked not the least bit narrative as we ran around like the Scooby Gang on a scavenger hunt. Narrative it is NOT.

[silashand]

Watched a game with them today. Good idea, horrible execution. Between drawing the same card multiple times (that the player who had them could not achieve) to awarding duplicate results for something accomplished in prior turns (d3 VPs for killing the enemy warlord - one player got that twice and ended up with 5VPs because of it). Ultimately the player who started the game with the best hand won, even though the same player had no infantry left and only a couple active vehicles. We will not be using them as written going forward.

One proposal we came up with was to draw 3 and have them apply to both players. First one to accomplish the objective got the requisite VPs. Also, no duplicates. If they come up, just draw a different card. No idea if any of these ideas would help, but almost anything is better than the rules in the book :(.

And in case anyone was in any doubt, Invisibility is just stupid. Way overpowered as written.

[Charon]

Same experience here. While at first I was excited about the system (reminded me on the missions you draw in 2nd) it turned out to be really bad executed.
You NEED the cards. Rolling dice and looking up the table takes soooo much time and the book keeping is just boring.
If you keep getting missions which tell you to manifest a psi power or destroy a builing when both are not availabe you are just going to lose no matter what.
The player with the better starthand is usually going to win.
We are working on houserules but it feels like we have to rewrite the entire mechanic.

[marful]

I agree. The current Maelstrom Missions are completely random and makes the game devolve into nothing but lucky card draws. Might as well just roll a die each turn and on a 6+ you get a victory point.



I think an army specific, tiered secondary objective system would be good. Very close to the Malifaux 1.0 Strategy and Schemes system.

Each player would have an option of picking their secondary objectives. Then, if they complete it two more options become available. Then depending on which of those they chose (and completed) two more options would become available, etc. All the while each subsequent objective was somehow related to the previous objective.

An example for Space Marines would be the following "narrative" secondary objectives:

Quell Rebellion Secondary Mission
1.) Assess Enemy Forces: Get a scoring unit within 12" of an Enemy Unit (18" for scouts).

2a) Neutralize Enemy's Support: Destroy an Enemy Heavy Choice

3a.a) Reconnoiter Enemy's Supply Routes: Get a scoring unit in enemy's deployment zone.
3a.b) Decimate Enemy's Command Structure: Destroy an Enemy HQ or Elites Choice.
2b) Suppress the Enemy: Destroy at least 2 enemy unit during the shooting phase.

3b.a) Flank Enemy: Destroy an enemy unit with a fast attack unit.
3b.b) Assault Enemy: Destroy at least two enemy units during the assault phase.


Thats just an example I thought up right now, to give an idea how the secondary objectives could work. This way the narrative is actually part of the game play.

[spaceman91]

I agree. The current Maelstrom Missions are completely random and makes the game devolve into nothing but lucky card draws. Might as well just roll a die each turn and on a 6+ you get a victory point.



I think an army specific, tiered secondary objective system would be good. Very close to the Malifaux 1.0 Strategy and Schemes system.

Each player would have an option of picking their secondary objectives. Then, if they complete it two more options become available. Then depending on which of those they chose (and completed) two more options would become available, etc. All the while each subsequent objective was somehow related to the previous objective.

An example for Space Marines would be the following "narrative" secondary objectives:

Quell Rebellion Secondary Mission
1.) Assess Enemy Forces: Get a scoring unit within 12" of an Enemy Unit (18" for scouts).

2a) Neutralize Enemy's Support: Destroy an Enemy Heavy Choice

3a.a) Reconnoiter Enemy's Supply Routes: Get a scoring unit in enemy's deployment zone.
3a.b) Decimate Enemy's Command Structure: Destroy an Enemy HQ or Elites Choice.
2b) Suppress the Enemy: Destroy at least 2 enemy unit during the shooting phase.

3b.a) Flank Enemy: Destroy an enemy unit with a fast attack unit.
3b.b) Assault Enemy: Destroy at least two enemy units during the assault phase.


Thats just an example I thought up right now, to give an idea how the secondary objectives could work. This way the narrative is actually part of the game play.

I think that's a funky idea ( stolen for future use ).

[John Bower]

Actualy it IS pretty narrative; look, war hasn't been 'static' since WWI, war is pretty fluid. And nor is it particularly sensible; Generals have little concept of the tactical level fight, they are more interested in the big picture; look at it another way; you are the Force commander, your little force of guys is fighting a battle in a given area. You get an order to 'take Hill 59', so you tell your soldiers to do just that. However, somewhere across the battlefield the line is in danger of breaking, so the order comes down; we need you to pull back and hold the line right now. Of course you think "Don't those Fethers back there know I'm trying to win a battle here? I was just about to take that objective they wanted secured not 5 minutes ago and now they're telling me 'forget it'." Yeah, they are, because they see things you don't and that friends is the narrative behind it, you don't have a 'general' that knows the bigger picture above you, so you're looking at it from a purely 'game' perspective as being daft. Well yeah, war is one big F*** up until one side makes one less than the other and wins.

That's how it works, don't look at the victory points as just affecting your little fight, look at them as being a tiny part of a huge warzone, with lots of attacks and counter attacks going on all at once; the cards are just a simulation of the Top Brass giving you stupid orders (or at least orders you think are stupid) and of course some are, they've seen something in one part of the battlefield that is a threat so tell you to remove it, but in your part of the same battle that threat is nonexistant. It's no dumber than an entire IG regiment that in the fluff was posthumously sentenced to death for not getting to a battle on time because they'd been wiped out already.

[marful]

Actualy it IS pretty narrative; look, war hasn't been 'static' since WWI, war is pretty fluid.

The opposite of Static is not "Random".

And while war is "pretty fluid", not to the point where you run to certain death / ignore the enemy / set yourself up to get slaughtered, for a secondary objective.

In short, "fluid" does not mean running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.

[daboarder]

The opposite of Static is not "Random".

And while war is "pretty fluid", not to the point where you run to certain death / ignore the enemy / set yourself up to get slaughtered, for a secondary objective.

In short, "fluid" does not mean running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.

I was gonna post a picture of face palming picard, but marful did it better

[Cutter]

That does sound horrendous. Might be fun with my nine year old though.

40k, you know, for kids...

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I think there's a couple of instances in which you could work it into a narrative: the sort of thing it's meant to evoke - completely chaotic situations. Battles that have been raging for days, detachments cut off from control or any sense of the bigger picture. Warp Storms, Daemon incursions, plague planets. Maybe the planet has flora which release psychoactive compounds? Maybe everyone's hearing voices? Maybe your commanders have been subverted by foul treacheries, or there's a spy in the ranks. Maybe - this being 40k - nobody is actually sure what they're doing.

Or, easiest of all, anything involving Orks. In fact, I challenge you to argue that the Maelstrom of War mission setup is not the most perfect possible evocation of an Ork vs. Ork fight. :)

However, it's gonna take some more work than the Altar of War/Eternal War/Whatever Of War missions and the sheer level of chaos inherent in the system does not lend itself naturally to a coherent narrative, I agree with daboarder &co.

[Demonus]

The opposite of Static is not "Random".

And while war is "pretty fluid", not to the point where you run to certain death / ignore the enemy / set yourself up to get slaughtered, for a secondary objective.

In short, "fluid" does not mean running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.


We all know the opposite of Random is obviously space marines...cause random = chaos right? at least that is what GW taught me with all their random charts...

[Eldar_Atog]

I played another game today. I took 2.5K of CSM/Black Legion against 2.5K of Dark Angels w/Knight. While I was soundly beating my opponent, he spent most of the game 5 points ahead of me because it kept giving him cards for things he was already sitting on or were gimmes. I on the other hand kept drawing cards for things not in our game (like destroying a building and so on). Finally, I had to tell him "I'm sorry but my only way to win is by tabling you." I didn't like that the cards had NOTHING whatsoever to do with tactical demands. We played the scenario where you start with six cards in your hand and your hand size decreases by one each turn.


I watched something similiar on Saturday. It was marine droppods against guard. The guard player only had a single chimera that survived the battle but the guard player won because the deck kept handing him the perfect card. The marine player couldn't draw a decent card to save his life.


I can see where a narrative could be done with the cards but it would require a GM type role. The GM would design a scenario before the game started and choose what cards would be available each turn. I might try to write something out soon... that could be an interesting exercise.

[BrianDavion]

I imagine one of the first things we're gonna have people doing is removing cards from the deck that don't make sense. like Tau removing "cast a psyker power" cards. and removing "destroy building" cards etc.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, every game I've watched with these missions has been silly. If you don't table your opponent, then literally the only thing that matters is what cards you drew. My first game my opponent got 6pts in the first two turns from drawing the cards for the three objectives in his DZ, while I was stuck with destroy a building (there were none on the table), get a scoring unit 12" from your opponent's deployment zone (hammer and anvil made this impossible until like t3 since GKs don't have drop pods and my opponent wasn't going to just let me run across the board), and kill a character in a challenge (couldn't get into assault for several turns).

So, hey, I just tabled my opponent turn 5, it was still a fun game, but the missions were silly.

[Defenestratus]

The best way to use the maelstrom missions is in conjunction with the eternal war missions. Simply draw 3 cards each side at the beginning of the game then thats it.

[DarkLink]

Not a bad idea. Just add that you reroll any objective that are literally impossible to achieve (destroy a building when there are none to destroy).

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Right. Or take them out of the deck before you start.

