Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/15 09:50:06


Post by: Nithaniel


I don't really understand the point of this thread. The ITC scoring system DOES NOT require you to use the ITC champs missions. I have heard of a couple of RTT ITC tournaments that use chapter approved and a few more that use their own homebrew missions.

I think this threads anti ITC slant should be directed more to tournament organisers rather than the ITC.

Edit: the new ITC secondaries are up on the website now and the mission tweaks are due soon. They also spoke about maelstrom style missions as well.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/17 11:45:29


Post by: Ishagu


So there's new ITC missions.

The plural is a bit generous.

Still kill/kill more in every game, the “mission” is still worth 14.3% of the possible victory points in each game, 28.6% are about tailoring your own mission and 57.1% are the same every game.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/17 18:10:57


Post by: Racerguy180


 Ishagu wrote:
So there's new ITC missions.

The plural is a bit generous.

Still kill/kill more in every game, the “mission” is still worth 14.3% of the possible victory points in each game, 28.6% are about tailoring your own mission and 57.1% are the same every game.


wait a minute, I thought ITC was gonna fix this....yeah right!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/17 18:21:19


Post by: alextroy


You say that like the Eternal War missions in CA19 don't all have the same three secondary VC and score VP by holding objectives. Yet, they are all different in how many objectives, when you score those held objectives, and how many points you get for each objective you hold.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/17 18:37:53


Post by: Ishagu


The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/17 18:40:11


Post by: Racerguy180


 Ishagu wrote:
The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.


BINGO!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/17 21:21:09


Post by: ERJAK


 Ishagu wrote:
So there's new ITC missions.

The plural is a bit generous.

Still kill/kill more in every game, the “mission” is still worth 14.3% of the possible victory points in each game, 28.6% are about tailoring your own mission and 57.1% are the same every game.


As opposed to Ewars 100% the same every game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.


BINGO!


Except they're really not. The mission is always 'stand on more objectives than you opponent' with a miniscule, usually irrelevant, twist and objective placement, when they're deliberately set to be mirrored, or deployed by two players who are at least minimally competent, is largely irrelevant.

Ewar missions may not be actually identical, but they're functionally identical in terms of how you go about winning them.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/17 22:49:29


Post by: Ishagu


I don't know what missions you have been playing. They certainly aren't the ones in the latest Chapter Approved.
They are far more varied and dynamic than the ITC mission pack.

If you feel the official GW missions are lacking variety, by comparison you must feel that the ITC missions have none whatsoever.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/17 23:00:16


Post by: Ordana


ERJAK wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
So there's new ITC missions.

The plural is a bit generous.

Still kill/kill more in every game, the “mission” is still worth 14.3% of the possible victory points in each game, 28.6% are about tailoring your own mission and 57.1% are the same every game.


As opposed to Ewars 100% the same every game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.


BINGO!


Except they're really not. The mission is always 'stand on more objectives than you opponent' with a miniscule, usually irrelevant, twist and objective placement, when they're deliberately set to be mirrored, or deployed by two players who are at least minimally competent, is largely irrelevant.

Ewar missions may not be actually identical, but they're functionally identical in terms of how you go about winning them.
Playing "stand on more objectives with the correct thing" is more fun to many people then "Shoot harder while standing on 1 objective" that ITC often comes down to.

But hey, you can make everything sound stupid if you condense it in the wrong way.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/18 01:54:45


Post by: Yoyoyo


It's already a big step forward to simply not deny VP through pre-planned list design, ie. "giving up secondaries".


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/18 05:42:12


Post by: Smirrors


 Ishagu wrote:

If you feel the official GW missions are lacking variety, by comparison you must feel that the ITC missions have none whatsoever.


I dont think ITC claims to have variety, just a style of competition which is now more optional than ever if the community chooses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Magic boxes are pretty terribly implemented with the "infantry move through ruins" rules. A unit can stand right outside a building, charge through the wall like the kool-aid man, and murder units inside without any fear of overwatch. It further rewards non-LOS shooting/abilities even more. Seems a little silly that a flamethrower or shotgun camping a doorway cannot overwatch, but a mortar can overwatch against something directly on the opposite side of the wall. Especially when you consider "there are holes etc that infantry can climb through" but those same "holes" aren't big enough to shoot out of? It was a decent stopgap before people starting using better terrain, but it's time to rip the band aid off.


This is a real odd complaint. Do gun armies need more incentive? You are already hiding from enemy fire and now want to be able to shoot at things charging you and making it harder for assault armies. Just stand in the open if you wanted to overwatch!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/18 08:28:22


Post by: Jidmah


ERJAK wrote:
Except they're really not. The mission is always 'stand on more objectives than you opponent' with a miniscule, usually irrelevant, twist and objective placement, when they're deliberately set to be mirrored, or deployed by two players who are at least minimally competent, is largely irrelevant.

Ewar missions may not be actually identical, but they're functionally identical in terms of how you go about winning them.


Look who obviously never even played every EW mission more than once.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/18 08:50:59


Post by: Slipspace


ERJAK wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.


BINGO!


Except they're really not. The mission is always 'stand on more objectives than you opponent' with a miniscule, usually irrelevant, twist and objective placement, when they're deliberately set to be mirrored, or deployed by two players who are at least minimally competent, is largely irrelevant.

Ewar missions may not be actually identical, but they're functionally identical in terms of how you go about winning them.


That's just completely wrong, even ignoring the absurdly reductive side of the argument. ITC primary missions are all the same barring a largely irrelevant bonus (which hopefully is a little more impactful with the new pack) with play patterns not really varying much due to the primary missions. The secondaries have more impact than the primaries do. I don't think this is a controversial statement and I've seen plenty of ITC supporters say the same thing. In the EW missions from CA19 the variety is actually very noticeable and each plays out very differently. You have missions where objectives disappear as the game goes on, or ones with progressive scoring but only with characters and these massively change how the game flows and how each army plays. It changes the individual value of different units depending on the mission as well, which instantly makes the game more engaging. Having characters go from lynchpin buffing units to the only realistic way to win the game leads to some truly dynamic play and difficult decisions about when and where to risk your key characters, for example.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/18 09:29:18


Post by: Ilgoth


Been lurking this thread ever since Ishagu pulled the trigger on it. I am rather surprised how many believe ITC to be the better form of play.

You can correct me, if I am wrong, but doesn't ITC rulepack actually encourage throwing the game early on, if your start goes down badly? By not bringing the last units from reserve, you deny the opponent points as now those units can't be scored? I have seen this call often, even in some Youtube videos. One example I remember is that Vanguard Tactics guy.

I don't blame players for doing that, since this way the point differential isn't as big as it could have been. But this is by design. Design by ITC. Frankly, bad design. Imagine, if in ice hockey you would deny opponent some goals just by standing idle and not doing a thing. It goes against every bit of logic, if you ask me... Not only that but it is also an awfully boring game to watch. I rarely find ITC games exciting, and that is only because of how it is played out, and how terrain rules make people go about their deployment.

I personally lean towards Chapter Approved missions. I value what ITC group has done, and created, but right now I think it has to be evaluated again. I read recent changes to it, and I don't see the huge gameplay impact they claimed on that post.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/18 09:58:52


Post by: Klickor


Denying your opponents points when you could have earned some yourself is a douch move. You dont gain anything from him scoring less if you are gonna lose anyway. If you deploy that unit from reserve and get a kill and score 1 point and your opponent kill it and get kill, kill more and maybe a seconday and gets up to 6pts for that unit it is still better for you to get that 1 point than him 6.

If it is to deny points so another friend has a better placing it isnt exclusive to ITC. It might perhaps be easier to deny in ITC but you can still try to deny points for your opponent over scoring yourself in any system. At least a win is much important than what the actual score is in ITC events. Doesnt matter if you won by with a 1-0 score if you won all 5 games for example while another player got 43-0, 43-0. 43-0, 43-0 and then 42-43. So you could in theory win an event with 5 points in a 5 round tournament against someone with over 210pts.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/18 11:42:07


Post by: Asmodai


Ilgoth wrote:
Been lurking this thread ever since Ishagu pulled the trigger on it. I am rather surprised how many believe ITC to be the better form of play.

You can correct me, if I am wrong, but doesn't ITC rulepack actually encourage throwing the game early on, if your start goes down badly? By not bringing the last units from reserve, you deny the opponent points as now those units can't be scored? I have seen this call often, even in some Youtube videos. One example I remember is that Vanguard Tactics guy.

I don't blame players for doing that, since this way the point differential isn't as big as it could have been. But this is by design. Design by ITC. Frankly, bad design. Imagine, if in ice hockey you would deny opponent some goals just by standing idle and not doing a thing. It goes against every bit of logic, if you ask me... Not only that but it is also an awfully boring game to watch. I rarely find ITC games exciting, and that is only because of how it is played out, and how terrain rules make people go about their deployment.

I personally lean towards Chapter Approved missions. I value what ITC group has done, and created, but right now I think it has to be evaluated again. I read recent changes to it, and I don't see the huge gameplay impact they claimed on that post.


I think you're wrong. Units left in reserve count as destroyed at the end of the third battleround, so your opponent would still get points for them at that stage.

See the Tactical Reserves rule in CA '19 (though it's been around awhile): "Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed."

So if you don't bring in the units from reserve, in ITC or any other format, they count as being destroyed and your opponent gets their points.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/18 13:36:59


Post by: Dudeface


 Asmodai wrote:
Ilgoth wrote:
Been lurking this thread ever since Ishagu pulled the trigger on it. I am rather surprised how many believe ITC to be the better form of play.

You can correct me, if I am wrong, but doesn't ITC rulepack actually encourage throwing the game early on, if your start goes down badly? By not bringing the last units from reserve, you deny the opponent points as now those units can't be scored? I have seen this call often, even in some Youtube videos. One example I remember is that Vanguard Tactics guy.

I don't blame players for doing that, since this way the point differential isn't as big as it could have been. But this is by design. Design by ITC. Frankly, bad design. Imagine, if in ice hockey you would deny opponent some goals just by standing idle and not doing a thing. It goes against every bit of logic, if you ask me... Not only that but it is also an awfully boring game to watch. I rarely find ITC games exciting, and that is only because of how it is played out, and how terrain rules make people go about their deployment.

I personally lean towards Chapter Approved missions. I value what ITC group has done, and created, but right now I think it has to be evaluated again. I read recent changes to it, and I don't see the huge gameplay impact they claimed on that post.


I think you're wrong. Units left in reserve count as destroyed at the end of the third battleround, so your opponent would still get points for them at that stage.

See the Tactical Reserves rule in CA '19 (though it's been around awhile): "Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed."

So if you don't bring in the units from reserve, in ITC or any other format, they count as being destroyed and your opponent gets their points.


It still denies some points, throw it tail of 3 and you're not getting any more objective of kill points since you're probably already on kill more already so the wiped units don't add to that in any capacity, but the rules don't really cover this circumstance that well, it says to count them as destroyed but depending on wording as neither player has "killed" or "destroyed" the units, does anything get awarded? (obviously common sense says yes but it'd be open to interpretation)


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/18 17:02:17


Post by: Xenomancers


Slipspace wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.


BINGO!


Except they're really not. The mission is always 'stand on more objectives than you opponent' with a miniscule, usually irrelevant, twist and objective placement, when they're deliberately set to be mirrored, or deployed by two players who are at least minimally competent, is largely irrelevant.

Ewar missions may not be actually identical, but they're functionally identical in terms of how you go about winning them.


That's just completely wrong, even ignoring the absurdly reductive side of the argument. ITC primary missions are all the same barring a largely irrelevant bonus (which hopefully is a little more impactful with the new pack) with play patterns not really varying much due to the primary missions. The secondaries have more impact than the primaries do. I don't think this is a controversial statement and I've seen plenty of ITC supporters say the same thing. In the EW missions from CA19 the variety is actually very noticeable and each plays out very differently. You have missions where objectives disappear as the game goes on, or ones with progressive scoring but only with characters and these massively change how the game flows and how each army plays. It changes the individual value of different units depending on the mission as well, which instantly makes the game more engaging. Having characters go from lynchpin buffing units to the only realistic way to win the game leads to some truly dynamic play and difficult decisions about when and where to risk your key characters, for example.
True. Lots of differences between missions in CA. Numbers of objectives change. What can capture the objectives changes. Value of the objectives changes. Nothing but the objectives matter. Oh you hid all turn and killed a guardsmen with a TFC...I suppose that is a great way to determine a victor. LOL.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 00:05:56


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


So, I've been playing the CA2019 missions a bit, and I would say the shiny has definitely worn off.

Lockdown and Crusade are new, and I'm going to talk about Lockdown first.
I've played it a few times now, and I definitely think that it's worth pretending there are 5 missions in the mission pack and ignoring this one. It's so bad. I won one game on turn 2 by porting up Interceptors and Strikes with Gates to score 6-1, and by dropping in my deepstrikers and porting up more strikes to do it again turn 2 for another 6-0, and from that point onward it was actually just impossible for my opponent to recover the deficit in victory points before the end of the game. I wasn't even putting my guys in favorable engagements, just rushing the points, and took massive casualties compared to him but scored all the victory points, and with diminishing numbers of objectives he had no chance to come back. The other games I played with this mission were less ridiculously one-sided, but the games were still decided very early by just rushing points. I imagine that this mission is probably free in the bag for Space Marines, though I never played as or faced marines while playing it. Armies without infiltrate/vanguard or some other way to cheat a unit up the board turn 1 basically didn't have a chance.

Crusade though is okay. I wouldn't be unhappy with it being standardized as the singular competitive mission. I like start-of-turn scoring for progressive objectives, which is neat. All in all, it might be a little better than the ITC missions, but the rest of the pack isn't that great. I was disappointed to see only two new missions.

For the returning missions, Scorched Earth and Front-Line Warfare also have limited comeback potential, but aren't as bad as Lockdown. I just plain don't like Ascension. Four Pillars is okay too.


There are lots of things I don't like about ITC missions, mostly because the reward for destruction is too high and the secondaries aren't fair to all factions, but all in all, they're consistent, can be planned around, so I'll probably be sticking with them going forward.


I'm increasingly a fan of old-fashioned style missions where it's just end of game scoring for holding the objectives. Comeback potential with progressive scoring isn't high enough, which ends games early, and most of my games end when a player concedes when they count up the points on board and conclude that it's impossible for a comeback.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 11:20:52


Post by: dhallnet


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I've played it a few times now, and I definitely think that it's worth pretending there are 5 missions in the mission pack and ignoring this one. It's so bad. I won one game on turn 2 by porting up Interceptors and Strikes with Gates to score 6-1, and by dropping in my deepstrikers and porting up more strikes to do it again turn 2 for another 6-0, and from that point onward it was actually just impossible for my opponent to recover the deficit in victory points before the end of the game. I wasn't even putting my guys in favorable engagements, just rushing the points, and took massive casualties compared to him but scored all the victory points, and with diminishing numbers of objectives he had no chance to come back. The other games I played with this mission were less ridiculously one-sided, but the games were still decided very early by just rushing points. I imagine that this mission is probably free in the bag for Space Marines, though I never played as or faced marines while playing it. Armies without infiltrate/vanguard or some other way to cheat a unit up the board turn 1 basically didn't have a chance.


I'm kinda curious, considering each player places 3 objectives on the board, how did your opponent allowed you to be able to deepstrike/infiltrate (gate is once per turn right ?) into most of them ?
Anyway, rushing objectives kinda is the point of this mission and is one of those that force you to make balanced lists because you'll need fast units to tackle it. But I would agree that it might be a bit imbalanced since you score at the end of your own turn.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 11:28:46


Post by: Ishagu


It's obvious the opponent didn't have a list that was capable of board control or fast movement/redeployment.

This is exactly the point of the CA missions - to test your list in different ways.
You should build a list suited to the missions, not change the mission to suit your list.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 11:45:22


Post by: Klickor


Some armies do that way better than others. You could make a whole marine army with 0 models in reserve or deployed in your own deployment zone. Every single model up the board before the game even begins. Quite the unfair advantage for marines to have that option while other armies dont.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 12:01:47


Post by: dhallnet


Klickor wrote:
Some armies do that way better than others. You could make a whole marine army with 0 models in reserve or deployed in your own deployment zone. Every single model up the board before the game even begins. Quite the unfair advantage for marines to have that option while other armies dont.

It is one of the points of playing something like 40K rather than checkers though, different armies are supposed to be good at different things (unless it's marines).
You're not supposed to chose your list after knowing the mission you're going to play. So maybe you're going to play lockdown and your phobos list or whatever will be awesome, but maybe you'll play a mission where you score at the start of your turn or at the end of the battle round and your opponent will just have to put more bodies than you around the objectives...


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 12:03:27


Post by: Ishagu


This is a balancing factor of the mission. Some armies SHOULD be better at certain things.

Over an event spanning all the different missions, different armies will have an easier or tougher time from round to round.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 12:07:01


Post by: Sim-Life


Klickor wrote:
Some armies do that way better than others. You could make a whole marine army with 0 models in reserve or deployed in your own deployment zone. Every single model up the board before the game even begins. Quite the unfair advantage for marines to have that option while other armies dont.


The marine book is like twice the size of every other codex not including supplements. Of course Marines are always going to be at an advantage in terms of choices because they get way more attention than other armies (and at this point are effectivly two armies in one codex). Not to derail the thread but it's not that other armies have NO options in said category but its more that some armies have no GOOD options in that category. I almost never take any Fast Attack options in my Nid army because even playing casually their FA options suck.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 12:11:27


Post by: Klickor


 Sim-Life wrote:
Klickor wrote:
Some armies do that way better than others. You could make a whole marine army with 0 models in reserve or deployed in your own deployment zone. Every single model up the board before the game even begins. Quite the unfair advantage for marines to have that option while other armies dont.


The marine book is like twice the size of every other codex not including supplements. Of course Marines are always going to be at an advantage in terms of choices because they get way more attention than other armies (and at this point are effectivly two armies in one codex). Not to derail the thread but it's not that other armies have NO options in said category but its more that some armies have no GOOD options in that category. I almost never take any Fast Attack options in my Nid army because even playing casually their FA options suck.


I know and that is part of the problem right now. I dont think the CA missions is that much better than ITC that marines are now balanced with everyone else. It will just shift the problems around a bit since the core of the problem is the lackluster core rules and the imbalance between all the extra special rules tacked on to armies after. Especially marines benefit since they have the largest roster by far.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 15:31:22


Post by: Yoyoyo


Missions don't need to be balanced for every single faction in the game, there just needs to be a way for players to avoid obviously one-sided matchups.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 17:35:21


Post by: Jidmah


Yoyoyo wrote:
Missions don't need to be balanced for every single faction in the game, there just needs to be a way for players to avoid obviously one-sided matchups.

I disagree. While not every army should be equally good at winning all the missions, every faction should have a way to win any of the missions - that way doesn't need to be the same one, but they need a way.

For example, a faction which has trouble keeping characters on objectives should have better access to assassination mechanisms.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 17:51:18


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Yoyoyo wrote:Missions don't need to be balanced for every single faction in the game, there just needs to be a way for players to avoid obviously one-sided matchups.


I would say they should be balanced for every faction, or at least almost all the factions and every major faction. Especially for competitive play.

That's my one real complaint with ITC, the missions favor certain armies and disadvantage others pretty severely, mostly though the killmore and secondaries. Otherwise, I like ITC because it's static & plannable, which are important for competitive play.

dhallnet wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I've played it a few times now, and I definitely think that it's worth pretending there are 5 missions in the mission pack and ignoring this one. It's so bad. I won one game on turn 2 by porting up Interceptors and Strikes with Gates to score 6-1, and by dropping in my deepstrikers and porting up more strikes to do it again turn 2 for another 6-0, and from that point onward it was actually just impossible for my opponent to recover the deficit in victory points before the end of the game. I wasn't even putting my guys in favorable engagements, just rushing the points, and took massive casualties compared to him but scored all the victory points, and with diminishing numbers of objectives he had no chance to come back. The other games I played with this mission were less ridiculously one-sided, but the games were still decided very early by just rushing points. I imagine that this mission is probably free in the bag for Space Marines, though I never played as or faced marines while playing it. Armies without infiltrate/vanguard or some other way to cheat a unit up the board turn 1 basically didn't have a chance.


I'm kinda curious, considering each player places 3 objectives on the board, how did your opponent allowed you to be able to deepstrike/infiltrate (gate is once per turn right ?) into most of them ?
Anyway, rushing objectives kinda is the point of this mission and is one of those that force you to make balanced lists because you'll need fast units to tackle it. But I would agree that it might be a bit imbalanced since you score at the end of your own turn.


Objectives are places in alternating sequence 6" in and 12" apart before determining deployment zones. It's not too difficult to force objectives in places that are bad for them. In that game, there were 2 in his zone, one further back but with no cover protecting it, and one at the front but sheltered behind a building [a pretty standard spread of objectives]. He chose #6 to be the one in cover and garrisoned it with cultists and some Havocks above it, and unfortunately for him the one in his back field came up #2. I took #6 with strikes charging the cultists and grabbed the midfield ones with interceptors and by walking to them. Another charge on the part of interceptors meant he wasn't able to push up into the midfield objectives on his turn, since I wasn't dead yet as of the movement phase, and he wasn't able to get anybody with obsec over to steal #6 back from the strikes. Turn 2 I brought in my deep strikers, basically repeating turn 1 except now with strikes and paladins [and re-rolls for the charge, so more successful charges]. Once again, he couldn't reach the objectives and couldn't move past my models. He wasn't able to leave his zone until turn 3. If on his turn 3 he took all the mid-fields and took back #6 [there was basically no chance for him to take away #1] he would be able to recover a total of 6 points to the 14 point lead I was already sitting on at the end of my/beginning of his turn 3. There just wasn't a chance for him to win, and no point in still playing.

That was the most egregiously one-sided game I played on Lockdown. I've played 3 total on this mission [which is 2 more times than I've played Crusade or any of the others], and all have been called short because there are not enough points available late in the game to make up a points deficit from early in the game.


And like, I'm in favor of objective based scoring that doesn't reward unit destruction, but Lockdown is just bad. Nobody likes playing a game that was decided on turn 2 without any real chance at a comeback and decided by actions that he didn't even get a chance to oppose or prevent. I can also see easily getting screwed by random objective rolls, if 2 and 3 are close to you and 4 and 5 are far away.



Crusade, on the other hand, is good. Beginning of turn scoring is a good feature, since you have to not only take it but expect to defend it, disincentivizing rushing suicidal units onto objectives every turn to score lots of points while getting decimated. Your opponent always gets a say before you score a point, which means that it's in a player's power to try to limit the growth of a points deficit in the first place. It's very plannable, and player-placed objective allow a layer of play and counterplay in objective placement that can have a significant effect if thought about carefully. It's very simply written and easy to understand how to score. And with regards to late game turns being irrelevant due to available points being less than an accumulated deficit, it still has that problem, but not any worse than ITC or any of the other mission options [short end-of-game scoring]. I would not be unhappy with just standardizing this mission as "The Mission".


A mission needs several things to be good:
Static: the mission will play the same no matter who plays it or when. If you can play the mission twice and it'll be different each time, that's a problem
Plannable: similar to the above, but you should be able to see and prepare a strategy towards victory from when you build your list to the end.
Counterplayable: players should be forced to engage with their opponent, rather than be an independent race to the top to see who gets highest. Being able to deny through play the enemy their points is as important a part of a game as scoring your own.
Competitive: any point in the game should have the potential to be decisive with good play.
Balanced: assuming players of equal skill, either should have a equal chance of winning independent of faction selection. Exactly what's in your army is important, but whether you're Space Marines or Imperial Guard should still give equal odds.
Sane: Winning the mission should not incentivize what would otherwise be considered bad play and poor decisions. Actions of desperation like sending troops squads on suicide missions to take a point for just the end of your turn and then die might be a valid choice on the back foot and trying to stay close to turn it around, but it shouldn't be the optimal play when you're winning.

This is why Maelstrom is bad, and this is why Lockdown is bad. They fail basically all of these. This is also why Crusade is good, since it passes most of these.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 19:44:41


Post by: Yoyoyo


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I would say they should be balanced for every faction, or at least almost all the factions and every major faction. Especially for competitive play.

In most RTS games, you have a map pool. Certain maps favor certain factions, due to how difficult it is to fast-expand (for example).

I really, really doubt you can get a set of missions -- or even a single mission -- to be an even playing field for most of the 40k factions. As soon as you have a static mission, people will choose the army and composition which favors it. For example, IH Leviathan with wound passing in the ITC format.

This is the downside of being static and plannable -- you're loading the challenge to list-building, rather than forcing a player to take a flexible force because they need to play potentially 4/6 missions.

The more unpredictable the mission, the less you can overspecialize. That's arguably a good thing within reason. Though I'm of course interested in the counter-argument.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 19:58:56


Post by: AnomanderRake


Yoyoyo wrote:
...rather than forcing a player to take a flexible force because they need to play potentially 4/6 missions.

The more unpredictable the mission, the less you can overspecialize. That's arguably a good thing within reason. Though I'm of course interested in the counter-argument.


In an RTS factions have the ability to play in a different fashion to adapt to the map. In 40k if you take the wrong list build, or in extreme cases the wrong faction, when you started buying and painting expensive toy soldiers months or years before the event, and then get screwed over by the mission, there's very little you can do.

The ease and lack of cost of switching factions in an RTS makes this feel like a screwey comparison to me.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/19 23:11:55


Post by: Yoyoyo


You do have a certain ability in 40k to adapt. Imperial Assassins for example, or Daemon summoning, or tailoring your psychic powers, WLTs and relics.

Nonetheless, that's not an argument against how effective it is to choose faction + force tailored to the mission format. And the less diverse the mission format, the less diverse the amount of factions and forces that are optimized for it. That's the real point so don't get lost in the analogy.

BTW "it's too expensive" is a tangent. There's zero reason tourneys can't drop to 1500pts to make the barrier to entry easier. Good point but probably fodder for another thread as this is a discussion about mission formats, not the price of filling out a 2000pt army or chasing the tournament meta.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 00:05:10


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Yoyoyo wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I would say they should be balanced for every faction, or at least almost all the factions and every major faction. Especially for competitive play.

In most RTS games, you have a map pool. Certain maps favor certain factions, due to how difficult it is to fast-expand (for example).

I really, really doubt you can get a set of missions -- or even a single mission -- to be an even playing field for most of the 40k factions. As soon as you have a static mission, people will choose the army and composition which favors it. For example, IH Leviathan with wound passing in the ITC format.

This is the downside of being static and plannable -- you're loading the challenge to list-building, rather than forcing a player to take a flexible force because they need to play potentially 4/6 missions.

The more unpredictable the mission, the less you can overspecialize. That's arguably a good thing within reason. Though I'm of course interested in the counter-argument.


With so many factions, it's almost certainly impossible to balance for all of them. But balancing for the most significant ones is doable. And even in RTS's, most of the maps are fairly close to being balanced for all factions, and are highly symmetric.

A fundamental aspect of the game is having a strategy. A plan on how you're going to achieve the victory conditions. When constructing your list, each unit should be selected to perform a role that contributes towards your strategic aims, or makes it difficult for the enemy to achieve theirs. If victory conditions are random and unpredictable, then that reduces the significance of not only the strategic planning for the game, it also reduces the significance of tactically opposing your opponent. You shouldn't ever be fighting the mission, conditions should be symmetric, static, simple, and known to ensure a deep & fair competition between the parties engaged in the game.

