FAQs are up!

[winterman]

The cards will always have those silly outlier games where you are down 5-10 VP turn 1.  Or games where you are up 10+ VP via your skilled play and then your opponents gets lucky and sucks it out 'on the river card', so to speak.  Yes, strategy and tactics did not necessarily play into those types of wins or losses but it doesn't mean there wasn't any throughout the game or that there wasn't that chance to pull off the win.  Those are outliers though -- most games the cards should have a natural ebb and flow that encourage balanced lists and not alpha strike or turn 7 objective scrambles.

 

Personally I much prefer the randomness of the cards over the say Scouring where one can end up with a major mismatch for the entire game rather then in one turn.  Or Relic where the outcome of the game is usually decided by First Blood.  At least with maelstrom there's 5-7 turns where I myself might get a golden opportunity with the right cards.

[fluger]

What I generally dislike about 7th edition is that since it is so wishy washy on what is in and what is out that there is even LESS of a consensus on HOW TO PLAY THE GAME.  

 

I feel like the pre-game conversations are going to be extensive and unenjoyable for the most part unless one is part of an established gaming group.  

 

I dislike that people are going to fall into camps and divide this hobby further.  

 

I'm sanguine overall about 7th simply by dint of the fact that I mostly just house-game now and I know the people I play with and know that my games will be enjoyable whatever we are playing.  

[Lord Hanaur]

Some of the online reporters are stating that in their games, many times it is decided on the first turn as one player has a great hand that they score right away and the other gets a cruddy hand that they can't recover from. Has this happened to you yet?

Not in my games nor those Ive observed.  I think they are overstating things anyways.  Most objectives are things you'd be trying to do anyways.  However, some are tough to do NOW and you must try to do them later.  Its strategic like anything else.  

 

But the Maelstrom missions are so fun that who cares?  I'm being serious here.  So you got a bad hand?  You're allowed to discard one every round and unless you're just an immobile lump on a less mobile log, you should be able to chase those objectives pretty good most rounds.  

 

I have had a couple bummer cards, but its not unrecoverable.  I think the only real "downside" is that some of the harder to accomplish cards (like kill 3 units in shooting) are worth D3 and chance can be a fickle mistress.  Save those for later rounds and its not nearly so hard to accomplish.  So WHEN you 'go for it" is now a part of the Maelstrom missions.

[Lord Hanaur]

Is it fun on turn one when your opponent gets like 10 points and you get one? Random isn't always always that fun or dynamic.  

That's basically like getting blown off the table turn one. "Great, no way I can even get a Draw here.  Wanna play again I guess?"

While its theoretically possible to score 10 in a round...  theoretically...  Your opponent is just as likely to do the same or close the gap significantly.  Really.  We scored batches of points in starts and stops, jockeying back and forth.  I scored 6 in a round...and he came right back and scored 5.  So the points can come quick.

 

And its not like ANY version of ANY wargame ever has been different in this way.  In one round, you can see the beginning of the end quite early.  Example: kind of a famous story here, but My Eldar Airforce took out two full Broadside units, pinned two more important units in round 3.  Game was effectively over.  Sure...  we finished things up and there was even a turn 6, but the thirs round was a back breaker.  

 

This story and many many others kind of point to the fact that when you have someone beat, you have someone beat.  That it was because of a lucky early draw or excellent dice, this is a game of strategy coupled with chance.  We all know that going in.

[Burk]

Meh.  the game can literally come down to what you draw turn one.  May as well just play war (The old card game) or candy land.

 

If i get kill your flyer (You have none), kill your building (None again), and score an objective on your side (In your Bunker), and I can only get rid of one of them a turn, I lose.

 

I can get rid of one, but my other two, i cant score.  Mean while you get easy ones?  

 

Wast of card stock if you ask me.

 

And first blood was what again????

 

Also try taking the tactical warlord trait.  there is one or two in there that let you discard your starting hand, or mitigate your starting hand.  hell there is a mission where you play off your opponents cards.  you cant say that draw will lose you a game any more than getting first turn did before.  Come on man.  Hell it was worse before where 1 point was important.  I played a game this weekend where the score was 18 to 12.   starting hands didnt mean anything.

