My meta is exclusively BRB missions (not even Chapter Approved most of the time) and I'm trying to introduce other mission formats but it's been a struggle.
What would you say are the advantages of the ITC/ETC formats over BRB missions? How much better is your gaming experience? Is it pretty much the same? Is there too much unnecessary bookkeeping? Or is it as tactical and balanced as it seems to be to someone who hasn't played it but really wants to?
I've been sticking to the missions in the book. The game, the codexes, indexes, and such were built around them, not these other formats. (I don't have Chapter Approved yet, so I can't play those missions, but I'll add them to the list.)
The issue I have with the, in some cases automatic assumption, idea that everyone plays with ITC or ETC rules means that people can't easily discuss the game any more.
It creates weird moments, like when people give list advice and are referencing those formats, they tend to look down on folks that just play the missions in the book.
The main benefit of playing ITC/ETC formats is practicing for big tournaments that use them (though in the US I doubt you'll see ETC format).
Otherwise, there are some interesting/useful FAQs from ITC, like "lower levels of ruins block LOS".
My personal opinion though is that ITC missions are overall bad for the the game and the community. With the champions mission pack, ITC "jumped the shark": they revised an iteration of their mission concept that has been around since 6th/7th, rather than starting from scratch and the BRB missions because since those mission were bad in 7th, they must be bad in 8th. Basically, they created a new game where secondary objectives are king and the scoring format is very different than anything published by GW. Even when chapter approved came out, ITC doubled down on their decision to use their own missions. If the game is being played differently than designed, there's going to be balance issues. The worst part of it though is that ITC drives a wedge in the community in ways that an online forum never can; by creating an actual difference in gaming between "casual" and "competitive" players on the local level, where the tournament preppers are looking through the latest mission pack and the casual players are thumbing through the rulebook while they look for a pickup game.
I've overwhelmingly had a better experience with ITC scenarios. BRB missions for me feel stagnant, slow paced, with little need to move around the board until the last round. I actually think it also leads to more balanced play. There are armies out there that will always have hard counters. But with the secondary objectives in ITC you can still squeak out a win or a draw with smart play. I never feel like I've lost the game before the first roll in an ITC game, the same can't be said for other rule sets.
ETC I like because it basically takes the official missions and smooshes them a bit to make a more even experience. You don't really need to learn anything new to start playing it... you just have to understand you're playing 2 interwoven missions at the same time.
ITC champions missions... I sort of agree with the "jumped the shark" post above. When you have people tuning their lists by lopping off a guardsman here or there to avoid reaper, or taking exactly 5 jetbikes rather than 6 or 4 to minimize a 1pt loss... I feel like you have to admit you've introduced layers that weren't intended to be there.
In general I find the ITC scenarios better for formal competitive play. The main book missions are very dependant on killing each which, while fun, doesn't allow players to showuch strategy especially in the movement phase. Malestrom is a good step but it's so random that it often comes down to who got luckiest with their objective pulls.
ITC rules do the best job I feel at rewarding any stle of army but allowing you to kill, focus on objectives, or focus on secondaries but rarely can a player do it all which 1) allows for diverse armies to be brought and 2) keep games from devolving into a who can alpha strike the best.
Is it perfect or above crticism? Absolutely not. But for those who enjoy a formal or competitive scene I think the ITC scenarios are superior to just book or malestrom games.
ITC/ETC missions are largely unnecessary, my area uses only standard chapter approved missions for tournaments and we never felt the need to change that.
I really don't like the BRB missions. The Chapter Approved missions are ace though.
As for ITC/NOVA/<mission pack thingy>? I don't get the appeal. I play them when people want to practice their tournament lists against me, and I play Maelstrom from Chapter Approved, and I play Eternal War from Chapter Approved. It's all whatever, for me. I don't find ITC/NOVA to meaningfully improve the play experience, though there are some alterations.
Mainly, you end up with fiddly little things like "taking 19 models is better than 20, because of secondaries" or "you get 2 vps for killing a psyker, and 1 per tank and monster". They're just bizarre and fiddly, and I would consider it a stretch to call them "improvements."
I'll admit I've only played ITC missions but I do like their terrain rules and the way the scenerios are set up. It would be nice if they had more options for secondary scoring since it seems like I always take the same ones regardless of my opponent.
I enjoy the huge mix I tend to get between Maelstrom, Eternal War, and ITC/ETC missions. These three mission styles reward and penalise a lot of different styles of armies. I do find ITC to be the most balanced out of all of them, but the diversity suffers a bit, as you find your opponents will almost always pick the same kind of objectives against you. Still, it's a great system for determining a winner at a tournament and beyond. Maelstrom is a lot of fun as you scurry in a mad panic to score objectives and not fall behind, but a couple bad pulls while your opponent pulls hot can decide a game in a way that is a little outside player control, even if that occurrence is pretty rare. Eternal War is great for making a simple battle develop into a story. With points only being scored at the end, a natural dynamic and story develops. Eternal War is least like a game, and most like an event, which can be a lot of fun for pick-up matches.
If I had to choose between them, I'd pick Maelstrom, but I like having a range of each.
greyknight12 wrote: The main benefit of playing ITC/ETC formats is practicing for big tournaments that use them (though in the US I doubt you'll see ETC format).
Otherwise, there are some interesting/useful FAQs from ITC, like "lower levels of ruins block LOS".
My personal opinion though is that ITC missions are overall bad for the the game and the community. With the champions mission pack, ITC "jumped the shark": they revised an iteration of their mission concept that has been around since 6th/7th, rather than starting from scratch and the BRB missions because since those mission were bad in 7th, they must be bad in 8th. Basically, they created a new game where secondary objectives are king and the scoring format is very different than anything published by GW. Even when chapter approved came out, ITC doubled down on their decision to use their own missions. If the game is being played differently than designed, there's going to be balance issues. The worst part of it though is that ITC drives a wedge in the community in ways that an online forum never can; by creating an actual difference in gaming between "casual" and "competitive" players on the local level, where the tournament preppers are looking through the latest mission pack and the casual players are thumbing through the rulebook while they look for a pickup game.
Generally agree with this. I think the ITC missions are very well intended but both divide the community and present a skewed perspective of the state of the game. Too many gimmicky secondary objectives that are pretty easy to build around creates a dangerous sense of "what's OP" in an era where GW is taking a more active role in reacting to balance issues. That said, in terms of gameplay I can absolutely understand why people feel they taste better; I just think they're likely unhealthy long term.
I think if GW remains willing to take the wheel, its best for the game to let them. I think they really need a real tourney pack with options for painting requirements, updated scenarios, and terrain guidelines. ITC is very much what happens when the community gets impatient and fixes their own problems, but the game as a whole will benefit if GW takes the responsibility on themselves.
How do you play Eternal War/Maelstrom and not feel like the loser of the roll-off for placing objectives has a massive advantage? Personally, I almost always win 6 objective marker missions when I lose the roll-off.
karandrasss wrote: How do you play Eternal War/Maelstrom and not feel like the loser of the roll-off for placing objectives has a massive advantage? Personally, I almost always win 6 objective marker missions when I lose the roll-off.
That's hilarious, because I play a CC army. If the enemy dumps all the objectives in their deployment zone, my Slaanesh will be all over them turn 1, because I don't have to dork around leaving CC-daemonettes on objectives in my own DZ.
My army is more hampered by having stuff in my DZ than it is by the enemy having more stuff in theirs. 20 girl daemonette squads standing on my home objectives are doing nothing for ~160 points.
My personal opinion though is that ITC missions are overall bad for the the game and the community. With the champions mission pack, ITC "jumped the shark": they revised an iteration of their mission concept that has been around since 6th/7th, rather than starting from scratch and the BRB missions because since those mission were bad in 7th, they must be bad in 8th. Basically, they created a new game where secondary objectives are king and the scoring format is very different than anything published by GW. Even when chapter approved came out, ITC doubled down on their decision to use their own missions. If the game is being played differently than designed, there's going to be balance issues.
ITC is way more fun than BRB missions. I never play the BRB missions anymore. With that said, no one in my play group makes lists in an attempt to deny VPs with the ITC format, so that might be why we enjoy it so much. I really dislike the card draws, where games are part decided by lucky/unlucky draws.
I'm pretty flexible when it comes to missions imo. I play all kinds, I just love 40k.
However, the ONLY thing I bring up when we are playing, that I think the ITC should take credit for, is to modify maelstrom with 2 sets of three objectives instead of using 6. IE: you draw a 1-2, it's 1, 3-4 it's 2, 5-6 it's 3. Both players get a 1, 2, and 3 objective.
That change alone makes the games MUCH more enjoyable imo.
karandrasss wrote: My meta is exclusively BRB missions (not even Chapter Approved most of the time) and I'm trying to introduce other mission formats but it's been a struggle.
What would you say are the advantages of the ITC/ETC formats over BRB missions? How much better is your gaming experience? Is it pretty much the same? Is there too much unnecessary bookkeeping? Or is it as tactical and balanced as it seems to be to someone who hasn't played it but really wants to?
The advantage is that it's scored every turn, like maelstrom, but isn't random. 1 point for holding a point, 1 point for.holding more points, 1 point for killing a unit, 1 point for killing more units, 1 bonus point based on the mission, which I've only seen scored once by tabling all but one rhino and then playing the next 3 turns.
The disadvantage is that there are a dozen secondaries, each of which is worth up to 4 points, and you pick 3 to go for before the game. I don't like them. They're very list skewing among other things, and there are quite a few idiosyncrasies that appear in lists because of them [that's why Guard infantry squads need mortars in them, there's an objective for killing 10-model units]. In addition, I think they're worth too many points, since they must be achieved to have a chance at winning though the objectives, so they're more like primaries with taking the points as secondaries.
Honestly, is my game better for using ITC missions? No. Not at all. I like the idea of scoring objectives each turn, but their secondaries are awful.
karandrasss wrote: How do you play Eternal War/Maelstrom and not feel like the loser of the roll-off for placing objectives has a massive advantage? Personally, I almost always win 6 objective marker missions when I lose the roll-off.
If the enemy dumps all the objectives in their deployment zone
It's not like they have to. In fringe cases it might be better to place the objectives elsewhere. Being able to place second (i.e. reactively) and choose your zone after is still a huge advantage. How's your Slaneesh performing btw?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Northern85Star wrote: ITC is way more fun than BRB missions. I never play the BRB missions anymore. With that said, no one in my play group makes lists in an attempt to deny VPs with the ITC format, so that might be why we enjoy it so much. I really dislike the card draws, where games are part decided by lucky/unlucky draws.
How do you stop it from being a tabling game anyway? The main concern of people unfamiliar with ITC/ETC is none of it will matter if you can table your opponent or cripple them so badly that you can just scoop up objectives late game.
I like the chapter approved ones, mixing both eternal war and maelstrom missions. The games always feel balanced and engaging because you not only need to complete the maelstrom objetives, you have at the end of the game an specific task that you need to acomplish, and if you are behind in maelstrom but you have been intelligent and have completed the eternal war objetive thats a bunch of points that can put you ahead.
Honestly, is my game better for using ITC missions? No. Not at all. I like the idea of scoring objectives each turn, but their secondaries are awful.
I like progressive scoring in theory, but its a little hard in 40k. Getting overrun can be so game ending that its a little tricky to design scenarios around standing in the middle of the table turn 1. I think it could be done, but it probably requires something more akin to Steamroller zones as scoring areas, and maybe as a compromise start scoring turn 3 or so?
Maelstrom is really, really random. You can and will have games decided by the cards you or your opponent drew, especially if you are playing a format where the margin of victory matters. It’s fun, but it’s not competitive.
Introducing the ITC terrain setup and rules adds to a lot to the game.
The ruins that block line of sight make a lot of infantry units that are more or less unplayable even in non-competitive play are actually usable and movement matters more because being able to get into the ruins and charge out of them creates kind of a death zone for your enemy.
Balanced armies that contain artillery, mobile short ranged shooting and melee are encouraged by this setup, which I think is really nice.
buddha wrote: In general I find the ITC scenarios better for formal competitive play. The main book missions are very dependant on killing each which, while fun, doesn't allow players to showuch strategy especially in the movement phase. Malestrom is a good step but it's so random that it often comes down to who got luckiest with their objective pulls.
ITC rules do the best job I feel at rewarding any stle of army but allowing you to kill, focus on objectives, or focus on secondaries but rarely can a player do it all which 1) allows for diverse armies to be brought and 2) keep games from devolving into a who can alpha strike the best.
Is it perfect or above crticism? Absolutely not. But for those who enjoy a formal or competitive scene I think the ITC scenarios are superior to just book or malestrom games.
Is this actually your personal experience, or are you simply parroting the common defense of ITC?
Because the BRB and chapter approved missions, with one exception, don't reward you for killing the enemy unless you table them. In the ITC champions missions, 50% of the primary is ALWAYS related to body count (kill a unit, kill more units). Furthermore, most of the secondaries involve killing something. But I'll take my criticism a step further: Unless you are dead you will always hold an objective, and if you build killy enough you will always kill something. If you decide to prioritize killing and board control, you will also get "killed more" and with the distribution of objectives in the champions missions it's not difficult to deny "hold more" to your opponent. For the sake of argument though, we'll assume your opponent gets it. You would be tied, except that player A built his/her list to table their opponent, and picked the secondaries that involve killing specific things. By turn 3, player B is tabled. The problem is that Player B took the "objective" secondaries, and can only score 1 point per turn with their army spread across 4 table quarters, in their opponent's deployment zone, etc while there is no max per turn score on the "killing" secondaries. Player A achieved all their secondaries on their turn 3, and so has more points and wins even without the bonus for tabling. And the result of a table in the BRB and ITC missions is the same.
The point is that by focusing on killing over objectives you can reliably score 3/4 of the points a turn, and achieve your secondaries faster and in a way that compliments your overall army strategy. Playing for objectives is more difficult and requires you haphazardly disperse your army and hope it survives long enough to score enough to win. And in 8th edition, nothing can survive sustained firepower. Even a mixed strategy won't survive against one built solely to kill quickly.
I'm not trying to attack you personally @buddha, I've just heard the defense you gave a lot and don't think that it matches reality. Complexity doesn't equal balance.
karandrasss wrote: How do you play Eternal War/Maelstrom and not feel like the loser of the roll-off for placing objectives has a massive advantage? Personally, I almost always win 6 objective marker missions when I lose the roll-off.
By being a casual player group. But yeah, it's a pretty bad mechanic, which is why I usually just make sure that the objectives are somewhere FUN, not where they're going to win me the game.
On the core question: I've only played once with a similar ruleset to ITC (I think they used it as the basis and further modified it), and I didn't really like it. It's not bad, but regular Maelstrom missions are more fun to me - especially the CA ones.
Honestly, is my game better for using ITC missions? No. Not at all. I like the idea of scoring objectives each turn, but their secondaries are awful.
I like progressive scoring in theory, but its a little hard in 40k. Getting overrun can be so game ending that its a little tricky to design scenarios around standing in the middle of the table turn 1. I think it could be done, but it probably requires something more akin to Steamroller zones as scoring areas, and maybe as a compromise start scoring turn 3 or so?
That's the point. If you drive them back off the objective and deny them access, they should lose unless they can counterattack quickly, and in force. If you get totally overrun it should be game ending.
If were to design a "Katherine's Mission Pack", I'd go:
5 Objectives. At the end of the battle round, each objective is worth 1 point for controlling it. 6 different distributions for 6 missions.
1 Bonus Point, scenario dependent, that should be accomplish-able in early turns and from a position of disadvantage, so that way a player who's only slightly behind in position can keep up and the score not turn into a runaway snowball, but if you really get rolled back it won't help you.
Hold on, that's a good idea, I think, I'm going to do that right now.
I think the progressive scoring of ITC missions makes for a more engaging game without the randomness of the maelstrom cards (where lucky or unlucky draws will decide the outcome of a lot of games).
I don't like the secondaries of ITC missions. I feel like the concept is a good idea but they are too gamey (reaper), punish certain armies too much (sorry celestine, pask, chronos), or are too easy for certain armies to get.
I wish they went further with their terrain rules (intervening models/terrain providing cover, LOS from/to center of models base/hull, movement penalties for woods/craters/generic difficult terrain...)
All that being said the book missions are gak and CA has some stinkers but I think they tried to move in the right direction. I'm not familiar with ETC/ATC missions so maybe that's something I should look into.
buddha wrote: In general I find the ITC scenarios better for formal competitive play. The main book missions are very dependant on killing each which, while fun, doesn't allow players to showuch strategy especially in the movement phase. Malestrom is a good step but it's so random that it often comes down to who got luckiest with their objective pulls.
ITC rules do the best job I feel at rewarding any stle of army but allowing you to kill, focus on objectives, or focus on secondaries but rarely can a player do it all which 1) allows for diverse armies to be brought and 2) keep games from devolving into a who can alpha strike the best.
Is it perfect or above crticism? Absolutely not. But for those who enjoy a formal or competitive scene I think the ITC scenarios are superior to just book or malestrom games.
Is this actually your personal experience, or are you simply parroting the common defense of ITC?