I think the Tactical Objectives deck/chart is a great tool to be used; give it some time and I expect people out there will work out some really fun ways to integrate them beyond the Maelstrom missions.

[Defenestratus]

Not a bad idea. Just add that you reroll any objective that are literally impossible to achieve (destroy a building when there are none to destroy).

Indeed... this is how it worked in 2nd edition. You would draw a mission card. You wouldn't know what your opponent had so while you were trying to achieve your objective, he was trying to achieve his. Of course there was the ubiquitous kill points mission so you were still trying to kill each other at the same time.

It made for some awesome types of games where you could figure out what his mission was during the course of the game through his actions (Why is that squad of plague marines just sitting on that backfield objective all day? Why are you shooting literally everything in your army at my psyker?), or you wouldn't know until the end where it was revealed.

[Caitsidhe]

To me, Narrative gaming means there is a scenario with key defined objectives defined. For example:

Evacuate the Populace (the Holding Action):

In this scenario, one army is attempting to destroy or at the very least delay invaders while key noncombatants escape. The battlefield represents a choke point wherein the holding action is best fought. The idea is to prevent enemy ground units from getting past to do their worst to those you are supposed to be protecting. It doesn't matter if you are Imperial or Chaos, there is always somebody or something that is worth protecting and evacuating. There are several special rules for this scenario.

1. The attacker deploys first and will go first unless the defender steals the initiative.
2. The defender gets to place two pieces of terrain for every one the attacker places on the battlefield.
3. Outflank within the defender's deployment zone is impossible due to geographical barriers, i.e. the battlefield on the defender's side is flanked by impassable terrain.
3. The attacker decides if the first turn is Night Fight or not.
4. For every reduction of (200)pts the defender chooses to take in army points compared to the attacker, he/she starts the game with one VP.
5. For every ground unit the attacker manages to move off the defending player's edge, he/she gains a VP. Such units are gone for the rest of the game.
6. Three objectives are placed on the defender's half of the table, one by the attacker and two by the defender that represent important items/people to be evacuated. At the Top of Turn-3 one of these objectives will randomly be selected and removed from the table. It has been evacuated. The top of Turn-4 will randomly select another, and the top of Turn-5 will remove the last one. The attacker will get one VP for each one of these objectives taken, i.e. they are holding it when it vanishes, while the defender will get a point for each objective that vanishes whether they are holding it or no one holds it when it happens.

In short, this is a scenario dedicated to narrative play which sets clear objectives which will also have random elements provided by the players. The defender wants to evacuate objectives from the battlefield and prevent any ground units from exiting the table on his/her deployment edge. The attacker wishes to get those objectives before they escape and get past the defender. The terrain will heavily favor the defender.

[Lord Asterion]

If you're getting the same objective multiple times, you're not reading the rules properly.

And they can be narrative, your force is getting through orders as the battle rages. You just have to use your imagination.

[Caitsidhe]

If you're getting the same objective multiple times, you're not reading the rules properly.

And they can be narrative, your force is getting through orders as the battle rages. You just have to use your imagination.

No, with all due respect, it isn't the least bit narrative. It is Candyland disguised for adults. I drew a card I can play... YAY! I drew a bad card... booo. So far I just keep tabling my opponent. I will continue to do so as long as they do idiotic things going after crazy objectives they can't hold or make no sense. I have already played seven games using these rules and the outcome is always the same. The winner is likely the one with a good draw. Once I realized this, I simply ignore the cards. If I happen to be sitting on one, great. If not, I am going to table my opponent. If my opponent is so foolish as to stretch themselves out and do the wonky thing required to try and earn cards they aren't already sitting on, it just makes it easier for me. I have not lost a game since I have adopted this strategy.

[Lord Asterion]

No, with all due respect, it isn't the least bit narrative. It is Candyland disguised for adults. I drew a card I can play... YAY! I drew a bad card... booo. So far I just keep tabling my opponent. I will continue to do so as long as they do idiotic things going after crazy objectives they can't hold or make no sense. I have already played seven games using these rules and the outcome is always the same. The winner is likely the one with a good draw. Once I realized this, I simply ignore the cards. If I happen to be sitting on one, great. If not, I am going to table my opponent. If my opponent is so foolish as to stretch themselves out and do the wonky thing required to try and earn cards they aren't already sitting on, it just makes it easier for me. I have not lost a game since I have adopted this strategy.


As I said, you have to use your imagination, your force is receiving orders, things change in the heat of battle and you have to accomplish different things.

And once your opponent figures out how to get more objectives and avoid getting tabled, then you'll lose.

I'm sorry that you don't like adapting the game to the new missions, stick to the old ones, but I enjoy them and they change the game up.

[Caitsidhe]

As I said, you have to use your imagination, your force is receiving orders, things change in the heat of battle and you have to accomplish different things.

And once your opponent figures out how to get more objectives and avoid getting tabled, then you'll lose.

I'm sorry that you don't like adapting the game to the new missions, stick to the old ones, but I enjoy them and they change the game up.

I grant you that they let people with little to no skill win games. That is the same premise of Candyland that uses a spinner.

[Lord Asterion]

I grant you that they let people with little to no skill win games. That is the same premise of Candyland that uses a spinner.

Yeah, no skill. There is no skill in reacting to changing fortunes of war. Using the same battle plan in every game is where the real skill in wargaming lies.

[Caitsidhe]

Yeah, no skill. There is no skill in reacting to changing fortunes of war. Using the same battle plan in every game is where the real skill in wargaming lies.

<chuckles> No, there is no skill whatsoever in scoring objectives you already hold because you were lucky enough to be sitting on them or have them within a few inches of you. I don't know how many games you have played so far (I am clocking quite a few) and scoring them has not been a factor of reacting and going out to earn them.

[Lord Asterion]

<chuckles> No, there is no skill whatsoever in scoring objectives you already hold because you were lucky enough to be sitting on them or have them within a few inches of you. I don't know how many games you have played so far (I am clocking quite a few) and scoring them has not been a factor of reacting and going out to earn them.

All the games i've played (4 so far) have meant I have to pop out of cover and grab an objective quickly, at least once.

Other times I've had to move forward and grab an objective to prevent an opponent grabbing it. If you have enough units to grab all 6 objectives and sit on them with Troops so they can't be contested, then the games you're playing are probably too big.

[John Bower]

The opposite of Static is not "Random".

And while war is "pretty fluid", not to the point where you run to certain death / ignore the enemy / set yourself up to get slaughtered, for a secondary objective.

In short, "fluid" does not mean running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.

But that 'is' exactly what the guard are expected to do without question in 40k. And come to that even Eldar listen to their farseer w/out question, even when said objective seems absurd, Tau well just Tau, the 'Greater Good' and all that nonsense, Nids don't care, Chaos is chaos, definition of Chaos means random. Dark Eldar probly wouldn't give a flying 2 fingered salute for objectives in reality anyhow, and Orks... Well just point' em at the fight and forget it. And I'm sorry but WWI especially was just that, and more often than not in war generals do send troops to certain death for meaningless objectives. Like I said, war is a series of screw ups until one side makes one less screw up.

[Charon]

All the games i've played (4 so far) have meant I have to pop out of cover and grab an objective quickly, at least once.

Other times I've had to move forward and grab an objective to prevent an opponent grabbing it. If you have enough units to grab all 6 objectives and sit on them with Troops so they can't be contested, then the games you're playing are probably too big.

So you havent played any Maelstrom games yet but you "discuss" the topic. Mhm...
Flashnews. What you describe is no Maelstrom game.

[Erik Setzer]

I've played with them where I could (some people are scared of them, because they like to run their army a certain way and the idea of having to do anything else bothers them), and I don't think they're that bad.

Yes, they force you to move around the table. Goodness, what an awful thought! When you play enough IG armies or even Space Wolf armies that hunker down behind an Aegis line and just shoot at you all game, you get rather bored. Such players will, of course, loathe the idea of a system that requires them to leave the safety of their shelter.

Sure, it's a lot of luck. So is pretty much everything else in the game. Heck, missions are luck. If I'd gotten Big Guns Never Tire against my last opponent, I'd have been able to get more VP than him just because his army had more Heavy Support units. Clearly that mission is unfair and should be thrown out, right?

I had one game where I had some bad card draws. But I kept doing my best to achieve the objectives and prevent my opponent from achieving his. It was an exciting game, went back-and-forth, and I had to make an extreme push at the end to achieve a few objectives on my last turn to pull out a minor victory. That was a blast.

If you're wondering how this is "narrative" gaming, it's simple. The battlefield is simply a representation of what our armies are doing in the battle. Those objectives they need to take might represent some extra equipment or some anomaly they need you to check out. Some enemy unit might be identified as a particular threat, or they might find a weakness that needs exploited (i.e. by destroying the unit in close quarters). Yes, objectives change in the middle of a swirling, chaotic mess. It happens.

If you don't want to use them, fine. There's plenty of other ways to play the game, and you should use the ones you feel most comfortable with. But don't just chuck out the Maelstrom missions entirely.

As for the cards you can't possibly achieve because they're literally impossible, I'd recommend agreeing with your opponent to discard those cards or reroll such results for the battle.

[Lord Asterion]

So you havent played any Maelstrom games yet but you "discuss" the topic. Mhm...
Flashnews. What you describe is no Maelstrom game.

Which part of "I've played 4 Maelstrom of War Missions" did you misconstrue into thinking I've not played any?

The Maelstrom of War games are exactly that, i surge to grab the objective I have the cards for, maybe moving forward some troops to try and deny my opponent his, he has to kill my Warlord too, do I risk moving him forward when I know he's going to go all out to kill him this turn? do i move my Warlord to try and draw my opponent forward?

