PDA

View Full Version : Maelstrom missions vs regular missions; which do you prefer?



The bearded one
08-06-2014, 05:35
As per the title, what are your thoughts? Which do you prefer, and why? Do you like earning points through the capture of objectives (or in one case killpoints) and the secondary objectives, or do you like the tactical objectives from the maelstrom of war missions? Both encourage a somewhat different style and flow of battle, with the regular missions having the focus more on the state at the end of the game, and the maelstrom missions of the flow and succes through the course of the game, with a bit less emphasis on the state of the armies at the end.

From the maelstrom games I've played so far I'm liking those more. The first game I played, my Tau huddled up behind their Aegis as usual (don't worry, I play Farsight, so I'd be having about 500 points of suits drop from the sky later on), and the wolfy-Mcwolf themed space wolf army with lots of (you guessed it) fenrisian wolves and (right again) thunderwolves sped up the field and were miles ahead of me with victory points in the first turn, despite the fact I killed every single thunderwolf in one turn, because he had control of most of the field. My second game, against imperial fists, had something similar, with droppods planting themselves practically on top of one of my objectives and actually capturing it after its stormbolter cleared the pathfinders away.

So, what do you think? Or would you like a missiontype where both are in effect simultaneously (unless I missed that part of the maelstrom missions' description)?

tneva82
08-06-2014, 06:26
MAelstromg and ain't even close. We are even going to expand the idea with more cards.

Ghazbad_Facestompa
08-06-2014, 06:37
Can't say yet. I've only played one Maelstrom game so far, and while it was interesting and I enjoyed it, I'm not sure I can make a definitive answer yet.

Grocklock
08-06-2014, 07:12
I like both types if games. There is not one I prefer over another. I feel GW did well introducing the maelstrom cards. I'm looking forward to more cards in the future and making my own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shiodome
08-06-2014, 07:18
depends on the mood:

if we want a 'different' game, maelstrom is fun

if we want to compete to see who is the better general, then it's regular.

maelstrom missions are like having a penalty shoot out with 10 balls, 2 of which are concrete, 2 are full of helium, 2 are normal balls, 2 are hedgehogs, and 2 are laser guided precision balls that score 2 goals each time they hit the back of the net. as a measure of skill at taking penalties they're *********** worthless, but they can be a good laugh.

NemoSD
08-06-2014, 07:20
depends on the mood:

if we want a 'different' game, maelstrom is fun

if we want to compete to see who is the better general, then it's regular.

maelstrom missions are like having a penalty shoot out with 10 balls, 2 of which are concrete, 2 are full of helium, 2 are normal balls, 2 are hedgehogs, and 2 are laser guided precision balls that score 2 goals each time they hit the back of the net. as a measure of skill at taking penalties they're *********** worthless, but they can be a good laugh.

I could win that game. Take hedgehogs, throw at other player. While he is battling angry abused hedgehogs, beat him with concrete balls and accept forfeit... I am the better general for I have won without shooting a single hoop.

Shiodome
08-06-2014, 07:23
what in gods name is a hoop, you disgraceful heathen.

NemoSD
08-06-2014, 07:25
what in gods name is a hoop, you disgraceful heathen.

Sorry, I am from America where our sports are action packed. My mind went to basketball :-p

Edit Note: It concerns this American that you were more concerned with the sport of choice confusion then the plan to beat someone with hedgehogs and concrete balls....

tneva82
08-06-2014, 07:35
depends on the mood:

if we want a 'different' game, maelstrom is fun

if we want to compete to see who is the better general, then it's regular.

maelstrom missions are like having a penalty shoot out with 10 balls, 2 of which are concrete, 2 are full of helium, 2 are normal balls, 2 are hedgehogs, and 2 are laser guided precision balls that score 2 goals each time they hit the back of the net. as a measure of skill at taking penalties they're *********** worthless, but they can be a good laugh.