Because the BRB and chapter approved missions, with one exception, don't reward you for killing the enemy unless you table them. In the ITC champions missions, 50% of the primary is ALWAYS related to body count (kill a unit, kill more units). Furthermore, most of the secondaries involve killing something. But I'll take my criticism a step further: Unless you are dead you will always hold an objective, and if you build killy enough you will always kill something. If you decide to prioritize killing and board control, you will also get "killed more" and with the distribution of objectives in the champions missions it's not difficult to deny "hold more" to your opponent. For the sake of argument though, we'll assume your opponent gets it. You would be tied, except that player A built his/her list to table their opponent, and picked the secondaries that involve killing specific things. By turn 3, player B is tabled. The problem is that Player B took the "objective" secondaries, and can only score 1 point per turn with their army spread across 4 table quarters, in their opponent's deployment zone, etc while there is no max per turn score on the "killing" secondaries. Player A achieved all their secondaries on their turn 3, and so has more points and wins even without the bonus for tabling. And the result of a table in the BRB and ITC missions is the same.
The point is that by focusing on killing over objectives you can reliably score 3/4 of the points a turn, and achieve your secondaries faster and in a way that compliments your overall army strategy. Playing for objectives is more difficult and requires you haphazardly disperse your army and hope it survives long enough to score enough to win. And in 8th edition, nothing can survive sustained firepower. Even a mixed strategy won't survive against one built solely to kill quickly.
I'm not trying to attack you personally @buddha, I've just heard the defense you gave a lot and don't think that it matches reality. Complexity doesn't equal balance.
Have you seen the top ITC players' streamed games on Twitch? Most of their games are nowhere near bloodbaths, lots of tying up while taking objectives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: I think the progressive scoring of ITC missions makes for a more engaging game without the randomness of the maelstrom cards (where lucky or unlucky draws will decide the outcome of a lot of games).
I don't like the secondaries of ITC missions. I feel like the concept is a good idea but they are too gamey (reaper), punish certain armies too much (sorry celestine, pask, chronos), or are too easy for certain armies to get.
I wish they went further with their terrain rules (intervening models/terrain providing cover, LOS from/to center of models base/hull, movement penalties for woods/craters/generic difficult terrain...)
All that being said the book missions are gak and CA has some stinkers but I think they tried to move in the right direction. I'm not familiar with ETC/ATC missions so maybe that's something I should look into.
Honestly, is my game better for using ITC missions? No. Not at all. I like the idea of scoring objectives each turn, but their secondaries are awful.
I like progressive scoring in theory, but its a little hard in 40k. Getting overrun can be so game ending that its a little tricky to design scenarios around standing in the middle of the table turn 1. I think it could be done, but it probably requires something more akin to Steamroller zones as scoring areas, and maybe as a compromise start scoring turn 3 or so?
That's the point. If you drive them back off the objective and deny them access, they should lose unless they can counterattack quickly, and in force. If you get totally overrun it should be game ending.
If were to design a "Katherine's Mission Pack", I'd go:
5 Objectives. At the end of the battle round, each objective is worth 1 point for controlling it. 6 different distributions for 6 missions.
1 Bonus Point, scenario dependent, that should be accomplish-able without having practically won the game, so that way a player who's only slightly behind in position can keep up and the score not turn into a runaway snowball, but if you really get rolled back it won't help you.
Right, the trick is figuring out the right timing for getting overrun. The game is designed in such a way that overrun armies often can cross the table and still succcessfully overrun the opponent. Putting a requirement to get to the center of the board turn 1 pretty much guarantees it will happen. There is just a little too much melee disparity in the game for scenarios to force a scrum in the way they do for Warmachine. I agree though with what you're saying, I just think the trick is finding a middle ground between first turn scoring and end of game scoring that works with the cadence of the game.
buddha wrote: In general I find the ITC scenarios better for formal competitive play. The main book missions are very dependant on killing each which, while fun, doesn't allow players to showuch strategy especially in the movement phase. Malestrom is a good step but it's so random that it often comes down to who got luckiest with their objective pulls.
ITC rules do the best job I feel at rewarding any stle of army but allowing you to kill, focus on objectives, or focus on secondaries but rarely can a player do it all which 1) allows for diverse armies to be brought and 2) keep games from devolving into a who can alpha strike the best.
Is it perfect or above crticism? Absolutely not. But for those who enjoy a formal or competitive scene I think the ITC scenarios are superior to just book or malestrom games.
Is this actually your personal experience, or are you simply parroting the common defense of ITC?
Because the BRB and chapter approved missions, with one exception, don't reward you for killing the enemy unless you table them. In the ITC champions missions, 50% of the primary is ALWAYS related to body count (kill a unit, kill more units). Furthermore, most of the secondaries involve killing something. But I'll take my criticism a step further: Unless you are dead you will always hold an objective, and if you build killy enough you will always kill something. If you decide to prioritize killing and board control, you will also get "killed more" and with the distribution of objectives in the champions missions it's not difficult to deny "hold more" to your opponent. For the sake of argument though, we'll assume your opponent gets it. You would be tied, except that player A built his/her list to table their opponent, and picked the secondaries that involve killing specific things. By turn 3, player B is tabled. The problem is that Player B took the "objective" secondaries, and can only score 1 point per turn with their army spread across 4 table quarters, in their opponent's deployment zone, etc while there is no max per turn score on the "killing" secondaries. Player A achieved all their secondaries on their turn 3, and so has more points and wins even without the bonus for tabling. And the result of a table in the BRB and ITC missions is the same.
The point is that by focusing on killing over objectives you can reliably score 3/4 of the points a turn, and achieve your secondaries faster and in a way that compliments your overall army strategy. Playing for objectives is more difficult and requires you haphazardly disperse your army and hope it survives long enough to score enough to win. And in 8th edition, nothing can survive sustained firepower. Even a mixed strategy won't survive against one built solely to kill quickly.
I'm not trying to attack you personally @buddha, I've just heard the defense you gave a lot and don't think that it matches reality. Complexity doesn't equal balance.
.
Most certainly my anecdotal experience. I'm a sterotypical mid range tournament player and when I go to small and large events I like seeing ITC missions are being played. They do encourage different playstyles in lists so I don't have to play against the same army every game which is appreciated. For my side I like the choice of selecting secondaries based on each game.
karandrasss wrote: How do you play Eternal War/Maelstrom and not feel like the loser of the roll-off for placing objectives has a massive advantage? Personally, I almost always win 6 objective marker missions when I lose the roll-off.
If the enemy dumps all the objectives in their deployment zone
It's not like they have to. In fringe cases it might be better to place the objectives elsewhere. Being able to place second (i.e. reactively) and choose your zone after is still a huge advantage. How's your Slaneesh performing btw?
Not just fringe cases. My superheavies like to get into assault too. In fact, all but one of my armies appreciates having to move across the board, and the one that doesn't is completely uncompetitive (malcador spam ftw!)
It's pretty good actually; it fairly easy rips up Guard and Knights, though it struggles against the really high-tier tournament lists, and ironically it struggles against CSM. In general, Slaanesh CSM are considerably better than Slaanesh Daemons, but I love my Daemons so *shrug*. I confess I /have/ attached two Defilers and some cultists lately for knight smashing. Defilers are pretty fantabulous at that. Considering making them Soul Grinders though...
ITC has several sub-formats. I personally prefer *combined arms* missions.
Combined arms missions each have a maelstrom component that uses a table instead of cards and an eternal war component.
The maelstrom portion is worth 8 VP, the eternal war, 8 VP, and there are three small side objectives worth 1 VP each, making each match out of 19 VP possible.
greyknight12 wrote: The main benefit of playing ITC/ETC formats is practicing for big tournaments that use them (though in the US I doubt you'll see ETC format).
Otherwise, there are some interesting/useful FAQs from ITC, like "lower levels of ruins block LOS".
My personal opinion though is that ITC missions are overall bad for the the game and the community. With the champions mission pack, ITC "jumped the shark": they revised an iteration of their mission concept that has been around since 6th/7th, rather than starting from scratch and the BRB missions because since those mission were bad in 7th, they must be bad in 8th. Basically, they created a new game where secondary objectives are king and the scoring format is very different than anything published by GW. Even when chapter approved came out, ITC doubled down on their decision to use their own missions. If the game is being played differently than designed, there's going to be balance issues. The worst part of it though is that ITC drives a wedge in the community in ways that an online forum never can; by creating an actual difference in gaming between "casual" and "competitive" players on the local level, where the tournament preppers are looking through the latest mission pack and the casual players are thumbing through the rulebook while they look for a pickup game.
There's going to be balance issues and even more with GW missions as is. You assume GW is actually trying to balance and have scenarios for that...Grave mistake. GW doesn't even attempt to make balanced game. Just shuffle meta around to sell models.
And GW scenarios SUCK encouraging just static gun lines. Couple that with GW's hideous terrain rules that make anything but big square blocks useless means SOMEBODY has to do something to fix mess GW has created to ensure fun and interesting games.
Having a variety of scenarios available and in common use helps keep the gaming party of the hobby fresh. If I was only playing BRB eternal war missions or something I would have burned out quickly again.
I personally play mostly Chapter Approved Maelstrom for FLGS night and ITC for events/event prep. This provides a nice balance.
I mostly play ITC champion pack missions (as I mostly play in local tournaments and tourney prep games and that's what my local uses).
I do agree with other posters though that ITC seems to be trying to fix balance at the same time GW is "trying" to do it so it feels like they are working cross purpose (I'd love to hear from anyone who knows the frontline guys or others who have influence on the ITC missions as to what they think about this). I know the ETC captains get together every so often to help try to balance their vs GWs balance and that would be an interesting place to be a fly on the wall as well.
greyknight12 wrote: The main benefit of playing ITC/ETC formats is practicing for big tournaments that use them (though in the US I doubt you'll see ETC format).
Otherwise, there are some interesting/useful FAQs from ITC, like "lower levels of ruins block LOS".
My personal opinion though is that ITC missions are overall bad for the the game and the community. With the champions mission pack, ITC "jumped the shark": they revised an iteration of their mission concept that has been around since 6th/7th, rather than starting from scratch and the BRB missions because since those mission were bad in 7th, they must be bad in 8th. Basically, they created a new game where secondary objectives are king and the scoring format is very different than anything published by GW. Even when chapter approved came out, ITC doubled down on their decision to use their own missions. If the game is being played differently than designed, there's going to be balance issues. The worst part of it though is that ITC drives a wedge in the community in ways that an online forum never can; by creating an actual difference in gaming between "casual" and "competitive" players on the local level, where the tournament preppers are looking through the latest mission pack and the casual players are thumbing through the rulebook while they look for a pickup game.
There's going to be balance issues and even more with GW missions as is. You assume GW is actually trying to balance and have scenarios for that...Grave mistake. GW doesn't even attempt to make balanced game. Just shuffle meta around to sell models.
And GW scenarios SUCK encouraging just static gun lines. Couple that with GW's hideous terrain rules that make anything but big square blocks useless means SOMEBODY has to do something to fix mess GW has created to ensure fun and interesting games.
What is so bad about the terrain rules? You want free 4++ saves for standing in bushes? Were those good terrain rules?
Quite a bit. It's easier to table your opponent if you're playing Eternal War, while Maelstrom can be thrown out of whack by lucky card draws. Domination and Supremacy being two cards that are only good if you've almost tabled your opponent and you want to rub it in spring to mind.
Blndmage wrote: I've been sticking to the missions in the book. The game, the codexes, indexes, and such were built around them, not these other formats. (I don't have Chapter Approved yet, so I can't play those missions, but I'll add them to the list.)
The issue I have with the, in some cases automatic assumption, idea that everyone plays with ITC or ETC rules means that people can't easily discuss the game any more.
It creates weird moments, like when people give list advice and are referencing those formats, they tend to look down on folks that just play the missions in the book.
The ITC missions were built around the codices and considerable player feedback and data. While the codices are subject to frequent erratas and FAQs, this isn't the same for the BRB. The BRB missions are for casual, varied fun, not balance. I play both, and enjoy both, but I think it's an incorrect assumption to think the codices and indices were built around the missions.
karandrasss wrote: My meta is exclusively BRB missions (not even Chapter Approved most of the time) and I'm trying to introduce other mission formats but it's been a struggle.
What would you say are the advantages of the ITC/ETC formats over BRB missions? How much better is your gaming experience? Is it pretty much the same? Is there too much unnecessary bookkeeping? Or is it as tactical and balanced as it seems to be to someone who hasn't played it but really wants to?
The advantage is that it's scored every turn, like maelstrom, but isn't random. 1 point for holding a point, 1 point for.holding more points, 1 point for killing a unit, 1 point for killing more units, 1 bonus point based on the mission, which I've only seen scored once by tabling all but one rhino and then playing the next 3 turns.
The disadvantage is that there are a dozen secondaries, each of which is worth up to 4 points, and you pick 3 to go for before the game. I don't like them. They're very list skewing among other things, and there are quite a few idiosyncrasies that appear in lists because of them [that's why Guard infantry squads need mortars in them, there's an objective for killing 10-model units]. In addition, I think they're worth too many points, since they must be achieved to have a chance at winning though the objectives, so they're more like primaries with taking the points as secondaries.
Honestly, is my game better for using ITC missions? No. Not at all. I like the idea of scoring objectives each turn, but their secondaries are awful.
I don't really agree. The secondaries need to be important, because they drastically change the decision making on the table.
Even if IG have "9 man" squads they're still very open to Death by a Thousand Cuts. If they were susceptible to Reaper as well then the opponent could spend all game shooting IS to score points.
What they need is more varied secondaries and they're taking feedback on secondary changes currently.
I think the combined arms introduces too much randomness into the missions for hard core competitive players? Also, with the ITC season I think it may be considered bad form to change the scoring mid-stream?
I think they look fun but I'm starting to realize I'm more semi-competitive than really competitive (I still play SM...) and some of the more competitive players like as little left up to chance as possible (just another guess)
karandrasss wrote: My meta is exclusively BRB missions (not even Chapter Approved most of the time) and I'm trying to introduce other mission formats but it's been a struggle.
What would you say are the advantages of the ITC/ETC formats over BRB missions? How much better is your gaming experience? Is it pretty much the same? Is there too much unnecessary bookkeeping? Or is it as tactical and balanced as it seems to be to someone who hasn't played it but really wants to?
The advantage is that it's scored every turn, like maelstrom, but isn't random. 1 point for holding a point, 1 point for.holding more points, 1 point for killing a unit, 1 point for killing more units, 1 bonus point based on the mission, which I've only seen scored once by tabling all but one rhino and then playing the next 3 turns.
The disadvantage is that there are a dozen secondaries, each of which is worth up to 4 points, and you pick 3 to go for before the game. I don't like them. They're very list skewing among other things, and there are quite a few idiosyncrasies that appear in lists because of them [that's why Guard infantry squads need mortars in them, there's an objective for killing 10-model units]. In addition, I think they're worth too many points, since they must be achieved to have a chance at winning though the objectives, so they're more like primaries with taking the points as secondaries.
Honestly, is my game better for using ITC missions? No. Not at all. I like the idea of scoring objectives each turn, but their secondaries are awful.
I don't really agree. The secondaries need to be important, because they drastically change the decision making on the table.
Even if IG have "9 man" squads they're still very open to Death by a Thousand Cuts. If they were susceptible to Reaper as well then the opponent could spend all game shooting IS to score points.
What they need is more varied secondaries and they're taking feedback on secondary changes currently.
I've yet to have someone take 1k Cuts against me. Usually it's Headhunter, Big Game, and Old School, [because Tank Commanders qualify for both Big Game and Headhunter].
Though it's not about that fact that Reaper and Gangbuster and 1k Cuts are of whole different magnitudes in effect on an army, it's how many points they're worth. Currently, they're weighted to be roughly equal in stature to the primaries. I don't think they should be. Maybe 3 secondaries for 1 point each.
That's the point. If you drive them back off the objective and deny them access, they should lose unless they can counterattack quickly, and in force. If you get totally overrun it should be game ending.
If were to design a "Katherine's Mission Pack", I'd go:
5 Objectives. At the end of the battle round, each objective is worth 1 point for controlling it. 6 different distributions for 6 missions.
1 Bonus Point, scenario dependent, that should be accomplish-able in early turns and from a position of disadvantage, so that way a player who's only slightly behind in position can keep up and the score not turn into a runaway snowball, but if you really get rolled back it won't help you.
Hold on, that's a good idea, I think, I'm going to do that right now.
I thought about a scoring scheme that utilized progressive scoring, and did away with some of the parts of ITC that I don't like. Here's a draft of a scoring scheme and a few different objective dispersal patterns that might lead to different games. Any changes you think should be made?
Mission [Rationale in italics]
Spoiler:
DEPLOYMENT:
1: Players roll off.
2: The player who won the roll off rolls a die to determine the objective deployment scenario.
3: The player who won the roll off chooses the deployment pattern
4: The player who did not chose the deployment pattern chooses his/her deployment zone.
5: The player who won the roll off begins deployment, placing the first unit.
BEGINNING THE GAME:
1: Players roll off for the first turn. The player who finished deployment first gains a +1 to this roll for every 3 more units his/her opponent deployed than s/he deployed.
2: The player who won the roll off may chose to move first or second.
3: Players take all actions that occur “after deployment, but before the first player takes the first turn”. The player who will be taking the first turn takes these actions first.
The current +1 for finishing deployment first isn't enough. I feel that the rule as the edition dropped [first to finish goes first] was better, but it broke down when there were two armies with similar numbers of drops. This way, there's a small difference if your armies are close in size, but if your army is massive then you're not going to get off the first turn. Having a big army has so many advantages right now, at the very least a high chance of not going first should offset that some.
