In order to roll smoothly into the next season of the ITC, we have to figure out what–if anything–is going to change now so that we can get it ready for 2019. So, please give us your feedback to help shape the future of the ITC!
Based on player feedback we’re taking a look at possibly altering the ITC Missions. Largely they’ve been extremely well received but you can always look to improve. By taking this survey we will get a better idea for what elements of the missions could use a tweak, or if we’re good to go and leave them alone for the 2019 season.
Also, any ideas for changes for the 2019 season in general are welcome on this post.
Crimson wrote: Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.
This. With respect Reese, you don't have custom missions for AOS. Why keep it for 40k? I get before that you had to "fix" the game when GW didn't care, and the initial missions in 8th edition were lackluster. But the Chapter Approved 2018 Eternal War (not Maelstrom ofc) missions are IMHO stellar. You should just use those, and not have what is essentially your own version of the game with completely different missions that change fundamental things about gameplay and list design. You did your part to get GW to pay attention to tournaments; it's time to come back in the fold and end your rebellion.
Crimson wrote: Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.
This. With respect Reese, you don't have custom missions for AOS. Why keep it for 40k? I get before that you had to "fix" the game when GW didn't care, and the initial missions in 8th edition were lackluster. But the Chapter Approved 2018 missions are IMHO stellar. You should just use those, and not have what is essentially your own version of the game.
I would prefer the adoption of the CA deployment methods, which I agree are superior.
Though i think the specifics of the individual missions are trash tier, and have similar problems to some of the AOS missions, in that they strongly favor horde armies, or anything that can early game dominate the board, as games can be ended at the tail end of turn 3, without there being a possibility for the other player to recover. While such a scenario is also possible in ITC missions, it would generally mean that the player that is so far ahead at the end of turn three, would more than likely remain that way for the rest of the game. However with the CA missions, early game dominance, often wont properly show how the game would look after 2/3/4 more turns, as it doesn't take into account kills (yes except for the one mission that does, which is heavily influenced by ITC). And nothing feels worse than turning a game around, into a position of dominance, without the possibility of getting a victory out of it.
Plus at a TO level, the GW missions are very low scoring, which results in more draws, which from what I'm told isn't good for determining overall winners etc, and in turn being low scoring, makes 'first blood' a far more valuable commodity than is desirable in a competitive game where first turn is decided by a single die roll.
Crimson wrote: Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.
This. With respect Reese, you don't have custom missions for AOS. Why keep it for 40k? I get before that you had to "fix" the game when GW didn't care, and the initial missions in 8th edition were lackluster. But the Chapter Approved 2018 Eternal War (not Maelstrom ofc) missions are IMHO stellar. You should just use those, and not have what is essentially your own version of the game with completely different missions that change fundamental things about gameplay and list design. You did your part to get GW to pay attention to tournaments; it's time to come back in the fold and end your rebellion.
I strongly agree with these opinions. While I wouldn't accuse you of being game designers the ITC missions have always from the outside appeared to be trying to fix the problems with 40k main rules. The new missions in CA while not perfect have clearly adopted things from ITC and other major tournaments.
Reece, you (the ITC) have a lot of power in the 40k community. What you've achieved for the game is phenomenal. Listening to the feedback is important but you should consider adopting the main CA eternal war missions. If you can use your power to move towards a unified tournament format then the credibility of 40k as a competitive 'sport' would be cemented.
Please consider asking in your feedback form whether people would like to play the CA missions in their entirety.
Crimson wrote: Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.
This. With respect Reese, you don't have custom missions for AOS. Why keep it for 40k? I get before that you had to "fix" the game when GW didn't care, and the initial missions in 8th edition were lackluster. But the Chapter Approved 2018 missions are IMHO stellar. You should just use those, and not have what is essentially your own version of the game.
I would prefer the adoption of the CA deployment methods, which I agree are superior.
Though i think the specifics of the individual missions are trash tier, and have similar problems to some of the AOS missions, in that they strongly favor horde armies, or anything that can early game dominate the board, as games can be ended at the tail end of turn 3, without there being a possibility for the other player to recover. While such a scenario is also possible in ITC missions, it would generally mean that the player that is so far ahead at the end of turn three, would more than likely remain that way for the rest of the game. However with the CA missions, early game dominance, often wont properly show how the game would look after 2/3/4 more turns, as it doesn't take into account kills (yes except for the one mission that does, which is heavily influenced by ITC). And nothing feels worse than turning a game around, into a position of dominance, without the possibility of getting a victory out of it.
Plus at a TO level, the GW missions are very low scoring, which results in more draws, which from what I'm told isn't good for determining overall winners etc, and in turn being low scoring, makes 'first blood' a far more valuable commodity than is desirable in a competitive game where first turn is decided by a single die roll.
Crimson wrote: Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.
This. With respect Reese, you don't have custom missions for AOS. Why keep it for 40k? I get before that you had to "fix" the game when GW didn't care, and the initial missions in 8th edition were lackluster. But the Chapter Approved 2018 missions are IMHO stellar. You should just use those, and not have what is essentially your own version of the game.
I would prefer the adoption of the CA deployment methods, which I agree are superior.
Though i think the specifics of the individual missions are trash tier, and have similar problems to some of the AOS missions, in that they strongly favor horde armies, or anything that can early game dominate the board, as games can be ended at the tail end of turn 3, without there being a possibility for the other player to recover. While such a scenario is also possible in ITC missions, it would generally mean that the player that is so far ahead at the end of turn three, would more than likely remain that way for the rest of the game. However with the CA missions, early game dominance, often wont properly show how the game would look after 2/3/4 more turns, as it doesn't take into account kills (yes except for the one mission that does, which is heavily influenced by ITC). And nothing feels worse than turning a game around, into a position of dominance, without the possibility of getting a victory out of it.
Plus at a TO level, the GW missions are very low scoring, which results in more draws, which from what I'm told isn't good for determining overall winners etc, and in turn being low scoring, makes 'first blood' a far more valuable commodity than is desirable in a competitive game where first turn is decided by a single die roll.
The new missions don't have first blood.
I stand corrected. I'm also not a big fan of first strike, or whatever the kill something in the first round rule is called, but its an improvement on first blood certainly. This was my most minor of complaints about the CA missions though, so I still actively dislike them (not their framework, but the mission specifics).
Crimson wrote: Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.
This!
Last years CA (eternal war) were already better IMHO. But now 2018 has even better missions and better fixes with the new deployment and acceptable casualties. The ITC missions are bland do to simple primaries but the secondaries bloat the game and eat way too much time in the pregame. BTW the reverting of previous editions deployment method also cuts time way down.
My other beef is the new enclosed ruins. It's attempting to fix one issue by creating 10 more. Use occums razor and just treat solid buildings as BLOS impassible terrain pieces already. Nobody wants to play jack in the box or Whack-a-mole 40k. If someone wants to play with a bunker then let them pay points for it and let it be destroyed. It only gets worse when you realize 40k requires two centrally placed BLOS pieces, generally the ones in question.
I'd take a look at the overall scoring system. LVO is literally all that matters if you have any scores for faction determination. I'd like to see LVO have less of an impact (i.e. not make it's score possibly worth more than possibly all scores coming in).
And I'd like to see the older method (now new again) of deployment brought back. Unit by unit is needless wasted time. Plus with chess clocks becoming more a thing this will help there too.
At the very least, I'd fully support a transition from First Blood to First Strike. (Allowing both players to score that point, rather than whoever happened to go first)
And, i'd remove victory by tabling. (Acceptable Casualties) If someone accumulates enough points to win with no models left, they deserve a win.
I think the secondaries are very confusing to be honest.
Don't forget, we don't dictate things. If you all prefer any other type of missions and in your events want to run them, feel free to. You can still participate in the ITC global community and have fun and play the game the way you want to if that is the general consensus in your area.
The idea is to have fun and participate, how you choose to do that is up to you and your local community.
As for what we do as the baseline of the ITC, that comes down to what participants want. Everyone has their own perspective on it, often conflicting, so this is why we solicit feedback to find the most broadly appealing choice. It isn't always exactly what we all want (myself included) but compromise is the name of the game. The hope is to come close to what we all want but we do have to accept none of us are likely to get exactly what we want down to the smallest details.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, lol, that comment about not being game designers is pretty ironic considering we had direct input on the CA missions as play testers, haha.
So, in a sense, using community designed ITC missions is actually me being LESS of a game designer than using CA missions! That's funny.
Ah, that made me laugh, but, put your feedback in the form and we will see what the majority of people want to do. I just want fun, fair, balanced missions that make people excited to play.
IMHO - EO missions are not consistent enough for tourney play, and have a couple other elements that aren't tourney friendly.
One element being the determining deployment type. If the deployment type is chosen by dice off, I'm going to get an enormous advantage by getting to choose what favors my army. And that is Search and Destroy, allowing my drukhari wyches a near guaranteed 1st turn assault. Very few 2k armies will be able to deploy out of assault range if I get to pick Search and Destroy, shoving them into less than a quarter of the table. And that'd be 50% of the time.
The shooty army player will choose Hammer & Anvil to blow opponents away at range. Yes, tactical objectives mitigate that, but if you table him ... And I know that it was mentioned that Tabling ought to be elminated ... okay, so what scoring mechanic have any of you guys drawn up that make this work?
This heavy skew of d-types will make one player's experience really suck. ITC missions mitigate that, evening the playing field. Instead of a hard 50/50 coin flip like EO deployment, ITC has you rolling the 1 outta 6 deployment types per game. This gives a far wider, fairer ranToo Long : Won't Read
IMHO - EO missions are not consistent enough for tourney play, and have a couple other elements that aren't tourney friendly.
One element being the determining deployment type. If the deployment type is chosen by dice off, I'm going to get an enormous boost by getting to choose what favors my army. And that is Search and Destroy, allowing my drukhari wyches a near guaranteed 1st turn assault. Very few armies will be able to deploy out of assault range if I get to pick Search and Destroy. And that'd be 50% of the time.
This heavy skew of d-types will one player's experience really suck. ITC missions mitigate that, evening the playing field. Instead of a hard 50/50 coin flip like EO deployment, ITC rolling the 1 outta 6 deployment types per game give a far wider, fairer randomizing, for a better play experience for the Beer&Pretzel guys, the "going to lose, but have fun" players, of which I'm a charter member.
Too Long : Won't Read
In the spoiler is the scoring bit on EO missions.
Spoiler:
First, the EO missions look like a lot of fun. I have read and reread them. Not having played them, I can still see some problems for tourney play.
secretForge wrote: Plus at a TO level, the GW missions are very low scoring, which results in more draws, which from what I'm told isn't good for determining overall winners etc, and in turn being low scoring, makes 'first blood' a far more valuable commodity than is desirable in a competitive game where first turn is decided by a single die roll.
More than this; they're inconsistent in how they score. Narrow the Search's VPs max at 10, but one can get up to 73 VPs for Vital Intel (however unlikely). One might counter argue that all players will have the same missions, and thus same scoring opportunities during a tournament. But, it's hard to put my finger on it, but the lack of consistency when missions score up from 10 VPs to the others which score maximums of 24, 27, 39 to the 73 VPs (I tried my best to calculate that out) ... ties won't be a problem. But the lack of consistency is.
I'm going to have to readjust how to score each game. With ITC missions, the game mechanics are consistent, with only the bonus point needing a quick check.
There's already so much to try to remember and plan for. Let's say I'm at a GT, big GT or small GT. EO missions will be used, let's say all 6 EO missions. I'm going to try to remember, as best possible, all the armies and their codexes (rules and stratagems) and how to counter and deal with them. Each game, I then need to have a plan or think about the terrain variables, how to deploy one of 12 ways, because I might deploy differently if I know I'm going first, and deploying first or second, so that's a fresh think at each game. And then I need to load up my brain with that mission, hopefully in order, starting with Narrow the Search.
And then the quite varied formats of the EO missions, or just that one, for that game. Lather, rinse and repeat 5 to 6 times for that GT.
When I play at a GT, it's hard enough to remember all that per next opponent. With the ITC missions, I don't have to rethink what I have to do to score points, I only have to rethink the new terrain (which is getting uniform in shape at FLG events, but always a great variety of colors & themes), opponent's army, and the how to score the bonus point, which is the same the whole mission (have 3 characters on objects, control all objectives, etc.).
Secondaries missions:
These do not bog down the game. I know pretty much what I'm going to chose, every game, with one choice depending on the opponent, deployment type, etc.
@Crimson, Wayniac, Nithaniel, Red Corsair
Question: Do you attend tourneys?
Q#2: Do you not attend ITC tourneys because they use ITC missions?
If yes, then ask your local players to have a tourney using EO missions. With some advance notice, I bet your local set of players would accept. I would. And, as Reece posted, the ITC points can still be scored.
Overall, your criticisms here really ought to be voiced in the survey. And if you're not ITC members because the ITC missions are dominant at your LGS, then doing something about it by getting your local crew to adapt and change your event, as Reece stated.
IMHO - EO missions are not consistent enough for tourney play, and have a couple other elements that aren't tourney friendly.
One element being the determining deployment type. If the deployment type is chosen by dice off, I'm going to get an enormous advantage by getting to choose what favors my army. And that is Search and Destroy, allowing my drukhari wyches a near guaranteed 1st turn assault. Very few 2k armies will be able to deploy out of assault range if I get to pick Search and Destroy, shoving them into less than a quarter of the table. And that'd be 50% of the time.
The shooty army player will choose Hammer & Anvil to blow opponents away at range. Yes, tactical objectives mitigate that, but if you table him ... And I know that it was mentioned that Tabling ought to be elminated ... okay, so what scoring mechanic have any of you guys drawn up that make this work?
This heavy skew of d-types will make one player's experience really suck. ITC missions mitigate that, evening the playing field. Instead of a hard 50/50 coin flip like EO deployment, ITC has you rolling the 1 outta 6 deployment types per game. This gives a far wider, fairer ranToo Long : Won't Read
IMHO - EO missions are not consistent enough for tourney play, and have a couple other elements that aren't tourney friendly.
One element being the determining deployment type. If the deployment type is chosen by dice off, I'm going to get an enormous boost by getting to choose what favors my army. And that is Search and Destroy, allowing my drukhari wyches a near guaranteed 1st turn assault. Very few armies will be able to deploy out of assault range if I get to pick Search and Destroy. And that'd be 50% of the time.
This heavy skew of d-types will one player's experience really suck. ITC missions mitigate that, evening the playing field. Instead of a hard 50/50 coin flip like EO deployment, ITC rolling the 1 outta 6 deployment types per game give a far wider, fairer randomizing, for a better play experience for the Beer&Pretzel guys, the "going to lose, but have fun" players, of which I'm a charter member.
