Do you feel the limitations of the Grey Knights?

[jeffersonian000]

Because I enjoy the challenge? I like to think out the problem quickly, decide on a plan to achieve my new goals, and implement the new strategy on the fly? Because it makes me a better player? Because it's not boring?

 

Pretty much that.

 

SJ

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Because I enjoy the challenge? I like to think out the problem quickly, decide on a plan to achieve my new goals, and implement the new strategy on the fly? Because it makes me a better player? Because it's not boring?

 

Pretty much that.

 

Maelstrom is the definition of boring though. You camp markers, and pray to the RNG gods. It doesn't require any skill, beyond 'don't take a melee army to a shooting match'. It's the complete opposite of it's supposed purpose, which is tactical play. 

 

The joke is, Eternal War has far more depth to it, and it doesn't need a stupid deck of random wincons to make that happen. The small number of set wincons in Eternal War actually make it more diverse, not less. I've had games come down to Linebreaker, or Slay the Warlord, or First Bloods. Likewise, I've had them come down to table wipes (or functional ones rather ie whatever I or they have left is impossible to win with), or to an objective marker changing hands on the bottom of Turn 7. 

[jeffersonian000]

 

Because I enjoy the challenge? I like to think out the problem quickly, decide on a plan to achieve my new goals, and implement the new strategy on the fly? Because it makes me a better player? Because it's not boring?

 

Pretty much that.

 

Maelstrom is the definition of boring though. You camp markers, and pray to the RNG gods. It doesn't require any skill, beyond 'don't take a melee army to a shooting match'. It's the complete opposite of it's supposed purpose, which is tactical play.

 

The joke is, Eternal War has far more depth to it, and it doesn't need a stupid deck of random wincons to make that happen. The small number of set wincons in Eternal War actually make it more diverse, not less. I've had games come down to Linebreaker, or Slay the Warlord, or First Bloods. Likewise, I've had them come down to table wipes (or functional ones rather ie whatever I or they have left is impossible to win with), or to an objective marker changing hands on the bottom of Turn 7.

I think you are doing Maelstrom wrong. I don't camp anything unless it makes sense to do so. I mostly stay mobile, so I can grab things as needed, focus firepower as needed, and getting it stuck in as needed. The last thing I want to do is waste 200+ points camping an objective.

 

SJ

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I think you are doing Maelstrom wrong. I don't camp anything unless it makes sense to do so. I mostly stay mobile, so I can grab things as needed, focus firepower as needed, and getting it stuck in as needed. The last thing I want to do is waste 200+ points camping an objective.

 

If you're not on the objectives, you simply won't pick up any of the VP's generated by them. 

[Gentlemanloser]

RD. How many times did you pay planet strike? This is how the games went, tell me if you think they were fun.

 

 

1: defender camped most units to avoid hellstrike / attacker strategies.

 

2: attacker walks onto the board, melta guns, melta bombs, power fists / thunder hammers, rends or applies mc to your bastions.

 

3: they die. Defender loses.

 

 

Fun? I'd rather gouge my own eyes out than play another planet strike game.

 

 

edit. Popping three land raiders isn't hard. Especially if you know and tailor your list to revolve around popping av14. Doing so to immobile land raiders you can walk onto the board next to. Is well.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

RD. How many times did you pay planet strike? This is how the games went, tell me if you think they were fun. 

 

 

1: defender camped most units to avoid hellstrike / attacker strategies. 

 

2: attacker walks onto the board, melta guns, melta bombs, power fists / thunder hammers, rends or applies mc to your bastions.

 

3: they die. Defender loses. 

 

 

Fun? I'd rather gouge my own eyes out than play another planet strike game. 

 

I forget, maybe like 5-6 games? I haven't touched it since then. I remember Bastions being annoying to crack, even with the right gear. We weren't really playing serious lists. I think I just took a bunch of Terminators and rolled dice. 

 

No doubt its totally busted in 7th, but like I said, it hails from an older era in 40k. Plus it was busted to begin with haha. 

[Gentlemanloser]

:D

 

We tried it in 5th.  Where MCs could literally rip a bastion apart with bare hands.

 

Never went back.

 

The amount of AV14 popping in 7th.  Sheesh.  I would dread to play Planetstrike now...

[Adeptus]

 

I think you are doing Maelstrom wrong. I don't camp anything unless it makes sense to do so. I mostly stay mobile, so I can grab things as needed, focus firepower as needed, and getting it stuck in as needed. The last thing I want to do is waste 200+ points camping an objective.