Seize the Initiative should also be done away with. In the past, it was basically a ticket to victory, and isn't a necessary measure of randomness.
GAME LENGTH:
Each game lasts 6 battle rounds. Each battle round consists of 2 player turns.
SCORING:
Take and Hold: At the end of each battle round, each player scores one point for each objective s/he controls.
Victory Needs No Explanation: At the end of the 6th battle round, each player scores one additional point for each objective s/he controls.
I think that end-of-round scoring is better than end-of-turn scoring. It will compensate for the disadvantage the second player has by making it require less for them to secure the objectives and deny them to their opponent, who doesn't just have to take it, but hold it.
There's concern is that an early lead may turn into a runaway lead, and that early pressure from fast troops might become too strong. To remedy this, during the last round, the objectives are worth additional points, so that an army that began the game on the backfoot can turn around and finish strong and still win.
Perhaps mission "twists" can be added to further increase diversity, but I'd like to stay away from points for killing things. Minor secondaries can be added, but I'd want to keep the secondary, which is my biggest complain with ITC missions.
CONTROLLING OBJECTIVES:
Objective Secured: An objective is considered “controlled” by a player if s/he has at least one friendly scoring unit and no enemy scoring units within 3” of the objective.
Stand Your Ground: An objective is considered “contested” if both players have scoring units within 3” of the objective. A contested objective within, or partially within, a deployment zone is considered controlled by the player whose deployment zone it is within. A contested objective that is not within a deployment zone is considered uncontrolled.
These measures make it harder for aggressive and mobile armies to completely dominate static ones if they can't continue to keep up the pressure. It's still disadvantageous to be on the defense, but not going to turn into a runaway lead that you can't recover from unless you get really overrun.
SCORING UNITS:
Backbone of the Army: Objectives are controlled by units referred to as “scoring units”. These are units which have a special rule indicating that it controls an objective marker even if there are more enemy models nearby the objective [IE: Defenders of Humanity, Despoilers of the Galaxy, etc.]. As a rule of thumb, these are infantry units with the “Troops” battlefield role. Transports with scoring units embarked on board count scoring units.
Objective Focus: A single scoring unit can only control one objective at a time.
I don't think it was a good idea for non-troops to score. This should lead to a general increase in the prevalence of troops choices, and a greater focus on protecting them and destroying your enemy's than just going ham on the enemy. By my consideration, 5-6 troop choices should be optimal.
TIES:
Ties are resolved in the following order:
1: The player who controls more objectives at the end of the game is awarded the victory.
2: The player who has a greater percent of his/her army remaining on the table is awarded the victory.
CONCESSION, TABLING, AND SHORT GAMES
Concession: If a player concedes before the game’s natural conclusion, s/he forfeits all scored points [his/her final score becomes 0 points] and his/her opponent immediately scores 5 points for each unfinished battle round.
Timeout: If the game timer expires before 6 rounds can be completed, no additional points are scored.
Sudden Death: If at the end of any battle round a player has no models remaining on the table, the game is not considered to immediately end, though play may be ceased and the players be awarded the maximum number of points they could score with their surviving units for unplayed turns. If, upon the conclusion of the game, a player has no models surviving, his/her opponent counts as controlling all 5 objectives for Victory Needs No Explanation only. Example: On turn 4, Alice destroys Bob's last unit, but only has 2 of her scoring units remaining. For Take and Hold on turns 4, 5, and 6, she would score 2 points each, and then score 5 for Victory Needs No Explanation, for a total of 11 additional points scored.
Karol wrote: I have never played ITC format, how much diffferent from normal games is it?
ITC missions reward you for playing the exact armies that the owners of Frontline Games play and punish you for playing ones they don't.
I don't think so.
The objectives are definitely not balanced to affect all the armies equally, though. It's probably not the armies they play, but I assume that it's not one guy with one army writing these things.
IG runs afoul of Reaper, Big Game Hunter, Headhunter, and 1k Cuts. You just sort of accept that you're giving up some and use odd workarounds for the others.
By comparison, Custodes, who should be the poster child for Gangbuster targets will actually almost never have it selected against them, because they actually only give up 1 or 2 points to it.
I don't have a problem with the primary objectives, but I don't like the secondaries.
karandrasss wrote: How do you play Eternal War/Maelstrom and not feel like the loser of the roll-off for placing objectives has a massive advantage? Personally, I almost always win 6 objective marker missions when I lose the roll-off.
If the enemy dumps all the objectives in their deployment zone
It's not like they have to. In fringe cases it might be better to place the objectives elsewhere. Being able to place second (i.e. reactively) and choose your zone after is still a huge advantage. How's your Slaneesh performing btw?
Not just fringe cases. My superheavies like to get into assault too. In fact, all but one of my armies appreciates having to move across the board, and the one that doesn't is completely uncompetitive (malcador spam ftw!)
It's pretty good actually; it fairly easy rips up Guard and Knights, though it struggles against the really high-tier tournament lists, and ironically it struggles against CSM. In general, Slaanesh CSM are considerably better than Slaanesh Daemons, but I love my Daemons so *shrug*. I confess I /have/ attached two Defilers and some cultists lately for knight smashing. Defilers are pretty fantabulous at that. Considering making them Soul Grinders though...
Superheavies are so easy to outnumber though, and most of them don't even have obsec. I guess you have a different meta, because I can't imagine our Guard and Knight players struggling against Slaneesh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChazSexington wrote: Quite a bit. It's easier to table your opponent if you're playing Eternal War, while Maelstrom can be thrown out of whack by lucky card draws. Domination and Supremacy being two cards that are only good if you've almost tabled your opponent and you want to rub it in spring to mind.
Blndmage wrote: I've been sticking to the missions in the book. The game, the codexes, indexes, and such were built around them, not these other formats. (I don't have Chapter Approved yet, so I can't play those missions, but I'll add them to the list.)
The issue I have with the, in some cases automatic assumption, idea that everyone plays with ITC or ETC rules means that people can't easily discuss the game any more.
It creates weird moments, like when people give list advice and are referencing those formats, they tend to look down on folks that just play the missions in the book.
The ITC missions were built around the codices and considerable player feedback and data. While the codices are subject to frequent erratas and FAQs, this isn't the same for the BRB. The BRB missions are for casual, varied fun, not balance. I play both, and enjoy both, but I think it's an incorrect assumption to think the codices and indices were built around the missions.
Why would it be easier to table with one mission format over another? Assuming you can house rule "first floor of ruins block line of sight" for BRB games or have sufficient terrain that don't need that rule anyway?
I think the combined arms introduces too much randomness into the missions for hard core competitive players? Also, with the ITC season I think it may be considered bad form to change the scoring mid-stream?
I think they look fun but I'm starting to realize I'm more semi-competitive than really competitive (I still play SM...) and some of the more competitive players like as little left up to chance as possible (just another guess)
My problem is the opposite. I'm a competitive player surrounded by people who think they're competitive but also think BRB missions are fine. Kill points and relic, seriously?
Karol wrote: I have never played ITC format, how much diffferent from normal games is it?
ITC missions reward you for playing the exact armies that the owners of Frontline Games play and punish you for playing ones they don't.
I don't think so.
The objectives are definitely not balanced to affect all the armies equally, though. It's probably not the armies they play, but I assume that it's not one guy with one army writing these things.
IG runs afoul of Reaper, Big Game Hunter, Headhunter, and 1k Cuts. You just sort of accept that you're giving up some and use odd workarounds for the others.
By comparison, Custodes, who should be the poster child for Gangbuster targets will actually almost never have it selected against them, because they actually only give up 1 or 2 points to it.
I don't have a problem with the primary objectives, but I don't like the secondaries.
My unconvinced meta would ask, "Why doesn't the IG player just build a list to table the opponent?"
I really don't like missions where points are scored for holding an objective on turn 2, for example. Who cares who holds it turn 2? Its who holds at the end of the game that matters. How much of your army is left at the end, how many kill points, etc you have.
The 40k theory is to kill more than the opponent, hold objectives at the end. I don't like maelstrom or itc as during the battle it really doesn't matter who holds what. The end is what matters.
Personally I think every mission should have old school fantasy style victory points incorporated to better represent what actually happened in the battle. This is not to say there should not be objectives, but the main reason why most people play, to kill the enemies army, is a major component of any victory conditions.
Heafstaag wrote: I really don't like missions where points are scored for holding an objective on turn 2, for example. Who cares who holds it turn 2? Its who holds at the end of the game that matters. How much of your army is left at the end, how many kill points, etc you have.
The 40k theory is to kill more than the opponent, hold objectives at the end. I don't like maelstrom or itc as during the battle it really doesn't matter who holds what. The end is what matters.
In that case the killier armies like Drukhari and IK will win every single time.
Heafstaag wrote: I really don't like missions where points are scored for holding an objective on turn 2, for example. Who cares who holds it turn 2? Its who holds at the end of the game that matters. How much of your army is left at the end, how many kill points, etc you have.
The 40k theory is to kill more than the opponent, hold objectives at the end. I don't like maelstrom or itc as during the battle it really doesn't matter who holds what. The end is what matters.
In that case the killier armies like Drukhari and IK will win every single time.
I amended my post above with further thoughts.
Some armies may win more than others, but that's always been the way of 40k.
The objectives are definitely not balanced to affect all the armies equally, though. It's probably not the armies they play, but I assume that it's not one guy with one army writing these things.
IG runs afoul of Reaper, Big Game Hunter, Headhunter, and 1k Cuts. You just sort of accept that you're giving up some and use odd workarounds for the others.
By comparison, Custodes, who should be the poster child for Gangbuster targets will actually almost never have it selected against them, because they actually only give up 1 or 2 points to it.
I don't have a problem with the primary objectives, but I don't like the secondaries.
My unconvinced meta would ask, "Why doesn't the IG player just build a list to table the opponent?"
... That's the result, and the exact thing we want mission design to discourage.
We don't want the mission design to encourage leaving that one miserable unit alive to farm more points, but we also don't want the mission design to favor ignoring the objectives completely in favor of trying to table them.
Also, while I've done it in a lot of games my IG has played, tabling someone who's trying to avoid being tabled at all costs is actually pretty hard.
I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
Tabling the opponent shouldn't be punished, and managing to hold out at all costs and sticking through a losing game should be rewarded, but at the same time, if you reward building a list that doesn't interact with the mission and just tries to obliterate the enemy, that's what will happen.
I think that, for some armies, ITC does highly encourage this. On your way to tabling the enemy, you'll score your secondaries, which are worth a ton of points, and succeeding in it means that you count as completing all the primaries anyway whether you actually did them. However, if you make those points just not happen, then you'll get a situation where you have one 2-wound razorback sitting in the corner that's been explicitly left alive so the opponent can farm points, knowing that it can't fight and you can't concede.
Anyway, I don't think ITC is the be all and end all of objective play and the savior of 40k. It's just another set of missions that you can use to play, and in some ways is an improvement, and in some ways is a downgrade. However, if you're happy playing to tabling, go ahead, and consider the open war missions and cards, it'll add a little extra diversity to your game.
karandrasss wrote: How do you play Eternal War/Maelstrom and not feel like the loser of the roll-off for placing objectives has a massive advantage? Personally, I almost always win 6 objective marker missions when I lose the roll-off.
If the enemy dumps all the objectives in their deployment zone
It's not like they have to. In fringe cases it might be better to place the objectives elsewhere. Being able to place second (i.e. reactively) and choose your zone after is still a huge advantage. How's your Slaneesh performing btw?
Not just fringe cases. My superheavies like to get into assault too. In fact, all but one of my armies appreciates having to move across the board, and the one that doesn't is completely uncompetitive (malcador spam ftw!)
It's pretty good actually; it fairly easy rips up Guard and Knights, though it struggles against the really high-tier tournament lists, and ironically it struggles against CSM. In general, Slaanesh CSM are considerably better than Slaanesh Daemons, but I love my Daemons so *shrug*. I confess I /have/ attached two Defilers and some cultists lately for knight smashing. Defilers are pretty fantabulous at that. Considering making them Soul Grinders though...
Superheavies are so easy to outnumber though, and most of them don't even have obsec. I guess you have a different meta, because I can't imagine our Guard and Knight players struggling against Slaneesh.
Guard generally can't handle my list because of how ridiculously good cc shenanigans are - catch a unit in combat with a single member from all my Daemonette squads and Zarakynel, but don't attack them - just make sure one model is surrounded so the unit can't fall back - then. Alternatively, catch a character in combat, Forbidden Gem them in the movement phase so they can't fall back, and be immune to bullets. Or snag a couple of fiends into something. Really? Slaanesh has the tools to make sure you can't fall back, and if you can't fall back, I am immune to bullets.
As for superheavies scoring: generally, my opponent's units don't live long enough to hold onto the objectives if they start on them (since I have big guns that can focus fire), and the superheavies themselves are so wide (with sponsons damn near exactly 7") that the enemy can't get within 3" of the center of the objective if I park on it, meaning they can't dive in and take it after the fact, either. Tallarn superheavies with the crush them! stratagem are especially fantastic at squishing their way to victory.
karandrasss wrote: How do you play Eternal War/Maelstrom and not feel like the loser of the roll-off for placing objectives has a massive advantage? Personally, I almost always win 6 objective marker missions when I lose the roll-off.
If the enemy dumps all the objectives in their deployment zone
It's not like they have to. In fringe cases it might be better to place the objectives elsewhere. Being able to place second (i.e. reactively) and choose your zone after is still a huge advantage. How's your Slaneesh performing btw?
Not just fringe cases. My superheavies like to get into assault too. In fact, all but one of my armies appreciates having to move across the board, and the one that doesn't is completely uncompetitive (malcador spam ftw!)
It's pretty good actually; it fairly easy rips up Guard and Knights, though it struggles against the really high-tier tournament lists, and ironically it struggles against CSM. In general, Slaanesh CSM are considerably better than Slaanesh Daemons, but I love my Daemons so *shrug*. I confess I /have/ attached two Defilers and some cultists lately for knight smashing. Defilers are pretty fantabulous at that. Considering making them Soul Grinders though...
Superheavies are so easy to outnumber though, and most of them don't even have obsec. I guess you have a different meta, because I can't imagine our Guard and Knight players struggling against Slaneesh.
Guard generally can't handle my list because of how ridiculously good cc shenanigans are - catch a unit in combat with a single member from all my Daemonette squads and Zarakynel, but don't attack them - just make sure one model is surrounded so the unit can't fall back - then. Alternatively, catch a character in combat, Forbidden Gem them in the movement phase so they can't fall back, and be immune to bullets. Or snag a couple of fiends into something. Really? Slaanesh has the tools to make sure you can't fall back, and if you can't fall back, I am immune to bullets.
As for superheavies scoring: generally, my opponent's units don't live long enough to hold onto the objectives if they start on them (since I have big guns that can focus fire), and the superheavies themselves are so wide (with sponsons damn near exactly 7") that the enemy can't get within 3" of the center of the objective if I park on it, meaning they can't dive in and take it after the fact, either. Tallarn superheavies with the crush them! stratagem are especially fantastic at squishing their way to victory.
Good...until you have to cross over 30" and they're hugging the edges with plenty of bubble wrap and probably Custodes jetbikes to get to your squishy melee units first.
Superheavies blocking objectives is so situational (i.e. there isn't enough terrain on the table, opponent placed objectives in the open for some reason) I'm not sure you've actually played these games...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Reading this thread i get the feeling that people have never looked at CA missions. If i sum up this thread it is:
"ITC is a necessary evil that does indeed skew balance, but it offers progressive non random scoring missions, which are gold".
And yet GW has provided us with plenty of non random progressive scoring missions in CA.
Which CA missions do you think are fine? How do you get around the fact that going second in placing objectives is such an enormous advantage? I pretty much win all my Dominate and Destroy games where I place second, for example.
Northern85Star wrote: ITC is way more fun than BRB missions. I never play the BRB missions anymore. With that said, no one in my play group makes lists in an attempt to deny VPs with the ITC format, so that might be why we enjoy it so much. I really dislike the card draws, where games are part decided by lucky/unlucky draws.
How do you stop it from being a tabling game anyway? The main concern of people unfamiliar with ITC/ETC is none of it will matter if you can table your opponent or cripple them so badly that you can just scoop up objectives late game.
Tabling is a thing in all the formats i’ve tried. ITC also adds a benefit to going second with the end of battle round scoring.
ITC isn't perfect, but it's progressive, non-random scoring so it's a hell of a lot better than GW's mission offerings. Once I started playing ITC missions I decided I never wanted to draw another maelstrom card again...
Northern85Star wrote: ITC is way more fun than BRB missions. I never play the BRB missions anymore. With that said, no one in my play group makes lists in an attempt to deny VPs with the ITC format, so that might be why we enjoy it so much. I really dislike the card draws, where games are part decided by lucky/unlucky draws.
How do you stop it from being a tabling game anyway? The main concern of people unfamiliar with ITC/ETC is none of it will matter if you can table your opponent or cripple them so badly that you can just scoop up objectives late game.
Tabling is a thing in all the formats i’ve tried. ITC also adds a benefit to going second with the end of battle round scoring.
So why learn a non-GW ruleset when it all goes to tabling anyway?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I thought about a scoring scheme that utilized progressive scoring, and did away with some of the parts of ITC that I don't like. Here's a draft of a scoring scheme and a few different objective dispersal patterns that might lead to different games. Any changes you think should be made?
Mission [Rationale in italics]
Spoiler:
DEPLOYMENT:
1: Players roll off.
