Maelstrom Missions: Lets Make 'Em Narrative

[daboarder]

So its been a few days since the last post I made about Maelstrom Missions.

And I for one think its been long enough to get a general concensus on how the community feels about the maelstrom mission (No you facebook trolls don't count, want to join in the discussion next time? or are you afraid that you can't support your own arguments?)

The general consensus seems to me to be that the tactical objectives are great way of ensuring every game is fun and has a story to tell. Unfortunately the concensus is also that the implementation of said objectives is pants on head stupid.

So the question is, what is this thread and what is its point?

Well in the last one we saw plenty of people suggesting ideas for how they would tweak or completely change the tactical objectives for a variety of reasons, from improving their balance to helping prevent squirrel races. And that got me thinking, we should have a thread that pools these various ideas in one place for us to share and use in games.

So lets do it, the question is, What changes do you plan to make in order to implement the Tactical Objectives in your gamging club?

Please post each idea as a separate point so that we can read the ideas and mix and match points to our liking easier

I'll start with my big ideas to kick this off.

Re-Draws
The obvious one is that any card drawn that is unplayable due to mission, terrain, or army list is immediately re-drawn (inform your opponent)
ie: If you draw the "kill a flier" card and your opponents list contains no fliers, immediately Re-Draw it.

Use as Secondaries
I like the cards, I like what they do, I don't like how they are the sole means of scoring.
So, an easy fix that still lets you use the cards to add variance to your games? use them as your secondary objectives for your Eternal War missions.
At the start of the game have each player draw 3 Tactical Objective cards. Instead of using first blood, line breaker and slay the warlord, use the objective cards as your Secondary Objectives with the Eternal War mission objectives as primary.

Use them as Primaries
Much like the above suggestion, but for those that feel the Eternal War missions are too restrictive.
At the start of the game have each player draw 6 cards. These cards are the primary objectives throughout the game, do not re-draw new cards each turn.

Secure Objectives
Change the score objective cards so that they can only be scored at the end of the game.

Hidden Objectives
Pretty simple, in war you are rarely sure exactly what the opposing forces are trying to achieve. any cards drawn by a player are kept hidden until they are scored or if they must be Re-Drawn.

Shared Objectives
In order to prevent the wild disparity caused by drawing individual player hands share them. Cards are drawn and are mutual to both players. Maintains the element of "race" brought on by the tactical objectives but forces the armies to come to a head as well as preventing one player being subject to hard to complete hands.

For my money I would suggest combining Secondaries, Hidden and Re-Draw for most games, but I could also see combinations like Primaries, Re-Draw and Shared working well.

So what are your thoughts on changing Tactical Objectives? I look forward to more ideas on how to make the game more diverse and enjoyable.

NB: Again please split detailed ideas into individual concepts.

[Mr Mystery]

Haven't had a chance to play 7th Ed yet, but I'm always up for home brew missions and tweaks and that. All part of what makes this a hobby rather than a game.

Hidden Objectives make a helluva lot of sense, and certainly from the intial WD reports (online mostly) this was how I thought they'd be played.

Secure Objectives - Kind of. Ish. If all Objectives grant a VP for holding, and the cards grant additional VPs for holding specific objectives, I'd be up for that. And for those who fancy a real challenge? How about scoring VPs for each turn that objective is held, awarded at the end of the game if it is still held. So for instance..... (bear with, this might be rambling...)...

I draw a card. And it says 1 VP for taking and holding Objective 3. I bag this objective in turn 3 of what is eventually a 7 turn game. Net result? 1 VP for holding the objective (base VP). But I also get a point for having successfully held onto said objective for turns 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 for a total bonus of 5 VPs. Combining with the base 'you have an objective, have a VP'....that's 6 for fulfilling a tactical missions bonus thing. Note that you only get bonus VPs for consecutive turns. If I'm hoofed off in turn 5, and only reclaim it in turn 7, I'd only bag the one additional VP.

That to me introduces a lot of strategy, whether those objectives are known or not. Even if it doesn't make a great deal of thematic sense (another matter entirely), my opponent has to really make sure anything I've been camped on for a while is snatch at some point.

[daboarder]

Haven't had a chance to play 7th Ed yet, but I'm always up for home brew missions and tweaks and that. All part of what makes this a hobby rather than a game.

