To use or not to use GK tactical objectives

[Rurik the blessed]

Hello, i am wandering, Must we as GK players always use the six Tactical objectives that comes in the codex? or just play the regular tactical objectives...sometimes is better to capture some easy objectives than accomplish some specific objectives. What is your experience?

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I hate Maelstrom, it's dumb. That said, the rules clearly state you have to replace the generic objectives with our special ones. So, if you're playing Maelstrom missions, you don't get a choice. 

 

Just play Eternal War instead :)

[Brom MKIV]

Yup the language is clear you replace those tactical objectives. That said it still comes down to the players so just ask. I doubt many players would mind if you didn't get to score VPs simply by manifesting powers or shunting etc.

Just play Eternal War instead

This cracks me up

[Rurik the blessed]

Really? I didn't realize of that.

 

BTW i love Maelstrom's missions... The game change a lot and is very fun.

[jeffersonian000]

Maelstrom turns 40k into a Milton Bradley game. Not necessarily bad, just not a table top wargame.

 

SJ

[Deamon Wolf]

I Think Jeff you may be in the minority regarding Malestrom Missions ( not a bad thing may I say )

 

Eternal War is fun but the Malestrom Missions do spice it up abit.

.

I would agree that Malstrom is not a competitve way to play as it relies on random card draws and in a Tournement situation gaining Mission 4 and having nothing but do specific action cards for your self and having your opponent draw nothing but capture objective  cards that is easer for you to win thatn your oppeonent

so as every thing in life its down to the indervidual

 

BTW back on Topic RTB just ask your opponent if he / she / it minds you using the generic cards over the GK ones if its a fun game your opponent should be ok with it

[Deet]

Hate Malestrom.  I've never had a competitive Malestrom game.  It's always crazy one-sided.  We've made some house rules to make it better- remove all the "Capture objective X" crap, and only play with 2 cards max. Makes it tolerable. 

 

For GK, there are way too many demon specific rules too.  Kind of BS considering 90% of who you'll play won't be demons.

[Deamon Wolf]

I think there is only 1 or 2 Kill Deaom cards the other 4 are about killing enemy warlords or activating 3 or more Psykik powers or teleport / shunt / Gate of infinty attacks

 

so i would say its 80% usefull for every army its the 20% that isnt useful

 

we have house rules that if you are phisiclly uynable to do a card you auto discard it

[Brom MKIV]

For me maelstrom is a nice change from the previous editions cookie cutter tactics. Eternal war has just as many problems as maelstrom IME. At least now rolling off for the mission set allows armies not built around killing another avenue to compete. Linear armies obviously suffer more from this approach though. 

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Hate Malestrom.  I've never had a competitive Malestrom game.  It's always crazy one-sided.  We've made some house rules to make it better- remove all the "Capture objective X" crap, and only play with 2 cards max. Makes it tolerable. 

 

Yeah I had a league recently where we house-ruled a bunch of stuff in a similar way. The guy organizing it underestimated just how lopsided Maelstrom can get. 

 

we have house rules that if you are phisiclly uynable to do a card you auto discard it

 

 

That's not a house rule, that's an actual rule regarding Tac Objectives. You can always discard an objective that's impossible. 

For me maelstrom is a nice change from the previous editions cookie cutter tactics. Eternal war has just as many problems as maelstrom IME. At least now rolling off for the mission set allows armies not built around killing another avenue to compete. Linear armies obviously suffer more from this approach though. 

 

I disagree. Killy lists blow away your units, and then proceed to camp objectives and get random bonuses. I've been forced into conceding by Tau lists doing precisely that. Eternal War at least has less objectives to grab normally (thus giving low model count armies a chance to compete for them). Maelstrom is horribly biased in favour of shooty armies. Eternal War encourages more dynamic play. Relic is still stupid and should be banned at any sensible tournament (it's basically 'who has the more durable or mobile unit, okay GG'), but the other's are okay. 

[Brom MKIV]

I disagree. Killing a unit after its scored is a losing exchange unless you're too elite to play the mission. Maelstrom favors mobility and msu, if your shooty that's just a bonus. I play maelstrom quite a bit and i credit that system in part for the decline in static gunline armies around here. Heavy terrain and turn by turn scoring makes it very hard for those types of armies to win man. It allows fluffy armies like full tac continents to win where as in eternal war you can set about just destroying your opponent such favors shooting more, then cap objectives last turn. That won't work against say 60 obsec podded marines because they're scoring BEFORE your killing them. I do admit the missions are very random and can be unbalanced for armies not built with them in mind.

