Maelstrom Go Back!

[CaptainA]

Just my feelings about Maelstrom missions after many recent played games....

 

Maelstrom Go back

(Sung to the tune of Baby Got Back by Sir Mix-A-Lot)

 

I hate Mael-strom and I cannot lie!

Even though other brothers still deny

When you pull out those cards

On the very turn one and the points go up to 9?

I get hung

Wanna jump off the cliff

Cause you know the game is already done

Those Maelstrom make me swearin

Cause random sure ain’t fair-in

Oh baby!

I wanna 52 ya

Reecey and G tried to warn me

Those cards you got

Fill me with Khorne-y

OOOOH Maelstrom goodness

You say you love that game

Well screw me tattoo me

Cause the game is over and we haven’t even played…

 

 

Oh yeah, Captain phAt in the house! Can you dig it! Can you feel it playah!

[Swan-of-War]

That was pure awesome

[Torg]

lol - awesome - the cards killed me in 3-4 of my losses… one was a die-roll and I could have drawn or won lol.  19-9 was one loss lol.

[fluger]

While I appreciate this brand of Weird Al meets 40k, I don't share your opinion.  :D

[pretre]

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Maelstrom.

[Torg]

Maelstrom is fun - I did like it myself - and its perfect for an OFCC even in my opinion.  I just found it daunting after a couple rounds being in a deep deep hole of card points - purely on random card draws.  Bad enough the dice screw me from time to time LOL.  But its all in good fun - right?

 

-d

[AbusePuppy]

Maelstrom is some decent ideas (dynamic objectives to keep both armies active, turn-by-turn progression so it isn't just an endgame rush) that is very poorly implemented and will generally swing heavily in favor of one player or the other with no real balancing mechanism. Did you draw three cards you can complete first turn and your opponent got none? Congratulations, you probably win unless you are a complete screw-up!

 

The lack of any kind of comeback mechanism combined with lots of randomness and cards that can be literally impossible to complete shows a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of game mechanics. I've played Maelstrom and had fun with it, but it was because I liked playing 40K, not because Maelstrom is in any way better than normal missions.

[CaptainA]

Sorry bro's Maelstrom blows....can't stop rhyming.

 

In concept they are genius, but as we have them they are often lopsided terrible games.

 

Stoobert on my team had all 5 games be a blowout one way or another due to the maelstrom cards.

 

I had most all of my games as well get quickly decided in the early turns with two to three decided turn one. Ben Cromwell scored 8 maelstrom points round one due to mission type and army type and completely reamed me. Even my closest and most epic game was decided on turn 4 when he got the right cards and rolls for them.

 

I love the concept but my continued random pulls of getting great points one way or another is frustrating and makes it not fun for many. I know I heard from a lot of people at OFCC that felt the same way.

[pretre]

To be fair, we could have had free BJ's from porn stars at every round of the 40k event and a lot of people would have complained that it unbalanced games and was frustrating though. :)

[fluger]

Maelstrom is some decent ideas (dynamic objectives to keep both armies active, turn-by-turn progression so it isn't just an endgame rush) that is very poorly implemented and will generally swing heavily in favor of one player or the other with no real balancing mechanism. Did you draw three cards you can complete first turn and your opponent got none? Congratulations, you probably win unless you are a complete screw-up!

 

The lack of any kind of comeback mechanism combined with lots of randomness and cards that can be literally impossible to complete shows a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of game mechanics. I've played Maelstrom and had fun with it, but it was because I liked playing 40K, not because Maelstrom is in any way better than normal missions.

 

I agree that out of the box Maelstrom isn't even close to perfect.  A couple simple tweaks that I think make it sing are:

 

1.  Allow immediate discard and re-draw for cards that are impossible.  For instance, getting kill a flyer and your opponent does not have one.  

 

2.  Allow no limit on discards at the end of the turn.  

 

I have been doing #1 since the beginning, but I really felt I needed number 2 in the games over the weekend.  In both game 2 and game 5 I got stuck with a hand full of essentially impossible cards that I couldn't get rid of fast enough.  I really think that would stem the tide.  

 

Another option would be to limit the amount of cards that can be scored per turn?  Maybe never score more than 2 cards or cap it at no more than 4 points a turn?  

 

I have been meaning to give the BAO missions a try with their take on Maelstrom.  I find the concept very strong, especially because they tailored the Maelstrom objectives to the primary objective in clever ways.  

 

Anyway, just some quick thoughts.  

[Swan-of-War]

I vote we test that theory Pretre

[pretre]

I vote we test that theory Ptetre

Pretre for HOG 2015. Free BJ's and Hookers!

[Torg]

I liked the one mission where you only got cards…for the objectives you held.  it kept the cards to a minimum…. but on the flip side - it only benefited greatly the person "winning" lol.

 

I think a draw up of cards at the start or early in early rounds of a game - without further cards drawn could be better.  not sure.  But for OFCC - where winning isn't to be as important - i guess its not that bad to me.

 

-d

[Torg]

Pretre for HOG 2015. Free BJ's and Hookers!

SECONDED!!!

[pretre]

Pretre for HOG 2015. Free BJ's and Hookers!*

* BJ's and Hookers not guaranteed.

[Bosco]

I agree there are some things wrong with maelstrom missions (the discard and impossible objective mechanics being two big issues to change for sure), but I feel like they are a strong step towards balancing list building and have greatly enjoyed playing them whenever I've had a well rounded list.  

