Maelstrom Missions: Nope, thats not narrative gaming.

[daboarder]

So I've had a handful of games of 7th now and I must say, wow, the execution of the maelstrom games is terrible.

They aren't "forging a narrative", they aren't allowing you to enact a story of epic clashes between opposing armies with no compromise, they are an exercise in making an army behave like a schizophrenic rat on crack!

Narrative games are games where the story develops as the mission is played, not ones that actively encourage you to act out of character to obtain victory of some sort.
Missions with asymmetrical but defined roles forge a narrative ie: One army must take and hold objectives the other defend them by eliminating the opposing warlord.

Missions that force you to back up your entire army to cap the objectives in your back half, or to ignore opponents in the shooting phase so that you can kill them in the assault phase are jarring.

For example, my last game, I had an opponent drive his land raider next to a pair of obliterators, and iron stave sorcerer and a defiler, just to cap a point for a turn. Then in my turn I proceeded to kill it in combat, not shooting at it for no other reason than to obtain my own point.....thats just dumb, as dumb as pacing a heldrake in hover and reversing it haflway up the field to cap an objective for a single turn. Or grey knights forgoing shooting at chaos terminators just to run onto an objective before attempting to shoot a flier half way across the field all the while ignoring the mass of terminators bearing down on them. Or having entire armies play keep away while rotating around the table, in a race for the next point until some shmuck pulls the "kill a unit card"

Basically if you want to actually play a game with any form of story, play the echoes and altar missions, cities of death or planet strike, they are all better balanced, have a better narrative and actually encourage you to create a story as opposed to rewarding stupid and short term payoffs

[Kaptain Badrukk]

So I've had a handful of games of 7th now and I must say, wow, the execution of the maelstrom games is terrible.

They aren't "forging a narrative", they aren't allowing you to enact a story of epic clashes between opposing armies with no compromise, they are an exercise in making an army behave like a schizophrenic rat on crack!

Narrative games are games where the story develops as the mission is played, not ones that actively encourage you to act out of character to obtain victory of some sort.
Missions with asymmetrical but defined roles forge a narrative ie: One army must take and hold objectives the other defend them by eliminating the opposing warlord.

Missions that force you to back up your entire army to cap the objectives in your back half, or to ignore opponents in the shooting phase so that you can kill them in the assault phase are jarring.

For example, my last game, I had an opponent drive his land raider next to a pair of obliterators, and iron stave sorcerer and a defiler, just to cap a point for a turn. Then in my turn I proceeded to kill it in combat, not shooting at it for no other reason than to obtain my own point.....thats just dumb, as dumb as pacing a heldrake in hover and reversing it haflway up the field to cap an objective for a single turn. Or grey knights forgoing shooting at chaos terminators just to run onto an objective before attempting to shoot a flier half way across the field all the while ignoring the mass of terminators bearing down on them. Or having entire armies play keep away while rotating around the table, in a race for the next point until some shmuck pulls the "kill a unit card"

Basically if you want to actually play a game with any form of story, play the echoes and altar missions, cities of death or planet strike, they are all better balanced, have a better narrative and actually encourage you to create a story as opposed to rewarding stupid and short term payoffs

Hmmm, not tried it yet I'll admit.
Thinking it could be awesome for Killteam, but IMO to make the games feel truly narrative one should NEVER rely on random number generators.
But then these, like so many other things in this book are a tool you can choose to use, or not use, as you see fit.

[fedratsailor]

I have watched a couple maelstrom games, and so far they are based on the placement of the objective numbers and what your card draw are. I personally don't plan to play any maelstrom games, but if a pickup gamer asked ill give it a try. Its just to random and what Daboarder said, your more worried about the points than actually doing anything strategic or tactical.

[Caitsidhe]

They are truly awful. I used to joke about them adding so much randomness to the game that it would be entirely a disguised version of Candyland, wherein nothing we do really matters. I'm not laughing at that joke anymore. I played another game today. I took 2.5K of CSM/Black Legion against 2.5K of Dark Angels w/Knight. While I was soundly beating my opponent, he spent most of the game 5 points ahead of me because it kept giving him cards for things he was already sitting on or were gimmes. I on the other hand kept drawing cards for things not in our game (like destroying a building and so on). Finally, I had to tell him "I'm sorry but my only way to win is by tabling you." I didn't like that the cards had NOTHING whatsoever to do with tactical demands. We played the scenario where you start with six cards in your hand and your hand size decreases by one each turn.

The game made little sense and I didn't like the fact that I was forced to go the extra effort to table the guy. In a normal mission I would have kept it close so as not to be brutal. Here I had no choice but go full throttle or simply lose. Every game I've played with the new missions has been a nightmare. I had one where I beat my opponent 15 VP to 3 based on the same gimme system. Several others looked not the least bit narrative as we ran around like the Scooby Gang on a scavenger hunt. Narrative it is NOT.

[silashand]

Watched a game with them today. Good idea, horrible execution. Between drawing the same card multiple times (that the player who had them could not achieve) to awarding duplicate results for something accomplished in prior turns (d3 VPs for killing the enemy warlord - one player got that twice and ended up with 5VPs because of it). Ultimately the player who started the game with the best hand won, even though the same player had no infantry left and only a couple active vehicles. We will not be using them as written going forward.