Hidden Objectives make a helluva lot of sense, and certainly from the intial WD reports (online mostly) this was how I thought they'd be played.

Secure Objectives - Kind of. Ish. If all Objectives grant a VP for holding, and the cards grant additional VPs for holding specific objectives, I'd be up for that.yeah that's what I was going for. And for those who fancy a real challenge? How about scoring VPs for each turn that objective is held, awarded at the end of the game if it is still held. So for instance..... (bear with, this might be rambling...)...

I draw a card. And it says 1 VP for taking and holding Objective 3. I bag this objective in turn 3 of what is eventually a 7 turn game. Net result? 1 VP for holding the objective (base VP). But I also get a point for having successfully held onto said objective for turns 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 for a total bonus of 5 VPs. Combining with the base 'you have an objective, have a VP'....that's 6 for fulfilling a tactical missions bonus thing. Note that you only get bonus VPs for consecutive turns. If I'm hoofed off in turn 5, and only reclaim it in turn 7, I'd only bag the one additional VP.

That to me introduces a lot of strategy, whether those objectives are known or not. Even if it doesn't make a great deal of thematic sense (another matter entirely), my opponent has to really make sure anything I've been camped on for a while is snatch at some point.

Hmm I like the idea of mid game scoring. But I feel it might add to much to gunlines

[Mr Mystery]

True.

Though one thing I am dead against is anything that lets you know what sort of mission you might pluck before writing your army list. Much too open to abuse. Indeed, standard 40k should be played that way around. Write list, then roll for mission. Not everyone seems to do this (which is fine for them. Not saying it should never be done!)

Perhaps.....perhaps sort the cards into deck kinds. They already have extras printed on them (Take and Hold, Assassinate etc). Add in some extras (why not assassinate for unit champions? Suits Eldar and other prophetic races. Eldrad did it with Ghazghkull....just...in reverse. Ta Eldrad, said the Imperium....) Then, from those sub-decks, your opponent chooses two for you to draw from, and you get to choose the third. In my mind, this would help to represent armies never really being completely suited to the task at hand, without meaning you can just gimp your opponent entirely.

As I'm at work (yes, and posting on BolS....) can someone list up those sub-categories? I'm not even 100% sure if they have specific, additional rules as is. Either they're not there (at least not yet, you know GW) or I've just managed to miss them (never rule that out).

Overall, I mostly just want options for a more dynamic game. Dynamic games discourage static gunlines, and in turn give a perk to assaulty armies which are well used to moving around. After all, a static gunline is all well and good, but not if you actually need to, you know, go and seize ground as the game progresses. Currently, there's not that much in 40k to make static gunlines as risky as other forms of army. If there's scant terrain on the board, they have it almost entirely their own way, as they can guarantee at least a couple of objectives in their deployment zone.

And if you want to get really complex, how about army specifc ways of mucking up existing objectives? One that springs to mind, which could be applied to Orks and Chaos - Trashing objectives. Take it, bag an easy VP, then spend the next turn trashing it (Orks) or desecrating it (Chaos), preventing it from being bagged by the enemy....

[marful]

How about Malifaux 1.0 style Schemes:

After mission selection and board setup, but before primary objective placement and deployment, each player gets to select a number of the Tactical Objectives as outlined in each Maelstrom Mission.

You can choose to either announce the Tactical Objective, or keep your choice secret. If you choose to keep it secret, the Tactical Objective is worth a Single Victory Point. If you choose to announce to your opponent your Tactical Objective, it is worth Two Victory Points.

There is no discarding or re-drawing of Tactical Objectives.

I should add, that when playing in a tournament you can never pick a Tactical Objective that you have previously chosen in a prior round. Requiring your to choose different Tactical Objectives each time you play.

[This Dave]

Hmm I like the idea of mid game scoring. But I feel it might add to much to gunlines

Actually it might help break them up a bit. If the objective is in the middle of the board or on the opponent's side then the gun line can sit and shoot but not get any points, or move to grab an objective and break up their castle for a turn or two.

[Mr Mystery]

See I dunno about that. With the variety on offer in a standard 40k Codex, picking your missions (albeit in your head) at the same time as your list is asking for trouble.

I've got another idea (my head is full of them. And crap. But mostly the later)...... How about this.....