Bit confused with this bit. All the CA2018 missions determine the deployment type the same way as every other mission, the winner of the roll off rolls another dice to determine which map is played. They then get to pick a deployment zone. They don't get to just pick Hammer and Anvil or Search and Destroy.
Too Long : Won't Read
In the spoiler is the scoring bit on EO missions.
Spoiler:
First, the EO missions look like a lot of fun. I have read and reread them. Not having played them, I can still see some problems for tourney play.
secretForge wrote: Plus at a TO level, the GW missions are very low scoring, which results in more draws, which from what I'm told isn't good for determining overall winners etc, and in turn being low scoring, makes 'first blood' a far more valuable commodity than is desirable in a competitive game where first turn is decided by a single die roll.
More than this; they're inconsistent in how they score. Narrow the Search's VPs max at 10, but one can get up to 73 VPs for Vital Intel (however unlikely). One might counter argue that all players will have the same missions, and thus same scoring opportunities during a tournament. But, it's hard to put my finger on it, but the lack of consistency when missions score up from 10 VPs to the others which score maximums of 24, 27, 39 to the 73 VPs (I tried my best to calculate that out) ... ties won't be a problem. But the lack of consistency is.
I'm going to have to readjust how to score each game. With ITC missions, the game mechanics are consistent, with only the bonus point needing a quick check.
There's already so much to try to remember and plan for. Let's say I'm at a GT, big GT or small GT. EO missions will be used, let's say all 6 EO missions. I'm going to try to remember, as best possible, all the armies and their codexes (rules and stratagems) and how to counter and deal with them. Each game, I then need to have a plan or think about the terrain variables, how to deploy one of 12 ways, because I might deploy differently if I know I'm going first, and deploying first or second, so that's a fresh think at each game. And then I need to load up my brain with that mission, hopefully in order, starting with Narrow the Search.
And then the quite varied formats of the EO missions, or just that one, for that game. Lather, rinse and repeat 5 to 6 times for that GT.
When I play at a GT, it's hard enough to remember all that per next opponent. With the ITC missions, I don't have to rethink what I have to do to score points, I only have to rethink the new terrain (which is getting uniform in shape at FLG events, but always a great variety of colors & themes), opponent's army, and the how to score the bonus point, which is the same the whole mission (have 3 characters on objects, control all objectives, etc.).
Secondaries missions:
These do not bog down the game. I know pretty much what I'm going to chose, every game, with one choice depending on the opponent, deployment type, etc.
@Crimson, Wayniac, Nithaniel, Red Corsair
Question: Do you attend tourneys?
Q#2: Do you not attend ITC tourneys because they use ITC missions?
If yes, then ask your local players to have a tourney using EO missions. With some advance notice, I bet your local set of players would accept. I would. And, as Reece posted, the ITC points can still be scored.
Overall, your criticisms here really ought to be voiced in the survey. And if you're not ITC members because the ITC missions are dominant at your LGS, then doing something about it by getting your local crew to adapt and change your event, as Reece stated.
In regards to draws, draws aren't a bad thing, and it is actually better to have a close scoring game than having one guy on 35 points and the other on 10. You don't need a range of 0 to 42 points to determine a winner.
I think more events will start to use the CA missions in place of the ITC missions, especially in Europe where it already feels like the majority are already non ITC missions, but, i'd be interested to see what happens in the USA based on the LVO. The event i'm at next weekend is the LCO. It was always dubbed as the last major event before the LVO previous, as such it runs ITC missions to allow players going to the LVO a chance to practice in the current meta. If the LVO changes, so will the LCO.
The scoring methods for the CA18 missions are no more difficult the adjust to than the changes between each ITC mission scoring. In fact, there is less of an issue trying to remember everything. You have the remember, that the ITC mission isn't the primary or secondary objectives, they are actually the "bonus" point you can score each turn. Primary and Secondary objectives just bump up the possible score tally. The actual mission point should be worth more than a single bonus point imp, as it'd then actually start to drive people toward achieving the mission, as opposed to achieving their pre-event selected secondaries.
As Reece said, as testers we have a lot of input on the CA missions and a lot of understanding of what GW actually thinks and intends. Anyone who claims GW intends tournaments to be played with CA missions or their missions in particular has no insight into what gw actually wants and the direction they're going.
Also take a look at their official Kill Team tournament missions and take a look at the newly announced Arena when it releases, then also take a look at ways in which CA is starting to resemble things you've seen in Nova and ITC for years, like first strike.
I join Reece in chuckling a lot when people claim they know what gw intends and that organizers of WHC-Approved events are just rebels in the dark.
MVBrandt wrote: As Reece said, as testers we have a lot of input on the CA missions and a lot of understanding of what GW actually thinks and intends. Anyone who claims GW intends tournaments to be played with CA missions or their missions in particular has no insight into what gw actually wants and the direction they're going.
Also take a look at their official Kill Team tournament missions and take a look at the newly announced Arena when it releases, then also take a look at ways in which CA is starting to resemble things you've seen in Nova and ITC for years, like first strike.
I join Reece in chuckling a lot when people claim they know what gw intends and that organizers of WHC-Approved events are just rebels in the dark.
I think the vast majority of people can see the links between ITC and the new missions and it's great that certain aspects are being taken on by GW in their new missions.
I think what a lot of people are talking about though, is, now that a lot of the "best bits" have been incorporated, is there an actual need for other "basic" mission styles in events? I can see the case of having a reduced amount of secondaries ran alongside the new CA18 missions, but, is there a need, now, for the primaries and "bonus" mission points to exist in ITC?
It's very different here in the UK compared to the US, i accept that, but for a long time i've started to feel that secondaries are more of a primary than the primaries are in ITC missions, and the actual "mission" is nothing more than a side note often forgotten about and very very rarely built around list wise. This might be completely different over in the US, where the mission objective actually has an impact on the outcome of a game, but, currently i see no reason why i'd just not build a list to hold and object, kill a unit and then also score 3 pre-selected secondaries that i build my list around, whilst ensuring my list also restricts the amount of secondaries my opponent can achieve.
Well, considering you can score 30 points on primary and only 12 on secondaries if you built a list to ignore the primary you'd likely lose most of your games. Even assuming the bonus point is a touch out of reach every turn, it's still more than 2 to 1, primary to secondary.
Also, with the UK meta being "6 months ahead of the US", I'd think you gents would have no issue keeping an eye on a primary and secondary win condition
I kid of course, but I think really it's just a matter of not being used to the kind of missions we run over here. Looking at the feedback so far, as you noted, it is very regional. European and UK voters tend to lean towards book missions or ETC/Maelstrom type missions more so than this hemisphere which makes sense, that is what you all tend to play. People often go with what they know. US, Canada and Oz tends to go ITC missions form my observations.
@Thread
Missions like we have aren't just arbitrarily drawn up, they're the result of years of trial and error. Whether you like them or not is up to you of course and no hard feelings if you don't, but they work well and by and large, are what we've been asked for. What are or are not the best bits is entirely subjective, but I am glad to hear you like the CA missions and feel that good parts of the ITC/NOVA/etc. mission sets were incorporated, as we all worked hard on them.
CA missions are also very new, many players have not even played them yet, probably not even read them in many cases so determining which are better or worse is not possible for a lot of people. And, many of the folks advocating for them likely haven't gotten a lot of reps in, either, and sounds like many of you probably haven't gotten a lot of reps in with ITC missions. I say that not to be mean, it's just certainly appears that way. So, it feels like a lot of opinions being thrown around with perhaps not having enough time/reps/interest to get a strong feel for it.
Also to put it in context hardly anyone is asking to use the CA missions, whereas a LOT of people are saying they prefer deploying entire armies as opposed to unit by unit. Like, off the cuff, it's like maybe 5% of the respondents are saying they want to use CA missions entirely. It's a very small minority at this time, just a bit more than people asking for Maelstrom missions. So at least at this point in time, it certainly does not seem to reflect the desires of many ITC participants.
Regarding the scoring thing, it does matter how you score a mission for a lot of different reasons. You want to generate the same potential score every game, that is very important. You don't want a potential 10 point game then a potential 20 point game, etc. I think ties are fine, too, but the amount of points scored per missions is actually very important for overall tournament structure.
As soon as you go in and start changing things though, you are no longer playing out of the book and you are being an "amateur game designer." I mean, lol, I can't tell you how many times I have had this debate in the past. Getting deja vu! We're just really seeing how much the ITC is becoming international as we're having conversations again we put to rest years ago in the USA. Not saying that to put anyone down or act superior, it just makes me laugh a bit as in the AoS community they're going through a lot of the same debates and discussions and I had sort of forgotten about them a bit as we went through them ages ago. Over the years in the USA we've played with book missions, with homemade missions, and combinations of the two. And ultimately, the marketplace proved what folks wanted. We're playing the missions we're playing now because people WANT to play them. The ITC doesn't tell what to do, we ask you all what YOU wand US to do, and then we do. That is how we've gotten where we are now.
The ITC is about giving people the competitive play experience they want. If in your area, the UK, in Europe, etc. people want to participate but in their own way, by all means, go for it! If any of you think the CA missions, maelstrom, ETC, NOVA, ITC, Adepticon, narrative or whatever missions are "the best" then please, play them and have fun and grow thriving gaming communities. That is what the ITC is for: to energize and empower people to go out, play games and participate in the global community of gamers.
-New CA deployment/first turn method should be adopted.
-Also for itc faction rankings, I would like to see imperial, aeldari, chaos, and tyranid-mix (guard/gsc/nids) as faction categories. If a player does not have at least say...75% of their list drawn from a single codex, they get thrown into one of the big soup category rankings.
It’s silly to see “best dark angel player” with a list that has something like 33% guard, 33% knights, and 34% dark angels.
-As someone mentioned above, the pendulum swung too far the other way for big event points. I realize you want big events to be important for ranking, but what I’m seeing is people who can’t make it to LVO disinterested, feeling like they’re instantly disqualified from winning a ranking due to missing one particular event. (For reference, just being in the top 250ish players of this year’s LVO will give a score that blows away first place winners from say...a 60 man major.)
I would suggest putting a cap on the attendee multiplier. I recognize that larger events raise the overall competitiveness of lists and player skill that you will run into on the way to the podium, but I find somewhere around the time you hit major status, those factors have pretty much topped out. (IE you can expect high level lists and opponents every round after the first, sometimes second.)
A simple cap of 100 players counted for the bonus would probably work, giving a max of 155.76 from a 6 round event.
-One last detail, especially in light of many point costs being reduced, I would like to see the “standard” point level drop to 1750 for the purposes of fitting games into the time limit. I’m well aware that in theory TO Joe can set his event to whatever point level he wants, but the reality is that he feels pressured to keep the same point level as “the big events,” and so is too scared to make a necessary change.
I also know the “popular player-opinion” is that many of them want ALL THE POINTS EVER on the table, and won’t be happy until every deployment zone is filled and every game requires a chess clock just to make it to turn 3. We’re going to have to accept that those players don’t know what is healthy for the tournament scene and shouldn’t be listened to.
Reecius wrote: Also to put it in context hardly anyone is asking to use the CA missions, whereas a LOT of people are saying they prefer deploying entire armies as opposed to unit by unit. Like, off the cuff, it's like maybe 5% of the respondents are saying they want to use CA missions entirely. It's a very small minority at this time, just a bit more than people asking for Maelstrom missions. So at least at this point in time, it certainly does not seem to reflect the desires of many ITC participants.
Formatting of your questionnaire certainly affects that. It is mostly about improving ITC missions, there is a question about adopting CA elements. There is not even a question that directly asks whether CA missions should be used as they are. If you want that, you need to explicitly write it in. As any pollster knows, how and what questions are asked greatly influences the answers you get. If you have twelve questions about how to improve you hamburgers and one question about whether some elements of tacos could be incorporated into your hamburgers, most people are not gonna say that they'd rather just eat tacos, as the questions direct them thinking that it's really not an option to begin with.
Crimson that's just one questionnaire here. Reece and Franky talk about this stuff ALL YEAR LONG with people and at other big events.
ITC champ missions are, atm, the most professional and competitive missions out there. They might not be the most exciting, or even the most challenging, but they are fair, consistent, and provide something any real sport needs.
ITC champ missions are, atm, the most professional and competitive missions out there. They might not be the most exciting, or even the most challenging, but they are fair, consistent, and provide something any real sport needs.
I don't think that this level of 'consistency' is a good thing. When you can literally tailor the missions to suit your needs it gets pretty ridiculous. That just isn't something that should exist. There is already way too much focus on the competitive side of this game on list building instead of adapting in the actual game and being able to make sure that the mission is pretty much exactly what your army was specifically build for just makes it worse. Some GW missions favour certain builds, sure, and some other of their missions favour others. But that's kinda the point; if you don't know what sort of mission you're facing you need to build a balanced list rather than just double down on certain thing.
Look we get it, you like "random". That's fine at home or at your FLGS, but for big events its just no good.
I don't see how this crusade of yours is helping anything.
ITC is made for COMPETITIVE 40k. Its the closest thing to e-sports we get. If you don't have fun playing it then don't play it. Go play some beerhammer. There is no reason to keep bashing it when you haven't proposed any way to improve the competitive aspects.
Saying "you never have to adapt in the middle of battle" is quite frankly incorrect. You always have to adapt to your opponents style of play, no matter what missions your using. If your opponents are all playing exactly the same I can see how this becomes an issue, but they really shouldn't be, as there is usually many ways to go about the game.
If you are just mad because people can pick secondaries that favor their army then you must also be mad that NFL teams have playbooks, or that homefield advantage exists.
Eihnlazer wrote: Look we get it, you like "random". That's fine at home or at your FLGS, but for big events its just no good.
I don't see how this crusade of yours is helping anything.
ITC is made for COMPETITIVE 40k. Its the closest thing to e-sports we get. If you don't have fun playing it then don't play it. Go play some beerhammer. There is no reason to keep bashing it when you haven't proposed any way to improve the competitive aspects.
Saying "you never have to adapt in the middle of battle" is quite frankly incorrect. You always have to adapt to your opponents style of play, no matter what missions your using. If your opponents are all playing exactly the same I can see how this becomes an issue, but they really shouldn't be, as there is usually many ways to go about the game.
If you are just mad because people can pick secondaries that favor their army then you must also be mad that NFL teams have playbooks, or that homefield advantage exists.