And as for overspecialization, I don't see what you mean. At an army scale, it's missions like Lockdown and Maelstrom of War that encourage overspecialization into completing arbitrary and artificial victory conditions. Crusade should encourage the least overspecialization, since it's literally the most fundamental objective of warfare: capture and hold ground. At a unit scale, specialization is good to have and encourage; units are brought to perform a function, not just because pew-pew-laser-guns-are-awesome. Bringing specialized units is the product of a developed strategy and counter-strategy to neutralize your opponent's efforts.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 01:27:48


Post by: AnomanderRake


Yoyoyo wrote:
...BTW "it's too expensive" is a tangent. There's zero reason tourneys can't drop to 1500pts to make the barrier to entry easier. Good point but probably fodder for another thread as this is a discussion about mission formats, not the price of filling out a 2000pt army or chasing the tournament meta.


It's also a reason "but you can adapt to different maps in an RTS..." is an unhelpful comparison.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 08:47:55


Post by: Slipspace


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:Missions don't need to be balanced for every single faction in the game, there just needs to be a way for players to avoid obviously one-sided matchups.


I would say they should be balanced for every faction, or at least almost all the factions and every major faction. Especially for competitive play.

That's my one real complaint with ITC, the missions favor certain armies and disadvantage others pretty severely, mostly though the killmore and secondaries. Otherwise, I like ITC because it's static & plannable, which are important for competitive play.

dhallnet wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I've played it a few times now, and I definitely think that it's worth pretending there are 5 missions in the mission pack and ignoring this one. It's so bad. I won one game on turn 2 by porting up Interceptors and Strikes with Gates to score 6-1, and by dropping in my deepstrikers and porting up more strikes to do it again turn 2 for another 6-0, and from that point onward it was actually just impossible for my opponent to recover the deficit in victory points before the end of the game. I wasn't even putting my guys in favorable engagements, just rushing the points, and took massive casualties compared to him but scored all the victory points, and with diminishing numbers of objectives he had no chance to come back. The other games I played with this mission were less ridiculously one-sided, but the games were still decided very early by just rushing points. I imagine that this mission is probably free in the bag for Space Marines, though I never played as or faced marines while playing it. Armies without infiltrate/vanguard or some other way to cheat a unit up the board turn 1 basically didn't have a chance.


I'm kinda curious, considering each player places 3 objectives on the board, how did your opponent allowed you to be able to deepstrike/infiltrate (gate is once per turn right ?) into most of them ?
Anyway, rushing objectives kinda is the point of this mission and is one of those that force you to make balanced lists because you'll need fast units to tackle it. But I would agree that it might be a bit imbalanced since you score at the end of your own turn.


Objectives are places in alternating sequence 6" in and 12" apart before determining deployment zones. It's not too difficult to force objectives in places that are bad for them. In that game, there were 2 in his zone, one further back but with no cover protecting it, and one at the front but sheltered behind a building [a pretty standard spread of objectives]. He chose #6 to be the one in cover and garrisoned it with cultists and some Havocks above it, and unfortunately for him the one in his back field came up #2. I took #6 with strikes charging the cultists and grabbed the midfield ones with interceptors and by walking to them. Another charge on the part of interceptors meant he wasn't able to push up into the midfield objectives on his turn, since I wasn't dead yet as of the movement phase, and he wasn't able to get anybody with obsec over to steal #6 back from the strikes. Turn 2 I brought in my deep strikers, basically repeating turn 1 except now with strikes and paladins [and re-rolls for the charge, so more successful charges]. Once again, he couldn't reach the objectives and couldn't move past my models. He wasn't able to leave his zone until turn 3. If on his turn 3 he took all the mid-fields and took back #6 [there was basically no chance for him to take away #1] he would be able to recover a total of 6 points to the 14 point lead I was already sitting on at the end of my/beginning of his turn 3. There just wasn't a chance for him to win, and no point in still playing.


So this player was outsmarted in placing the objectives and utterly lacked any board control or ability to take back board control once it was lost? Seems like they were outplayed or their army had deficiencies to me and if that's the reason they lost then things are working as they should. I've played Lockdown a few times now and I think it's a very dynamic mission that pushes players to change their plans on the fly and often requires a lot more thought during deployment than the other missions. I agree it can have problems with a runaway leader as the points available decrease over time but that's part of the challenge for each player, IMO.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 09:14:18


Post by: Ishagu


It's also worth noting that you can be tabled and still win by a handy margin.

This is great for pushing the focus away from lists that simply deal the most damage. Exactly what the meta needs.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 09:20:25


Post by: tneva82


Except when you can generate enough vp's just by sitting back at shooting enemy to bits. Like ITC


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 09:56:39


Post by: Jidmah


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
...rather than forcing a player to take a flexible force because they need to play potentially 4/6 missions.

The more unpredictable the mission, the less you can overspecialize. That's arguably a good thing within reason. Though I'm of course interested in the counter-argument.


In an RTS factions have the ability to play in a different fashion to adapt to the map. In 40k if you take the wrong list build, or in extreme cases the wrong faction, when you started buying and painting expensive toy soldiers months or years before the event, and then get screwed over by the mission, there's very little you can do.

The ease and lack of cost of switching factions in an RTS makes this feel like a screwey comparison to me.


We have been randomly determining our missions after bringing finished lists to our gaming group since a few months into 8th. Not once has a single player been screwed over by any of the eternal war or maelstrom missions because of his faction or because of his collection.
The only times this happens is when people bring an army that can't adapt to the mission - like one-trick combos, static gun castles or lists heavily skewed towards one aspect. Or armies that wouldn't work in any mission, obviously.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 14:07:42


Post by: Wayniac


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
A mission needs several things to be good:
Static: the mission will play the same no matter who plays it or when. If you can play the mission twice and it'll be different each time, that's a problem
Plannable: similar to the above, but you should be able to see and prepare a strategy towards victory from when you build your list to the end.
Counterplayable: players should be forced to engage with their opponent, rather than be an independent race to the top to see who gets highest. Being able to deny through play the enemy their points is as important a part of a game as scoring your own.
Competitive: any point in the game should have the potential to be decisive with good play.
Balanced: assuming players of equal skill, either should have a equal chance of winning independent of faction selection. Exactly what's in your army is important, but whether you're Space Marines or Imperial Guard should still give equal odds.
Sane: Winning the mission should not incentivize what would otherwise be considered bad play and poor decisions. Actions of desperation like sending troops squads on suicide missions to take a point for just the end of your turn and then die might be a valid choice on the back foot and trying to stay close to turn it around, but it shouldn't be the optimal play when you're winning.

This is why Maelstrom is bad, and this is why Lockdown is bad. They fail basically all of these. This is also why Crusade is good, since it passes most of these.


Yikes. See those first two points I think the opposite is true. A mission that plays the same no matter who plays it or when, and one that you can prepare a strategy before you ever go to the table is IMHO the issue with ITC missions as a whole. It's TOO predictable. There should be some element of surprise that prevents you from just knowing everything in advance and being able to build a specific army before you know what you are getting into or, worse, be able to set up two armies on a table with a reasonable facsimile of terrain and play out an entire game by yourself such that you know every turn what you may need to do.

Having some stuff you can't plan for should encourage building well-rounded armies over skew/spam that are designed to do one thing and only one thing because you know in advance that you can build it to handle the mission.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 15:00:11


Post by: catbarf


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
...rather than forcing a player to take a flexible force because they need to play potentially 4/6 missions.

The more unpredictable the mission, the less you can overspecialize. That's arguably a good thing within reason. Though I'm of course interested in the counter-argument.


In an RTS factions have the ability to play in a different fashion to adapt to the map. In 40k if you take the wrong list build, or in extreme cases the wrong faction, when you started buying and painting expensive toy soldiers months or years before the event, and then get screwed over by the mission, there's very little you can do.

The ease and lack of cost of switching factions in an RTS makes this feel like a screwey comparison to me.


In the competitive RTSes I used to play, players tended to focus on one faction. You wouldn't take a different faction based on the map, you would adopt a different strategy.

In a tabletop context, a well-designed mission pack can have variety while still giving a well-balanced army a reasonable shot at any of them. If a player leans hard into a skew castle gunline list and then runs into a mission where the only way to score is to take and hold terrain, well... play a sad song on the world's tiniest violin?

I also agree with the idea of reducing the common points level to 1500. More hard decisions as far as what to bring, easier to buy into.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 15:12:38


Post by: Martel732


Rts you can scout your foe and counterbuild. Changes everything.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 15:12:57


Post by: Spoletta


And less bags to carry! It is becoming increasingly difficult to carry around 2000 points of nids!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 15:17:36


Post by: Martel732


Yeah, as 8th goes on, starcraft looks better and better lol.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 15:18:36


Post by: Jidmah


Spoletta wrote:
And less bags to carry! It is becoming increasingly difficult to carry around 2000 points of nids!


Abandon foam trays, magnets are the way to transport hordes. Especially for nid models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Rts you can scout your foe and counterbuild. Changes everything.


Doesn't change the fact that every faction has the proper tools to beat any opponent, does it?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 15:24:08


Post by: Ishagu


This is a tabletop wargame, not an RTS video game.

Starcraft has far less units and only 3 factions so there's only so much comparison you can make. Also, in 40k you don't build up the armies during the game so the system of competition is fundamentally different.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 15:36:18


Post by: Jidmah


 Ishagu wrote:
This is a tabletop wargame, not an RTS video game.

Starcraft has far less units and only 3 factions so there's only so much comparison you can make. Also, in 40k you don't build up the armies during the game so the system of competition is fundamentally different.

Note that not all RTS are about base-building and managing economics like StarCraft is.
As someone who already played those first RTS which could toggle between RTS and turn-based, I can tell you that turn-based tabletop wargame is just an RTS with a lot less complexity.
There is no reason why it's not possible to balance WH40k to the same degree as StarCraft I+II, WarCraft3, AoE2, C&C Generals, Red Alert 2, Grey Goo or many others.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 15:38:54


Post by: Melissia


Actually I'd say it has more complexity than any of the games you mentioned, which are pretty simplistic.

But if you want to compare 40k to a game at all, I 'd compare it to the Wargame/Steel Division series, by Eugen, not to starcrapped, warcrapped, age of empires, command and conquer, etc.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 15:39:43


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that every faction has the proper tools to beat any opponent, does it?

Three factions are easier to balance than twenty. Still nothing as OP as ih should be running around. The spring faq better do something. The new missions help but it's still an uphill fight against some sm chapters.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 15:41:46


Post by: Martel732


 Jidmah wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
And less bags to carry! It is becoming increasingly difficult to carry around 2000 points of nids!


Abandon foam trays, magnets are the way to transport hordes. Especially for nid models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Rts you can scout your foe and counterbuild. Changes everything.


Doesn't change the fact that every faction has the proper tools to beat any opponent, does it?


Not at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Starcraft also has the power of metadata and map design. Its just more uniform.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 16:01:16


Post by: nurgle5


Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:A fundamental aspect of the game is having a strategy. A plan on how you're going to achieve the victory conditions. When constructing your list, each unit should be selected to perform a role that contributes towards your strategic aims, or makes it difficult for the enemy to achieve theirs. If victory conditions are random and unpredictable, then that reduces the significance of not only the strategic planning for the game, it also reduces the significance of tactically opposing your opponent.


I don't really see how Maelstrom of War reduces the significance of strategic planning. The tactical objective cards are a variable but not an unknown element, you can plan for them in your list and in your gameplay.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 16:05:33


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Melissia wrote:
...But if you want to compare 40k to a game at all, I 'd compare it to the Wargame/Steel Division series, by Eugen...


...I wonder how hard it would be to build a Warhammer total conversion mod for Wargame?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 16:15:55


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Jidmah wrote:
We have been randomly determining our missions after bringing finished lists to our gaming group since a few months into 8th. Not once has a single player been screwed over by any of the eternal war or maelstrom missions because of his faction or because of his collection.
The only times this happens is when people bring an army that can't adapt to the mission - like one-trick combos, static gun castles or lists heavily skewed towards one aspect. Or armies that wouldn't work in any mission, obviously.


I can think of a great many maelstrom games that have been won or lost by the mission. Maelstrom missions are literally the worst kind of mission, they're a race to the top with a fixed number of available points that appear randomly. Score points the turn they're generated, or lose. Games used to come down to one player having seen "Demolitions" [almost always outright impossible] while another saw "Kill an enemy unit, kill 3 for d3, kill 6 for 3+d3 VP" [basically trivial].

There were some factions that just couldn't score some objectives, like Harness the Warp. Some objectives are essentially impossible, like the one to hold every objective on the board [which is only possible at a point where your enemy is probably tabled].

In theory, you have an equal odds of seeing an impossible card as your opponent, but in practice that's terrible for a competitive best-of-one game, because it's a sentiment that's only applicable when averaged over a large number of games.

Slipspace wrote:
Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:Missions don't need to be balanced for every single faction in the game, there just needs to be a way for players to avoid obviously one-sided matchups.


I would say they should be balanced for every faction, or at least almost all the factions and every major faction. Especially for competitive play.

That's my one real complaint with ITC, the missions favor certain armies and disadvantage others pretty severely, mostly though the killmore and secondaries. Otherwise, I like ITC because it's static & plannable, which are important for competitive play.

dhallnet wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I've played it a few times now, and I definitely think that it's worth pretending there are 5 missions in the mission pack and ignoring this one. It's so bad. I won one game on turn 2 by porting up Interceptors and Strikes with Gates to score 6-1, and by dropping in my deepstrikers and porting up more strikes to do it again turn 2 for another 6-0, and from that point onward it was actually just impossible for my opponent to recover the deficit in victory points before the end of the game. I wasn't even putting my guys in favorable engagements, just rushing the points, and took massive casualties compared to him but scored all the victory points, and with diminishing numbers of objectives he had no chance to come back. The other games I played with this mission were less ridiculously one-sided, but the games were still decided very early by just rushing points. I imagine that this mission is probably free in the bag for Space Marines, though I never played as or faced marines while playing it. Armies without infiltrate/vanguard or some other way to cheat a unit up the board turn 1 basically didn't have a chance.


I'm kinda curious, considering each player places 3 objectives on the board, how did your opponent allowed you to be able to deepstrike/infiltrate (gate is once per turn right ?) into most of them ?
Anyway, rushing objectives kinda is the point of this mission and is one of those that force you to make balanced lists because you'll need fast units to tackle it. But I would agree that it might be a bit imbalanced since you score at the end of your own turn.


Objectives are places in alternating sequence 6" in and 12" apart before determining deployment zones. It's not too difficult to force objectives in places that are bad for them. In that game, there were 2 in his zone, one further back but with no cover protecting it, and one at the front but sheltered behind a building [a pretty standard spread of objectives]. He chose #6 to be the one in cover and garrisoned it with cultists and some Havocks above it, and unfortunately for him the one in his back field came up #2. I took #6 with strikes charging the cultists and grabbed the midfield ones with interceptors and by walking to them. Another charge on the part of interceptors meant he wasn't able to push up into the midfield objectives on his turn, since I wasn't dead yet as of the movement phase, and he wasn't able to get anybody with obsec over to steal #6 back from the strikes. Turn 2 I brought in my deep strikers, basically repeating turn 1 except now with strikes and paladins [and re-rolls for the charge, so more successful charges]. Once again, he couldn't reach the objectives and couldn't move past my models. He wasn't able to leave his zone until turn 3. If on his turn 3 he took all the mid-fields and took back #6 [there was basically no chance for him to take away #1] he would be able to recover a total of 6 points to the 14 point lead I was already sitting on at the end of my/beginning of his turn 3. There just wasn't a chance for him to win, and no point in still playing.


So this player was outsmarted in placing the objectives and utterly lacked any board control or ability to take back board control once it was lost? Seems like they were outplayed or their army had deficiencies to me and if that's the reason they lost then things are working as they should. I've played Lockdown a few times now and I think it's a very dynamic mission that pushes players to change their plans on the fly and often requires a lot more thought during deployment than the other missions. I agree it can have problems with a runaway leader as the points available decrease over time but that's part of the challenge for each player, IMO.


I wouldn't say any of those things. He was given no opportunity to regain board control: I had strung out the unit that charged in a line basically across enough of the front of his deploy such that it prevented him from moving through it. Even 5 interceptors on 32mm bases can create a 16" long line through which the opponent can't move through. By the time they get an opportunity to kill them off it's too late to move through them to an objective. He could not pass that unit in time for it to matter, because on turn 2 I replaced it and turn 3 it was over.

I also wouldn't say he was outsmarted on objectives. He definitely picked the better deployment zone, which had good multi-level buildings, los-blocking shelter, and basically a symmetric layout on objectives to mine. I wouldn't have picked the #6 he did, but his rationale for doing so was sound: it was out of LoS from most of the board, the tower it was underneath was a very commanding building that he expected to always have men in. Once he got a turn, he could have surged forward with his army and it would have been out of reach, but I made 2 9" charges and boxed him in before he had a chance to even take an action of any kind.

Would he have lost on a different mission? Would he have lost if he had turn the turn? Would he have lost if a randomly generated objective number generated after he picked his zone had been 5 instead of 2? Maybe. I've been playing for 9 years and play in local competitive events, he's been playing for 9 months and his army represented his entire collection. Odds were in my favor from the get go, I won't deny that. But that game was sad. It was not only a blow out, he didn't even have an opportunity to respond or do something different or react to me.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 17:12:03


Post by: dhallnet


From what you tell us it looks like he didn't have the firepower to create a gap to go through, he didn't have anything that could fly and he didn't have any bubble wrap to protect his objectives (he might have thought that T1 charges would be unlikely though, which isn't much of a stretch).
I dunno, I think you were just way more prepared to win than he was even though I don't think the mission is perfect.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 17:16:41


Post by: Jidmah


Martel732 wrote:
Starcraft also has the power of metadata and map design. Its just more uniform.

Yeah, too bad you couldn't just collect all that data by providing digital suit that combines tools like bestcoast pairings, battlescribe and a dice app for free.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 17:17:49


Post by: Martel732


GW is technologically backwards for sure.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 17:23:15


Post by: Jidmah


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
We have been randomly determining our missions after bringing finished lists to our gaming group since a few months into 8th. Not once has a single player been screwed over by any of the eternal war or maelstrom missions because of his faction or because of his collection.
The only times this happens is when people bring an army that can't adapt to the mission - like one-trick combos, static gun castles or lists heavily skewed towards one aspect. Or armies that wouldn't work in any mission, obviously.


I can think of a great many maelstrom games that have been won or lost by the mission. Maelstrom missions are literally the worst kind of mission, they're a race to the top with a fixed number of available points that appear randomly. Score points the turn they're generated, or lose. Games used to come down to one player having seen "Demolitions" [almost always outright impossible] while another saw "Kill an enemy unit, kill 3 for d3, kill 6 for 3+d3 VP" [basically trivial].

There were some factions that just couldn't score some objectives, like Harness the Warp. Some objectives are essentially impossible, like the one to hold every objective on the board [which is only possible at a point where your enemy is probably tabled].

In theory, you have an equal odds of seeing an impossible card as your opponent, but in practice that's terrible for a competitive best-of-one game, because it's a sentiment that's only applicable when averaged over a large number of games.

Not to be nitpicky, but that was a problem of the maelstrom game mode and not by the specific mission you rolled. There is no army that was terrible one maelstrom mission but not at others.
Have you tried the new maelstrom? I feel like it eliminates almost all your complaints, as you get to eliminate half of the objectives and you usually go through most or all of the cards you selected over the course of a game. Getting unlucky also happens a lot less often as you draw 5 cards and pick 3 of those.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 19:08:24


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Jidmah wrote:
Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
We have been randomly determining our missions after bringing finished lists to our gaming group since a few months into 8th. Not once has a single player been screwed over by any of the eternal war or maelstrom missions because of his faction or because of his collection.
The only times this happens is when people bring an army that can't adapt to the mission - like one-trick combos, static gun castles or lists heavily skewed towards one aspect. Or armies that wouldn't work in any mission, obviously.


I can think of a great many maelstrom games that have been won or lost by the mission. Maelstrom missions are literally the worst kind of mission, they're a race to the top with a fixed number of available points that appear randomly. Score points the turn they're generated, or lose. Games used to come down to one player having seen "Demolitions" [almost always outright impossible] while another saw "Kill an enemy unit, kill 3 for d3, kill 6 for 3+d3 VP" [basically trivial].

There were some factions that just couldn't score some objectives, like Harness the Warp. Some objectives are essentially impossible, like the one to hold every objective on the board [which is only possible at a point where your enemy is probably tabled].

In theory, you have an equal odds of seeing an impossible card as your opponent, but in practice that's terrible for a competitive best-of-one game, because it's a sentiment that's only applicable when averaged over a large number of games.

Not to be nitpicky, but that was a problem of the maelstrom game mode and not by the specific mission you rolled. There is no army that was terrible one maelstrom mission but not at others.
Have you tried the new maelstrom? I feel like it eliminates almost all your complaints, as you get to eliminate half of the objectives and you usually go through most or all of the cards you selected over the course of a game. Getting unlucky also happens a lot less often as you draw 5 cards and pick 3 of those.


To be fair, Maelstrom missions are as much "one mission" as the ITC pack is "one mission". They're not actually different from each other.

I haven't played Maelstrom since the option not to returned with 8e. I'm willing to give the new ones a try, since I have the deck of cards sitting around. My expectations are pretty low.

Removing impossibles is good, though it's still fundamentally the same. You get 3 random tasks to do each turn. If you do all of them, the one or two super-objectives define the game, if you miss one, you probably lose. Reducing the chances of getting an impossible one in an improvement towards balance, but at the end of the day it's a goose chase across the board doing random tasks as they arrive with no real greater strategy from turn to turn.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 21:52:17


Post by: Jidmah


You get 5 cards and pick 3 out of those.
You can eliminate pretty much all that are difficult or highly improbably to do, plus you get to keep the cards you don't play for later turns, so you can set up some that take a bit more work over multiple turns.
On top of that, one of the three objectives is face down, so you can bait your opponent into giving it to you through his own actions.
In addition, there are three new stratagems that help you out when you hit a dry spell.

From experience, you usually miss no more than one or two objectives across the game(usually during T1), meaning that you usually draw 15 of your 18 cards in a 5 turn game. If it goes to turn six, you'll have drawn all of the cards you picked, meaning both players have had a chance to score all the easy vp and the "super-objectives".


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/20 22:39:20


Post by: Blndmage


 Jidmah wrote:
You get 5 cards and pick 3 out of those.
You can eliminate pretty much all that are difficult or highly improbably to do, plus you get to keep the cards you don't play for later turns, so you can set up some that take a bit more work over multiple turns.
On top of that, one of the three objectives is face down, so you can bait your opponent into giving it to you through his own actions.
In addition, there are three new stratagems that help you out when you hit a dry spell.

From experience, you usually miss no more than one or two objectives across the game(usually during T1), meaning that you usually draw 15 of your 18 cards in a 5 turn game. If it goes to turn six, you'll have drawn all of the cards you picked, meaning both players have had a chance to score all the easy vp and the "super-objectives".


I really like the idea of this, never looked at Malestrom before, but as a Necron player, we've got no "super objective", and I feel like most of ours aren't even that thematic.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 01:08:13


Post by: Jidmah


 Blndmage wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
You get 5 cards and pick 3 out of those.
You can eliminate pretty much all that are difficult or highly improbably to do, plus you get to keep the cards you don't play for later turns, so you can set up some that take a bit more work over multiple turns.
On top of that, one of the three objectives is face down, so you can bait your opponent into giving it to you through his own actions.
In addition, there are three new stratagems that help you out when you hit a dry spell.

From experience, you usually miss no more than one or two objectives across the game(usually during T1), meaning that you usually draw 15 of your 18 cards in a 5 turn game. If it goes to turn six, you'll have drawn all of the cards you picked, meaning both players have had a chance to score all the easy vp and the "super-objectives".


I really like the idea of this, never looked at Malestrom before, but as a Necron player, we've got no "super objective", and I feel like most of ours aren't even that thematic.


I'd argue that age of the machine is very much a super objective

I've played against the fabled eldar objective combo twice, and it's really not that powerful. Dead psykers don't cast spells and CP finite.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 01:53:00


Post by: Smirrors


Martel732 wrote:
GW is technologically backwards for sure.


When they are absolutely killing it theres very little incentive to innovate


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 02:10:46


Post by: Gadzilla666


My only problem with maelstrom is that gw hasn't released any cards for the legions tactical objectives from Faith and Fury. C'mon gw, get with the program.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 02:51:31


Post by: Kommisar


I’m in the middle of a 4 month long league that uses slightly modified maelstrom missions. There are about 20 of us and the general consensus is that most people are not fans of the cards at this point. Most of the specific army tactical objectives are pretty bad and then there’s this gem:

16 - Power of the Cabal
Score 1 VP (to a max of six VP) for every two psychic powers you have successfully manifested at the end of the turn.

I tabled my opponent but he was able to use this 3 times and beat me on points, which in our league was still close enough to be a tie at least.

I don’t necessarily hate the idea of maelstrom but I do think the cards and scoring needs to be looked at again.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 03:17:52


Post by: Galas


Look at ETC missions. The best way to play maelstrom.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 06:48:46


Post by: Jidmah


 Kommisar wrote:
I’m in the middle of a 4 month long league that uses slightly modified maelstrom missions. There are about 20 of us and the general consensus is that most people are not fans of the cards at this point. Most of the specific army tactical objectives are pretty bad and then there’s this gem:

16 - Power of the Cabal
Score 1 VP (to a max of six VP) for every two psychic powers you have successfully manifested at the end of the turn.

I tabled my opponent but he was able to use this 3 times and beat me on points, which in our league was still close enough to be a tie at least.

I don’t necessarily hate the idea of maelstrom but I do think the cards and scoring needs to be looked at again.


How did he score the same card three times?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 10:54:18


Post by: Ordana


The issue of faction card imbalance is really easy.
"Only the main rulebook cards are used, faction specific objectives are not allowed".

Viola, problem solved.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 11:33:18


Post by: Not Online!!!




Well played, indeed Like a fiddle.



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 13:26:10


Post by: Melissia


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Melissia wrote:
...But if you want to compare 40k to a game at all, I 'd compare it to the Wargame/Steel Division series, by Eugen...


...I wonder how hard it would be to build a Warhammer total conversion mod for Wargame?
I mean, probably not TERRIBLY hard all things considered-- Wargame and Steel Division are relatively easy to mod. The graphics changes would be the hardest part, as is usually the case.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 17:51:49


Post by: Yoyoyo


 Ishagu wrote:
This is a tabletop wargame, not an RTS video game.

Starcraft has far less units and only 3 factions so there's only so much comparison you can make. Also, in 40k you don't build up the armies during the game so the system of competition is fundamentally different.

Point taken. What I wanted to illustrate is that if a player just hates Lockdown, they can thumbs-down that mission and there's still 5/6 missions from CA19 that can be played. So it's a bit of player agency in terms of mission selection, which would help those factions that lack certain options in list building, or to not give a skew list a favorable matchup.

So despite the RTS analogy, I'm thinking specifically of applications in 40k.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 18:43:45


Post by: Wayniac


I would honestly say dropping the points would go a long way to help. But people like their 2k points and being able to mostly have their cake and eat it too. 1750 or even 1500 would IMHO be much better, especially if they would (not that they would) add a Superheavy 25% limit or something like that to help curb the really outlying stuff that otherwise might dominate too much at 1500.

Alas, that ship sailed. I'd bet we would more likely see points go up to 2500 or beyond than go down to 1500.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 20:13:49


Post by: happy_inquisitor


Slipspace wrote:


So this player was outsmarted in placing the objectives and utterly lacked any board control or ability to take back board control once it was lost? Seems like they were outplayed or their army had deficiencies to me and if that's the reason they lost then things are working as they should. I've played Lockdown a few times now and I think it's a very dynamic mission that pushes players to change their plans on the fly and often requires a lot more thought during deployment than the other missions. I agree it can have problems with a runaway leader as the points available decrease over time but that's part of the challenge for each player, IMO.


