PDA

View Full Version : Maelstrom Equals Movement



ArmyC
04-06-2014, 13:36
I am jumping to a conclusion here.

Experienced 40k player, with only a few 7th edition games under my belt.

But .....

My experience thus far tells me that the mechanics of scoring with mission cards means YOU HAVE TO MOVE.


The only way to win with those cards is to be able to cycle through that deck and score along the way.
If you score on a d3 card along the way and roll high, nice! Also, stupid in my opinion. If you get 1 point for killing one vehicle, you should get 3 points for killing 3, or 5 points for killing 5. This being that you did it all in one turn. Please don't exert yourself to kill 3, then use my dice and roll a one. Why is GW in love with random results from concrete efforts?

Back on point. I played a gun line Tau Triptide army at 1500 points, but I was not mobile. Left the vehicles in the garage. I had no ability to move and tag base when objectives came up. Objectives were preset and only 2 were in my deployment zone. I scored one point from sitting on one objective. I camped another, but it's number never came up. I moved toward another couple, but my opponent was able to get there first, score and leave, before I walked up to them. He did quite a bit with an empty Rhino running from objective to objective.

Kill point wise, I was tearing him up, but he had better cards, and I couldn't get to my spots fast enough.

Gun line Tau is back in the box. Jet bike Eldar are playing next for me.

AndrewGPaul
04-06-2014, 13:53
Sounds about right. Proper manoeuvre is an important - probably the most important - part of a lot of wargames. It also makes for a more interesting game when you're not skipping one or two phases every turn. :)

Bear in mind, though, that just because your opponent has already claimed an objective, doesn't mean you can't do so later (assuming you can shift him off them, that is).

Fox Of 9
04-06-2014, 14:01
I think the mission cards give advantage to a more round and balanced list.. One that can move, shoot and assault. This doesn't mean that you can't forgo one of those sections but forgoing two will land you in trouble. All are not key on their own but together they allow for a much easier time.

I have played two games with the cards (played three games overall). And the toughest match up i had in-terms of score was against a gun-line centered Guard list.

He had:
2 command squads with 1xMotf and 2xMoto with Plasma/lascannon I think and the anti pinning banner.
2 veteran sqaud triple plas
2 Valkyries
2 Demolisher leman russes
Platoon with 5 squads of Auto cannon melta gun
Manticore

He sat the Platoon, command squads and the Manticore across his two home objectives and put the two Demolishers down the flank. I had a C:SM list with alot of armour and two talons..

I could not safely get anywhere near the middle of the board (even with ample cover). Due to the amount of firepower I was facing. It took me until my Talons came in to be able to do anything of use to his Leman russes but by them he'd already got the lead due to his valks dropping his vets right onto the objectives and securing them. The only reason I one in the end was a lucky hit on a valk that sent it flying into his own lines and my scouts in their lss grabbing his home objective from the manticore that won me the game. Had been behind the whole game.

What i'm trying to say is you van have aspects of your gunline you'll just need those mobile objective takers. if your battleforged that can be anythign and the tau codex has some really fast units.

David.

Mauler
04-06-2014, 14:07
Why not drop some units and pick up some Devilfish instead of going for the seemingly easier Eldar option? Gotta love a Warfish...

HelloKitty
04-06-2014, 14:24
It finds the tactics cards to be fun for precisely that bit - and also because this one finds that the objective cards make it so that if its list is not stacked to the gills in one area that it will have a better chance of success.

In its group it is not allowed to use the filthy cards because its creatures like to create tournament lists and they say that objective cards are "not fair". However it would like to very much. Perhaps it needs to relocate.

ErictheGreen
04-06-2014, 15:09
the maelstorm missions are a good idea but poorly implemented. Despite a mobile army, a bad draw of cards vs a good draw of cards will see you hamstrung, almost to the point of auto loss.

now if they'd added the cards into the regular missions (so an objective was worth 3 VP at the end of the game and the special play cards were also in effect), then they would have made a very interesting addition. as it is, they are way too random

tiger g
04-06-2014, 15:34
the cards are greatly implemented. The playing I have read is still using old tactics. Harder to kill vehicles but as they are scoring need to make sure you can pop those empties/full ones before they start dashing around the board. Its funny that people complain about random but the same people win the majority of the times. Just need to adjust and find new tactics.

HelloKitty
04-06-2014, 15:40
This one read something on BOLS today that piqued its curiousity:

"play the game to have fun first, where winning is secondary as opposed to playing the game to win primarily and only have fun if winning"

This creature wonders if this applies to tactics cards as well.

Sotek
04-06-2014, 15:43
Tau are extremely mobile, I don't see the issue

Commissar Merces
04-06-2014, 15:44
Posted this elsewhere, but I think it debunks some of what has been said on a personal basis. Note, maybe it is an outlier, but this one experience leaves me a bit unhappy.

After playing my first maelstrom mission last night, I can say without a doubt that while fun, the mission cards make no sense. I was playing against orks on lost contact mission. From our understanding, you draw a card for every objective you hold at the start of your turn. This actually make the majority of our armies and still.

Here are two assault armies, nids and orks, and we only had three close combat phases all game because we were scrambling to hold on to objectives. This isn't building a narrative, it is crippling the theme of both armies.