 

I feel like they enable a more dynamic game rather than letting someone single-mindedly tailor their list to exploit a rules combination for unstoppable cheddar and pretty much guaranteeing their opponent is bored/frustrated the whole time.

[Guest]

I have issues with certain aspects, but I mostly like the idea. I think the intention was to create an even less compedative, more random version of 40k. It can be fun if playing to have fun, but is a bad way to play if trying to test units or player skill, as they game is too random to be a contest.

 

I think that players should use a shared deck of cards, both because it encourages sharing, and because there are already enough duplicate missions in the deck. I also dislike the potential adding of just one more way to cheat in 40k, a shared deck would eliminate any potential for stacked deck shenanigans.

[Romans832]

STANDING OVATION

 

My first game by turn 3, my opponent had 15 points to my 3 or 4

Game 2 I had 2 to 3 TIMES the cards he had and he beat me by 1 because he got all kinds of D3 cards

Game 3, I couldn't get cards to save my tail pipe.

[scottshoemaker]

One mechanic I read (somewhere?) was that you draw 3 cards as normal, but you must choose the one you are going have active (intend to complete), you then discard the other two. Next turn, same deal.  That way you can never complete more cards than game length, and it keeps the secondary objective relevant.

 

I'd love to try this method out if anyone would like.

 

For a further variation, you can't draw any more cards until you complete your active mission.

[Jayne_Cobbb]

I liked the Maelstrom, but not the last mission.  I knew turn two that the only path to victory was for me to table the guy.  

He scored like five turn one and four turn four, and i was just discarding down...

 

[Lord Hanaur]

I love the Maelstrom Missions.  I totally feel like I'm desperately trying to secure things for High command in my own small sector of a titanically large battle.  I just imagine that we are a small company of soldiers that are cut off, we're losing and we are the last hope for the larger force to gain purchase!

 

I dunno, I REALLY like Maelstrom.  You can get positively decimated and still win, because YOU AREN'T IMPORTANT.  Only the mission is.  A Billion soldiers are fighting for their lives and if you fail, it's OVER.  We know we're not makin' it outta here.  We've looked into each others eyes and seen the recognition of it.  We know the score, we know it's our time and we got a job to do.  Better to die on yer feet than on your knees!  

 

So drop yer Bleeps and grab yer socks boyz 'cause we never wanted to live forever anyways!

[AbusePuppy]

I have been doing #1 since the beginning, but I really felt I needed number 2 in the games over the weekend.  In both game 2 and game 5 I got stuck with a hand full of essentially impossible cards that I couldn't get rid of fast enough.  I really think that would stem the tide.  

 

This is exactly the problem, and it's something so incredibly basic to the system and yet GW didn't think about it at all. Discarding "impossible" cards certainly helps (that's how we've been playing it in casual games), but you then run into the issue of not-impossible-but-unreasonably-difficult cards. For example, if you get "kill a flyer" for a card on turn 1 and single Stormtalon doesn't come in until turn four, you still have very little chance of making any use of that card. Ditto with stuff like the "hold all six objectives" card- there should be very, very, very few situations where it is even possible, much less likely, that you can score that card, so it may as well just be a picture of Robert Cruddace giving you the finger.

 

 

I have been meaning to give the BAO missions a try with their take on Maelstrom.  I find the concept very strong, especially because they tailored the Maelstrom objectives to the primary objective in clever ways.

 

The BAO versions of Maelstrom work about as well as anything can. The random factor is still obnoxious- I've lost several games just due to my opponent rolling the objectives on their side while I rolled ones that I couldn't get to (without suiciding my units and giving up the primary.) However, the fact that the primary and book secondaries have as much/more weight and there is a distinct limit how far ahead your opponent can get on a given turn means it works reasonably well.

 

 

I dunno, I REALLY like Maelstrom.  You can get positively decimated and still win, because YOU AREN'T IMPORTANT.  Only the mission is. 

 

Yeah but this is also true with the normal missions. That's the point of having objectives rather than just Fantasy-style Victory Points based on how much you killed (with bonuses for other things.) In five of the six basic mission types, your opponent can win the game with a single model on the table, something I have seen happen multiple times before. You don't need wacky random BS for the victory to go to the person who played the mission better.

 

[Lord Hanaur]

well I mean its the OFCC and Maelstrom missions are super fun so with just some very few little tweaks i think it fits OFCC.  I didn't go this year, but if i had I think my attitude would have been kinda unchanged.  Getting blown out as some people put it happens all the time in real games.  People just dont KNOW they already lost til later.  And what I enjoy about Maelstrom is that the other guy isnt "doing it to you" so to speak.  Winning and losing doesnt feel as...  I dont know...  critical to the having fun part as you feel when its you v HIM.  When you lose it doesnt entirely feel the same.  I don't get the same level of disappointment really. 

 

I also like that you can come streaking back on a white horse against improbable odds. 

 

Anywho, I ernestly hope that the Maelstrom Missions do see play again at OFCC.

[WestRider]

The only Maelstrom games that I've seen end up as true blowouts on VPs were also tablings, tho we have generally house-ruled for discarding impossible cards and redrawing. Deadlock is the one that seems to be the biggest problem, tho Contact Lost can also have issues.

 

That said, a lot of the Armies that I've seen really have trouble with Maelstrom are those that are lacking in mobility and flexibility. Running a gunline ain't gonna work out well for the most part, and a mobile, flexible Army can often still dart around and pick up a surprising number of Points even while getting nearly wiped out.

[Lord Hanaur]

yay mobility!