I consider ability to adapt to changing situations crucial measurement of good general. Ergo for me maelstrom measures who's better player by far-

Shiodome
08-06-2014, 07:36
well, seeing as i can't make my helium filled hedgehog plans until i've rolled a d66 to see what i get, there's no point thinking about it. i could end up with laser guided concrete. which was the point really. as fun as maelstrom is, if one guy rolls his d66's and gets the opportunity of 3vp for claiming 3 objectives, and the other guy get's the option of 3+2d3 for scoring the exact same objectives, then any pretence of maelstrom being a competitive option just flies out the window. only use it if you're in an easy going mood and don't mind losing on a random dice roll turn 5.

as an example, my last game i was getting utterly hammered by a mobile eldar army and was 9vp behind. and rightly so. then i got '1vp for killing in assault (or d3 if 3 or more)', '1 vp for destroying unit or d3 if 3 or more' and an objective secured one. just as i happened to be about to assault a couple of immobilised vehicles.... scored 8vp in one turn through no tactical aptitude on my part. *shrug*

Killgore
08-06-2014, 08:13
Maelstrom missions.

These missions encourage a more balanced list build. You can't just sit there and roll dice from behind a aegis defence line, you need to plan how to get in the enemies half with objective secured troops and react to a changing situation.

nosebiter
08-06-2014, 08:26
Maelstrom missions.

These missions encourage a more balanced list build. You can't just sit there and roll dice from behind a aegis defence line, you need to plan how to get in the enemies half with objective secured troops and react to a changing situation.


Agree totally.

Camping in a corner with your army of Many Spam, behind a defence line, does not make you a great general.

Memnon
08-06-2014, 16:37
We have found Maelstrom by far (although The Relic is fun), to be the better scenarios. I even actively encourage everyone to try out the "Cloak and Shadows" rule where you keep your objectives a secret, its brilliant!

Having said that, most missions favour infantry heavy armies as they are able to cover more objectives, and with half the available cards being "Claim Objective X" certainly puts my elite forces out in the cold! But I have enjoyed the six games I've played so far, even though I've only won once!

Memnon

htsmithium
08-06-2014, 16:47
I much prefer maelstrom, thou I have to say in my group we ruled if you pull a card that you can't actually do ( i.e. deny the witch against an army with no psychers) you can immediately discard and draw again.

NemoSD
08-06-2014, 17:28
I much prefer maelstrom, thou I have to say in my group we ruled if you pull a card that you can't actually do ( i.e. deny the witch against an army with no psychers) you can immediately discard and draw again.

Yeah, I use the same rule. Just makes sense.

Ultraloth
08-06-2014, 18:48
I much prefer maelstrom, thou I have to say in my group we ruled if you pull a card that you can't actually do ( i.e. deny the witch against an army with no psychers) you can immediately discard and draw again.

Shouldn't the rule that lets you discard a single card at the end of your turn be enough to cover that?

NemoSD
08-06-2014, 19:46
Shouldn't the rule that lets you discard a single card at the end of your turn be enough to cover that?

Not always. Plus what happens if your starting hand is three cards that are not usable. It will take you three turns to just break even and start you out at a massive deficit.

Killgore
08-06-2014, 20:35
Not always. Plus what happens if your starting hand is three cards that are not usable. It will take you three turns to just break even and start you out at a massive deficit.

All worst case scenario. Why not focus on that golden three card hand that could give a decent advantage?

Most of these missions give you between 3-6 cards a turn, chances of all being naff are rather slim.

NemoSD
08-06-2014, 20:36
All worst case scenario. Why not focus on that golden three card hand that could give a decent advantage?

Most of these missions give you between 3-6 cards a turn, chances of all being naff are rather slim.

I don't understand the argument? Are you saying to keep the **** cards on the off chance you have the hand that is versus the **** hand?

Or are you arguing non-sense to argue?

Fox Of 9
08-06-2014, 21:59
As your meant to have a deck each we take out before hand all the cards that we can't complete, such as kill a Psychic due to my opponent not having any ect..