They've all been exciting and fun and fluid so far. Maybe I just have better opponents though.

[daboarder]

The best way to use the maelstrom missions is in conjunction with the eternal war missions. Simply draw 3 cards each side at the beginning of the game then thats it.

Starting positive.

Yeah I agree, this is how I was thinking of suggesting we play next time. 3 player (or game if you want) specific secondary objectives that can be completed throughout the game.

And yeah we pretty much agreed from the get go that unplayable cards (but they had to be unplayable, fliers in reserve didnt count as unplayable if you got the destroy a flier card etc) get re-drawn.

I'd even take this one step further and keep the tac objectives secret and they get revealed during the game as they are completed.

That could be really really fun.


If you're getting the same objective multiple times, you're not reading the rules properly.

And they can be narrative, your force is getting through orders as the battle rages. You just have to use your imagination.

As I said, you have to use your imagination, your force is receiving orders, things change in the heat of battle and you have to accomplish different things.

And once your opponent figures out how to get more objectives and avoid getting tabled, then you'll lose.

I'm sorry that you don't like adapting the game to the new missions, stick to the old ones, but I enjoy them and they change the game up.

you have to use your imagination for ANY narrative gaming, because at the end of the day these are little plastic soldiers.

Heres the thing.

Narrative games are games where the participants (players) naturally behave as they would if the situation were real life. Asymmetry is the core of narrative gaming, but it must be defined asymmetry. Missions that either establish the narrative through their objectives or missions that grant bonuses to each army for different styles of play are narrative gaming.

The more you have to "imagine" a reason for out of character behaviour, the less narrative and more jarring the game.
And Maelstrom games are disgustingly jarring.

edit: And Asterion, take your veiled attacks and jog off, either discuss or go away, but stop trying to make sly passes at people


But that 'is' exactly what the guard are expected to do without question in 40k. And come to that even Eldar listen to their farseer w/out question, even when said objective seems absurd, Tau well just Tau, the 'Greater Good' and all that nonsense, Nids don't care, Chaos is chaos, definition of Chaos means random. Dark Eldar probly wouldn't give a flying 2 fingered salute for objectives in reality anyhow, and Orks... Well just point' em at the fight and forget it. And I'm sorry but WWI especially was just that, and more often than not in war generals do send troops to certain death for meaningless objectives. Like I said, war is a series of screw ups until one side makes one less screw up.

Wanna re-try that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory


future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved

chaos does not equal random, it never has.

As to the topic on hand, the fluidity SHOULD be coming from reacting to your opponent not running around like a loony because the shiney is over there this turn

[silashand]

As to the topic on hand, the fluidity SHOULD be coming from reacting to your opponent not running around like a loony because the shiney is over there this turn

This +1.

[sfshilo]

Split the cards up.

Get rid of the d3 ones.

Get rid of the objective ones.

Get rid of secondary objectives.

Use the remaining cards as secondary objectives.

Enjoy.

[deinol]

I notice nobody is saying which maelstrom missions they've tried. There are six of them. I found it interesting the different ways the objective cards could be used to give different missions different feels. On the Independent Characters podcast they talked about perhaps letting players build their own deck, which would allow you to tailor your objectives. I haven't had a chance to get them to a table yet, but it seems like they could be a useful tool. Even if not all the book Maelstrom missions work out, there are a lot of possibilities to use them for more dynamic play.

[Lord Asterion]

I notice nobody is saying which maelstrom missions they've tried. There are six of them. I found it interesting the different ways the objective cards could be used to give different missions different feels. On the Independent Characters podcast they talked about perhaps letting players build their own deck, which would allow you to tailor your objectives. I haven't had a chance to get them to a table yet, but it seems like they could be a useful tool. Even if not all the book Maelstrom missions work out, there are a lot of possibilities to use them for more dynamic play.

I think my favourite was the one where you keep them secret, that was really fun!

Thats an interesting concept, maybe you could do it by the type on the cards/table?

[Domine Nox]

I feel the maelstrom objectives are much more representative of narrative play than the standard missions. Your command says "Go retrieve X." You retrieve it, tell command it is secured, they then inform you they got word that there is a powerful psyker in the area for you to take out, etc. It represents a more ongoing form of battle rather than "Go to that crash site and hold it until backup arrives."

As to the claims of people winning in the first turn or 2 because of lucky cards. Is that really any different than your opponent getting lucky and taking all your troops out so you couldn't score objectives in 6th? Or to a degree in the current edition since troops can't be contested except by other troops. Luck will always play in a degree at some point in some games. In the few games of Maelstrom I've played I have really liked the twist that the objectives provide because it makes the game about much more than who can most effectively sit on something, or steal it on the last turn.

[NockerGeek]

Watched a game with them today. Good idea, horrible execution. Between drawing the same card multiple times (that the player who had them could not achieve) to awarding duplicate results for something accomplished in prior turns (d3 VPs for killing the enemy warlord - one player got that twice and ended up with 5VPs because of it). Ultimately the player who started the game with the best hand won, even though the same player had no infantry left and only a couple active vehicles. We will not be using them as written going forward.

One proposal we came up with was to draw 3 and have them apply to both players. First one to accomplish the objective got the requisite VPs. Also, no duplicates. If they come up, just draw a different card. No idea if any of these ideas would help, but almost anything is better than the rules in the book :(.

And in case anyone was in any doubt, Invisibility is just stupid. Way overpowered as written.

Just curious, but how did a single player get the same objective multiple times in one game (such as getting the d3 for killing the enemy warlord twice; I get that the hold-objective cards are triplicated, but those should always be theoretically achievable)? You're only ever supposed to get an objective generated once, whether by cards or by dice (p.136).

[Peter Hoff]

Me and my mates played a couple of games of them but I'd have to play more to have an opinion but it does seem like a lot of book keeping as you try to keep track of points what tactics are active and what have been discarded and what ones have previously been active I can see why you need the cards but both players need them.

[Harley]

Oh something in a GW game is broken? Clearly they intended it that way! It's narrative! They do no wrong!

[silashand]

Just curious, but how did a single player get the same objective multiple times in one game (such as getting the d3 for killing the enemy warlord twice; I get that the hold-objective cards are triplicated, but those should always be theoretically achievable)? You're only ever supposed to get an objective generated once, whether by cards or by dice (p.136).

Hmmm... must've missed the once per game part. The hold objective ones came up multiple times for both players (but only once each as I recall), but in all cases they granted VPs primarily to one player who happened to be sitting on the right one at that time. *Very* random and hardly what I would call "narrative" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Dave Mcturk]

not bought into 7th yet. but seen a few games played and some online batreps.
seems to me each group of players need to agree how to use the 'cards'!

but my simple solution with absolutely no in depth knowledge is to allow each player to draw a card each turn - yes only one card - and either 'keep' or discard in a following turn: once the 'objective' is made a player can 'redraw' a second card. this adds some random element but s unlikely to be game breaking : [which for comparison 1st kill can sometimes be!], at higher points level perhaps the 'draw' could be 2 or even three cards.

but im not a green womble
so what do i know!

[dmthomas7]

Another important concept to understand these objectives as narrative is that turns are not minutes long in your toy soldiers world. Turns are several hours long. over the course if that time it is easy to imagine that objectives would change and your commanders assessed needs have been altered. Take a few of these objectives and actually put a story to them to create your own narrative. Perhaps though your objective says just to kill a character in a challenge, it is vital to kill key members of the enemies leadership to attempt to demoralize your foe. Maybe to weaken your opponents defensive position it is important to destroy key structures on the battlefield. It takes a little creativity but if you want to make a narrative you can create one. Simply stop trying to nit pick the entire thing And creating excuses for why you didn't win your game. Deep down this is a game of skill and luck. The dice control a great deal more of this game then we often like to admit. Also there are more missions that don't use the cards. If you don't like them, don't use them and stop complaining.

[DarkLink]

I notice nobody is saying which maelstrom missions they've tried. There are six of them. I found it interesting the different ways the objective cards could be used to give different missions different feels. On the Independent Characters podcast they talked about perhaps letting players build their own deck, which would allow you to tailor your objectives. I haven't had a chance to get them to a table yet, but it seems like they could be a useful tool. Even if not all the book Maelstrom missions work out, there are a lot of possibilities to use them for more dynamic play.

There aren't any meaningful differences between the missions, at least nothing that affects the basic fact that it doesnt actually matter what happens on the table (unless you table your opponent), it only matters which cards you draw.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

One of the mechanics in many of the missions is how many cards you can have in a turn, however; you can't claim that has no effect on which cards you get. More cards gives you a better chance of a non-useless draw, no...?

[Thaldin]

Even if a(n) objective/card can be used only one, there are objectives/cards with the exact same mission on them. The only difference is the "Type" of mission, that at far as anyone can see, isn't being used right now. So you can have "capture x" with type "capture and control" and "capture x" with a completely different type.

[Ghostofman]

I suspect part of the evil plan is to get players to encourage each other to have (read: buy) a flier, super heavy, building, psyker, ect. in every army so that no card is impossible...

Not saying I like it, just saying that seems like the kind of thing GW would pull these days.

[Harley]

I suspect part of the evil plan is to get players to encourage each other to have (read: buy) a flier, super heavy, building, psyker, ect. in every army so that no card is impossible...

Not saying I like it, just saying that seems like the kind of thing GW would pull these days.