2: The player who won the roll off rolls a die to determine the objective deployment scenario.
3: The player who won the roll off chooses the deployment pattern
4: The player who did not chose the deployment pattern chooses his/her deployment zone.
5: The player who won the roll off begins deployment, placing the first unit.
BEGINNING THE GAME:
1: Players roll off for the first turn. The player who finished deployment first gains a +1 to this roll for every 3 more units his/her opponent deployed than s/he deployed.
2: The player who won the roll off may chose to move first or second.
3: Players take all actions that occur “after deployment, but before the first player takes the first turn”. The player who will be taking the first turn takes these actions first.
The current +1 for finishing deployment first isn't enough. I feel that the rule as the edition dropped [first to finish goes first] was better, but it broke down when there were two armies with similar numbers of drops. This way, there's a small difference if your armies are close in size, but if your army is massive then you're not going to get off the first turn. Having a big army has so many advantages right now, at the very least a high chance of not going first should offset that some.
Seize the Initiative should also be done away with. In the past, it was basically a ticket to victory, and isn't a necessary measure of randomness.
GAME LENGTH:
Each game lasts 6 battle rounds. Each battle round consists of 2 player turns.
SCORING:
Take and Hold: At the end of each battle round, each player scores one point for each objective s/he controls.
Victory Needs No Explanation: At the end of the 6th battle round, each player scores one additional point for each objective s/he controls.
I think that end-of-round scoring is better than end-of-turn scoring. It will compensate for the disadvantage the second player has by making it require less for them to secure the objectives and deny them to their opponent, who doesn't just have to take it, but hold it.
There's concern is that an early lead may turn into a runaway lead, and that early pressure from fast troops might become too strong. To remedy this, during the last round, the objectives are worth additional points, so that an army that began the game on the backfoot can turn around and finish strong and still win.
Perhaps mission "twists" can be added to further increase diversity, but I'd like to stay away from points for killing things. Minor secondaries can be added, but I'd want to keep the secondary, which is my biggest complain with ITC missions.
CONTROLLING OBJECTIVES:
Objective Secured: An objective is considered “controlled” by a player if s/he has at least one friendly scoring unit and no enemy scoring units within 3” of the objective.
Stand Your Ground: An objective is considered “contested” if both players have scoring units within 3” of the objective. A contested objective within, or partially within, a deployment zone is considered controlled by the player whose deployment zone it is within. A contested objective that is not within a deployment zone is considered uncontrolled.
These measures make it harder for aggressive and mobile armies to completely dominate static ones if they can't continue to keep up the pressure. It's still disadvantageous to be on the defense, but not going to turn into a runaway lead that you can't recover from unless you get really overrun.
SCORING UNITS:
Backbone of the Army: Objectives are controlled by units referred to as “scoring units”. These are units which have a special rule indicating that it controls an objective marker even if there are more enemy models nearby the objective [IE: Defenders of Humanity, Despoilers of the Galaxy, etc.]. As a rule of thumb, these are infantry units with the “Troops” battlefield role. Transports with scoring units embarked on board count scoring units.
Objective Focus: A single scoring unit can only control one objective at a time.
I don't think it was a good idea for non-troops to score. This should lead to a general increase in the prevalence of troops choices, and a greater focus on protecting them and destroying your enemy's than just going ham on the enemy. By my consideration, 5-6 troop choices should be optimal.
TIES:
Ties are resolved in the following order:
1: The player who controls more objectives at the end of the game is awarded the victory.
2: The player who has a greater percent of his/her army remaining on the table is awarded the victory.
CONCESSION, TABLING, AND SHORT GAMES
Concession: If a player concedes before the game’s natural conclusion, s/he forfeits all scored points [his/her final score becomes 0 points] and his/her opponent immediately scores 5 points for each unfinished battle round.
Timeout: If the game timer expires before 6 rounds can be completed, no additional points are scored.
Sudden Death: If at the end of any battle round a player has no models remaining on the table, the game is not considered to immediately end, though play may be ceased and the players be awarded the maximum number of points they could score with their surviving units for unplayed turns. If, upon the conclusion of the game, a player has no models surviving, his/her opponent counts as controlling all 5 objectives for Victory Needs No Explanation only. Example: On turn 4, Alice destroys Bob's last unit, but only has 2 of her scoring units remaining. For Take and Hold on turns 4, 5, and 6, she would score 2 points each, and then score 5 for Victory Needs No Explanation, for a total of 11 additional points scored.
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
Scenario 3:
Scenario 4:
Scenario 5:
Scenario 6:
I think that you made a mistake in your scoring example regarding end of game/victory needs no explanation. In the rule you say score the objectives again at the end of the game. In your example you gave Alice a flat 5 points even though she could only control 2 objectives at the end of the turn.
Very well thought out. I think that I'd like a little more for scoring but I'm not sure just how/what they should be.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
IDK, why fight an IRL war if the point isn't to murder as many people as quickly as possible (i.e. use nuclear weapons)?
After playing my first ITC tourney, I understand the appeal; the CA and BRB mission suffer from the same issues, and that is many of the missions lack progressive scoring. From my games this always felt like the game was "punch each other, oh hey now objectives matter turn 4!"
From here on I'll be playing exclusively ITC, or ETC. Hopefully the next CA takes a note and all the missions will include multiple secondaries, missions with turn to turn scoring, and incentivize mobilization and scoring over pure pew-pew.
karandrasss wrote: How do you play Eternal War/Maelstrom and not feel like the loser of the roll-off for placing objectives has a massive advantage? Personally, I almost always win 6 objective marker missions when I lose the roll-off.
If the enemy dumps all the objectives in their deployment zone
It's not like they have to. In fringe cases it might be better to place the objectives elsewhere. Being able to place second (i.e. reactively) and choose your zone after is still a huge advantage. How's your Slaneesh performing btw?
Not just fringe cases. My superheavies like to get into assault too. In fact, all but one of my armies appreciates having to move across the board, and the one that doesn't is completely uncompetitive (malcador spam ftw!)
It's pretty good actually; it fairly easy rips up Guard and Knights, though it struggles against the really high-tier tournament lists, and ironically it struggles against CSM. In general, Slaanesh CSM are considerably better than Slaanesh Daemons, but I love my Daemons so *shrug*. I confess I /have/ attached two Defilers and some cultists lately for knight smashing. Defilers are pretty fantabulous at that. Considering making them Soul Grinders though...
Superheavies are so easy to outnumber though, and most of them don't even have obsec. I guess you have a different meta, because I can't imagine our Guard and Knight players struggling against Slaneesh.
Guard generally can't handle my list because of how ridiculously good cc shenanigans are - catch a unit in combat with a single member from all my Daemonette squads and Zarakynel, but don't attack them - just make sure one model is surrounded so the unit can't fall back - then. Alternatively, catch a character in combat, Forbidden Gem them in the movement phase so they can't fall back, and be immune to bullets. Or snag a couple of fiends into something. Really? Slaanesh has the tools to make sure you can't fall back, and if you can't fall back, I am immune to bullets.
As for superheavies scoring: generally, my opponent's units don't live long enough to hold onto the objectives if they start on them (since I have big guns that can focus fire), and the superheavies themselves are so wide (with sponsons damn near exactly 7") that the enemy can't get within 3" of the center of the objective if I park on it, meaning they can't dive in and take it after the fact, either. Tallarn superheavies with the crush them! stratagem are especially fantastic at squishing their way to victory.
Good...until you have to cross over 30" and they're hugging the edges with plenty of bubble wrap and probably Custodes jetbikes to get to your squishy melee units first.
Superheavies blocking objectives is so situational (i.e. there isn't enough terrain on the table, opponent placed objectives in the open for some reason) I'm not sure you've actually played these games...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Reading this thread i get the feeling that people have never looked at CA missions. If i sum up this thread it is:
"ITC is a necessary evil that does indeed skew balance, but it offers progressive non random scoring missions, which are gold".
And yet GW has provided us with plenty of non random progressive scoring missions in CA.
Which CA missions do you think are fine? How do you get around the fact that going second in placing objectives is such an enormous advantage? I pretty much win all my Dominate and Destroy games where I place second, for example.
Care to tell me why you think that the one going second has an advantage? I probably know what you mean, but since it actually hasn't ever been relevant in our tournaments, i want to be sure that you are not misplaying some rule (or that we are the one doing that).
Placing objectives second means you can load up an area with objectives (3-4 depending on how the opponent places their first) then pick that zone. There's a way to do it so that you get the objectives within/as close to your deployment zone as possible regardless of map, as shown in the 3plusplus article.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Because a one-dimensional game with very little tactics involved aside from basic kiting and target prioritization is boring? Especially when some factions are better at "fighting" than other factions.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I thought about a scoring scheme that utilized progressive scoring, and did away with some of the parts of ITC that I don't like. Here's a draft of a scoring scheme and a few different objective dispersal patterns that might lead to different games. Any changes you think should be made?
Mission [Rationale in italics]
Spoiler:
DEPLOYMENT:
1: Players roll off.
2: The player who won the roll off rolls a die to determine the objective deployment scenario.
3: The player who won the roll off chooses the deployment pattern
4: The player who did not chose the deployment pattern chooses his/her deployment zone.
5: The player who won the roll off begins deployment, placing the first unit.
BEGINNING THE GAME:
1: Players roll off for the first turn. The player who finished deployment first gains a +1 to this roll for every 3 more units his/her opponent deployed than s/he deployed.
2: The player who won the roll off may chose to move first or second.
3: Players take all actions that occur “after deployment, but before the first player takes the first turn”. The player who will be taking the first turn takes these actions first.
The current +1 for finishing deployment first isn't enough. I feel that the rule as the edition dropped [first to finish goes first] was better, but it broke down when there were two armies with similar numbers of drops. This way, there's a small difference if your armies are close in size, but if your army is massive then you're not going to get off the first turn. Having a big army has so many advantages right now, at the very least a high chance of not going first should offset that some.
Seize the Initiative should also be done away with. In the past, it was basically a ticket to victory, and isn't a necessary measure of randomness.
GAME LENGTH:
Each game lasts 6 battle rounds. Each battle round consists of 2 player turns.
SCORING:
Take and Hold: At the end of each battle round, each player scores one point for each objective s/he controls.
Victory Needs No Explanation: At the end of the 6th battle round, each player scores one additional point for each objective s/he controls.
I think that end-of-round scoring is better than end-of-turn scoring. It will compensate for the disadvantage the second player has by making it require less for them to secure the objectives and deny them to their opponent, who doesn't just have to take it, but hold it.
There's concern is that an early lead may turn into a runaway lead, and that early pressure from fast troops might become too strong. To remedy this, during the last round, the objectives are worth additional points, so that an army that began the game on the backfoot can turn around and finish strong and still win.
Perhaps mission "twists" can be added to further increase diversity, but I'd like to stay away from points for killing things. Minor secondaries can be added, but I'd want to keep the secondary, which is my biggest complain with ITC missions.
CONTROLLING OBJECTIVES:
Objective Secured: An objective is considered “controlled” by a player if s/he has at least one friendly scoring unit and no enemy scoring units within 3” of the objective.
Stand Your Ground: An objective is considered “contested” if both players have scoring units within 3” of the objective. A contested objective within, or partially within, a deployment zone is considered controlled by the player whose deployment zone it is within. A contested objective that is not within a deployment zone is considered uncontrolled.
These measures make it harder for aggressive and mobile armies to completely dominate static ones if they can't continue to keep up the pressure. It's still disadvantageous to be on the defense, but not going to turn into a runaway lead that you can't recover from unless you get really overrun.
SCORING UNITS:
Backbone of the Army: Objectives are controlled by units referred to as “scoring units”. These are units which have a special rule indicating that it controls an objective marker even if there are more enemy models nearby the objective [IE: Defenders of Humanity, Despoilers of the Galaxy, etc.]. As a rule of thumb, these are infantry units with the “Troops” battlefield role. Transports with scoring units embarked on board count scoring units.
Objective Focus: A single scoring unit can only control one objective at a time.
I don't think it was a good idea for non-troops to score. This should lead to a general increase in the prevalence of troops choices, and a greater focus on protecting them and destroying your enemy's than just going ham on the enemy. By my consideration, 5-6 troop choices should be optimal.
TIES:
Ties are resolved in the following order:
1: The player who controls more objectives at the end of the game is awarded the victory.
2: The player who has a greater percent of his/her army remaining on the table is awarded the victory.
CONCESSION, TABLING, AND SHORT GAMES
Concession: If a player concedes before the game’s natural conclusion, s/he forfeits all scored points [his/her final score becomes 0 points] and his/her opponent immediately scores 5 points for each unfinished battle round.
Timeout: If the game timer expires before 6 rounds can be completed, no additional points are scored.
Sudden Death: If at the end of any battle round a player has no models remaining on the table, the game is not considered to immediately end, though play may be ceased and the players be awarded the maximum number of points they could score with their surviving units for unplayed turns. If, upon the conclusion of the game, a player has no models surviving, his/her opponent counts as controlling all 5 objectives for Victory Needs No Explanation only. Example: On turn 4, Alice destroys Bob's last unit, but only has 2 of her scoring units remaining. For Take and Hold on turns 4, 5, and 6, she would score 2 points each, and then score 5 for Victory Needs No Explanation, for a total of 11 additional points scored.
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
Scenario 3:
Scenario 4:
Scenario 5:
Scenario 6:
I think that you made a mistake in your scoring example regarding end of game/victory needs no explanation. In the rule you say score the objectives again at the end of the game. In your example you gave Alice a flat 5 points even though she could only control 2 objectives at the end of the turn.
Very well thought out. I think that I'd like a little more for scoring but I'm not sure just how/what they should be.
Thank you. If you have a chance to try it or revisions you think should be made, tell me!
I made an exception, to count all the objectives as held in the final scoring, so that if you get all your ObSec units killed and the enemy has more points, the game isn't over, unless they've been having a runaway game. At the same time, a build wholly optimized to wipe out the enemy that doesn't have enough scoring units wouldn't win, since it would be easy to outscore if you can live for 2 turns, but a list that keeps it close for most of the game, but has lost all or most of their troops, can still win by wiping out the enemy.
I do agree, it's really one set of scoring rules with 6 different objective distributions, and I feel like each one may need a bonus point awarded for doing a thing, but I also feel that a bonus point would upset the balance. If it's scorable by both players, it becomes a "if you can't do the bonus, you will lose", and if it's scorable only by one player, if it's scored by the leading player, it's going to really add to their lead.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Some people think standing in arbitratry possitions during a battle (which is supposed to be taking place over like a 30 second period) should give them points for being good generals. IDK - I don't get it. It probably has to do with how people learned to play the game. When I was young and started playing we would just line up like napoleanic armies and fight it out. It was fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
karandrasss wrote: Placing objectives second means you can load up an area with objectives (3-4 depending on how the opponent places their first) then pick that zone. There's a way to do it so that you get the objectives within/as close to your deployment zone as possible regardless of map, as shown in the 3plusplus article.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Because a one-dimensional game with very little tactics involved aside from basic kiting and target prioritization is boring? Especially when some factions are better at "fighting" than other factions.
Objectives don't add tactics. They just change army composition. This is the problem with the game. No faction should be "better at fighting" that is called imbalance.
Karol wrote: Ok, thanks guys. I will ask if someone at my store wants to switch to the rules.
Well suggest ITC, not Katherine's rules. Her rules /missions show a bias towards the armies she plays.
I haven't processed everything in that post, but what makes you think that?
Well I mean first and foremost, requiring a unit have objective secured in order to be able to hold an objective. Armies with cheap troops that are durable for their cost (Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard) naturally will dominate in this area. Especially when there are missions that flatly encourage this kind of play. Consider this mission:
In general the ITC mission pack is perfectly fine. If you are going to tweak it, i would adjust the secondaries, since people are gaming around them in list building.
Marmatag wrote: In general the ITC mission pack is perfectly fine. If you are going to tweak it, i would adjust the secondaries, since people are gaming around them in list building.
These Ops are worth up to 4 points each. Choose 3 during Mission Selection. Units which never count for awarding mission points do not award points for these (i.e. Mucolids may not be Marked for Death). You may not earn more than one point for destroying any one unit. If such a unit would award points to multiple Ops, you must decide which it scores at the time it is destroyed.
1. Moment of Bloodshed. Destroy 2+ enemy units during a turn to earn 1 Point.
2. Cull the Hordes. For every 20 enemy models destroyed, earn 1 Point.
3. Heart of the Matter. If your Warlord touches the centerpoint of the table at the end of your turn, earn 1 Point.
4. Shoot the Big Ones. Destroy an enemy model with 10+ wounds to earn 1 Point.
5. Strike the Rank and File. Destroy 1+ enemy Troop units during a Turn to earn 1 Point. If no enemy Troops exist at the start of your turn, earn 1 Point.
6. Marked for Death. Note four of your opponent's units. For each one you destroy, earn 1 Point.
7. Reconnaissance. If you have a unit wholly within each table quarter at the end of your Turn, earn 1 Point.
8. Headhunter. For every enemy Character destroyed, earn 1 Point.
9. Old School. Score 1 Point for each: Destroy an enemy unit in the first Battle Round; Destroy an enemy unit in the last Battle Round; Destroy your opponent's Warlord; End the game with 1+ models in your opponent's Deployment Zone.