David.

Minsc
08-06-2014, 22:08
Maelstrom, it's not even close.


Maelstrom missions.

These missions encourage a more balanced list build. You can't just sit there and roll dice from behind a aegis defence line, you need to plan how to get in the enemies half with objective secured troops and react to a changing situation.

+1.

Shiodome
08-06-2014, 22:15
actually the missions encourage an army that spams bikes/beasts/cavalry. but don't worry about that, playing 'sci-fi whack-a-mole' is tactical so that's ok.

Wolf Lord Balrog
08-06-2014, 22:32
Maelstrom missions.

These missions encourage a more balanced list build. You can't just sit there and roll dice from behind a aegis defence line, you need to plan how to get in the enemies half with objective secured troops and react to a changing situation.

That isn't a problem with the Eternal War missions. That is a problem with the design of 6th and 7th Ed 40K, particularly the codices.

Minsc
08-06-2014, 22:52
That isn't a problem with the Eternal War missions. That is a problem with the design of 6th and 7th Ed 40K, particularly the codices.

No one said it was the EW-missions fault.

Gonefishing
08-06-2014, 23:33
No one said it was the EW-missions fault.

Actually Kilgore kind of did? He said that maelstrom encouraged more balanced lists, ergo the EW missions do not encourage balanced lists (whether that's right or wrong I have no comment - but it was said). All Wolflord did was state the EW missions are not to blame for this - the general Game Design is- Reasonable point I think. GW now say "We don't care, take what the hell you like" in the rules, so any unbalanced lists in terms of power are now jointly the fault of the rules that allow them to do so legally and the player who selects the list.

Personally I think good game design should manage this, not the players - but I'm sure plenty disagree. At the end of the day that's just my opinion.

AngryAngel
08-06-2014, 23:53
It's all a man can do sometimes, to just state his opinion and justify it with the facts he has. Let those who agree or don't sort it all out.

I vote for enjoying the eternal war missions more. I don't dig the ultra random objective cards. I have played them, and didn't enjoy them. However brilliant job they did in making people near have to buy the card sets. It is a royal pain to use the book and keep track of the objectives on paper, along with everything else as you play the game.

Felwether
08-06-2014, 23:58
Just make your own. It took me about an hour in total including cutting and laminating.

EDIT: OT I've played a good few games now with the Maelstrom missions and I've really enjoyed them. Still think The Scouring is my favourite mission overall though.

AngryAngel
09-06-2014, 00:02
I, in fact, never stated such a thing. I did say however, I would end up somewhat forced to, because everyone who plays where I do keeps up current. As well, to really break down what is wrong with the edition, from not only an outside and inside view, you would need to at least give it a shot. I hated the entirety of 6th as well, and I'm sure this edition will leave me no happier. Where as I was fine through 3rd, 4th and 5th.

Now there were others who disliked the edition who did say they wouldn't play it. I guess we all bleed into the same person.

Felwether
09-06-2014, 00:11
I, in fact, never stated such a thing. I did say however, I would end up somewhat forced to, because everyone who plays where I do keeps up current. As well, to really break down what is wrong with the edition, from not only an outside and inside view, you would need to at least give it a shot. I hated the entirety of 6th as well, and I'm sure this edition will leave me no happier. Where as I was fine through 3rd, 4th and 5th.

Now there were others who disliked the edition who did say they wouldn't play it. I guess we all bleed into the same person.

Sorry Angel, mixed you up with someone else!

AngryAngel
09-06-2014, 00:25
No worries my friend, it happens to all of us ( myself included ).

Ssilmath
09-06-2014, 00:47
Finally got in my Maelstrom games today, and I give them a solid B. There were a few points where one player or the other discarded an objective they couldn't accomplish, but on the whole they encouraged movement and one player didn't get way ahead of the other. All in all, a lot of fun.

Wolf Lord Balrog
09-06-2014, 01:39
Sorry Angel, mixed you up with someone else!