Nailed it... but oh wait, you also must buy as many psykers as possible so you can make your entire army invisible. And codex so you can ally and get more!

[daboarder]

One of the mechanics in many of the missions is how many cards you can have in a turn, however; you can't claim that has no effect on which cards you get. More cards gives you a better chance of a non-useless draw, no...?

What Darklink means is that all the missions are determined by the draw of the cards, be it 6 down, 2 up, 3 hidden etc. At the end of the day the victory conditions are the same for all maelstrom missions in that they are dependent on the cards you draw. Therefore the conclusions we are drawing about behaviour are applicable to all missions as the only changing significant variable is the way you draw the cards. Compared to the Eternal war missions where you need to have played them all as their own experiment, because the scouring and the relic have drastically different win conditions you cannot use one to draw conclusions about the other.

[Brad Richards]

personally i liked the idea of the maelstrom missions but the execution is beyond terrible. one of the things im going to try is removing all the control objective x cards from the deck, and using the cards in the standard rulebook missions. Each player after both players have deployed would draw 5 cards with an option for 1 mulligan. those cards would be played as secondary objectives to whatever the primary objectives are. Going to playtest that this weekend

[DarkLink]

Right. With these missions, don't even bother actually playing the game unless you expect to table your opponent. There are two ways to win: 1) draw a better hand than your opponent, or 2) table your opponent. Since games don't generally end in tabling, you're really wasting your time putting models on the table. Save some time and just draw cards to find out who wins. Absolutely none of the mission variants do nothing to change any of this.

[Melon-neko]

We have played 1 game with the maelstrom rules (and 7th for that matter) and the cards were the only thing that made it a decent game. I played mono-nurgle daemons, my opponent played grey knights. I was pretty much impossible for me to use psychics (despite 11 levels). Anyway, I got better cards so managed to get some points despite getting almost tabled by turn 5.

Obviously, if my opponent hard the better hand I would have been beaten much worse, but I would rather have the chance for a close game than no chance at all.

Although, just one game. My opinion may change, just thought I'd throw out a different perspective. I never thought of them as "narrative gaming" and I generally ignore that phrase as marketing nonsense. I do like getting VP during the game and not just doing a power grab turn 5 & 6

[frantheman666]

I do disagree with this. I'm an Eldar Player and my main opponent is a marine player. What we have found is the best way to play the game is to try and think a turn ahead and to discard one card a turn, especially ones that would prove useless (eldar arnt going to sit within 12 inch of there own d-zone). You just need to adjust tactics on these types of missions, just like anything else. Also u need a balanced army to play them correctly. So unbound armies are pretty much useless in this mission type.

[Ghostofman]

personally i liked the idea of the maelstrom missions but the execution is beyond terrible. one of the things im going to try is removing all the control objective x cards from the deck, and using the cards in the standard rulebook missions. Each player after both players have deployed would draw 5 cards with an option for 1 mulligan. those cards would be played as secondary objectives to whatever the primary objectives are. Going to playtest that this weekend

I'm looking at things like "If an Objective is 100% unaccomplishable (kill the psyker vs. an opponent with no psykers ect.) discard and redraw, repeat until all objectives are accomplishable."

and

"Identical Capture and Control, Take and Hold, and Storm and Defend objectives cannot be accomplished in the same turn."


Seriously all the loose ends in this edition makes me wonder if it was actually playtested...

[Caitsidhe]

Seriously all the loose ends in this edition makes me wonder if it was actually playtested...

You are actually wondering about that? This edition of the game wasn't even on the calendar. It was kit-bashed together at the last minute after their last sales report because some people are desperate to hold on to their jobs. New editions always produce a sales bump (or have in the past) and this is intended to try and prevent a series of drops in profit. A bad report is one thing. Several in a row means someone is fired. They were not play tested, at least not by any standards the rest of us would accept.

This "edition" is nothing more than one page of Faqs and Errata they had been intending to post combined with a rewrite of the Psychic rules. Realizing that wasn't enough they threw these cards together so they could pretend they were giving us more missions. Lastly, they altered army configuration to try and get people to play double (or triple or whatever) force organization w/lots of allies. The community didn't embrace it in the previous attempt, so they tried to make it mandatory in practical reality.

[Ghostofman]

You are actually wondering about that? This edition of the game wasn't even on the calendar. It was kit-bashed together at the last minute after their last sales report because some people are desperate to hold on to their jobs. New editions always produce a sales bump (or have in the past) and this is intended to try and prevent a series of drops in profit. A bad report is one thing. Several in a row means someone is fired. They were not play tested, at least not by any standards the rest of us would accept.

This "edition" is nothing more than one page of Faqs and Errata they had been intending to post combined with a rewrite of the Psychic rules. Realizing that wasn't enough they threw these cards together so they could pretend they were giving us more missions. Lastly, they altered army configuration to try and get people to play double (or triple or whatever) force organization w/lots of allies. The community didn't embrace it in the previous attempt, so they tried to make it mandatory in practical reality.

I don't not believe you... But as a writer myself I think it's really strange that holes big enough to fly a thunderhawk through made it. The normal editing process and a lunch break should have brought up stuff like "So how's shadow in the warp work now?" Or "I play Tau, what am I supposed to do with the 'Harness the Warp' Objective?" That's the sort of thing that doesn't even need a real playtest, just an afternoon of spitballing during a copy editing session in the conference room.

I suppose it's possible that the editing staff doesn't actually play the game... perhaps they farm it out to India like UK Doctor's have been doing with medical transcription? (FYI, if you are Hypo or Hyper anything, make sure you're records got that one the right way round)

Also you forgot to mention that terrain is now either just plain open, difficult, impassible, or ruins unless it's a terrain kit GW sells... Even buildings aren't buildings unless it's got a corresponding datasheet that says so. That was the thing that screamed desperation to me.

[Lord Asterion]

You are actually wondering about that? This edition of the game wasn't even on the calendar. It was kit-bashed together at the last minute after their last sales report because some people are desperate to hold on to their jobs. New editions always produce a sales bump (or have in the past) and this is intended to try and prevent a series of drops in profit. A bad report is one thing. Several in a row means someone is fired. They were not play tested, at least not by any standards the rest of us would accept.

This "edition" is nothing more than one page of Faqs and Errata they had been intending to post combined with a rewrite of the Psychic rules. Realizing that wasn't enough they threw these cards together so they could pretend they were giving us more missions. Lastly, they altered army configuration to try and get people to play double (or triple or whatever) force organization w/lots of allies. The community didn't embrace it in the previous attempt, so they tried to make it mandatory in practical reality.

This is not at all true, their were codexes written with this in mind, the Eldar and AM one for example and they lead times are huge for these, this has been part of the plan for a long time and for good reason.

Stop being bitter and entitled. You've obviously never played this edition, same with DarkLink, or he wouldn't say such nonsense about it.

[Caitsidhe]

This is not at all true, their were codexes written with this in mind, the Eldar and AM one for example and they lead times are huge for these, this has been part of the plan for a long time and for good reason.

Then why was there now word of it? :D I disagree that the Eldar and AM appear written for this Codex. Please support this assertion with supporting evidence.


Stop being bitter and entitled. You've obviously never played this edition, same with DarkLink, or he wouldn't say such nonsense about it.

I feel neither bitter nor entitled. Games Workshop doesn't get my money. It hasn't for a long time. My toys have been built up through prize support, barter, ebay, and interesting new companies which seem to have wonderful sales. To be bitter, I would have to be a losing out. I merely comment on what I observe. I have, indeed, played fourteen games now in this "edition." As a general rule I won't comment much on something I haven't tried or tested. If you would like me to show some support for what I stated above I can:

1. Demonstrate that the various Faq & Errata which simply modify 6th Edition do all fit on a single page. *MOST of the game is exactly the same as 6th.
2. I can point you to the exact dates when rumors of this "edition" first appeared and how they seem to correlate with a bad financial report.
3. I can indicate the dates and thus count the months they had to throw this together.

I can also go back to 6th Edition and point out Double Foci and Allies which they set at kicking in at 2K+ games. The intent was clearly to encourage larger size games and get people to invest in additional armies. To their shock and surprise, the community simply (on the whole) adopted playing lower point games. Lo' and behold, this time around they removed the 2K+ requirement. Again, this is an attempt to improve sales. I do not blame for that but I don't think they are taking several things into consideration:

1. The community rejected their last attempt.
2. Nobody has to buy ANYTHING first hand from Games Workshop anymore (and why would they)?
3. Many people already own what they need or can barter or CONVERT it.

There is the real world of business and there is the fairy tale world of fanboys. If you want to know how or why someone (or something like a company) does something you need merely to look at the profit motive. I am not passing judgement here, merely pointing out how the real world works. Sales declined. A new edition appeared without warning. It was done at rapid speed and clearly without any play testing at all (there really wasn't time).

[Cap'nSmurfs]

The "hashed together at the last minute" explanation can't be correct: 7th ed. integrates too many things we've been seeing since at least the release of Apocalypse (Dataslates, Supplements (with variant lists like Farsight Enclaves or Inquisitorial Detachments, which didn't have Troops), Escalation and Stronghold Assault). This edition's been in gestation for at least a year. "After the financial report" is too slight a window, and the dots of all the last year or so's releases join too neatly for 7th to have been a last-minute rushjob.

I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not.