Each Codex Army has a number of tactical objectives. Not so much for them to achieve, but specific things the enemy can do that would royally screw up that army. And it's your opponent that gets to pick which one they want to go for. Easyish ones, like jobbing your Warlord give nothing too special. Trickier ones, such as a concerted attempt to shatter your morale in some way (fluff ways!) yield more.

For instance - Avatars for Eldar (just picking the first that dropped into my head that wasn't massively obvious). Perhaps some bonus VPs if it gets taken out. I mean, it's the living embodiment of your War God. Watching it get it's head kicked in isn't going to be what I would consider encouraging. Could even vary it. Standard VP for 'well done, you got crackin' with the knackin' +1 VP if you shot it to death, +D3 VP if you took it out in HTH combat (Bloody Handed God chinned off a Mon-Keigh. In Combat.....)

Imperial Guard? Perhaps bonuses for taking out all Guard Command squads at the end of the game? Command Structure is central to the Guard's success. Cut of it's head, and the body will, you know, flail around bleeding for a bit, then hopefully keel over and die.

Space Marines? Yah boo, shucks to you, we just took out your Venerable Dreadnought, and your Terminators. Ouch! Right in the Chapter pride! That'll be 1 VP to me. D3 extra if you had multiples of that unit (sample - Someone fields 2 units of Terminators in their force, and I select the freshly named 'Desecrate The Relics' objective. If I take out just one? I get the standard VP, plus 1 for clearing out a Relic unit. Take out both? Standard VPs, 1 bonus for the first, D3 for the second, giving a potential 6 VPs for bagging all your Relic units).

Heck, you could even extend this to really potent units, as a way of balancing them up alongside points. Got a Lord of War? Oh dear. We broke it. Crushing blow to your forces, and indeed the morale of your troops......

[Caitsidhe]

What Mr. Mystery is talking about ARE (in my opinion) tactical objectives based on narrative. The cards are just crap which reduce the game to flipping a coin. No skill is needed. I like objectives which are based in the armies and/or are scenario based. If the scenarios are different enough, and you don't get to know them before you build you army, then you are forced to improvise or build more rounded armies to have the options to deal with different situations. Narrative play is about story and story is about interesting situations. The cards do not create situations or story.

[Mr Mystery]

Pretty much.

Though do remember I've not managed to play 7th Ed yet (been very busy, what with birthday last weekend and ever present work) so I'm not in a position to comment either way on how Maelstrom actually works out (hence my silence in the original thread).

Thursday tomorrow though, so shall pop up the shop with my Necrons and get some games in. Which will be nice.

[Slacker]

I much like the idea of the tactical objective cards, I have not gotten the chance to actually play with them yet (or any 7th edition games yet for that matter) but I feel like the key is going to be figuring out the right way to weight their value so that can still influence gameplay and can factor into the outcome of the game, but not solely determine it.

When I first heard about them being added to the game, I had this sort of idea of using them like the quest cards (I believe that's what they are called) from the Relic board game. You got one and I think could discard to draw a new one once a turn, and they helped you along in the game but didn't really determine who won.

I have some specific ideas on to how to use them, but will refrain until I've gotten a chance to actually play some games.

[Caitsidhe]

I much like the idea of the tactical objective cards, I have not gotten the chance to actually play with them yet (or any 7th edition games yet for that matter) but I feel like the key is going to be figuring out the right way to weight their value so that can still influence gameplay and can factor into the outcome of the game, but not solely determine it.

When I first heard about them being added to the game, I had this sort of idea of using them like the quest cards (I believe that's what they are called) from the Relic board game. You got one and I think could discard to draw a new one once a turn, and they helped you along in the game but didn't really determine who won.

I have some specific ideas on to how to use them, but will refrain until I've gotten a chance to actually play some games.

Sadly they are the dominant factor in deciding who wins in the maelstrom missions. Outside of tabling your opponent, nothing matters beyond getting a good draw or your opponent getting a bad one.

[Slacker]

Sadly they are the dominant factor in deciding who wins in the maelstrom missions. Outside of tabling your opponent, nothing matters beyond getting a good draw or your opponent getting a bad one.

Oh I'm well aware of the consensus, I saw the other thread. I much prefer this thread that seems to working towards the constructive goal of making them work, as opposed to just complaining that they don't work as is (though they are very valid complaints).

[Caitsidhe]

Oh I'm well aware of the consensus, I saw the other thread. I much prefer this thread that seems to working towards the constructive goal of making them work, as opposed to just complaining that they don't work as is (though they are very valid complaints).