 

One last thought, I think the best missions probably use a combination of eternal war and maelstrom allowing each player to pursue the strengths of their individual army.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I disagree. Killing a unit after its scored is a losing exchange unless you're too elite to play the mission. Maelstrom favors mobility and msu, if your shooty that's just a bonus. I play maelstrom quite a bit and i credit that system in part for the decline in static gunline armies around here. Heavy terrain and turn by turn scoring makes it very hard for those types of armies to win man. It allows fluffy armies like full tac continents to win where as in eternal war you can set about just destroying your opponent such favors shooting more, then cap objectives last turn. That won't work against say 60 obsec podded marines because they're scoring BEFORE your killing them. I do admit the missions are very random and can be unbalanced for armies not built with them in mind.

 

One last thought, I think the best missions probably use a combination of eternal war and maelstrom allowing each player to pursue the strengths of their individual army.

 

You're missing the point. If half my army is dead Turn 2, and I have no realistic way to either A: stay alive long enough to grab objective markers or B: fulfill any of the absurd 'be in this position' or 'kill this many units of this type' alternative tac cards, I lose. So no, gunline lists thrive, provided they bring some faster units to take and hold stuff while the bulk of their force just wipes you out. Yes, a static list won't dominate as well, but no one plays 4th edition gunlines. What I'm talking about when I say gunline is 'majority shooting, with some fast auxilary stuff'. That's how most xenos lists operate, even IG follow a similar train of thought, as do Marines (although Marines mainly go drop pod or Biker these days). 

 

I'm not speaking theoretically. I'm telling you. Tau dominate Maelstrom with a vengeance. They put Sniper Kroot or Fire Warriors onto objectives, then proceed to blow your army apart when you try and advance on them. I haven't played Eldar or Necrons in Maelstrom, but I imagine its a similar feeling (unkillable mobile Serpents for the former, unkillable infantry and Scythes for positioning for the latter). 

 

'Objective Secured' doesn't mean anything in Maelstrom. It's never decided a game for me or my opponent. What has decided games is my army being dead, and his being mostly intact and squatting on 3/5 objectives all game, profiting from the random nature of the format. That's what I hate the most, is drawing trash or stupid 'have three units in enemy backline' tac cards, while my opponent draws 'sit on objective 3' twice in the same turn. Granted, that doesn't happen all the time (it cuts both ways), but if you're already on more than half the objectives, you statistically will roll for either them or favourable ones. 

 

We're not an objective grabbing army. We never will be. I'm strongly considering IG or Henchmen for Allies in Maelstrom, because GK on their own can't do it. 

[Brom MKIV]

Lol I'm not missing the point I'm just not looking at maelstrom from a grey knights only perspective. I'm well aware how difficult it is for us, it's one reason why I picked this army up. I've been that xenos guy.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Lol I'm not missing the point I'm just not looking at maelstrom from a grey knights only perspective. I'm well aware how difficult it is for us, it's one reason why I picked this army up. I've been that xenos guy. 

 

For other armies, it might be an interesting exercise, or a chance to try out units they don't normally take. For GK's though its an exercise in frustration. 

[Zeratul29]

I don't see how y'all hate maelstrom so much. It goes a long way to balance the game and force players to actually play the game instead of just taking a bunch of uber Death Stars and trying to kill everything.

[Kabbala]

To get back on topic of the original question, as has been mentioned you can just ask your opponent if it's cool not to use the GK cards. I can't imagine it would be a problem.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I don't see how y'all hate maelstrom so much. It goes a long way to balance the game and force players to actually play the game instead of just taking a bunch of uber Death Stars and trying to kill everything.

 

Play any of the Maelstrom missions. It won't take long to see what I mean. It literally couldn't have been made less favourable to GK's. It favours MSU, attrition and shooting lists. We at least do have shooting, but on the other two counts we can't compete. 

To get back on topic of the original question, as has been mentioned you can just ask your opponent if it's cool not to use the GK cards. I can't imagine it would be a problem. 

 

I dunno, I think the GK objectives aren't too bad. Only like 2 of them are Daemon specific, and you'll auto-discard them anyway against non-Daemons. But yeah, if you want to try just vanilla tac cards, go for it. It's a casual format of the game. 