[BrainFireBob]

Wait. Grey Knight Terminators with force swords have the following statline with Hammerhand? Did I read this right?

 

S6 T4 3+/4++ AP3?

[Chappy]

4++ invul save is only for close combat. Not ranged IIRC.

[ROGRE]

Only two games of 7th under my belt but I like the cards. I lost one and won the other but both were a great time. It's not the only way to play but if you're just speculating on how it will play out you might be missing out on a good time.

[InfestedKerrigan]

Gwah

[AbusePuppy]

Those are outliers though -- most games the cards should have a natural ebb and flow that encourage balanced lists and not alpha strike or turn 7 objective scrambles.

 

See, the problem with the cards is that there is no "comeback" mechanic. Once someone starts pulling ahead in number of cards collected- even if it's just, say, completing two cards in a single turn- they will likely continue to pull further ahead, because they are completing more cards and thus getting to see more new cards. The randomness itself is not the core of the problem- it's the randomness combined with the fact that once you are behind, there is no good way to get ahead.

 

Alpha strikes and all of that still happen in Maelstrom of War just as much as regular games. I appreciate the mechanic of scoring points throughout the course of the game- it means that what happens on turns 1-4 is relevant above and beyond what units die or what position they end up on, but the Maelstrom cards themselves do no favors. I think it needs some tweaks to really work out consistently, otherwise you're getting yet another random factor that can screw you out of being able to effectively participate in the game.

 

 

And first blood was what again????

 

Also try taking the tactical warlord trait.  there is one or two in there that let you discard your starting hand, or mitigate your starting hand.  hell there is a mission where you play off your opponents cards.  you cant say that draw will lose you a game any more than getting first turn did before.  Come on man.  Hell it was worse before where 1 point was important.  I played a game this weekend where the score was 18 to 12.   starting hands didnt mean anything.

 

First Blood very rarely decides games in my experience, at least when both players remembered that you're allowed to bring more than two scoring units. All the secondaries together are only worth as much as a single objective marker, so I think that people tend to overestimate them.

 

Only three of the Tactical traits actually affect your cards in hand, and of those one must be used at the beginning of the game and another one is one-use. I would much rather see just a universal "at the end of a turn you can pitch any number of cards" thing be part of Maelstrom- it wouldn't be perfect, but it would at least solve the "I got four cards I can't reasonably complete" problem.

 

The disparities in tactics cards won't always come up- presumably in your game it didn't. But neither will First Blood, or objective values for Scouring, or any of the other things that people complain about; the point is, it's one more thing you have to worry about turning against you. No one likes losing a game to bad luck, especially not when it's in a way where literally nothing you did could have given you a chance in the game- that's what people are complaining about with the Maelstrom missions.

 

[AgentP]

No one likes losing a game to bad luck, especially not when it's in a way where literally nothing you did could have given you a chance in the game- that's what people are complaining about with the Maelstrom missions.

 

Las Vegas begs to differ. People love chance, and will play games of chance much more than games of pure skill. Caesars and Ballys don't have chess rooms for a reason. I've lost many a bridge and poker hand on the deal, but still enjoyed playing.

 

There are certain games I just love, and I've never met anyone who didn't enjoy playing them, such as Munchkin, Talisman, Arkham Horror, Illuminati. These are games that tell a story through randomness, and often one or more persons just totally gets the shaft. Still an absolute blast.

 

I've played 40k since 1988. It has always been a Munchkin or Talisman type game, but with a cool hobbyist component. It was never intended to be a game of pure skill, and it still isn't intended to be. People getting worked up over potentially losing turn one need to accept that it's a game. Wacky stuff can happen. Laugh, drink a beer, and you've got time for a second game which will be different.

 

People strangely try to impose a competitive and predictable dynamic on a structure never designed for such a thing. Go play chess. Go compete in a sport.

[scottshoemaker]

Las Vegas begs to differ. People love chance, and will play games of chance much more than games of pure skill. Caesars and Ballys don't have chess rooms for a reason. I've lost many a bridge and poker hand on the deal, but still enjoyed playing.