10. Titanslayer. Destroy a Titanic Unit: 2 Points.
Spoletta wrote: Reading this thread i get the feeling that people have never looked at CA missions. If i sum up this thread it is:
"ITC is a necessary evil that does indeed skew balance, but it offers progressive non random scoring missions, which are gold".
And yet GW has provided us with plenty of non random progressive scoring missions in CA.
I actually really enjoy the ITC setup, from both the standardized terrain, to the progressive kills and objective scoring. The secondaries are nice too, they just need to be tweaked.
Your entire statement requires i agree that ITC is a necessary evil that skews balance. I disagree completely, their missions are great, their terrain is great, i prefer their terrain rules, and general rules changes (such as, +1 to go first, which they implemented before GW). Balance is far worse without ITC. Consider this, GW events feature big blobs of Orks sitting on objectives coupled with slowplaying to take the event. Meanwhile, that doesn't work in ITC, because the scoring is far better.
If i'm playing non-tournament objective based games, I actually prefer maelstrom. I mean, if we're being casual, why not go full casual?
Karol wrote: Ok, thanks guys. I will ask if someone at my store wants to switch to the rules.
Well suggest ITC, not Katherine's rules. Her rules /missions show a bias towards the armies she plays.
I actually think they benefit the opposite more. The structure of the scoring places emphasis on early aggression and sustained pressure, as well as controlling the center. I was actually personally worried that certain Chaos and Tyranid builds were just going to plow through and win easily, which is why I implemented the measure that you outcap your opponent inside of your deployment zone.
Well I mean first and foremost, requiring a unit have objective secured in order to be able to hold an objective. Armies with cheap troops that are durable for their cost (Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard) naturally will dominate in this area. Especially when there are missions that flatly encourage this kind of play. Consider this mission:
In general the ITC mission pack is perfectly fine. If you are going to tweak it, i would adjust the secondaries, since people are gaming around them in list building.
Not to be needlessly hostile, since I appreciate the feedback, but I think you're talking out of your ass.
The Sisters of Battle do not have cheap troops that are durable for their cost. They're basically T3, S3 Space Marines for slightly more than 2/3 the price. Also, my Sisters army fields no Sisters troops, just Dominions, Rets, and Seraphim, because Guardsmen [or Scouts, which for the specific application of the SoB I'd actually rather have] are so much better troops.
Second, yes, I think troops should be essential, and you should have a fair number of them. My estimates are about 5 or 6 squads are required to complete these missions.
Third, while that mission is deliberately more defensive than the others, I don't think it is particularly IG-favoring. It is deliberately designed to create a big pile of troops in the corner with a multi-layered defense, but at the same time winning is actually a matter of controlling the center and I think that both of those missions, because it's too hard to take backfield objectives, will actually be carried by armies of things like Khorne Berzerkers and Tyranids, which can blob into the middle and drive anyone away permanently. In addition, in inverse, there's scenario 2, which is the polar opposite, and definitely doesn't favor the guard.
I was actually trying to think of a way to have 5 objectives that doesn't somehow turn into a big pile of troops in close-combat in the center.
Also, I actually tried one of them, specifically scenario 1, and while it was intended to be somewhat defesnive-army favoring, the guard didn't win, and that's how I realized that, if the objectives weren't at the border of the deploy zone or in the no-man's land, they were basically going to turn into brawls for the middle in close combat, which is something I'm still trying to fix. I think removing backfield objectives entirely might be the way to go, but then I think that'd also make early rush armies too strong, since being pushed off all the objectives for 2 turns is almost game-losing. Test case, for the record, was Orks vs Guard. Basically, a big blob on the center stayed there long enough and did enough damage that there weren't enough points left available when the guard gained the advantage. I might try more tests when I get the time, but there's definitely a lot of room for improvement, since melee killblobs aren't what I want to encourage.
And, of course, they were written by one woman and tested exactly once by said one woman, so if you do have useful input and rationale that might improve them, share it. I'd like to make a mission set that's balanced, troop-focused, and encourages aggression but doesn't devolve into melee in the middle and awards all, or the vast majority, of it's points through control of objectives and very few, if any, for destruction of enemy units.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Some people think standing in arbitratry possitions during a battle (which is supposed to be taking place over like a 30 second period) should give them points for being good generals. IDK - I don't get it. It probably has to do with how people learned to play the game. When I was young and started playing we would just line up like napoleanic armies and fight it out. It was fun.
The wargames I played before this were the sort on a hex grid, with conditions like "If the Allies control the bridge in hex D-BB-6 at the end of turn 8, Allied victory" or "If the Jordanians are able to exit 10 or more units off the east edge of the map, Arab victory". It was generally assumed to be impossible to completely destroy an enemy force.
We rarely play a "line up a shoot them" game. There's always something being fought over, control of which determines the game.
Well I am cool with a single objective - like a relic mission. This army came to collect this relic - this is their objective. A whole list of secondary objectives - with "slay the warlord" being a side piece....WOW. Killing a general in real warfare is basically good game. It's just not interesting me. Or like...Kill points...what a complete waste of time. I'll just go for the table every game and ignore these useless objectives which are basically rolling the dice to get a favorable matchup.
An objective like hold these two bridges by turn 5 for victory would be great. That is not how objectives work in this game. They are ether random - or arbitrary...usually involve killing something or spreading out to stand in randomly placed place with no significance.
Xenomancers wrote: Well I am cool with a single objective - like a relic mission. This army came to collect this relic - this is their objective. A whole list of secondary objectives - with "slay the warlord" being a side piece....WOW. Killing a general in real warfare is basically good game. It's just not interesting me. Or like...Kill points...what a complete waste of time. I'll just go for the table every game and ignore these useless objectives which are basically rolling the dice to get a favorable matchup.
An objective like hold these two bridges by turn 5 for victory would be great. That is not how objectives work in this game. They are ether random - or arbitrary...usually involve killing something or spreading out to stand in randomly placed place with no significance.
I don't like "kill unit" objectives at all. Killing units is how you get to the real objectives.
Yes, the placement of objectives is arbitrary. In a friendly game, we sometimes used to place the tokens in rooms, on hilltops, and in squares. However, in competitive play, they really need to be places in fixed and mirrored, or chosen-by-player, locations. You can adjust the terrain so that there's something there to capture.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Some people think standing in arbitratry possitions during a battle (which is supposed to be taking place over like a 30 second period) should give them points for being good generals. IDK - I don't get it. It probably has to do with how people learned to play the game. When I was young and started playing we would just line up like napoleanic armies and fight it out. It was fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
karandrasss wrote: Placing objectives second means you can load up an area with objectives (3-4 depending on how the opponent places their first) then pick that zone. There's a way to do it so that you get the objectives within/as close to your deployment zone as possible regardless of map, as shown in the 3plusplus article.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Because a one-dimensional game with very little tactics involved aside from basic kiting and target prioritization is boring? Especially when some factions are better at "fighting" than other factions.
Objectives don't add tactics. They just change army composition. This is the problem with the game. No faction should be "better at fighting" that is called imbalance.
You contradict yourself. Custom mission formats are there precisely to address the weaknesses of the game.
Either nothing is arbitrary, or everything is. Holding territory is part of war, so is killing.
Anyone has a good argument to convince people to switching to ITC rule set? I asked around here, and no one wants to play it "because its @#$% american meta".
ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
DominayTrix wrote: ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
DominayTrix wrote: ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K (IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
DominayTrix wrote: ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K (IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
How is vanilla 40k more tactical? How is it less easy to plan for when your single objective in vanilla 40k is often to table the opponent? What adapting do you have to do in vanilla 40k other than stop and think where the end game objectives are in turns 4-5 if you think you're unable to table your opponent? How does ITC remove risk?
ChazSexington wrote: Quite a bit. It's easier to table your opponent if you're playing Eternal War, while Maelstrom can be thrown out of whack by lucky card draws. Domination and Supremacy being two cards that are only good if you've almost tabled your opponent and you want to rub it in spring to mind.
Blndmage wrote: I've been sticking to the missions in the book. The game, the codexes, indexes, and such were built around them, not these other formats. (I don't have Chapter Approved yet, so I can't play those missions, but I'll add them to the list.)
The issue I have with the, in some cases automatic assumption, idea that everyone plays with ITC or ETC rules means that people can't easily discuss the game any more.
It creates weird moments, like when people give list advice and are referencing those formats, they tend to look down on folks that just play the missions in the book.
The ITC missions were built around the codices and considerable player feedback and data. While the codices are subject to frequent erratas and FAQs, this isn't the same for the BRB. The BRB missions are for casual, varied fun, not balance. I play both, and enjoy both, but I think it's an incorrect assumption to think the codices and indices were built around the missions.
Why would it be easier to table with one mission format over another? Assuming you can house rule "first floor of ruins block line of sight" for BRB games or have sufficient terrain that don't need that rule anyway?
It's not that it's easier, but it's more likely to gain you a victory. The ITC missions and Maelstrom, give you other opportunities to win other than having the most units left on the field in certain places - the whole game matters. The army list incentives changes. If the goal is to just control 3 objectives in the last turn, it's easier to ensure your opponent doesn't have the ability. In case of Maelstrom, mobility is encouraged to rush around the table, and Troops are marginally better through Objective Secured. ITC missions encourage much more diverse lists through Secondaries and similarly, doesn't encourage the same kind of gunline lists.
To me, Eternal War makes sense from a narrative perspective. The fight is for the hill etc., but that doesn't translate that well into game mechanics.
Karol wrote: Anyone has a good argument to convince people to switching to ITC rule set? I asked around here, and no one wants to play it "because its @#$% american meta".
Why not try it for a game or two? It costs you nothing and at least gives you deeper insight, right?
It's also very easy to pick up.
I guarantee you'll experience very interesting scenarios during play.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Some people think standing in arbitratry possitions during a battle (which is supposed to be taking place over like a 30 second period) should give them points for being good generals. IDK - I don't get it. It probably has to do with how people learned to play the game. When I was young and started playing we would just line up like napoleanic armies and fight it out. It was fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
karandrasss wrote: Placing objectives second means you can load up an area with objectives (3-4 depending on how the opponent places their first) then pick that zone. There's a way to do it so that you get the objectives within/as close to your deployment zone as possible regardless of map, as shown in the 3plusplus article.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Because a one-dimensional game with very little tactics involved aside from basic kiting and target prioritization is boring? Especially when some factions are better at "fighting" than other factions.
Objectives don't add tactics. They just change army composition. This is the problem with the game. No faction should be "better at fighting" that is called imbalance.
You contradict yourself. Custom mission formats are there precisely to address the weaknesses of the game.
Either nothing is arbitrary, or everything is. Holding territory is part of war, so is killing.
How am I being contradictory?
Holding territory is part of war true. Getting out of your fox hole to stand out in the open on a poker chip is not. It is fething dumb.
That is why am asking how to do it. Where I live american=don't know how to play, so when I mentioned wanting to play with the rules, people just laughed at me. I don't know the rule set, and I don't know what is good about it, other then being told that GK do really good in it. So any tips on how to force people to play it would be good. Summer is here and I have no one to play against right now ;/
Karol wrote: That is why am asking how to do it. Where I live american=don't know how to play, so when I mentioned wanting to play with the rules, people just laughed at me. I don't know the rule set, and I don't know what is good about it, other then being told that GK do really good in it. So any tips on how to force people to play it would be good. Summer is here and I have no one to play against right now ;/
The only format GK do good in is narrative play. They are unanimously considered the worst army in the game here in the states. Are rules really that big of an issue for finding games where you are? I kinda just go with whatever anyone wants to play - even if it's not what I prefer.
Well I mean first and foremost, requiring a unit have objective secured in order to be able to hold an objective. Armies with cheap troops that are durable for their cost (Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard) naturally will dominate in this area. Especially when there are missions that flatly encourage this kind of play. Consider this mission:
In general the ITC mission pack is perfectly fine. If you are going to tweak it, i would adjust the secondaries, since people are gaming around them in list building.
Not to be needlessly hostile, since I appreciate the feedback, but I think you're talking out of your ass.
The Sisters of Battle do not have cheap troops that are durable for their cost. They're basically T3, S3 Space Marines for slightly more than 2/3 the price. Also, my Sisters army fields no Sisters troops, just Dominions, Rets, and Seraphim, because Guardsmen [or Scouts, which for the specific application of the SoB I'd actually rather have] are so much better troops.
Second, yes, I think troops should be essential, and you should have a fair number of them. My estimates are about 5 or 6 squads are required to complete these missions.
Third, while that mission is deliberately more defensive than the others, I don't think it is particularly IG-favoring. It is deliberately designed to create a big pile of troops in the corner with a multi-layered defense, but at the same time winning is actually a matter of controlling the center and I think that both of those missions, because it's too hard to take backfield objectives, will actually be carried by armies of things like Khorne Berzerkers and Tyranids, which can blob into the middle and drive anyone away permanently. In addition, in inverse, there's scenario 2, which is the polar opposite, and definitely doesn't favor the guard.
I was actually trying to think of a way to have 5 objectives that doesn't somehow turn into a big pile of troops in close-combat in the center.
Also, I actually tried one of them, specifically scenario 1, and while it was intended to be somewhat defesnive-army favoring, the guard didn't win, and that's how I realized that, if the objectives weren't at the border of the deploy zone or in the no-man's land, they were basically going to turn into brawls for the middle in close combat, which is something I'm still trying to fix. I think removing backfield objectives entirely might be the way to go, but then I think that'd also make early rush armies too strong, since being pushed off all the objectives for 2 turns is almost game-losing. Test case, for the record, was Orks vs Guard. Basically, a big blob on the center stayed there long enough and did enough damage that there weren't enough points left available when the guard gained the advantage. I might try more tests when I get the time, but there's definitely a lot of room for improvement, since melee killblobs aren't what I want to encourage.
And, of course, they were written by one woman and tested exactly once by said one woman, so if you do have useful input and rationale that might improve them, share it. I'd like to make a mission set that's balanced, troop-focused, and encourages aggression but doesn't devolve into melee in the middle and awards all, or the vast majority, of it's points through control of objectives and very few, if any, for destruction of enemy units.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Some people think standing in arbitratry possitions during a battle (which is supposed to be taking place over like a 30 second period) should give them points for being good generals. IDK - I don't get it. It probably has to do with how people learned to play the game. When I was young and started playing we would just line up like napoleanic armies and fight it out. It was fun.
The wargames I played before this were the sort on a hex grid, with conditions like "If the Allies control the bridge in hex D-BB-6 at the end of turn 8, Allied victory" or "If the Jordanians are able to exit 10 or more units off the east edge of the map, Arab victory". It was generally assumed to be impossible to completely destroy an enemy force.
We rarely play a "line up a shoot them" game. There's always something being fought over, control of which determines the game.
Sisters are the definition of durable infantry. When you camp a couple squads on objectives they will be 2+ with cover. They are flatly better at holding objectives than most troops in the game. Especially when you view the objectives as in the back of the base. They're only getting hit with artillery or long range shots, which are going to be Strength 8+. Meaning T3 doesn't come into play.
But to your rules...
1. Only troops hold objectives. Don't like it. It's a step in the wrong direction. Elite armies already suffer and you only compound this imbalance. More on this later.
2. Every objective scores. This obviously rewards armies with cheap, spammable troops, or cheap durable troops. It is far better to get a point for controlling one objective, and cap it. Board presence is already a very strong way to win in ITC, and you only make this infinitely easier. I play a horde army, your rules would make the games very very simple for me. In some of these scenarios i could put my models on the table and just win by existing.
3. A mission where you've got 1 objective within range of every Leman Russ and tank in the freaking game, while built to gunline, and hey, you can shoot up the units that your opponent MUST keep in their deployment zone? "Oh, hello. I see you've got two troops squads planted in the back of your base to hold the mandatory two objectives. Good thing i have basilisk and manticores and i'm cadia, so i'll shoot them off turn 1. Then, i'll just outscore you by castling."
4. Where are the points for killing units? Where are the secondary objectives? In essence here is every game: Who can sit on objectives better. That's it.
It's not a good rule set. Have you played in an ITC tournament in the past year? It'd be a good experience for you to see how the current rules play. They're actually pretty solid.
Karol wrote: That is why am asking how to do it. Where I live american=don't know how to play, so when I mentioned wanting to play with the rules, people just laughed at me. I don't know the rule set, and I don't know what is good about it, other then being told that GK do really good in it. So any tips on how to force people to play it would be good. Summer is here and I have no one to play against right now ;/
The only format GK do good in is narrative play. They are unanimously considered the worst army in the game here in the states. Are rules really that big of an issue for finding games where you are? I kinda just go with whatever anyone wants to play - even if it's not what I prefer.
Well people play matched play here. I have never seen someone play anything else, and I heard some jokes about narrative play that make me think that people would not be willing to try it. I am a new players, so what I want is not really considered much. People played against my army, mostly my friends, when I got the army, but after 2-3 games everyone just tells me they don't want to use up game time. We only have 2 tables, and it costs half a $ for hour of playing, unless you bought stuff this week, and it is not like we are the only people at the store, there are also 9th age players and those that play warmahordes.
1. Only troops hold objectives. Don't like it. It's a step in the wrong direction. Elite armies already suffer and you only compound this imbalance. More on this later.
that does seem problematic for armies with stuff like paladins.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Some people think standing in arbitratry possitions during a battle (which is supposed to be taking place over like a 30 second period) should give them points for being good generals. IDK - I don't get it. It probably has to do with how people learned to play the game. When I was young and started playing we would just line up like napoleanic armies and fight it out. It was fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
karandrasss wrote: Placing objectives second means you can load up an area with objectives (3-4 depending on how the opponent places their first) then pick that zone. There's a way to do it so that you get the objectives within/as close to your deployment zone as possible regardless of map, as shown in the 3plusplus article.