 

If you're not on the objectives, you simply won't pick up any of the VP's generated by them. 

 

 

Only ~half of the objectives in Maelstrom are 'Capture objective X' cards.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Only ~half of the objectives in Maelstrom are 'Capture objective X' cards.

 

Correct, which means on average, you'll draw one of those 'hold objective' cards 50% of the time. Which is certainly enough to decide victory, especially as you will draw several over even a 5 turn game. And given the other objectives are often unattainable, if not flat out retarded (get Linebreaker now!), it pushes the game into 'camp and shoot things till they're dead'. I've had games where my opponent held only 2 out of 5, and he still won convincingly. It's a dumb format, and broken beyond repair. 

[jeffersonian000]

 

I think you are doing Maelstrom wrong. I don't camp anything unless it makes sense to do so. I mostly stay mobile, so I can grab things as needed, focus firepower as needed, and getting it stuck in as needed. The last thing I want to do is waste 200+ points camping an objective.

 

If you're not on the objectives, you simply won't pick up any of the VP's generated by them.

You don't have to be on the objective when the card is drawn, you just need to be on the objective to play the card. It's actually pretty fun for me to get a card, think "okay, how am I going to get that one? Oh, that's right, I can do this, this, and this!", and then I get the objective, play the card, total the numbers, push on to the next card, next objective.

 

Maelstrom chances the game from bent who can kill the most first to a game of who can out think who first. I prefer the challenge of winning the mental game, as it sure does beat getting shot at by Tau (/yawn).

 

SJ

[Reclusiarch Darius]

You don't have to be on the objective when the card is drawn, you just need to be on the objective to play the card. It's actually pretty fun for me to get a card, think "okay, how am I going to get that one? Oh, that's right, I can do this, this, and this!", and then I get the objective, play the card, total the numbers, push on to the next card, next objective.

 

No, but it helps massively to already be on a majority of objectives, so that when you do draw it, you instantly score it. That's whats stupid. It's why I mentioned printing VP's, because that's what happens when you camp the markers. You just win by exponential increases in VP, for sitting still. It's the opposite of fire and manouvre. 

Maelstrom chances the game from bent who can kill the most first to a game of who can out think who first. I prefer the challenge of winning the mental game, as it sure does beat getting shot at by Tau (/yawn).

 

But Tau don't change their strategy at all in Maelstrom. It's exactly the same, except they just spread out a bit more, and maybe take more Kroot to cap objectives on the cheap. They still vape you off the table. 

[Prot]

 

 

I think you are doing Maelstrom wrong. I don't camp anything unless it makes sense to do so. I mostly stay mobile, so I can grab things as needed, focus firepower as needed, and getting it stuck in as needed. The last thing I want to do is waste 200+ points camping an objective.

If you're not on the objectives, you simply won't pick up any of the VP's generated by them.

You don't have to be on the objective when the card is drawn, you just need to be on the objective to play the card. It's actually pretty fun for me to get a card, think "okay, how am I going to get that one? Oh, that's right, I can do this, this, and this!", and then I get the objective, play the card, total the numbers, push on to the next card, next objective.

 

Maelstrom chances the game from bent who can kill the most first to a game of who can out think who first. I prefer the challenge of winning the mental game, as it sure does beat getting shot at by Tau (/yawn).

 

SJ

 

 

I agree a lot with this experience. It was getting to the point in 6th where I was just so bored of getting shot at by the top tier 2-4 pew pew builds. I mean I'll still play that type of game but because we randomize the game type and no one knows until dice off for who's playing who, and what mission we're playing, I do find it keeps the lists a lot more... honest.

 

Some Tau players actually do adapt a bit but where I favor Objective X type games, they certainly would rather get the destroy type cards. Necrons can to it all... but the Tau guy that doesn't adapt at all loses in my experience because they pretty much have to go for a table wipe or 'denial' type of game. 

 

Like I said I started noticing with Maelstrom that people started bringing out a few more 'interesting' units, which I think is great, and adds diversity! Fast units, maybe something better at survival, and/or a unit that can support assault better. I really do like how it forces people to come up with different roles in their lists.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Some Tau players actually do adapt a bit but where I favor Objective X type games, they certainly would rather get the destroy type cards. Necrons can to it all... but the Tau guy that doesn't adapt at all loses in my experience because they pretty much have to go for a table wipe or 'denial' type of game. 

 

They just have to keep you off the objective markers. It's not that hard, unless they're not bringing their A game or list. 