[Harley]

I don't not believe you... But as a writer myself I think it's really strange that holes big enough to fly a thunderhawk through made it. The normal editing process and a lunch break should have brought up stuff like "So how's shadow in the warp work now?" Or "I play Tau, what am I supposed to do with the 'Harness the Warp' Objective?" That's the sort of thing that doesn't even need a real playtest, just an afternoon of spitballing during a copy editing session in the conference room

Welcome to Warhammer. Players have been saying these things for many years only now it seems to be at new, absurd levels. There have always been gaping holes in the rules with unanswered questions like "Can Deathrays shoot into combat" "What happens if Whip Coils make GKs Init1 but Warpspeed makes them Init10?"...

Now we are dealing with "Hey, is the primaris power for Sanctic powers WC1 or 3?". Simple questions that anyone reading the books and cards would ask. Simple questions which the cobbled together FAQ doesn't answer.


The "hashed together at the last minute" explanation can't be correct: 7th ed. integrates too many things we've been seeing since at least the release of Apocalypse (Dataslates, Supplements (with variant lists like Farsight Enclaves or Inquisitorial Detachments, which didn't have Troops), Escalation and Stronghold Assault). This edition's been in gestation for at least a year. "After the financial report" is too slight a window, and the dots of all the last year or so's releases join too neatly for 7th to have been a last-minute rushjob.

I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not.

7th edition has finally reached what 40k has been careening toward since 5th edition which is Apocalypse as norm. Flyers and Skyfire, Superheavies, D Weapons, Unbound, allies sharing transports... all of these were in Apoc 5th edition and GW wants that as standard play because it becomes an arms/buying race for models.

[Caitsidhe]

The "hashed together at the last minute" explanation can't be correct: 7th ed. integrates too many things we've been seeing since at least the release of Apocalypse (Dataslates, Supplements (with variant lists like Farsight Enclaves or Inquisitorial Detachments, which didn't have Troops), Escalation and Stronghold Assault). This edition's been in gestation for at least a year. "After the financial report" is too slight a window, and the dots of all the last year or so's releases join too neatly for 7th to have been a last-minute rushjob.

I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not.

Actually, you are kind of proving my point. All they did (because they had so little time) was combine the stuff they had been releasing and add a PAGE of Faq/Errata that was going to be released at some point for 6th. If you are correct (rather than me) the implications are even FUNNIER. That means that the new edition was "in gestation" barely a year after the release of 6th. :D Does that make them sound any less BAD?

[Harley]

Actually, you are kind of proving my point. All they did (because they had so little time) was combine the stuff they had been releasing and add a PAGE of Faq/Errata that was going to be released at some point for 6th. If you are correct (rather than me) the implications are even FUNNIER. That means that the new edition was "in gestation" barely a year after the release of 6th. :D Does that make them sound any less BAD?

I don't buy that. I think it's deliberate, not a mistake of a rushed project. Take 5th edition, add in Apocalypse and Imperial Armour rules, throw in the new Psychic phase and whalla, you have 7th edition.

[Caitsidhe]

Let's put things in perspective shall we? I have listed the two release dates of 6th and 7th Edition below:

Sixth Edition was released on the 23rd of June, 2012.
7th Edition had a release date of May 24th, 2014.

That means we are one month shy of two years between editions. :D Let that swirl around in your mouth a bit. How does that taste? Then consider the fact that this newest edition was either:

1. Thrown together in a short period of time, let's say six month or so....
2. Or it has been thoughtfully planned out and designed for over a year.

Swish that around in your mouth. Which of those tastes better to you? :)

1. That they foisted a new edition on us that they threw together in six months by simply consolidating the books you already bought and added a mere page of Faqs? :D
2. Or that the ink was barely dry on 6th Edition when they were already designing and preparing 7th to pick your pocket again (using almost identical rules)?

Now, I don't want to go off on a tangent, but being someone who has worked in the College environment for a number of years (and many of us experienced this as students as well), I can't help but notice the possible similarity to the "textbook scam" wherein a new version of the book is put out every year to two years wherein they have shuffled chapters and changed just enough to try and force you to buy the newer edition. So what is your poison?

Do you like the idea that they threw this together and charged us for it?

Or do you like the fact that they planned to pick your pocket several times over?

[DarkLink]

This is not at all true, their were codexes written with this in mind, the Eldar and AM one for example and they lead times are huge for these, this has been part of the plan for a long time and for good reason.

Stop being bitter and entitled. You've obviously never played this edition, same with DarkLink, or he wouldn't say such nonsense about it.

You do realize I have, in fact, played 7th edition. I specifically mention doing so earlier in the thread. It would also do you well to understand that people are allowed to hold a different opinion than you do, and it doesn't make them bad people for doing so. You are not the center of the universe.

[Harley]

Do you like the idea that they threw this together and charged us for it?

Or do you like the fact that they planned to pick your pocket several times over?

Meh, screw that. As has been said, don't give GW your money. Get a tablet to run .epub versions of the books or even print them out in a binder at the library/work. Buy your models from friends, eBay, discounters like Spiky Bits or Miniature Market, other miniature lines or make your own.

Still enjoy the game, fluff and good times modelling, painting and playing because 40k is more than GW's cash cow and we can make it our own.

[Caitsidhe]

Meh, screw that. As has been said, don't give GW your money. Get a tablet to run .epub versions of the books or even print them out in a binder at the library/work. Buy your models from friends, eBay, discounters like Spiky Bits or Miniature Market, other miniature lines or make your own.

Still enjoy the game, fluff and good times modelling, painting and playing because 40k is more than GW's cash cow and we can make it our own.

Sage advice. You and I are on the same page.

[Erik Setzer]

Also u need a balanced army to play them correctly. So unbound armies are pretty much useless in this mission type.

Not necessarily. Depends on the type of Unbound army. I used an Unbound army and did pretty decent, actually pulled out a win at the last moment in a close back-and-forth match in the last one (but I had to wreck a couple Troops squads to do it).

Granted, my army wasn't something like "ten Riptides," it was:

Chapter Master in Terminator Armor
Chaplain in Terminator Armor
Librarian in Terminator Armor
5 Terminators with Assault Cannon
5 Terminators with Cyclone Missile Launcher
6 Assault Terminators with two Thunder Hammers
Land Raider
Land Raider Crusader with multi melta
Dreadnought with twin-linked lascannon and Dreadnought CCW
Dreadnought with twin-linked lascannon and missile launcher
(2000 points)

The Land Raiders let me move my Terminators up quickly (the Chapter Master and Chaplain were with the Assault squad in the LRC), and I kept moving around the table constantly, moving to grab objectives while focusing fire to take down units that could hold over mine.

Granted, as Unbound armies go, that's not exactly "unbalanced," but it *is* Unbound. Not all Unbound armies will be insane messes, though.

[Lord Asterion]

You do realize I have, in fact, played 7th edition. I specifically mention doing so earlier in the thread. It would also do you well to understand that people are allowed to hold a different opinion than you do, and it doesn't make them bad people for doing so. You are not the center of the universe.

I am sorry but I don't think that's true, or you wouldn't think that they were that bad.

- - - Updated - - -


Sage advice. You and I are on the same page.

So, you're both thieves. Good to know.

[Erik Setzer]

This is not at all true, their were codexes written with this in mind, the Eldar and AM one for example and they lead times are huge for these, this has been part of the plan for a long time and for good reason.

Stop being bitter and entitled. You've obviously never played this edition, same with DarkLink, or he wouldn't say such nonsense about it.

Um. NO. And I have played the edition. And the FAQs basically back it.

First off, claiming the Eldar book was done with this edition in mind is hilarious. There's no word on how Ghosthelms actually work, so to make it feel fair, I agreed to have to roll a 4+ to generate a warp charge to discard, rather than just chucking a dice from the pool. The FAQ doesn't even cover this glaring issue. Ditto for the wording of Eldrad's staff, that was done with 6th edition in mind, not a whole new way of doing powers.

Codex: Imperial Knights came out recently. You know what its FAQ basically says? "Ignore all the rules in this book except the Errant and Paladin entry and the rules for Knight ranks." Seriously. All the super-heavy rules, D weapons, etc., you're told to ignore them and use the new rulebook. Why the heck would they have to do that? Wouldn't you, you know, change the rules in that book to match what you're about to release?

There are a number of issues, and it is indeed painfully obvious that this edition wasn't in the works for months. Otherwise, Escalation and Stronghold Assault come across as even worse desperation moves, since the new rulebook stomps all over Escalation, to the point it straight up says that the rules to balance a Lord of War in a standard game are only used now if you're playing Escalation missions. So if you already have the Apoc book with all the datasheets in Escalation, you can just skip buying that book because most people aren't going to bother playing the Escalation missions. Stronghold Assault is only being bought by anyone now because they left the rules for things like Aegis lines out of the rulebook in order to make you have to buy SA to use it still.

There's too many issues that show a lack of playtesting and even proofreading in places.

I've played a few games of 7th edition so far and watched people play a lot more. I've gone over the book repeatedly. While I've enjoyed playing, I know it was rushed out without proper time to test or edit. What pisses me off is that I know it's so close to being a really nice game, but falls short because they wanted to get it out ASAP to get those precious sales onto their midterm financial report (and given the preorders I saw, it's going to be a hefty shot in the arm just in time to appease the investors).

[Caitsidhe]

I am sorry but I don't think that's true, or you wouldn't think that they were that bad.

- - - Updated - - -



So, you're both thieves. Good to know.