I find Lockdown very dynamic and also very punishing of bad deployment. If you deploy badly and do not correct on your first turn the game can very much get away from you.

I think that is very much by design and has its place within a mission pack. I would not want to play that same mission all weekend as that would rather specialise the skill-set needed but it does have a place in a balanced mission set.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 20:29:30


Post by: Martel732


On paper BA would be good at lockdown. But both times I played it I just got shredded.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 20:33:09


Post by: Slipspace


Martel732 wrote:
On paper BA would be good at lockdown. But both times I played it I just got shredded.


Y'know, there's a common denominator in all of your tales of woe about using BA and I don't think the problem lies with the army.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 20:37:07


Post by: Martel732


I mean it was shredded by vanilla marines. Maybe I could have won vs Xenos. But yeah, fast units would seem good for lock down, but as I've said, killing always works. It's really easy for gunlines when they know where you have to go, too.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/21 22:25:11


Post by: Yoyoyo


There was a discussion earlier in this thread about losing games despite tabling opponents. So it doesn't always work.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/22 00:25:12


Post by: Martel732


I"m not talking tabling. I"m talking about killing everything within 24" of the lockdown objectives. Having crap hiding in the back doesn't help at all because there is no engineer secondary in lockdown. So yes, killing the PROPER UNITS always works. Dead units can't score.

And in lockdown in particular, its easy for gunlines to target the proper units.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/22 11:56:47


Post by: Galas


Your problem there was vanilla marines, not the mission.
Playing my tau or custodes agaisnt a competitive vanilla marine list with a good player on it has easely become a futility.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/22 12:22:13


Post by: Jidmah


Martel732 wrote:
I"m not talking tabling. I"m talking about killing everything within 24" of the lockdown objectives. Having crap hiding in the back doesn't help at all because there is no engineer secondary in lockdown. So yes, killing the PROPER UNITS always works. Dead units can't score.

And in lockdown in particular, its easy for gunlines to target the proper units.


You put down half of those objective, why aren't they where you are hiding your units in the back?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/22 14:36:28


Post by: Martel732


I did with two, but they got TFCed and we were using GW terrain. They were getting shot through windows and such. I put one where I wanted to assault under the delusion I'd have assault elements that lived. Devil is always in the details I suppose, ITC terrain vs GW terrain.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/22 17:21:47


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Jidmah wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I"m not talking tabling. I"m talking about killing everything within 24" of the lockdown objectives. Having crap hiding in the back doesn't help at all because there is no engineer secondary in lockdown. So yes, killing the PROPER UNITS always works. Dead units can't score.

And in lockdown in particular, its easy for gunlines to target the proper units.


You put down half of those objective, why aren't they where you are hiding your units in the back?


Because with smart objective placement, only one of those objectives is where you want it.

First off, objectives are placed before deployment zones are selected, so they're going to be pretty balanced between players.

Second, I usually make my second placement near my opponent but in a location that's hard or inconvenient to capture and hold, such that more than 6" in and 12" from another objective denies them the ability to place their second and/or third objectives in places where they would like to have an objective. My opponents almost always approach the matter in the exact same way, placing objectives so that of the three you end up with at the end, one is good for you, one sucks for you, and one really could be better but could be a lot worse. Sometimes I make my first placement aggressive [especially if I'm placing first], if there's a commanding building or strong position and I want to make sure an objective can't be placed there and it's closest objective is like in the middle of a square with firing lines into it from all directions or something.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/22 18:46:27


Post by: Ishagu


Martel732 wrote:
I did with two, but they got TFCed and we were using GW terrain. They were getting shot through windows and such. I put one where I wanted to assault under the delusion I'd have assault elements that lived. Devil is always in the details I suppose, ITC terrain vs GW terrain.


Thunder Fire cannons don't kill that many Marines. Sounds like you're making excuses to me lol


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/22 19:15:22


Post by: Martel732


Of course it sounds like that to you. Fortunately, that doesn't matter. I don't see you trotting out BA and winning with them vs vanilla.

TFCs kill plenty of marines as well. Especially when you can't afford to leave many behind because you have to send 1200 pts to get 500 pts into CC.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/22 20:05:15


Post by: Ishagu


They're worse than some Chapters end better than others. Now move on.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 04:00:28


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Ishagu wrote:
They're worse than some Chapters end better than others. Now move on.


You're new here, aren't you?

(We've been trying to get Martel to move on from grumbling about how bad the Blood Angels are, independent of how bad they actually are, for a very long time.)


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 05:59:22


Post by: Martel732


I was just very hopeful they'd get us back to at least 5th ed levels. No such luck. Despite a truckload of rules.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 10:34:33


Post by: Slipspace


Martel732 wrote:
I was just very hopeful they'd get us back to at least 5th ed levels. No such luck. Despite a truckload of rules.


And just like in other threads where you bring this up you still haven't told us what your list is. Blood Angels have shown themselves to be good enough to get near the top tables at some fairly big GTs recently so the army obviously has some power to it. It's not on the level of most of the Codex Space Marines chapters but they're not a bad army at all.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 11:20:47


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I've been seeing a bit of the Prague Open this across this weekend. It's just depressing to see such great looking terrain sectioned off into dull repetitive ICT layouts.

The whole thing seems counter-intuitive. It's not 40K. It's some weird hybrid that seeks to suck the fun out of it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 13:19:00


Post by: Asmodai


Slipspace wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I was just very hopeful they'd get us back to at least 5th ed levels. No such luck. Despite a truckload of rules.


And just like in other threads where you bring this up you still haven't told us what your list is. Blood Angels have shown themselves to be good enough to get near the top tables at some fairly big GTs recently so the army obviously has some power to it. It's not on the level of most of the Codex Space Marines chapters but they're not a bad army at all.


They're doing better than Salamanders and Ultramarines.

Trouble with the IH-dominated meta though - there's one huge outlier, so everyone compares themselves to the outlier and thinks their army sucks.

If you remove BA's 80% loss rate to IH from their stats, they go to an exact 50/50 win-rate, which sounds about where things should be.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 13:28:45


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Asmodai wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I was just very hopeful they'd get us back to at least 5th ed levels. No such luck. Despite a truckload of rules.


And just like in other threads where you bring this up you still haven't told us what your list is. Blood Angels have shown themselves to be good enough to get near the top tables at some fairly big GTs recently so the army obviously has some power to it. It's not on the level of most of the Codex Space Marines chapters but they're not a bad army at all.


They're doing better than Salamanders and Ultramarines.

Trouble with the IH-dominated meta though - there's one huge outlier, so everyone compares themselves to the outlier and thinks their army sucks.

If you remove BA's 80% loss rate to IH from their stats, they go to an exact 50/50 win-rate, which sounds about where things should be.

Ih are warping all kinds of things in the meta. See: people calling for a ban on fw.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 14:49:19


Post by: Martel732


Slipspace wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I was just very hopeful they'd get us back to at least 5th ed levels. No such luck. Despite a truckload of rules.


And just like in other threads where you bring this up you still haven't told us what your list is. Blood Angels have shown themselves to be good enough to get near the top tables at some fairly big GTs recently so the army obviously has some power to it. It's not on the level of most of the Codex Space Marines chapters but they're not a bad army at all.


It does. I feel really competitive against Xenos. But many have jumped to vanilla marines now. I agree they are not BAD. But, I feel like the CA 2019 mission really dictate my movement and make me very predictable as to where my assault elements are going to be. That's a downside for BA no one had mentioned but I experienced. ITC matches vs vanilla marines present other problems. I need to just accept that BA trying to do stuff at range 0 vs other armies doing stuff at ranges greater than 0 is just not going to be a good time in 8th edition.

Since it won't drop here is the list I was massacred with against IF:

Stupid smash captain that has to be in every list because GW gonna GW
Storm shield
Thunder hammer

Intercessors X 5
Boltrifles
Aux grenade
Power Sword

Intercessors X 5
Boltrifles
Aux grenade
Power Sword

Intercessors X 10
Auto bolters
Thunder hammer

Sanguinary Guard X 10
Angelus Boltgun X 10
Encarmine Axe X 5
Encarmine Sword X 5

Sanguinary Ancient
Angelus Boltgun
Encarmine Sword

Inceptor Squad X 6
Assault Bolter X 12

Suppressor Squad
Grave chute X 3
Accelerator Cannon

Suppressor Squad
Grave chute X 3
Accelerator Cannon

Suppressor Squad
Grave chute X 3
Accelerator Cannon

LT with jump pack
Master boltgun
Relic blade

Eliminators
Camo cloak X 3
Las Fusil X 3

Eliminators
Camo cloak X 3
Las Fusil X 3

Jump Captain
Relic blade
Storm shield


Whirlwind
Storm bolter
Vengeance launcher

Whirlwind
Storm bolter
Vengeance launcher


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 16:12:26


Post by: Ishagu


Unfortunately most people are too ignorant to know how to direct complaints.

Iron Hands indeed cause problems, yet people call for general units to be punished that are perfectly fine when used by other chapters or factions.

Yet in CA missions the Iron Hands aren't as dominant, so more should focus their attention on those.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 16:40:01


Post by: Martel732


I don't think you know that. I can't find any real data to support that.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 17:25:35


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Ishagu wrote:
Unfortunately most people are too ignorant to know how to direct complaints.

Iron Hands indeed cause problems, yet people call for general units to be punished that are perfectly fine when used by other chapters or factions.

Yet in CA missions the Iron Hands aren't as dominant, so more should focus their attention on those.

While I agree with you on the superiority of the ca missions and that the primary problem is ih, I don't think that the ca missions alone will bring ih in line with other factions, and unfortunately some of the fixes may have to affect the other chapters as well. Duty Eternal working on things like leviathans being an example.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 18:42:40


Post by: Ishagu


Martel732 wrote:
I don't think you know that. I can't find any real data to support that.


I guess you should go out and get more people to play rather than dismiss everything about the CA missions.
The ITC are the ones collecting the data on their events. Look at the results from GW tournaments in the meantime.

There isn't as much data as what exists for ITC events. I pointed this out at the start of this topic.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 19:18:29


Post by: Martel732


I didn't dismiss it. I said you don't KNOW that. You BELIEVE that. You might be right. You might be wrong. In this matchup, I desperately needed ITC terrain and for the opponent to NOT know where I HAD to move. He prevented me from scoring by killing me, which would work in either format.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 19:24:02


Post by: Ishagu


And in what ITC mission is the opponent's movement not predictable?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 19:38:48


Post by: Racerguy180


H.B.M.C. wrote:I've been seeing a bit of the Prague Open this across this weekend. It's just depressing to see such great looking terrain sectioned off into dull repetitive ICT layouts.

The whole thing seems counter-intuitive. It's not 40K. It's some weird hybrid that seeks to suck the fun out of it.


DING DING DING, and we have a winner!

Whomever sets up the stupid boards for ITC is quite lame. It's like they dont understand the different types of terrain that you use to create; choke points, fatal funnels, & impassable areas. Sadly, this is due to the unimaginative ITC layouts more than anything GW has done. Cities of Death really changes how one interacts with terrain. We have played several games where there is no shooting phase in the first turn due to TLOS, cuz nothing is visible.

Hell, terrain should be the 3rd adversary on the table.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 19:51:01


Post by: Martel732


 Ishagu wrote:
And in what ITC mission is the opponent's movement not predictable?


I don't have to go hug a diminishing set of objectives to score. I can work the secondaries and keep out of LOS.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 20:29:25


Post by: Gadzilla666


Martel732 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
And in what ITC mission is the opponent's movement not predictable?


I don't have to go hug a diminishing set of objectives to score. I can work the secondaries and keep out of LOS.

In other words you just want to score points for killing things and hiding.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 20:50:47


Post by: Martel732


Seems like a better plan than feeding into a vanilla marine gunline. Engineer is a thing, too. Of course TFCs mean that they don't have to move, ever.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 21:01:01


Post by: Gadzilla666


Ever consider that maybe the tfcs are the problem and not your ba or the missions?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 21:12:55


Post by: Martel732


Of course. I just see gunlines being very empowered in CA missions.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 21:16:55


Post by: Gadzilla666


My Night Lords don't have that much of a problem with them. And most of their strategems are based around jump troops and charges, just like ba.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 21:19:31


Post by: Martel732


So how do you not instantly lose everything as soon as you get into LoS? Even with FNP and 3W, marines chew up the inceptors really fast.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 21:39:19


Post by: Gadzilla666


Martel732 wrote:
So how do you not instantly lose everything as soon as you get into LoS?

Honestly? Using things you don't have. You don't have vox scream to shut down rerolls. Or warp talons to charge in without overwatch and tie things up with "we have come for you ". Or terminators that can drop in and overcharge plasma safely, hitting on 2s, thanks to "prey on the weak " and then do it again in the same turn.

But other ba players seem to have ways to deal with gun lines. You'll have to see what they use. Judging by your list I'd add some firepower to clear the way. Dreadnoughts, repulsors and the like. If nothing else a big, scary model may soak up some fire.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 21:58:44


Post by: Martel732


As I said, at least in ITC I can hide from all but the TFCs. Of course, so can the Tau and the IH. It really pisses me off that GW just couldn't control themselves with marines.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 22:54:01


Post by: alextroy


Well, we are probably about two months out from the Spring FAQ. Let's all pray it brings down the Space Marine madness, especially Iron Hands.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/23 23:36:06


Post by: Argive


 alextroy wrote:
Well, we are probably about two months out from the Spring FAQ. Let's all pray it brings down the Space Marine madness, especially Iron Hands.


I recon new wave of primarus marines will be out around that time if rumours are to be believed (bikes land, speeders).
So probably not. Dem marines sales need to churn out after all...



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 00:18:47


Post by: Smirrors


I had a 3 round tournie this weekend with new ITC. It seems fine. Easier to score bonus and the secondaries feel more balanced. No seize was ok as people felt more settled with their deployment decisions. Overall consensus was positive and the common themes was refinement.

As for people complaining about ITC being boring, for competitive tournaments its not meant to be super interesting. If you are like me and you only play ITC at tournaments say once a month, its fine. Obviously people like to practice for tournies so it only makes sense that you have the repetition outside of tournies makes it feel boring over time. Isnt it the whole point of practicing for ITC tournies?

There are plenty of other times to play casual hammer and CA missions. Over time I am sure some TOs will want to run CA based tournies if the demand is there for it. People should just speak to their local TO rather than complain on the internet.



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 07:22:12


Post by: Dudeface


Martel732 wrote:
As I said, at least in ITC I can hide from all but the TFCs. Of course, so can the Tau and the IH. It really pisses me off that GW just couldn't control themselves with marines.


"Dude I had this amazing game at the store last night, we both hid behind some buildings so we didn't get shot, I got loads of points for standing still and so did my opponents, it was awesome just doing nothing while we racked up points" *high fives*


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 08:30:13


Post by: Jidmah


Martel732 wrote:
I don't think you know that. I can't find any real data to support that.


We have six or seven GT running CA with vastly better spreads across factions than the ITC GTs, depite many of the ranking people participating in both. While it's not rock-solid evidence yet, there is enough data to support his opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Smirrors wrote:
I had a 3 round tournie this weekend with new ITC. It seems fine. Easier to score bonus and the secondaries feel more balanced. No seize was ok as people felt more settled with their deployment decisions. Overall consensus was positive and the common themes was refinement.

As for people complaining about ITC being boring, for competitive tournaments its not meant to be super interesting. If you are like me and you only play ITC at tournaments say once a month, its fine. Obviously people like to practice for tournies so it only makes sense that you have the repetition outside of tournies makes it feel boring over time. Isnt it the whole point of practicing for ITC tournies?

There are plenty of other times to play casual hammer and CA missions. Over time I am sure some TOs will want to run CA based tournies if the demand is there for it. People should just speak to their local TO rather than complain on the internet.



In reality, most gaming groups either go 100% ITC or 100% CA missions.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 08:38:56


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Dudeface wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
As I said, at least in ITC I can hide from all but the TFCs. Of course, so can the Tau and the IH. It really pisses me off that GW just couldn't control themselves with marines.


"Dude I had this amazing game at the store last night, we both hid behind some buildings so we didn't get shot, I got loads of points for standing still and so did my opponents, it was awesome just doing nothing while we racked up points" *high fives*


That's better than having a game that lasted under an hour that only one person actually played while the other was boxed up by being unable to move past a line of guys at the front edge of their deploy.
Standing and shooting is still at least 4-6 relevant turns of play with both players actually having a theoretically decisive effect, if not the best play.

I said my piece already, and while I think there are some really good missions, some are really bad and the high variance between missions make it unsuitable for competitive play IMO.
OTOH, itc stops working right under 2k, and with a bunch of new players/graduates from KT we just took into our subgroup, we've been "playing down" and CA is at good for breaking into things when they can only muster 1-1.5k or less.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 08:47:47


Post by: Dudeface


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
As I said, at least in ITC I can hide from all but the TFCs. Of course, so can the Tau and the IH. It really pisses me off that GW just couldn't control themselves with marines.


"Dude I had this amazing game at the store last night, we both hid behind some buildings so we didn't get shot, I got loads of points for standing still and so did my opponents, it was awesome just doing nothing while we racked up points" *high fives*


That's better than having a game that lasted under an hour that only one person actually played while the other was boxed up by being unable to move past a line of guys at the front edge of their deploy.
Standing and shooting is still at least 4-6 relevant turns of play with both players actually having a theoretically decisive effect, if not the best play.


So not interacting with your opponent and ticking boxes for 6 turns is a more fun and engaging game? Edit to elaborate: Martel was complaining that he didn't have ITC terrain he could literally hide behind to prevent his opponent interacting with him, not that he wanted to stand and shoot for 6 turns, he literally wanted to hide and not interact.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 10:21:19


Post by: Eihnlazer


Its more like he didn't want to get tabled by turn 2 than not interact all game.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 10:32:25


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Eihnlazer wrote:
Its more like he didn't want to get tabled by turn 2 than not interact all game.



TBH, you can get tabled in both mission types easily. depending on the army though, but still.

The core issue for that is imo, that the game just has gotten completely out of whack in regards to lethality due to a combination of sizecreep and the "casual" inclusion of superheavies requireing small arms to be overly effective due to flattened wounding charts.
Assume for a moment that someone brings 200 pts in guardsmen, in earlier editions that would've been 40, now there are 50.
In earlier editions also, a Lasgun would wound t4 on 5 and t5 on 6's only. PLague marines were virtually imune to lasgun fire, now it is one of the best ways to get rid of them.

Even funnier it is when we consider Tacs or worse CSM's. They were once 15 pts, then dropped to 13, then to 11 pts.
300 pts in CSM once netted you 20, now you get 27. Sizecreep is an issue.

It also doesn't help that alot of the bigger tournaments went up in pts whilest GW inflated the size also to accomondate superheavies and flyers , etc.



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 10:39:25


Post by: Dr. Mills


 Eihnlazer wrote:
Its more like he didn't want to get tabled by turn 2 than not interact all game.


You can blame ITC putting too much emphasis on the "alpha strike" to rack up points and get an auto win for tabling an opponent than actually playing objectives.

Because how fair is it that even though your opponent has three times your VP you still won because your list was able to kill everything?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 13:22:16


Post by: Dudeface


 Eihnlazer wrote:
Its more like he didn't want to get tabled by turn 2 than not interact all game.


I refuse to believe someone can reliably be tabled turn 2 constantly with no counter play. The issue isn't "I want the objectives to be scored how I want to score them" it's being able to adapt to a mission. In this case it seems neither player did overly.

Likewise needing ITC to make up terrain layouts and exemptions is rubbish, if you're getting shot off because all buildings have windows, swap them out for some terrain that doesn't?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 13:33:24


Post by: Asmodai


 Dr. Mills wrote:
 Eihnlazer wrote:
Its more like he didn't want to get tabled by turn 2 than not interact all game.


You can blame ITC putting too much emphasis on the "alpha strike" to rack up points and get an auto win for tabling an opponent than actually playing objectives.

Because how fair is it that even though your opponent has three times your VP you still won because your list was able to kill everything?


Where is that rule in the ITC Mission pack?

Here's what it says under tabling:

If one player chooses to concede before the game has come to a natural conclusion or is “Tabled” (meaning all of their units have been destroyed), they retain the score they had up until that point and count all of their units as destroyed for scoring purposes for each of the remaining turns of the game meaning their opponent will earn all of their Kill, Kill More primary points for every turn thereafter. The player that didn’t concede or get tabled may play out the remainder of the game to score any additional objectives to increase their final score. In the case of a concession, the conceding player automatically loses the game regardless of comparative scores.



Conceding is an automatic loss (and it should be). Getting tabled is not unless the TO adds their own rules.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 13:37:28


Post by: Galas


This sunday I played a small store tournament playing pure CA missions. The final was ironhand vs ironhand with the list with the leviatan winning. The other player was a playef playing his first games in 5 years. His army was actually ironhands, painted as such, he just reentered the hobby and found his army being extremely op.
Nobody gave them a hard time, we are all friends and laugh at it. At this point in time, ironhands and maybe even Ravenguard and IF should be removed when talking about the competitive viability of something. They are so out of touch, specially IH, that we all know the solution is nerfs, not buffin everything to those levels.

And about lethality, how is people deploying? I played agaisnt the winner ironhand with my GK+Custodes list, pure infantry, one dreadnought abd one bike, and he tabled me on turn 5. I played and won a game vs space wolves and ended up atturn 7without anybody tabled. I only hd 3 saggitarum left, but won handly on points.

In the viability of BA, Black templars are worse BA and they are perfectly viable by virtue of being marines. Just not agaisnt the meta marines.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 14:45:24


Post by: Martel732


"We have six or seven GT running CA with vastly better spreads across factions than the ITC GTs, depite many of the ranking people participating in both. While it's not rock-solid evidence yet, there is enough data to support his opinion."

Thanks for citing that. Evidently I'm just supposed to take Ishagu's word with no evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
This sunday I played a small store tournament playing pure CA missions. The final was ironhand vs ironhand with the list with the leviatan winning. The other player was a playef playing his first games in 5 years. His army was actually ironhands, painted as such, he just reentered the hobby and found his army being extremely op.
Nobody gave them a hard time, we are all friends and laugh at it. At this point in time, ironhands and maybe even Ravenguard and IF should be removed when talking about the competitive viability of something. They are so out of touch, specially IH, that we all know the solution is nerfs, not buffin everything to those levels.

And about lethality, how is people deploying? I played agaisnt the winner ironhand with my GK+Custodes list, pure infantry, one dreadnought abd one bike, and he tabled me on turn 5. I played and won a game vs space wolves and ended up atturn 7without anybody tabled. I only hd 3 saggitarum left, but won handly on points.

In the viability of BA, Black templars are worse BA and they are perfectly viable by virtue of being marines. Just not agaisnt the meta marines.


I'm not sure BT are worse than BA. Most BA benefits are T-totally useless in 8th ed. The chapter tactic is still miserable.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 16:38:05


Post by: Ishagu


Martel, you do a lot of complaining. I have a close friend who has significant success using Blood Angels, and has played against some top players in the UK scene, he's also defeated my Ultramarines, AdMech and Knights lists in the past. Another person I know had good success against some members of the Canadian ETC team last year during their visit to the UK, again using BA.

Perhaps you're just not very good? I've seen what the chapter can do, and there are strong combinations and plays. I saw the list you posted and it wasn't particularly optimised.

I think you need to stop using your anecdotal experience, and I think you have to stop talking about your Blood Angels in every single topic. You've added almost nothing of substance to this discussion in quite a few posts. I would suggest you improve your play and stop getting hung up about a defeat in casual play.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 17:05:25


Post by: Corrode


Martel may be the worst player of 40k to regularly post on Dakka, which is quite the achievement.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 17:33:18


Post by: Martel732


 Ishagu wrote:
Martel, you do a lot of complaining. I have a close friend who has significant success using Blood Angels, and has played against some top players in the UK scene, he's also defeated my Ultramarines, AdMech and Knights lists in the past. Another person I know had good success against some members of the Canadian ETC team last year during their visit to the UK, again using BA.

Perhaps you're just not very good? I've seen what the chapter can do, and there are strong combinations and plays. I saw the list you posted and it wasn't particularly optimised.

I think you need to stop using your anecdotal experience, and I think you have to stop talking about your Blood Angels in every single topic. You've added almost nothing of substance to this discussion in quite a few posts. I would suggest you improve your play and stop getting hung up about a defeat in casual play.


The way you talk i figured you never lose.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 20:40:46


Post by: EnTyme


 Corrode wrote:
Martel may be the worst player of 40k to regularly post on Dakka, which is quite the achievement.


My overall record in 40k is well below the wargaming Mendoza Line, but I'm willing to admit that I suck at the game and can differentiate between any issue with the game and an issue with the way I play it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 20:47:33


Post by: Martel732


I can tell you i was quite good in 5th, but then tanked in 6th/7th. Maybe i just dont get 8th. Maybe i mentally checked out after they put in fall back without realizing it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/24 21:52:41


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Dudeface wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
As I said, at least in ITC I can hide from all but the TFCs. Of course, so can the Tau and the IH. It really pisses me off that GW just couldn't control themselves with marines.


"Dude I had this amazing game at the store last night, we both hid behind some buildings so we didn't get shot, I got loads of points for standing still and so did my opponents, it was awesome just doing nothing while we racked up points" *high fives*


That's better than having a game that lasted under an hour that only one person actually played while the other was boxed up by being unable to move past a line of guys at the front edge of their deploy.
Standing and shooting is still at least 4-6 relevant turns of play with both players actually having a theoretically decisive effect, if not the best play.


So not interacting with your opponent and ticking boxes for 6 turns is a more fun and engaging game? Edit to elaborate: Martel was complaining that he didn't have ITC terrain he could literally hide behind to prevent his opponent interacting with him, not that he wanted to stand and shoot for 6 turns, he literally wanted to hide and not interact.


You can't actually win an ITC mission by not playing the game and ticking boxes. At the very minimum you have to either take the middle or destroy more enemy units than you lose to stay competitive, and probably do both at least a couple of times to win.

You will definitely be interacting with your enemy, and even if the core of your strategy is to largely hide behind structures and shoot with NLoS weapons systems, you have to go about it vary carefully, deliberately, and strategically while predicting and denying the enemy's own path to victory.

More importantly, both players will probably remain in the game, making decisions that are relevant to the outcome of the game, and interacting with each other until at least turn 4 in the most extreme case [which will involve heavy destruction of the enemy force and total board dominance to get there], which is a lot better than the game being effectively over on turn 2 with total collective casualties being a few cultists and interceptors and with the winning player having forgone any intent of retention of position and advantage in the long term secure in the assumption that it was literally impossible for her opponent to win afterwords even with a completely intact army.

Also, ITC missions are largely approachable by all factions. There's some bias, mostly in the secondaries [which, for example, highly benefit fast elite forces like space marines and disadvantage horde forces like guard and tyranids]. But some of the CA's basically come down to being able to be set up in the mid board earlier than the opponent.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 02:22:52


Post by: Smirrors


Martel732 wrote:


I'm not sure BT are worse than BA. Most BA benefits are T-totally useless in 8th ed. The chapter tactic is still miserable.


People aren't playing BA for their doctrine. By chapter tactic are you refering to +1 W and +1 to Advance and Charge? They are absolutely amazing for their purpose. Its why you see soup lists with Smash Caps, Mephiston, Libby Dread and Death Company. They all heavily benefit and rely on those benefits. You may need to revisit the BA codex including PA update.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 02:31:26


Post by: Martel732


Doesn't matter. I reported my experience and opinion pertinent to the thread. It was dismissed. Let's drop BA for now.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 02:41:11


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


 Corrode wrote:
Martel may be the worst player of 40k to regularly post on Dakka, which is quite the achievement.
I take umbridge at that comment! I am REALLY BAD at this game. I chose Custodes because they only really have one phase, none of this Shooting or Psychic stuff for me! I just want to punch things. In any event, I also routinely misquote stats and rules, simply because 40k is a madhouse of rules that invalidate each other and weekly substantial changes.