Like I said I started noticing with Maelstrom that people started bringing out a few more 'interesting' units, which I think is great, and adds diversity! Fast units, maybe something better at survival, and/or a unit that can support assault better. I really do like how it forces people to come up with different roles in their lists.

 

But it doesn't. Maybe where you play, but as a general rule, Maelstrom is actually less diverse than Eternal War. That's the joke. A format that is supposed to be promoting alternate win cons and variant lists, just ends up being the same boring shootingfest. ET actually has a few game types where you can't camp, and one with no objectives at all besides 'kill more and die less'. 

[Prot]

 

Like I said I started noticing with Maelstrom that people started bringing out a few more 'interesting' units, which I think is great, and adds diversity! Fast units, maybe something better at survival, and/or a unit that can support assault better. I really do like how it forces people to come up with different roles in their lists.

 

But it doesn't. Maybe where you play, but as a general rule, Maelstrom is actually less diverse than Eternal War. That's the joke. A format that is supposed to be promoting alternate win cons and variant lists, just ends up being the same boring shootingfest. ET actually has a few game types where you can't camp, and one with no objectives at all besides 'kill more and die less'. 

 

 

Well this might be partially true, but I don't agree 100%. We had a good Tau player in the group. When we started introducing Maelstrom, he didn't really change his lists, nor his tactics. He started losing... a lot more. He was still netlisting (he was always like that... always bringing whatever he read won the latest tournament... which is fine, but I'm just giving you his mindset.)

 

The result is we had a talk and I said tactically he's bringing a 6th list to a 7th ed game (maelstrom). It did in fact make a difference, but he had to stop simply castling and thinking like you do. It was much easier to defeat him.

 

Ork lists got better, my marine lists got a little better.... Astra got worse (in Maelstrom). I know you're not an IG believer, but this other guy was excellent with them... playing IG since ... wow I'd say... 18 years. Maelstrom just ticked him right off. Just can't play that same old game.  But the times we go back to Eternal war? Different ball game. 

 

I do like how major tournaments are using modified Maelstrom. I do personally believe this is keeping with the idea of 'you can't just castle and kill'. I look at what's winning LVO and the like of, and it's reinforcing that idea to me. 

 

As a side note, I don't think any larger tournament is just playing Eternal War style missions anymore, are they?

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Well this might be partially true, but I don't agree 100%. We had a good Tau player in the group. When we started introducing Maelstrom, he didn't really change his lists, nor his tactics. He started losing... a lot more. He was still netlisting (he was always like that... always bringing whatever he read won the latest tournament... which is fine, but I'm just giving you his mindset.)

 

Well then he's not a good Tau player, he's a pathetic band-wagoner who deserves to lose. Good Tau players struggled through three editions of garbage to finally be top tier, and learned how Tau work along the way. Even with current Tau, if you don't play the army properly or build it right, you will lose. Tau are neither the most durable, numerous or flexible of armies. They do Movement okay, Shooting phase they are king, and Assault phase is for jetpack moves (they have zero melee threat besides Farsight, who is broken stupidity). 

The result is we had a talk and I said tactically he's bringing a 6th list to a 7th ed game (maelstrom). It did in fact make a difference, but he had to stop simply castling and thinking like you do. It was much easier to defeat him.

 

Castling isn't how you win in Maelstrom. You still have to cap objectives, which means by definition you need to spread out and hold ground. That's why Kroot and Devilfish+Fire Warriors exist. Neither of them are overly expensive, and the Fire Warriors actually kill stuff when they're under Ethereal +1 shot aura (especially with marker support and Supporting Fire for deterring charges). If he's just doing refused flank like an idiot and not taking ground, of course he'll lose. 

Ork lists got better, my marine lists got a little better.... Astra got worse (in Maelstrom). I know you're not an IG believer, but this other guy was excellent with them... playing IG since ... wow I'd say... 18 years. Maelstrom just ticked him right off. Just can't play that same old game.  But the times we go back to Eternal war? Different ball game. 

 

Orks are amazing in Maelstorm, because they can literally bully you off objectives with sheer infantry spam, backed up by Lootaz trashing your vehicles and putting a bajillion wounds onto your infantry. IG should be fine, I don't know what list he uses, but again they have the sheer infantry presence to just throw squads at objectives and drown you in them+firepower. 

I do like how major tournaments are using modified Maelstrom. I do personally believe this is keeping with the idea of 'you can't just castle and kill'. I look at what's winning LVO and the like of, and it's reinforcing that idea to me. 