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Because a one-dimensional game with very little tactics involved aside from basic kiting and target prioritization is boring? Especially when some factions are better at "fighting" than other factions.
Objectives don't add tactics. They just change army composition. This is the problem with the game. No faction should be "better at fighting" that is called imbalance.
You contradict yourself. Custom mission formats are there precisely to address the weaknesses of the game.
Either nothing is arbitrary, or everything is. Holding territory is part of war, so is killing.
How am I being contradictory?
Holding territory is part of war true. Getting out of your fox hole to stand out in the open on a poker chip is not. It is fething dumb.
You seem to like the game vanilla enough yet at the same time blame it for being problematic with the imbalanced factions. Custom mission formats aim to fix this imbalance, yet you reject them. What gives?
It's not a poker chip, and it's only in the open if you choose it to be. It could be the remains of a fallen soldier, supplies, an information packet, a terminal you download data from hence having to hold it for more than a turn, etc.
Scenario design is a weird thing. You really need to decide how you want the game to play and where you want players to be when. I'm not sure 40k has ever fully committed to a game flow outside of the concepts of First Blood, Slay the Warlod, and Linebreaker.
I think the big flaw in the way the scenarios work is just the size of the objectives. It just doesn't feel like most units in the game can effectively move from one to another in a reasonably manner over the course of the game. When, without advancing, you consider that most obsec units essentially move 30" total over the course of the entire game on a board with an 86.5" diagonal, the idea of needing to be in a 6" circle with as many models as possible is pretty at odds with the flow of most games. Transports could probably help with this, but its never felt like transports are really about achieving objectives in most instances.
I think the scenario design is a big area of improvement, but given how binary melee combat tends to be, I'm not sure how to make position based scenarios work the way they do in something like Warmachine. I'm honestly kind of curious if something more along the lines of Batman or even Shadespire's objectives would be a better fit for the game. It really depends on how they want the game to flow.
Sisters are the definition of durable infantry. When you camp a couple squads on objectives they will be 2+ with cover. They are flatly better at holding objectives than most troops in the game. Especially when you view the objectives as in the back of the base. They're only getting hit with artillery or long range shots, which are going to be Strength 8+. Meaning T3 doesn't come into play.
But to your rules...
1. Only troops hold objectives. Don't like it. It's a step in the wrong direction. Elite armies already suffer and you only compound this imbalance. More on this later.
2. Every objective scores. This obviously rewards armies with cheap, spammable troops, or cheap durable troops. It is far better to get a point for controlling one objective, and cap it. Board presence is already a very strong way to win in ITC, and you only make this infinitely easier. I play a horde army, your rules would make the games very very simple for me. In some of these scenarios i could put my models on the table and just win by existing.
3. A mission where you've got 1 objective within range of every Leman Russ and tank in the freaking game, while built to gunline, and hey, you can shoot up the units that your opponent MUST keep in their deployment zone? "Oh, hello. I see you've got two troops squads planted in the back of your base to hold the mandatory two objectives. Good thing i have basilisk and manticores and i'm cadia, so i'll shoot them off turn 1. Then, i'll just outscore you by castling."
4. Where are the points for killing units? Where are the secondary objectives? In essence here is every game: Who can sit on objectives better. That's it.
It's not a good rule set. Have you played in an ITC tournament in the past year? It'd be a good experience for you to see how the current rules play. They're actually pretty solid.
Yeah, I've played a lot of games with the ITC rules. I haven't played a non ITC game since last year some time. I don't play in big tournaments, since I don't have the means, but I do play in local leagues and tournaments.
My primary complaint is that they give about 75% of the total points awarded for destruction of the enemy, and 25% for holding the objectives. Seriously, all your secondary points, and half of the primary points, are awarded for killing units. In addition, the secondaries aren't very secondary, they're worth as much points as the difference between scores in the primary missions [yeah, the primaries are worth a theoretical 30 points, but holding one and killing one are both effectively automatic points, and the bonus points is basically only accomplished once before the game is over, so there's really only 12 points on the table.]
Games should be determined by sitting on objectives better, and should not be determined by destruction of enemy units. Destruction of enemy units is how you make it possible to sit on objectives.
I don't think the ITC rules are bad. They're definitely better than maelstrom, and eternal war is basically "table to win", since points aren't awarded early enough. But I have a lot of complaints with them too. The secondaries are just flat awful. Awarding kill points is tolerable, but as I said it wouldn't be part of any ideal scoring sceme.
So, here's what happened in my test: IG with my standard ITC list set up, vs. Orks. Orks had some boyz, and some boyz in tanks, some flashgitz in a tank, and some gretchin in trucks, and went first. Rolled up with vehicle-boyz and flashgitz tank to the middle, and used Da Jump to get the other squad across the board and into my front rank, wiping it out, while the other shooty stuff exclusively targeted my infantry. I retaliated by wrecking his tanks, and taking out the guys in my face, and got charged by the guys who were in the tanks. I eventually flipped it around and cleared all his stuff out, since my list is supposed to do that and he had no AT resources, but I didn't have any scoring units remaining with which to win the game.
I realized a couple of things:
Reducing the scoring units to just obsec units wound up making it effective easier to "table" the enemy, since killing their troops ends the game. So I added the clause that a tabling awards 5 points for the final scoring, independent of how many troops you have remaining, so that it will still usually result in a victory, but if you build to table then you'll still be vulnerable to just having your scoring guys picked off and winding up down even after you wipe them out.
Tanks and transports that score become good, since it means that you have to go through two types of target to shoot them off. Since he didn't have any real AT, if I had a Spearhead of tanks, or a few less squads and a few more transports, he wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. I actually think this is a positive effect though, so I'm keeping the clause that loaded transports score.
+1 for each unit over made mechanized armies guaranteed to go first, so I reduced to to +1 for each 3 units over [round up], so it wasn't so guaranteed but still very likely. This probably needs more calibration.
If the objective is too far back, it's too much of a free point per turn that will only get taken if you're losing so badly it's not worth considering, and it will devolve into a melee in the center, especially if both objectives are very far back. However, I'm afraid that putting all the objectives forward will make fast melee armies unbeatable by leaving no ground to give, so I'm not sure what to do about that, and I think I'd need to try more games to make an actual judgement.
I don't want fast melee blitz to be the word of the day. It's the opposite of a fun game. But at the same time, I feel like there needs to be an odd number of points available every round, and that's going to force an objective to be dead center. So that means baking in the means for a slower army to turn the tide and come back and still win.
I think 5 is the optimal number of objectives. The game shouldn't be too swingy, but there needs to be ability to come back from a losing position. It's only the difference in scores that matters. Untakable objectives might as well not exist. Here's a consideration: an objective that nobody starts controlling is effectively worth 1 point per turn, but one that the enemy starts controlling, or should be assumed to be controlling, is worth 2, +1 for you and -1 for them. Taking back your own objective doesn't recoup the 2 points, they're still 2 points ahead, you're just not falling further behind. In order to make back those points, you need to hold the middle for 2 turns, or take one of their natural objectives, which means that, in this scenario fast units that can move fast consistently and fight well at close range are optimal.
I don't think that particular scenario is very good, in it both objectives are too far back to be "in play", especially since they're close. Ergo, the game is decided in the middle. The scenario I tested also falls into that category. I think scenario 6 might be better, or maybe scenario 2, if I get a chance to try them again.
I also don't think the scenarios need to facilitate all armies equally. If an army winds up being good at the set above all others, that needs to be addressed, but not all situations of an army being weak need to be addressed. Armies that are significant outliers in natural power [Grey Knights], can be assumed to just be too bad to cater to. Armies that are strange and not really standalone armies [Imperial Knights, Inquisition, Assassins, etc], can probably also be ignored, unless they break things. I have enough armies of different styles to test the scenarios by myself, but that's not productive since I'm also not capable of discovering my own holes though play, since I know how I intend them to play and work..
I really like ITC missions the best but sure they can always be improved. I pretty much don't play any maelstrom missions - way too random, perfect for those who want beer & pretzel games. I really like the eternal war missions that were released in CA -they are always fun to play.
Primark G wrote: I really like ITC missions the best but sure they can always be improved. I pretty much don't play any maelstrom missions - way too random, perfect for those who want beer & pretzel games. I really like the eternal war missions that were released in CA -they are always fun to play.
Personally, I hope going forward we can see GW start to push the CA scenarios as THE scenarios to run, even if that means reprinting some scenarios from CA2017 and the BRB that they still consider the current scenarios to focus on. Getting people to look forward to the new crop of scenarios seems like a better selling point for CA than the point adjustment push we got last year and cycling scenarios in and out keeps the game fresh even without models or actually new scenarios.
Yeah, I've played a lot of games with the ITC rules. I haven't played a non ITC game since last year some time. I don't play in big tournaments, since I don't have the means, but I do play in local leagues and tournaments.
My primary complaint is that they give about 75% of the total points awarded for destruction of the enemy, and 25% for holding the objectives. Seriously, all your secondary points, and half of the primary points, are awarded for killing units.
This is false. Half of your base primary points will be split even between objectives and kills. There are bonus points, and these are tied to objectives. So technically more points are for objectives than kills. Also, it's worth noting, that killing 1 unit and killing 100 units is worth the same points: 1 per turn base, 2 if you killed more. That's it. Overkilling isn't always smart (for instance, you won't get "last strike" if you overkill the easy stuff early on, -1 point).
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: In addition, the secondaries aren't very secondary, they're worth as much points as the difference between scores in the primary missions [yeah, the primaries are worth a theoretical 30 points, but holding one and killing one are both effectively automatic points, and the bonus points is basically only accomplished once before the game is over, so there's really only 12 points on the table.]
Holding and killing are not automatic points. 12 points from secondaries aren't automatic, either. Secondary objectives are worth a little less than half if you get a 4 turn game, and worth a little more than a third if you're getting to 6 turns, assuming you get all 12 points. Holding more is a nice way to get points. I play a board control army, and usually win because of objectives.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Games should be determined by sitting on objectives better, and should not be determined by destruction of enemy units. Destruction of enemy units is how you make it possible to sit on objectives.
I disagree. This rewards huge armies that don't need to move.
I would re-evaluate the ITC format. It has evolved quite a bit - it's very solid now.
As a few of us have said, coming up with refined secondary objectives that aren't easily gamed (like reaper) would be a good place to start.
Yeah, I've played a lot of games with the ITC rules. I haven't played a non ITC game since last year some time. I don't play in big tournaments, since I don't have the means, but I do play in local leagues and tournaments.
My primary complaint is that they give about 75% of the total points awarded for destruction of the enemy, and 25% for holding the objectives. Seriously, all your secondary points, and half of the primary points, are awarded for killing units.
This is false. Half of your base primary points will be split even between objectives and kills. There are bonus points, and these are tied to objectives. So technically more points are for objectives than kills. Also, it's worth noting, that killing 1 unit and killing 100 units is worth the same points: 1 per turn base, 2 if you killed more. That's it. Overkilling isn't always smart (for instance, you won't get "last strike" if you overkill the easy stuff early on, -1 point).
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: In addition, the secondaries aren't very secondary, they're worth as much points as the difference between scores in the primary missions [yeah, the primaries are worth a theoretical 30 points, but holding one and killing one are both effectively automatic points, and the bonus points is basically only accomplished once before the game is over, so there's really only 12 points on the table.]
Holding and killing are not automatic points. 12 points from secondaries aren't automatic, either. Secondary objectives are worth a little less than half if you get a 4 turn game, and worth a little more than a third if you're getting to 6 turns, assuming you get all 12 points. Holding more is a nice way to get points. I play a board control army, and usually win because of objectives.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Games should be determined by sitting on objectives better, and should not be determined by destruction of enemy units. Destruction of enemy units is how you make it possible to sit on objectives.
I disagree. This rewards huge armies that don't need to move.
I would re-evaluate the ITC format. It has evolved quite a bit - it's very solid now.
As a few of us have said, coming up with refined secondary objectives that aren't easily gamed (like reaper) would be a good place to start.
You only lose the point for "kill one" and "hold one" if you've basically lost the game. There are some situations where you don't get "kill one" against armies like knights, but for the most part you can easily plok something every turn if nothing else.
So those two points are natural points you should score every turn if you're still in the running to win. Kill more and hold more are tossups, they decide the balance of primary objectives.
Bonus points: Scenario 2: Hold the middle and the opponent's objective. Scenario 6: hold an objective the opponent chooses, and gets to move 6" to a secure place. etc. If you score the bonus point, you've effectively won the game already, soit's not game deciding either.
That's 6 turns, of which kill more and hold more are available to score. So that's 12 game-deciding points from the primaries, with 12 "free" points, and 6 points that basically exist so that when you're about to win, instead of going for the kill, you sit around for the last 2 turns leaving that one 2-wound razorback limping around in the corner. Unless your opponent only brought 6 units, there will usually be enough units on the board not to worry about having killed all of them, since you can just leave a crippled tank or two and kill it when it's convenient to keep your point income. This is actually something I'm kind of annoyed about, and consider poor form.
Then we get to the secondaries. They're designed explicitly to punish specific things that appear in specific armies, which is up there on the list of "things not to do in game design".
Reaper is a textbook case of a thing that should not be an objective. Gangbuster, Big Game, Headhunter, none of these should even be on the list.
You can say that "well, everyone has 4 characters since you need 4 for 2 brigades", but that doesn't really excuse it, just means it hurts everybody except for specific armies.
You can also say that "well, Guard is strong, for 4 objectives that target the guard, vs. none that trip the Grey Knights, is fair," but it's not and that's also not good design. You fix a problem like that in the Grey Knight codex, or with a house rule like "CP can only be spent by the faction that generated them" or "indirect fire requires a spotter".
Personally, I think Recon and Behind Enemy Lines are examples of better secondaries. But nobody takes those, because it's easier and faster to take Reaper, Big Game Hunter, etc. which you will naturally complete on your way to a victory, rather than the others, which you have to go out of your way to do. [Okay, hyperbole, I see recon taken, especially against armies designed to deny the other objectives, since it's easy]
In addition, not all are equally difficult. Killing 4 vehicles is generally a lot easier than killing 4 characters, barring some exceptional lists. Units of 10+ models are infinitely more available, and tend to be a lot easier to kill, than units consisting of models with 5+ wounds. It's obviously easier to stick your toe into each board quarter than push all the way to the opponent's board edge, and you can start scoring Recon on turn 1 but can't score Behind Enemy Lines until like turn 3, at best, which is also the last turn you have to make it there for full points.
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather play ITC than the rulebook missions, and think they're very good, but I think that it's possible to make better ones, and think they've made some questionable inclusions that just eliminating would improve them drastically.
Sisters are the definition of durable infantry. When you camp a couple squads on objectives they will be 2+ with cover. They are flatly better at holding objectives than most troops in the game. Especially when you view the objectives as in the back of the base. They're only getting hit with artillery or long range shots, which are going to be Strength 8+. Meaning T3 doesn't come into play.
But to your rules...
1. Only troops hold objectives. Don't like it. It's a step in the wrong direction. Elite armies already suffer and you only compound this imbalance. More on this later.
2. Every objective scores. This obviously rewards armies with cheap, spammable troops, or cheap durable troops. It is far better to get a point for controlling one objective, and cap it. Board presence is already a very strong way to win in ITC, and you only make this infinitely easier. I play a horde army, your rules would make the games very very simple for me. In some of these scenarios i could put my models on the table and just win by existing.
3. A mission where you've got 1 objective within range of every Leman Russ and tank in the freaking game, while built to gunline, and hey, you can shoot up the units that your opponent MUST keep in their deployment zone? "Oh, hello. I see you've got two troops squads planted in the back of your base to hold the mandatory two objectives. Good thing i have basilisk and manticores and i'm cadia, so i'll shoot them off turn 1. Then, i'll just outscore you by castling."
4. Where are the points for killing units? Where are the secondary objectives? In essence here is every game: Who can sit on objectives better. That's it.
It's not a good rule set. Have you played in an ITC tournament in the past year? It'd be a good experience for you to see how the current rules play. They're actually pretty solid.
Yeah, I've played a lot of games with the ITC rules. I haven't played a non ITC game since last year some time. I don't play in big tournaments, since I don't have the means, but I do play in local leagues and tournaments.
My primary complaint is that they give about 75% of the total points awarded for destruction of the enemy, and 25% for holding the objectives. Seriously, all your secondary points, and half of the primary points, are awarded for killing units. In addition, the secondaries aren't very secondary, they're worth as much points as the difference between scores in the primary missions [yeah, the primaries are worth a theoretical 30 points, but holding one and killing one are both effectively automatic points, and the bonus points is basically only accomplished once before the game is over, so there's really only 12 points on the table.]
Games should be determined by sitting on objectives better, and should not be determined by destruction of enemy units. Destruction of enemy units is how you make it possible to sit on objectives.
I don't think the ITC rules are bad. They're definitely better than maelstrom, and eternal war is basically "table to win", since points aren't awarded early enough. But I have a lot of complaints with them too. The secondaries are just flat awful. Awarding kill points is tolerable, but as I said it wouldn't be part of any ideal scoring sceme.