You have such wonderful people skills and manners. So Darklink is a liar and Harley and I are thieves? :D I'll bet you are a joy to play too. In fairness to Harley, he didn't once say to do anything illegal. All of his advice is absolutely legal and ethical. He did not say pirate copies. He said get a tablet and use epubs which are cheaper to buy than the book. Making your own models and bartering for them cheaper is also wel within acceptable behavior.

[Erik Setzer]

The "hashed together at the last minute" explanation can't be correct: 7th ed. integrates too many things we've been seeing since at least the release of Apocalypse (Dataslates, Supplements (with variant lists like Farsight Enclaves or Inquisitorial Detachments, which didn't have Troops), Escalation and Stronghold Assault). This edition's been in gestation for at least a year. "After the financial report" is too slight a window, and the dots of all the last year or so's releases join too neatly for 7th to have been a last-minute rushjob.

I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not.

Really? Really? You do realize Escalation just grabbed the rules for Super-heavies from Apoc, and the rulebook discards pretty much everything else in Escalation? It's also remarkable easy to copy and paste rules from various books, i.e. grab the building rules from Stronghold Assault. The "dataslate rules" are simply a few lines saying you can use formations from them in any army... which doesn't take any kind of "months ahead planning" to toss in. The book freaking stomps all over the rules in the Imperial Knights codex.

You're trying way too hard to push the angle, to an extreme opposite of reality. And BTW, Escalation, Stronghold Assault, the original dataslates? Those were also quick moves to pump out lots of money fast and move big boxes that weren't selling as well as they'd hoped (super-heavies, fortifications, the Christmas boxed sets). Once they realized they could quickly and easily churn those out for money, they started making more of them. Fair enough, digital makes it easy to get money quickly.

And it doesn't take that long to print this stuff either, or toss together a quick and simple digital file.

Also, if 7th edition had been in production that long, not only would it not have problems with recent releases, but we'd have heard about it sooner.

[daboarder]

Guys just report asterion. Dont feed him

[DarkLink]

I am sorry but I don't think that's true, or you wouldn't think that they were that bad.


Oops, you've found me out. I'm actually secretly plotting to undermine everyone's confidence in the new and completely unquestionably utterly perfectly impeccably artistically balanced malestrom missions so that I can continue curbstomping noobz with the old eternal war missions with my unpainted waac armies. Guess I'll have to take my diabolical plotting to another forum now.

[bbutlerau]

Ok lets turn this back to actually discussing the Maelstrom missions and less GW bashing please. (yes we get it you are unhappy, god forbid someone else isn't)
I'm the guy who daboarder was playing on the weekend. One moment to point out the ADD approach of these missions is where there was an objective worth 3PV at the time (some lucky rolling on daboarder's part) in run range of a defiler, however my Belial and his command squad was also within change range. Either would have given daboarder the win as I was only 1VP ahead on last turn. daboarder went for the kill as "#^@# it I'm Chaos, DIE MOFO!" was more fun and poetic rather than the lame run to the shiny. sadly the charge roll was wiffed (where are your chaos gods now?) and I ended up winning with just 5 terminators on the board as i had run around most of the time capping stuff.... oooo FUN

We definitely need to come up with some kind of balance. a randomness middle ground

[Erik Setzer]

Yeah, sorry, but for those claiming the missions aren't fun, I'd challenge that a lot of what I'm seeing with standard missions isn't fun. It's an entirely viable tactic to load up a gunline, stick it behind an Aegis, and just shoot your opponent off the table without ever moving. One guy bought a Tau army with that idea in mind and has been riding it to the top of the escalation league at the GW store, just bunkering down with his 4+ cover save and blasting everything (and, being a league, you can't change lists between opponents, so you can't try to tailor a list for that). But even in other games, I see things like a Space Wolf army with an Aegis line or a Fortress of Redemption and a bunch of Long Fang squads, and they just sit there in their cover on the board edge firing masses of heavy weapons without moving. Or last night, an Eldar army that deployed in one corner and just shot up the incoming army.

That's BORING.

But in standard missions, they can do that. They can easily get First Blood, probably even Slay the Warlord. If they absolutely need to grab an objective, they can dash out at the end of the game to do that, especially as vehicles can now claim objectives.

In Maelstrom of War missions, you can't stand back and be static. You have to be active, you have to fan out and be ready to react at a moment's notice.

The simple solution of discarding an objective that is entirely impossible to complete and immediately drawing/rolling another would solve the worst problem. Really, the only problem. Sure, anyone can get an "unlucky hand," but the best generals can still make the most of that, and in war, you're not always in the most ideal situation. Again, rolling something like "The Relic" when deployment is on the short table edges and your opponent has a gunline aimed at the middle of the table isn't any different, that's still an unlucky turn of luck that will set back certain armies a lot.

[Caitsidhe]

The issue is all of this is subjective garbage, which is why I leave the term "fun" out of it. If someone builds a gun line army, it is because they think that is cool. That may be how they visualize warfare (and in many cases they are correct). They might find it very fun to sit on their side of the board and blast you to powder while you try to close the distance. To them it might be like playing the old time arcade game Space Invaders. That can be loads of fun. If it was boring to them, they wouldn't do it. When it gets boring to them eventually, they will build something else.

Do you see where I'm going with this? More often than not, people who are losing against a particular build cry "this is no fun!" This comes back to my argument that I don't believe in the "non-competitive" gamer. Everyone is competitive, and it is (by our very nature's) more fun to win than to lose. It is also for this reason that I try to stay away from subjective arguments. Rules cannot be "fun" by default because "fun" isn't defined by rules but by the individuals playing the game at a given time. Rules can only be balanced or not. Your fun isn't the responsibility of the rules, nor is it your opponent's responsibility.

As with all things, personal responsibility is paramount. People who construct logistically unsound armies and/or play them with utter stupidity have ZERO right to complain about the game not being fun because they are losing (and losing badly). Scapegoating others for your own poor performance is a character flaw. Now, if the game is poorly designed and you built the best you could and played the best you could and it still made no difference, you have a legitimate gripe... against the GAME DESIGNERS. I still recall the last game of Warhammer Fantasy I played. It wasn't in the current edition but the one right prior. I was playing Wood Elves. My opponent was playing Chaos Daemons. I have a fairly optimal build, setup, and dice. My opponent simply walked directly toward me. His dice were average at best. He engaged in no tactics. He just walked directly toward me because he could. I did everything tactical I could but it made no difference. The disparity in the game design was too great. I didn't blame the other player. It wasn't his fault Games Workshop can't add 1+1 and get (2).

The Maelstrom Missions are random. I don't qualify them as fun or not fun. They are random and unbalanced. The winner, most of the time, is defined by the person who gets the better draw. Playing the lotto isn't fun. People don't do it because it is a hoot. They play the lotto because of the promise that they might win money. Making 40K a lottery game and minimizing the effect of skill and intelligence attempts to balance the RESULTS of the game rather than the game itself. Let me try to explain that:

1. Balanced Rules: In a balanced rules system, the winner of a game will be the one that played better. Dice are involved so there is always an element of chance, but this is subservient to the larger issue of what the players choose to do.

2. Unbalanced Rules: In an poorly written rules system, one side or the other generally has an advantage and depending on degree generally decides the winner.

3. Lottery Rules: It doesn't matter if the rest of the game is balanced or unbalanced because the outcome is largely determined by a factor which bypasses skill or built in mechanical advantage. Candyland (an American Board Game by Hasbro is a good example).

A five year old and an eighteen year old have the same chance of winning at Candyland because despite being very interactive (you spin the spinner and move your piece), there are no real choices that matter. It is entirely luck of the draw which has been stretched out to make the game go back and forth. This is, in fact, what the Maelstrom Missions are designed to do.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, there are some issues with the standard 40k missions. Malestrom missions don't really solve them, or, if they do, they bring new issues with them.

[Erik Setzer]

Once again, claiming "the winner is the person with the better draw" is silly, and ignores that you have a similar issue with the standard missions, which may suit one army better than another. Also, I won a game where I wasn't getting better draws, I just focused on taking objectives and making sure to knock my opponent off of them.

As for the gun line being that guy's idea of fun, I'm going to go with no. In the Tau player's case, he knows it's a powerful build and he wants to play a powerful list. He's used other builds, but always picks the nastiest thing he can find. With the Space Wolf player, he enjoys close combat, but he knows it's kind of a mess in the game unless you build an uber-squad like a Thunderwolf Cavalry unit he had in one game (which was also lucky enough to get a charge on turn 1... my fault, I suppose, for thinking that the chances of rolling double 6's for charging were too high, but then, I was barely standing during that game, too). He just knows that an army that stands in place and shoots the opponent to pieces is more effective in current 40K rules. If he had to maneuver to grab objectives, it would be difficult, and I could just focus on destroying those units, then worry about his fire base later, because he'd then either settle for losing or have to start walking with his heavy weapon toting guys, which is going to make them practically useless. So if you're playing Maelstrom of War, you have to design a more balanced list. That's something I like about them.

[Charon]

You can play the same gunline for maelstorm missions. You need no adjustment.
You will still hold the objectives on your side without moving. You dont need the ones on his side as he probably wont get yours.
The other objectives or "luck of the draw". Even if you play no gunline, the missions which tell you to win assaults and challenges are still next to impossible for the average Imperial Guard against the majority of other armies.
So you stick to the ones that you can do. Which leaves you to nothing but rely on luck.

[Caitsidhe]

You can play the same gunline for maelstorm missions. You need no adjustment.
You will still hold the objectives on your side without moving. You dont need the ones on his side as he probably wont get yours.
The other objectives or "luck of the draw". Even if you play no gunline, the missions which tell you to win assaults and challenges are still next to impossible for the average Imperial Guard against the majority of other armies.
So you stick to the ones that you can do. Which leaves you to nothing but rely on luck.