One proposal we came up with was to draw 3 and have them apply to both players. First one to accomplish the objective got the requisite VPs. Also, no duplicates. If they come up, just draw a different card. No idea if any of these ideas would help, but almost anything is better than the rules in the book .

And in case anyone was in any doubt, Invisibility is just stupid. Way overpowered as written.

[Charon]

Same experience here. While at first I was excited about the system (reminded me on the missions you draw in 2nd) it turned out to be really bad executed.
You NEED the cards. Rolling dice and looking up the table takes soooo much time and the book keeping is just boring.
If you keep getting missions which tell you to manifest a psi power or destroy a builing when both are not availabe you are just going to lose no matter what.
The player with the better starthand is usually going to win.
We are working on houserules but it feels like we have to rewrite the entire mechanic.

[marful]

I agree. The current Maelstrom Missions are completely random and makes the game devolve into nothing but lucky card draws. Might as well just roll a die each turn and on a 6+ you get a victory point.



I think an army specific, tiered secondary objective system would be good. Very close to the Malifaux 1.0 Strategy and Schemes system.

Each player would have an option of picking their secondary objectives. Then, if they complete it two more options become available. Then depending on which of those they chose (and completed) two more options would become available, etc. All the while each subsequent objective was somehow related to the previous objective.

An example for Space Marines would be the following "narrative" secondary objectives:

Quell Rebellion Secondary Mission
1.) Assess Enemy Forces: Get a scoring unit within 12" of an Enemy Unit (18" for scouts).

2a) Neutralize Enemy's Support: Destroy an Enemy Heavy Choice

3a.a) Reconnoiter Enemy's Supply Routes: Get a scoring unit in enemy's deployment zone.
3a.b) Decimate Enemy's Command Structure: Destroy an Enemy HQ or Elites Choice.

2b) Suppress the Enemy: Destroy at least 2 enemy unit during the shooting phase.

3b.a) Flank Enemy: Destroy an enemy unit with a fast attack unit.
3b.b) Assault Enemy: Destroy at least two enemy units during the assault phase.

Thats just an example I thought up right now, to give an idea how the secondary objectives could work. This way the narrative is actually part of the game play.

[spaceman91]

I agree. The current Maelstrom Missions are completely random and makes the game devolve into nothing but lucky card draws. Might as well just roll a die each turn and on a 6+ you get a victory point.



I think an army specific, tiered secondary objective system would be good. Very close to the Malifaux 1.0 Strategy and Schemes system.

Each player would have an option of picking their secondary objectives. Then, if they complete it two more options become available. Then depending on which of those they chose (and completed) two more options would become available, etc. All the while each subsequent objective was somehow related to the previous objective.

An example for Space Marines would be the following "narrative" secondary objectives:

Quell Rebellion Secondary Mission
1.) Assess Enemy Forces: Get a scoring unit within 12" of an Enemy Unit (18" for scouts).

2a) Neutralize Enemy's Support: Destroy an Enemy Heavy Choice

3a.a) Reconnoiter Enemy's Supply Routes: Get a scoring unit in enemy's deployment zone.
3a.b) Decimate Enemy's Command Structure: Destroy an Enemy HQ or Elites Choice.

2b) Suppress the Enemy: Destroy at least 2 enemy unit during the shooting phase.

3b.a) Flank Enemy: Destroy an enemy unit with a fast attack unit.
3b.b) Assault Enemy: Destroy at least two enemy units during the assault phase.

Thats just an example I thought up right now, to give an idea how the secondary objectives could work. This way the narrative is actually part of the game play.

I think that's a funky idea ( stolen for future use ).

[John Bower]

Actualy it IS pretty narrative; look, war hasn't been 'static' since WWI, war is pretty fluid. And nor is it particularly sensible; Generals have little concept of the tactical level fight, they are more interested in the big picture; look at it another way; you are the Force commander, your little force of guys is fighting a battle in a given area. You get an order to 'take Hill 59', so you tell your soldiers to do just that. However, somewhere across the battlefield the line is in danger of breaking, so the order comes down; we need you to pull back and hold the line right now. Of course you think "Don't those Fethers back there know I'm trying to win a battle here? I was just about to take that objective they wanted secured not 5 minutes ago and now they're telling me 'forget it'." Yeah, they are, because they see things you don't and that friends is the narrative behind it, you don't have a 'general' that knows the bigger picture above you, so you're looking at it from a purely 'game' perspective as being daft. Well yeah, war is one big F*** up until one side makes one less than the other and wins.

That's how it works, don't look at the victory points as just affecting your little fight, look at them as being a tiny part of a huge warzone, with lots of attacks and counter attacks going on all at once; the cards are just a simulation of the Top Brass giving you stupid orders (or at least orders you think are stupid) and of course some are, they've seen something in one part of the battlefield that is a threat so tell you to remove it, but in your part of the same battle that threat is nonexistant. It's no dumber than an entire IG regiment that in the fluff was posthumously sentenced to death for not getting to a battle on time because they'd been wiped out already.

[marful]

Actualy it IS pretty narrative; look, war hasn't been 'static' since WWI, war is pretty fluid.

The opposite of Static is not "Random".

And while war is "pretty fluid", not to the point where you run to certain death / ignore the enemy / set yourself up to get slaughtered, for a secondary objective.

In short, "fluid" does not mean running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.