While it was different and kind of goofy, I ended up losing because my opponent got +1 VP for killing a Psyker +1 for killing a monsterous creature and +3 for slaying the warlord in one turn with my hive tyrant, despite him almost being tabled at the end of 5.

He had 2 ork boyz and a truk left. I had two squads of 3 warriors, a venom thrope, 2 carnifexes 2 hive guard and a hive tyrant left in a 1500 pt game, but due to poor drawing of the cards, I wasn't able to win the game, despite holding the majority of the objectives and having the most kills of either players. Seems a bit fishy to me.

gitburna
04-06-2014, 16:01
the maelstorm missions are a good idea but poorly implemented. Despite a mobile army, a bad draw of cards vs a good draw of cards will see you hamstrung, almost to the point of auto loss.

now if they'd added the cards into the regular missions (so an objective was worth 3 VP at the end of the game and the special play cards were also in effect), then they would have made a very interesting addition. as it is, they are way too random

Yes, this might happen sometimes, but not all the time. This sounds like the tactical objectives equivalent of saying Guardsmen wreck Terminators in close combat

Inquisitor Kallus
04-06-2014, 16:13
I am jumping to a conclusion here.

Experienced 40k player, with only a few 7th edition games under my belt.

But .....

My experience thus far tells me that the mechanics of scoring with mission cards means YOU HAVE TO MOVE.


The only way to win with those cards is to be able to cycle through that deck and score along the way.
If you score on a d3 card along the way and roll high, nice! Also, stupid in my opinion. If you get 1 point for killing one vehicle, you should get 3 points for killing 3, or 5 points for killing 5. This being that you did it all in one turn. Please don't exert yourself to kill 3, then use my dice and roll a one. Why is GW in love with random results from concrete efforts?

Back on point. I played a gun line Tau Triptide army at 1500 points, but I was not mobile. Left the vehicles in the garage. I had no ability to move and tag base when objectives came up. Objectives were preset and only 2 were in my deployment zone. I scored one point from sitting on one objective. I camped another, but it's number never came up. I moved toward another couple, but my opponent was able to get there first, score and leave, before I walked up to them. He did quite a bit with an empty Rhino running from objective to objective.

Kill point wise, I was tearing him up, but he had better cards, and I couldn't get to my spots fast enough.

Gun line Tau is back in the box. Jet bike Eldar are playing next for me.

More rounded forces seem to do well/ok. Ironically art of me thought you might want to take a more balanced force, and after all gunlines are.........boring, unless you just want to win. Interplay of units is where it is at, movement and positioning and so on. I also notice you went from one extreme (gunline) to wanting to play another extreme (jetbike list). I'd say go with Maulers idea. Did you just play one game under Maelstro and decide to call it quits with your gunline? What do you want from a 40k battle; is it a well fought game that requires you to think tactically to secure victory, the chance to just roll over your opponent (as long as it's a game weighted in your favour) or something else?

What did the marine player have in his list? Why did you let a rhino (AV11, against a Tau list?) do what it did more than once?

I think the point im trying to make is you need to write up a fairly balanced list that has elements of moving, shooting, versatile units, bodies and some slightly durable units. Extreme lists will do well in one paticular theatre of war (maybe more), but as Maelstrom shows, you need to be fairly flexible. As some have pointed out Tau don't lack for speed unless they're over specializing.

Play more games, youre sure to have some fun.

@Comissar Merces: You've playe ONE game of Maelstrom and found 'it a bit fishy'? Is that also partially due to the fact you lost? Play some other games, see what other missions are like, even choose one. A lot of people have talked about altering the decks potentially to remove things that arent applicale (such as destroying the building/stronghold when there arent any, or flyers etc...)

Also in war just because a force is destroyed doesnt mean the war has been lost ,narratively a Hive Tyrant is a pretty big deal

tiger g
04-06-2014, 16:14
It is interesting for those that are having fun no specifics but those that lose has them. If you are winning these games (Maelstrom is only half the scenarios in the book) what are you noticing your opponent is doing wrong. Have not had a chance except solo. But in my 40 years of wargaming the winner typically has insight on what he was concerned about. On the historical side use to play Piquet which is a card based game that determined when the phases and who would be acting. Many called it too random but those that understood developing a plan and being able to adjust it. (not change it outright) could win 90% of their games. I see with 7th the same thing.

Felwether
04-06-2014, 16:14
While I think the D3 cards are a bit unfair (some of those objectives are really hard to fulfill), in general I think the Maelstrom of war missions are well implemented and really fun.
I'm seeing a lot of people complaining about losing despite having nearly table their opponent and I wonder how that's a new thing unique to 7th?
I can't count the number of games I've won on points despite only having a handful of guys left.
Maybe these missions will actually encourage people to take balanced, flexible lists rather than just taking the biggest, killiest units to steamroll their opponent as quickly as possible.

ErictheGreen
04-06-2014, 16:23
Yes, this might happen sometimes, but not all the time. This sounds like the tactical objectives equivalent of saying Guardsmen wreck Terminators in close combat

it really isn't. even with relatively mobile armies, if you have to jet from side to side to pick up VPs for being on objectives, and you regularly pull tactical objectives deep in your deployment zone, you are at a disadvantage.