 

Keyword is 'modified', and it's not for every mission thank Throne. They use it to break up the monotony of Eternal War, and they houserule the hell out of it anyway. 

 

As a side note, I don't think any larger tournament is just playing Eternal War style missions anymore, are they?

 

 

They basically mix a bit of Maelstrom into modified Eternal War missions, in broad terms. Every tourney is different though, so it's hard to generalise mission structure. It changes every year too. 

[Zhukov]

 

I do like how major tournaments are using modified Maelstrom. I do personally believe this is keeping with the idea of 'you can't just castle and kill'. I look at what's winning LVO and the like of, and it's reinforcing that idea to me.

I believe this is the case yes, however, armies otherwise just playing the 'castle and kill' game is one of the more persistent internet myths, at least if we're speaking competitive play. Those kind of lists have never been winning much and in any case not even remotely close to having dominated. It's also one of the easiest ways to spot people who are non-competitive, they complain about gunline style armies and overvalue them. Nothing wrong with being non-competitive, but those people often are severly unsuited to comment on balance and yet that's all they ever speak about on the internet.

 

I think the difference is that also now in local casual play 'castling and killing' doesn't work as well anymore, due to people playing a lot of Maëlstrom.

[Aethernitas]

 

 

I do like how major tournaments are using modified Maelstrom. I do personally believe this is keeping with the idea of 'you can't just castle and kill'. I look at what's winning LVO and the like of, and it's reinforcing that idea to me.

I believe this is the case yes, however, armies otherwise just playing the 'castle and kill' game is one of the more persistent internet myths, at least if we're speaking competitive play. Those kind of lists have never been winning much and in any case not even remotely close to having dominated. It's also one of the easiest ways to spot people who are non-competitive, they complain about gunline style armies and overvalue them. Nothing wrong with being non-competitive, but those people often are severly unsuited to comment on balance and yet that's all they ever speak about on the internet.

 

I think the difference is that also now in local casual play 'castling and killing' doesn't work as well anymore, due to people playing a lot of Maëlstrom.

 

I looove me some juicy objective campers. With GKs and the NSF-detachment you can confortably roll up their flank by completely overpowering their camping elements. Sometimes that involves dropping suicide melter-henchman/scions/vets on their centrally deployed tanks/artillery/riptides to lessen the long range firepower but apart from that I don't think there are many armies that can successfully camp against GKs.

[jeffersonian000]

Hence the reason why I avoid camping. I'd much rather lunge to an objective ai need than get pushed off an objective I don't need yet. Gating out of CC to grab a far objective is a valid tactic the GK can do better than most.

 

SJ

[Adeptus]

 

Only ~half of the objectives in Maelstrom are 'Capture objective X' cards.

 

Correct, which means on average, you'll draw one of those 'hold objective' cards 50% of the time. Which is certainly enough to decide victory, especially as you will draw several over even a 5 turn game. And given the other objectives are often unattainable, if not flat out retarded (get Linebreaker now!), it pushes the game into 'camp and shoot things till they're dead'. I've had games where my opponent held only 2 out of 5, and he still won convincingly. It's a dumb format, and broken beyond repair. 

 

 

Well, there's two issues here.

 

First, our army has the type of mobility necessary to work well in a Maelstrom setting. We can deepstrike, shunt and gate all over the place with very nasty units to claim objectives. Sometimes you just have to let a 'Claim Objective" card go, but just as often it will be an unclaimed objective somewhere very far from the action where a shunting Dreadknight or Interceptor squad can easily claim it, and for every practically impossible card, there is an easily claimable one (manifest three psychic powers? Don't mind if I do!) Maelstrom isn't just about camping on objectives, and when it IS about camping on objectives, the objectives change from turn to turn so a player can't just camp on them, he needs to hop from one to the other.

 

Second, if an army is capable of camping and shooting us to death in Maelstrom, it is just as capable of doing it in an Eternal War mission. If claiming objectives is critical to winning the game, then by default an army can't camp-and-shoot and hope to win. If an army relies on overwhelming firepower to win, then that army will win regardless of the mission format because dead is dead, and dead units can't score regardless of whether you're playing Maelstrom or Eternal War.

 

I almost exclusively play Maelstrom, and I love it. I think it's a lot better than the Eternal War mission set and I think it forces players OUT of the camp-and-shoot style of play.

[Prot]

 

 

 It's a dumb format, and broken beyond repair. 