This thread was about feedback. Your response to said feedback is 'play ITC missions or get feth out of here.' If this is the general attitude in the ITC circles towards people who prefer GW missions, it is really no wonder more people do not voice their opinion!
Furthermore, your post shows staggering arrogance, many competitive events outside US use GW missions, and they're doing just fine. If I was being equally flippant, I could say that there is no need to houserule the game beyond recognition just because you're bad at playing it as it actually is.
But my actual main concern is that I just find it unwise to fork the game this strongly; it is just not good for the health of the game if half of the competitive scene is basically playing a different game, and if there is to be one standard, then the official GW one must be it.
Eihnlazer wrote: Look we get it, you like "random". That's fine at home or at your FLGS, but for big events its just no good.
I don't see how this crusade of yours is helping anything.
ITC is made for COMPETITIVE 40k. Its the closest thing to e-sports we get. If you don't have fun playing it then don't play it. Go play some beerhammer. There is no reason to keep bashing it when you haven't proposed any way to improve the competitive aspects.
Saying "you never have to adapt in the middle of battle" is quite frankly incorrect. You always have to adapt to your opponents style of play, no matter what missions your using. If your opponents are all playing exactly the same I can see how this becomes an issue, but they really shouldn't be, as there is usually many ways to go about the game.
If you are just mad because people can pick secondaries that favor their army then you must also be mad that NFL teams have playbooks, or that homefield advantage exists.
There is no correct way to play 40K "competitive".
ITC missions are not more "competitive" than vanilla missions, so drop that attitude, it's not helping the discussion.
This is a big problem of modern 40K, the fact that the game is balanced for a set of rules and half the player base uses another one, which drastically alters the effectiveness of the units. Just the fact that ITC uses killpoints and Canon40K doesn't, makes a world of difference.
The main problem here is not if one set of rules is better than the other, but if the CA2018 missions are so unfeasible in an ITC environment to justify this scisma.
Until now i have heard only one truly troubling aspect of the CA2018 missions which indeed could make it unfeasible for the kind of big events where ITC is used, and is the fact that missions don't always reward the same amount of points, which is a huge problem when a large number of players is involved. In GW official events this isn't a problem because the W/L points are only one of the aspects of the final score, but you try to ladder 150 players only by using CA2018 points, then you start having some hardly insignificant issues.
I honestly like the simplicity of the ITC primaries, the things that I dislike about the format most by far are the secondaries, there too clunky and they drain too much pregame time. The responsibility of list checking is placed on the players but between points creep, alternating deployment and selecting mission objectives there just isn't that time. Often questions need to be make during game when it's too late.
I also hope there is a future poll for terrain. I was happy ITC implemented the ruins fix early in 8th, but having been out for a while I think it can be improved a bit. I think playing it closer to 3rd edition forests would make more sense, you can't see through a ruin to a unit on the opposite side, but once they enter it they can both see out and be seen.
I feel the new enclosed ruins made the issues worse. Having invisible units occupying a solid building is just bad design. Your essentially letting them have free reserve or transport defense. I'd rather see solid block buildings become impassible, or only let the rooftops be played depending on height. Nobody wants to see 12 bulgryn or 10 grotesque immune to direct fire or psychic powers, it's way too gamey and eliminates one of their weaknesses based on a crap shoot of which table/depoyment you get. It also gets gamed by shooting units, 10 ynari reapers jack in the boxing onto the roof and firing twice only to fire and fade back inside is stupid. Same with hiveguard. Obviously terrain should impact games, but I feel this changes it too far and allows certain units to exploit and abuse it.
Red Corsair wrote: I honestly like the simplicity of the ITC primaries, the things that I dislike about the format most by far are the secondaries, there too clunky and they drain too much pregame time. The responsibility of list checking is placed on the players but between points creep, alternating deployment and selecting mission objectives there just isn't that time. Often questions need to be make during game when it's too late.
I also hope there is a future poll for terrain. I was happy ITC implemented the ruins fix early in 8th, but having been out for a while I think it can be improved a bit. I think playing it closer to 3rd edition forests would make more sense, you can't see through a ruin to a unit on the opposite side, but once they enter it they can both see out and be seen.
I feel the new enclosed ruins made the issues worse. Having invisible units occupying a solid building is just bad design. Your essentially letting them have free reserve or transport defense. I'd rather see solid block buildings become impassible, or only let the rooftops be played depending on height. Nobody wants to see 12 bulgryn or 10 grotesque immune to direct fire or psychic powers, it's way too gamey and eliminates one of their weaknesses based on a crap shoot of which table/depoyment you get. It also gets gamed by shooting units, 10 ynari reapers jack in the boxing onto the roof and firing twice only to fire and fade back inside is stupid. Same with hiveguard. Obviously terrain should impact games, but I feel this changes it too far and allows certain units to exploit and abuse it.
Thanks for asking for feedback btw.
QFT! all of the above
I get that you want to sell you own terrain but making these rules up to fit your sales model is frankly absurd! -- solid buildings should be impassable LOS blocking.
Eihnlazer wrote: Look we get it, you like "random". That's fine at home or at your FLGS, but for big events its just no good.
I don't see how this crusade of yours is helping anything.
ITC is made for COMPETITIVE 40k. Its the closest thing to e-sports we get. If you don't have fun playing it then don't play it. Go play some beerhammer. There is no reason to keep bashing it when you haven't proposed any way to improve the competitive aspects.
Saying "you never have to adapt in the middle of battle" is quite frankly incorrect. You always have to adapt to your opponents style of play, no matter what missions your using. If your opponents are all playing exactly the same I can see how this becomes an issue, but they really shouldn't be, as there is usually many ways to go about the game.
If you are just mad because people can pick secondaries that favor their army then you must also be mad that NFL teams have playbooks, or that homefield advantage exists.
This is not constructive at all. Reece asked for feedback, Crimson is being honest and polite. You disagree with his view, that's fine, but acting like you have more authority then him and trying to shut him down based on BS assumptions is a waste of everyones time. Telling a player to stick to beerhammer because they critique these houserules after being asked for feedback is a ridiculous attitude to have because you talking past him now. He DID suggest changes, just changes you disagree with. He suggested the use of the CA2018 missions, which I think is fair to consider rather then being hand-waved away. Reece wants credit for the design of those very missions, but he doesn't want to use them, which is funny. Or maybe he does, at which point he should have put it in the poll as Crimson suggested. Either way your working towards derailing the thread rather then being constructive.
This isn't e-sports or the NFL by the way, stick to 40k is you want anyone to take your arguments about 40k at face value.
Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.
No, he was saying that ITC missions were too easy to "game the system on" and saying that this made it not a true test of skill.
I never actually criticized him on the CA2018 missions suggestion at all. I never had too. Others have spoken about them already. They don't work in a highly competitive scene without some modification because they don't all award the same amount of points.
I'd like to know where I showed authority as well. I don't run any tournaments atm and haven't since 5th not to mention I don't have any kind of power with FLG or the ITC circuit at all.
I do have knowledge of what constitutes a good competitive game only because I've been doing it on and off for 15 years. Not just 40k, but other big games both on and offline.
I do admit that im taking it a bit off topic though and for that I apologize. I get frustrated with people that complain about something that's working fine for the wrong reasons though. Just like your last comment. Why people feel that "their" game shouldn't be held up to the same standards as a globally recognized competitive event makes no sense to me. Everyone should strive for the things they like to hold up in a serious conversation when talking about competitive events.
The questions weren't meant to skew people away from the missions, I wrote them that way (with lots of peer review) because literally no one was asking for CA missions to be used. It wasn't on the radar, but some folks were asking if we would adopt elements of CA so I asked the question to the community I was being asked. This thread has more people advocating for the missions than anywhere else by a long shot. I actually assume pretty much all of the people saying to use them probably are coming from this thread, actually, haha. So, you're seeing it from your perspective and then assuming we did things on purpose to cloud the issue or whatever. That isn't the case. We didn't ask the question directly because no one was asking it of us.
If in time more and more people ask for it, cool, we'll go the way the wind blows. Looking at the feedback so far though, that is highly unlikely to be the case.
And again, and for the last time, lol, if you like them, and your community wants to use them...do! Have fun! You can still get ITC points and play the game you want to. But I am not going to tell people coming to an event we run they will use missions they are telling me they don't want to use, that would be a poor choice on my part.
@Spoletta
I disagree, some missions certainly are more or less competitive than others. I think that is quite obvious, actually. It is fine to discuss that. Trying to say all missions are created equally is false, otherwise we wouldn't be having these types of discussions.
And I get some of your points but you are saying what the game has been balanced for to a person that literally helped balance the game...
Like, let that sink in, haha. People like Mike and my job is to help balance 40k and we use similar mission sets in our events. Why would we do that if it was counter to a fun and fair game of 40k or was counter to the balance of the game? We of all people would have to be fools to do that as we have a much better understanding of the game's design and intent than others.
And yes, you make a great point. The CA missions aren't designed to be used as is in a tournament and some aspects of them, like turning off invul saves or what have you, aren't conducive to a fair and balanced tournament environment. They are fun though (I think, anyway) and are a great way to enjoy games of 40k.
@Red Corsair
Happy to get the feedback, even the criticisms. Can only make us better =)
The enclosed ruins thing is more of a reaction to the 8th ed terrain rules which IMO, need the most help out of the core rules. Saying a game that recreates battlefields shouldn't have buildings on them sucks because they look cool and the game is as much about aesthetics as anything else. Otherwise, we should be playing chess.
And real battlefields DO have buildings. It not only looks cool but it feels right, too. Soldiers do go into them not just walk around them, haha.
What I'd like to see is instead of getting mad at a building providing cover or whatever, is rules that make using buildings more fun and interactive to avoid situations that can be frustrating. That obviously isn't going to happen right this instant (or ever, possibly) and obviously we can't recreate all of the terrain we've spent years building (nor do we want to! Our terrain is beautiful) so we simply added a single rule to avoid the absurdity of planes/etc. flying into and out of buildings. That rule changes very little really, the core issue is the way ruins work right now. So, it is what it is at this point in time.
If a ruin was on any table in an 8th ed game that had 4 walls and a roof, it would be exactly the way we play ours apart from the fact that magically a Wave Serpent could fly in and out of it, lol. The only way to avoid that would be to say some ruins are not actually ruins but impassible terrain (which is again, altering the game), which get confusing to the players and is non-intuitive. You may prefer that personally, but the judging staff debated it at length and given all of the variables we decided to go the route we did and I feel it was the right choice given the terrain that we have, and provide the best play experience given the options available to us.
As for wanting credit for CA, no, that was not an ego thing. It's just funny that someone tells me to "stop trying to be a game designer, use the missions that you helped design!"
It was ironic and made me laugh but of course, he probably didn't know the play-testers had a hand in it or he wouldn't have made the comment, which is why it was funny and why I pointed it out. I could care less if anyone knows I helped make them or not which is why I never brought it prior to this.
If enough people brought up using the missions, we'd be open to it but it is not even remotely close to a lot of people at this time.
And for you, 40k may not be a "sport" or whatever, but it is a competitive outlet for a lot of people so I would suggest not trying to do the thing to them you say they shouldn't do to other's ideas and hand wave it away. Because, the fact of the matter is, that is the direction some of 40k is going not because of any masterminded effort to make it happen, but because a lot of people want to see it happen. It's creating a vacuum in the market that will be filled. We already have people supplementing their income/hobby through "professional 40k type activities", it's really just a matter of time. And again, that is because the demand is there. It's hapenning all over the place and in lots of interesting ways, too. I am very curious to see how things look in the next 5 years.
So, anyway, I wouldn't get on that high horse because there's no reason to look down your nose at someone for enjoying the hobby the way they want to. I think it's great! I like to see people excited to play and compete and have fun. I also think it's great for people to enjoy reading the books, or just painting, or only playing in leagues, or narrative campaigns, or friendly games, etc. The hobby has something for every type of person and that diversity is only going to make the overall hobby better, bigger and more fun.
@Reanimation_Protocol
Lol, what?
Do you hail from the land of Jumpstoconclusia?
This has NOTHING to do with selling our terrain. At all, lol, and you should think twice before casting stones like that with literally zero evidence to support your statement. I highly doubt you'd want others doing that to you.
Sheesh, it's funny to see how many people in this thread draw conclusions about our motivations with almost nothing to support it other than speculation.
Just ask me guys, lol, I am happy to answer.
Anyway, no, this is not about sales. It is about the fact that we have spent years and years and tens of thousands of dollars investing into beautiful tables of terrain. If we simply made all of these buildings impassible, that would be really lame, lol. Some tables would be nothing but impassible terrain blocks, haha! That would not provide an enjoyable play experience.
So, you speak from a position of ignorance. And I say that in the literal sense, not as an insult. You literally don't have enough information to know what you're talking about so again, think before you speak, please. Or just, ask some questions first so you can have an informed opinion before making a declaration.
We make choices based on what we think will give the best possible play experience. That's it. Trying to "sell more terrain" at the expense of a good show would be shooting myself in the foot.
We are in the business of running good events. But, there are also limitations on what we can physically do. I can't change our terrain, nor do I want to. Again, our tables look amazing, far better than most tournaments and I am very proud of that. The only issue at this slice of time (and we've been using this terrain for years and many editions) is that right now, the ruins rules are extremely prohibitive. That's all. If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation just like we haven't been for all the years we've been using this terrain, lol.
@Wayniac
If you are disgusted by people playing the game they want to, and having fun, then your threshold for being disgusted is reaaaaaallllyy low, lol
What do you care, at all, if people are enjoying their hobby and wanting to see it grow! That's awesome. Do you think video-games are worse off because some people do it professionally? Do you think sports have gotten worse for that reason? Come on, that's silly and so obviously not the case. Having a pro aspect to those activities have made them better.
If you aren't in to it, fine, play the game you want to and have fun with it. I'm not going to tell you you disgust me because you don't play the game the way I think you should, because that would be an absurd thing for me to say, lol.
@Thread
Any way, thanks for the feedback, everyone. Much appreciated. It's interesting to see and hear some alternative perspectives, even if some of them are a bit misinformed but that's cool, the only way to overcome that is to communicate.
If you like one way of doing things then by all means, play the way you have the most fun!
The questions weren't meant to skew people away from the missions, I wrote them that way (with lots of peer review) because literally no one was asking for CA missions to be used. It wasn't on the radar, but some folks were asking if we would adopt elements of CA so I asked the question to the community I was being asked. This thread has more people advocating for the missions than anywhere else by a long shot. I actually assume pretty much all of the people saying to use them probably are coming from this thread, actually, haha. So, you're seeing it from your perspective and then assuming we did things on purpose to cloud the issue or whatever. That isn't the case. We didn't ask the question directly because no one was asking it of us.
