“Do the addition of army specific Tactical Objective Cards for Warhammer 40K make the Maelstrom missions a more attractive prospect for tournament gameplay?”
I’ll take an stance and say that yes faction specific mission cards make tournaments more attractive to me. Now I’m sure it won’t turn out like this but I have a dream! A dream where players win tournaments by placing their army better than their opponent to win a tournament. If done right it doesn’t matter if you play nids vs taudar. If the nids player plays nids better than the eldar player plays his eldar the nids player wins. A game about mastering the way an army plays not the broken rules. A pipe dream too be sure.
Assymetrical missions is a nice way to help mitigate deathstars and power builds where you dont exactly have to beat them head to head on the same mission objectives. What GW has actually produced is a nice first foray; however for such a large company, I’m sure they could have done a better job the first time. This could be a compounding problem from rolling out 7th edition too quickly.
Jaded Gamercast 
I’ll take an stance and say that yes faction specific mission cards make tournaments more attractive to me. Now I’m sure it won’t turn out like this but I have a dream! A dream where players win tournaments by placing their army better than their opponent to win a tournament. If done right it doesn’t matter if you play nids vs taudar. If the nids player plays nids better than the eldar player plays his eldar the nids player wins. A game about mastering the way an army plays not the broken rules. A pipe dream too be sure.
White scars.
Assymetrical missions is a nice way to help mitigate deathstars and power builds where you dont exactly have to beat them head to head on the same mission objectives. What GW has actually produced is a nice first foray; however for such a large company, I’m sure they could have done a better job the first time. This could be a compounding problem from rolling out 7th edition too quickly.