[Adeptus]

You're missing the point. If half my army is dead Turn 2, and I have no realistic way to either A: stay alive long enough to grab objective markers or B: fulfill any of the absurd 'be in this position' or 'kill this many units of this type' alternative tac cards, I lose.

Mate, if half your army is dead by turn two then you've pretty much lost the game, regardless of whether it's Maelstrom or Eternal War.

 

At least with Maelstrom you've got a chance to score some points with your units before they get killed.

 

Maelstrom turns 40k into a Milton Bradley game. Not necessarily bad, just not a table top wargame.

 

SJ

DBMM is a tabletop wargame. Fields of Glory is a tabletop wargame.

 

Calling 40K a tabletop wargame is being extremely generous. 40K is a beer and pretzels game, where you can roll some dice and have a laugh. If you take it too seriously, you're headed for disappointment. Maelstrom missions deliberately take a sideways step away from serious competitive play, and that's a good thing IMO.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Mate, if half your army is dead by turn two then you've pretty much lost the game, regardless of whether it's Maelstrom or Eternal War.

 

At least with Maelstrom you've got a chance to score some points with your units before they get killed.

 

Half my army died, because I was forced into a stupid 'camp the same spots all game or lose' contest, which I can't win. Maelstrom is a lose-lose proposition for Grey Knights. 

Calling 40K a tabletop wargame is being extremely generous. 40K is a beer and pretzels game, where you can roll some dice and have a laugh. If you take it too seriously, you're headed for disappointment. Maelstrom missions deliberately take a sideways step away from serious competitive play, and that's a good thing IMO. 

 

It doesn't make Maelstrom suddenly better. Losing sucks, especially losing because the win conditions are impossible or force you into a losing playstyle. I know Maelstrom isn't a competitive format, that's isn't the point. The point is the format heavily favours shooting armies and armies with units to spare camping. Neither of which Grey Knights fit into. 

[jeffersonian000]

If you are losing half your army by turn 2, maybe you aren't using enough or the right kinds of terrain? 7th is the edition of terrain saturation, where line of sight needs to not exist past 18" in a straight line at table level. If you or you opponent can range on each other at deployment in full line of sight of each other, you have failed to provide the correct amount and type of terrain.

 

One of the reasons Grey Knights require Teleportation as an army is our extremely short threat bubble. 24" Stormbolters, 24" Psycannons, 24" Psilencers, Flamer templates, even our psychic D-plate has a 12" range. Deep Strike shortens the range for our shooting attacks, Shunt puts our guys in range for flamer templates. If we are forced to weather one turn of fire, we lose. So don't do that to yourself. Block line of sight, use Rites, use Shunt, get into assault range fast, and then get it stuck in as soon as possible.

 

Fast and aggressive equals win for GK.

 

SJ

[Reclusiarch Darius]

If you are losing half your army by turn 2, maybe you aren't using enough or the right kinds of terrain? 7th is the edition of terrain saturation, where line of sight needs to not exist past 18" in a straight line at table level. If you or you opponent can range on each other at deployment in full line of sight of each other, you have failed to provide the correct amount and type of terrain.

 

We have plenty of terrain. Thing is, Riptides see over it, and people normally pick high positions for their long-range units (ie top levels of buildings, raised hills). By the same token, ranged armies place their objectives in open spots they can easily killbox, so you're forced to move into the zone. 

One of the reasons Grey Knights require Teleportation as an army is our extremely short threat bubble. 24" Stormbolters, 24" Psycannons, 24" Psilencers, Flamer templates, even our psychic D-plate has a 12" range. Deep Strike shortens the range for our shooting attacks, Shunt puts our guys in range for flamer templates. If we are forced to weather one turn of fire, we lose. So don't do that to yourself. Block line of sight, use Rites, use Shunt, get into assault range fast, and then get it stuck in as soon as possible.

 

Fast and aggressive equals win for GK.

 

Yeah, and I do that. But my point is, in Maelstrom, none of that matters. Because you're not camping objective markers, or achieving whatever arbitrary stupid card you draw or roll for. I've had games where I trade well, my opponent has lost board position and has like 1/3rd of their units left...but because Turn 1 and 2 they had a lead in Tac Objectives, I still lose. It's dumb. 