If in time more and more people ask for it, cool, we'll go the way the wind blows. Looking at the feedback so far though, that is highly unlikely to be the case.
Be that as it may, if there were a contingent of people who wanted to use CA missions this questionaire would never find it out.
As for wanting credit for CA, no, that was not an ego thing. It's just funny that someone tells me to "stop trying to be a game designer, use the missions that you helped design!"
It was ironic and made me laugh but of course, he probably didn't know the play-testers had a hand in it or he wouldn't have made the comment, which is why it was funny and why I pointed it out. I could care less if anyone knows I helped make them or not which is why I never brought it prior to this.
Yes, I understand that you're part of the playtest group who helped to shape the CA.Of course what level of communication there exactly is and whose idea exactly something was I cannot know. Regardless, it seems pretty bizarre to me that the CA missions you helped to shape are not good enough for you...
And this is not about how I personally play. Competitive events in which I participate are tiny, local and utterly insignificant (and use GW missions.) I just don't see the point in intentionally dividing the competitive scene in this way.
And I get some of your points but you are saying what the game has been balanced for to a person that literally helped balance the game...
Like, let that sink in, haha. People like Mike and my job is to help balance 40k and we use similar mission sets in our events. Why would we do that if it was counter to a fun and fair game of 40k or was counter to the balance of the game? We of all people would have to be fools to do that as we have a much better understanding of the game's design and intent than others.
Frankly, if you, as a playtester, help to balance the game with an assumption that your houserules will be used then something has gone terribly wrong. Either GW needs to make your houserules official or the game needs to be balanced on the official GW missions.
If a ruin was on any table in an 8th ed game that had 4 walls and a roof,
But they don't. None of the GW ruins are like that. An intact building is not a ruin.
Thank you for answering Reecius but i really don't understand. How can you assume during playtest that the "competitive" 40K will be played with ITC when some of the houserules of ITC severely impacts the effectiveness of models?
No LoS weapons for example in canon40K are worth half of what they are worth with ITC LoS rules. I'm not arguing whether those rules are fine or not, but using them or not makes a big difference for things like a basilisk. How can you balance with both ITC and canon in mind?
Mind you, this is not an attack on your work, i'm just curious.
Spoletta wrote: Thank you for answering Reecius but i really don't understand.
How can you assume during playtest that the "competitive" 40K will be played with ITC when some of the houserules of ITC severely impacts the effectiveness of models?
No LoS weapons for example in canon40K are worth half of what they are worth with ITC LoS rules. I'm not arguing whether those rules are fine or not, but using them or not makes a big difference for things like a basilisk. How can you balance with both ITC and canon in mind?
Mind you, this is not an attack on your work, i'm just curious.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I was getting at too.
Wait, when was I on a high horse judging folks? I simply asked that Eihnlazer stick to 40k and not make comparisons to the NFL or E-sports. It's comparing apples to hand grenades and it only ever derails otherwise constructive discussions. I almost exclusively play competitive games and even I understand it's a ridiculous comparison.
As for the play testing bit, you brought it up mate. you also just did it again as a an argument from authority against Spolleta. It's a rather convenient card to pull, especially when you can't actually provide what capacity or what material your influencing, certainly more then me that's for sure, but I don't think it helps move the discussion in a constructive direction when you use it to bolster your claim rather then stand by your own argument alone.
As for the terrain, your explanation didn't actually address my point. I never argued that the core rules were superior, or that something shouldn't be done. Terrain in 8th is a joke. I agree some abstraction should be added as a stop gap until GW addresses it. But modding existing ruins is one thing. As I said before I think would be further improved by treating ruins as solid when targeting units on the opposite side but target-able when inside.
The closed ruins are a whole other animal, you created a piece of terrain that doesn't exist in the core design and add more consequences then they create solutions. Taking a game that uses TLOS and adding jack in the box large structures where units can redeploy inside and be hidden has huge implications, and it calls into question how much play testing went into them. I have played several games and the only addition it provided was upper echelon gamesmanship, something I don't think competitive 40k needs any more of. The closest 40k equivalent would be defined destructible terrain like bastions, or impassible terrain. A ruin is a ruin, it is not an in tact building with all it's walls, floor and a roof. Again, I know and understand that this is out in the water already, but I am hoping for a poll specifically on things like terrain, deployment and point levels regardless of whether I can convince you to change your perspective Thanks again.
Competitive 40K isn't that different from NFL or esports, it's just smaller. Most of the successful sports and esports out there are either run by a player/team association or based on a player made mod to the game. We wouldn't want Nike or Adidas making the rules for football, or there would be 10 balls used at once or some other insanity. ITC doesn't divide anything, and ITC rules aren't some random "houserules", these are the rules used at the largest (most well attended) 40k tournaments in the world. Even NOVA uses their own, non-GW missions. If you really don't like the ITC and ITC rules, make your own rules and then hold your own 801 man tournament and start your own, larger tournament circuit.
I like the most of the current ITC rules. I do doubt the ruins rules were intended to be used with fully LOS blocking, enclosed ruins so I'm not sure I like ITC's rules for those. I like the idea of encouraging close ranged engagements though, maybe add another special rule that says models within 0.25" of a ruins wall can see through it and be seen through it? Melee oriented units could position themselves to be safe from ranged combat, but not completely immune to non-infantry melee outside the ruin (this is all assuming the ruin wall is less than 0.5" thick).
THE_LIST_MASTER wrote: ITC doesn't divide anything, and ITC rules aren't some random "houserules", these are the rules used at the largest (most well attended) 40k tournaments in the world. Even NOVA uses their own, non-GW missions.
Well, they're still houserules. Until they're in a GW publication, that's what they are. I understand that tournament organisers need to tweak and clarify some things, but I think this goes far beyond that. And I do think it is a problem if playtesters test the game with their own houserules instead of the actual rules. I mean, isn't it blindingly obvious that doing so is a terrible idea?
So I read through this thread. Not surprised at anything I read. Folks providing input. Input being discredited and laughed off. Soaked with "we know better" and "We are the law".(note: meant with sarcasm, not a quote)
We write the rules. We've ran events for years. We know more than you little people.
Why ask for feedback? Dealers don't ask how's the crack? Just Hold your events and people will come. The little people get it.
In the Mike and Reece ecosystems who is really gonna disagree with you? Nobody. So folks outside your influence say something and it can't make sense because group think.
Im not trying to be mean. Im just keeping it real. What your reflection looks like in the mirror from a different perspective. But I suspect you'll say I'm misinformed.
THE_LIST_MASTER wrote: ITC doesn't divide anything, and ITC rules aren't some random "houserules", these are the rules used at the largest (most well attended) 40k tournaments in the world. Even NOVA uses their own, non-GW missions.
Well, they're still houserules. Until they're in a GW publication, that's what they are. I understand that tournament organisers need to tweak and clarify some things, but I think this goes far beyond that. And I do think it is a problem if playtesters test the game with their own houserules instead of the actual rules. I mean, isn't it blindingly obvious that doing so is a terrible idea?
We also have no idea whats being play tested exactly anyway. Your talking about countless list possibilities for each book between ~20 factions that can then ally between themselves in several combos of factions in some cases, all while vetting BIG FAQ 1 & 2 and a yearly chapter approved with 12 of it's own missions against EACH variable? I am only willing to take it on faith so many times before the "trust me I know better I play tested it" card stops working. It's why GW now asks for community feedback, it's the best way to get data and also why they wait until after events with huge attendance to release FAQ's. Which all circles back to what is influencing the game? Because GW waiting until after majors that are played with none GW missions on house ruled terrain means they are making changes under a false pretenses. I am not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it is definitely worth having a honest discussion about. It also makes no sense to ask for community feedback on the ITC missions, I mean why bother since he not only created them but also playtested them? I thought the buck stopped there? Either way laughing at feedback isn't the best approach.
Red Corsair wrote: Because GW waiting until after majors that are played with none GW missions on house ruled terrain means they are making changes under a false pretenses. I am not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it is definitely worth having a honest discussion about.
Yeah this is my worry. And I'm pretty sure it is a bad thing.
Really not sure it's a mission/ITC thing however their is a few things I'd like to suggest for consideration.
I think that a minimum points percentage of 60% should be required to qualify for best in factions. I'm not sure exactlly how feasible this is as I don't want to suggest something thats unworkable though if your work with BCP and the new list format works I'm hoping it should be possible for them to automate this.
With Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari and Hive* added for anyone who is running a more soup/allies list rather than a faction with allies.
*Needs a new name since GW used Tyranids to ally in genestealer cult and it feels unfair to someone going for best in faction in the Tyranids codex to have to compete against Genestealer cult etc
I feel like there is potential to add a secondary mission that helps out players against the cherry picked from 3 codex armies but it needs more finesse than I can suggest.
Breaking Alliances
Score 2 points for destruction of each allied force, determined by detachment keywords.
If no models in another detachments that share a keyword excluding the following keywords Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari or Tyranids remain on the table score 2 points.
Models with the Ynarri keyword count as only having the Ynarri keyword for the purposes of scoring this secondary.
Lastly and this is ITC related, would it be possible to just not allow anything line of sight requiring or not to be shot from inside a fully enclosed ruin. I agree 8th editions terrain rules are bad and I get the need to improve them, however the indoor mortors just doesn't feel right.
Reece .. thanks for all the hard work you guys have done putting together the ITC missions as well as looking to the community to give there feedback. Mike, same with you and NOVA.
I’ll leave my feedback and opinions to any changes I see fit on your linked page instead of here.
Byte wrote: So I read through this thread. Not surprised at anything I read. Folks providing input. Input being discredited and laughed off. Soaked with "we know better" and "We are the law".(note: meant with sarcasm, not a quote)
We write the rules. We've ran events for years. We know more than you little people.
Why ask for feedback? Dealers don't ask how's the crack? Just Hold your events and people will come. The little people get it.
In the Mike and Reece ecosystems who is really gonna disagree with you? Nobody. So folks outside your influence say something and it can't make sense because group think.
Im not trying to be mean. Im just keeping it real. What your reflection looks like in the mirror from a different perspective. But I suspect you'll say I'm misinformed.
Given that according to the Dakka ecosystem the ITC is invalid because it isn't pure 40k makes the reaction understandable don't you think?
Be that as it may, if there were a contingent of people who wanted to use CA missions this questionaire would never find it out.
This is pretty much where I am at. The last few surveys where you've attempted to include the non-ITC participants are written in a way to skew the results in favor of those who participate. The feedback lines are short and brief and the amount of information you must sort through is beyond comprehension, so it makes sense. However, I was unable to complete the survey again because a majority of the questions simply can't be answered.
Most of my other thoughts have already been expressed by other posters here. The ITC isn't doing anything to include the 40k community as a whole, and has devolved into a group of players who don't wish to play the current state of the game. I agree with them on the points that players are allowed to play and take no issue with wanting to do that. It's the divide that non-ITC participants, players, etc aren't 'competitive' or how good of a '40k' player is seems to be dictated by their ITC rank, that is hurting the game. It's gotten to the point where even accepting the invite to run non-ITC format and participate in the results, or whatever, attracts the very people we are trying to avoid at our events.
For the record I don't think anyone is trying to discredit the work Reese and the ITC have done for the game; I know I'm not. My issue is like others that Reese and co are playtesters for the game, but are playing a slightly different game which is what they're basing their feedback on (at least that's how it seems to be). So the feedback GW is receiving is not 100% "pure" 40k despite it affecting the game with and without ITC rules. That's the main concern here. That the feedback is skewed because it's not being played from the baseline game, but with a slightly modified version.
If there was one single version of 40k that everyone was playing, ITC and otherwise, the testing and feedback would be totally appropriate. As it stands though things like being able to choose your secondary objectives in ITC missions is HUGE and is completely missing from the base game and certainly changes how things play. So the feedback being given is based on that being a thing, when it's not.
Holy crap, haha, just got done working today and I forgot what debating on Dakka is like! Part of me misses the spirited back and forth, it's fun! I wish I had more time for it. I used to spend a lot of time here back in the day (as my post count would attest to).
Well, I am sorry if I cam across as rude or not listening. I do honestly listen to everything. I may get defensive at times, or vent about it to friends, but I really do take it all in. I read every comment and all of the feedback form so I wanted to say thanks to everyone for taking the time to share your opinions, even if your opinion amounted to: Reece, you're an idiot! lol
As a play-tester, I have input into the rules and missions, etc. but I surely do not write the rules, I didn't mean to come across as trying to present myself as mister cool guy, if anyone read it that way. I was just trying to share some of what I know and validate my points. Often I find that it doesn't end up coming across the way I think it will.
I fully understand the confusion some of you are feeling. I probably, inadvertently, added to it. Why would we play a seemingly different version of the game, especially if we helped shape the current version? That is confusing, for sure. I wish I could be more open about all of it, as that is my nature, but I cannot. It's kind of like trying to box with only one arm, you know? It's just a bit awkward. I aim to do one thing but end up doing something unintentional.
Anyway, I suppose just keeping my mouth shut is probably better when it comes to a lot of this stuff. Suffice it to say, your input is appreciated, it is noted and it is valued. You wouldn't say anything it you didn't give a gak what we did. Even when people are raging mad, it comes from a place of really caring about the outcome. We try our best to give everyone what they want but when everyone wants different things, then obviously we have to compromise.
All I can say I suppose, is fill out the feedback form, encourage your friends whom this applies to to do the same and it will matter. I promise it all gets taken into account. Our business is making the best possible matched play experience. It's not trying to make our own version of the game.
Thanks to everyone here for sharing their points of view!
Wayniac wrote: Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.
outside of LoL and seeing a few local Football (proper English football) teams starting up e-sports teams for the playstation generation I don't have any anecdotal experience of e-sports.
what is it that's wrong with heading in that direction? there is an appetite from fans (I Love me some Twitch streams of big events) and it can be easily monetised from advertisers / sponsors
Spoletta wrote: Thank you for answering Reecius but i really don't understand.
How can you assume during playtest that the "competitive" 40K will be played with ITC when some of the houserules of ITC severely impacts the effectiveness of models?
No LoS weapons for example in canon40K are worth half of what they are worth with ITC LoS rules. I'm not arguing whether those rules are fine or not, but using them or not makes a big difference for things like a basilisk. How can you balance with both ITC and canon in mind?