Fox Of 9
04-06-2014, 16:25
it really isn't. even with relatively mobile armies, if you have to jet from side to side to pick up VPs for being on objectives, and you regularly pull tactical objectives deep in your deployment zone, you are at a disadvantage.

This may just be me but I have no idea what your saying. cause it sound like your moving objectives and I doubt that's what you mean.

David.

Captain Idaho
04-06-2014, 16:34
I have no sympathy for a Tau player! ;)

Seriously though, play the mission as we as kill opponents. Have objectives scorers in addition to opponent killers. Change your lists.

A.T.
04-06-2014, 16:37
I'm seeing a lot of people complaining about losing despite having nearly table their opponent and I wonder how that's a new thing unique to 7th?I suppose it's the difference between your opponent outplaying at the end, and your opponent drawing a better card than you at the end.

Felwether
04-06-2014, 16:44
I suppose it's the difference between your opponent outplaying at the end, and your opponent drawing a better card than you at the end.

They still have to be in a position to actually fulfill the objective though, that's the hard part. And while they may draw 'Capture Objective 3' and already be sitting on it on turn 7 to push ahead by 1 point, that's extremely unlikely to happen.

Marshal
04-06-2014, 16:45
I hear complaints all the time about "bad drawing of the cards" and here's what I have to say, people play poker and still have fun, people play cribbage and still have fun, people play euchre and still have fun, or any other card game for that matter, or here's an example that speaks towards Warhammer players, people played BattleMasters and still had fun. Yes, you get some crap cards, some times you have good ones, much like dice rolling, some times you roll like crap, other times you can't roll a 1 to save your life on those terminators. It happens, this is why we play the game and don't just plug army lists into a computer for a quick win calculation. 40k is a game...it's supposed to be fun.

tiger g
04-06-2014, 16:59
I hear complaints all the time about "bad drawing of the cards" and here's what I have to say, people play poker and still have fun, people play cribbage and still have fun, people play euchre and still have fun, or any other card game for that matter, or here's an example that speaks towards Warhammer players, people played BattleMasters and still had fun. Yes, you get some crap cards, some times you have good ones, much like dice rolling, some times you roll like crap, other times you can't roll a 1 to save your life on those terminators. It happens, this is why we play the game and don't just plug army lists into a computer for a quick win calculation. 40k is a game...it's supposed to be fun.

also people never seem to be denying the opponent the chance to earn the point. Be in position to overwatch and deny the objective.

Zombie P
04-06-2014, 17:28
also people never seem to be denying the opponent the chance to earn the point. Be in position to overwatch and deny the objective.

This, its all part of it. The cards are open in 5 of the missions. Use that to your advantage, especially on things like the D3 ones. If its kill your warlord, get him the hell outta dodge, if hes a lead from the front type don't put him in dicey situations for that turn, tempt your opponent to get rid of that card in favor of something more achievable, fight them on every front ;).

As for the whole winning with 1 or 2 models left on the table, or not really killing any opponents but winning on VP's, I like to think of it like this:
The 40k table top is an extension of a warzone. Its a small part of a major conflict, and what the MoW cards do is represent real life orders that affect the outcome of the overall engagement. Its high command asking you to take Objective 3 so they can finish the data transfer from that location. Or its High command ordering you to break the enemies morale on that front by killing the man leading the charge.

Although the battle may appear to end at the table edge, what is really supposed to be happening is that you are a small part of a major conflict.

ZP

Captain Idaho
04-06-2014, 17:33
Seems to me blaming the bad drawing of a card is the same as blaming the dice. It's not you failed to prepare, strategise and outplay your opponent, it was the card/dice.

Moving should be key to the game. Choice is also a key component of a good game since good choices separate the good players from the bad.

I really am hoping tournaments cotton on to Cleanse and Control as a solid basic mission using a consistent number of Tactical Objectives and thus encourage more balanced lists among players so the actual best players win rather than the guy who brought his rock to your scissors.

Royals
04-06-2014, 17:41
Honestly, the Tactical Objectives that are harder to achieve make up a minority of the deck. Half of the cards are 'Secure Objective 1-6'. As others have said, you're not going to draw impossible objectives in every game. The best part about games is that you can play them over again. With Maelstrom of War missions, each game will be vastly different.

Think about trying this. Roll 3D6. The first die represents an Eternal War Mission. The second die represents a Maelstrom of War mission. The third die represents deployment methods. This will give you 108(?) different games to play with plus a nice variation in the MoW cards. Not every game will be balanced but it will give you a great variety of fun games to play.

Commissar Merces
04-06-2014, 17:54
Please note, I didn't say it wasn't fun, but I find the outcome questionable. The game it's self was fun and intriguing. My complaints are

1. Tyranids and Orks not playing like tyranids and Orks. Again, only three assaults all game. Most of the time we were too busy back peddling toward objectives or shooting enemies off important ones. It just didn't feel like a real scenario nor a narrative in anyway.

2. It's hard to swallow a loss when you killed almost 90% of your opponents army and lost only three units all game. Also, I agree with denying people their tactical objectives, but it is hard to do that when they draw the exact cards (in this case, the 5VP combo) at the start of that turn when my tyrant was in a good position to assault the enemy next turn and took out well over his point value in my previous turn. Yes, it is like blaming bad dice.

