VonVilkee Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 I score the all six objectives all the time... Course I rock drop pods! It really is knowing the deck half of it is score objective X (1-6) then it gets into the crazy stuff cuz GW wanted their d66 table. I wonder if we go to a d36 and use two thirds objective X and pick the best six from the 41-61 range how that would look... Edit or better yet let the player pick six from the same range. This would allow for your force to have to take objectives but for those crazier ones you could pick what you are good at, this could add some strategy as do you go for those harder to get d3 victory points or play it safer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterman Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 http://adepticon.org/wpfiles/2015/201540Ktocards.pdf Adpeticon has put together an adjusted set of maelstrom cards. Keeps the general gist of maelstrom but dials back the un obtainable and gimmies. They've also removed the random VPs (flat 2 VPs instead of d3). There's some interesting additions as well (like extra points on the objective scoring ones if they happen to be outside your deployment zone or in opponents deployment zone). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 Wow. Those are all really REALLY good IMO. I'll see if they tweak it at all, but from now on, that's the Maelstrom table I'm rolling on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 How do you figure warlords in transports? That was a big questions had. Players pack prolly spells it out but that is a discussion point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 The transport would have to fully fit into the spaces required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 I think the point to be made here is simply that the OFCC is ideal for Maelstrom, regardless of how it gets implemented (you know, exact details aside). Worth a new thread I think too. The basic idea is just so quintessentially in lock step with how I used to view the OFCC. I think that it will do nothing but help drive home the ideals of playing as the major goal. I'm as competitive as anyone, and I have enjoyed some success. But is it just me or don't you kinda get excited for the other guy when he makes a great comeback? I mean I love the underdog and I just feel like the cards give us the chance to do it. Ive been down 7 by round two and won. I've been up NINE and lost! It's really intense and you're like "okay what's gonna happen next". Kinda like watching a good drama. and sometimes the bad guys win (bad guys being defined as anyone not me) and sometimes the good guys win (defined as me). But either way its interesting to watch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikhailLenin Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Hey, on my last game at OFCC. My opponent scored 9 points on turn one due to card luck and my defensive deployment. I look at him and tell him: "Guess I have to table you now." It was the most epic tabling ever. On the last close combat phase of the game which went on to turn 7 I managed to strip his last hullpoint from his Command barge. I won but I had 0 Maelstrom points and he had like 20. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Would you characterize it as a fun/good game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Hey, on my last game at OFCC. My opponent scored 9 points on turn one due to card luck and my defensive deployment. I look at him and tell him: "Guess I have to table you now." It was the most epic tabling ever. On the last close combat phase of the game which went on to turn 7 I managed to strip his last hullpoint from his Command barge. I won but I had 0 Maelstrom points and he had like 20. One of the most intense games of 40K, and one of my proudest achievements in it, was a similar situation in my last game at (I think) the 2011 OFCC, where I realized around Turn 3 that there was absolutely no way possible for me to complete the victory conditions on the mission, and I was going to have to table him to win, and I managed to pull it out. That was awesome. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 These sound like perfect OFCC games....... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoobert Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I've said before that the "ideal game" is against a nice guy that came down to a decision and/or dice roll at the end and could have gone either way. What MikailLenin/WestRider's Maelstrom game has in common with all great and fun games is that it was close. Games that are not close (Maelstrom or not) are not fun. Who enjoys watching a incredibly lopsided game of your favorite sport? No one, really, unless you hate the one team so bad you like to watch them suffer. That's not the OFCC spirit. What I disliked about Maelstrom missions is that in many cases they were not close and there was little to nothing an opponent could do about it. Sorry but neither my list nor my opponents were strong enough for a table-ing. I was either feeling bad for the other guy (2 wins by more than 10 points) or the other guy was feeling sorry for me (3 losses by ~10 points). In most cases it was just luck but list matchups were also a factor. Maelstrom seemed to amplify whatever power gap existed in our lists. In a few cases a different strategy might have helped a little - but not a lot. We were trying to make the most of it and I wouldn't say the games were bad, but definitely not awesome. I still had fun, but definitely not as much fun as last year. I'd feel reluctant to play all 5 games Maelstrom again. There must be a hybrid (BAO/Frontline's system) or compromise. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I had far more fun this year but then again my lists are maelstrom friendly always have been. The game should be about mobility and flexibility to get where you need to be. I feel part of the problem is how people holds to the old. Embrace the new including the deploy objectives then roll for side. After this has been handled roll for first deployment and remember that regardless of that roll the player that deploys first chooses who goes first. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoobert Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Strategy and list building. I get it. Ok. But when you sit on 3 objectives and so does he, and he can turn in all 3 cards and you can turn in none? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Same way you deal with it when you just can't roll an Armour Save to save your (or more accurately, your dude-men's) life: You suck it up and accept that this is a game built on randomness to a certain extent. After allowing for discard and redraw of impossible cards, I haven't seen a higher percentage of games screwed over by bad draws in Maelstrom than I see screwed over by bad dice going for regular Objectives. Also, if you're each sitting solidly on three Objectives for any substantial chunk of the Game, your Armies are too static. In most of my Maelstrom Games, I've been at least contesting 4-5 of the Objectives for most of the Game. It's all about Board Control in these scenarios, and you need to be planning for that from the very start (i.e. list writing), or you're putting your whole experience in the hands of the dice/cards. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoobert Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Ok now I just feel pissed on. I've said my bit. I'm exiting this conversation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Was it announced previous to the day that the missions were Maelstrom? Seems like that would be good to know during list building. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Same way you deal with it when you just can't roll an Armour Save to save your (or more accurately, your dude-men's) life: You suck it up and accept that this is a game built on randomness to a certain extent. After allowing for discard and redraw of impossible cards, I haven't seen a higher percentage of games screwed over by bad draws in Maelstrom than I see screwed over by bad dice going for regular Objectives. But in Maelstrom, you can get screwed over by bad armor saves (or other rolls) AND by bad Maelstrom rolls- essentially, you are doubling down on the luck factor. Anything that can go wrong in a normal game can also go wrong in a Maelstrom game, but you have to contend with the additional level of "...and I hope I draw good/decent Maelstrom cards" factor in addition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I still maintain that if you build your Army with the Maelstrom missions in mind, the risk of getting screwed on your draws is no greater than your risk of getting screwed over by any other scenario. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I agree with WestRider, if you plan for Maelstrom, then you build a list accordingly. I did NOT plan for Maelstrom enough, and suffered because of it. I think if we were playing standard missions at OFCC, I would've done way better, but since I couldn't dictate board presence in basically all of my games, I lost. Even then, a few lucky run moves and I would've had a different record as well. That all being said, I think those Adepticon cards are light years ahead of the out of the box cards. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Situation is King in Maelstrom. What you cant control, you plan to control the next round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I still maintain that if you build your Army with the Maelstrom missions in mind, the risk of getting screwed on your draws is no greater than your risk of getting screwed over by any other scenario. You can't plan for drawing bad cards. Even discarding "impossible" cards, it's very probable- likely, even- that you will draw cards that may be possible to complete, but in practice you will be utterly unable to do so. If, for example, you are playing against an Ork Green Tide army and get a "capture objective number whatever that is deep in the enemy DZ," it doesn't matter if you have fast-moving scoring units; you still won't be able to complete the card in practice because sending a unit over there would, functionally, just be suicide. Similarly, for a Tau army drawing "kill a unit in assault" isn't really a goal they can complete against most armies- even Riptides are unlikely to do so. Either card is simply a dead draw, and pulling multiple of these dead draws early on puts a player at a HUGE disadvantage in a way that cannot happen in regular missions. Maelstrom has all of the problems of normal 40K plus a whole other set of problems of its own, new and exciting ways the game can screw you over. That doesn't make it more balanced, that makes it less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottshoemaker Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I just listened to the latest Independent Characters and came up with this idea. What about having a mission with asymmetrical primaries, each player must choose from 2 before the game starts (dependent on the mission). Example The Primaries for mission x are A: Hold as many objectives at the end of the game a possible, each held objective is worth 3 points; or B: Hold objectives turn by turn, each objective held scores 1 point at the end of each turn. Then maelstrom could be the secondary objectives. You draw three cards, choose one, discard the other 2. as they are scored they add to the overall total. I'm oversimplifying the process, but I looked through the BAO and NOVA missions and this seems to be a good mix. People bought the objective card and would like to use them, so why not alter the mechanic than pitch the whole deal. I'm going to see about running some events this next year and will probably test out this style of mission format, if anyone is willing. Now that summer is over I'm going to be able to play more, so I may ask folks to test the missions out on Club nights. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterman Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I just listened to the latest Independent Characters and came up with this idea. What about having a mission with asymmetrical primaries, each player must choose from 2 before the game starts (dependent on the mission). Example The Primaries for mission x are A: Hold as many objectives at the end of the game a possible, each held objective is worth 3 points; or B: Hold objectives turn by turn, each objective held scores 1 point at the end of each turn. Then maelstrom could be the secondary objectives. You draw three cards, choose one, discard the other 2. as they are scored they add to the overall total. I'm oversimplifying the process, but I looked through the BAO and NOVA missions and this seems to be a good mix. People bought the objective card and would like to use them, so why not alter the mechanic than pitch the whole deal. I'm going to see about running some events this next year and will probably test out this style of mission format, if anyone is willing. Now that summer is over I'm going to be able to play more, so I may ask folks to test the missions out on Club nights. GW released a mission set back in 4ed that was like this to some degree. Called Rules of Engagement. It had its flaws but was ultimately a lot of fun. Still incorporate some of these ideas into current tournament missions. Below is a PDF of those old rules as a reference http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/downloadAttach/31726.page interestingly one of this weeks white dwarf tease phrase for the next is Rules of Engagement. I am hoping they are bringing something like this back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I still maintain that if you build your Army with the Maelstrom missions in mind, the risk of getting screwed on your draws is no greater than your risk of getting screwed over by any other scenario. Werd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne_Cobbb Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Was it announced previous to the day that the missions were Maelstrom? Seems like that would be good to know during list building. YEah. On the OFCC primer podcast, it was announced that the five we played would be the missions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.