Mind you, this is not an attack on your work, i'm just curious.
Well GW doesn't even pretend all their scenarios are balanced with the points either with scenarios varying effects of units and some scenarios even are just big middle fingers for other armies. And then GW changes scenarios without changing points either.
ITC just does it better if you are looking at competive point of view
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: For the record I don't think anyone is trying to discredit the work Reese and the ITC have done for the game; I know I'm not. My issue is like others that Reese and co are playtesters for the game, but are playing a slightly different game which is what they're basing their feedback on (at least that's how it seems to be). So the feedback GW is receiving is not 100% "pure" 40k despite it affecting the game with and without ITC rules. That's the main concern here. That the feedback is skewed because it's not being played from the baseline game, but with a slightly modified version.
If there was one single version of 40k that everyone was playing, ITC and otherwise, the testing and feedback would be totally appropriate. As it stands though things like being able to choose your secondary objectives in ITC missions is HUGE and is completely missing from the base game and certainly changes how things play. So the feedback being given is based on that being a thing, when it's not.
Well. There isn't even single version of 40k in GW world that people are playing so...
Wayniac wrote: Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.
outside of LoL and seeing a few local Football (proper English football) teams starting up e-sports teams for the playstation generation I don't have any anecdotal experience of e-sports.
what is it that's wrong with heading in that direction? there is an appetite from fans (I Love me some Twitch streams of big events) and it can be easily monetised from advertisers / sponsors
so what's the dealio ?
It's kind of trying to make sport out of lottery. If not toxic it's at least amusing. Trying to make competive game out of non-competive game. Well let's enjoy competive lottery
Wayniac wrote: Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.
outside of LoL and seeing a few local Football (proper English football) teams starting up e-sports teams for the playstation generation I don't have any anecdotal experience of e-sports.
what is it that's wrong with heading in that direction? there is an appetite from fans (I Love me some Twitch streams of big events) and it can be easily monetised from advertisers / sponsors
so what's the dealio ?
For me it comes down to 2 things, which are related. First, once you start treating your hobby as serious business it can change from a hobby to a job for some, and that can have knock-on effects for players who aren't interested in that style of play. You'll see people not wanting to play more casual style games, for example, as they try to emulate the "pros" and their armies. Some people already report this in their communities, with people not wanting to play non-ITC games. Secondly, and possibly more likely and worrying, is that there's often an increased amount of toxicity in the communities once something becomes serious business. All conversations are framed around being as l337 as possible, with ridicule waiting for those deemed too casual, or not worthy.
Note, I'm note saying these things would actually happen, just that is what people fear might happen. Personally, I think 40k is terribly suited to being any form of e-sport in the first place, for a whole number of reasons from balance to the fact that it really, really doesn't work well as a live-streamed event. Turning something into an e-sport can work for some, but I think it reduces inclusivity.
Wayniac wrote: Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.
outside of LoL and seeing a few local Football (proper English football) teams starting up e-sports teams for the playstation generation I don't have any anecdotal experience of e-sports.
what is it that's wrong with heading in that direction? there is an appetite from fans (I Love me some Twitch streams of big events) and it can be easily monetised from advertisers / sponsors
so what's the dealio ?
For me it comes down to 2 things, which are related. First, once you start treating your hobby as serious business it can change from a hobby to a job for some, and that can have knock-on effects for players who aren't interested in that style of play. You'll see people not wanting to play more casual style games, for example, as they try to emulate the "pros" and their armies. Some people already report this in their communities, with people not wanting to play non-ITC games. Secondly, and possibly more likely and worrying, is that there's often an increased amount of toxicity in the communities once something becomes serious business. All conversations are framed around being as l337 as possible, with ridicule waiting for those deemed too casual, or not worthy.
Note, I'm note saying these things would actually happen, just that is what people fear might happen. Personally, I think 40k is terribly suited to being any form of e-sport in the first place, for a whole number of reasons from balance to the fact that it really, really doesn't work well as a live-streamed event. Turning something into an e-sport can work for some, but I think it reduces inclusivity.
Even Warmahordes is ill-suited to being an e-sport, and it's the wargame that's currently (IMHO) the most suitable for that (and their streamed games at events tend to follow an e-sport like pattern). I don't think wargaming in general is suited for it because wargaming is about the spectacle, not the game. Trying to commercialize it into an e-sport with professional sponsorships and whatnot is going way too far from what wargaming was meant to be.
Reecius wrote: Holy crap, haha, just got done working today and I forgot what debating on Dakka is like! Part of me misses the spirited back and forth, it's fun! I wish I had more time for it. I used to spend a lot of time here back in the day (as my post count would attest to).
Well, I am sorry if I cam across as rude or not listening. I do honestly listen to everything. I may get defensive at times, or vent about it to friends, but I really do take it all in. I read every comment and all of the feedback form so I wanted to say thanks to everyone for taking the time to share your opinions, even if your opinion amounted to: Reece, you're an idiot! lol
As a play-tester, I have input into the rules and missions, etc. but I surely do not write the rules, I didn't mean to come across as trying to present myself as mister cool guy, if anyone read it that way. I was just trying to share some of what I know and validate my points. Often I find that it doesn't end up coming across the way I think it will.
I fully understand the confusion some of you are feeling. I probably, inadvertently, added to it. Why would we play a seemingly different version of the game, especially if we helped shape the current version? That is confusing, for sure. I wish I could be more open about all of it, as that is my nature, but I cannot. It's kind of like trying to box with only one arm, you know? It's just a bit awkward. I aim to do one thing but end up doing something unintentional.
Anyway, I suppose just keeping my mouth shut is probably better when it comes to a lot of this stuff. Suffice it to say, your input is appreciated, it is noted and it is valued. You wouldn't say anything it you didn't give a gak what we did. Even when people are raging mad, it comes from a place of really caring about the outcome. We try our best to give everyone what they want but when everyone wants different things, then obviously we have to compromise.
All I can say I suppose, is fill out the feedback form, encourage your friends whom this applies to to do the same and it will matter. I promise it all gets taken into account. Our business is making the best possible matched play experience. It's not trying to make our own version of the game.
Thanks to everyone here for sharing their points of view!
This is a measured, sincere and heartfelt response. Thank you. As someone who regularly puts his foot in his mouth, and doubles that when his intentions are best I can totally relate. I figured you were boxing with one arm as you put it (lol that would suck in actual boxing) which was why I just kind of wanted to stick to your opinions on the few issues I had relating to the ITC. Poll completed, friends notified! Thanks for your time!
I'll echo Reece's frustration on one item - we can't exactly go and tell the community what GW says to us or is thinking, as it's not allowed by our NDAs. We can and do provide heavy playtesting feedback and design input, and we can and do run our events with their full knowledge and discourse in the way that we do. I would suggest that we probably aren't playing as vastly different a version of the game as intended by the designers given those facts, but we can't really explain it, so it can come off - as Reece says - like boxing with one arm tied behind your back. But we certainly aren't "rebels" going it in opposition to the game ... quite the contrary; we do actually have more feedback and insight than most organizers, simply due to the nature of the testing process and being WHC-approved events.
MVBrandt wrote: I'll echo Reece's frustration on one item - we can't exactly go and tell the community what GW says to us or is thinking, as it's not allowed by our NDAs. We can and do provide heavy playtesting feedback and design input, and we can and do run our events with their full knowledge and discourse in the way that we do. I would suggest that we probably aren't playing as vastly different a version of the game as intended by the designers given those facts, but we can't really explain it, so it can come off - as Reece says - like boxing with one arm tied behind your back. But we certainly aren't "rebels" going it in opposition to the game ... quite the contrary; we do actually have more feedback and insight than most organizers, simply due to the nature of the testing process and being WHC-approved events.
And i think that we are all grateful for that. 8th edition is the best edition of 40K and is in no small part because it acutally feels like someone tested things before writing them.
You have to understand our PoV though, we are given an official ruling with an official mission pack. Half the community plays something differrent and we cannot create a common discussion basis between the 2 communities because there are some quite big differences in the formats. Then we are told that the game was playtested with the unofficial format in mind...
MVBrandt wrote: I'll echo Reece's frustration on one item - we can't exactly go and tell the community what GW says to us or is thinking, as it's not allowed by our NDAs. We can and do provide heavy playtesting feedback and design input, and we can and do run our events with their full knowledge and discourse in the way that we do. I would suggest that we probably aren't playing as vastly different a version of the game as intended by the designers given those facts, but we can't really explain it, so it can come off - as Reece says - like boxing with one arm tied behind your back. But we certainly aren't "rebels" going it in opposition to the game ... quite the contrary; we do actually have more feedback and insight than most organizers, simply due to the nature of the testing process and being WHC-approved events.
And i think that we are all grateful for that. 8th edition is the best edition of 40K and is in no small part because it acutally feels like someone tested things before writing them.
You have to understand our PoV though, we are given an official ruling with an official mission pack. Half the community plays something differrent and we cannot create a common discussion basis between the 2 communities because there are some quite big differences in the formats. Then we are told that the game was playtested with the unofficial format in mind...
I'm sure that you can understand our confusion.
I CAN understand your confusion! I think it's very reasonable. I think there is also a big difference between Tournament and Matched Play. They don't mean "Tournament Match." They mean "Equally Matched" as it were. I think if you asked most of GW's design team who they would ask to make them a tournament packet, they'd probably look at me or Reece before looking at who is running a local GW. That's not gospel and not something we've ever bothered directly asking, so pure hunch there, but there's a HUGE difference between "balanced and enormously stress-tested modern tournament missions" and what you see in CA or the core rule book, and far different motivators and constraints behind them and how they're constructed. I.E. you'll notice nearly every GW mission is entirely self-contained on a single page of paper without a lot of things it refers to beyond deployment.
I love the idea of treating the ruins like old school forests. One first story wall you can be seen (but have cover) two first story walls you can't.
Hell, combine this with "buildings with intact ceilings cannot be shot out of by indirect fire weapons" and I'm in. Honestly, if you start shooting mortars through the roof of the building you are in, eventually you will have a bad time.
I like the ITC missions but some of the scoring goals feel gamie and more easily exploited by certain armies than others further adding balance issues to a game that has enough of them. At least that's what I take away from the criticisms. The ability to take large 30 man squads to impact kill more or squads under PL 7, some armies reliance on 7w or greater models or armies have more fragile squads all seem to favor a few particular armies over others.
All that being said some sacrifices have to be made in order to create a framework that does work for tournaments of more that 16 people and GW missions just are not it. I do wish the missions were more dynamic but I understand that it is really hard to get dynamic and not completely random.
Maelstrom could be okay if it were more finely tuned and I think the army specific goals/missions are something that could be incorporated. With smart objective placement and numbering you could avoid the "take objective (in my opponents deployment zone)" vs "hold objective (in my deployment zone)" imbalance or the "kill a psycher" vs a DE list that makes maelstrom not really fit for competitive play.
Maybe even something along the lines of a build your own maelstrom deck to kind of mirror the existing secondaries could be a cool beta concept for you guys to test in house?
As for the play testing brags...I'm not sure I'd be thumping my chest about 28 point grav cannons vs 15 point dissie cannons, or centurions, or the 50% of models that don't see the table because they are pretty bad. Or the fact that GW seems surprised by the almost tourney worthy lists from the newest WD. We get it, you've seen more of the inner workings of GW than most but using that to shut down peoples criticism seems juvenile at best.
bananathug wrote: I love the idea of treating the ruins like old school forests. One first story wall you can be seen (but have cover) two first story walls you can't.
Hell, combine this with "buildings with intact ceilings cannot be shot out of by indirect fire weapons" and I'm in. Honestly, if you start shooting mortars through the roof of the building you are in, eventually you will have a bad time.
I like the ITC missions but some of the scoring goals feel gamie and more easily exploited by certain armies than others further adding balance issues to a game that has enough of them. At least that's what I take away from the criticisms. The ability to take large 30 man squads to impact kill more or squads under PL 7, some armies reliance on 7w or greater models or armies have more fragile squads all seem to favor a few particular armies over others.
All that being said some sacrifices have to be made in order to create a framework that does work for tournaments of more that 16 people and GW missions just are not it. I do wish the missions were more dynamic but I understand that it is really hard to get dynamic and not completely random.
Maelstrom could be okay if it were more finely tuned and I think the army specific goals/missions are something that could be incorporated. With smart objective placement and numbering you could avoid the "take objective (in my opponents deployment zone)" vs "hold objective (in my deployment zone)" imbalance or the "kill a psycher" vs a DE list that makes maelstrom not really fit for competitive play.
Maybe even something along the lines of a build your own maelstrom deck to kind of mirror the existing secondaries could be a cool beta concept for you guys to test in house?
As for the play testing brags...I'm not sure I'd be thumping my chest about 28 point grav cannons vs 15 point dissie cannons, or centurions, or the 50% of models that don't see the table because they are pretty bad. Or the fact that GW seems surprised by the almost tourney worthy lists from the newest WD. We get it, you've seen more of the inner workings of GW than most but using that to shut down peoples criticism seems juvenile at best.
The last bit of this reaction seems in some ways juvenile (ironically) in and of itself. In re: the playtesting .... I'm not sure how else I'd define it. It's a lot of work, and it's not a brag, it's something we do. The point isn't "we playtest, hell yeah," especially given 28 point grav vs. 15 point dissie ... but rather "we aren't completely uninformed // operating in rebellion against GW." It wasn't used to shut down criticisms - it was used as actual evidence, when peoples' criticisms (the ones I'm personally responding to) are claiming they know what GW intends and saying we are going in opposition to GW intent.
If you're arguing that we shouldn't dare to use evidence to support our arguments, I really don't know what to tell you. But it's a funny thing of you to say. Do you also dislike it when scientists use science to discredit flat Earthers? Like, "stop bragging about your college degrees in 'science' just to shut down peoples' criticisms of your round earth 'hypothesis'."
No. I'm a scientists so believe me doesn't work if you got your degree from McDegree's dot com. Presenting evidence, facts and examples is the most effective way of "proving" your theory rather than just "I'm Dr. Phil, believe me..." (which is really hard from your GW contracts I'm gathering).
Now I agree that the "you're just changing the rules to sell terrain" was way uncalled for and plain crazy talk but I think a lot of the problem with the perceived divide between ITC and GW missions. We would love more of an explanation than "I helped design the GW missions too" but it doesn't look like we are going to get one (NDAs contracts and all that jazz) so it sucks. Not just for you guys boxing with one hand behind your back but for those of us stumbling around in the dark trying to figure out the logic behind a lot of game design choices.