 

Well, there's two issues here.

 

First, our army has the type of mobility necessary to work well in a Maelstrom setting. We can deepstrike, shunt and gate all over the place with very nasty units to claim objectives. Sometimes you just have to let a 'Claim Objective" card go, but just as often it will be an unclaimed objective somewhere very far from the action where a shunting Dreadknight or Interceptor squad can easily claim it, and for every practically impossible card, there is an easily claimable one (manifest three psychic powers? Don't mind if I do!) Maelstrom isn't just about camping on objectives, and when it IS about camping on objectives, the objectives change from turn to turn so a player can't just camp on them, he needs to hop from one to the other.

 

Second, if an army is capable of camping and shooting us to death in Maelstrom, it is just as capable of doing it in an Eternal War mission. If claiming objectives is critical to winning the game, then by default an army can't camp-and-shoot and hope to win. If an army relies on overwhelming firepower to win, then that army will win regardless of the mission format because dead is dead, and dead units can't score regardless of whether you're playing Maelstrom or Eternal War.

 

 

 

 

I truly don't understand saying it's 'broken beyond repair'. I actually have never played anyone in 7th edition who felt that way... thankfully. 

 

 

I almost exclusively play Maelstrom, and I love it. I think it's a lot better than the Eternal War mission set and I think it forces players OUT of the camp-and-shoot style of play.

 

This is my experience as well. I respect other player's decision to -refuse- to play Maelstrom, but again, thankfully I haven't faced anyone that feels that way in my city.

 

BUT what this all boils down to is not a discussion about Eternal war or Maelstrom but how it effects the meta. And where I was going with this is summed up nicely above ; forcing players out of old castle and kill. 

 

I agree with Zhukov it's never been.... the greatest strategy but it does work quite effectively against a large player base. There's always going to be a fistfull that are going to absolutely wreck it. 

 

A friend of mine took a 6th edition BA Pod spam list before it was the rage (we're talking a long time ago here) but the reason I remember it so well is because if he ran into a castle and shoot army, he totally wrecked it, but if he played an extremely dynamic, croissant style list he was completely and utterly screwed. It was a high risk/high reward strategy. He went very far with it.

 

But back to 7th, and Maelstrom I think more armies actually gain from Maelstrom than lose from it. I know my Dark Angels were getting so nearly unplayable for a while there.... especially as flyers got "good" and we were stuck with the Nephifail, and overpriced stuff, and here comes Maelstrom which truly was a savior to such codexes that may have had aspect of Speed, and sprinkling of surivivability.... it really did make a nice difference. I still much prefer that style of play.

 

Sorry for being long winded as I get to the final point here, but THIS is partially why I picked Grey Knights. I wanted to be able to smash face in close, but have the speed and resilience for Maelstrom. This army actually works 'okay' as a stand alone for Maelstrom. If I only played Eternal war? I confess I may not have done this move as I have enough power armoured armies that don't shoot well enough already! lol

 

Grey Knights are fun in that Maelstrom environment... perhaps Astra isn't, perhaps Tau isn't, but I confess these are quite often my least favorite games: I move, do stuff, try assaulting, psychic stuff, whatever.... Tau/Astra... pew pew, template,template, pew pew. (move Riptice 1") Pew Pew (insert marker light here)... okay your turn.

 

I think this all started with Iron Warriors 9 Oblits, 3 Defiilers, and two troops with an LT. Man that was so bloody boring but if a guy wasn't ready for it, it was stupidly effective.... that same playstyle just doesn't survive in Maelstrom. 

 

Anyway, totally rambling now... but Grey Knights are a good fit for Maelstrom and I probably would have given up on marines by now in 7th if it weren't for maelstrom. I still think it is the Xenos Shooty edition of game, but I have no data to back that up, just spammy opponents and a sore bottockular region in my Space Marine armies to show for it.

[Zhukov]

 

I agree with Zhukov it's never been.... the greatest strategy but it does work quite effectively against a large player base. There's always going to be a fistfull that are going to absolutely wreck it.

I honestly wonder for how many people it works effectively. Since the start of 5th edition I've been playing casually, in local tournaments, national tournaments and a couple of tournaments abroad. I've never seen castling lists doing well... I've also been following the biggest USA tournaments and the ETC through the years, neither there have I seen castling or gunline strategies ever been even remotely popular there.