I was one of the ones that said I wouldn't play 7th, hit me. :)

sephiroth87
09-06-2014, 08:17
Maelstrom is the choice. The other missions don't really even come close for me. I've gotten tired over the years of shooting for 5 turns and then zipping a unit out to take an objective. I hated the kill points that rewarded taking deathstar units. I hated the aegis gunline armies that took over the last edition. I think this edition and these missions are what 40k needed. GW got it (mostly) right.

Rick_1138
09-06-2014, 09:58
Maelstrom is the choice. The other missions don't really even come close for me. I've gotten tired over the years of shooting for 5 turns and then zipping a unit out to take an objective. I hated the kill points that rewarded taking deathstar units. I hated the aegis gunline armies that took over the last edition. I think this edition and these missions are what 40k needed. GW got it (mostly) right.


Agree with this mostly.

Played a 2K game with my mate yesterday and he had wraith elder with a wraithknight and an allied imperial knight (he had to grab shop stuff as he didn't realise we were playing 2k, it was fun so wasnt fussed). I had Raptor mariens with Lias issodon, no allies.

Game went well, wraithknight died in first turn and imp knight in second, after vaporising a tactical squad, pinning the other and violating a Vindicator before my skytalon got lucky and hit, damaged and Nova'd the thing haha.

The mission cards were a bit of a pest though as I got "secure objective 1" 3 times, and this was the objective he had 2 un-killable wave serpents on (Serpents shiled is way too good, but as an elder player now and then I cant complain) so they were useless to me, however if I got them I would have made 3 points in 1 turn.

Another was hold the line, I had 3 units in my deployment he had 1" worth of wave serpent in my line due to it being able to pivot, so I lost that, but tbf that was just poor luck on my part.

In the end he got 7 I got 3 but if I had got hold the line and had been able to get to objective 1 it would have been a draw, and it wouldn't have been THAT difficult to try for objective 1 had it not been for the knight and lots od D, scythes keeping me at arms length.

All in all, a good game and made it less about who can kurb stomp who, though in terms of models lost it was about even :)

TheBearminator
09-06-2014, 13:29
Only played one game of 7th. But I really liked the new maelstrom rules. I've been longing for new missions, not only holding objectives, but wiping out specific units, killing warlords and so on. What I didn't find very interesting is that you need to came of objectives anyway to get new tactical objectives.

HelloKitty
09-06-2014, 14:01
it finds that having a wide variety of missions to play where you don't know if its maelstrom or eternal war or altar of war or whatever encourages more balanced armies. If the list building creature does not know what mission it will face, the list building creature can not build an unbalanced list for it. It likes them all as long as they are all circulated.

Brother-Captain Endymion
11-06-2014, 00:45
it finds that having a wide variety of missions to play where you don't know if its maelstrom or eternal war or altar of war or whatever encourages more balanced armies. If the list building creature does not know what mission it will face, the list building creature can not build an unbalanced list for it. It likes them all as long as they are all circulated.

I agree with the kitty-creature.

Having said that, if I had to choose only one - Maelstrom.

The bearded one
11-06-2014, 01:32
I wonder how a combination would play. Both 3 vp for objectives, and tactical objectives.

lethlis
11-06-2014, 04:28
Maelstrom has been bringing new life into the game for a lot of people. The locals even want to run it as is for tournaments(which is fine with me, just means its more of a challenge).

I really like how it brings a lot of different builds that can work to the table. Sure you can go a bunch of small fast units, but if they get some of the kill cards all of a sudden those fast units can be a liability.

My biggest problem was that a lot of armies won by not playing the game. Super death stars or FMCs, won by not playing the game until turn 5 and barely doing anything then.

Now with maelstrom and objective secured that is not really an option anymore and requires you build armies that can do ****.

NemoSD
11-06-2014, 05:33
Maelstrom has been bringing new life into the game for a lot of people. The locals even want to run it as is for tournaments(which is fine with me, just means its more of a challenge).