Not being able to share what GW thinks about the ITC missions and how that is used in the balance makes it nearly impossible to give a satisfactory answer to those of us who wonder if there are two discrete games being played and attempted to be balanced. Sorry if I cam across as aggressive or rude (which reading over my post is obvious now, but damn it I hate dissie cannons ) but I was just hoping there was some wiggle room for you guys to explain a bit why ITC and GW missions are closer than we think and balance for one really means balance for all.
Anyways, thanks for all the hard work. Hopefully you guys incorporate a little more randomness (not chaos, that would be heresy) into the missions and find a way to bring in the new deployment as well. The work you guys have done to make the game tournament worthy is great and I'll see you at the BAO!
The last bit of this reaction seems in some ways juvenile (ironically) in and of itself. In re: the playtesting .... I'm not sure how else I'd define it. It's a lot of work, and it's not a brag, it's something we do. The point isn't "we playtest, hell yeah," especially given 28 point grav vs. 15 point dissie ... but rather "we aren't completely uninformed // operating in rebellion against GW." It wasn't used to shut down criticisms - it was used as actual evidence, when peoples' criticisms (the ones I'm personally responding to) are claiming they know what GW intends and saying we are going in opposition to GW intent.
It's really not about whether you are informed, or whether GW is. Perhaps they indeed intent their rules to be playtested with your houserules. It is still a terrible idea regardless of whose idea it is.
If you're arguing that we shouldn't dare to use evidence to support our arguments, I really don't know what to tell you. But it's a funny thing of you to say. Do you also dislike it when scientists use science to discredit flat Earthers? Like, "stop bragging about your college degrees in 'science' just to shut down peoples' criticisms of your round earth 'hypothesis'."
That is incredibly condescending. You're not offering evidence, you're offering an argument from authority.
bananathug wrote: I love the idea of treating the ruins like old school forests. One first story wall you can be seen (but have cover) two first story walls you can't.
Hell, combine this with "buildings with intact ceilings cannot be shot out of by indirect fire weapons" and I'm in. Honestly, if you start shooting mortars through the roof of the building you are in, eventually you will have a bad time.
I like the ITC missions but some of the scoring goals feel gamie and more easily exploited by certain armies than others further adding balance issues to a game that has enough of them. At least that's what I take away from the criticisms. The ability to take large 30 man squads to impact kill more or squads under PL 7, some armies reliance on 7w or greater models or armies have more fragile squads all seem to favor a few particular armies over others.
All that being said some sacrifices have to be made in order to create a framework that does work for tournaments of more that 16 people and GW missions just are not it. I do wish the missions were more dynamic but I understand that it is really hard to get dynamic and not completely random.
Maelstrom could be okay if it were more finely tuned and I think the army specific goals/missions are something that could be incorporated. With smart objective placement and numbering you could avoid the "take objective (in my opponents deployment zone)" vs "hold objective (in my deployment zone)" imbalance or the "kill a psycher" vs a DE list that makes maelstrom not really fit for competitive play.
Maybe even something along the lines of a build your own maelstrom deck to kind of mirror the existing secondaries could be a cool beta concept for you guys to test in house?
As for the play testing brags...I'm not sure I'd be thumping my chest about 28 point grav cannons vs 15 point dissie cannons, or centurions, or the 50% of models that don't see the table because they are pretty bad. Or the fact that GW seems surprised by the almost tourney worthy lists from the newest WD. We get it, you've seen more of the inner workings of GW than most but using that to shut down peoples criticism seems juvenile at best.
The last bit of this reaction seems in some ways juvenile (ironically) in and of itself. In re: the playtesting .... I'm not sure how else I'd define it. It's a lot of work, and it's not a brag, it's something we do. The point isn't "we playtest, hell yeah," especially given 28 point grav vs. 15 point dissie ... but rather "we aren't completely uninformed // operating in rebellion against GW." It wasn't used to shut down criticisms - it was used as actual evidence, when peoples' criticisms (the ones I'm personally responding to) are claiming they know what GW intends and saying we are going in opposition to GW intent.
If you're arguing that we shouldn't dare to use evidence to support our arguments, I really don't know what to tell you. But it's a funny thing of you to say. Do you also dislike it when scientists use science to discredit flat Earthers? Like, "stop bragging about your college degrees in 'science' just to shut down peoples' criticisms of your round earth 'hypothesis'."
Well, except you didn't provide evidence. Saying you play test things, but can't actually speak about it is an appeal to authority, not evidence. Using your analogy you would actually have the most in common with the flat Earthers since they also can't provide evidence to back their conclusions.
Only after the play tester card was pulled did people start connecting the dots of interesting plot points that are somewhat related.
Those points being;
A handle full of play testers can't possibly vet the sheer amount of data GW produces in any meaningful way. No one would should expect that either BTW it's just not possible.
Thus, GW uses large scale events to gather the most meaningful feedback and data prior to making actual changes. We know this. It's why they have delayed FAQ releases.
Therefore it's worth asking, if GW is patching the game using outside tournament data, and if said data is based on house ruled formats, that even very between said events, are the changes that are being implemented actually optimal for the core game? Because your essentially providing a muffler fix to economy cars that were designed off the performance of race cars. Race cars from several races with different mods.
I have reservations about the new enclosed building rules and I do think it will skew the game a bit too hard in favor of melee infantry and indirect weapons, which were hardly uncommon already. It creates a ridiculous threat bubble for the handful of units in the game able to take advantage of them to their fullest. Combine this rule with new gene cults and I would lean on genecults simply ending up the best faction for any itc table that has two or three of these pieces, and I do feel like that isn’t the intention itc ruleset. But these are also new rules and I haven’t seen what they’ll do on the table yet, so I could be wrong
Otherwise I have no driving issues with the ITC rules, but I am not hugely familiar with them being a nova resident, which means the nova open ruleset tends to be what I end up using on the occaision I play competitive. Usually in the months leading up to the nova open while people test out their lists. I will always treasure beating Brandt with my star striders in killteam though (this is bragging by the by for the people paying attention)
The biggest fallacy I seem to see in this GW versus ITC/Home-Brew mission debate is rather simple. Look at the variety of Match Play Scenerios GW has produced. We now have 18 Eternal War and 18 Maelstrom of War mission. They each set of six is significantly different from the next set of 6. How can anyone honestly believe that GW has balanced the game to work under these effectively 6 different scenario sets while believing the balance suddenly falls apart under ITC, Nova or any any other scenario set?
It's not that some units won't be better under some scenario sets then other. Some units will be better under some scenarios within a certain set than others. Knowing that, trying to grind the home-brew imbalances the game is just patently absurd.
Asking for feedback then rubbishing some of that feedback on the first page is... mmmkay. The first “thanks for the feedback” comment was a great response, the “lol” not so much!
Survey done. However: allow Forgeworld. That is the first and the most important step. Second, align the rule with the official GW ones, eventually selecting what to use and whatnot, but erasing any modifications and additional "fix" (it's baffling and unheard of, really, that is allowed to anyone to contribute to a development of something that you rule-drift and hack immediately).
We all understand why during 7° some fixes where needed. But not anymore.
Are we seriously having this argument again? I can't believe it's 2019 and people still think FW bans are a reasonable thing...
Also kind of having trouble believing that the enclosed terrain thing is a problem. Do people honestly build fully enclosed terrain and not declare the inside to be impassible? Or are people complaining that a ruin with 1-2 impassible sides is "unfair" because you have to move around to the back to attack from the unobstructed direction? One is a pretty significant failure to create reasonable terrain pieces, the other is inane whining about terrain doing its job and inconveniencing their perfect combo list. I'm just really having trouble understanding how this can both be a thing that exists and a problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reecius wrote: Saying a game that recreates battlefields shouldn't have buildings on them sucks because they look cool and the game is as much about aesthetics as anything else. Otherwise, we should be playing chess.
And real battlefields DO have buildings. It not only looks cool but it feels right, too. Soldiers do go into them not just walk around them, haha.
And there are perfectly reasonable rules to represent buildings: effectively an immobile transport vehicle. Using these rules entirely avoids the invulnerable model problem, if your target is inaccessible in a building you can just shoot the building just like if they were in a bunker purchased as part of your opponent's army.
The only way to avoid that would be to say some ruins are not actually ruins but impassible terrain (which is again, altering the game), which get confusing to the players and is non-intuitive.
It's not non-intuitive at all. An enclosed box with a roof is a solid block, of course it's impassible. The fact that the box has a hollow interior doesn't change the fact that it's still a block externally. And would people have trouble grasping the idea if the building was built around a solid block of foam? Do you think that people would have trouble understanding why they can't put their models inside the solid block of foam? Of course not. Impassible terrain is perfectly intuitive as long as it is clearly declared to be impassible terrain.
Also, isn't it kind of dishonest to claim that there's no difference between your rules and RAW when a major part of the problem is the fact that you've changed the terrain rules so that ruins block LOS even when the models inside are visible and removed the option to shoot a unit in a ruin?
Well, considering you can score 30 points on primary and only 12 on secondaries if you built a list to ignore the primary you'd likely lose most of your games. Even assuming the bonus point is a touch out of reach every turn, it's still more than 2 to 1, primary to secondary.
Slightly late, but just wanted to pick up ont his as it seems to miss the point a little. The problem some people (myself included) have with the primary scoring isn't the total number of points available, but the difference between each player's score. It's so easy to hold one objective and kill one thing that you can ignore those points as far as the scoring is concerned because pretty much everyone will get them each round, barring some unusual situations. So the only real differentiator in the primary is the hold more and kill more parts, which is why a lot of people say it's the secondaries that are actually more important, because they're the missions that can show the biggest disparity between each player's score. The bonus primary points available in most missions seem like afterhtoughts a lot of the time as well, and not really something that can act as a differentiator.
I also agree with Peregrine about the enclosed ruins situation. I don't see why it's a problem to have an enclosed structure be impassable. I don't think that's counter-intuitive at all. To me the most intuitive approach to a terrain piece like that is either a building or impassable. Making it a ruin is probably the least intuitive approach. In fact, doesn't the rulebook itself define a ruin as specifically not being enclosed?
alextroy wrote: The biggest fallacy I seem to see in this GW versus ITC/Home-Brew mission debate is rather simple. Look at the variety of Match Play Scenerios GW has produced. We now have 18 Eternal War and 18 Maelstrom of War mission. They each set of six is significantly different from the next set of 6. How can anyone honestly believe that GW has balanced the game to work under these effectively 6 different scenario sets while believing the balance suddenly falls apart under ITC, Nova or any any other scenario set?
It's not that some units won't be better under some scenario sets then other. Some units will be better under some scenarios within a certain set than others. Knowing that, trying to grind the home-brew imbalances the game is just patently absurd.
Answer is easy. They aren't. There's scenarios that are big giant middle fingers for certain armies. Other's favour other armies so badly it's not funny. At least ITC doesn't do something silly like "oh your invulnerable saves don't work" things.
We all understand why during 7° some fixes where needed. But not anymore.
Balance? GW isn't balanced nor aiming so good that SOMEBODY is doing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: I also agree with Peregrine about the enclosed ruins situation. I don't see why it's a problem to have an enclosed structure be impassable. I don't think that's counter-intuitive at all. To me the most intuitive approach to a terrain piece like that is either a building or impassable. Making it a ruin is probably the least intuitive approach. In fact, doesn't the rulebook itself define a ruin as specifically not being enclosed?
I'm sitting in enclosed building right now. It's hardly impassable. So saying enclosed buildings are intuitive is bull. Intuitively impassable is something you...well logically enough can't enter.
Slipspace wrote: I also agree with Peregrine about the enclosed ruins situation. I don't see why it's a problem to have an enclosed structure be impassable. I don't think that's counter-intuitive at all. To me the most intuitive approach to a terrain piece like that is either a building or impassable. Making it a ruin is probably the least intuitive approach. In fact, doesn't the rulebook itself define a ruin as specifically not being enclosed?
I'm sitting in enclosed building right now. It's hardly impassable. So saying enclosed buildings are intuitive is bull. Intuitively impassable is something you...well logically enough can't enter.
I'm talking about terrain models on a battlefield, not real-life constructions. I'm not sure why I even have to explain that. An enclosed, box-like terrain piece on a board would most intuitively be either a building or impassable to, at a rough guess, about 90% of the people I regularly play games with. About 90% of those would probably count it as impassable. The ITC's weird hybrid ruin/not-a-ruin is not a solution I've ever seen anyone even think about implementing. It seems to be the solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.
The ITC's weird hybrid ruin/not-a-ruin is not a solution I've ever seen anyone even think about implementing. It seems to be the solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.
it exists solely to satisfy the fact that they make and sell MDF terrain the the roof comes off so that models can be placed inside.
All of my boxlike home terrain is impassable even though I have put doors / windows on .. take this for example ... are hollow nested boxes ... ITC rules would allow models be placed inside and thus unable to be shot at ... but would allow LOS ignoring units to shoot out of.
alextroy wrote: The biggest fallacy I seem to see in this GW versus ITC/Home-Brew mission debate is rather simple. Look at the variety of Match Play Scenerios GW has produced. We now have 18 Eternal War and 18 Maelstrom of War mission. They each set of six is significantly different from the next set of 6. How can anyone honestly believe that GW has balanced the game to work under these effectively 6 different scenario sets while believing the balance suddenly falls apart under ITC, Nova or any any other scenario set?
It's not that some units won't be better under some scenario sets then other. Some units will be better under some scenarios within a certain set than others. Knowing that, trying to grind the home-brew imbalances the game is just patently absurd.
Answer is easy. They aren't. There's scenarios that are big giant middle fingers for certain armies. Other's favour other armies so badly it's not funny. At least ITC doesn't do something silly like "oh your invulnerable saves don't work" things.
You are missing the point. As it has been repeatedly stated, these "scenarios that are giant middle fingers for certain armies" or "favour other armies so badly" are PART OF THE DESIGN SO YOU BRING MORE BALANCED LISTS. This continually gets glossed over or outright ignored. It's part of the intentional balance. Maybe you won't bring a list that relies on invulnerable saves if you get the mission that doesn't allow it. Maybe you'll bring some more units that can FLY in case you get the mission where units with FLY have super objective secured. Maybe you'll bring a mix of characters in case you get the mission that characters are required to score VP.
These are all deliberate to encourage varied lists not just blatant min/maxing and skewy soup lists like you see dominate ITC because they don't do that.