I also play with land raiders in my Custodes force. Because cheap.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 05:11:23


Post by: AnomanderRake


Martel732 wrote:
...Let's drop BA for now.


(HALLELUJAH!)


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 05:15:40


Post by: Melissia


Maybe the rest of us BA players can have some peace and quiet enjoying our army now.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 09:11:06


Post by: Slipspace


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Also, ITC missions are largely approachable by all factions. There's some bias, mostly in the secondaries [which, for example, highly benefit fast elite forces like space marines and disadvantage horde forces like guard and tyranids]. But some of the CA's basically come down to being able to be set up in the mid board earlier than the opponent.


CA missions are approachable by all factions too. There's nothing wrong with setting up a mission pack with certain parameters in mind that change army building, provided all armies are capable of building the required army. CA missions requiring mobility and board control with a variety of unit types is no different to ITC secondaries effectively removing entire units from the game or emphasising the power of non-LoS shooting. It's not inherently a bad thing for a mission pack to push army design towards a certain set of requirements unless some armies can't meet those requirements and I don't think there's a single army that can't build towards the CA missions, in the same way I don't think the ITC missions render any armies unable to at least attempt to compete.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 09:21:07


Post by: Dudeface


Slipspace wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Also, ITC missions are largely approachable by all factions. There's some bias, mostly in the secondaries [which, for example, highly benefit fast elite forces like space marines and disadvantage horde forces like guard and tyranids]. But some of the CA's basically come down to being able to be set up in the mid board earlier than the opponent.


CA missions are approachable by all factions too. There's nothing wrong with setting up a mission pack with certain parameters in mind that change army building, provided all armies are capable of building the required army. CA missions requiring mobility and board control with a variety of unit types is no different to ITC secondaries effectively removing entire units from the game or emphasising the power of non-LoS shooting. It's not inherently a bad thing for a mission pack to push army design towards a certain set of requirements unless some armies can't meet those requirements and I don't think there's a single army that can't build towards the CA missions, in the same way I don't think the ITC missions render any armies unable to at least attempt to compete.


Pretty much this, the other point being raised is that CA missions result in:

the game being effectively over on turn 2 with total collective casualties being a few cultists and interceptors and with the winning player having forgone any intent of retention of position and advantage in the long term secure in the assumption that it was literally impossible for her opponent to win afterwords even with a completely intact army.


What scenario is that even possible? As scenery is placed before objectives there's a good chance that you'll be forcing someone to cap objectives in open ground and given that they score at the start of their next battle round, it gives plenty of chance to clear them off those objectives. I've personally not experienced a game that's so decisively swung by turn 2 with minimal losses.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 14:57:38


Post by: Martel732


Agreed turn 2 losses usually involve heavy heavy losses.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 15:13:38


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Slipspace wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Also, ITC missions are largely approachable by all factions. There's some bias, mostly in the secondaries [which, for example, highly benefit fast elite forces like space marines and disadvantage horde forces like guard and tyranids]. But some of the CA's basically come down to being able to be set up in the mid board earlier than the opponent.


CA missions are approachable by all factions too. There's nothing wrong with setting up a mission pack with certain parameters in mind that change army building, provided all armies are capable of building the required army. CA missions requiring mobility and board control with a variety of unit types is no different to ITC secondaries effectively removing entire units from the game or emphasising the power of non-LoS shooting. It's not inherently a bad thing for a mission pack to push army design towards a certain set of requirements unless some armies can't meet those requirements and I don't think there's a single army that can't build towards the CA missions, in the same way I don't think the ITC missions render any armies unable to at least attempt to compete.


I wasn't trying to say that they encourage tactical mobility and flexibility. Maelstrom does, through it's random mad-dash to ephemeral objectives [which is it's own kettle of gak], but some missions in CA Eternal just reward being able to "cheat out" [not actually cheating, just using a deployment rule that would bypass usual restrictions on placement] units, and the higher the priority the better. Infiltrate > Vanguard > Gate/Jump.

Dudeface wrote:
Pretty much this, the other point being raised is that CA missions result in:

the game being effectively over on turn 2 with total collective casualties being a few cultists and interceptors and with the winning player having forgone any intent of retention of position and advantage in the long term secure in the assumption that it was literally impossible for her opponent to win afterwords even with a completely intact army.


What scenario is that even possible? As scenery is placed before objectives there's a good chance that you'll be forcing someone to cap objectives in open ground and given that they score at the start of their next battle round, it gives plenty of chance to clear them off those objectives. I've personally not experienced a game that's so decisively swung by turn 2 with minimal losses.


This was literally one of my experiences playing Lockdown, I described it a few pages back. The other one was over turn 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Agreed turn 2 losses usually involve heavy heavy losses.


I described it a while ago, this was an extreme case, but I zoned him in for 2 turns on lockdown by making T1 charges with interceptors and gated strikes, preventing him from moving past me into the mid-field and on to any objectives.

I imagine that this could be basically pulled off by Space Marines trivially without even needing to make 9" charges. Just walk up infiltrators and form a line across the front edge of their deploy, and there's nothing the enemy can do except have taken the first turn.

Movement occurs before the enemy gets a chance to remove them, so they can't get past them to reach and objective so their total forward movement is basically their 3" consolidate. Turn 2 you can repeat the trick with new units, and accumulate an insurmountable lead.




There are some good missions too, as I said I think Crusade is really good, but one good mission doesn't make a mission pack suitable, while one bad one makes it unsuitable for competitive play. As I said, I would be pretty happy with "Crusade" as the replacement mission pack in it's entirety.



I already expressed what I think a competitive mission packet should be in the thread, and defended my assertions. I don't really have anything else to contribute, because it all comes down to requirements. This is a strategic and tactical wargame that is most importantly played against an opponent to see who is better. Randomness, diversity, and unpredictability in the mission packet are all negative towards those aims. If you think features that "mix it up" are good to "keep people on their toes", we're going to have to disagree, and I don't think those sentiments have any place in a best-of-one competitive strategy game.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

A mission needs several things to be good:
Static: the mission will play the same no matter who plays it or when. If you can play the mission twice and it'll be different each time, that's a problem
Plannable: similar to the above, but you should be able to see and prepare a strategy towards victory from when you build your list to the end.
Counterplayable: players should be forced to engage with their opponent, rather than be an independent race to the top to see who gets highest. Being able to deny through play the enemy their points is as important a part of a game as scoring your own.
Competitive: any point in the game should have the potential to be decisive with good play.
Balanced: assuming players of equal skill, either should have a equal chance of winning independent of faction selection. Exactly what's in your army is important, but whether you're Space Marines or Imperial Guard should still give equal odds.
Sane: Winning the mission should not incentivize what would otherwise be considered bad play and poor decisions. Actions of desperation like sending troops squads on suicide missions to take a point for just the end of your turn and then die might be a valid choice on the back foot and trying to stay close to turn it around, but it shouldn't be the optimal play when you're winning.


ITC is not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than some of the CA missions. There's use for the CA missions, since as I also said I've been "playing down" a lot lately with new players and ITC just doesn't work at not-2000 points, and they're reasonably good for teaching the game. I just don't think they're good for competitive play.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 16:02:13


Post by: nurgle5


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I already expressed what I think a competitive mission packet should be in the thread, and defended my assertions. I don't really have anything else to contribute, because it all comes down to requirements. This is a strategic and tactical wargame that is most importantly played against an opponent to see who is better. Randomness, diversity, and unpredictability in the mission packet are all negative towards those aims. If you think features that "mix it up" are good to "keep people on their toes", we're going to have to disagree, and I don't think those sentiments have any place in a best-of-one competitive strategy game.


I'm still not following how randomly determined win conditions within predefined parameters supposedly reduces the strategic or tactical aspect of the game, if anything it would seem to require a broader scope of planning and decision making rather than less. If you can't plan for randomness, how do you deal with dice rolls not going your way?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 16:06:58


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 nurgle5 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I already expressed what I think a competitive mission packet should be in the thread, and defended my assertions. I don't really have anything else to contribute, because it all comes down to requirements. This is a strategic and tactical wargame that is most importantly played against an opponent to see who is better. Randomness, diversity, and unpredictability in the mission packet are all negative towards those aims. If you think features that "mix it up" are good to "keep people on their toes", we're going to have to disagree, and I don't think those sentiments have any place in a best-of-one competitive strategy game.


I'm still not following how randomly determined win conditions within predefined parameters supposedly reduces the strategic or tactical aspect of the game, if anything it would seem to require a broader scope of planning and decision making rather than less. If you can't plan for randomness, how do you deal with dice rolls not going your way?


Because you're playing against your opponent. Things that should be decisive and relevant inputs for your strategic and tactical responses should be the actions you and they take, not the random objective that is removed from play or three random tasks to do this turn.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 16:19:57


Post by: nurgle5


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 nurgle5 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I already expressed what I think a competitive mission packet should be in the thread, and defended my assertions. I don't really have anything else to contribute, because it all comes down to requirements. This is a strategic and tactical wargame that is most importantly played against an opponent to see who is better. Randomness, diversity, and unpredictability in the mission packet are all negative towards those aims. If you think features that "mix it up" are good to "keep people on their toes", we're going to have to disagree, and I don't think those sentiments have any place in a best-of-one competitive strategy game.


I'm still not following how randomly determined win conditions within predefined parameters supposedly reduces the strategic or tactical aspect of the game, if anything it would seem to require a broader scope of planning and decision making rather than less. If you can't plan for randomness, how do you deal with dice rolls not going your way?


Because you're playing against your opponent. Things that should be decisive and relevant inputs for your strategic and tactical responses should be the actions you and they take, not the random objective that is removed from play or three random tasks to do this turn.


A core mechanic of 40k is dice rolling, pretty much any decision you or your opponent makes, from advancing to combat, is subject to random chance. I don't understand why you only consider planning for that random chance and allocating resources appropriately to only be strategic when it doesn't involve objectives.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 16:23:10


Post by: Martel732


Die rolling is already super random until you get to large numbers of dice. Adding even more randomness further degrades player agency imo


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 16:28:13


Post by: Dudeface


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 nurgle5 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I already expressed what I think a competitive mission packet should be in the thread, and defended my assertions. I don't really have anything else to contribute, because it all comes down to requirements. This is a strategic and tactical wargame that is most importantly played against an opponent to see who is better. Randomness, diversity, and unpredictability in the mission packet are all negative towards those aims. If you think features that "mix it up" are good to "keep people on their toes", we're going to have to disagree, and I don't think those sentiments have any place in a best-of-one competitive strategy game.


I'm still not following how randomly determined win conditions within predefined parameters supposedly reduces the strategic or tactical aspect of the game, if anything it would seem to require a broader scope of planning and decision making rather than less. If you can't plan for randomness, how do you deal with dice rolls not going your way?


Because you're playing against your opponent. Things that should be decisive and relevant inputs for your strategic and tactical responses should be the actions you and they take, not the random objective that is removed from play or three random tasks to do this turn.


Assuming we're talking ITC though, you pick your missions, you're rewarded for completing the scoring narrative you've written for your army, not for interacting with your opponent. Likewise you army build to prohibit your opponents objectives. They're strategic decisions and require no tactical involvement, you're controlling them before you even have an opponent. the Maelstrom missions in particular reward ability to make better tactical choices as the strategic are less important at that point.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 16:32:03


Post by: Melissia


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Because you're playing against your opponent.
If you just pick whatever mission is easiest for you to win, you're minimizing the amount of playing against your opponent you have to do. It's understandable that this of course makes it easier to win and thus is favored, but it's still reducing the amount that you actually have to play against your opponent.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/25 21:51:08


Post by: Galas


No tournament mission pack encourages as much as ITC to build your list thinking about the secondaries. That is by definition playing agaisnt the tournament pack, not agaisnt your opponent, because you know that you'll always take the same objetives agaisnt the same lists. Theres no counter play between players, both have all of their strategy predefined before even the battle begins. Theres no need to adapt.

And you can see that clearly when people stats defending ITC and citing his virtues. Is always about how you can have everything planned and everything comes down to "your decisions" when in reality battles were about a couple of generals and commanders trying their best to navigate around the uncertainty of an everchanging battlefield, when many times they didn't even knew exactly what they were facing.

By making everything about preplaning and executing a perfect plan from start to finish, ITC makes the game even less tactical and strategic and more of it comes down to mathematics. What list was more optimized pre-tournament to follow the predefined misions.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/26 23:21:29


Post by: Canadian 5th


This thread is a real trip...

First off, if playing the same mission(s) with similar terrain setups is sooo boring, why is it that all the largest sports in the world have codified standards for field/pitch/rink layout, player equipment, score tracking, ect? The ITC is trying to bring that level of professionalism to the 40k tournament scene so of course they're going to use the same methods.

Second, if you're going to bring up data gathered from CA2019 missions; bring the actual data! I'm asking for lists, players, points breakdown by game, the mission played, everything if you can't do that or stop bring up the data. ITC makes finding this information from its tournaments easy so if you want to prove that CA2019 is better we're going to need to see that data that proves it.

Three, The only difference between ITC and CA2019 list tailoring is what these lists are tailored to do. Beyond that you're still literally playing the same game. CA2019 feels fresh right now so it's easy to want to play more of it but long term any system will start to feel samey and people will complain that units that used to be playable in ITC are junk in the new CA mission packs. That's just life in this hobby.

Fourth, and finally, drop the sour grapes. It feels like some of you have been personally attacked by the mere existence of the ITC. We all get it, you'd prefer another system, stop complaining on a message board and actually do something about it like the FLG crew did. Otherwise, you're just blowing a bunch of worthless hot air.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 00:55:46


Post by: Martel732


Oh you did it now. No one questions Ishagu.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 00:57:50


Post by: ERJAK


 Galas wrote:
No tournament mission pack encourages as much as ITC to build your list thinking about the secondaries. That is by definition playing agaisnt the tournament pack, not agaisnt your opponent, because you know that you'll always take the same objetives agaisnt the same lists. Theres no counter play between players, both have all of their strategy predefined before even the battle begins. Theres no need to adapt.

And you can see that clearly when people stats defending ITC and citing his virtues. Is always about how you can have everything planned and everything comes down to "your decisions" when in reality battles were about a couple of generals and commanders trying their best to navigate around the uncertainty of an everchanging battlefield, when many times they didn't even knew exactly what they were facing.

By making everything about preplaning and executing a perfect plan from start to finish, ITC makes the game even less tactical and strategic and more of it comes down to mathematics. What list was more optimized pre-tournament to follow the predefined misions.


Generals, especially modern generals, spend literally trillions of dollars in an effort to NOT to have to navigate an uncertain battlefield. No GOOD general EVER goes into a battle not knowing what they're facing. A squad sergeant under orders or an idiot might, but no one not under duress or not an idiot would charge dick first into an enemy like you're suggesting.

Tactics and strategy in warfare is EXACTLY putting every resource you have into making it come down to mathematics.

Having clearly defined objectives and deploying personnel and materiel specifically suited for securing said objectives sounds like intelligent, modern war strategy.

Your way sounds like hillbilly dipgaks sprinting headfirst into a wood chipper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Oh you did it now. No one questions Ishagu.


Careful, he'll make up some more unverifiable statistics about events that may or may not of happened.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 01:02:14


Post by: Gadzilla666


With all due respect should someone who admits to not playing since 5th edition and basing all their current views on watching battle reports be accusing other posters of "blowing hot air "?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 01:08:17


Post by: ERJAK


 Jidmah wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't think you know that. I can't find any real data to support that.


We have six or seven GT running CA with vastly better spreads across factions than the ITC GTs, depite many of the ranking people participating in both. While it's not rock-solid evidence yet, there is enough data to support his opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Smirrors wrote:
I had a 3 round tournie this weekend with new ITC. It seems fine. Easier to score bonus and the secondaries feel more balanced. No seize was ok as people felt more settled with their deployment decisions. Overall consensus was positive and the common themes was refinement.

As for people complaining about ITC being boring, for competitive tournaments its not meant to be super interesting. If you are like me and you only play ITC at tournaments say once a month, its fine. Obviously people like to practice for tournies so it only makes sense that you have the repetition outside of tournies makes it feel boring over time. Isnt it the whole point of practicing for ITC tournies?

There are plenty of other times to play casual hammer and CA missions. Over time I am sure some TOs will want to run CA based tournies if the demand is there for it. People should just speak to their local TO rather than complain on the internet.



In reality, most gaming groups either go 100% ITC or 100% CA missions.


So if you have those events we need them so we can get the full packet and roster. Firstly to verify that the spread actually is better, but to also isolate why.

Because there's more factors than the missions that could be affecting outcomes. For example, the michigan GT was won by Slaanesh...because 50% of the overall score was painting.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 01:09:40


Post by: Martel732


Gadzilla666 wrote:
With all due respect should someone who admits to not playing since 5th edition and basing all their current views on watching battle reports be accusing other posters of "blowing hot air "?


He might as well post. I play games and get dismissed. So where's the bar to be listened to?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 01:12:55


Post by: Sim-Life


ERJAK wrote:
 Galas wrote:
No tournament mission pack encourages as much as ITC to build your list thinking about the secondaries. That is by definition playing agaisnt the tournament pack, not agaisnt your opponent, because you know that you'll always take the same objetives agaisnt the same lists. Theres no counter play between players, both have all of their strategy predefined before even the battle begins. Theres no need to adapt.

And you can see that clearly when people stats defending ITC and citing his virtues. Is always about how you can have everything planned and everything comes down to "your decisions" when in reality battles were about a couple of generals and commanders trying their best to navigate around the uncertainty of an everchanging battlefield, when many times they didn't even knew exactly what they were facing.

By making everything about preplaning and executing a perfect plan from start to finish, ITC makes the game even less tactical and strategic and more of it comes down to mathematics. What list was more optimized pre-tournament to follow the predefined misions.


Generals, especially modern generals, spend literally trillions of dollars in an effort to NOT to have to navigate an uncertain battlefield. No GOOD general EVER goes into a battle not knowing what they're facing. A squad sergeant under orders or an idiot might, but no one not under duress or not an idiot would charge dick first into an enemy like you're suggesting.

Tactics and strategy in warfare is EXACTLY putting every resource you have into making it come down to mathematics.

Having clearly defined objectives and deploying personnel and materiel specifically suited for securing said objectives sounds like intelligent, modern war strategy.

Your way sounds like hillbilly dipgaks sprinting headfirst into a wood chipper.


No one ever said the 40k universe was a sensible, efficient setting.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 01:16:57


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Sim-Life wrote:

No one ever said the 40k universe was a sensible, efficient setting.


Tournaments should be though. Gameplay quality is independent of the lore.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 02:29:27


Post by: Canadian 5th


Martel732 wrote:
Oh you did it now. No one questions Ishagu.


You should have seen me rolling with Dash of Pepper in YDMC back in the day, the current crop of posters doesn't scare me.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 10:15:14


Post by: Slipspace


 Canadian 5th wrote:
This thread is a real trip...

First off, if playing the same mission(s) with similar terrain setups is sooo boring, why is it that all the largest sports in the world have codified standards for field/pitch/rink layout, player equipment, score tracking, ect? The ITC is trying to bring that level of professionalism to the 40k tournament scene so of course they're going to use the same methods.


That depends entirely on what the sport is trying to measure (give me a second while I recover from laughing too hard at the idea of 40k being a sport...). Motor racing has varied layouts for the "playing field" as do marathons and golf because part of what these sports are trying to determine is the overall quality of a person or team in a varying set of circumstances and their ability to adapt. That seems much closer to what wargames should be trying to measure, rather than the current trend which looks to remove any and all variables so it just becomes an exercise in list building and maximising efficiency.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 10:20:32


Post by: Ishagu


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Oh you did it now. No one questions Ishagu.


You should have seen me rolling with Dash of Pepper in YDMC back in the day, the current crop of posters doesn't scare me.


There is nothing wrong with the ITC as a concept for a circuit. The stat tracking, the tournament scene, the app support, etc are all great.

The home-brew missions and terrain rules that are detrimental to the game are my issue - they actively discourage certain units and hurt faction and unit variety. It's not just a matter of balance, it's also an issue of mission variety. You can chose to play home-brew 40k all you want, just don't complain about the state of the game as it exists within said home-brew. The ITC missions are not the real, official rules of the of 40k. When 8th dropped the ITC was a superior way to play over the official missions, this is not the case now.




TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 11:13:07


Post by: vict0988


Slipspace wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
This thread is a real trip...

First off, if playing the same mission(s) with similar terrain setups is sooo boring, why is it that all the largest sports in the world have codified standards for field/pitch/rink layout, player equipment, score tracking, ect? The ITC is trying to bring that level of professionalism to the 40k tournament scene so of course they're going to use the same methods.


That depends entirely on what the sport is trying to measure (give me a second while I recover from laughing too hard at the idea of 40k being a sport...). Motor racing has varied layouts for the "playing field" as do marathons and golf because part of what these sports are trying to determine is the overall quality of a person or team in a varying set of circumstances and their ability to adapt. That seems much closer to what wargames should be trying to measure, rather than the current trend which looks to remove any and all variables so it just becomes an exercise in list building and maximising efficiency.

"It appears mister Tiger is in trouble, he was one stroke off getting the ball in hole #15 but then it shut itself closed, how terribly unfortunate."

"France forfeits again after getting behind by 2 goals, a bit unsportsmanlike to the crowd that paid to come to see the game."

"Denmark just got ahead by 1 pt, now they just have to hope the random game length doesn't prolong the game and lets Sweden get back in the game." I think this might be a thing, I'm not super into sportsball so to me overtime is pretty much this.

With golf you get to scout the course before you play, see how fast the grass is and stuff like that, in that vain saying before a 40k tournament you can expect x or y terrain is perfectly in line. As far as wind goes in golf that's already decided by dice, but you don't suddenly have to do a handstand for 10 seconds before making your stroke because you rolled a random mission, the rules are mostly the same every time, although some golf courses use house rules for terrain.

I think playing on the same battlefield over and over again using similar missions is great fun. Ideally, the terrain gets shifted around a bit, but it doesn't need to be super unique and playing with the exact same set-up is totally fine if I'm playing with or against a different list. Eternal War missions pretty similar, build an all-rounder lists and you can win any mission. I have yet to feel like the random mission helped one player more than the other so that has been a pleasant surprise, on the other hand random game length has been dreadful as far winning games go, statistically games should only go to turn 7 1/3 of the time but I've found it to happen in 3/4 games that lasted further than turn 4.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 11:23:01


Post by: Ishagu


Sounds like you're playing the wrong game. Have you heard of chess? It has the exact same board each game and the mission doesn't change at all.

If you want to turn 40k into something it isn't intended to be then go head, but don't expect 40k to be balanced around or to suit the homebrew you have created. As the CA missions have evolved it has become obvious that the ITC have diverged too much.

The ITC should just release homebrew rules for all the factions at this point. If you don't want to play the real game you don't have to, but don't pick and chose whilst demanding the official rules are updated to suit or balance the unofficial ones.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 12:33:45


Post by: nurgle5


 vict0988 wrote:

"It appears mister Tiger is in trouble, he was one stroke off getting the ball in hole #15 but then it shut itself closed, how terribly unfortunate."

"France forfeits again after getting behind by 2 goals, a bit unsportsmanlike to the crowd that paid to come to see the game."

"Denmark just got ahead by 1 pt, now they just have to hope the random game length doesn't prolong the game and lets Sweden get back in the game." I think this might be a thing, I'm not super into sportsball so to me overtime is pretty much this.



Quite a few team sportsball games have "random" game length, there's usually a bit of added time at the end, either added by the referee to make up for time lost for various reasons or because the ball needs to go out of play past a certain time for the game to end. The only thing I can think of offhand for forfeits is MMA where a fighter can tap out if they want to stop getting punched in the head.

 vict0988 wrote:
you don't suddenly have to do a handstand for 10 seconds before making your stroke because you rolled a random mission


I don't think anyone is advocating that missions be randomly determined each round at tournaments, just that an alternative mission pack to ITC ought to be the mainstream for big non-GW events. If you mean a randomly rolled mission objective, since the parameters for what objectives can be generated in the CA19 missions are predefined, you should know that doing a handstand for ten seconds is a possibility and plan accordingly! (Can my list do a handstand? Am I prepared to do a handstand when it comes up? etc.)



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 15:07:53


Post by: Martel732


 Ishagu wrote:
Sounds like you're playing the wrong game. Have you heard of chess? It has the exact same board each game and the mission doesn't change at all.

If you want to turn 40k into something it isn't intended to be then go head, but don't expect 40k to be balanced around or to suit the homebrew you have created. As the CA missions have evolved it has become obvious that the ITC have diverged too much.

The ITC should just release homebrew rules for all the factions at this point. If you don't want to play the real game you don't have to, but don't pick and chose whilst demanding the official rules are updated to suit or balance the unofficial ones.


False dilemma fallacy. There is an enormous spectrum of randomness possible between chess and maelstrom 40K.

"become obvious"

Hasty generalization fallacy. The fact that there is so much contention around the topic renders it prima facie NOT obvious.

" If you don't want to play the real game you don't have to"

Begging the claim fallacy. You assume which is "real" or not real in your assertion. Players determine this, not GW.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 15:13:52


Post by: Jidmah


And let's not forget the fallacy fallacy


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 15:18:17


Post by: Martel732


 Jidmah wrote:
And let's not forget the fallacy fallacy


I don't usually go there, but that post really deserved it. I don't think the conclusion is correct despite the fallacies, so fallacy fallacy doesn't apply here.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 18:32:01


Post by: Yoyoyo


The saying 'different strokes for different folks' comes to mind. Though the whole wargame angle, where the unpredictable and unknown is part and parcel of it, is surely a knock against the completely controlled and predictable nature of sporting events?

I understand the platonic ideal of the tourney gamer, where there is nothing left to chance and randomness whatsoever -- even to the point of eliminating dice. I just don't agree with it!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 19:57:54


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Yoyoyo wrote:
The saying 'different strokes for different folks' comes to mind. Though the whole wargame angle, where the unpredictable and unknown is part and parcel of it, is surely a knock against the completely controlled and predictable nature of sporting events?

I understand the platonic ideal of the tourney gamer, where there is nothing left to chance and randomness whatsoever -- even to the point of eliminating dice. I just don't agree with it!


Even in wargames the unpredictable and unknown aren't really part and parcel. Dice are used to abstract the performance of questions that are below the scale of the game to resolve [such as an individual soldier shooting.] Terrain and objectives are generally fixed [there's a hill here and the goal is to take that bridge]. Here's a mission from a narrative wargame meant to simulate a conflict:


The objectives are very clear and do not change: Control more town spaces than the enemy at the end of the game.

In this mission, nor any of the 19 other in this game, and 40 more between it's sister games, and thousands more across other traditional and less traditional wargames, Command does not decide randomly on turn 6 that the town of NECE needs to be captured but ST.ATHAN can now be ignored, and then randomly reverse the call on turn 8. You may make that decision, because the road to & from ST.ATHAN is through a forested valley and difficult to attack with tanks along but NECE is in the open and easy to fire on from the heights, and then reverse the decision because the enemy has their IF orders set on the heights over NECE but left the forest road to ST.ATHAN open and it's an easier 4 town hexes to capture for your total "hold more towns" mission, but that's a change in your strategy for victory as a consequence of your enemy's actions, not because the mission objectives changed on a card draw.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 20:04:19


Post by: Canadian 5th


Slipspace wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
This thread is a real trip...