 

That's my problem with Maelstrom more generally. It doesn't reward smart play, or clever tactics, or sudden changes in fortune. It's 'Seize Ground', but with random bonus VP added on top, plus the usual tiebreakers that favour ranged lists (First Blood, Slay the Warlord, Linebreaker). Tac Objectives actually have nothing to do with tactics or strategy. It's dumb luck half the time, or you roll garbage and have to wait until next turn to discard and hope for better random card draws. 

[jeffersonian000]

If you are losing solely due to Maelstrom, stop playing Maelstrom. If a Riptide can see you, you are not using tall enough terrain. If you are going for objectives over killing soft targets, you are playing your GK wrong.

 

Not sure if we can assist if you are using the wrong terrain, playing bad tactics, and getting bad card draws every game.

 

SJ

[Kraytirous]

If you are losing solely due to Maelstrom, stop playing Maelstrom. If a Riptide can see you, you are not using tall enough terrain. If you are going for objectives over killing soft targets, you are playing your GK wrong.

 

Not sure if we can assist if you are using the wrong terrain, playing bad tactics, and getting bad card draws every game.

 

SJ

That's a little harsh...

 

I think that to answer the OP, yes, you must use the Grey Knight objective cards.

 

However that doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing for you.

 

The wonderful thing about Maelstrom is that it's also a game of play-style and psychology. Yes, you're right, a game which favors objective camping is certainly going to be won by tau, Imperial Guard, etc.

 

And you know you're going to lose that match-up.

 

So play a different match-up. Don't play castle-versus-castle because you'll lose it every time short of amazing dice rolls.

 

I find that the power of the Grey Knights is that it is an army which is quickly capable of shifting the balance of power in your favor through aggressive tactics.

 

Maelstrom has plenty to do with tactics. The tactics comes in deciding whether or not to use your super-mobile unit to grab the objective worth 3 victory points to you, or to try to kill your opponent's land speeder. Do you dedicate your bikers to harassing a unit of terminators or turbo-boost to nab line breaker?

 

I'm sorry if I come across as patronizing, it really isn't my intention. My intention is to say that maybe rather than blaming the game-mode, you can tweak your list some to better suit it. Interceptors are a unit that I've only recently come to truly appreciate.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

If you are losing solely due to Maelstrom, stop playing Maelstrom. If a Riptide can see you, you are not using tall enough terrain. If you are going for objectives over killing soft targets, you are playing your GK wron

 

Short of filling the board from one end to the other with buildings, there is no way to do that. Not to mention their mobility means they can simply fly up said obstacles to get a higher vantage point, should they need it. Blocking Line of Sight to them and other mobile shooty units is very difficult, and it puts you in a reactive position of cowering behind terrain. 

 

I don't normally play Maelstrom, but I was forced to during a recent local tourney. Hence my intense hatred of the format, and my recommendation that like Unbound, it's a version of the game that we do not excel at. 

 

I don't see how I'm 'playing my Grey Knights wrong'. I go aggressive with Deepstriking and Shunt moves, I put pressure Turn 1 and eliminate significant chunks of their army (wasn't just Tau this happened against either). In doing so however, I ignore objective holding, as I have no units suited to the task (Grey Knights are all about the offense). Allies can change that of course, but as a pure army we lack the units and the ability. We're just not an army that takes ground and holds it. Simple as that. 

ot sure if we can assist if you are using the wrong terrain, playing bad tactics, and getting bad card draws every game.

 

Well I can't magically create the perfect battlefield to stymie shooty armies. 7th edition makes it difficult to do in the first place, and short of creating walls of impassable, Dreadknight-height terrain, there will always be an angle to draw. 

 

On the subject of tactics, how do you approach Maelstrom? I'm assuming with Allies. Because I've tried a bunch of different lists with our new 'dex, not just in the Maelstrom format, and it's depressing how terrible most of them are. Once you deviate from the Turn 1 Deepstrike+Shunt build, you rapidly hit walls of 'your army is still too expensive, too slow and durability is dubious given you'll eat masses of fire and AP2 just to get into 24" of the enemy, nevermind 'Cleansing Flame' or charge range'. So, I'd suggest that before you accuse me of being a bad player, you actually suggest alternatives. 