So, here's what happened in my test: IG with my standard ITC list set up, vs. Orks. Orks had some boyz, and some boyz in tanks, some flashgitz in a tank, and some gretchin in trucks, and went first. Rolled up with vehicle-boyz and flashgitz tank to the middle, and used Da Jump to get the other squad across the board and into my front rank, wiping it out, while the other shooty stuff exclusively targeted my infantry. I retaliated by wrecking his tanks, and taking out the guys in my face, and got charged by the guys who were in the tanks. I eventually flipped it around and cleared all his stuff out, since my list is supposed to do that and he had no AT resources, but I didn't have any scoring units remaining with which to win the game.
I realized a couple of things:
Reducing the scoring units to just obsec units wound up making it effective easier to "table" the enemy, since killing their troops ends the game. So I added the clause that a tabling awards 5 points for the final scoring, independent of how many troops you have remaining, so that it will still usually result in a victory, but if you build to table then you'll still be vulnerable to just having your scoring guys picked off and winding up down even after you wipe them out.
Tanks and transports that score become good, since it means that you have to go through two types of target to shoot them off. Since he didn't have any real AT, if I had a Spearhead of tanks, or a few less squads and a few more transports, he wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. I actually think this is a positive effect though, so I'm keeping the clause that loaded transports score.
+1 for each unit over made mechanized armies guaranteed to go first, so I reduced to to +1 for each 3 units over [round up], so it wasn't so guaranteed but still very likely. This probably needs more calibration.
If the objective is too far back, it's too much of a free point per turn that will only get taken if you're losing so badly it's not worth considering, and it will devolve into a melee in the center, especially if both objectives are very far back. However, I'm afraid that putting all the objectives forward will make fast melee armies unbeatable by leaving no ground to give, so I'm not sure what to do about that, and I think I'd need to try more games to make an actual judgement.
I don't want fast melee blitz to be the word of the day. It's the opposite of a fun game. But at the same time, I feel like there needs to be an odd number of points available every round, and that's going to force an objective to be dead center. So that means baking in the means for a slower army to turn the tide and come back and still win.
I think 5 is the optimal number of objectives. The game shouldn't be too swingy, but there needs to be ability to come back from a losing position. It's only the difference in scores that matters. Untakable objectives might as well not exist. Here's a consideration: an objective that nobody starts controlling is effectively worth 1 point per turn, but one that the enemy starts controlling, or should be assumed to be controlling, is worth 2, +1 for you and -1 for them. Taking back your own objective doesn't recoup the 2 points, they're still 2 points ahead, you're just not falling further behind. In order to make back those points, you need to hold the middle for 2 turns, or take one of their natural objectives, which means that, in this scenario fast units that can move fast consistently and fight well at close range are optimal.
I don't think that particular scenario is very good, in it both objectives are too far back to be "in play", especially since they're close. Ergo, the game is decided in the middle. The scenario I tested also falls into that category. I think scenario 6 might be better, or maybe scenario 2, if I get a chance to try them again.
I also don't think the scenarios need to facilitate all armies equally. If an army winds up being good at the set above all others, that needs to be addressed, but not all situations of an army being weak need to be addressed. Armies that are significant outliers in natural power [Grey Knights], can be assumed to just be too bad to cater to. Armies that are strange and not really standalone armies [Imperial Knights, Inquisition, Assassins, etc], can probably also be ignored, unless they break things. I have enough armies of different styles to test the scenarios by myself, but that's not productive since I'm also not capable of discovering my own holes though play, since I know how I intend them to play and work..
What do you say to the "sitting on objectives arbitrarily is dumb is pointless" camp?
My community also thinks ITC players are just bad if they can't win by tabling. Lol.
DominayTrix wrote: ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K (IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
How is vanilla 40k more tactical? How is it less easy to plan for when your single objective in vanilla 40k is often to table the opponent? What adapting do you have to do in vanilla 40k other than stop and think where the end game objectives are in turns 4-5 if you think you're unable to table your opponent? How does ITC remove risk?
Vanilla 40k (I am assuming you are talking about both BRB and CA missions) have some random objectives that can force decisions that you don't expect. Tabling an opponent also is a completely different balance issue. It is too easy to table an opponent and that is creating the problems. The missions could be perfect in every way, but as long as you can table people by turn 3 more often than not it won't matter. Tabling needs to be a winner take all option, but it is currently too easy to do. ITC removes risk by making it so you can always just play the objectives and never worry about an all-in. You also don't have to worry about being able to table someone since you will always have the objectives YOU picked to achieve.
a) no tabling does not need to be winner take all and that would be actually unrealistic
b) it's not tactical to have to pray for good objectives when there's nothing you can really do to deal with it
tneva82 wrote: a) no tabling does not need to be winner take all and that would be actually unrealistic
b) it's not tactical to have to pray for good objectives when there's nothing you can really do to deal with it
Why unrealistic? Is not the objective of war to eliminate the enemy force?
DominayTrix wrote: ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K (IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
How is vanilla 40k more tactical? How is it less easy to plan for when your single objective in vanilla 40k is often to table the opponent? What adapting do you have to do in vanilla 40k other than stop and think where the end game objectives are in turns 4-5 if you think you're unable to table your opponent? How does ITC remove risk?
Vanilla 40k (I am assuming you are talking about both BRB and CA missions) have some random objectives that can force decisions that you don't expect. Tabling an opponent also is a completely different balance issue. It is too easy to table an opponent and that is creating the problems. The missions could be perfect in every way, but as long as you can table people by turn 3 more often than not it won't matter. Tabling needs to be a winner take all option, but it is currently too easy to do. ITC removes risk by making it so you can always just play the objectives and never worry about an all-in. You also don't have to worry about being able to table someone since you will always have the objectives YOU picked to achieve.
What's stopping a list that tables everyone from winning a tournament?
tneva82 wrote: a) no tabling does not need to be winner take all and that would be actually unrealistic
b) it's not tactical to have to pray for good objectives when there's nothing you can really do to deal with it
Why unrealistic? Is not the objective of war to eliminate the enemy force?
DominayTrix wrote: ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K (IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
How is vanilla 40k more tactical? How is it less easy to plan for when your single objective in vanilla 40k is often to table the opponent? What adapting do you have to do in vanilla 40k other than stop and think where the end game objectives are in turns 4-5 if you think you're unable to table your opponent? How does ITC remove risk?
Vanilla 40k (I am assuming you are talking about both BRB and CA missions) have some random objectives that can force decisions that you don't expect. Tabling an opponent also is a completely different balance issue. It is too easy to table an opponent and that is creating the problems. The missions could be perfect in every way, but as long as you can table people by turn 3 more often than not it won't matter. Tabling needs to be a winner take all option, but it is currently too easy to do. ITC removes risk by making it so you can always just play the objectives and never worry about an all-in. You also don't have to worry about being able to table someone since you will always have the objectives YOU picked to achieve.
What's stopping a list that tables everyone from winning a tournament?
Responding to the first half: I agree that killing your opponents soldiers to a man should count as a victory. The problem is that right now it is too easy to achieve and the average speed at which it is achieved makes it so it is less of a commitment. Random objectives vs chosen objectives is a whole different debate from tabling. I find things that are done strictly to deny your opponents secondaries to be too gamey. The problem is secondary denial turns into a requirement as more and more people do it. Allowing your opponents free/easier points isn't very viable if you are the only doing it. Now to answer your question on why tabling is less likely to win a tournament falls under the "Game Length, Tabling, and Concession Scoring" section. Basically once a player is tabled, the game is over and the score is finalized with the person who tabled their opponent getting 4 pts per battle round in primary mission points and any remaining secondary objective points. It also adds in some various caveats for why a victor may be denied some of the bonus points with the most common being not enough scoring units. Winning tournaments is more about getting the most points possible for the leaderboard rather than simply beating your opponents. So yes you could win an entire tournament by tabling people, but you are more likely to have a lower overall average points. This says nothing about how terrible it feels getting the game dragged out so your opponent can farm you better for points. No, you cannot concede since you will be scored 0. All of this taken with a grain of salt because some CA and BRB missions are really bad. Recon, Cloak and Shadows, and Roving Patrol all come to mind.
tneva82 wrote: a) no tabling does not need to be winner take all and that would be actually unrealistic
b) it's not tactical to have to pray for good objectives when there's nothing you can really do to deal with it
Complete annihilation of your opponent should not only be a winner take all option. It should award bonus points.
Imagine the battle of midway. How crucial it was that the US Navy destroyed all carriers in the Japanese fleet attacking midway. Japan at that point was unable to continue their assault on the island and had to sail home with the rest of their fleet. In the first day of the battle there was a point at which that Japanese had lost 2 carriers and the US had lost 1 and another was crippled beyond use. They made a choice to hunt the other 2 Japanese carriers the next day and destroyed them - instead of running away outnumbered. It was the right decision. It stopped the Japanese from being able to continue their attack.
I view this decision as an analog for choosing to play objectives or tabling.
Technically the US had already won the battle - they sunk 2 carriers and lost only 1 (the would repair the other) but that was not enough - total annihilation is what was required to win that war.
An objective set should always have tabling as an option and it should be the ultimate form of victory - you should have options though. You should be able to win through strategic victory conditions too. Really though - strategic victory is almost determined by damage done to the enemy and who is forced to retreat - in war there are almost never situations where you get any value out of holding a position for a few seconds (which is what a game turn equates to).
Also I am not a fan of static objectives for another reason. I want to maneuver my army - I don't want the board to maneuver my army - that is what objectives do. Objectives actually make the game less for for me.
Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.
Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.
I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"
Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."
I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."
Marmatag wrote: Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.
Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.
I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"
Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."
I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."
Why would 2.5 hours not be enough to table? If anything, games are faster when you're just trying to kill each other rather than carefully measuring whether you have units in all table quarters, near objectives etc., no?
What do you usually play and what "tabling lists" have you crushed?
Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
tneva82 wrote: a) no tabling does not need to be winner take all and that would be actually unrealistic
b) it's not tactical to have to pray for good objectives when there's nothing you can really do to deal with it
Why unrealistic? Is not the objective of war to eliminate the enemy force?
DominayTrix wrote: ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K (IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
How is vanilla 40k more tactical? How is it less easy to plan for when your single objective in vanilla 40k is often to table the opponent? What adapting do you have to do in vanilla 40k other than stop and think where the end game objectives are in turns 4-5 if you think you're unable to table your opponent? How does ITC remove risk?
Vanilla 40k (I am assuming you are talking about both BRB and CA missions) have some random objectives that can force decisions that you don't expect. Tabling an opponent also is a completely different balance issue. It is too easy to table an opponent and that is creating the problems. The missions could be perfect in every way, but as long as you can table people by turn 3 more often than not it won't matter. Tabling needs to be a winner take all option, but it is currently too easy to do. ITC removes risk by making it so you can always just play the objectives and never worry about an all-in. You also don't have to worry about being able to table someone since you will always have the objectives YOU picked to achieve.
What's stopping a list that tables everyone from winning a tournament?
the person who tabled their opponent getting 4 pts per battle round in primary mission points and any remaining secondary objective points.
Why is this bad? Isn't this nearly a perfect score (you only miss on the bonus objectives)?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
See, I'm trying to bring over more tactical/balanced mission formats to my meta, but it's hard to convince people that it won't all end in tabling anyway. 2.5 hours is a lot of time if you're not doing any bookkeeping and figuring out how you go about your objectives. Time is not a problem in my meta, the use of BRB or wonky variations is.
Marmatag wrote: Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.
Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.
I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"
Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."
I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."
Why would 2.5 hours not be enough to table? If anything, games are faster when you're just trying to kill each other rather than carefully measuring whether you have units in all table quarters, near objectives etc., no?
What do you usually play and what "tabling lists" have you crushed?
Logistically tabling someone in 2.5 hours - which includes all mission prep & setup time - is not easy. Don't confuse "essentially tabled" with "actually tabled." You can have someone clearly beaten within 2.5 hours no problem, but actually killing *every* model isn't easy.
My gaming resume doesn't really matter, but if you'd like to see it shoot me a PM.
Xenomancers wrote: Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
Making games play to their natural conclusion is always one of the most important things you need out of a tournament packet. Time limits are an unfortunate necessity, but you want to push players to play fast enough that they are the exception rather than the norm.
Xenomancers wrote: Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
Turn 4 is pretty reliable until you run into people who don't know rules and you have to call judges. I spent 32 minutes in a tournament recently because my opponent didn't know basic rules and challenged me on them. Even rules specific to his army. What can you do? It's time lost.
When you play with good, knowledgeable people, turn 4 is easy. 5 gets tough because even if there's time left to start a 5th turn, if it's under 20 minutes that becomes really difficult. So sometimes you'll have game round where 20 minutes is spent in the deployment phase, and 15 minutes are lost at the end, meaning you've got under 2 hours to get 5 turns.
Also, shooting armies with lots of different kinds of weapons will eat through time like nobodies business. If every unit is throwing a grenade and firing a special weapon, it gets kind of silly in the time spent there. I use the GW assault dice app for my rolls. I can get 80 attacks from my Genestealers done in 10 seconds. Faster than a kill team doing its shooting.
Marmatag wrote: Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.
Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.
I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"
Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."
I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."
Why would 2.5 hours not be enough to table? If anything, games are faster when you're just trying to kill each other rather than carefully measuring whether you have units in all table quarters, near objectives etc., no?
What do you usually play and what "tabling lists" have you crushed?
Logistically tabling someone in 2.5 hours - which includes all mission prep & setup time - is not easy. Don't confuse "essentially tabled" with "actually tabled." You can have someone clearly beaten within 2.5 hours no problem, but actually killing *every* model isn't easy.
My gaming resume doesn't really matter, but if you'd like to see it shoot me a PM.
Brb missions barely have any mission prep, especially Relic and No Mercy. Gonna shoot you that PM.
Xenomancers wrote: Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
Making games play to their natural conclusion is always one of the most important things you need out of a tournament packet. Time limits are an unfortunate necessity, but you want to push players to play fast enough that they are the exception rather than the norm.
#40kChessClocks
For the millionth time, chess clocks do not apply. Chess has no logistics tied to taking your action. It's thought, and then the thought is instantly manifested on the board.
The better solution would be capping games at 4 turns. It's like having a game of 3 minute chess, instead of 10 minute chess. Tournament 40k is like blitz chess. 2.5 hours is plenty for 4 turns.
Marmatag wrote: Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.
Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.
I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"
Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."
I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."
Why would 2.5 hours not be enough to table? If anything, games are faster when you're just trying to kill each other rather than carefully measuring whether you have units in all table quarters, near objectives etc., no?
What do you usually play and what "tabling lists" have you crushed?
Logistically tabling someone in 2.5 hours - which includes all mission prep & setup time - is not easy. Don't confuse "essentially tabled" with "actually tabled." You can have someone clearly beaten within 2.5 hours no problem, but actually killing *every* model isn't easy.
My gaming resume doesn't really matter, but if you'd like to see it shoot me a PM.
Brb missions barely have any mission prep, especially Relic and No Mercy. Gonna shoot you that PM.
Yes they do, you still have to measure zones and deploy. This is where the time is spent. Also, ITC terrain is pre-set up and configured before the round starts.
Xenomancers wrote: Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
Turn 4 is pretty reliable until you run into people who don't know rules and you have to call judges. I spent 32 minutes in a tournament recently because my opponent didn't know basic rules and challenged me on them. Even rules specific to his army. What can you do? It's time lost.
When you play with good, knowledgeable people, turn 4 is easy. 5 gets tough because even if there's time left to start a 5th turn, if it's under 20 minutes that becomes really difficult. So sometimes you'll have game round where 20 minutes is spent in the deployment phase, and 15 minutes are lost at the end, meaning you've got under 2 hours to get 5 turns.
Also, shooting armies with lots of different kinds of weapons will eat through time like nobodies business. If every unit is throwing a grenade and firing a special weapon, it gets kind of silly in the time spent there. I use the GW assault dice app for my rolls. I can get 80 attacks from my Genestealers done in 10 seconds. Faster than a kill team doing its shooting.
I guess it helps that our tournaments never go past 20 tables so it's very easy to get a judge. Codices also required so knowing your own rules is rarely an issue.
You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.
I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.
Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.
Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)
Xenomancers wrote: Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
Making games play to their natural conclusion is always one of the most important things you need out of a tournament packet. Time limits are an unfortunate necessity, but you want to push players to play fast enough that they are the exception rather than the norm.
#40kChessClocks
For the millionth time, chess clocks do not apply. Chess has no logistics tied to taking your action. It's thought, and then the thought is instantly manifested on the board.
The better solution would be capping games at 4 turns. It's like having a game of 3 minute chess, instead of 10 minute chess. Tournament 40k is like blitz chess. 2.5 hours is plenty for 4 turns.
Marmatag wrote: Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.
Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.
I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"
Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."
I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."
Why would 2.5 hours not be enough to table? If anything, games are faster when you're just trying to kill each other rather than carefully measuring whether you have units in all table quarters, near objectives etc., no?
What do you usually play and what "tabling lists" have you crushed?
Logistically tabling someone in 2.5 hours - which includes all mission prep & setup time - is not easy. Don't confuse "essentially tabled" with "actually tabled." You can have someone clearly beaten within 2.5 hours no problem, but actually killing *every* model isn't easy.
My gaming resume doesn't really matter, but if you'd like to see it shoot me a PM.
Brb missions barely have any mission prep, especially Relic and No Mercy. Gonna shoot you that PM.