First off, if playing the same mission(s) with similar terrain setups is sooo boring, why is it that all the largest sports in the world have codified standards for field/pitch/rink layout, player equipment, score tracking, ect? The ITC is trying to bring that level of professionalism to the 40k tournament scene so of course they're going to use the same methods.


That depends entirely on what the sport is trying to measure (give me a second while I recover from laughing too hard at the idea of 40k being a sport...). Motor racing has varied layouts for the "playing field" as do marathons and golf because part of what these sports are trying to determine is the overall quality of a person or team in a varying set of circumstances and their ability to adapt. That seems much closer to what wargames should be trying to measure, rather than the current trend which looks to remove any and all variables so it just becomes an exercise in list building and maximising efficiency.


In motorsports, the tracks to be run and the allowed technical specifications are known well in advance of the season. In season, every team gets allotments of time to practice and fine-tune their car before each race; in F1 this is going even further with team spending also being closely monitored to ensure an even more even playing field. It's similar for golf where most layers play practice rounds before selecting their clubs and setting their strategy for the tournament.

nurgle5 wrote:Quite a few team sportsball games have "random" game length, there's usually a bit of added time at the end, either added by the referee to make up for time lost for various reasons or because the ball needs to go out of play past a certain time for the game to end. The only thing I can think of offhand for forfeits is MMA where a fighter can tap out if they want to stop getting punched in the head.


Except that the game length isn't random even in those sports. The added extra time is supposed to account for the running of the clock during stops in play in sports where the official game clock isn't stopped for such events. In other games like American Football, the clock runs at very specific times, and the final play must start before the clock hits zero. From there the length of the final drive is also deterministic.

For sports where there isn't a clock, there are defined rounds of play such as ends in curling, innings in baseball, holes in golf, etc.

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't think anyone is advocating that missions be randomly determined each round at tournaments, just that an alternative mission pack to ITC ought to be the mainstream for big non-GW events. If you mean a randomly rolled mission objective, since the parameters for what objectives can be generated in the CA19 missions are predefined, you should know that doing a handstand for ten seconds is a possibility and plan accordingly! (Can my list do a handstand? Am I prepared to do a handstand when it comes up? etc.)


The issue with even the current CA missions is that they're unbalanced from mission to mission and some of them have random elements with regards to the objective scoring. The first could be solved by allowing players to change lists between mission rounds as no military would send the same forces to such a diverse set of missions and the second can't be solved without rewriting the offending missions.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 20:17:27


Post by: Xenomancers


I think a side board would be something that would be cool for 40k games.500 point sideboard. Heck if it's going to be MTG we might as well have some other MTG type rules.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/27 21:33:41


Post by: deviantduck


If you replace 'homebrew' with 'wolf' in any of Ishagu's posts they read like Codex:SW.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/28 01:52:29


Post by: Canadian 5th


 deviantduck wrote:
If you replace 'homebrew' with 'wolf' in any of Ishagu's posts they read like Codex:SW.


It works even better if you change ITC to 'fang' and CA to 'claw'.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/28 12:23:26


Post by: nurgle5


Canadian 5th wrote:
Except that the game length isn't random even in those sports. The added extra time is supposed to account for the running of the clock during stops in play in sports where the official game clock isn't stopped for such events. In other games like American Football, the clock runs at very specific times, and the final play must start before the clock hits zero. From there the length of the final drive is also deterministic.


Yes, I know. That is why I put the word random in quotation marks (because it was the term being used to describe how the total amount turns in a 40k game can be variable in the post I was responding to) and while I less specific, I did also mention that the extra time in sports is added for reasons.

Canadian 5th wrote:The issue with even the current CA missions is that they're unbalanced from mission to mission and some of them have random elements with regards to the objective scoring. The first could be solved by allowing players to change lists between mission rounds as no military would send the same forces to such a diverse set of missions and the second can't be solved without rewriting the offending missions.


I'm not sure how helpful comparisons to real life military thinking/practices are since I also imagine no military would conduct a campaign in a tournament format.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/28 12:36:22


Post by: Canadian 5th


 nurgle5 wrote:
I'm not sure how helpful comparisons to real life military thinking/practices is since I also imagine no military would conduct a campaign in a tournament format.

You are aware that our entire hobby grew out of militaries conducting war games to determine actual military policy. Beyond that modern joint exercises are usually carried out in a series of meticulous planned stages with care being placed to balance forces to appropriately train the troops and/or assess the efficacy of the simulated methods and tactics of the forces involved.

There's also the literal sporting events as well as fun stuff like marksman ship contests using MBTS or naval guns.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/28 14:33:10


Post by: nurgle5


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 nurgle5 wrote:
I'm not sure how helpful comparisons to real life military thinking/practices is since I also imagine no military would conduct a campaign in a tournament format.

You are aware that our entire hobby grew out of militaries conducting war games to determine actual military policy. Beyond that modern joint exercises are usually carried out in a series of meticulous planned stages with care being placed to balance forces to appropriately train the troops and/or assess the efficacy of the simulated methods and tactics of the forces involved.

There's also the literal sporting events as well as fun stuff like marksman ship contests using MBTS or naval guns.


Aye, I'm just querying how useful real life comparisons are given that 40k isn't exactly a realistic simulacrum of warfare.

To expand a bit on this, from what I've seen online and experienced IRL, 40k competitive players seem to focus on and value the mechanics of the game entirely over whatever realism it may have. So why should what a real military might do or think be taken into consideration when designing a tournament mission pack?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/28 14:43:18


Post by: Ishagu


Warhammer 40k is tabletop Wargame.

Not a tabletop simulation


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/28 14:43:45


Post by: JNAProductions


 Ishagu wrote:
Warhammer 40k is tabletop Wargame.

Not a tabletop simulation
Tabletop warGAME.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/28 15:48:18


Post by: dhallnet


 Canadian 5th wrote:

In motorsports, the tracks to be run and the allowed technical specifications are known well in advance of the season. In season, every team gets allotments of time to practice and fine-tune their car before each race; in F1 this is going even further with team spending also being closely monitored to ensure an even more even playing field. It's similar for golf where most layers play practice rounds before selecting their clubs and setting their strategy for the tournament.

F1 don't either compete with F3000 nor do they race in the RWC. That's the kind of stuff the "competitive" 40K lacks because it is expected everyones knows what they re coming for.
If some dude was trying to run a bicycle in RWC because the rules don't specify which vehicle you're supposed to use since everyone is supposed to understand you need to come with your best game to win, you would read a lot of whining on the internet.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The issue with even the current CA missions is that they're unbalanced from mission to mission and some of them have random elements with regards to the objective scoring. The first could be solved by allowing players to change lists between mission rounds as no military would send the same forces to such a diverse set of missions and the second can't be solved without rewriting the offending missions.

It's supposed to be a feature rather than an issue. If you know what you may play but not what you will, you have to prepare for multiple scenarios and can't optimize for a specific one (you will optimise for the whole set rather than one mission). Which some people find more interesting than selecting what you'll have to do before hand. It's as much random as which side you're going to deploy. But since I guess ITC or other "competitive" format, normalise even the terrain you're going to play on, you might not get why this isn't an issue but rather a feature.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/28 16:52:32


Post by: Yoyoyo


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Even in wargames the unpredictable and unknown aren't really part and parcel. Dice are used to abstract the performance of questions that are below the scale of the game to resolve [such as an individual soldier shooting.] Terrain and objectives are generally fixed [there's a hill here and the goal is to take that bridge]. Here's a mission from a narrative wargame meant to simulate a conflict...

I see your point but way narrative missions are structured usually enforces variety -- things like game lengths, force compositions, and terrain are likely to be different from scenario-to-scenario are they not?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/02/29 13:24:35


Post by: Sim-Life


Since we're on the subject of random terrain etc can I ask why people think Warmachine Mk2 was able to have randomised terrain layouts at every table in a tournament but still managed to be considered one of the best rulesets available and the best competitive wargame going? The scenarios were also an unknown usually because they were generated on the day and no one knew what the next scenario would be after each round.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 03:55:21


Post by: Canadian 5th


dhallnet wrote:
F1 don't either compete with F3000 nor do they race in the RWC. That's the kind of stuff the "competitive" 40K lacks because it is expected everyones knows what they re coming for.
If some dude was trying to run a bicycle in RWC because the rules don't specify which vehicle you're supposed to use since everyone is supposed to understand you need to come with your best game to win, you would read a lot of whining on the internet.

If anybody showed up to any of these events without doing a bare minimum of research they deserve to be laughed out of the venue as does anybody showing up at an ITC even with a fluffy for the lulz style of list.

It's supposed to be a feature rather than an issue. If you know what you may play but not what you will, you have to prepare for multiple scenarios and can't optimize for a specific one (you will optimise for the whole set rather than one mission). Which some people find more interesting than selecting what you'll have to do before hand. It's as much random as which side you're going to deploy. But since I guess ITC or other "competitive" format, normalise even the terrain you're going to play on, you might not get why this isn't an issue but rather a feature.

So would, for example, hockey be improved if we added random obstacles to the ice or moved the faceoff circles between periods because of a roll of the dice? Should we decrease the first-down distance in the NFL because it's boring that teams have optimized around the current 10-yard distance? There's a reason why no sport IRL uses any random mechanic at all, even in the MLB where there can be differences between stadiums these differences are well known and don't change mid-game or even mid-season.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 04:31:57


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Canadian 5th wrote:
dhallnet wrote:
F1 don't either compete with F3000 nor do they race in the RWC. That's the kind of stuff the "competitive" 40K lacks because it is expected everyones knows what they re coming for.
If some dude was trying to run a bicycle in RWC because the rules don't specify which vehicle you're supposed to use since everyone is supposed to understand you need to come with your best game to win, you would read a lot of whining on the internet.

If anybody showed up to any of these events without doing a bare minimum of research they deserve to be laughed out of the venue as does anybody showing up at an ITC even with a fluffy for the lulz style of list.

It's supposed to be a feature rather than an issue. If you know what you may play but not what you will, you have to prepare for multiple scenarios and can't optimize for a specific one (you will optimise for the whole set rather than one mission). Which some people find more interesting than selecting what you'll have to do before hand. It's as much random as which side you're going to deploy. But since I guess ITC or other "competitive" format, normalise even the terrain you're going to play on, you might not get why this isn't an issue but rather a feature.

So would, for example, hockey be improved if we added random obstacles to the ice or moved the faceoff circles between periods because of a roll of the dice? Should we decrease the first-down distance in the NFL because it's boring that teams have optimized around the current 10-yard distance? There's a reason why no sport IRL uses any random mechanic at all, even in the MLB where there can be differences between stadiums these differences are well known and don't change mid-game or even mid-season.

Obviously, no major sport would allow anything random to affect an event.

That's why all football games are held indoors, where inclement weather couldn't possibly affect the game. And if they were actually held outside, all games would obviously be postponed if anything but perfect weather conditions were present.

The same can be said for professional racing. The perfectly regulated domes in which these events are held prevents such things as extreme heat and humidity affecting how engines run, or tires wear. Lucky they block out all precipitation, as it could possibly affect track conditions.

Of course this talk of sports is silly, 40k is a wargame, and we all know that wars are fought only in conditions far more heavily regulated than any sport. No two combatants would ever commit their forces unless they knew the battlefield and all it's conditions perfectly suited their goals and the forces they brought to achieve them. There is absolutely no instance in the historical record of a commander being caught with a force not perfectly suited to the environment he's been assigned to fight in. Never has an army been forced to fight with unsuitable, old, or insufficient resources. No force has ever been defeated, or achieved victory due to any kind of unforeseen circumstances.

Obviously.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 04:39:53


Post by: AnomanderRake


Gadzilla666 wrote:
...Obviously, no major sport would allow anything random to affect an event.

That's why all football games are held indoors, where inclement weather couldn't possibly affect the game. And if they were actually held outside, all games would obviously be postponed if anything but perfect weather conditions were present.

The same can be said for professional racing. The perfectly regulated domes in which these events are held prevents such things as extreme heat and humidity affecting how engines run, or tires wear. Lucky they block out all precipitation, as it could possibly affect track conditions.

Of course this talk of sports is silly, 40k is a wargame, and we all know that wars are fought only in conditions far more heavily regulated than any sport. No two combatants would ever commit their forces unless they knew the battlefield and all it's conditions perfectly suited their goals and the forces they brought to achieve them. There is absolutely no instance in the historical record of a commander being caught with a force not perfectly suited to the environment he's been assigned to fight in. Never has an army been forced to fight with unsuitable, old, or insufficient resources. No force has ever been defeated, or achieved victory due to any kind of unforeseen circumstances.

Obviously.


Wander back the other direction for a moment. There are random elements, sure. There are also a lot of really tightly controlled elements. Motor racing is done on a constant track with clearly-defined boundaries. Football (either sort) is always done on a pitch of the same dimensions with goalposts of the same dimensions. The rules are the same from game to game.

I might venture to suggest that sports go out of their way to make the whole exercise as controlled as is economically feasible.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 05:05:17


Post by: Gadzilla666


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
...Obviously, no major sport would allow anything random to affect an event.

That's why all football games are held indoors, where inclement weather couldn't possibly affect the game. And if they were actually held outside, all games would obviously be postponed if anything but perfect weather conditions were present.

The same can be said for professional racing. The perfectly regulated domes in which these events are held prevents such things as extreme heat and humidity affecting how engines run, or tires wear. Lucky they block out all precipitation, as it could possibly affect track conditions.

Of course this talk of sports is silly, 40k is a wargame, and we all know that wars are fought only in conditions far more heavily regulated than any sport. No two combatants would ever commit their forces unless they knew the battlefield and all it's conditions perfectly suited their goals and the forces they brought to achieve them. There is absolutely no instance in the historical record of a commander being caught with a force not perfectly suited to the environment he's been assigned to fight in. Never has an army been forced to fight with unsuitable, old, or insufficient resources. No force has ever been defeated, or achieved victory due to any kind of unforeseen circumstances.

Obviously.


Wander back the other direction for a moment. There are random elements, sure. There are also a lot of really tightly controlled elements. Motor racing is done on a constant track with clearly-defined boundaries. Football (either sort) is always done on a pitch of the same dimensions with goalposts of the same dimensions. The rules are the same from game to game.

I might venture to suggest that sports go out of their way to make the whole exercise as controlled as is economically feasible.

But random elements do exist, and make events more interesting. A football game played in the snow is more interesting than one played in perfect conditions, partly due to how the teams are forced to adapt to the different conditions. They don't merely turn around and not play just because the conditions aren't perfect. They adapt. A quarterback or coach who can't adapt won't have a job for very long. A good 40k player should be able to adapt just the same, not expect to win the game through list building.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 07:06:51


Post by: Canadian 5th


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Obviously, no major sport would allow anything random to affect an event.

That's why all football games are held indoors, where inclement weather couldn't possibly affect the game. And if they were actually held outside, all games would obviously be postponed if anything but perfect weather conditions were present.

The same can be said for professional racing. The perfectly regulated domes in which these events are held prevents such things as extreme heat and humidity affecting how engines run, or tires wear. Lucky they block out all precipitation, as it could possibly affect track conditions.

How about hockey then? Aside from a few events (read: gimmicks) each season it's a sport played in a temperature-controlled arena where each rink is of a standardized size.

Of course this talk of sports is silly, 40k is a wargame, and we all know that wars are fought only in conditions far more heavily regulated than any sport. No two combatants would ever commit their forces unless they knew the battlefield and all it's conditions perfectly suited their goals and the forces they brought to achieve them. There is absolutely no instance in the historical record of a commander being caught with a force not perfectly suited to the environment he's been assigned to fight in. Never has an army been forced to fight with unsuitable, old, or insufficient resources. No force has ever been defeated, or achieved victory due to any kind of unforeseen circumstances.

Obviously.

IRL armies aren't balanced by points either, should we just allow players to bring their entire collections and let the player with the better economy (read: bank account) walk away as the winner as they do in real warfare?

Honestly, it sounds like you get a lot more out of narrative play than matched tournament play so why not just go off and do that and leave the tournament crowd alone to play as they like?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
But random elements do exist, and make events more interesting. A football game played in the snow is more interesting than one played in perfect conditions, partly due to how the teams are forced to adapt to the different conditions. They don't merely turn around and not play just because the conditions aren't perfect. They adapt. A quarterback or coach who can't adapt won't have a job for very long. A good 40k player should be able to adapt just the same, not expect to win the game through list building.

Football played in the snow can lead to miserable matches that are terrible to watch, the same goes for games played in heavy rain or where the wind is gusting badly. Football games also can be called off due to weather if it gets bad enough. In a similar fashion, we've already had reports of CA missions leading to very one-sided matches due to the specific mission favouring one list heavily over the other, which doesn't sound ideal for either player. Beyond that teams are mostly built in the offseason and then brought out to play the season, in the cases where there have been major changes to the rules you see the types of players that teams value change.

Football teams, both types again, also don't just field one unit the entire game, they get bench players they can call in as circumstances change. So if we wanted to keep with the analogy we'd have to allow tournament players to bring additional models (say 500 points) so they can change their army based on the mission type. If this change was made I might actually support using chapter approved missions with full knowledge that this increases the cost of entry to new players.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 07:48:41


Post by: Ishagu


40k isn't a sport, and it isn't real war.

It's a chance based wargame, and terrain is an element of that chance.
The objectives are supposed to test aspects of your list, you aren't supposed to chose the ones that suit you best.



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 08:42:44


Post by: Dai


Rugby even chooses a ball the shape it is to ensure that the way it bounces will be somewhat random. Injuries etc are often purely random in most sports.

You're right to say that sports do try to limit any random events that aren't deliberately built into the way the game plays.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 08:55:12


Post by: kodos


This "because Sports don't have it" argument is really entertaining

Picking out Sports Events as a reason why 40k should not have certain things that are in the rules is silly at best.

Because going down that road would mean, a fixed army list for a tournament season (going from CA release to CA release), no changes to the rules for the season no matter what GW releases (new Codex release or FAQ are ignored until the next CA hit).
And than we can talk about using fixed missions, tables, objectives for each game

People want to pick one advantage (from sports) without also taking the disadvantages. Call it cherry picking or just "easier to win games"


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 09:08:19


Post by: Gadzilla666


Spoiler:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Obviously, no major sport would allow anything random to affect an event.

That's why all football games are held indoors, where inclement weather couldn't possibly affect the game. And if they were actually held outside, all games would obviously be postponed if anything but perfect weather conditions were present.

The same can be said for professional racing. The perfectly regulated domes in which these events are held prevents such things as extreme heat and humidity affecting how engines run, or tires wear. Lucky they block out all precipitation, as it could possibly affect track conditions.

How about hockey then? Aside from a few events (read: gimmicks) each season it's a sport played in a temperature-controlled arena where each rink is of a standardized size.

Of course this talk of sports is silly, 40k is a wargame, and we all know that wars are fought only in conditions far more heavily regulated than any sport. No two combatants would ever commit their forces unless they knew the battlefield and all it's conditions perfectly suited their goals and the forces they brought to achieve them. There is absolutely no instance in the historical record of a commander being caught with a force not perfectly suited to the environment he's been assigned to fight in. Never has an army been forced to fight with unsuitable, old, or insufficient resources. No force has ever been defeated, or achieved victory due to any kind of unforeseen circumstances.

Obviously.

IRL armies aren't balanced by points either, should we just allow players to bring their entire collections and let the player with the better economy (read: bank account) walk away as the winner as they do in real warfare?

Honestly, it sounds like you get a lot more out of narrative play than matched tournament play so why not just go off and do that and leave the tournament crowd alone to play as they like?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
But random elements do exist, and make events more interesting. A football game played in the snow is more interesting than one played in perfect conditions, partly due to how the teams are forced to adapt to the different conditions. They don't merely turn around and not play just because the conditions aren't perfect. They adapt. A quarterback or coach who can't adapt won't have a job for very long. A good 40k player should be able to adapt just the same, not expect to win the game through list building.

Football played in the snow can lead to miserable matches that are terrible to watch, the same goes for games played in heavy rain or where the wind is gusting badly. Football games also can be called off due to weather if it gets bad enough. In a similar fashion, we've already had reports of CA missions leading to very one-sided matches due to the specific mission favouring one list heavily over the other, which doesn't sound ideal for either player. Beyond that teams are mostly built in the offseason and then brought out to play the season, in the cases where there have been major changes to the rules you see the types of players that teams value change.

Football teams, both types again, also don't just field one unit the entire game, they get bench players they can call in as circumstances change. So if we wanted to keep with the analogy we'd have to allow tournament players to bring additional models (say 500 points) so they can change their army based on the mission type. If this change was made I might actually support using chapter approved missions with full knowledge that this increases the cost of entry to new players.

Believe me I'd love to ignore all the meta chasers. But as long as gw uses data from ITC then that means they balance everything based on ITC, which affects everyone. If gw would balance based on ca missions I'd gladly let you min/max in peace.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 09:17:19


Post by: Jidmah


I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.

IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 10:30:18


Post by: Dudeface


 Jidmah wrote:
I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.

IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.


Agreed and I want to give an utterly ridiculous abstraction to show why the ITC balancing is weird:

There are 3 animals competing (armies), a horse, monkey and kangaroo.
The UK event organisers (GW) have 6 tracks that have combinations of trampolines, flat open areas and a climbing frame (objective types).
All animals have areas they excel at but have to be able to tackle their weaknesses in unpredictable manners, all 3 score roughly equally because of it.
The US event organisers (ITC) lets the animals choose which obstacles they have. Kangaroo takes 100% trampolines, horse 100% flat open, monkey 100% climbing frame.
Because the animals have evolved differently, a kangaroo will excel on the trampolines but can climb and is reasonably quick, so will pick trampolines but lose the race.
The horse is by far the faster over the distance on the flat opens and literally cannot handle a climbing frame and is iffy on a trampoline but wins the race.
Horse continues to win the race. Every. Time.

I now realise my head is a messed up place.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 10:31:01


Post by: Sim-Life


 Jidmah wrote:
I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.

IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.


People who haven't played CA missions claiming that they're too random. There's like one mission with an element of randomness because objectives disappear. Which again was a scenario Warmachine's Steamroller packet had when it was at its peak. So if WMH can have a random element in a scenario and be considered THE wargame for competitive/tournament play why is it so bad when 40k does it?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 10:35:35


Post by: Gadzilla666


Dudeface wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.

IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.


Agreed and I want to give an utterly ridiculous abstraction to show why the ITC balancing is weird:

There are 3 animals competing (armies), a horse, monkey and kangaroo.
The UK event organisers (GW) have 6 tracks that have combinations of trampolines, flat open areas and a climbing frame (objective types).
All animals have areas they excel at but have to be able to tackle their weaknesses in unpredictable manners, all 3 score roughly equally because of it.
The US event organisers (ITC) lets the animals choose which obstacles they have. Kangaroo takes 100% trampolines, horse 100% flat open, monkey 100% climbing frame.
Because the animals have evolved differently, a kangaroo will excel on the trampolines but can climb and is reasonably quick, so will pick trampolines but lose the race.
The horse is by far the faster over the distance on the flat opens and literally cannot handle a climbing frame and is iffy on a trampoline but wins the race.
Horse continues to win the race. Every. Time.

I now realise my head is a messed up place.

Makes sense to me.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 12:37:10


Post by: dhallnet


 Canadian 5th wrote:
dhallnet wrote:
F1 don't either compete with F3000 nor do they race in the RWC. That's the kind of stuff the "competitive" 40K lacks because it is expected everyones knows what they re coming for.
If some dude was trying to run a bicycle in RWC because the rules don't specify which vehicle you're supposed to use since everyone is supposed to understand you need to come with your best game to win, you would read a lot of whining on the internet.

If anybody showed up to any of these events without doing a bare minimum of research they deserve to be laughed out of the venue as does anybody showing up at an ITC even with a fluffy for the lulz style of list.

I dunno, the game is supposed to be about having fun first, it's not professional football and I'm also sure it isn't the most competitive players that are constantly whining about balance. I also understood that "ITC event" didn't mean anything as even the saturday shop tournaments could be one. Are you supposed to play "professionally" in "play 3 games" shop events ?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

It's supposed to be a feature rather than an issue. If you know what you may play but not what you will, you have to prepare for multiple scenarios and can't optimize for a specific one (you will optimise for the whole set rather than one mission). Which some people find more interesting than selecting what you'll have to do before hand. It's as much random as which side you're going to deploy. But since I guess ITC or other "competitive" format, normalise even the terrain you're going to play on, you might not get why this isn't an issue but rather a feature.

So would, for example, hockey be improved if we added random obstacles to the ice or moved the faceoff circles between periods because of a roll of the dice? Should we decrease the first-down distance in the NFL because it's boring that teams have optimized around the current 10-yard distance? There's a reason why no sport IRL uses any random mechanic at all, even in the MLB where there can be differences between stadiums these differences are well known and don't change mid-game or even mid-season.


Coaches can't build their team to the extent we do. They are also stuck with their team for a whole season usually. So yeah, they build their team around imposed objectives and how that team is built is often heavily regulated too (can't have 7 goalies in your soccer team for exemple). Should everyone play 40k with an army whose composition is 75% written in the rules ? Like "you can have 2 chaff units, 1 cc character, 3 units of anti infantry shooting, 2 cc units, 2 anti tank vehicles, etc" ? If you answered "yes", I would suggest trying another kind of game as on the opposite, we can build our armies a million ways, we can change it between events AND in ITC we can also choose how we would like to score.

It's like you could be able to decide in soccer that if nobody scores, you win, and block the goals with your team's bodies. Team who's made of NFL lineman playing against marathon runners btw. There is a reason why we add randomness into our games and don't play in regulated and fixed scenarios. That way, maybe the scenario will be "the one running with the ball the most, wins" or "today the goals are wider" and then marathons runners will have a chance. Instead of "you should play this comp or this one otherwise you don't stand a chance". It's just 2 ways of looking at the same issue.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 13:00:51


Post by: Ishagu


I wonder how many of the top ITC players have any tangible experience with the CA missions?

Probably very few. If you're chasing the ITC meta and playing at the big events you won't have any real time to play the CA missions.

Could be a simple case of dusmissal out of ignorance. I would say that quite a few people on this forum fall into this category as well.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 13:05:01


Post by: Jidmah


 Sim-Life wrote:
People who haven't played CA missions claiming that they're too random. There's like one mission with an element of randomness because objectives disappear. Which again was a scenario Warmachine's Steamroller packet had when it was at its peak. So if WMH can have a random element in a scenario and be considered THE wargame for competitive/tournament play why is it so bad when 40k does it?


That element isn't really random though. Objectives 1 and 6 never disappear and for the other four you know when each objective is going to disappear by the time the game starts. The "gimmick" of that mission is that you deploy without knowing how long your units will be sitting on two of the objectives. but once you start moving there is absolutely nothing random about it anymore.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 13:10:19


Post by: Melissia


If you want to get rid of chance in 40k you'd have to get rid of die rolls too.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 18:41:33


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.

IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.


People who haven't played CA missions claiming that they're too random. There's like one mission with an element of randomness because objectives disappear. Which again was a scenario Warmachine's Steamroller packet had when it was at its peak. So if WMH can have a random element in a scenario and be considered THE wargame for competitive/tournament play why is it so bad when 40k does it?


It is too random. But that one mission is also just bad. Progressive scoring + a continuously reducing number of available points basically ends the game really short and makes it noncompetitive.



As far as sports teams go, they're not locked in for the game. They have a very large sideboard, up to having multiple teams worth of players. It's more like locking your faction for the duration of league... which we (or at least both of those I participate in) do at minimum (one locks lists, one locks just faction)


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 19:52:28


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.

IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.


People who haven't played CA missions claiming that they're too random. There's like one mission with an element of randomness because objectives disappear. Which again was a scenario Warmachine's Steamroller packet had when it was at its peak. So if WMH can have a random element in a scenario and be considered THE wargame for competitive/tournament play why is it so bad when 40k does it?


It is too random. But that one mission is also just bad. Progressive scoring + a continuously reducing number of available points basically ends the game really short and makes it noncompetitive.



As far as sports teams go, they're not locked in for the game. They have a very large sideboard, up to having multiple teams worth of players. It's more like locking your faction for the duration of league... which we (or at least both of those I participate in) do at minimum (one locks lists, one locks just faction)


At the End of the Day it's wargame , if you can't balance a force and use it in differing scenarios and adapt then that is a fault of you,not the scenarios.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 20:56:22


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Not Online!!! wrote:

At the End of the Day it's wargame , if you can't balance a force and use it in differing scenarios and adapt then that is a fault of you,not the scenarios.


Except, at the end of the day, that's not even a generalizable trait of wargames. In fact, it's not really a trait of wargames at all.

I can crack out scenario books from 5 different classic wargames [and twilight struggle, which is a wargame-lite], and not a single one of them has a player compose a fixed force to be used across a half dozen different missions. Each mission has it's own unique force.




And really this isn't about not being adaptive, it's about being equal and competitive. If you don't agree with my assertions about the shalls and shoulds of a quality mission for tournament play, then we will never come to an agreement because we have fundamentally different functional requirements.

It is my belief that:
Gameplay exists to test one player's strategic and tactical decision-making ability against another players. It does not exist to test a player's adaptability to an arbitrary environment or scoring availability. Even in f***ing Tetris, when players compete against each other they actually race for high scores on the same seed in order to make it equal between the players.

Flowing down from there, we get the requirements that the mission shall be stable and plannable. Lack of plannability inhibits the development of advanced and game-duration strategies [beyond "do what it says, improvise as things happen"], and stability ensures that conditions will always be equal for both players to ensure that they're actually competing against each other and not being decided by random scoring.

It's also a hobby, which requires the game to be fun. If your hobby becomes work, it's not a hobby and has failed a fundamental requirement of a leisure activity.

Flowing down from there, we get that the mission should also be sane and competitive. If the mission isn't competitive, because the number of points available consistently drops to the point where it's impossible to surmount an early points advantage gained in the first two turns just because there are no more points available on the field, that's not fun. If the mission doesn't encourage sane play and requires you to make what would conventionally be considered "bad plays" to score points, that's confusing and also not conducive to fun.


Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective, and I haven't faced somebody who's been given an opportunity to do the same to me. Shooting at the enemy is almost superfluous, but can really make sure the enemy has no chance. Charging is only required to get the extra distance from the movement. I've literally done this twice. I don't think my opponent has had fun either time, and honestly, one of them was so one-sided that the game was literally unwinnable for my enemy on turn 2. [The other one ended on turn 3]. This isn't bad because of randomness [though it has that too], this is bad because it's not conducive to good, interactive, and fun gameplay.

Maelstrom is random, unplannable, and not-sane. Eternal War has a pool of 6 missions, 1 is really good, 2 are decent, 2 are sub-par, and 1 is atrociously bad. ITC basically has 1 mission that is decent. When it comes to competitive play, I'd definitely always take ITC than play lockdown in a tournament. As a said, though, I would be entirely willing to standardize Crusade as a single mission to use. 4 Pillars is also good, it's just ITC without secondaries, which is also a step up since the secondaries are generally considered the most unbalanced part of ITC.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 21:00:17


Post by: Ishagu


I think you need to play the CA EW missions more. Your experience is lacking if you believe they are too random. The objectives are fixed.

Your ITC list might not work across all CA missions, of course. That would be your failing.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 21:01:59


Post by: Martel732


Yeah, that doesn't effectively refute Katherine's post at all.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 21:28:19


Post by: Blood Hawk


I am not a fan of lockdown either. I don't personally like Ascension but the other 4 are good IMO.

My favorites would be crusade and front line warfare personally.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ishagu wrote:
I think you need to play the CA EW missions more. Your experience is lacking if you believe they are too random. The objectives are fixed.

Your ITC list might not work across all CA missions, of course. That would be your failing.

I have played through all six and lockdown is by far the worst.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 21:54:09


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Ishagu wrote:
I think you need to play the CA EW missions more. Your experience is lacking if you believe they are too random. The objectives are fixed.

Your ITC list might not work across all CA missions, of course. That would be your failing.


I've played each at least once, and lockdown and ascension twice. [not including the fact that all but crusade and lockdown are repeats of last year or the year before]. I've won all but one, which I tied on 4 pillars on saturday. That's 7 wins, 1 draw, in 8 games with them covering all the missions. I would say that's fairly decent experience, since it amounts to about 1 game per week which is what I expect the average level of experience with them to be at this point.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/02 23:46:33


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Ishagu wrote:
I think you need to play the CA EW missions more. Your experience is lacking if you believe they are too random. The objectives are fixed.
Your ITC list might not work across all CA missions, of course. That would be your failing.


Given that you're suggesting that other posters play more might I ask how many times you've played each of the missions in the current set? I'd also be interested in knowing the lists used and getting your general impressions as to how the games went.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dhallnet wrote:
Are you supposed to play "professionally" in "play 3 games" shop events ?

At least, as much as you're supposed to follow the rules in a game of rec league hockey. Probably more so given that there are fewer judgement calls in 40k compared to hockey which is usually officiated by a neutral party.

They are also stuck with their team for a whole season usually.

Untrue, as an example, NHL teams have 50 man rosters but only dress 20 players each game and can carry a maximum of 23 players on the active roster. Thus at any given time, an NHL team is likely to have more than half of their contracted players playing in another league awaiting recall to the main club's roster. The same is true to NFL teams with regards to gameday rosters versus practice rosters and, unlike the NHL, they can cut players very easily if they need to cover a weakness.


Should everyone play 40k with an army whose composition is 75% written in the rules ? Like "you can have 2 chaff units, 1 cc character, 3 units of anti infantry shooting, 2 cc units, 2 anti tank vehicles, etc" ? If you answered "yes", I would suggest trying another kind of game as on the opposite, we can build our armies a million ways, we can change it between events AND in ITC we can also choose how we would like to score.

40k already has list building rules that all players participating in a given tournament must follow and we could tighten those up to the old force organization chart limits for balance reasons if we so wished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:
That element isn't really random though. Objectives 1 and 6 never disappear and for the other four you know when each objective is going to disappear by the time the game starts. The "gimmick" of that mission is that you deploy without knowing how long your units will be sitting on two of the objectives. but once you start moving there is absolutely nothing random about it anymore.

Katherine has already covered why this is a poor way of doing things up thread. I suggest you read their comments on the matter as I agree with them.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 00:12:59


Post by: Ishagu


So if you have played them all at least once why would you claim the missions are random? The objectives from one to the next are more divergent, but they aren't random.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 00:45:35


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Ishagu wrote:
So if you have played them all at least once why would you claim the missions are random? The objectives from one to the next are more divergent, but they aren't random.

Are the disappearing objectives not effectively random from the point of view of a list builder crafting a list pre-tournament?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 01:47:39


Post by: Sim-Life


Inquisitor Lord Katherine 784721 wrote:
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective


Wait, what?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 01:57:10


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Sim-Life wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine 784721 wrote:
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective


Wait, what?

It seems like an easy win for armies that can infiltrate onto mid-table objectives and then send a fast screen out in front of them to hold back the opponent's forces.

For example, a Dark Angels list that uses scouts, black knights, huntmasters, etc. and keeps a DW knight unit in reserve could take objectives on turn 0 and hold them into turn 2 which is basically an automatic loss for their opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote:
Rugby even chooses a ball the shape it is to ensure that the way it bounces will be somewhat random. Injuries etc are often purely random in most sports.

You're right to say that sports do try to limit any random events that aren't deliberately built into the way the game plays.

I just saw this, do you have a source for that Rugby ball factoid? Everything I've ever seen says it's based on the bladder they used to make the first balls and evolved from there.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 02:06:54


Post by: Sim-Life


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine 784721 wrote:
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective


Wait, what?

It seems like an easy win for armies that can infiltrate onto mid-table objectives and then send a fast screen out in front of them to hold back the opponent's forces.

For example, a Dark Angels list that uses scouts, black knights, huntmasters, etc. and keeps a DW knight unit in reserve could take objectives on turn 0 and hold them into turn 2 which is basically an automatic loss for their opponent.


But that would require an army specifically written to do that for that one specific scenario right?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 02:09:47


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Sim-Life wrote:
But that would require an army specifically written to do that for that one specific scenario right?

That's actually a fairly standard ITC style list. The more recent all fliers lists are likely gone now that the FAQ has nerfed our super doctrine into being 1st turn only.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 02:09:48


Post by: Ishagu


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
So if you have played them all at least once why would you claim the missions are random? The objectives from one to the next are more divergent, but they aren't random.

Are the disappearing objectives not effectively random from the point of view of a list builder crafting a list pre-tournament?


It puts the focus on scoring early. Also this is just one of the missions.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 02:17:12


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Ishagu wrote:
It puts the focus on scoring early. Also this is just one of the missions.

That's still 100% more random than the current ITC line-up.

Also, are you going to answer my question with regards to how many of each CA mission you've played? You seem to care about how many other posters have played but aren't putting forth your own experiences so we can contrast against them.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 02:19:20


Post by: Sim-Life


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
But that would require an army specifically written to do that for that one specific scenario right?

That's actually a fairly standard ITC style list. The more recent all fliers lists are likely gone now that the FAQ has nerfed our super doctrine into being 1st turn only.


Sorry but I can't wrap my head around what set of circumstances would result in someone being able to basically trap the entire enemy army in their own deployment zone for two turns while also not dying.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 02:31:39


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Sim-Life wrote:
Sorry but I can't wrap my head around what set of circumstances would result in someone being able to basically trap the entire enemy army in their own deployment zone for two turns while also not dying.

All it takes is getting a unit between your objective holders and the enemy army. A large unit of black knights that advanced and uses transhuman physiology can tank a substantial amount of damage and provide a nasty counter punch.

Follow it up by dropping a threat behind them and suddenly you have an opponent in a real bind.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 04:18:33


Post by: vict0988


 Ishagu wrote:
I think you need to play the CA EW missions more. Your experience is lacking if you believe they are too random. The objectives are fixed.

Your ITC list might not work across all CA missions, of course. That would be your failing.

How much experience do you actually have with them? Surely it must be more than the 20 CA19 games I've played by now given that you're constantly claiming anyone with any negative opinions of any aspects of any CA missions is drawing hasty conclusions. Are you one of the playtesters?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 05:23:41


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine 784721 wrote:
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective


Wait, what?

It seems like an easy win for armies that can infiltrate onto mid-table objectives and then send a fast screen out in front of them to hold back the opponent's forces.

For example, a Dark Angels list that uses scouts, black knights, huntmasters, etc. and keeps a DW knight unit in reserve could take objectives on turn 0 and hold them into turn 2 which is basically an automatic loss for their opponent.


But that would require an army specifically written to do that for that one specific scenario right?


My base GK army takes units with Gate and Interceptors. Both can move there and then try a 9" charge. First to the Fray Libby can see to it they make said 9" charge [or just make 4 rolls and hope the right ones come up in your favor, which I did in the game that ended turn 2 but played more carefully with a less ambitious but much more assured turn 3 win in mind the other time]. 5 Interceptors [or Strikes, Infiltrators, Incursors, Dominions, and anything else vanguarded or redeployed] create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around. It doesn't matter if they die, your assault phase and shooting phase are after the phase where you get a chance to get to the objectives. More just prevent the enemy from moving forward at all across like the entire front line. This mission is won by being in the middle of the board on turns 1 and 2. After that it's irrelevant, because the loss of available points means that if you can't contest the middle points early [and even worse, the ones you can get are the ones that vanish] you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

And it's not just Grey Knights. Your bog-standard Space Marine list at least around here [and for my space wolves] comes with multiple units of infiltrators/incursors, eliminators, invictors, and ways to redeploy units on turn 1 and deep strike backup for them on turn 2 to maintain the containment. My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.\

[Edits for spelling, since my spellchecker apparently likes to convert effectively into effective.]


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 07:10:43


Post by: Dudeface


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine 784721 wrote:
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective


Wait, what?

It seems like an easy win for armies that can infiltrate onto mid-table objectives and then send a fast screen out in front of them to hold back the opponent's forces.

For example, a Dark Angels list that uses scouts, black knights, huntmasters, etc. and keeps a DW knight unit in reserve could take objectives on turn 0 and hold them into turn 2 which is basically an automatic loss for their opponent.


But that would require an army specifically written to do that for that one specific scenario right?


My base GK army takes units with Gate and Interceptors. Both can move there and then try a 9" charge. First to the Fray Libby can see to it they make said 9" charge [or just make 4 rolls and hope the right ones come up in your favor, which I did in the game that ended turn 2 but played more carefully with a less ambitious but much more assured turn 3 win in mind the other time]. 5 Interceptors [or Strikes, Infiltrators, Incursors, Dominions, and anything else vanguarded or redeployed] create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around. It doesn't matter if they die, your assault phase and shooting phase are after the phase where you get a chance to get to the objectives. More just prevent the enemy from moving forward at all across like the entire front line. This mission is won by being in the middle of the board on turns 1 and 2. After that it's irrelevant, because the loss of available points means that if you can't contest the middle points early [and even worse, the ones you can get are the ones that vanish] you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

And it's not just Grey Knights. Your bog-standard Space Marine list at least around here [and for my space wolves] comes with multiple units of infiltrators/incursors, eliminators, invictors, and ways to redeploy units on turn 1 and deep strike backup for them on turn 2 to maintain the containment. My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.\

[Edits for spelling, since my spellchecker apparently likes to convert effectively into effective.]


Any chance you can do a battle report of some kind next time please? I'm curious to see this in action in some capacity because it just doesn't sound likely/feasible to be reproducible.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 08:01:28


Post by: Canadian 5th


Dudeface wrote:
Any chance you can do a battle report of some kind next time please? I'm curious to see this in action in some capacity because it just doesn't sound likely/feasible to be reproducible.


I brought up the idea of a DA list that uses scouts/infiltrators to take the middle and a screen of black knights to hold the line and protect them.

Something like:

Spoiler:

+++++Battle Forged: Dark Angels +3 CP+++++

+++Battalion - 416 pts. +5 CP+++

-HQ-

Librarian in Phobos Armor - 98 pts.

Librarian in Phobos Armor - 98 pts.

-Troops-

Infiltrator Squad - 110 pts.

Scouts - 55 pts.

Scouts - 55 pts.

+++Battalion - 1,582 pts. +5 CP, -1 CP for Attack Squadron+++

-HQ-

Ravenwing Talonmaster - 188 pts.

Ravenwing Talonmaster - 188 pts.

Sammael in Sableclaw - 200 pts.

-Troops-

Scouts - 55 pts.

Scouts - 55 pts.

Scouts - 55 pts.

-Elites-

Deathwing Knights w/ Watcher in the Dark - 180 pts.

Deathwing Ancient w/ Thunderhammer and Storm Shield - 115 pts.

-Fast Attack-

Ravenwing Black Knights x6 - 204 pts.

Ravenwing Black Knights x6 - 204 pts.

Ravenwing Darkshroud - 138 pts.

+++++Total Points 1,998 - 12 CP+++++


It's certainly far from an optimized list but the Librarians ensure that 2 of your midfield scoring units won't be shot at, your black knights get into the enemy's face and keep them off objectives, the dark shroud goes where it's needed and keeps important things alive. The other HQs pick off enemy units and the DW Knights and Ancient provide a backfield distraction that demands attention or drops right into the opponents face and kills something you'd rather not deal with.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 08:59:23


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Dudeface wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine 784721 wrote:
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective


Wait, what?

It seems like an easy win for armies that can infiltrate onto mid-table objectives and then send a fast screen out in front of them to hold back the opponent's forces.

For example, a Dark Angels list that uses scouts, black knights, huntmasters, etc. and keeps a DW knight unit in reserve could take objectives on turn 0 and hold them into turn 2 which is basically an automatic loss for their opponent.


But that would require an army specifically written to do that for that one specific scenario right?


My base GK army takes units with Gate and Interceptors. Both can move there and then try a 9" charge. First to the Fray Libby can see to it they make said 9" charge [or just make 4 rolls and hope the right ones come up in your favor, which I did in the game that ended turn 2 but played more carefully with a less ambitious but much more assured turn 3 win in mind the other time]. 5 Interceptors [or Strikes, Infiltrators, Incursors, Dominions, and anything else vanguarded or redeployed] create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around. It doesn't matter if they die, your assault phase and shooting phase are after the phase where you get a chance to get to the objectives. More just prevent the enemy from moving forward at all across like the entire front line. This mission is won by being in the middle of the board on turns 1 and 2. After that it's irrelevant, because the loss of available points means that if you can't contest the middle points early [and even worse, the ones you can get are the ones that vanish] you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

And it's not just Grey Knights. Your bog-standard Space Marine list at least around here [and for my space wolves] comes with multiple units of infiltrators/incursors, eliminators, invictors, and ways to redeploy units on turn 1 and deep strike backup for them on turn 2 to maintain the containment. My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.\

[Edits for spelling, since my spellchecker apparently likes to convert effectively into effective.]


Any chance you can do a battle report of some kind next time please? I'm curious to see this in action in some capacity because it just doesn't sound likely/feasible to be reproducible.


I reported the 2-turn one a week ago in this thread. I can probably record whatever I do next when I do it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 10:08:25


Post by: Jidmah



What exactly is too random about the CA missions?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 10:13:18


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:

What exactly is too random about the CA missions?


The fact that there is forced adaptation beyond the players controll in a match.

Which i asserted was a skill that should be valued because it is more on the board then list building, which got refused as beeing random and not skillfull.

Basically it is the question on what should be measured in a competition of 40k which leads to the diverge of those that believe a changing battlefield and the mastery of those circumstances should be rewarded or others who deem it necessary to decide the game via building to their strength before the match started, e.g. a controlled environment, in which pre battle planning and listbuilding is the more valuable skill.


having been part of wargames and excercises myself, i value the former katherine the later.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 10:14:06


Post by: Slipspace


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
Dudeface wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine 784721 wrote:
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective


Wait, what?

It seems like an easy win for armies that can infiltrate onto mid-table objectives and then send a fast screen out in front of them to hold back the opponent's forces.

For example, a Dark Angels list that uses scouts, black knights, huntmasters, etc. and keeps a DW knight unit in reserve could take objectives on turn 0 and hold them into turn 2 which is basically an automatic loss for their opponent.


But that would require an army specifically written to do that for that one specific scenario right?


My base GK army takes units with Gate and Interceptors. Both can move there and then try a 9" charge. First to the Fray Libby can see to it they make said 9" charge [or just make 4 rolls and hope the right ones come up in your favor, which I did in the game that ended turn 2 but played more carefully with a less ambitious but much more assured turn 3 win in mind the other time]. 5 Interceptors [or Strikes, Infiltrators, Incursors, Dominions, and anything else vanguarded or redeployed] create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around. It doesn't matter if they die, your assault phase and shooting phase are after the phase where you get a chance to get to the objectives. More just prevent the enemy from moving forward at all across like the entire front line. This mission is won by being in the middle of the board on turns 1 and 2. After that it's irrelevant, because the loss of available points means that if you can't contest the middle points early [and even worse, the ones you can get are the ones that vanish] you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

And it's not just Grey Knights. Your bog-standard Space Marine list at least around here [and for my space wolves] comes with multiple units of infiltrators/incursors, eliminators, invictors, and ways to redeploy units on turn 1 and deep strike backup for them on turn 2 to maintain the containment. My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.\

[Edits for spelling, since my spellchecker apparently likes to convert effectively into effective.]


Any chance you can do a battle report of some kind next time please? I'm curious to see this in action in some capacity because it just doesn't sound likely/feasible to be reproducible.


I reported the 2-turn one a week ago in this thread. I can probably record whatever I do next when I do it.


That would be useful because I simply haven't experienced anything like what you're describing. I've certainly seen armies attempt it but in practice it's too high risk to be consistent because swarming midfield tends to lead to dead units very quickly with the amount of firepower a typical 40k army has nowadays. In my Lockdown games it's definitely been encouraged to push units forward more than in some other missions but a kamikaze rush at the enemy rarely works because of the aforementioned firepower but also because an equally mobile enemy army simply can't be pinned back in the way you describe. It'll have Flying units, bikes, transports or infiltrating units of its own that can threaten objectives just as well as the first player's army.

Granted, a static gunline will struggle, but I don't have a problem with that as that seems to be one of the design goals of the CA missions. Just this weekend I won a Maelstrom game against a ridiculously immobile DA army with my BA simply by playing to the objectives and not being scared to sacrifice units where needed while my opponent was too conservative and barely made it out of his deployment zone all game. I ended up being pretty much tabled but it didn't matter due to the lead in points I had.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 11:52:08


Post by: Jidmah


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around.

So... why didn't your opponent bring units with fly or fast units or scouting units? Have units with bombs to blow holes in your barrier? Or use stratagems or warlord traits that allow redeployment like da jump? Or fight twice stratagems to not only punish you for setting yourself up for first turn charges, but also to consolidate onto the objectives? Or stratagems that allow you to shoot stuff that's coming too close like punishing volley or auspex scan? Why didn't he put his three markers in positions where he can defend them easily during turn 1 and 2 instead of putting them midfield? Why didn't he just just charge a friggin daemon primarch/melee knight/lord of skulls into half your army?

you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

If you manage to hold onto two objectives, that will be a 6:15 lead by the end of turn 3. If you table your opponent by then, there are 5 VP in T4, 4 in T5 and potentially another 3 in T6, plus first kill, line breaker and slay the warlord.
If you can't manage to hold onto at least two objectives (#6 plus one other), I guess you deserved the loss.


My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.

I do have to ask - why are all your objectives in midfield? Each player deploys three of them and they can be deployed anywhere. Against highly mobile armies or very assault-oriented armies you can drop all your objectives in corners to make the easier hold independently from which deployment you roll - there will always be one deployment zone with two objectives near the table edge to pick and the third one requires your opponent to spread his army, creating space for deep strikers.
Just reactivate all those 5th edition objective marker placement skills

To me all this is just evidence that these missions require more skill than ITC does. You are winning this mission because you are bringing all the tools to do so, while your opponent doesn't,


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 13:19:40


Post by: Ishagu


ITC players feel threatened by missions that would push the armies into taking a variety of units, as opposed to min maxing a few particular choices around identical objectives from mission to mission.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 13:40:47


Post by: Jidmah


And yet, insulting them isn't exactly going to convince them.

It feels like a good portion of this thread is people just opposing CA rules because you are the one advocating to use them.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 14:02:20


Post by: Slipspace


 Jidmah wrote:
And yet, insulting them isn't exactly going to convince them.

It feels like a good portion of this thread is people just opposing CA rules because you are the one advocating to use them.


Agreed. It's no coincidence that out of the generally pro-CA posters Ishagu is both the most intractable and least persuasive. If they really wanted to persuade people of their point of view they'd be much better off engaging in meaningful discussion than flinging accusations around.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 14:37:36


Post by: Ishagu


I didn't write that comment as an insult.

People feel apprehension when they leave their comfort zone. This isn't a controversial opinion. They are threatened because the format isn't as focused on min/maxing units they might have focused on in the ITC.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 14:38:11


Post by: Emicrania


Is perplexing to see that we are still discussing this. Reece himself said to use CA 19 missions if they rock your boat, the only thing ITC does, ATM is having a competitive , international community where you can feel part of the world league. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 14:45:56


Post by: Ishagu


We're discussing it because there is no longer a requirement for 3rd party homebrew missions when the official mission pack has improved in terms of quality and balance.

Rather than uniting the 40k community, the ITC now divides it. ITC lists and rules are not compatible with the official missions, and they create an unofficial meta which elevates certain units whilst taking others out of contention due to the secondaries, and not the actual rules as written by GW.

In this very topic people are declaring their apprehension at playing the official 40k missions because the lists they have designed around homebrew rules won't perform as well.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 14:55:42


Post by: Blood Hawk


I don't like lockdown either. The problem I have with it is that I have found the game is decided by who goes first. Scoring at the end of the turn not only gives an advantage to the player who goes first but also leads to less counter play. With crusade for example, scoring happens at the beginning of your turn starting with round two. This leads to some interesting counter play in my experience. In lockdown if your opponent has infiltrators and/or fast moving units he can grab 4-5 objectives easy turn one and be up on points in addition to the normal advantages of going first. You can box in some armies like Katherine described but the larger problem is the scoring at the end of the turn.

Ascension also has that problem but at least in that mission the amount of points you can score per turn increases in later turns. In lockdown it is the opposite. So if the attacker gets a early lead, the game is basically over. I am fine with the disappearing objectives.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 15:28:59


Post by: Jidmah


The bonus VP for holding more objectives is scored at the end of the battle round though, plus both players can score the same objective in one round, which is basically the same as having a contested objective scored by neither player.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 15:34:08


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Ishagu wrote:
We're discussing it because there is no longer a requirement for 3rd party homebrew missions when the official mission pack has improved in terms of quality and balance.

Rather than uniting the 40k community, the ITC now divides it. ITC lists and rules are not compatible with the official missions, and they create an unofficial meta which elevates certain units whilst taking others out of contention due to the secondaries, and not the actual rules as written by GW.

In this very topic people are declaring their apprehension at playing the official 40k missions because the lists they have designed around homebrew rules won't perform as well.


You still haven't answered the question about how many CA19 missions you've played and your experiences thus far. Please do so as you've been rather forceful about asking others about their experience level.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 15:42:05


Post by: Martel732


I don't mind changing my list. I dont like giving up secondaries.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 15:53:15


Post by: Ishagu


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
We're discussing it because there is no longer a requirement for 3rd party homebrew missions when the official mission pack has improved in terms of quality and balance.

Rather than uniting the 40k community, the ITC now divides it. ITC lists and rules are not compatible with the official missions, and they create an unofficial meta which elevates certain units whilst taking others out of contention due to the secondaries, and not the actual rules as written by GW.

In this very topic people are declaring their apprehension at playing the official 40k missions because the lists they have designed around homebrew rules won't perform as well.


You still haven't answered the question about how many CA19 missions you've played and your experiences thus far. Please do so as you've been rather forceful about asking others about their experience level.


I have played them all more than once, and some a lot more frequently. I actually haven't played a game in the last 9 days due to some other commitments getting in the way.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 16:16:27


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Jidmah wrote:

What exactly is too random about the CA missions?


That several of the missions are of exceptionally low quality. There are about 3 decent ones and 3 bad ones. A mission pack being 1 pretty good one is far better.

I've expressed that I'd prefer crusade or 4 pillars to ITC. Crusade is really good, and 4 pillars is just ITC without the secondaries, which is an improvement. I'd also prefer to not see Lockdown, especially in competitive play because while I've won it both times I've played it, I don't think it produces good games and I don't think I could do so consistently, with the game basically just coming down to taking the first turn and having earlier infiltrators/vanguards/etc.

Not Online!!! wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

What exactly is too random about the CA missions?


The fact that there is forced adaptation beyond the players controll in a match.

Which i asserted was a skill that should be valued because it is more on the board then list building, which got refused as beeing random and not skillfull.

Basically it is the question on what should be measured in a competition of 40k which leads to the diverge of those that believe a changing battlefield and the mastery of those circumstances should be rewarded or others who deem it necessary to decide the game via building to their strength before the match started, e.g. a controlled environment, in which pre battle planning and listbuilding is the more valuable skill.


having been part of wargames and excercises myself, i value the former katherine the later.