I'm interested to try it again and see what happens.

Theocracity
04-06-2014, 18:00
1. Tyranids and Orks not playing like tyranids and Orks. Again, only three assaults all game. Most of the time we were too busy back peddling toward objectives or shooting enemies off important ones. It just didn't feel like a real scenario nor a narrative in anyway.

To be fair, that can happen in any kind of game. I've played lots of games where the game events completely defy a logical narrative, such that one either has to be ignored or developed with only a vague association with the events on the table. I wouldn't hold it against Maelstrom specifically, which seems to be a fun game type with its own set of narrative opportunities and challenges.

Wolf Lord Balrog
04-06-2014, 18:12
My biggest problem is getting new, random objectives every turn. There's no narrative there, its just randomness in place of actual game design. At least GW are being consistent about that recent trend though.

Captain Idaho
04-06-2014, 18:13
And I'm sure they were designed under old 6th edition guidelines. How did you kill 90% of your opponent's army as a Tyranid player yet didn't assault much/at all?

Players also have to dispell the myth that objectives have to be placed in places miles apart from any enemy action.

For example, I had players question my placement of an objective in past games (tournaments) as they could have reached it. They assumed it was a mistake from a bad player/someone not as good as them. What they didn't take into account was I wanted to assault them with my Honour Guard and because they tried for my objectives, I did!

I also didn't want my Tactical squads to be hiding at the back doing nothing when they could be contributing to shooting opponents, as Marines are tight for points as it is.

Fact I won those games shows it works too, especially as 6th edition was a shooting edition. Funnily enough I'd have to change that method of placement when the community moves back to more balanced lists, as my Tactical squads will try and avoid getting assaulted! :)

HelloKitty
04-06-2014, 18:13
Please note, I didn't say it wasn't fun, but I find the outcome questionable. The game it's self was fun and intriguing. My complaints are

1. Tyranids and Orks not playing like tyranids and Orks. Again, only three assaults all game. Most of the time we were too busy back peddling toward objectives or shooting enemies off important ones. It just didn't feel like a real scenario nor a narrative in anyway.

2. It's hard to swallow a loss when you killed almost 90% of your opponents army and lost only three units all game. Also, I agree with denying people their tactical objectives, but it is hard to do that when they draw the exact cards (in this case, the 5VP combo) at the start of that turn when my tyrant was in a good position to assault the enemy next turn and took out well over his point value in my previous turn. Yes, it is like blaming bad dice.

I'm interested to try it again and see what happens.

It has played games like this many times before the cards though. It has heard this called "gaming the game". How do the player things solve for gaming the game?

This one played a pursuit mission last month where the imperial-things drove their tanks backward so the pursuers could not shoot their tank-thing in the rear. They also benefited from their dozer blades because the rules did not say they couldn't. It was extremely stupid in its opinion but this is how player creatures operate in games it finds.

Commissar Merces
04-06-2014, 18:23
How did you kill 90% of your opponent's army as a Tyranid player yet didn't assault much/at all?

When they are Orks, they die very quickly to devourers ;) and the flying templant.

I agree with everything else you are saying though. I ended up placing two objectives in my opponents zone. I had one at the end of the game but failed a charge to get the 2nd one.

Again, it's not that it wasn't fun or that it wasn't interesting, I just don't think it is any different from rolling dice. Many of the cards are just secure objective xyz, but my opponent happened to draw a trio of excellent cards for that specific turn. It just feels too random and not very tactical to me. I know people will disagree, but those are my initial thoughts. Granted, it's one game. I plan on a rematch happening very soon.

HelloKitty
04-06-2014, 18:28
Something to point out on tactical - tactics are decisions made during a battle. Does it feel that the random objectives remove decision making?

Gonefishing
04-06-2014, 18:36
This one read something on BOLS today that piqued its curiousity:

"play the game to have fun first, where winning is secondary as opposed to playing the game to win primarily and only have fun if winning"

This creature wonders if this applies to tactics cards as well.


This statement seems suspect to me as its rather a bland statement which assumes that you cant have fun if your playing to win?

What about (for example), Playing to win and having fun whether you win or lose? - From a personal viewpoint that's the option that covered me best when I played 40k (6th edition quitter even more repulsed by 7th), and most of my gaming group- we all played to win and whether we did or not, we had fun doing so. From that viewpoint I can see that people would find the cards annoying (I can), because even if you come up with a good battle plan and play well, your chances of victory are dependant on what cards you (or your opponent) draw, at the end of the day its just another level of randomness to an already increasingly random game.

That just seems annoying to me, but then again I would have more fun with less randomness and more clearly defined mission goals - its why I quit 6th, and its why 7th is about as appealing (to me) as the idea of voting for David Cameron (ie. Not at all appealing in any way shape or form).


Something to point out on tactical - tactics are decisions made during a battle. Does it feel that the random objectives remove decision making?

That would depend on the cards you draw I suspect - they could certainly add an element of easy mode if you draw well. To me its more fun to know what your mission parameters are, make a plan for success and then react tactically to your opponents actions (or even better, force him to react to your tactical moves). Cards for me are more of a "meh" because your reacting less to your opponent and more to the cards he/or you have drawn. You can make tactical decisions based on those - but it seems like less of a "battle" to me.