 

My theory? "gunline/castle" style armies only are an potential issue at low skill levels and maybe even only when combined with poor terrain and when playing without interesting/good mission (just kill eachother). Moving and positioning takes way more skill than standing still and rolling dice. Which playstyle do you think favours an absence of much skill? Which kind of player tends to complain, players who posses a lot of skill or the people who are less good at this game and get beaten by gunlines?

 

Why do you think "leafblower" got so famous? I think partly because many people used it as a crutch. They got a result which confirmed their complaints after all. Never mind that it was 1 tournament with odd rules right?

 

Is castling a problem at all non-competitive play though? In that case you're right and it would be the case for a large part of the playerbase as competitive play is only a really small part of the total amount of players. I doubt it though. I fear it's a classic case of a small group of people being very vocal. Complainers are always more vocal anyways, especially on the internet it seems.

 

I do believe that 7th, and especially the inclusion of Maëlstrom, pushed the game towards favouring even more mobility. However, less than one would think, partly it's simply because there are more readily strong mobile units available.

[Prot]

 

 

I agree with Zhukov it's never been.... the greatest strategy but it does work quite effectively against a large player base. There's always going to be a fistfull that are going to absolutely wreck it.

 

Why do you think "leafblower" got so famous? I think partly because many people used it as a crutch. They got a result which confirmed their complaints after all. Never mind that it was 1 tournament with odd rules right?

 

Is castling a problem at all non-competitive play though? In that case you're right and it would be the case for a large part of the playerbase as competitive play is only a really small part of the total amount of players. I doubt it though. I fear it's a classic case of a small group of people being very vocal. Complainers are always more vocal anyways, especially on the internet it seems.

 

I do believe that 7th, and especially the inclusion of Maëlstrom, pushed the game towards favouring even more mobility. However, less than one would think, partly it's simply because there are more readily strong mobile units available.

 

 

Leafblower got big imho because it's easy. It followed the old recipe of success for the uninitiated!

Step 1: find a potentially 'abusive' combo. Repeat it to death

Step 2: Make sure the list requires very little thought, ergo you don't change the way you play, your opponent does.

 

That's the way it typically goes.

 

Maybe Maelstrom does force people to move a little less than they think, however the fact it forces some people to move at all is good in my books.

 

I am now dabbling between armies after feeling out Grey Knights. It's interesting to note the things I like in this codex I can somewhat mimic in my Dark Angels, but not to the same effect.

 

Like for instance it's amazing how big a difference Force + Hammerhand is to Termies. Going at initiative, and potentially outright killing things is so different. Yet we're talking about the same type of unit: Terminators. What a difference.

 

I can't seem to shake the Terminator heavy feeling of the army. I love it though, so no worries there.

 

But I am seeing I am still leaning towards lists that just repeat terminators, and Librarians! Sprinkle in some Dreadknights and really the rest does feel like filler. That kind of sucks.....

 

So far the most potential I see outside of the above statement is in the form of going outside the codex, which is beyond this particular discussion. (Like I see trying the Stormformation, or more attempts with Assassins maybe.. maybe a knight?) But as far as inside the codex? It seems really one dimensional so far.

 

Again, I'm now in my Purifier phase. But still Termies are great....perhaps better in every gameplay situation I can put them through?

[BetterOffShred]

The first time I saw a picture of a Terminator from space-hulk when I was in 7th grade I knew I had to roll that heavy.  GK have put me in command of Terminator troops of all things..  It was mega-schwing from the start.   I love this army.

 

-Brett

[Ramza]

I agree with RD about Maelstrom. I don't like the format and it makes an already random game even more random. I also feel that the GK army is severely neutered in Maelstrom because of our low model count.

 

I had a game recently where I brought I NSF against an Iron hands shooty list. Admittedly I made some mistakes but I still played a good game. I applied pressure all game and kept my opponent in his deployment zone  while I controlled the 4 out of the 6 objectives for 6 turns. Game went to turn 7 and because of my attrition, and the cards my opponent drew he ended up winning by a very convincing margin even though I was in the lead for 6 turns. 

 

I felt so robbed and disheartened. Next time I play Maelstrom I am gonna bring a turtle list and just camp on objectives and hope I get objective cards. As RD said, I have a 50% chance to get one from the deck. 

[Gentlemanloser]

As said in this thread ( I think) another thing I dislike about Maelstrom is it fundamentally changes 40k.

 

From wargame to a boardgame.  Where the players play against the deck, not each other.

 

Boardgames are great.  Smallworld and Mice & Mystics are awesome fun.  40k isn't a boardgame, and shouldn't be shoe horned into one.