I'm obviously not a soldier, but I've also been part of hex and counter wargaming since grade three and RTS games since I've had a computer [some time after the third grade], and I think that your assertions aren't really congruent with my experience with trad. wargaming, or really with the theory of reality.

The confusion and changing battlefield in real life conflicts are because the actors involves are generally acting with incomplete information about enemy force disposition and works. The whole thing about "navigating the changing battlefield" is about responding to the incomplete information about your enemy, your forces, weather and other conditions on the battlefield to complete your own objectives and prevent the enemy from completing theirs.

Most everybody agrees that maelstrom is too much random since only like one store I've been to plays it, which is informing my belief that this whole thing about "needs to be random to force adaptation". Pretty much everybody agrees that how you win shouldn't be random, so few people play maelstrom.


Slipspace wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
Dudeface wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine 784721 wrote:
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective


Wait, what?

It seems like an easy win for armies that can infiltrate onto mid-table objectives and then send a fast screen out in front of them to hold back the opponent's forces.

For example, a Dark Angels list that uses scouts, black knights, huntmasters, etc. and keeps a DW knight unit in reserve could take objectives on turn 0 and hold them into turn 2 which is basically an automatic loss for their opponent.


But that would require an army specifically written to do that for that one specific scenario right?


My base GK army takes units with Gate and Interceptors. Both can move there and then try a 9" charge. First to the Fray Libby can see to it they make said 9" charge [or just make 4 rolls and hope the right ones come up in your favor, which I did in the game that ended turn 2 but played more carefully with a less ambitious but much more assured turn 3 win in mind the other time]. 5 Interceptors [or Strikes, Infiltrators, Incursors, Dominions, and anything else vanguarded or redeployed] create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around. It doesn't matter if they die, your assault phase and shooting phase are after the phase where you get a chance to get to the objectives. More just prevent the enemy from moving forward at all across like the entire front line. This mission is won by being in the middle of the board on turns 1 and 2. After that it's irrelevant, because the loss of available points means that if you can't contest the middle points early [and even worse, the ones you can get are the ones that vanish] you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

And it's not just Grey Knights. Your bog-standard Space Marine list at least around here [and for my space wolves] comes with multiple units of infiltrators/incursors, eliminators, invictors, and ways to redeploy units on turn 1 and deep strike backup for them on turn 2 to maintain the containment. My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.\

[Edits for spelling, since my spellchecker apparently likes to convert effectively into effective.]


Any chance you can do a battle report of some kind next time please? I'm curious to see this in action in some capacity because it just doesn't sound likely/feasible to be reproducible.


I reported the 2-turn one a week ago in this thread. I can probably record whatever I do next when I do it.


That would be useful because I simply haven't experienced anything like what you're describing. I've certainly seen armies attempt it but in practice it's too high risk to be consistent because swarming midfield tends to lead to dead units very quickly with the amount of firepower a typical 40k army has nowadays. In my Lockdown games it's definitely been encouraged to push units forward more than in some other missions but a kamikaze rush at the enemy rarely works because of the aforementioned firepower but also because an equally mobile enemy army simply can't be pinned back in the way you describe. It'll have Flying units, bikes, transports or infiltrating units of its own that can threaten objectives just as well as the first player's army.

Granted, a static gunline will struggle, but I don't have a problem with that as that seems to be one of the design goals of the CA missions. Just this weekend I won a Maelstrom game against a ridiculously immobile DA army with my BA simply by playing to the objectives and not being scared to sacrifice units where needed while my opponent was too conservative and barely made it out of his deployment zone all game. I ended up being pretty much tabled but it didn't matter due to the lead in points I had.


Enemy had transports in that game. Neither bikes nor transports can move through buildings or other models. It's not having a high speed, it's being able to be there before the enemy gets there. If I have infiltrators, and you have infiltrators, if I have first set up then only I get to use my infiltrators, basically [at least, if I have like 3 or 4, which is pretty standard for a SM list. My Space Wolves run 2 infiltrators plus eliminators plus phobos wolf lord, which is 4 placements and enough to pretty much deny forward placement to the enemy if I go first. Other SM lists from my friends have more, with invictors and incursors and etc]. If I have infiltrators and you have vanguarders, I get to use my infiltrators but you don't get to use your vanguarders.


I also didn't try to go for the full all out-aggression in the other lockdown game I played, since the first one went well but had a lot of opportunity to go wrong since I was relying on 9" charges without fixing, and it's just turned out that the one I needed most happened. The second time I played I played the same basic strategy but more conservative and controlled for a turn 3 win that I felt more assured of getting.



Jidmah wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around.

So... why didn't your opponent bring units with fly or fast units or scouting units? Have units with bombs to blow holes in your barrier? Or use stratagems or warlord traits that allow redeployment like da jump? Or fight twice stratagems to not only punish you for setting yourself up for first turn charges, but also to consolidate onto the objectives? Or stratagems that allow you to shoot stuff that's coming too close like punishing volley or auspex scan? Why didn't he put his three markers in positions where he can defend them easily during turn 1 and 2 instead of putting them midfield? Why didn't he just just charge a friggin daemon primarch/melee knight/lord of skulls into half your army?

you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

If you manage to hold onto two objectives, that will be a 6:15 lead by the end of turn 3. If you table your opponent by then, there are 5 VP in T4, 4 in T5 and potentially another 3 in T6, plus first kill, line breaker and slay the warlord.
If you can't manage to hold onto at least two objectives (#6 plus one other), I guess you deserved the loss.


6:13 [5-2, then 4-2, then 2-2], only if the other one in your deploy doesn't go away. If the 25% chance that the second one in your deploy is #2, it's 4:14 [5-2, then 5-1, then 4-1] [and 5:13 if it's #3], if you're starting your turn 4 in your deployment zone, you can't reasonably expect to actually score 4 [3 objectives are in play on t4, and 2 on t5+], 3, and 3 points for the rest of the game with normal or transported movement. And if you can't take #1 immediately, then you're looking at scoring 9 more points to their 1 more, which going into that at 4:14 isn't enough to win remotely.


Jidmah wrote:
My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.

I do have to ask - why are all your objectives in midfield? Each player deploys three of them and they can be deployed anywhere. Against highly mobile armies or very assault-oriented armies you can drop all your objectives in corners to make the easier hold independently from which deployment you roll - there will always be one deployment zone with two objectives near the table edge to pick and the third one requires your opponent to spread his army, creating space for deep strikers.
Just reactivate all those 5th edition objective marker placement skills

To me all this is just evidence that these missions require more skill than ITC does. You are winning this mission because you are bringing all the tools to do so, while your opponent doesn't,


Objectives are placed by alternating order 6" in and 12" from each other before determining deploy pattern. We usually approach this making our #1 or #2 placement such that it inconveniences people trying to take them and prevents them from being positioned into well-defended and sheltered locations.

As for whether he could have played better we've already had this discussion, since we discussed this scenario like 5 pages ago when it was closer to having happened. He could have played better if he had known what was going to happen, and he was newish and I not nearly so, so I was much more likely to win than him. But I don't think that he really had the opportunity to make mistakes etc. that game. The decisions he did make were decently well informed and logical, but there just wasn't an opportunity for him to make a different.



Ishagu wrote:ITC players feel threatened by missions that would push the armies into taking a variety of units, as opposed to min maxing a few particular choices around identical objectives from mission to mission.


Do you actually have responses, or just these worthless claims? You said I didn't have enough experience playing the CA missions with 8 games, which is about 1 game per week on average since it dropped which is what I expect to be the average level of experience with them. I refrained to challenging you back until now, since multiple people asked you how much you have?

My impression from you and most of the people upset about ITC as "homebrew in 40k" is that this push is basically from CAAC people who are upset that competitive play standard is an acceptable norm for playing pick-up games and think that trying to get the "competitive player's mission pack" out of the game will also get the competitive spirit out of the game. It won't, because this is a competitive versus wargame. I've played open war cards, BRB, CA Eternal from every CA, ITC, and even a small handful of maelstrom this edition. I can say that I believed that as a mission pack ITC is definitely the best of them.

If, like you said in a different threat, you should just discuss with your opponent what you want to play before playing so that they don't bring anything that might threaten you or make the game difficult, then do you really need to be concerned about the tightness of the mission pack's balance?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 16:16:50


Post by: Blndmage


Martel732 wrote:
I don't mind changing my list. I dont like giving up secondaries.

Well, then you should be happy with GW's missions!
Secondaries are a blight.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 16:17:32


Post by: nurgle5


Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Maelstrom is random, unplannable, and not-sane.


Fair enough if you don't like Maelstrom, I'm not trying to convince anyone to play something they won't enjoy, but would you at least acknowledge that it requires a different type of strategic planning and tactical thinking to what you prefer rather than none at all?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 16:19:24


Post by: Martel732


 Blndmage wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't mind changing my list. I dont like giving up secondaries.

Well, then you should be happy with GW's missions!
Secondaries are a blight.


No, i like secondaries. I dont like them not being in the game.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 16:27:12


Post by: Dudeface


Martel732 wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't mind changing my list. I dont like giving up secondaries.

Well, then you should be happy with GW's missions!
Secondaries are a blight.


No, i like secondaries. I dont like them not being in the game.


Now I like this, what about opponents who build around secondaries that don't requite them to "give up" anything? Recon etc. where they actually don't care what you put in your list?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 16:47:36


Post by: Blood Hawk


 Jidmah wrote:
The bonus VP for holding more objectives is scored at the end of the battle round though, plus both players can score the same objective in one round, which is basically the same as having a contested objective scored by neither player.

Most of the points come from holding at the end of the turn. End of turn scoring reminds me of the capture cards from the maelstrom deck. Probably the least interesting cards in there other than maybe master of the warp.

Personally I think the other missions are better like crusade.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 17:02:38


Post by: Canadian 5th


Dudeface wrote:
Now I like this, what about opponents who build around secondaries that don't requite them to "give up" anything? Recon etc. where they actually don't care what you put in your list?

Given that you can do the same why does that change anything? It's a rare ITC game that only involves one player camping until the last turn. For those rare cases, I can point to military victories where the winners were hunkered in their bunkers and hides until they knew reinforcements were close.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/03 22:05:24


Post by: Not Online!!!


I'm obviously not a soldier, but I've also been part of hex and counter wargaming since grade three and RTS games since I've had a computer [some time after the third grade], and I think that your assertions aren't really congruent with my experience with trad. wargaming, or really with the theory of reality.

The confusion and changing battlefield in real life conflicts are because the actors involves are generally acting with incomplete information about enemy force disposition and works. The whole thing about "navigating the changing battlefield" is about responding to the incomplete information about your enemy, your forces, weather and other conditions on the battlefield to complete your own objectives and prevent the enemy from completing theirs.

Most everybody agrees that maelstrom is too much random since only like one store I've been to plays it, which is informing my belief that this whole thing about "needs to be random to force adaptation". Pretty much everybody agrees that how you win shouldn't be random, so few people play maelstrom.


With wargame i meant a military excercise, the real traditional Version of it so to speak.

As for the later Part , everyone near you agrees with that, doesn't mean that all do.

It's just differing values, i don't care about the Mode but atm i
deem itc the system with more issues due to the secondaries.
In General though gw failed and Still does at providing an adequate Format for tournament play aswell.
Gw further applying data from itc for balance of the core game is a whole other issue of failed Application of parameters which too me is worse then itc or ca or maelstrom,because it shows a disconect to their product in a way that should not be and also is probably responsible for the constant failure of gw at rules regardless if competitve is kept in mind or not.


Edit: there will be a Day i eliminate all autocorects.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 10:36:38


Post by: Jidmah


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Jidmah wrote:

What exactly is too random about the CA missions?


That several of the missions are of exceptionally low quality. There are about 3 decent ones and 3 bad ones. A mission pack being 1 pretty good one is far better.

I've expressed that I'd prefer crusade or 4 pillars to ITC. Crusade is really good, and 4 pillars is just ITC without the secondaries, which is an improvement.

All that is just personal preference though. I don't like crusade because it rewards casteling up and shooting too much, with little to no reward for agressive plays. Not a single thing about that is random.

Most everybody agrees that maelstrom is too much random since only like one store I've been to plays it, which is informing my belief that this whole thing about "needs to be random to force adaptation". Pretty much everybody agrees that how you win shouldn't be random, so few people play maelstrom.

When you had a deck of 36 cards which might elevate you to 20+ VP one game while it kept you at 3-5 in another, I agree with this. I stopped playing maelstrom during CA2018 for this reason, despite loving the idea - the game was won by the deck, not by the players.
CA2019 though? Both players tend to burn through 15-16 out of 18 objectives (assuming no turn 6) of their choice and can spend CP to eliminate the unlikely chance of a dry spell all together. When one of the new maelstrom games is lost by a large margin, it's usually because one player is getting pasted on the battlefield.

Jidmah wrote:So... why didn't your opponent bring units with fly or fast units or scouting units? Have units with bombs to blow holes in your barrier? Or use stratagems or warlord traits that allow redeployment like da jump? Or fight twice stratagems to not only punish you for setting yourself up for first turn charges, but also to consolidate onto the objectives? Or stratagems that allow you to shoot stuff that's coming too close like punishing volley or auspex scan? Why didn't he put his three markers in positions where he can defend them easily during turn 1 and 2 instead of putting them midfield? Why didn't he just just charge a friggin daemon primarch/melee knight/lord of skulls into half your army?
*no answer*
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Enemy had transports in that game. Neither bikes nor transports can move through buildings or other models. It's not having a high speed, it's being able to be there before the enemy gets there. If I have infiltrators, and you have infiltrators, if I have first set up then only I get to use my infiltrators, basically [at least, if I have like 3 or 4, which is pretty standard for a SM list. My Space Wolves run 2 infiltrators plus eliminators plus phobos wolf lord, which is 4 placements and enough to pretty much deny forward placement to the enemy if I go first. Other SM lists from my friends have more, with invictors and incursors and etc]. If I have infiltrators and you have vanguarders, I get to use my infiltrators but you don't get to use your vanguarders.

I also didn't try to go for the full all out-aggression in the other lockdown game I played, since the first one went well but had a lot of opportunity to go wrong since I was relying on 9" charges without fixing, and it's just turned out that the one I needed most happened. The second time I played I played the same basic strategy but more conservative and controlled for a turn 3 win that I felt more assured of getting.
6:13 [5-2, then 4-2, then 2-2], only if the other one in your deploy doesn't go away. If the 25% chance that the second one in your deploy is #2, it's 4:14 [5-2, then 5-1, then 4-1] [and 5:13 if it's #3], if you're starting your turn 4 in your deployment zone, you can't reasonably expect to actually score 4 [3 objectives are in play on t4, and 2 on t5+], 3, and 3 points for the rest of the game with normal or transported movement. And if you can't take #1 immediately, then you're looking at scoring 9 more points to their 1 more, which going into that at 4:14 isn't enough to win remotely.
Objectives are placed by alternating order 6" in and 12" from each other before determining deploy pattern. We usually approach this making our #1 or #2 placement such that it inconveniences people trying to take them and prevents them from being positioned into well-defended and sheltered locations.
As for whether he could have played better we've already had this discussion, since we discussed this scenario like 5 pages ago when it was closer to having happened. He could have played better if he had known what was going to happen, and he was newish and I not nearly so, so I was much more likely to win than him. But I don't think that he really had the opportunity to make mistakes etc. that game. The decisions he did make were decently well informed and logical, but there just wasn't an opportunity for him to make a different.

So, to sum all that up:
- You are a player with years of experience, while the opponent was "newish". Considering your track record in other missions you are clearly the stronger player of you two.
- Your opponent's army was absolutely not equipped to handle the lockdown mission. If you bring 0 troops units to pillars, you are going to lose that as well.
- Your opponent is using units which are generally considered to not be working well in large numbers
- Your opponent dropped his objectives where they were convenient for you, but not for him
- Your opponent failed to clear objectives despite the units using to grab them not being particularly durable
- Your opponent failed to clear enough of your movement blockers to fit rhinos through
- You got lucky in crucial moments
So basically your opponent had a terrible list and made terrible decisions, while you had a perfect list and got lucky. And you blame the mission and its randomness?
Does one have a chance at winning in ITC when they bring lists which maximize their opponent's secondaries, are unable to clear and hold objectives and doesn't move out of their deployment zone?

Your tactic of blocking off the enemy's access to objectives works just as good or bad in crusade, he would have lost that mission for the same reason he lost lockdown.
From my experience from playing against invictors and phobos marines of any color, I know that getting that close to my orks or death guard is a death sentence for all those units, which then usually leads to a crushing victory for me due to the large amount of points they lose.

My impression from you and most of the people upset about ITC as "homebrew in 40k" is that this push is basically from CAAC people who are upset that competitive play standard is an acceptable norm for playing pick-up games and think that trying to get the "competitive player's mission pack" out of the game will also get the competitive spirit out of the game. It won't, because this is a competitive versus wargame. I've played open war cards, BRB, CA Eternal from every CA, ITC, and even a small handful of maelstrom this edition. I can say that I believed that as a mission pack ITC is definitely the best of them.

My experience with the ITC mission (a pack would require more than one) is that it highly favors stand&shoot builds, goes out of its way to punish you for losing models and reduces options because denying secondaries is crucial part of list building. That events running CA missions tend to have much more varied fields than ITC events is no coincidence - especially when the same players are attending both types of events.
When you have to plan for six missions instead of a single one, the worth of each unit varries and there is no one "solution" to an army. You need then need to pick units on different metrics besides how many primaris marines they can kill and how many points they might give to your opponent when they kill them.

Or, in your words: ITC is for WAAC players who just want to auto-win with their netlists because they are unable to think beyond what bloggers and streamers tell them how to pilot their lists. /sarcasm


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 11:09:28


Post by: Ordana


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

My impression from you and most of the people upset about ITC as "homebrew in 40k" is that this push is basically from CAAC people who are upset that competitive play standard is an acceptable norm for playing pick-up games and think that trying to get the "competitive player's mission pack" out of the game will also get the competitive spirit out of the game. It won't, because this is a competitive versus wargame. I've played open war cards, BRB, CA Eternal from every CA, ITC, and even a small handful of maelstrom this edition. I can say that I believed that as a mission pack ITC is definitely the best of them.
No, we see people complain about problems with the game when they are more problems that stem from ITC and so talk about how CA missions will likely give you a better experience.

Even before Space Marines when the complaints were about Eldar Flyer Spam and Knights before that, CA tournaments were showing a wider diversity of armies at the top.

I'm a competitive player myself, I have no problem with a competitive ruleset and for a long time ITC was great for the tournament community when GW left it to languish but right now ITC is very much Meta warping in a bad way through the secondaries and trying to 'fix' problems that don't exist. Like the oft mentioned 'hordes dominate everything if they are not punished' despite that not having happened in CA/WTC tournaments since the days of Index books.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 14:27:55


Post by: Melissia


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
My impression from you and most of the people upset about ITC as "homebrew in 40k"
Am not upset about it. I just wish people would acknowledge that's what it is. Certain posters have annoyed me by claiming that somehow ITC is the only "real" 40k and that anyone who doesn't play ITC is a wimpy-arse casual whose opinion is worthless.

Because you know, having an ego over playing someone else's houserules and being stuck up about it is pretty much par for the course for 40k players.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 14:42:05


Post by: Ishagu


The moment that an ITC supporter shows any amount of condescending attitude towards those who disagree, it confirms all the negative stereotypes that surround the competitive ITC crowd.

If they can't accept that the ITC mission and terrain rules are nothing more than a homebrew it shows quite the level of denial on their part too.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 14:45:43


Post by: kodos


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

My impression from you and most of the people upset about ITC as "homebrew in 40k" is that this push is basically from CAAC people who are upset that competitive play standard is an acceptable norm for playing pick-up games and think that trying to get the "competitive player's mission pack" out of the game will also get the competitive spirit out of the game. It won't, because this is a competitive versus wargame. I've played open war cards, BRB, CA Eternal from every CA, ITC, and even a small handful of maelstrom this edition. I can say that I believed that as a mission pack ITC is definitely the best of them.


ITC is are homebrew rules, that were necessary in the time GW does not provided any kind of missions our even acknowledged that a competitive scene exists

but the point is, that now that GW supports tournaments and provide the necessary rules for competitive games, ITC homebrew missions, rukles, or FAQ, although it might have been the standard for a long time, are no longer needed.

And while I don't like the Mealstrom Missions or random drawn cards either and see them as the Card Deck winning the game but not the player, ITC Missions were "Kill all" is more important than anything else is not much better.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 14:53:08


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Ishagu wrote:
The moment that an ITC supporter shows any amount of condescending attitude towards those who disagree, it confirms all the negative stereotypes that surround the competitive ITC crowd.

If they can't accept that the ITC mission and terrain rules are nothing more than a homebrew it shows quite the level of denial on their part too.


yet here you are, acting condescending to all the pro-ITC players, kinda ruining your own point.

People know ITC isnt GW's official tournament rules, they know its homebrew, you don't have to convince them.

But the annoying hard-on you have for spamming "ITC IZ HOMEBREW!!" is why this thread has gone on for so long.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 14:55:58


Post by: Ishagu


I'm not the one dismissing opinions by claiming one method of play is more competitive than the other.

Why is it that when I listen to a podcast, or read an article about the ITC, no one refers to it as the homebrew that it is? There is certainly some denial in the community. What justifies it in an era of annual, tournament updates in the official rules? That same denial.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:11:33


Post by: Slipspace


 Ishagu wrote:
The moment that an ITC supporter shows any amount of condescending attitude towards those who disagree, it confirms all the negative stereotypes that surround the competitive ITC crowd.

If they can't accept that the ITC mission and terrain rules are nothing more than a homebrew it shows quite the level of denial on their part too.


Good evening Pot, may I introduce you to my friend ITC Kettle?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ishagu wrote:
I'm not the one dismissing opinions by claiming one method of play is more competitive than the other.

Why is it that when I listen to a podcast, or read an article about the ITC, no one refers to it as the homebrew that it is? There is certainly some denial in the community. What justifies it in an era of annual, tournament updates in the official rules? That same denial.


Maybe nobody but you cares what definitions you apply to a rule set? Maybe they have enough faith in the intelligence of the community to know they don't have to repeat the ridiculously obvious fact it's not the official GW rules every time they mention them? The justification comes from the sheer number of people playing ITC.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:15:24


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ishagu wrote:
I'm not the one dismissing opinions by claiming one method of play is more competitive than the other.

Why is it that when I listen to a podcast, or read an article about the ITC, no one refers to it as the homebrew that it is? There is certainly some denial in the community. What justifies it in an era of annual, tournament updates in the official rules? That same denial.


Because it is a needlessly pedantic attempt at dismissing ITC whole cloth. CA gets dismissed, because it has no data to support it. And we've been over this problem, frequently.

I'm all for CA, but you're not doing it any favors with this hubris.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:19:38


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:24:02


Post by: Ishagu


 Ishagu wrote:
Unwillingness to try is another effective example of the condescending attitude of the ITC community. They refuse to play it so data can't accumulate, and dismiss it because the data doesn't magically exist.


Unwillingness to try is another effective example of the condescending attitude of the ITC community. They refuse to play it so data can't accumulate, and dismiss it because the data doesn't magically exist.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:24:02


Post by: Asmodai


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.


You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:25:05


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.


The onus is not on ITC to solve that problem. ITC allows CA missions to be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ishagu wrote:
They refuse to play it so data can't accumulate, and dismiss it because the data doesn't magically exist.


This is an amusingly ridiculous statement.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:25:50


Post by: Ishagu


 Asmodai wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.


You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.


None of the biggest ITC events are using anything other than ITC missions. The smaller ones generally follow suit as they serve as practice for the bigger ones to many players. A few exceptions exist, of course, but very few.

When the LVO switches to CA missions give me a call. This very topic is literally full of people who dismiss CA because of lacking data.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:27:01


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Asmodai wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.


You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.


Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:28:17


Post by: Ishagu


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Asmodai wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.


You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.


Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...


Apparently there's thousands of ITC events that use CA missions so no reason to complain. Oh wait


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:29:33


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...


If someone is working to advance the cause for CA I'm not sure they should care about ITC points one way or another. And you need majors so some schlub beating up the local scene doesn't get to the top of the pile.

The important part is logging tournament results to acquire data.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:30:32


Post by: Ishagu


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...


If someone is working to advance the cause for CA I'm not sure they should care about ITC points one way or another. And you need majors so some schlub beating up the local scene doesn't get to the top of the pile.

The important part is logging tournament results to acquire data.


By all means, point us to regular CA tournaments in the ITC so we can log that data.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:30:40


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.


The onus is not on ITC to solve that problem. ITC allows CA missions to be used.


Methinks the problem could most easily and expediently be solved by ITC not producing their own missions packet.

Of course, we could also split the playerbase by having two entirely distinct and largely unrelated ways of playing the game so that balancing it for one inherently imbalances it in the other. I suppose that's okay too. For some people.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:41:01


Post by: Dudeface


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.


The onus is not on ITC to solve that problem. ITC allows CA missions to be used.


Methinks the problem could most easily and expediently be solved by ITC not producing their own missions packet.

Of course, we could also split the playerbase by having two entirely distinct and largely unrelated ways of playing the game so that balancing it for one inherently imbalances it in the other. I suppose that's okay too. For some people.


There are many reasons CA doesn't gain mileage with the US scene, mostly due to inertia from the social status quo of people play ITC so they'll play ITC mentality. That's sadly just a very human thing to do, but it's down to players to want to play non-ITC missions which they're unfamiliar with and their lists and tactics aren't geared up for.

But agreed, as long as a mission structure is used that punishes some units/unit types by virtue of existing (such as low save/toughness transports giving up easy secondaries etc), the balance of things will be out of whack for non-ITC games.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:42:35


Post by: Asmodai


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Asmodai wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.


You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.


Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...


Yes they will. Tournaments that use CA or their custom missions (e.g. Adepticon) still award ITC points if they're set-up to submit the scores.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:46:20


Post by: Ishagu


Dudeface wrote:

There are many reasons CA doesn't gain mileage with the US scene, mostly due to inertia from the social status quo of people play ITC so they'll play ITC mentality. That's sadly just a very human thing to do, but it's down to players to want to play non-ITC missions which they're unfamiliar with and their lists and tactics aren't geared up for.

But agreed, as long as a mission structure is used that punishes some units/unit types by virtue of existing (such as low save/toughness transports giving up easy secondaries etc), the balance of things will be out of whack for non-ITC games.


The sheer fact that entire groups of players are unfamiliar with the real, official mission rules of 40k is the pinnacle of the dismissive attitude prevalent in the ITC community.

GW is delivering what people have been asking for in regular balance and mission updates.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:47:29


Post by: Gadzilla666


Ok, so if ITC now allows ca missions, are there any ITC tournaments playing ca missions? If so do we have any data from them to compare? Or is everyone having too much fun making the same arguements in circles?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:51:33


Post by: Dudeface


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, so if ITC now allows ca missions, are there any ITC tournaments playing ca missions? If so do we have any data from them to compare? Or is everyone having too much fun making the same adjustments in circles?


I don't believe so because they only want to use the ITC champs missions which is the self-perpetuating issue. I'd quite like to see one of the FLG tourneys use only CA and see what happens, since I'd bet a lot of people just wouldn't turn up rather than try something different.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:52:34


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Asmodai wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Asmodai wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.


You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.


Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...


Yes they will. Tournaments that use CA or their custom missions (e.g. Adepticon) still award ITC points if they're set-up to submit the scores.


Then I was lied to by a friend, lol. Or perhaps he said something like "The ones that run CA also typically don't submit the scores" or something.