 

There are certain games I just love, and I've never met anyone who didn't enjoy playing them, such as Munchkin, Talisman, Arkham Horror, Illuminati. These are games that tell a story through randomness, and often one or more persons just totally gets the shaft. Still an absolute blast.

 

I've played 40k since 1988. It has always been a Munchkin or Talisman type game, but with a cool hobbyist component. It was never intended to be a game of pure skill, and it still isn't intended to be. People getting worked up over potentially losing turn one need to accept that it's a game. Wacky stuff can happen. Laugh, drink a beer, and you've got time for a second game which will be different.

 

People strangely try to impose a competitive and predictable dynamic on a structure never designed for such a thing. Go play chess. Go compete in a sport.

+1

[Brother Glacius]

While for the most part I agree, chess and most sports don't have you spend thousands of dollars on minis and the hours assembling and painting them. When your investment seems diminished, you have a right to be upset.

[dashneeb]

My investment in 40k hasn't "diminished" since the last time they made a major shift.  Like, 2nd to 3rd switch.

 

You don't like the cards, don't play them.  It's pretty simple.  I believe there are normal missions still are there not?

[pretre]

FAQs updated. Wolves Runic Weapon fixed and Sanctic update.

[cadaver2k]

Eben you beat me to it! :-)

[pretre]

That's how I roll.

[fluger]

Las Vegas begs to differ. People love chance, and will play games of chance much more than games of pure skill. Caesars and Ballys don't have chess rooms for a reason. I've lost many a bridge and poker hand on the deal, but still enjoyed playing.

 

Yeah, but the critical difference is that one is gambling for MONEY.  Chance is fun, but only because there is something tangible that can be won.  Also, one of the most popular games for a while is a skill game that involves luck:  Poker.  It is also the only game that is played vs another player(s) instead of blind chance (dealers in blackjack don't count).  Poker and 40k have a lot in common because it is about understanding percentages and chance and the players that leverage that tend to win out over those who don't in both cases.  Yes, both involve wild moments of luck, but it isn't straight up craps.  

 

There are certain games I just love, and I've never met anyone who didn't enjoy playing them, such as Munchkin, Talisman, Arkham Horror, Illuminati. These are games that tell a story through randomness, and often one or more persons just totally gets the shaft. Still an absolute blast.

 

I actually hate Munchkin.  I'd rather just play war.  Games that involve almost no player skill just don't interest me.  I haven't played those other games.  

 

I've played 40k since 1988. It has always been a Munchkin or Talisman type game, but with a cool hobbyist component. It was never intended to be a game of pure skill, and it still isn't intended to be. People getting worked up over potentially losing turn one need to accept that it's a game. Wacky stuff can happen. Laugh, drink a beer, and you've got time for a second game which will be different.

 

I accept that it can happen, but I also wish that the game wouldn't create MORE avenues for it to happen.  I've lost many a game on the first turn and won plenty that way as well.  These are, to me, the least interesting of games.  Also, when most of one's gaming time is spent in tournaments, where one can't simply hit the reset button, the experience is incredibly frustrating (even if one is the "winner").  

 

People strangely try to impose a competitive and predictable dynamic on a structure never designed for such a thing. Go play chess. Go compete in a sport.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with some randomness, but too much and the game ceases to be anything other than barely controlled GI Joes or the like.  Structure is good!  Then again, I love chess and sports as well.  

[Jayne_Cobbb]

+1

 

I need to get fluger and abuse puppy to just write for me, because they are doing a great job.

[CaptainA]

+1

 

I need to get fluger and abuse puppy to just write for me, because they are doing a great job.

Amen.

[AgentP]

According to the actual financials as reported in the Las Vegas Journal, you know what kept the casino industry afloat through the recession?  It wasn't poker.  It was baccarat  - a game with absolutely zero player input.   

 

 

But in any case, the crux of your position is in your sentence " Also, when most of one's gaming time is spent in tournaments, where one can't simply hit the reset button, the experience is incredibly frustrating (even if one is the "winner").  

 

You are choosing to participate in tournaments, and most of those are falsely trying to impose a chess match on a Yahtzee game.  If you're frustrated, maybe it's not the game's fault, maybe it is the notion of a "tournament."