Felwether
04-06-2014, 19:17
That would depend on the cards you draw I suspect - they could certainly add an element of easy mode if you draw well. To me its more fun to know what your mission parameters are, make a plan for success and then react tactically to your opponents actions (or even better, force him to react to your tactical moves). Cards for me are more of a "meh" because your reacting less to your opponent and more to the cards he/or you have drawn. You can make tactical decisions based on those - but it seems like less of a "battle" to me.

I find the uncertainty on turn 1 refreshing. I've found myself going out and capturing objectives whether I have the cards or not, in order to capitalise on them should I get the cards and also (using Battle Forged troops) to prevent my opponent from taking them should they get the cards, so I've found the last few games very tactical.

It's also refreshing to have my speedy, troop heavy army actually have a slight advantage over many of the ground pounders I regularly come up against.

Futhermore I actually think the Maelstrom missions do quite a good job of narrative gaming. They can represent a meeting engagement where, although there a number of important locations on the map, your specific objectives may not be identical to your opponent's at all times.

Marshal
04-06-2014, 19:21
Please note, I didn't say it wasn't fun, but I find the outcome questionable. The game it's self was fun and intriguing. My complaints are

1. Tyranids and Orks not playing like tyranids and Orks. Again, only three assaults all game. Most of the time we were too busy back peddling toward objectives or shooting enemies off important ones. It just didn't feel like a real scenario nor a narrative in anyway.


That's because you decided to play the game that way. If you wanted a narrative scenario between Tyranids and Orks, you could easily play the game that way despite what the mission is. That doesn't sound like a problem with the cards, that sounds more like a problem with how you guys played the game.



2. It's hard to swallow a loss when you killed almost 90% of your opponents army and lost only three units all game. Also, I agree with denying people their tactical objectives, but it is hard to do that when they draw the exact cards (in this case, the 5VP combo) at the start of that turn when my tyrant was in a good position to assault the enemy next turn and took out well over his point value in my previous turn. Yes, it is like blaming bad dice.

I'm interested to try it again and see what happens.

It would be no different if at the first turn, before your tyrant got to even move, 4 of his rokkits shot forward, hit, wounded and killed your tyrant off. Stuff happens. This is why we roll dice, and in this case, draw cards. It's a learning experience, next time, don't put your tyrant in positions where he's going to die off so easily (which by the sounds of it, cards or not, he was going to do this anyways because it sounded like it was quite doable in the game as it wasn't even a thought that went through your opponents head if they could achieve it or not).

tiger g
04-06-2014, 19:23
Bad cards are just an excuse. You can plan for the cards, 5 of the 6 display the cards so you can plan. Random is the word being used as people want 100% control of what is happening. These cards have been used since the beginning of wargaming in the 1950's. You can win the majority of your games no matter what is drawn as long as you understand the game and play it that way.

It like taking a test where you are told to read all of the instructions first. You complete everything as you read when you get to the last instruction it says ignore the other items and just sign your name. The goal is to get you to understand what to do.

In soccer and field hockey you can dominate in the attacking area 90% (basically destroying your opponent) but if you not score and they score one goal on their one shot of the game you lose.

Battle of the bulge the Axis achieved all of the goals around Bastogne except to take the one town. Well if you look at this in 40k in the past it would have been considered a win for the axis but that one unit won the overall battle (or objective as they were sitting on it from the start).

Most gamers ignore the objectives in many wargames and just want to destroy the other side. Well there are rules like that but the new 40k requires another type of thinking. Mathhammer does not work if you forget the goals of the game.

I remember one game from the ACW era where I just had to hold the bridge to win. My opponent destroyed all my forces except for the Calvary sitting on the bridge. If he focused on the goal he could have won easily. I kept sending units for him to chase and divert him from the objective. It worked.

The sad part is there will be those that win all of the time and will either be credited with luck of the draw or dice or using a cheesy list. If you dig down deeper he probably remembered the goals all through the game.

That is why it would be interesting from winners what they thought their opponents missed during the game. (most do not want to tell as they want to keep winning and do not care they are being called lucky all of the time.).

Scammel
04-06-2014, 19:32
That's because you decided to play the game that way. If you wanted a narrative scenario between Tyranids and Orks, you could easily play the game that way despite what the mission is. That doesn't sound like a problem with the cards, that sounds more like a problem with how you guys played the game.

If a typical game of 40k is not facilitating gameplay that's evocative of the setting, it is wholeheartedly an issue with the game itself not the fault of the players.

Fox Of 9
04-06-2014, 19:38
I'd also like to point out this is the first time that they've used them (I think, didn't play the latter half of 6th) in 40K. You can't expect perfection on the first attempt and no-matter how much testing you do you'll never know 100% that it'll work as you intend. It's just as frustrating for the one who designs it as the one who games if they care even one bit (which they will have to to even make the product), trust me.

David.

Felwether
04-06-2014, 19:40
If a typical game of 40k is not facilitating gameplay that's evocative of the setting, it is wholeheartedly an issue with the game itself not the fault of the players.