Either way, the point is that the #1 reason we don't have more data on the CA missions is because ITC produces its own mission packet. So to say we have to continue using the ITC-produced mission packet because there's no CA data is frankly...

... well, it's like a self-licking ice cream cone in terms of utility as an argument. Tautologies are the weakest form of truth.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 15:59:28


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Ishagu wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

There are many reasons CA doesn't gain mileage with the US scene, mostly due to inertia from the social status quo of people play ITC so they'll play ITC mentality. That's sadly just a very human thing to do, but it's down to players to want to play non-ITC missions which they're unfamiliar with and their lists and tactics aren't geared up for.

But agreed, as long as a mission structure is used that punishes some units/unit types by virtue of existing (such as low save/toughness transports giving up easy secondaries etc), the balance of things will be out of whack for non-ITC games.


The sheer fact that entire groups of players are unfamiliar with the real, official mission rules of 40k is the pinnacle of the dismissive attitude prevalent in the ITC community.

GW is delivering what people have been asking for in regular balance and mission updates.


Dude, the original GW missions used to suck, hard. This means many people swapped to ITC because it offered a better mission pack/environment for a competitive approach to the game.
Its been 3 months since the latest CA, which is basically the first one to have decent missions in it. Theres some inertia going on where many people aren't aware that the missions got better because they are used to knowing that they suck. ITC recently said that CA missions can be used in their tournaments, the thing is that there hasnt been enough data in the couple of weeks since that announcement. People aren't dismissing CA out of spite, theyre dismissing it because the status quo used to be that they sucked. You coming in this thread acting all high and mighty isn't the proper way to make people want to try them out.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 16:05:12


Post by: Jidmah


 Daedalus81 wrote:
CA gets dismissed, because it has no data to support it. And we've been over this problem, frequently.


"No data" is not true though. We have almost a dozen GT running CA2019, all showing the same trends of increased list and faction diversity compared to ITC tournaments held at the same time.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 16:08:55


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ishagu wrote:

The sheer fact that entire groups of players are unfamiliar with the real, official mission rules of 40k is the pinnacle of the dismissive attitude prevalent in the ITC community.


Assertion without evidence, which makes the latter part of your statement ironic.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 16:11:39


Post by: Ishagu


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:

The sheer fact that entire groups of players are unfamiliar with the real, official mission rules of 40k is the pinnacle of the dismissive attitude prevalent in the ITC community.


Assertion without evidence, which makes the latter part of your statement ironic.


Like your assertion about lots of ITC tournaments that are running the CA missions?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 16:13:45


Post by: Daedalus81


 Jidmah wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
CA gets dismissed, because it has no data to support it. And we've been over this problem, frequently.


"No data" is not true though. We have almost a dozen GT running CA2019, all showing the same trends of increased list and faction diversity compared to ITC tournaments held at the same time.


I've seen a couple with in the last half year. Where would I find the rest?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 16:22:40


Post by: BrookM


Hey guys, if we could stick to the topic at hand that would be great.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 16:29:00


Post by: Ordana


ITC has always* allowed other missions but small tournaments follow what big tournaments do. That is simply how the world works and has always worked.
Same with ETC/WTC only being 1 tournament that a very small select group of people ever went to but a good number of tournaments that have nothing to do with it copy their approach.

So long as the big ITC tournaments do not run CA missions the small ones are unlikely to follow.

*as far as I am aware.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 16:30:57


Post by: Unit1126PLL


So the answer to the thread title is "Yes, unequivocally." then?

Based on what I see on this page at least.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 16:40:43


Post by: Martel732


I expect there to be a mix, since both sides have valid points. "Official GW rules" just isn't one of them. I don't give a feth what GW says is official or not.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 16:48:37


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Martel732 wrote:
I expect there to be a mix, since both sides have valid points. "Official GW rules" just isn't one of them. I don't give a feth what GW says is official or not.

The nicest thing to do would be for GW to publish how they expect the game to be balanced (e.g. "we target 1500 points and the open war cards in our balancing efforts" vs "we target 250 points on a 3x2 board using the Urban Conquest missions" vs "2000 pts on a 6x4 using Eternal War and Maelstrom missions"). But that will never happen.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 16:49:05


Post by: Martel732


Yeah, that would help a LOT.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 16:54:43


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ishagu wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:

The sheer fact that entire groups of players are unfamiliar with the real, official mission rules of 40k is the pinnacle of the dismissive attitude prevalent in the ITC community.


Assertion without evidence, which makes the latter part of your statement ironic.


Like your assertion about lots of ITC tournaments that are running the CA missions?


I think you've misread my statement.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 17:25:47


Post by: Dudeface


Martel732 wrote:
I expect there to be a mix, since both sides have valid points. "Official GW rules" just isn't one of them. I don't give a feth what GW says is official or not.


No you don't, but the balancing team should and should only balance the game around their own rules.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 17:49:16


Post by: Gadzilla666


Dudeface wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I expect there to be a mix, since both sides have valid points. "Official GW rules" just isn't one of them. I don't give a feth what GW says is official or not.


No you don't, but the balancing team should and should only balance the game around their own rules.

Seconded. But in order to do that they need to start collecting actual data on faction and unit performance, not just what everyone is complaining about on their fb page. A little playtesting wouldn't hurt either.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 17:51:44


Post by: Martel732


Dudeface wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I expect there to be a mix, since both sides have valid points. "Official GW rules" just isn't one of them. I don't give a feth what GW says is official or not.


No you don't, but the balancing team should and should only balance the game around their own rules.


Unless they decide otherwise. It's possible they don't consider their own rules "official". Who knows?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 18:14:10


Post by: deviantduck


I guess a lot of people don't realize the I in ITC is Independent. ITC is a framework for scoring and tracking tournaments so players can have a competitive scene. Since day 1 they've encouraged everyone to run your tournaments however you want. At the end of the day, submit your scores and get it all counted. That's it. That's the whole deal.

Traditionally, GW missions were silly so FLG took it upon themselves to make a suggested mission packet. By no means was this mandatory. I've played in several Highlander style ITC missions. Where does that fall in this discussion? The FLG mission packet was fun and caught on so it because the status quo because it was the best. LVO is ran by FLG, so they use their mission packet. Makes sense. Adepticon is ran by another group and they have their own custom mission and scoring packet. Nova as well. The 3 biggest tournies use 3 different sets of missions and all report ITC scores.

No one is stopping anyone from using CA missions in ITC.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 18:56:45


Post by: Dudeface


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I expect there to be a mix, since both sides have valid points. "Official GW rules" just isn't one of them. I don't give a feth what GW says is official or not.


No you don't, but the balancing team should and should only balance the game around their own rules.

Seconded. But in order to do that they need to start collecting actual data on faction and unit performance, not just what everyone is complaining about on their fb page. A little playtesting wouldn't hurt either.


We don't know what they do or don't have access to, nor what playtesting it actually receives for certain. Would be good to know though!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I expect there to be a mix, since both sides have valid points. "Official GW rules" just isn't one of them. I don't give a feth what GW says is official or not.


No you don't, but the balancing team should and should only balance the game around their own rules.


Unless they decide otherwise. It's possible they don't consider their own rules "official". Who knows?


Or they could buy out FLG and just kill the mission pack dead, or they could formally publish ITC missions with their own guidelines.ofc then you're stuck playing what GW intends again and however they want the secondaries to look.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 19:02:07


Post by: Martel732


I don't think they care that much as evidenced by the quality of their tournaments.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 19:37:27


Post by: Dudeface


Martel732 wrote:
I don't think they care that much as evidenced by the quality of their tournaments.


Ooh I don't know. "ITC champs mission packs, 15$ per season, organiser packs $50!!!!"


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 19:53:04


Post by: Blndmage


Martel732 wrote:
I don't think they care that much as evidenced by the quality of their tournaments.

What's so terrible about GW run tournaments??


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 20:37:14


Post by: Ordana


 Blndmage wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't think they care that much as evidenced by the quality of their tournaments.

What's so terrible about GW run tournaments??
I'm expecting him to complain about including soft scores.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 20:39:31


Post by: JNAProductions


 Ordana wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't think they care that much as evidenced by the quality of their tournaments.

What's so terrible about GW run tournaments??
I'm expecting him to complain about including soft scores.
To be fair, I don't think soft scores should count for the game part of the tournament.

In essence, what I think they should do is have two categories of prizes and rankings-the game part, where you go against other players and see who is able to win the best; and the painting/modeling part, where you're ranked on how awesome your models look. I also think you should be able to enter one without entering the other, if you wish, though obviously for a GW sponsored tournament there'd be painting minimums, even if you don't want to enter the painting part.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 20:40:21


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Ordana wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't think they care that much as evidenced by the quality of their tournaments.

What's so terrible about GW run tournaments??
I'm expecting him to complain about including soft scores.

No kill points! Overpowered hordes! Fw units! Aaarrrgghhh!!!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 20:45:46


Post by: Dudeface


 Ordana wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't think they care that much as evidenced by the quality of their tournaments.

What's so terrible about GW run tournaments??
I'm expecting him to complain about including soft scores.


When was the last GW ran tournament in the US?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 20:53:54


Post by: Martel732


Does it matter? But yes, i find soft scores unacceptable.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 21:04:03


Post by: Karol


They are easy to manipulate, and make not the best, but the most liked the edge. A competitor shouldn't be liked, he should be the best .


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 21:22:51


Post by: Melissia


Karol wrote:
A competitor shouldn't be liked, he should be the best .

If a competitor is a salty little bitch even when s/he wins, and treats his/her opponents like trash, s/he isn't the best.

Just because someone won a tournament doesn't necessitate them being a better player. Especially not in a game with so many random elements as 40k where luck can and will throw games on way or the other with ease. It's very easy to simply luck out one way or the other when you have so few games as a tournament will have, and tournaments can hardly have more games, because of how long games of 40k take.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 21:42:37


Post by: Dudeface


Simple answer is to have 2 top level prizes, 1 for sportsman ship, 1 for general and if need really be 1 for both added.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 21:53:26


Post by: Ordana


Dudeface wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't think they care that much as evidenced by the quality of their tournaments.

What's so terrible about GW run tournaments??
I'm expecting him to complain about including soft scores.


When was the last GW ran tournament in the US?
I think your expecting me to say something about many years ago.
It was actually 10/11th August 2019 for the US Grand Tournament.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/03/north-american-grand-tournamentfw-homepage-post-2gw-homepage-post-4/


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 22:06:15


Post by: sieGermans


The best player for the hobby is absolutely the winningest player with the highest level of courtesy and tact.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 22:12:10


Post by: AnomanderRake


Karol wrote:
...A competitor shouldn't be liked, he should be the best .


You must be a joy to play against.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 22:22:50


Post by: Not Online!!!


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Karol wrote:
...A competitor shouldn't be liked, he should be the best .


You must be a joy to play against.


No , the poor sod by his own admission has interaction issues which is why he is either Blunt as hell or competitively minded and on top his local scene is absolute trash tier in the player friendly realm.

Be nice to him.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
sieGermans wrote:
The best player for the hobby is absolutely the winningest player with the highest level of courtesy and tact.


A propper gentleork so to speak in dakka terms.
With tophat and manners


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/04 22:48:23


Post by: Tygre


Maybe for Sportsmanship scores in tournaments the players rank the players they face and points are awarded accordingly. For example in an 8 heat tournament the best sport you would give an 8 and the worst sport you would give a 1. That would give fairer results (IMHO).


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/05 00:56:56


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Man, I kicked the hornets nest didn't I.

Jidmah wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Jidmah wrote:

What exactly is too random about the CA missions?


That several of the missions are of exceptionally low quality. There are about 3 decent ones and 3 bad ones. A mission pack being 1 pretty good one is far better.

I've expressed that I'd prefer crusade or 4 pillars to ITC. Crusade is really good, and 4 pillars is just ITC without the secondaries, which is an improvement.

All that is just personal preference though. I don't like crusade because it rewards casteling up and shooting too much, with little to no reward for agressive plays. Not a single thing about that is random.

Most everybody agrees that maelstrom is too much random since only like one store I've been to plays it, which is informing my belief that this whole thing about "needs to be random to force adaptation". Pretty much everybody agrees that how you win shouldn't be random, so few people play maelstrom.

When you had a deck of 36 cards which might elevate you to 20+ VP one game while it kept you at 3-5 in another, I agree with this. I stopped playing maelstrom during CA2018 for this reason, despite loving the idea - the game was won by the deck, not by the players.
CA2019 though? Both players tend to burn through 15-16 out of 18 objectives (assuming no turn 6) of their choice and can spend CP to eliminate the unlikely chance of a dry spell all together. When one of the new maelstrom games is lost by a large margin, it's usually because one player is getting pasted on the battlefield.

Jidmah wrote:So... why didn't your opponent bring units with fly or fast units or scouting units? Have units with bombs to blow holes in your barrier? Or use stratagems or warlord traits that allow redeployment like da jump? Or fight twice stratagems to not only punish you for setting yourself up for first turn charges, but also to consolidate onto the objectives? Or stratagems that allow you to shoot stuff that's coming too close like punishing volley or auspex scan? Why didn't he put his three markers in positions where he can defend them easily during turn 1 and 2 instead of putting them midfield? Why didn't he just just charge a friggin daemon primarch/melee knight/lord of skulls into half your army?
*no answer*


I didn't really think it needed an answer. Four points, though, since you want one:
1: Objective markers are placed before determining deployment zones, and placed by alternating order, 6" in and 12" apart. That basically should say all you need to know about why he didn't and could not place his objective markers safely in his zone. He A: didn't know where his zone would be or even what it would look like, and B: had to place his objectives such that they were far enough away from the ones I put down. In general, I try to place objectives in such a way that it prevents my opponent from placing objectives in good positions, like sheltered buildings and board corners. My basic process for objective placement is along the lines as follows: Usually, my first objective goes towards the midboard, just far enough from the edges that the 12"+6" will prevent objectives from being placed further edgeward than it, and usually in the open more than 3" from any good positions or cover. My second objective is usually placed more into the potential zones, but also in the open because I have no guarantee that the one I place it in will be mine. Last one goes somewhere that's left, or is placed aggressively to interfere with the opponent's placement. Some times I shake this up if I'm facing somebody who I don't expect to be able to really last long in the middle against and get my objectives in edges and corners, but it's risky to do that since there's like a 50/50 chance that I could just get completely screwed if I put objectives in safe places and they don't do the same. You usually want to mirror the enemy objective placement. If one player places defensively and one player places aggressively, you stand a chance to just get really screwed if you don't get to pick zones.
2: He obviously didn't have a daemon primarch or lord of skulls. You're getting kind of ridiculous here. Beyond just not owning one, I haven't seen a Lord of Skulls on the table for the entire duration of it's existence as a model, a player reasonably new to the game definitely has no expectation owning one much less using one.
3: Only units within 1" of the enemy [or charged in the charge phase] are eligible to fight. To the best of my or his understanding, he can't Fury of Khorne an unengaged unit for 6" of movement towards the closest enemy unit.
4: Movement occurs before psychic, shooting, and fighting. He doesn't have an opportunity to clear the screen until after he's been unable to cross it.

Jidmah wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Enemy had transports in that game. Neither bikes nor transports can move through buildings or other models. It's not having a high speed, it's being able to be there before the enemy gets there. If I have infiltrators, and you have infiltrators, if I have first set up then only I get to use my infiltrators, basically [at least, if I have like 3 or 4, which is pretty standard for a SM list. My Space Wolves run 2 infiltrators plus eliminators plus phobos wolf lord, which is 4 placements and enough to pretty much deny forward placement to the enemy if I go first. Other SM lists from my friends have more, with invictors and incursors and etc]. If I have infiltrators and you have vanguarders, I get to use my infiltrators but you don't get to use your vanguarders.

I also didn't try to go for the full all out-aggression in the other lockdown game I played, since the first one went well but had a lot of opportunity to go wrong since I was relying on 9" charges without fixing, and it's just turned out that the one I needed most happened. The second time I played I played the same basic strategy but more conservative and controlled for a turn 3 win that I felt more assured of getting.
6:13 [5-2, then 4-2, then 2-2], only if the other one in your deploy doesn't go away. If the 25% chance that the second one in your deploy is #2, it's 4:14 [5-2, then 5-1, then 4-1] [and 5:13 if it's #3], if you're starting your turn 4 in your deployment zone, you can't reasonably expect to actually score 4 [3 objectives are in play on t4, and 2 on t5+], 3, and 3 points for the rest of the game with normal or transported movement. And if you can't take #1 immediately, then you're looking at scoring 9 more points to their 1 more, which going into that at 4:14 isn't enough to win remotely.
Objectives are placed by alternating order 6" in and 12" from each other before determining deploy pattern. We usually approach this making our #1 or #2 placement such that it inconveniences people trying to take them and prevents them from being positioned into well-defended and sheltered locations.
As for whether he could have played better we've already had this discussion, since we discussed this scenario like 5 pages ago when it was closer to having happened. He could have played better if he had known what was going to happen, and he was newish and I not nearly so, so I was much more likely to win than him. But I don't think that he really had the opportunity to make mistakes etc. that game. The decisions he did make were decently well informed and logical, but there just wasn't an opportunity for him to make a different.

So, to sum all that up:
- You are a player with years of experience, while the opponent was "newish". Considering your track record in other missions you are clearly the stronger player of you two.
- Your opponent's army was absolutely not equipped to handle the lockdown mission. If you bring 0 troops units to pillars, you are going to lose that as well.
- Your opponent is using units which are generally considered to not be working well in large numbers
- Your opponent dropped his objectives where they were convenient for you, but not for him
- Your opponent failed to clear objectives despite the units using to grab them not being particularly durable
- Your opponent failed to clear enough of your movement blockers to fit rhinos through
- You got lucky in crucial moments
So basically your opponent had a terrible list and made terrible decisions, while you had a perfect list and got lucky. And you blame the mission and its randomness?
Does one have a chance at winning in ITC when they bring lists which maximize their opponent's secondaries, are unable to clear and hold objectives and doesn't move out of their deployment zone?

Your tactic of blocking off the enemy's access to objectives works just as good or bad in crusade, he would have lost that mission for the same reason he lost lockdown.
From my experience from playing against invictors and phobos marines of any color, I know that getting that close to my orks or death guard is a death sentence for all those units, which then usually leads to a crushing victory for me due to the large amount of points they lose.


Okay, BR as best as I can reconstruct it [again], since it was like a month and a half ago:

Katherine, Grey Knights, 1500 [pre-RoTD]
GMNDK, Librarian, Strikes, Interceptors, Paladins, Paladin Ancient, Vendread
Opponent, Chaos Space Marines [Red Corsairs, I think], 1500
Cultists, shooty CSM, mounted up Berzerkers, Havocs, Apostle, and some miscellaneous HQ's and other units that I don't remember

Deployment was Dawn of War on Lockdown. I chose objective 1 to be deep in my field but exposed, he chose objective 6 to be inside a 3-sided multi-story building that was close to his frontline on one of the far flanks. I understand his logic for doing so, since it seemed pretty defensible, he put his havocs on top of the building, and the other choice deep in his zone was very exposed [and would come up objective #2]. That said, the choice ultimately proves fatal for him.

My deployment is unimportant, since most of my stuff was either in deep strike or going to redeploy on the first turn.
His deployment included havocs in the tower over #6 and cultists holding the objective on the first floor below them [a second fatal mistake on his part]. His Zerkers set up in the middle, behind a line of cultists to protect them from t1 charges.

Turn 1: Katherine
I moved up to take objectives, and then jumped my intercessors forward towards the middle to take the objective in the middle near him. I gated a unit of strikes over by #6. I shot some stuff in my shooting phase, presumably. Then I charged. The strikes made a lucky charge into the cultists guarding #6, and one of the interceptor squads charged into the cultists screening his berzerkers' rhinos. The cultists didn't offer resistance, and died or routed. The strikes packed up and consolidated onto #6 within the building, and the interceptors remained spread out to block his movement but consolidated forwards a little. They formed a line about a foot long between two buildings.
6-0

Turn 1: Opposition
Dismounts 'zerkers and characters from rhinos since the tanks won't be going anywhere. One group runs off to retake 6, one group stays to confront the interceptors. Shooty guys plink away at my interceptors in the midfield with their bolters and stuff ineffectively, and shoot almost all their big guns at the dreadknight 'cause it's scary, which is didn't die because it's a 3++ dreadknight grandmaster, and was only mildly irritated by degrading since it had a flamer anyway. He winds up having difficulties charging my guys in the building on point 6, and the group in the middle wipes out my screening interceptors. He fights with the berzerkers and then consolidates forwards a really long distance, but doesn't touch my interceptors in the middle, and I still hold the point.
7-2

Turn 2: Katherine
My deepstrikers arrive, and because the librarian is with them, they have re-rolled charges. My guys walking spread out to deny him drop zones for his guys, though I make sure to get a squad of strikes on the interceptors' point. to keep him from taking it. Some of the interceptors move around the clump of berzerkers and characters to try to mess with the shooty guys and empty rhinos, the others stay to fight the berzerkers. The battle starts to get going, and I shoot up some of his stuff with psybolts and the dreadknight's big flamer, and then charge in, ultimately destroying most of the 'zerker & character blob and his warlord there. I don't succeed in charging his berzerkers going to point 6, but I do succeed in charging some CSM hanging out with them with my paladins, and use the opportunity to put my Paladins in his way.
12-2

Turn 2: Opposition
He holds his reserves, since the only places they could come in have no useful LoS and are too far from objectives. His CSM and other stuff can't move past the replacement interceptors. They shoot away my interceptors, and the dreadknight. He will be honored by his chapter, he was a magnificent bullet sponge for all the lascannons and chaincannons. His berzerkers charge my paladins, destroying the last guy on the second swing, and though they consolidate a few guys into range of objective 6, they're not obsec so my strikes still have it.
13-2

Turn 3: Katherine
One of the points I hold disappears, and I start pulling back my army, which is starting to look very much worse for wear compared to his, towards the other objectives closer to me and in my zone. After my movement phase, he concedes the game, counting up the points and determining that he just doesn't think he can win even if he tables me by the end of it. He might have made it one more turn if he hadn't had put the cultists on the ground floor, but with his objective disappearing and being perpetually zoned into his deploy, he would have needed raptors or something else flying starting on-board to have actually had a chance at victory.



There was really one major fatal mistake he made, and that was setting up on objective 6, which allowed me to charge it and get on it. The actual choice of objective 6 wasn't bad, I probably would have done the same since it seemed easy to guard, well protected from 3 directions, and just a strong position to be in in general. It was the cultists sitting on it that broke it, since they were an available charge target that without I would have been sitting back in the midfield.

He made other mistakes too, that probably would have added up to him losing the game anyway, but he was less than a year into the hobby and it was his first 1500 points.



In my more recent game on Lockdown, it was less dramatic since I was more conservative and careful about it, but I pulled fundamentally the same trick of zoning in my enemy with Interceptors to prevent them from being able to access points. More recently, I started my warlord on the field and gated him forward so he could give re-rolls to the interceptors on the charge so they could make their charges so I would throw away fewer units and more reliably screen in a greater area [though RoTD also helped me out by upping my lethality between the first game and the second]. This one was also against Chaos, Alpha Legion this time but a superficially similar basic list concept, but a different player. He did better on points, using his AL stratagem toolbox to avoid being completely trapped in, and I played more conservatively with a less rapid win in mind. Also, both 2 and 3 wound up being objectives near or in his zone, which really sucked for him. He wound up conceding after turn three. I still wouldn't say Lockdown is a good mission. The first game was really bad, the second game was honestly not actually that much better, and kind of informed my thoughts on how I think it really does just come down to getting units out in the midfield earlier and taking the turn to rush the enemy and box them in. I don't think there are any FLY troop choices, so I think that SM infiltrators might actually be nigh on unbeatable in the mission if they take the first turn. I'm not really eager to try with my Space Wolves though, because I'd rather my weekly game be a good one with a good mission than prove a pet theory with a list tailored to win the worst mission in the packet to prove it's badness.

Though, on other bad missions in the packet and on Space Wolves, I just remembered I actually played ascension twice as well, so I'm actually 8-0-1 on CA missions. Wolves versus IG, and he didn't stand a chance because it was trivial for me to keep my characters alive on the objectives and kill his when they tried to contest it, since a wolf lord with a thunder hammer and a storm shield will basically always beat a company commander with a chainsword trying desperately to not-lose the game.


8-0-1 is technically a lot better record than I am on ITC missions [though I've played a lot more than 9 ITC games over the course of this edition], and that showing has been generated with all my factions instead of basically just my sisters of battle and sometimes my guard, but like I've felt like some of my games were just decided by the mission being drawn being massively in my favor, some were just unsatisfying, and some like the aforementioned were really one-sided in a way that I've only experienced in extreme cases in ITC missions. Coming back has also felt really hard in all of them that I played, with my early leads turning into runaway victories with careful play and even small early deficits taking like the rest of the game to claw my way back to win by a point or two [or the draw, which I trailed by 2 points in for the entire game until I matched the score on turn 5 right before the game ended by rolling a 2].

There are things I don't like about the ITC Champions Mission Packet. Mostly the secondaries, since they were not all created equal and are basically just designed to punish certain factions [*cough* Guard *cough* There's a reason I don't use my IG if anything other than pride/bragging rights is on the line, because it's like starting 12 points in the hole.] But overall, I do like them, and think I've had much better and closer games with them over the course of the edition.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/05 01:54:17


Post by: Smirrors


As far as I know, GW and FLG have been working together in some capacity for a while now but particularly last 2 years.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/05 01:57:48


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Melissia wrote:
Karol wrote:
A competitor shouldn't be liked, he should be the best .

If a competitor is a salty little bitch even when s/he wins, and treats his/her opponents like trash, s/he isn't the best.

Just because someone won a tournament doesn't necessitate them being a better player. Especially not in a game with so many random elements as 40k where luck can and will throw games on way or the other with ease. It's very easy to simply luck out one way or the other when you have so few games as a tournament will have, and tournaments can hardly have more games, because of how long games of 40k take.

So I guess only nice teams win the Superbowl/Champions League/Stanley Cup then...

If I go to a tournament I'd like to be able to treat it as if it were a sporting event and leave it all on the table. If I'm just playing a pickup game at the shop, I'll treat it more like a rec hockey league and soften my rougher edges. I suspect that most tournament players view things the same way.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/05 06:36:30


Post by: sieGermans


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Melissia wrote:
Karol wrote:
A competitor shouldn't be liked, he should be the best .

If a competitor is a salty little bitch even when s/he wins, and treats his/her opponents like trash, s/he isn't the best.

Just because someone won a tournament doesn't necessitate them being a better player. Especially not in a game with so many random elements as 40k where luck can and will throw games on way or the other with ease. It's very easy to simply luck out one way or the other when you have so few games as a tournament will have, and tournaments can hardly have more games, because of how long games of 40k take.

So I guess only nice teams win the Superbowl/Champions League/Stanley Cup then...

If I go to a tournament I'd like to be able to treat it as if it were a sporting event and leave it all on the table. If I'm just playing a pickup game at the shop, I'll treat it more like a rec hockey league and soften my rougher edges. I suspect that most tournament players view things the same way.


Most tournament players are pleasant and friendly here in Scotland (exceptions exist!) and bring a happy and courteous demeanor to the table.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/03/05 09:44:00


Post by: Ishagu


Karol wrote:
A competitor shouldn't be liked, he should be the best .


If 40k was an actual sport and a job where people generated their incomes you might have a point. As it stand, for 99.999% of people this is a voluntary hobby and nothing more.

So you are very wrong, you see. People don't HAVE to be there. They don't HAVE to put up with socially backward individuals.