Nobody is arguing that Maelstrom Missions are harder for Gun Lines. My assertion is that the Maelstrom Missions are just Lottery based and that it really doesn't matter what style of armies fight each other.

[Erik Setzer]

Nobody is arguing that Maelstrom Missions are harder for Gun Lines. My assertion is that the Maelstrom Missions are just Lottery based and that it really doesn't matter what style of armies fight each other.

The basic missions are lottery based, too. So maybe just play without missions or objectives?

[Caitsidhe]

The basic missions are lottery based, too. So maybe just play without missions or objectives?

No, they aren't lottery based. The basic missions set objectives and people can work toward them. Both sides are aware of the objectives and they have a definite value. That is entirely different from me drawing a card that says I can score on the objectives that happens to be on my side already and you, unfortunately do not draw a card which allows you to do the same.

[Charon]

Nobody is arguing that Maelstrom Missions are harder for Gun Lines. My assertion is that the Maelstrom Missions are just Lottery based and that it really doesn't matter what style of armies fight each other.

My point was not that Maelstorm Missions are harder for gunlines. In fact gunlines have exactly the same advantages as with every other mission. You still have to come at them.
The only things they wont accomplish are the cc related ones. But it does not matter how you build them, they will never be good at solving the cc missions.
So it comes down to luck which cards are drawn. It is still the same car not matter what paint it has...

[John Bower]

Do you see where I'm going with this? More often than not, people who are losing against a particular build cry "this is no fun!" This comes back to my argument that I don't believe in the "non-competitive" gamer. Everyone is competitive, and it is (by our very nature's) more fun to win than to lose. QUOTE]

Ah see it depends on your opponent too, I've played 2 games of 7th, got hammered flat in both of them; and loved them much more than any game I ever even won in 5th. I never won in 6th so that doesn't count....

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Erik Setzer;427126]Yeah, sorry, but for those claiming the missions aren't fun, I'd challenge that a lot of what I'm seeing with standard missions isn't fun. It's an entirely viable tactic to load up a gunline, stick it behind an Aegis, and just shoot your opponent off the table without ever moving. One guy bought a Tau army with that idea in mind and has been riding it to the top of the escalation league at the GW store, just bunkering down with his 4+ cover save and blasting everything (and, being a league, you can't change lists between opponents, so you can't try to tailor a list for that). But even in other games, I see things like a Space Wolf army with an Aegis line or a Fortress of Redemption and a bunch of Long Fang squads, and they just sit there in their cover on the board edge firing masses of heavy weapons without moving. Or last night, an Eldar army that deployed in one corner and just shot up the incoming army.

That's BORING.

But in standard missions, they can do that. They can easily get First Blood, probably even Slay the Warlord. If they absolutely need to grab an objective, they can dash out at the end of the game to do that, especially as vehicles can now claim objectives.

In Maelstrom of War missions, you can't stand back and be static. You have to be active, you have to fan out and be ready to react at a moment's notice.

The simple solution of discarding an objective that is entirely impossible to complete and immediately drawing/rolling another would solve the worst problem. Really, the only problem. Sure, anyone can get an "unlucky hand," but the best generals can still make the most of that, and in war, you're not always in the most ideal situation. Again, rolling something like "The Relic" when deployment is on the short table edges and your opponent has a gunline aimed at the middle of the table isn't any different, that's still an unlucky turn of luck that will set back certain armies a lot.

I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly but if I'm not please let me know. This sounds as if you think that being allowed to dump an objective you can't get would solve the problem? You can, it's in the rules. At the end of your turn the only objectives you 'cannot' discard are actual 'on table' objectives, the marker ones numbered 1 to 6, you may discard any others you see fit, and replace them.

[DarkLink]

You're not looking at things over the long run

Let's have a hypothetical example for simplicity's sake. Player 1 has his 3 objectives. He draws the cards for each of those objectives, and scores 3 points immediately. There's nothing that his opponent can meaningfully do to stop this, since you can't move or whatnot on your opponent's turn. Next turn, he draws 3 more objectives he can easily claim, and the next turn, and so on. Assume that even if you, say, contest one of his objectives, he instead draws 'declare a challenge', so he charges a throwaway unit in and declares and gets his points just as easily. Over the course of the game, he gets 15+pts, for no cost or effort other than drawing the right card at the right time.

Meanwhile, you get wothless cards you can't achieve for multiple turns. You immediately start the game at -3pts, and you can only ditch one, so even if your new draw is good, the other two crappy cards means t2 you're at -5 at best. T3 you're at -6, and that's assuming you can play your new draws. You can't prevent your opponent from claiming his lucky draws, and so there's nothing you can do to prevent him from maintaining his lead, so your only possible hope of victory is to table your opponent.

If you can't see where the issue with the system is with that, I can't dumb it down any more than that.

[Caitsidhe]

You're not looking at things over the long run

Let's have a hypothetical example for simplicity's sake. Player 1 has his 3 objectives. He draws the cards for each of those objectives, and scores 3 points immediately. There's nothing that his opponent can meaningfully do to stop this, since you can't move or whatnot on your opponent's turn. Next turn, he draws 3 more objectives he can easily claim, and the next turn, and so on. Assume that even if you, say, contest one of his objectives, he instead draws 'declare a challenge', so he charges a throwaway unit in and declares and gets his points just as easily. Over the course of the game, he gets 15+pts, for no cost or effort other than drawing the right card at the right time.

Meanwhile, you get wothless cards you can't achieve for multiple turns. You immediately start the game at -3pts, and you can only ditch one, so even if your new draw is good, the other two crappy cards means t2 you're at -5 at best. T3 you're at -6, and that's assuming you can play your new draws. You can't prevent your opponent from claiming his lucky draws, and so there's nothing you can do to prevent him from maintaining his lead, so your only possible hope of victory is to table your opponent.

If you can't see where the issue with the system is with that, I can't dumb it down any more than that.

What you just described is almost exactly what happened during my last 2.5K game against Dark Angels. :D He had 9pts by Turn-3. :D I had 3pts by the same. Every other card I drew was impossible in our game or improbable. He continued to get points that didn't require him to move. I gave up and just tabled him. I would rather have not been put in the position of being a jerk but that was all that was left.

[deinol]

A lot of these problems would be fixed if you didn't redraw completed objectives. Say you start with two cards, and draw one at the beginning of each turn. You can discard and redraw one card at the end of the turn as normal. But the entirety of the game, you'd both only have 2+number of turns cards to complete. You'd also have a lot more time over the course of the battle to accomplish some of the harder ones.

Then also give 2 VP per objective at the end of the game. Plus standard secondaries (line breaker, slay the warlord, first blood).

It really seems to be the complete = redraw churn that throws the card system way out of balance.

[daboarder]

A lot of these problems would be fixed if you didn't redraw completed objectives. Say you start with two cards, and draw one at the beginning of each turn. You can discard and redraw one card at the end of the turn as normal. But the entirety of the game, you'd both only have 2+number of turns cards to complete. You'd also have a lot more time over the course of the battle to accomplish some of the harder ones.

Then also give 2 VP per objective at the end of the game. Plus standard secondaries (line breaker, slay the warlord, first blood).

It really seems to be the complete = redraw churn that throws the card system way out of balance.

There are many ways to "fix" the maelstrom games, and the fact that anyone with half a brain can readily identify the issues is tragic. But as for posting idea, please feel free to post them in the other thread. the more the merrier.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45735-Maelstrom-Missions-Lets-Make-Em-Narrative

Please do take the time to comment

[Dave Mcturk]

There are many ways to "fix" the maelstrom games, and the fact that anyone with half a brain can readily identify the issues is tragic. But as for posting idea, please feel free to post them in the other thread. the more the merrier.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45735-Maelstrom-Missions-Lets-Make-Em-Narrative

Please do take the time to comment

starting to think im not going to bother with 7th. just house rule everything and play our own games. if everyone did that the green wombles would go into receivership and the new owners mite sort it ?

[daboarder]

starting to think im not going to bother with 7th. just house rule everything and play our own games. if everyone did that the green wombles would go into receivership and the new owners mite sort it ?

Too many sheep.

But this edition has me embracing house rules thats for sure. Hell if I get the time I might even try and make a community edition (ala Necromunda) as there are a number of simple changes, questions and tweaks that would make the game so much better

[Caitsidhe]

Too many sheep.

But this edition has me embracing house rules thats for sure. Hell if I get the time I might even try and make a community edition (ala Necromunda) as there are a number of simple changes, questions and tweaks that would make the game so much better

I'm all for it. :D We need a national organization made up of the organizers in different areas to hash it out. :D

[daboarder]

I'm all for it. :D We need a national organization made up of the organizers in different areas to hash it out. :D

Honestly, looking at how it worked in necromunda, its basically just one bloke putting the effort into modifying a PDF that includes the popular opinion on erratta in it. Along with some changes (that he then adds his thoughts on)

[Caitsidhe]

Honestly, looking at how it worked in necromunda, its basically just one bloke putting the effort into modifying a PDF that includes the popular opinion on erratta in it. Along with some changes (that he then adds his thoughts on)

<chuckles> And the sooner the better... we are only days away from "invisible" Knights, Bane Blades, Lords of War.... and Deathstars.