I disagree. The game gives you the framework - you make the story. The scenario Commissar Merces has outlined can happen but it doesn't always happen and it's definitely not something new to 7th.

Sometimes I do fluffy things in game, other times I don't for the sake of scoring points. That's my decision, the game hasn't forced me into it.

Fingers
04-06-2014, 19:57
"but he had better cards"- Seems to be every complaint about these new "Missions". Doesn't seem fun at all to me, ill stick with the original 6.

Captain Idaho
04-06-2014, 19:58
People are mistaking what Forging the Narrative means. It isn't just one story, it's a selection of different things that enables you to put a story together afterwards, or just have really cinematic things to talk about after the game.

The problem I notice with 40K players is just how many people can't imagine something or read between the lines unless they're told explicitly in black and white. Hell, consider how much people miss when debating black library novels!

Captain Idaho
04-06-2014, 20:01
"but he had better cards"- Seems to be every complaint about these new "Missions". Doesn't seem fun at all to me, ill stick with the original 6.

Why don't you try it yourself. I certainly wouldn't listen to someone complaining about cards when you consider those same people complain about dice.

And if they won I'm sure it would be a different story.

And playing one game then making your mind up is defeatist and you'll never grow.

Commissar Merces
04-06-2014, 20:33
Ok. Holy exaggeration batman. I was just reporting one battle and that while fun, i felt like it was screwy. No where did I say OMG so stupid never playing it again. Actually, I said the opposite.

Killgore
04-06-2014, 20:35
"but he had better cards"- Seems to be every complaint about these new "Missions". Doesn't seem fun at all to me, ill stick with the original 6.


and yet these complaints tend to be in the minority of Warseer posts on the subject of the new cards.

Don't throw in the towel on a new game mode just because some random person on the internet expressed an opinion.



Cards get used extremely quickly in the new missions, your opponent might get lucky one turn and score 5-6 points, but you could just as easily earn those points back latter in the game.

I lost my second game using the cards in the latter stages of the game, I had pretty much decimated a Space Wolf force with my mobile Tau army, and was sitting on a stash of cards that would have given me mega VP's for killing the enemy Warlord/ character.

The SW player hid the character and achieved one or two final cards to deny me the game. Fun was had by all.

Marshal
04-06-2014, 20:39
"but he had better cards"- Seems to be every complaint about these new "Missions". Doesn't seem fun at all to me, ill stick with the original 6.

Have you tried the cards? One can lose in poker because his opponent drew better cards too, they still go through the posturing and play to the game and their opponent. 40k is no different with cards really. You might draw crap cards, but if you can capitalize on when you do draw decent cards, folding the ones that you know are crap, and prevent your opponent to capitalize on their cards, then you can win, even with the worst draws. "But he had better dice rolls", "But he took a cheese list", "But 1 model was out of LOS and he claimed the objective and won" are all excuses people make. OMG! The game isn't about decimating your opponent anymore? Wow, hard times man, hard times. I feel bad that you might not take 3 Riptides along your Wraithknights and serpent spam anymore. :(

HelloKitty
04-06-2014, 20:40
It sees the issue is between those that require an even game akin to chess in the beginning (yes it knows white goes first) vs those that are ok with imbalanced scenarios.

It doesn't see the two sides reconciling anytime soon.

Scammel
04-06-2014, 20:43
I disagree. The game gives you the framework - you make the story. The scenario Commissar Merces has outlined can happen but it doesn't always happen and it's definitely not something new to 7th.

Sometimes I do fluffy things in game, other times I don't for the sake of scoring points. That's my decision, the game hasn't forced me into it.

If normal gameplay (and we're not talking about tournaments here) is making a player undertake actions that run against the grain of the background simply to, y'know, have a shot at winning, something is very, very wrong. As others have pointed out, there's obviously scope for interpretation (neither Orks nor Tyranids are averse to taking and holding ground when required) but to see both of these assault-heavy armies 'dance' as described would leave many feeling as though they're not enacting a battle in the 41st millennium. Again, normal play.

Felwether
04-06-2014, 20:43
It sees the issue is between those that require an even game akin to chess in the beginning (yes it knows white goes first) vs those that are ok with imbalanced scenarios.

It doesn't see the two sides reconciling anytime soon.

Random objectives don't make scenario imbalanced, they make it... Random.

You have just as much chance of generating a given objective as your opponent.

HelloKitty
04-06-2014, 20:48
Random objectives don't make scenario imbalanced, they make it... Random.

You have just as much chance of generating a given objective as your opponent.

Imbalanced and random are often used synonymously.

If this one generates the first card that gives it an easy objective and that one generates a card that gives it a hard objective then the game starts with this one having an advantage - or an imbalance. This is what, as this one understands, is what angers those that hate the filthy objective cards while those that like the cards do not care about this imbalance.

For what its worth - this one likes the objective cards.

Scammel
04-06-2014, 20:51
Random objectives don't make scenario imbalanced, they make it... Random.

You have just as much chance of generating a given objective as your opponent.