I really like how it brings a lot of different builds that can work to the table. Sure you can go a bunch of small fast units, but if they get some of the kill cards all of a sudden those fast units can be a liability.

My biggest problem was that a lot of armies won by not playing the game. Super death stars or FMCs, won by not playing the game until turn 5 and barely doing anything then.

Now with maelstrom and objective secured that is not really an option anymore and requires you build armies that can do ****.

I played a game recently with an opponent who took elite guard. All vets, etc.. with some Tau allies to round it out. His list was built with 6 in mind, and was designed to keep the other side of the table from advancing while sitting on a home objective. Maelstrom put him at an immediate disadvantage against my TAC Aggressive Guard, who not only had no fear of moving up the field, but they did it using tanks, sentinels, and each other as mobile cover, while moving from location to location. The tank charge of my Russes up the center drew so much of his fire that I have a Plasma PCS squad on his flanking popping his tanks. I also had a crap ton more points then him due to me simply reaching out to chase down objectives. Near the end, he managed to grab a four point turn, but the next turn he lost all of his troop choices, and any home of controlling midfield as my 4 ten man guard squads, which had taken no real fire up to this point, swarm forward and establish firing bases to pin the remainder of his army in the back corner. A few more turns and I likely would of controlled all six objectives as well.

It wasn't that I out played him, but that his army was designed around over whelming fire while being able to castle up. If he had not been forced to move up to try and keep the points close, he would of had a lot more dudes alive, but he had to abandon the safety of his aegis, which is when dudes started dying left and right.

AngryAngel
11-06-2014, 06:21
Sounds like he let battlefield conditions dictate strategic aim, which you should never do anyways. You should always follow your strategic aims and fit that into the battlefield conditions.

Evol Intent
11-06-2014, 06:29
I prefer Maelstrom so far, having played a couple games now.

It just feels more fluid as a game mode overall, and it seems to punish people for overspecialization/castling-up. I've enjoyed it so far.

NemoSD
11-06-2014, 06:52
Sounds like he let battlefield conditions dictate strategic aim, which you should never do anyways. You should always follow your strategic aims and fit that into the battlefield conditions.

The point of the story is maelstrom brings people out of a static comfort zone and will bring strength to a balanced list, as it will be able to handle the changing events of a game better.

Wolf Lord Balrog
11-06-2014, 06:58
The point of the story is maelstrom brings people out of a static comfort zone and will bring strength to a balanced list, as it will be able to handle the changing events of a game better.

A balanced list will do better than a static gunline list yes. A list that can spam durable, mobile units will do better than either however.

AngryAngel
11-06-2014, 07:52
True, or perhaps if he'd spent a few turns in his static gun line he could have done enough focused damage to not be torn up so bad once he did leave it.

mongoosedog300
11-06-2014, 08:12
I wonder how a combination would play. Both 3 vp for objectives, and tactical objectives.

We actually did this the other day, each objective worth 3 VP at the end of the game, with tactical objectives being scored, was super fun, because you fought over objective and basically didn't sit back and shoot, while having to preserve units to hold objectives at the end of the game.

Although we play our maelstroms a little differently, we just roll on the table (rerolling doubles), without removing any from circulation when we've achieved them. I've found that it keeps it much more interesting and gives a higher chance of having to contest and fight for objectives, and keeps the games super close

Sardaukar
14-06-2014, 23:07
I played my first Maelstrom mission some days ago, also my first game in 7th...it was the best, most fun game of 40k I've had in a long, long time!
I think we will never go back to the standard misssions again!

NuggzTheNinja
15-06-2014, 19:08
Regular games, by a long shot. Maelstrom is too frenetic - highly mobile armies (i.e., Eldar and Tau...already powerhouse armies) benefit significantly whereas slower armies can't play to long-term game objectives because they change every...single...turn.

I'm OK with asymmetric objectives and multiple objectives, but the "new objectives every turn" mechanic simply removes any long-term planning from the game.