[Erik Setzer]

I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly but if I'm not please let me know. This sounds as if you think that being allowed to dump an objective you can't get would solve the problem? You can, it's in the rules. At the end of your turn the only objectives you 'cannot' discard are actual 'on table' objectives, the marker ones numbered 1 to 6, you may discard any others you see fit, and replace them.

Oh, I mean different from how that works. As the game rules go, you can discard one card per turn, at the end of your turn. My thinking is that two civilized gentlemen (or gamers, whatever) should be able to agree to just immediately discard and re-do any result (card or roll) that is literally impossible to do in the course of the battle. As long as both players can do it, that'd be reasonably fair.

- - - Updated - - -


Too many sheep.

But this edition has me embracing house rules thats for sure. Hell if I get the time I might even try and make a community edition (ala Necromunda) as there are a number of simple changes, questions and tweaks that would make the game so much better

I won't plug my own site with a link, but I will say that I finally got around today to writing up something that is basically a reminder to the audience that this is our game and we should feel free to do with it what we want. People like to compare it to Rogue Trader, and the original RT basically told you to make up your own rules for all kinds of stuff. They still had rules in Chapter Approved for making your own vehicles in 3rd (and/or 4th?) edition, as well as a bunch of test rules. Back in the late '90s, early 2000s (seems like forever now), most of the GW-based websites on the Internet were based around ideas for house rules and all kinds of other stuff (yeah, people even made up rules for their own armies back then, and some folks would freely play against them). While it's unlikely to find someone willing to play a homebrew Squat army list outside of, say, a club these days, there's no reason people can't make up house rules for other things. Not just tweaking the rules, but also adding new elements to the game, i.e. "dynamic terrain" (yep, already wrote something on that, too, and I want to find someone to test it with me).

We should totally be embracing house rules and such. If GW's going to tell us that they're given us the most basic set of generic guidelines for "how to use your collection of Citadel miniatures," then let's roll with that and make the game our own.

[daboarder]

Oh, I mean different from how that works. As the game rules go, you can discard one card per turn, at the end of your turn. My thinking is that two civilized gentlemen (or gamers, whatever) should be able to agree to just immediately discard and re-do any result (card or roll) that is literally impossible to do in the course of the battle. As long as both players can do it, that'd be reasonably fair.

Thats pretty much the first house rule everyone makes with the cards, pretty much every report you've read here has that stipulation

[Erik Setzer]

<chuckles> And the sooner the better... we are only days away from "invisible" Knights, Bane Blades, Lords of War.... and Deathstars.

"Days away"? A major tournament coming up or something? I mean, that stuff's all possible already.

Heck, I'm going to be dragging pretty much all of my Ork stuff up to the GW store Saturday (hooray for friends offering the use of their vehicles!) to try some silliness, like Orks with Daemonology powers and a Stompa in a basic game of 40K (which I totally don't have to ask my opponent to use).

Don't forget formations. With my Orks, I can take a bunch of Deff Dreads and Killa Kans on the side not counting toward my Heavy Support, and they get It Will Not Die as well as a roll on a chart that at worst now gives them nothing (since all walkers get Hammer of Wrath anyway) but could end up giving them such goodness as a 5+ inv. save as well as IWND. Yeah, that's going to be fun...

[daboarder]

Don't forget formations. With my Orks, I can take a bunch of Deff Dreads and Killa Kans on the side not counting toward my Heavy Support, and they get It Will Not Die as well as a roll on a chart that at worst now gives them nothing (since all walkers get Hammer of Wrath anyway) but could end up giving them such goodness as a 5+ inv. save as well as IWND. Yeah, that's going to be fun...
huh? what formation is that?

[Caitsidhe]

"Days away"? A major tournament coming up or something? I mean, that stuff's all possible already.

Heck, I'm going to be dragging pretty much all of my Ork stuff up to the GW store Saturday (hooray for friends offering the use of their vehicles!) to try some silliness, like Orks with Daemonology powers and a Stompa in a basic game of 40K (which I totally don't have to ask my opponent to use).

Don't forget formations. With my Orks, I can take a bunch of Deff Dreads and Killa Kans on the side not counting toward my Heavy Support, and they get It Will Not Die as well as a roll on a chart that at worst now gives them nothing (since all walkers get Hammer of Wrath anyway) but could end up giving them such goodness as a 5+ inv. save as well as IWND. Yeah, that's going to be fun...

Well there is tournament in my area this Sunday. It is 1500pts so I fully expect to see someone put in a Knight and try to make it invisible.

[daboarder]

Well there is tournament in my area this Sunday. It is 1500pts so I fully expect to see someone put in a Knight and try to make it invisible.

watch out for the invisible screamer stars too

[Caitsidhe]

watch out for the invisible screamer stars too

I'm hoping at 1500pts that is harder to do. :D

[Charon]

A lot of these problems would be fixed if you didn't redraw completed objectives. Say you start with two cards, and draw one at the beginning of each turn. You can discard and redraw one card at the end of the turn as normal. But the entirety of the game, you'd both only have 2+number of turns cards to complete. You'd also have a lot more time over the course of the battle to accomplish some of the harder ones.

Then also give 2 VP per objective at the end of the game. Plus standard secondaries (line breaker, slay the warlord, first blood).

It really seems to be the complete = redraw churn that throws the card system way out of balance.

It is not fixed if you dont redraw completed objectives (who does this anyways?).
You first two cards are conquer X and conquer Y both in your opponents deploment zone.
Your opponent goes first has to conquer X and Y too, picks up the 3rd card and it tells him to manifest a psipower.
Thats 3-0
You draw your next card which tells you to damage a building.
and so on...
Even if you start to draw "good missions" by round 3 or 4 it will get harder and harder to fullfill them as your model count is dwindling as the game goes on.
You basically lose this game whithout doing anything wrong.

[Erik Setzer]

huh? what formation is that?

I believe it's called "Dread Mob," it's in the Apocalypse book (yep, formations were a great way to help them sell Apoc and its supplements, which are now just "40K supplements"). Rather fun little group, and whenever I feel like throwing out all my Kanz, I can use it. Also, the fun Stormboyz formation, or Snikrot and a unit of Kommandos giving a bonus cover save to everyone around them in the first turn. Obviously some of them don't make sense in normal 40K, like Von Strab, but he's not the type you'd want to take in a normal game anyway (the only reason he was a boon in the last Apoc game I played was because my opponents kept forgetting about him, even though I told them his rules).

[Caitsidhe]

Yes. Formations are a way to "buy" the Battle Forged advantage along with some other perks that go with the Formation. It is a wonderful tool to sell models for them. I can, if I so choose, start all my Helldrakes on the board (Turn-1). Think about that.

[deinol]

Yes. Formations are a way to "buy" the Battle Forged advantage along with some other perks that go with the Formation. It is a wonderful tool to sell models for them. I can, if I so choose, start all my Helldrakes on the board (Turn-1). Think about that.

You still need a combined arms detachment to get the battle forged advantages, and the warlord must be in that detachment. Unless I missed something, troops in Formations don't get objective secured. In theory, your entire army could be formations, but most of the advantages of battle forged come in the special rules for Combined Arms.

[Erik Setzer]

You still need a combined arms detachment to get the battle forged advantages, and the warlord must be in that detachment. Unless I missed something, troops in Formations don't get objective secured. In theory, your entire army could be formations, but most of the advantages of battle forged come in the special rules for Combined Arms.

Cool, you got to this before I did. The perks with Battle-Forged are part of a specific type of detachment. Anything not in that detachment doesn't get those bonuses.

[Wayniac]

It seems to me that the cards in general were a neat concept but not taken to the right level. I would have preferred something like the old 2nd edition Mission Cards, which I personally thought were a great idea. Maybe you only draw 5 cards (discard and redraw any that you can't accomplish e.g. your opponent has no psykers), and no redraws during the game. The cards represent your army's mission.

[daboarder]

It seems to me that the cards in general were a neat concept but not taken to the right level. I would have preferred something like the old 2nd edition Mission Cards, which I personally thought were a great idea. Maybe you only draw 5 cards (discard and redraw any that you can't accomplish e.g. your opponent has no psykers), and no redraws during the game. The cards represent your army's mission.

That seems to be the general concensus, which is why I started this thread

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.ne...e-Em-Narrative

please feel free to contribute, the more ideas the better

[Erik Setzer]

It seems to me that the cards in general were a neat concept but not taken to the right level. I would have preferred something like the old 2nd edition Mission Cards, which I personally thought were a great idea. Maybe you only draw 5 cards (discard and redraw any that you can't accomplish e.g. your opponent has no psykers), and no redraws during the game. The cards represent your army's mission.

2nd edition mission cards were one single objective for the entire battle. And the secondary objective was "Destroy your opponent."

A similar concept to 2nd edition was released some time in 3rd or 4th edition, they had a chart for rolling secret game objectives for you and your opponent, which could range from "hold both objectives on your side of the table" to "take one objective and kill the opposing commander." It was pretty fun, really.

[Wayniac]

2nd edition mission cards were one single objective for the entire battle. And the secondary objective was "Destroy your opponent."

A similar concept to 2nd edition was released some time in 3rd or 4th edition, they had a chart for rolling secret game objectives for you and your opponent, which could range from "hold both objectives on your side of the table" to "take one objective and kill the opposing commander." It was pretty fun, really.

IIRC (it's been a long time) the 2nd edition cards I think were for each army, not one (or maybe that's just how I played) so I liked the idea that there was extra things to do beyond just the mission. It seems like the objective cards tried to bring that back.