Wayniac wrote: You are missing the point. As it has been repeatedly stated, these "scenarios that are giant middle fingers for certain armies" or "favour other armies so badly" are PART OF THE DESIGN SO YOU BRING MORE BALANCED LISTS. This continually gets glossed over or outright ignored. It's part of the intentional balance. Maybe you won't bring a list that relies on invulnerable saves if you get the mission that doesn't allow it. Maybe you'll bring some more units that can FLY in case you get the mission where units with FLY have super objective secured. Maybe you'll bring a mix of characters in case you get the mission that characters are required to score VP.
These are all deliberate to encourage varied lists not just blatant min/maxing and skewy soup lists like you see dominate ITC because they don't do that.
@ Reece and Mike: Since this seems to be a perfect place to give such input directly to organizers, I wonder if you have ever consider a different approach to perfectly fair tournament format:
- instead of providing a detailed list of choosable and exploitable missions up front and allow "cracking" them at home in listbuilding stage or letting dice rolls decide which GW missions people play in Tournaments, why not prepare a set of slightly skewed missions (or directly use carefully selected stock GW ones) which each attendee will have to play in sequence (specific missions for specific rounds) and keep them secret up until the very game? That way there is no overall bias (if you design a versatile set of misions), people must be prepared to face everything and anything and build accordingly and the overall winner must play a well rounded army by definition? You could even design a publictly known large set of missions that only a small subset is played on the actual tournament, so "listbuilders" have something to have a go at, but they cannot "solve" a tournament or format before the actual event.
nou wrote: @ Reece and Mike: Since this seems to be a perfect place to give such input directly to organizers, I wonder if you have ever consider a different approach to perfectly fair tournament format:
- instead of providing a detailed list of choosable and exploitable missions up front and allow "cracking" them at home in listbuilding stage or letting dice rolls decide which GW missions people play in Tournaments, why not prepare a set of slightly skewed missions (or directly use carefully selected stock GW ones) which each attendee will have to play in sequence (specific missions for specific rounds) and keep them secret up until the very game? That way there is no overall bias (if you design a versatile set of misions), people must be prepared to face everything and anything and build accordingly and the overall winner must play a well rounded army by definition? You could even design a publictly known large set of missions that only a small subset is played on the actual tournament, so "listbuilders" have something to have a go at, but they cannot "solve" a tournament or format before the actual event.
I think this is a very very interesting concept, however, I’d change it slightly to allow TOs to have more control and flexibility.
Essentially, my thoughts are each “mission” has a set of 2 or 3 secondaries attached to it, kinda like how Linebreaker, First Strike and Warlord are in the GW missions. However, these 3 secondaries would be pre-selected by the TO and revealed at the beginning of the event (or a couple of days after any list submission deadline). This allows variety between events, as, while 2 events might run mission 2, chances are they’ll pick at least 1 different secondary for that mission.
Some could be thematic, such as having Head Hunter as a fixed secondary for the Crucible of Champions mission, but, others can be any weird and wonderful concoction thought up by the TOs. It might mean a couple of the secondaries might need tweaking in order to fit, but it would mean the player has to set themselves up in a way that’d cover all bases, as opposed to being focused on just 2 or 3.
Regarding enclosed buildings, the only problem I have with them is the indirect fire from within issue. Preventing something like a Mortar from fighting through a solid roof is a simple and easy fix. I just don’t get the argument of “we don’t want to change the rules too much”, despite, changing the rules to incorporate something like enclosed buildings and LoS blocking ground floors. It honestly just doesn’t make sense. The other alternative is to class all enclosed buildings as Unaligned dedicated transports that are not “Open Topped” (minus the 3” “disembark” rule). The unit inside can’t shoot out, but, also, they cannot be targeted by enemy fire. The final adjustment would then come regarding the table setup guidelines, where no enclosed building is within 4” of an objective. (This bit is relatively simple, due to the objectives in most of missions being pre-set.)
nou wrote: @ Reece and Mike: Since this seems to be a perfect place to give such input directly to organizers, I wonder if you have ever consider a different approach to perfectly fair tournament format:
- instead of providing a detailed list of choosable and exploitable missions up front and allow "cracking" them at home in listbuilding stage or letting dice rolls decide which GW missions people play in Tournaments, why not prepare a set of slightly skewed missions (or directly use carefully selected stock GW ones) which each attendee will have to play in sequence (specific missions for specific rounds) and keep them secret up until the very game? That way there is no overall bias (if you design a versatile set of misions), people must be prepared to face everything and anything and build accordingly and the overall winner must play a well rounded army by definition? You could even design a publictly known large set of missions that only a small subset is played on the actual tournament, so "listbuilders" have something to have a go at, but they cannot "solve" a tournament or format before the actual event.
I think this is a very very interesting concept, however, I’d change it slightly to allow TOs to have more control and flexibility.
Essentially, my thoughts are each “mission” has a set of 2 or 3 secondaries attached to it, kinda like how Linebreaker, First Strike and Warlord are in the GW missions. However, these 3 secondaries would be pre-selected by the TO and revealed at the beginning of the event (or a couple of days after any list submission deadline). This allows variety between events, as, while 2 events might run mission 2, chances are they’ll pick at least 1 different secondary for that mission.
Some could be thematic, such as having Head Hunter as a fixed secondary for the Crucible of Champions mission, but, others can be any weird and wonderful concoction thought up by the TOs. It might mean a couple of the secondaries might need tweaking in order to fit, but it would mean the player has to set themselves up in a way that’d cover all bases, as opposed to being focused on just 2 or 3.
Regarding enclosed buildings, the only problem I have with them is the indirect fire from within issue. Preventing something like a Mortar from fighting through a solid roof is a simple and easy fix. I just don’t get the argument of “we don’t want to change the rules too much”, despite, changing the rules to incorporate something like enclosed buildings and LoS blocking ground floors. It honestly just doesn’t make sense. The other alternative is to class all enclosed buildings as Unaligned dedicated transports that are not “Open Topped” (minus the 3” “disembark” rule). The unit inside can’t shoot out, but, also, they cannot be targeted by enemy fire. The final adjustment would then come regarding the table setup guidelines, where no enclosed building is within 4” of an objective. (This bit is relatively simple, due to the objectives in most of missions being pre-set.)
That is of course a broad concept to be detailed by TOs themselves, but it can be done with either ITC missions+secondaries, ETC and their Maelstrom or stock GW, with "secondaries" being carefully chosen from a deck of GW Maelstrom cards. Anything works really, as the proposed format itself changes the paradigm enough and the rest is simply a choice of tools to use to accomplish that.
I think the key point here is that these secondaries should not be something you can tailor a list for. They should be secret as much as possible precisely so they can't influence listbuilding and thereby lessen the massive influence and focus around listbuilding that we currently see in competitive 40k.
Wayniac wrote: I think the key point here is that these secondaries should not be something you can tailor a list for. They should be secret as much as possible precisely so they can't influence listbuilding and thereby lessen the massive influence and focus around listbuilding that we currently see in competitive 40k.
Exactly. I can imagine, that the ultimate effect of this (if done right) would be the end of "schisma" even if ITC, ETC and GT would all have different pools of secondaries, as uncertainty and resulting necessary TAC lists would largely unify the global meta, therefore making ITC scores more representative for European and "vanilla" balance, ending this whole "ITC feedback and playtesting involvement skews balance for not-ITC players" conundrum.
And my two cents on the terrain issue: any rule that makes any unit virtually invulnerable is fundamentally bad, no matter the rationale behind it. It is clearly an exploitable rule that favors certain builds and should not be a part of a healthy format. IMHO it casts a massive shadow on seriousness of ITC, and since it is so easily reperable gives birth to completely unnecessary "conspiracy theories" of pushing sales of terrain.
I really like Nou's thinking. This would be a good direction.
The building thing is bizarre. It is something couple of guys playing in their basement with their shoe box houses would come up, and then change it after a few games when it completely predictably causes problems. It is pretty mind-boggling that supposed experts would deliberately make such a ruling.
nou wrote: @ Reece and Mike: Since this seems to be a perfect place to give such input directly to organizers, I wonder if you have ever consider a different approach to perfectly fair tournament format:
- instead of providing a detailed list of choosable and exploitable missions up front and allow "cracking" them at home in listbuilding stage or letting dice rolls decide which GW missions people play in Tournaments, why not prepare a set of slightly skewed missions (or directly use carefully selected stock GW ones) which each attendee will have to play in sequence (specific missions for specific rounds) and keep them secret up until the very game? That way there is no overall bias (if you design a versatile set of misions), people must be prepared to face everything and anything and build accordingly and the overall winner must play a well rounded army by definition? You could even design a publictly known large set of missions that only a small subset is played on the actual tournament, so "listbuilders" have something to have a go at, but they cannot "solve" a tournament or format before the actual event.
People would leak it and certain players would get a huge advantage. Put too much strain on keeping gak secret in what is ultimately a pretty small and intimate community there at the top
The ITC's weird hybrid ruin/not-a-ruin is not a solution I've ever seen anyone even think about implementing. It seems to be the solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.
it exists solely to satisfy the fact that they make and sell MDF terrain the the roof comes off so that models can be placed inside.
All of my boxlike home terrain is impassable even though I have put doors / windows on .. take this for example ... are hollow nested boxes ... ITC rules would allow models be placed inside and thus unable to be shot at ... but would allow LOS ignoring units to shoot out of.
Spoiler:
this whole table would be enterable
Spoiler:
They’ve sold this terrain for ages man. The reason these rules happened is because some tournament players used loopholes in the wording of previous terrain rules to do gak like park flyers out of line of sight inside buildings and dumb stuff like that. I think Reece over corrected with these rules and I suspect next year we’ll have a more conservative, but also probably more wordy version that prevents an airplane from flying inside a house, but doesn’t also make infantry inside that house immortal terrors to all but those dastardly mortars
JohnnyHell wrote: Asking for feedback then rubbishing some of that feedback on the first page is... mmmkay. The first “thanks for the feedback” comment was a great response, the “lol” not so much!
~_~ wow, chill out man.
Your idea of feedback is nothing other than complaints and whining. Hardly constructive.
nou wrote: @ Reece and Mike: Since this seems to be a perfect place to give such input directly to organizers, I wonder if you have ever consider a different approach to perfectly fair tournament format:
- instead of providing a detailed list of choosable and exploitable missions up front and allow "cracking" them at home in listbuilding stage or letting dice rolls decide which GW missions people play in Tournaments, why not prepare a set of slightly skewed missions (or directly use carefully selected stock GW ones) which each attendee will have to play in sequence (specific missions for specific rounds) and keep them secret up until the very game? That way there is no overall bias (if you design a versatile set of misions), people must be prepared to face everything and anything and build accordingly and the overall winner must play a well rounded army by definition? You could even design a publictly known large set of missions that only a small subset is played on the actual tournament, so "listbuilders" have something to have a go at, but they cannot "solve" a tournament or format before the actual event.
People would leak it and certain players would get a huge advantage. Put too much strain on keeping gak secret in what is ultimately a pretty small and intimate community there at the top
You missed the point of "designing versatile set of challenges that forces players to build TAC lists" so it is impossible to tailor a winning list to an extent that is possible nowadays. But even then, you know you can do this in number of secure/buletproof ways, yes? Few examples:
- if you premade large number of possible scenarios, then make a public (twitch based) lottery, put drawn scenarios into an envelope and put a purity seal on it to be opened at the begining of tournament and burn the rest of lots right after, so no one knows what has been drawn.
- same as above but in web based form, with a time vault service...
- make so that every scenario is prepared by a single person and no one knows all of them, so eventual leak is limited...
- exclude friends and families from participation as with any lottery or competition "in the big world"...
The list can go on, you cannot realy think, that there is no way to do such thing properly. Bridge tournaments are conducted this way for decades...
JohnnyHell wrote: Asking for feedback then rubbishing some of that feedback on the first page is... mmmkay. The first “thanks for the feedback” comment was a great response, the “lol” not so much!
~_~ wow, chill out man.
Your idea of feedback is nothing other than complaints and whining. Hardly constructive.
This analogy would be correct if it was correct..... cept its not.
I have seen some valid concerns and critisicms on here, but i've also seen quite a few non-constructive complaints. Either way, this is my last post here. Reece and MVBrant dont need me sticking up for them and it seems to have just agitated some of you more.
nou wrote: And my two cents on the terrain issue: any rule that makes any unit virtually invulnerable is fundamentally bad, no matter the rationale behind it. It is clearly an exploitable rule that favors certain builds and should not be a part of a healthy format. IMHO it casts a massive shadow on seriousness of ITC, and since it is so easily reperable gives birth to completely unnecessary "conspiracy theories" of pushing sales of terrain.
You realize GW has made such rule themselves as well? Blame ITC for doing what GW did first. Yep yep. Have you ever played game where you almost literally are unable to hurt enemy army? One unit per turn is 100% immune and rest...well good luck taking down vehicles with pistols when you are hitting on 6's.
I have. Not fun. And that was because GW's FAQ and GW's rule.
Wayniac wrote: You are missing the point. As it has been repeatedly stated, these "scenarios that are giant middle fingers for certain armies" or "favour other armies so badly" are PART OF THE DESIGN SO YOU BRING MORE BALANCED LISTS. This continually gets glossed over or outright ignored. It's part of the intentional balance. Maybe you won't bring a list that relies on invulnerable saves if you get the mission that doesn't allow it. Maybe you'll bring some more units that can FLY in case you get the mission where units with FLY have super objective secured. Maybe you'll bring a mix of characters in case you get the mission that characters are required to score VP.
That may be true (I don't think it is, I think it's GW continuing to be in love with stupid scenario rules) but it's a terrible way of handling things. Why do invulnerable saves need to randomly stop working but not other saves? Why should armies that rely on invulnerable saves randomly get screwed over every few games? For example, an IK list gets much weaker without its invulnerable saves but doesn't have any "just take something else" option. The only way to not get randomly screwed over by that mission is to pretend that an entire faction doesn't exist and not play IK. Or consider IG in the "FLY is obsec" mission. What exactly do we have with that keyword? Aircraft, which can't score objectives at all. Nothing else. So planning for that mission comes down to "don't play IG". Etc. It's design and it has no place in competitive events.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I think the key point here is that these secondaries should not be something you can tailor a list for. They should be secret as much as possible precisely so they can't influence listbuilding and thereby lessen the massive influence and focus around listbuilding that we currently see in competitive 40k.
Why shouldn't list building be a factor? Why should you randomly have an advantage or disadvantage based on "surprise, your list is very good/very bad for this set of objectives"? A competitive event is one where everyone knows the rules in advance and starts from an equal position.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: I'm sitting in enclosed building right now. It's hardly impassable. So saying enclosed buildings are intuitive is bull. Intuitively impassable is something you...well logically enough can't enter.