[fluger]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that poker was a bigger ticket than others (frankly, I thought it would be slots), but it is certainly the only televised gambling out of Vegas...  Every other game at Vegas isn't between people, it's a person vs blind luck.  My point is that while that can certainly fall under the rubric of a "game", most games people play are a form of competition.  Someone wins, someone loses.  The level of player control changes from Candyland to Diplomacy.  

 

I think the real crux of my position is what I stated earlier.  What I don't like about 7th edition is that it creates a new debate about HOW TO PLAY THE GAME.  It's so free-form that people can play it any way they want, and people like me who want player interaction to Clown random events are going to butt heads with people who don't care about that.  That's not fair for anyone, to have to draw lines and divide the community up into little segments ("casual gamers over here please, competitive gamers over there!").  We're already a tiny community in the grand scheme of things and this ruleset is tailor made to drive a wedge.  

 

I've played 40k since 97, back in the dark days of 2nd edition where the game could be easily broken in innumerable ways and balance wasn't even attempted.  Those who pine for Rogue Trader and 2nd edition for the detail and the freedom and the whackiness will love 7th edition.  For those of us who enjoyed the switch to 3rd and the streamlining and the solidifying of the game, this step back is...unwelcome.  

[fluger]

Also, to be fair, I'm going to get my first game in this weekend, so I still haven't road tested it.  Just read the rules.  I'm sanguine that I'll enjoy it because I enjoy the people I play with and there are certain elements of 7th that I can see as great; but I'm just concerned about the health of the hobby as a whole.  

[intrizic]

People strangely try to impose a competitive and predictable dynamic on a structure never designed for such a thing. Go play chess. Go compete in a sport.

I understand and respect your perspective, please try and do the same for mine.  We have a small niche of a community from which we are able to draw opponents from.  Comparing Apples to applesauce, not quite oranges or bananas imo, if you look at other versus games across the different genres, to include video games, CCG and scrap booking (ok, this one is kind of an orange).  There are random elements in these genre's but they is also a strong element of consistency in these games.  Video games have very tight, relatively speaking, mechanics, CCG's generally speaking have a fairly controlled element of chance as well, scrap booking....well maybe that was a stretch.  

 

But where does the engagement come from?  Why do people care about their games? Why do they keep coming back to play them time and again?  For me it's about improving my 'skill', win or lose, I am playing against myself, to improve.  Next question: How do I qualify improvement?  This is where consistency comes into play.  I review my games in my head for hours generally, and if my opponent is willing, I really appreciate a mutual debrief with them.  

 

We've all had games where the dice said no, not just no, but [big bad swear word] NO.  Now, I know a truly good general sets up their games to not be dice dependent, but to some extent we all bet on the averages when making game decisions, still focusing  on consistency, I'll get to my point I swear.  If there is too much random, and not enough consistency then all those elements go out the door.  For me the biggest most disappointment isn't where I get handled by my opponent, that's the game I learn the most from, my most frustrating disappointing game is where I have played well, but the random dice say no, not just no, but [big bad swear word] no.  I actually disengage when that happens. 

[Lord Hanaur]

This debate already existed and it isn't "7th Editions" fault.  Most of it stems from the inclusion of Forge World and Escalation.

 

The cards don't present much trouble in reality because the Maelstrom missions can be ignored if the players just want to play a normal game and a simple roll off takes care of things if they don't agree and want an impartial way to decide.  Its only a PROBLEM when either a) you cross your arms and DECIDE you won't ever play it anyone else's way or b) there is no b.

 

In a normal game, You're there to have fun and there's no prize other than bragging rights.  A loss is just an excuse to play again.  There's probably not a lot of acrimony over this honestly.  

 

I have already fallen in love with Maelstrom missions but would not care whether it was one or not.  I'd play either way and most peoples lists will be built for normal missions and those lists work fine in maelstrom despite any theoryhammer assertions to the contrary.  Even my wave of humanity list has played and won with only one transport and it never moves.  Lol.

 

And by the way...  As i said...  the Maelstrom Missions are a LOT of fun.  Don't hate losing so much that you forget to have fun.  I love winning but I don't hate losing.