Yes they do, you still have to measure zones and deploy. This is where the time is spent. Also, ITC terrain is pre-set up and configured before the round starts.
So keep that and take away the ITC paperwork and jotting down scores, you get our meta. Rarely ever get problems with time. Maybe it helps that every list is aiming to table.
Xenomancers wrote: Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
Turn 4 is pretty reliable until you run into people who don't know rules and you have to call judges. I spent 32 minutes in a tournament recently because my opponent didn't know basic rules and challenged me on them. Even rules specific to his army. What can you do? It's time lost.
When you play with good, knowledgeable people, turn 4 is easy. 5 gets tough because even if there's time left to start a 5th turn, if it's under 20 minutes that becomes really difficult. So sometimes you'll have game round where 20 minutes is spent in the deployment phase, and 15 minutes are lost at the end, meaning you've got under 2 hours to get 5 turns.
Also, shooting armies with lots of different kinds of weapons will eat through time like nobodies business. If every unit is throwing a grenade and firing a special weapon, it gets kind of silly in the time spent there. I use the GW assault dice app for my rolls. I can get 80 attacks from my Genestealers done in 10 seconds. Faster than a kill team doing its shooting.
I guess it helps that our tournaments never go past 20 tables so it's very easy to get a judge. Codices also required so knowing your own rules is rarely an issue.
Referencing your codex takes time. But more importantly, the games rules have changed as a result of FAQ entries. Locating the FAQ can be difficult, and it's easier to call a judge. Think about how Warp Time changed in relation to deep strike. That is not in the RAW or the codex.
Calling a judge takes time. If you want 6 turns in 2.5 hours you don't have 10 minutes to spare.
bananathug wrote: You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.
I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.
Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.
Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)
Take objectives off the table (or just render them irrelevant) and it's a lot faster. How did he win, aside from "arbitrarily standing next to a poker chip"?
Xenomancers wrote: Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
Turn 4 is pretty reliable until you run into people who don't know rules and you have to call judges. I spent 32 minutes in a tournament recently because my opponent didn't know basic rules and challenged me on them. Even rules specific to his army. What can you do? It's time lost.
When you play with good, knowledgeable people, turn 4 is easy. 5 gets tough because even if there's time left to start a 5th turn, if it's under 20 minutes that becomes really difficult. So sometimes you'll have game round where 20 minutes is spent in the deployment phase, and 15 minutes are lost at the end, meaning you've got under 2 hours to get 5 turns.
Also, shooting armies with lots of different kinds of weapons will eat through time like nobodies business. If every unit is throwing a grenade and firing a special weapon, it gets kind of silly in the time spent there. I use the GW assault dice app for my rolls. I can get 80 attacks from my Genestealers done in 10 seconds. Faster than a kill team doing its shooting.
I guess it helps that our tournaments never go past 20 tables so it's very easy to get a judge. Codices also required so knowing your own rules is rarely an issue.
Referencing your codex takes time. But more importantly, the games rules have changed as a result of FAQ entries. Locating the FAQ can be difficult, and it's easier to call a judge. Think about how Warp Time changed in relation to deep strike. That is not in the RAW or the codex.
Calling a judge takes time. If you want 6 turns in 2.5 hours you don't have 10 minutes to spare.
Or you can table your opponent in 3-4 turns, which is a frequent occurrence, to a point that it's boring (even if I win most of my games) but I can't convince people around me to play any other way.
Marmatag wrote: I'd like to see what list you're running where you get tabled in 3 turns.
The usual daemons soup/Nanavati Eldar/IG with shield captains/Genestealer Tyranids with Hive Guard/Drukhari Blaster + Disintegrator spam get played in my meta. They get tabled. Or they table each other, however you want to put it.
Xenomancers wrote: Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
Making games play to their natural conclusion is always one of the most important things you need out of a tournament packet. Time limits are an unfortunate necessity, but you want to push players to play fast enough that they are the exception rather than the norm.
#40kChessClocks
For the millionth time, chess clocks do not apply. Chess has no logistics tied to taking your action. It's thought, and then the thought is instantly manifested on the board.
The better solution would be capping games at 4 turns. It's like having a game of 3 minute chess, instead of 10 minute chess. Tournament 40k is like blitz chess. 2.5 hours is plenty for 4 turns.
For the millionth time (I guess?) logistics are irrelevant. You have a game you have to finish in a limited span of time. Chess clocks make that happen more reliably than anything else out there. I've used them in pretty much any game system out there and they get the job done. You have to adjust what happens when time runs out a bit depending on the game system, but the core premise of "my 75 minutes" is pretty universal for any turn based system out there.
bananathug wrote: You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.
I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.
Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.
Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)
Well, you did kill a hive tyrant in like 2 seconds effortlessly. This was a good game honestly, it just came down to bad rolls even with Guilliman. You had pretty bad luck. I think you'd do better after the deep strike change. Let me know if you want a game some time.
bananathug wrote: You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.
I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.
Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.
Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)
Well, you did kill a hive tyrant in like 2 seconds effortlessly. This was a good game honestly, it just came down to bad rolls even with Guilliman. You had pretty bad luck. I think you'd do better after the deep strike change. Let me know if you want a game some time.
Isn't a 10-point difference easily boiled down to holding an objective and holding one more than an opponent for 5 turns? How does this qualify as getting crushed? Isn't it just a matter of one list having more bodies and not dying?
bananathug wrote: You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.
I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.
Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.
Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)
Well, you did kill a hive tyrant in like 2 seconds effortlessly. This was a good game honestly, it just came down to bad rolls even with Guilliman. You had pretty bad luck. I think you'd do better after the deep strike change. Let me know if you want a game some time.
Isn't a 10-point difference easily boiled down to holding an objective and holding one more than an opponent for 5 turns? How does this qualify as getting crushed? Isn't it just a matter of one list having more bodies and not dying?
Holding more objectives for 5 turns would be 5 points. In this game he denied me holding more pretty easily, because i can't just waltz into the killbox of razorbacks and aggressors with any expectation of surviving. I don't think I was up by 10.
bananathug wrote: You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.
I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.
Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.
Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)
Well, you did kill a hive tyrant in like 2 seconds effortlessly. This was a good game honestly, it just came down to bad rolls even with Guilliman. You had pretty bad luck. I think you'd do better after the deep strike change. Let me know if you want a game some time.
Isn't a 10-point difference easily boiled down to holding an objective and holding one more than an opponent for 5 turns? How does this qualify as getting crushed? Isn't it just a matter of one list having more bodies and not dying?
Holding more objectives for 5 turns would be 5 points. In this game he denied me holding more pretty easily, because i can't just waltz into the killbox of razorbacks and aggressors with any expectation of surviving. I don't think I was up by 10.
What stopped you from attempting to tabling him? Did you later think that maybe you should run a list that could win a less roundabout manner by dealing with the Razorbacks and Aggressors without entering their killbox?
If the game was just to kill each other list design would be a lot different and the codex imbalance would be even more pronounced.
I think it adds a strategic element to the game that you can design a list to kill, be resilient or both. In response you have to build your list to handle both of these elements. It's what keeps a lid on knight lists or all custode bike lists. Allows people to compete with dark reaper lists and gives value to units like gaunts, guardsmen and the like.
The codexes are not balanced when it comes to killing/not getting killed power. Rewarding other army strengths (mobility, out of los ability, deployment, force concentration/spread) adds more to the game than it takes away.
And holding more for 5 turns is not a close game (although considering we only went through turn 4 those 10 points were more than that and he was able to kill as much or more each of those 4 points while having board control and really good resiliency)
[edit: match specifics] His list was built around board control and playing ITC missions. If he would have just spammed flyrants and hive guard he could have gone the tabling route (which is why the rule of 3 was implemented) and given the efficiency of those units vs anything I could put out there probably would have won. But that's not fun, tactical or engaging to play with/against. I had a great time trying to chew through his guys while not getting my tanks/dread tied up and screening from deepstrike. Without the ITC format it would have been 7 flyrants vs 7 razors+gman+guard screens and we might as well have just math-hammered out the results (he wins).
I don't need to deal with them. I could maintain a solid advantage in points and force him to bring the fight to me. Winning by 1 is the same as winning by 100 when it's the final table.
And if the game was straight "kill each other" he would have crushed me.
Marmatag wrote: I don't need to deal with them. I could maintain a solid advantage in points and force him to bring the fight to me. Winning by 1 is the same as winning by 100 when it's the final table.
So in this one instance it was beneficial not to attempt to table. Why ITC at all if it's turning fights into non-fights?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: If the game was just to kill each other list design would be a lot different and the codex imbalance would be even more pronounced.
I think it adds a strategic element to the game that you can design a list to kill, be resilient or both. In response you have to build your list to handle both of these elements. It's what keeps a lid on knight lists or all custode bike lists. Allows people to compete with dark reaper lists and gives value to units like gaunts, guardsmen and the like.
The codexes are not balanced when it comes to killing/not getting killed power. Rewarding other army strengths (not getting killed, mobility) adds more to the game than it takes away.
And holding more for 5 turns is not a close game (although considering we only went through turn 4 those 10 points were more than that and he was able to kill as much or more each of those 4 points while having board control and really good resiliency)
I actually agree wholeheartedly. But what do you say to people who believe if you can't win the killing part, you should either play better or switch armies?
bananathug wrote: Because designing an army to just leverage the best ppw inflicted is boring for people with a basic grasp of math?
See, that's a tough sell. They don't think it's basic math. They think there's strategy in spamming Drukhari blasters and disintegrators...somehow. Because you still move, kite, use timely Strategems, etc.
bananathug wrote: Because designing an army to just leverage the best ppw inflicted is boring for people with a basic grasp of math?
See, that's a tough sell. They don't think it's basic math. They think there's strategy in spamming Drukhari blasters and disintegrators...somehow. Because you still move, kite, use timely Strategems, etc.
Not much can be done if people believe that selecting the most points efficient dakka is equivalent to player skill.
Like it's well documented how to win in that way. May as well replace a tournament with a simple question: "do you have the disposable income to buy up the lastest cheese?" Everyone who answers yes goes to roll-off to determine first turn. The winner of those roll offs are considered the victor of the game.
bananathug wrote: Because designing an army to just leverage the best ppw inflicted is boring for people with a basic grasp of math?
See, that's a tough sell. They don't think it's basic math. They think there's strategy in spamming Drukhari blasters and disintegrators...somehow. Because you still move, kite, use timely Strategems, etc.
Not much can be done if people believe that selecting the most points efficient dakka is equivalent to player skill.
Like it's well documented how to win in that way. May as well replace a tournament with a simple question: "do you have the disposable income to buy up the lastest cheese?" Everyone who answers yes goes to roll-off to determine first turn. The winner of those roll offs are considered the victor of the game.
I guess ego is part of it, too. They'd be like, you're just saying that because you can't just table your opponents and they can. Lol. It's seriously hair-pulling. That tabling stuff got boring LAST YEAR.
Get them to try objective based games? I didn't think it was that important until I tried it and realized how many options for wining/losing it opened and how it added another layer onto list building.
I love your idea of trying to come up with local mission packs and having to construct an army that can do more than one type of mission is fun (and that's why we play right?)
And I think you answered your own question because your local meta turns into eldar vs eldar. DE vs altoric + yanarri. Shining spears vs whatever.
And yeah, then the game turns into who has the biggest model collection/most time/or is willing to spend the most on the new hotness. I'm not sure how that isn't apparent to your group.
It seems like you are a leader in your community (which is awesome!!! thank you for your time!!). Hell try to just organize a one day 3 round tourney using ITC packs and see what happens? If they like to play I think they'll show up and have a good time. I don't think it makes the game worse in any way.
I like the ITC missions. They give much more flexibility on how you can play and hopefully win the game. Nobody wants to feel that they're screwed from either a bad match up or highly unfavorable mission conditions, from the get-go. Nobody wants to feel that if they dont bring some broken, Forgeworld, superheavy, that they can't play the game. I think that was the point to ITC. Also, if you play the ITC missions, competitive play is assumed. I think it fits well in the meta and allows players to quickly differentiate whether they want to play competitively (ITC) or play more casual (BRB).
bananathug wrote: Get them to try objective based games? I didn't think it was that important until I tried it and realized how many options for wining/losing it opened and how it added another layer onto list building.
I love your idea of trying to come up with local mission packs and having to construct an army that can do more than one type of mission is fun (and that's why we play right?)
And I think you answered your own question because your local meta turns into eldar vs eldar. DE vs altoric + yanarri. Shining spears vs whatever.
And yeah, then the game turns into who has the biggest model collection/most time/or is willing to spend the most on the new hotness. I'm not sure how that isn't apparent to your group.
It seems like you are a leader in your community (which is awesome!!! thank you for your time!!). Hell try to just organize a one day 3 round tourney using ITC packs and see what happens? If they like to play I think they'll show up and have a good time. I don't think it makes the game worse in any way.
I think the prevailing thought is 40k has always been like that - the "meta" (meta being what's good at killing, ah those five Wraithknight lists...) shifts based on what GW wants to sell, and that's how the game is played. Funny thing is there are some who would argue there is still strategy in end game objectives when they're almost always afterthoughts. Yeah really hoping this thread will pave the way to a better mission format in my community. It's a reaaaaal tough sell though. Like you come to a game with scoresheets and that's way too much bookkeeping, apparently.
If ITC hadn't updated their packs to be progressive scoring with selectable secondaries i would have quit 8th edition. It becomes such a one dimensional game that it's pointless.
bananathug wrote: Get them to try objective based games? I didn't think it was that important until I tried it and realized how many options for wining/losing it opened and how it added another layer onto list building.
I love your idea of trying to come up with local mission packs and having to construct an army that can do more than one type of mission is fun (and that's why we play right?)
And I think you answered your own question because your local meta turns into eldar vs eldar. DE vs altoric + yanarri. Shining spears vs whatever.
And yeah, then the game turns into who has the biggest model collection/most time/or is willing to spend the most on the new hotness. I'm not sure how that isn't apparent to your group.
It seems like you are a leader in your community (which is awesome!!! thank you for your time!!). Hell try to just organize a one day 3 round tourney using ITC packs and see what happens? If they like to play I think they'll show up and have a good time. I don't think it makes the game worse in any way.
I think the prevailing thought is 40k has always been like that - the "meta" (meta being what's good at killing, ah those five Wraithknight lists...) shifts based on what GW wants to sell, and that's how the game is played. Funny thing is there are some who would argue there is still strategy in end game objectives when they're almost always afterthoughts. Yeah really hoping this thread will pave the way to a better mission format in my community. It's a reaaaaal tough sell though. Like you come to a game with scoresheets and that's way too much bookkeeping, apparently.
People are pretty set in their ways on this subject. You aren't going to make a difference. Everyone wants to think they are playing 40k the right way and everyone experience with the game is different to.
I play some other games. World of warships and leauge of legends.
If you actaully experience the different metas on different servers you will come to the same conclusion.
In WOWs Russian server is a slug fests - everyone drives full speed at the enemy ships and the games are over in 5-10 minutes with battleships fighting at 2-3km or ramming each other to finish the game. On the US server everyone stays as far apart as they possibly can and fire over islands out of LOS and the games are often decided by points when the 20 min time limit runs out. Who is playing the game right? Who knows...but they are playing with the same ships. IMO though - there is no question who is having more fun.
bananathug wrote: Get them to try objective based games? I didn't think it was that important until I tried it and realized how many options for wining/losing it opened and how it added another layer onto list building.
I love your idea of trying to come up with local mission packs and having to construct an army that can do more than one type of mission is fun (and that's why we play right?)
And I think you answered your own question because your local meta turns into eldar vs eldar. DE vs altoric + yanarri. Shining spears vs whatever.
And yeah, then the game turns into who has the biggest model collection/most time/or is willing to spend the most on the new hotness. I'm not sure how that isn't apparent to your group.
It seems like you are a leader in your community (which is awesome!!! thank you for your time!!). Hell try to just organize a one day 3 round tourney using ITC packs and see what happens? If they like to play I think they'll show up and have a good time. I don't think it makes the game worse in any way.
I think the prevailing thought is 40k has always been like that - the "meta" (meta being what's good at killing, ah those five Wraithknight lists...) shifts based on what GW wants to sell, and that's how the game is played. Funny thing is there are some who would argue there is still strategy in end game objectives when they're almost always afterthoughts. Yeah really hoping this thread will pave the way to a better mission format in my community. It's a reaaaaal tough sell though. Like you come to a game with scoresheets and that's way too much bookkeeping, apparently.
People are pretty set in their ways on this subject. You aren't going to make a difference. Everyone wants to think they are playing 40k the right way and everyone experience with the game is different to.
I play some other games. World of warships and leauge of legends.
If you actaully experience the different metas on different servers you will come to the same conclusion.
In WOWs Russian server is a slug fests - everyone drives full speed at the enemy ships and the games are over in 5-10 minutes with battleships fighting at 2-3km or ramming each other to finish the game. On the US server everyone stays as far apart as they possibly can and fire over islands out of LOS and the games are often decided by points when the 20 min time limit runs out. Who is playing the game right? Who knows...but they are playing with the same ships. IMO though - there is no question who is having more fun.
Marmatag wrote: Tournament 40k is like blitz chess. 2.5 hours is plenty for 4 turns.
You know I'd be curious to see how the game plays if people played with the expectation for 4 turns.
It almost feels right.
I'm also curious if - with both players looking to table each other and not thinking of objectives at all - 2.5 hours is really too short, with the exception of armies with multiple 20-30 model squads.