The randomness can easily make it imbalanced, and to a potentially worrying degree. Sure, the game uses dice as a foundation but in the vast majority of games you'll roll enough to see averages begin to play out and players will often get a roughly equal number of chances to take advantage/limit the damage of good and bad luck respectively. Where those dice rolls become fewer and more influential, that randomness can become rather one-sided and even game-winning - see Reign of Chaos, Winds of Magic, 2D6 charge distances etc. I'll freely admit to not having used the cards yet and so will reserve judgment on them, but random is only really fair when there's enough scope for the averages to play out. Again, not played so this may not be the case.

Fox Of 9
04-06-2014, 20:58
If normal gameplay (and we're not talking about tournaments here) is making a player undertake actions that run against the grain of the background simply to, y'know, have a shot at winning, something is very, very wrong. As others have pointed out, there's obviously scope for interpretation (neither Orks nor Tyranids are averse to taking and holding ground when required) but to see both of these assault-heavy armies 'dance' as described would leave many feeling as though they're not enacting a battle in the 41st millennium. Again, normal play.


I just don't see how this could happen. Not saying your fault just can't imagine it. :D
I have been in one very combat focused game and watched another (on Youtube) that used the objective cards. Both where close and highly focused on the tactics/objectives and have been two of my favorite games that i have had the pleasure to experience.

If anyone wants the see the video it's on miniwargamings channel nidsVchaosspacemarines


David.

Marshal
04-06-2014, 21:00
Imbalanced and random are often used synonymously.

If this one generates the first card that gives it an easy objective and that one generates a card that gives it a hard objective then the game starts with this one having an advantage - or an imbalance. This is what, as this one understands, is what angers those that hate the filthy objective cards while those that like the cards do not care about this imbalance.

For what its worth - this one likes the objective cards.

The game is already imbalanced from the get go though, otherwise we'd all be playing the same army with the same lists. In a tournament setting, your opponent is random (for the most part, it's hard to plan who you're going to fight every round) so your list plays a huge part in the game. Gravguns for instance are fantastic against deathwing, but are lackluster against orks. In a tournament last year, I took a Farsight Enclaves list and played against Orks round 1 and 2 and decimated both players scoring every possible point both games. Did they have bad lists? No. Was my list super unbeatable? No. Though I did narrowly win round 3, I handily lost round 4 because my list lacked certain elements that those armies played on (high amounts of cover). This game is not balanced, not in friendly games, not in tournament games, not even when you sit down with a buddy and plan your armies out against each other for a narrative battle. This is life, it's a game.

Felwether
04-06-2014, 21:01
We'll the vast majority of the cards in the deck are 'Capture Objective X' for 1 point so I haven't seen any huge imbalances yet. You can also get new cards very quickly by completing objectives and of course you can also discard one for free at the end of your turn.

Fox Of 9
04-06-2014, 21:06
The game is already imbalanced from the get go though, otherwise we'd all be playing the same army with the same lists. In a tournament setting, your opponent is random (for the most part, it's hard to plan who you're going to fight every round) so your list plays a huge part in the game. Gravguns for instance are fantastic against deathwing, but are lackluster against orks. In a tournament last year, I took a Farsight Enclaves list and played against Orks round 1 and 2 and decimated both players scoring every possible point both games. Did they have bad lists? No. Was my list super unbeatable? No. Though I did narrowly win round 3, I handily lost round 4 because my list lacked certain elements that those armies played on (high amounts of cover). This game is not balanced, not in friendly games, not in tournament games, not even when you sit down with a buddy and plan your armies out against each other for a narrative battle. This is life, it's a game.


Earlier this was the definition of balanced people where using.

David.

Theocracity
04-06-2014, 21:17
If normal gameplay (and we're not talking about tournaments here) is making a player undertake actions that run against the grain of the background simply to, y'know, have a shot at winning, something is very, very wrong. As others have pointed out, there's obviously scope for interpretation (neither Orks nor Tyranids are averse to taking and holding ground when required) but to see both of these assault-heavy armies 'dance' as described would leave many feeling as though they're not enacting a battle in the 41st millennium. Again, normal play.

But 'normal play' is composed of several different game types. If a 'normal gameplay' scenario ends up having a situation where a force has to hold their objectives at all costs, that's perfectly fluff for a Guard army - but not so much for a Tau one. Is that the fault of the game as a whole, or is it just an unusual combination of army and scenario?

There are plenty of variables that can combine to give a game a setting-appropriate feel or a pure gamey feel, even in normal scenarios. That's up to the selection of scenario, army selection, terrain, objective placement, and in-game play.

tiger g
04-06-2014, 21:34
Ok. Holy exaggeration batman. I was just reporting one battle and that while fun, i felt like it was screwy. No where did I say OMG so stupid never playing it again. Actually, I said the opposite.

Agreed you did not say you where never playing it again but nowhere do you say you would be. You left it blank and then said it was screwy, you got screwed by bad cards, it was not right. No one I believe said you would not play again. Others have said they will not play it based on your report. Again could you get your opponent to write what he experienced and what he thought you could have taken advantage of as this would be insightful.

ArmyC
04-06-2014, 21:46
Well before anyone thinks I am putting Tau into the attic for this edition, I have 4 armies with at least 7,000 points of each. (as per my sig I think)

So I can switch between fully painted armies as easy as picking up a different suitcase.

I won't abandon Tau. It is the first time I dared use triptide in a game. I expected it to clean up, but no silver bullets.