Making them work wouldn't be different as long as you are willing to entirely remove them as key. Regular missions with the cards added as additions for secondary objectives is a good start, along with some serious tweaks to the cards themselves.

[daboarder]

What Mr. Mystery is talking about ARE (in my opinion) tactical objectives based on narrative. The cards are just crap which reduce the game to flipping a coin. No skill is needed. I like objectives which are based in the armies and/or are scenario based. If the scenarios are different enough, and you don't get to know them before you build you army, then you are forced to improvise or build more rounded armies to have the options to deal with different situations. Narrative play is about story and story is about interesting situations. The cards do not create situations or story.

I know. Mystery has great ideas. But I was more looking for ways to make what we have work. As opposed to custom scenarios. Basically ways to use the cards that can be used week in and out but still have plenty of variations

[daboarder]

No more love people?


Gee and people wonder why the only things they see are negative. Maybe they should be more willing to contribute to the positive!

[Caitsidhe]

No more love people?


Gee and people wonder why the only things they see are negative. Maybe they should be more willing to contribute to the positive!

I'm still testing the annoying Maelstrom Missions before I offer suggestions. So far about the only one remotely decent is the one where you start with only a single card and are able to draw more at the start of your turn based on holding objectives.

[daboarder]

I'm still testing the annoying Maelstrom Missions before I offer suggestions. So far about the only one remotely decent is the one where you start with only a single card and are able to draw more at the start of your turn based on holding objectives.

hey mate thats fine, Im just tired of specific posters constantly going on about "negativity" when they aren't willing to contribute anything positive themselves. And to be honest I thought a bit of a bump couldn't hurt the thread.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I've not played any of the missions yet - between armies, so not played seventh - and so while I can't comment on the system as it is now, I like the idea very much of using the cards to create a tailored, mission-specific deck of secret secondary objectives for players. Secret obectives are mint, and this is a fun way of randomising them.

I also think that the best way to run the cards as-is will be to make sure your deck is tailored to the circumstances of the game (if nobody has a building, no "destroy a building"); or to allow a free re-draw if an impossible mission comes up.

[Caitsidhe]

Looking at the cards, and having played all the Maelstrom Missions now (some a couple of times), I think there is "potential" in the card mechanic. It simply is poorly employed in the current format. I tend to agree with Cap'nSmurfs that deck must be tweaked for the specific Mission. I also think, if being more narrative is the goal, that the missions themselves need more color. I'll come back to this shortly. At a minimum I believe the following:

1. All cards impossible/inappropriate to a current mission must be removed prior to play. For example, if there are no buildings in play then no cards keyed to them should remain.
2. No mission should start the players with full hands of cards. Drawing cards should always be tied directly to holding objectives, i.e. at the end of each Turn, players may draw cards equal to the number of objectives they currently control. This gives impetus to holding all objectives as well as having to go for specific ones then enumerated on cards. It likewise gives opponents reasons to dispute and/or evict you from objectives. Lower card counts mean harder fought games. The best of the Maelstrom Missions work this way, starting players with only one card. I wouldn't even start them with one. Make drawing cards and hand size contingent on controlling objectives. Moreover, if you lose objectives your hand size should decrease and force a discard if you have more cards in hand. Again, this gives opponents reasons to disrupt others, tactical options. It will prevent runaway random points.
3. Missions specific cards should exist. Rescue/Evacuate/Capture the Hostages wherein some objectives are designated and important people or equipment which must be taken and then successfully evacuated off the board. Such Objectives can only be scored once each and there should be at least 2-3. Consider it a version of "the relic" except that you score the points only when you have exited the board with said objective. Mores specifics can be added, but you get the idea.
4. By in large the cards should be part of an ensemble and not the point of the games.

[Eldar_Atog]

No more love people?


Gee and people wonder why the only things they see are negative. Maybe they should be more willing to contribute to the positive!

I can't add much myself but I did have one idea I mentioned in the other thread. How about having a sort of GM/DM for the game that picks the objectives that are available each turn. They control the terrain, missions, and deployment options. They would also place the objectives.

At the top of each turn, they could announce which objective cards are currently active. Perhaps even reacting to things that happen in the game.

Not sure how well it would work but it'd be a nice change every once in a while