 

Bad card draws are just that. It's just another layer of random bonus or irritating drawback that I have zero control over. Like I said earlier, it swings both ways (I've had opponents draw garbage on critical turns as well), but on balance you'll draw 'hold objective X' cards of some type, as well as the usual 'put your units within 12" of their DZ backline, kill this many of unit X in a turn' and so on. They're weighted in favour of camping the objective markers on the map, and then just nuking your opponents units off the table with superior firepower. It's not just Tau that stomp face, xenos and CSM do very well too, as do IG. 

Maelstrom has plenty to do with tactics. The tactics comes in deciding whether or not to use your super-mobile unit to grab the objective worth 3 victory points to you, or to try to kill your opponent's land speeder. Do you dedicate your bikers to harassing a unit of terminators or turbo-boost to nab line breaker?

 

Well you've given bad examples (when would a Landspeeder ever matter? Bikers harassing Terminators, well they can just drive away from them anyway so again not a real choice). The reality is though that your opponent can and will put more units down, which each require firepower and possibly melee effort to remove. We lack both the number of units, and the firepower to do it (melee is different, but it's much harder to achieve though). So what actually happens is you get forced out of position by enemy numbers, whilst their superior firepower slowly tears you army apart until you are so far behind you just concede. 

 

I played an entire tournament of this garbage. It was depressingly familiar how little each game varied. We'd deploy, I'd either start making progress dismantling their army or not, but at dice down they'd be ahead on VP. I got told a lot 'play the mission'. Problem being, my army can't. If I'd taken their advice and just camped out the objectives I drew (well rolled for actually, as we often didn't have cards to use), I would've killed less enemy units and lost even more convincingly. 

 

I'd suggest you all get more games in Maelstrom before you start theorising about what actually works in the format. On paper sure, it looks like either side has a chance of victory. The fact is though, Eternal War actually offers more 'outs' (that is, alternative ways to win) than the supposed 'tacticool' version of the game. 

[jeffersonian000]

First off, no one is saying you are a bad player. I am, however, pointing out that if you are not using the correct terrain, are not focusing on what you can do, and are relying on good card draws, there is literally nothing the rest of us can do to assist you.

 

Correct terrain for 7th is tall LoS blocking buildings, ruins without windows, 4+ pieces per table quarter, LoS blocking center piece. Hills are useless.

 

Correct targets are the enemy units that make or break your opponent's army, such as Marker Lights, Troop choices, light vehicles, buffers. Playing smart means denying LoS to your units while reducing their units via positioning, limiting direction of counter attacks, stalling units they need to be elsewhere. They can't score an objective if you keep blocking them from getting within 3", regardless of Objective Secured. Going first with Shunt units means Line Breaker. DS'ing/Gating to an out of place objective could mean victory.

 

Correct mind set for Maelstrom is to see the cards as bonus objectives, not winning strategies. You should be focused on dismantling your opponent's ability to win, with the side benefit of "Oooh, that's a fun card! I can do that right now." Getting hung up on a turn of the card saving you means you put yourself into a losing position from the get go. Don't do that. Always be positioning for the win, always have a plan for turns 6 and 7. And always treat cards as a bonus, not as a necessity. If you can't separate your game from the cards, don't play Maelstrom.

 

Always have a plan for dealing with specific units. You should know before any game how you plan on dealing with Knight Titans, Wraith Knights, Riptides, Wave Serpents, Flyers, hordes, gun lines, Super Friends Biker armies, etc.. The plan can be as simple as "stay away" or "rush it", or can be as complex as "I'm going to need Divination for that match up, not Sanctic" or "everything in reserves except for this squad to grab that object, and the Shunters to harass that beater over there".

 

Where we fail you as an advice forum is that we cannot teach you how to think objectively, critically, and open mindedly. We can reflect to you your own words to show you where we see deficiencies, such as my pointing out to you your own admission of not using tall enough LoS blocking terrain. We can reflect to you your own faults, such as relying on Maelstrom cards to shore up your strategy, which is a recipe for failure. We can only guess at your play style based on a limited suggestions as to how you handled your problems based on your complaints, and make general suggestions on where to look to correct your admitted problem areas.

 

Word of advice? Practice the parts of the game you feel weakest at, and get comfortable with working out solutions to those areas individually. Then add another problem area. Then another. Work out each issue until it is no longer an issue. Remember, I advised better terrain and focusing your strategy, while telling you to not take Maelstrom seriously. Those are the problem areas I noted from your original post. Not knowing what units you field, what point levels you play, your local meta, all any of us can do is point out to you where you have ready admitted needs work.

 

SJ