Fox Of 9
04-06-2014, 21:54
Well before anyone thinks I am putting Tau into the attic for this edition, I have 4 armies with at least 7,000 points of each. (as per my sig I think)

That sig looks mighty empty to me young'en. :3

David.

Losing Command
05-06-2014, 01:22
I'm more concerned that there's still a random game length rather than the random objective cards. The amount of times a game doesn't end in a massacre because there's still one model on the tabel at the end of turn 5 ... unless it is your model :p

MasterDecoy
05-06-2014, 01:51
I'd much prefer that you scored and generated objectives at the end of your opponents turn target than your own to give the opponent a chance to react to them (the 1 game I played with them so far ended in a lot of secure and control objectives being scored before the opponent could even given the chance to deny them)

But I can easily make my own mission worry parameters that I enjoy.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

the gribbly
05-06-2014, 05:43
I've played a good handful of 7th edition games but only once MoW mission so far. My highly mobile army just ran away with game by turn 2 against a gunline with what felt like a snowball effect. We felt the draws were equal but his army couldn't utilize his card due to lack of mobility. I kinda see the roll off for eternal war vs mow as a balancing factor between static armies and mobile counterparts, with a balanced army competing in each but not specializing in either. My only real complaint is the book keeping involved.

AndrewGPaul
05-06-2014, 08:53
But 'normal play' is composed of several different game types. If a 'normal gameplay' scenario ends up having a situation where a force has to hold their objectives at all costs, that's perfectly fluff for a Guard army - but not so much for a Tau one.

Why not? Yes, the background mentions that Tau don't tend to rely in strategic strongpoints, that's irrelevant to the tactical requirements of a battle. Are they holding that point as a rearguard action? Is there a wounded Ethereal in need of extraction?

In fact, as the Tactical Mission cards only require you to hold an objective for one turn*, that's more appropriate for Tau than for the Guard; move in, complete your objective, move on.

If you don't like the Maelstrom of War scenarios, don't use them; they're not compulsory. However, try 'em out first, in case the "received wisdom" you've read on the internet is wrong. :)

If you're really serious about the narrative, then do what I imagine the writers would do - make up your own scenario.

*OK, if you draw the correct cards in the correct order, you could gain VPs from the same objective for five turns in a row, but that seems so unlikely as to be unworthy of serious consideration.

mongoosedog300
05-06-2014, 10:16
Does the whole "But I killed most of his army! I should have won!" mindset **** off anyone else?

I love the new cards, having played 4 games with them so far (One was 2 v 2) they've been fun and actually kept the game super close against a variety of different armies, which have kept it interesting. We've had a few bad draws, but you take the good with the bad, and it adds in a turn where you can take out a few of your opponents units to deny him scoring later, which I think adds an extra layer of tactics.

Most of the complaints I see are the hyper competitive people who play to win not winning because their opponent actually played the game instead of trying to wipe each other out. Can you get ****** draws? Yes. Does it mean you auto lose? Not in my experience.

Scammel
05-06-2014, 10:34
Most of the complaints I see are the hyper competitive people who play to win not winning because their opponent actually played the game instead of trying to wipe each other out.

This doesn't make much sense. The competitive players will be going hell-for-leather for the objectives, because that's how one wins. Whilst I've no doubt that the man-children you identify do indeed exist, be careful not to conflate them with actual competitive players.

Fox Of 9
05-06-2014, 10:41
Does the whole "But I killed most of his army! I should have won!" mindset **** off anyone else?

Reminds me of the people who play a game like Call of duty or Battlefield, then just go for kills ignoring the objectives (yes I know it is useful but not if everyone does it, so the same can apply to the units in your army), while the other team focuses on objective and grabbing them when and where they can a real smash and grab style of play. The game ends and the guys who focused only on kills may be top ranked in the game but overall their team still lost, with the top guys saying "But I killed soo many guys and died like twice! We should have won!"

David.

duffybear1988
05-06-2014, 10:49
Why not drop some units and pick up some Devilfish instead of going for the seemingly easier Eldar option? Gotta love a Warfish...

He was rolling with 3 riptides... it's only natural that he would turn to taudar when all else fails. :D


This one read something on BOLS today that piqued its curiousity:

"play the game to have fun first, where winning is secondary as opposed to playing the game to win primarily and only have fun if winning"

This creature wonders if this applies to tactics cards as well.

But making little Timmy cry makes me happy... It doesn't really. In my last friendly tournament I wiped a 12 year old kids' Tyranid army off the table in pretty much 2 turns with my IG. I felt bad for him, but at the same time I wasn't that upset because I wasn't bringing anything over powered at all (no manticores, no flyers, no autocannon spam, 1 unit of mech vets), it was just a horrible match up and I got the side with the best terrain.

Ended up with 5 wins for 0 losses or draws and placed second (a CSM player with hellturkeys had more kill points overall). Still, I did get to take home a manticore as a prize. Prizes make me happy.

Unfortunately club ruled out the maelstrom cards so I couldn't see how well they would work in a tournament environment.

HelloKitty
05-06-2014, 13:31
Does the whole "But I killed most of his army! I should have won!" mindset **** off anyone else?

This one agrees.