Realistic =/= intuitive. Having buildings you can't enter isn't realistic, but neither is having buildings you can enter that are just hollow boxes without any rooms/obstructions/etc inside. And it's perfectly intuitive from a rules point of view. You say "this is a solid block, models can't move into or through it" and everyone with the mental capacity to play 40k in the first place knows exactly how it works. I mean, it's not like people are struggling to understand the concept of solid blocks when it comes to things like hills carved out of a block of foam that have no hollow space inside.
JohnnyHell wrote: Asking for feedback then rubbishing some of that feedback on the first page is... mmmkay. The first “thanks for the feedback” comment was a great response, the “lol” not so much!
~_~ wow, chill out man.
Your idea of feedback is nothing other than complaints and whining. Hardly constructive.
Hey pot, have been introduced to kettle yet?
Seconded. Fragile reaponse.
This thread actually has been constructive IMO. Reece said himself he hasn't had real talk in some time.
nou wrote: And my two cents on the terrain issue: any rule that makes any unit virtually invulnerable is fundamentally bad, no matter the rationale behind it. It is clearly an exploitable rule that favors certain builds and should not be a part of a healthy format. IMHO it casts a massive shadow on seriousness of ITC, and since it is so easily reperable gives birth to completely unnecessary "conspiracy theories" of pushing sales of terrain.
You realize GW has made such rule themselves as well? Blame ITC for doing what GW did first. Yep yep. Have you ever played game where you almost literally are unable to hurt enemy army? One unit per turn is 100% immune and rest...well good luck taking down vehicles with pistols when you are hitting on 6's.
I have. Not fun. And that was because GW's FAQ and GW's rule.
But wasn't the whole point of ITC format not to repeat GWs mistakes and produce the ultimate fair tournament format? Honestly, I'm a bit lost on why exactly people defend terrrain ruling and why to introduce such a ruling in the first place. The most idiotic outcome of this rule comes from the part, where you are not bound to actually place models inside those buildings, you can simply place them on the roof, because... some roofs on LVO have been glued shut and the terrain pieces have floors built in. But what if you want to place some models on the ground level of such terrain and some on the roof at the same time? Do you abandon real models and positions altogether and just place a stack of coins on the roof? Some tables on the LVO will be asymmetrical because of such ruling and some people will be denied options that are possible on other tables. This is terrible rule in the first place and should never be introduced, and rationale behind introducing it because some people have put aircraft inside of buildings is just dumb - declaring them impassable in the first place would solve all the issues at once and not introduce all those conundrums. Especially since only terrain blocks with identifiable doors are treated as such, Necron style terrain pieces are solid blocks (except for some reason containers, which do have doors but are obviously hills...).
As far as the missions go I certainly like the new CA2018 missions, they are good fun and nicely varied but I'm not sure this means they are suitable for a high end tournament that many people pay lots of money to attend.
People here have stated that it's silly to have missions you can prepare your army for and that a greater variety of mission goals will encourage a more take all comers approach to list building. Whilst this may be partly true I don't think the CA2018 missions are the answer. Having missions that skew so hard against or for certain armies are not suitable for a competitive event. I know its been brought up alot but the mission the removes invulnerable saves is not winable by a Pure daemons or Harlequins army - period. This mission is the worst offender but some of the others also skew quite hard as well, I don't think this is GW intentionally creating imbalance for tournament gamers, I think it is them creating interesting and varied missions. For large, expensive to attend tournaments, designed to be highly competitive a more stable and balance set of missions is needed.
I don't think the ITC missions are ideal either. I find them just a little to similar with the same main primary goal (kill and hold) in each mission. I think that it and lots of the secondaries are too heavily weighted on killing considering how little kill points is used in any of the GW mission and also given that killing the enemy has other advantages already built in, such as there being less enemies.
Changing up the primary so that some of the missions don't award the points for killing but do award points for holding additional objectives would be a nice change. Adding a little more variety would help with the secondaries as well, perhaps have certain ones fixed for certain missions or not allowed in others. Give players a framework but allow more variety within in.
I prefer the new (old) deployment from CA2018 as it saves time and puts less weight on winning the roll to go first.
No auto victory for tabling is always welcome in an objective based mission but I believe ITC missions had this covered anyway.
First blood changed for first strike - again, more or less already covered in ITC.
Other things to note are the terrain rules - firstly I know that the base terrain rules are a mess and just don't cover anything in enough detail, my main wish would be for GW to rework them all into a more usable form taking gameplay situation into account more, as often terrain played pure RAW just leads to non-interactive gameplay and feel bad situations.
That said I don't think some of the changes and rules in the ITC terrain pack help the situation, the enclosed ruins are where the most problems exist and I know this is often due to the fact that the ITC have alot of physical terrain that is hard to treat any other way. Calling it all impassable is one answer but a little unrealistic - they look like you could get in them and also being impassable would remove alot of table space from being used. Having units (infantry) being able to hide in them and be immune to enemy fire whilst being able to return fire (LOS ignoring weapons) or other special rules (move after shooting, etc..) is a real feel bad experience.
If my enemy deploys inside a bunker I can't shot him but I can shot the (hard to kill) bunker to get him out of it but having enclosed ruins be invincible just makes them not work.
I don't have the perfect answer for using these terrain pieces especially without rewriting large swaths of the rulebook but I think treating them as building and giving them a profile that can be attacked would be a better approach. Either that or allow some LOS through bottom levels of the ruins and say that certain parts of models that may look blocked can actually be fired through. LOS blocking terrain is certainly needed in games but when it becomes all encompassing it takes away alot of play options.
I do like the changes to charging up ruins but feel if you are changing the rules you could just revert them back to the old rule of being counted as being within 1" of models directly above or below you in a ruin.
Thanks for asking for the feedback, I appreciate how hard a task it must be trying to please an player base with such varied opinions.
I second the suggestions made by Red Corsair regarding terrain rules. It's really frustrating taking what was a beer and pretzels game with TLOS and adding extra terrain rules like "can't see through first floor windows," "infantry can dive into enclosed structures," etc. 8th edition was supposed to be about simplification, and the increasing complexity of terrain rules - particularly tournament-specific and format-specific terrain rules - is making it more and more difficult to enjoy playing the game.
I would like to see terrain rules simply be those of the BRB as expanded by Chapter Approved.
Also, I would very much like to see a return to 1750 as the standard tournament point level. I played 1750 back in 5th, when you could play a game of 40k in 2 hours. 3 hours for a single game of 40k is simply too much to make tournaments manageable.
I would personally like to see the ITC change scoring. In particular, creating a new category to delineate massive sized events like BAO, NOVA, LVO, So Cal Open, Adepticon from other Majors of lesser size. So Grand Tournament, Major, Master or something like that. Mostly it's just superficial but it helps people immediately recognize the difference in size, and thus the difficulty in placing at the event. The LVO with 800 players skews the final scores for players who attend LVO too much. For example, if a player went 4-2 at the LVO their score would be higher than if they took second place at NOVA or BAO. Scoring for Team Tournaments should be reworked. As it stands now the team that wins the ATC has a huge advantage in being the #1 team in the ITC at the end of the season. How the points scale for the events in general needs work.
JohnnyHell wrote: Asking for feedback then rubbishing some of that feedback on the first page is... mmmkay. The first “thanks for the feedback” comment was a great response, the “lol” not so much!
~_~ wow, chill out man.
Your idea of feedback is nothing other than complaints and whining. Hardly constructive.
Rejecting feedback out of hand and being defensive is not a good way to respond to feedback. Why ask for feedback on the first place? It’s poor practise, as any feedback training will tell you.
(Having said that though... where was I emotional? Why “chill out”? Do you mean you disagree with me and are just trying some character sabotage? Let’s not, eh? PM me if you have an actual issue else let the thread roll.)
I saw the beta rules for March, and wanted to point out a potential problem with the new King of the Hill.
If I have two rather large units, like two Plaguebearers or two 20-man boys squads, it will be unreasonably difficult for those units to score those points.
Mathematically only 68 bases that are 32mm can fit into that bubble. That's packed as tightly as they can be.
I think the rule should be changed to "mostly" rather than "wholly." This would mean a little bit of math and counting on the fly, but for a full unit of 20 boys, only 10 of them would need to be within the bubble for that unit to count as scoring.
I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.
I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.
In summation: 1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish. 2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.
If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.
I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.
I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.
In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.
If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.
I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.
I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.
In summation: 1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish. 2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.
If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.
Elric Greywolf wrote: I saw the beta rules for March, and wanted to point out a potential problem with the new King of the Hill.
If I have two rather large units, like two Plaguebearers or two 20-man boys squads, it will be unreasonably difficult for those units to score those points.
Mathematically only 68 bases that are 32mm can fit into that bubble. That's packed as tightly as they can be.
I think the rule should be changed to "mostly" rather than "wholly." This would mean a little bit of math and counting on the fly, but for a full unit of 20 boys, only 10 of them would need to be within the bubble for that unit to count as scoring.
We were aware of that when writing it. We decided on both 6in from the center and 2 units wholly within knowing that.
I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.
I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.
In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.
If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.
So basically you are saying "make non competive scenarios for event that tries to be competive". Hmm...Not sure how that's exactly going to help them for their goal though. They are trying to make 40k into competive game. Having non-competive scenarios is going against whole core idea.
Wayniac wrote: Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.
I exalted you, and I wish I could do it 100 more times. HERE HERE.
Also, I'm disappointed. I had lots of feedback to offer, but it seems the only allowed feedback is about the missions! Why not do a general survey of those who went?
I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.
I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.
In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.
If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.
So basically you are saying "make non competive scenarios for event that tries to be competive". Hmm...Not sure how that's exactly going to help them for their goal though. They are trying to make 40k into competive game. Having non-competive scenarios is going against whole core idea.
What specifically makes ITC and NOVA missions "competitive" (i.e. more suited for 'competition' than other missions)?
I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.
I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.
In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.
If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.
So basically you are saying "make non competive scenarios for event that tries to be competive". Hmm...Not sure how that's exactly going to help them for their goal though. They are trying to make 40k into competive game. Having non-competive scenarios is going against whole core idea.
What specifically makes ITC and NOVA missions "competitive" (i.e. more suited for 'competition' than other missions)?
I argument I keep seeing is that they are less random and everything is completely predetermined.
Somehow in their mind the fact that you can chose the likely winner before a model hits the table purely based off of who has the killiest army and can pick the better secondaries is somehow 'competitive' instead of a scenario where you actually have to adept and be the better general.
So overall ITC is fun but there are certainly problems with it. As others have touched on the ITC format clearly steers lists to be built in a certain direction, this direction be kill your opponent as efficiently as possible. This leads to all the castellan and ynnari lists. There is almost no focus on objectives outside of efficient slaughter, ya ya you have hold 1 kill 1 hold more kill more, but those just happen, and happen more via efficiently killing, while the tie break (secondaries) focus almost entirely on slaughter apart from 1 or 2 which are quite hard to score thus not efficient. However if you take say one of those top tournament lists from the ITC format and forced it to play another format it would go from being amazing to just good. The reason some variation to your missions is good is it prevents a full out kit out this list for 1 purpose that ITC suffers from, namely how can I build the most efficient death dealers possible. If you are trying to be competitive, which is the point of ITC rules like the idea or not, then consistency is needed, however when you focus this sooo much to a point everything else falls away and it dramatically changes metas, making some models useless and making others god tier.
I think you need to "dull" the point on your mission design so to speak. Embrace a little bit of variation, just not randomness. IE something like at LVO being, Mission #1 current ITC standard set up. Mission #2 Make it focused more on taking and holding objectives even secondaries highlight this, maybe mission #3 is like that too then missions #4 is current set up and mission # 5 you roll for between the previous missions. Currently the design of ITC rules is like watching football where running the ball isn't allowed.
To me the problem with the ITC at the moment is the lack of problem-solving required during a game. If a wargame is effectively a problem that each player needs to solve to win then I think the ITC puts far too much emphasis on solving that problem before the battle. I think the game is much more interesting when that problem has to be solved on the battlefield itself. I think the concept of secondary objectives is the issue. They push scoring too far down the route of killing things because it's much easier to write a variety of secondary objectives that requires killing things rather than doing anything else. It'd be interesting to see something trialled that pushes armies more towards holding ground instead.
I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.
I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.
In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.
If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.
So basically you are saying "make non competive scenarios for event that tries to be competive". Hmm...Not sure how that's exactly going to help them for their goal though. They are trying to make 40k into competive game. Having non-competive scenarios is going against whole core idea.
What specifically makes ITC and NOVA missions "competitive" (i.e. more suited for 'competition' than other missions)?
I argument I keep seeing is that they are less random and everything is completely predetermined.
Somehow in their mind the fact that you can chose the likely winner before a model hits the table purely based off of who has the killiest army and can pick the better secondaries is somehow 'competitive' instead of a scenario where you actually have to adept and be the better general.
Thank you, your response is excellent and helps to point out a major flaw in ITC and NOVA missions.
My question was rhetorical, the answer of course being that ITC and NOVA missions are most certainly not more suited for competition than say... Eternal War missions from various GW books.
GrinNfool and Slipspace have excellent comments as well.
To me the problem with the ITC at the moment is the lack of problem-solving required during a game. If a wargame is effectively a problem that each player needs to solve to win then I think the ITC puts far too much emphasis on solving that problem before the battle. I think the game is much more interesting when that problem has to be solved on the battlefield itself. I think the concept of secondary objectives is the issue. They push scoring too far down the route of killing things because it's much easier to write a variety of secondary objectives that requires killing things rather than doing anything else. It'd be interesting to see something trialled that pushes armies more towards holding ground instead.
Care to give an example of a "problem to solve"? Something like Ciaphas Cain using basilisks to destroy a dam so its water can wash away thousands of orks? Have one army defend a point/position and the other to take it? Win/loss based on the the thing being taken or destroyed? Make a "space gate" that can take 20 wounds, but if still held by defenders by turn 5 it's a Defense Win? If destroyed anytime before that, Attacker wins?
Just sounds too asymmetrical for a tourney setting.
Besides that, I really think you're over looking the point of the game. The end result of most of 40k's mechanics is to remove enemy models: Smite & the Psy powers that boost performance, Shooting & Fighting phases. Objective Secured has its place in the designers' rules and in the ITC mission design.
What would your 'problem solving' look like in missions?
To me the problem with the ITC at the moment is the lack of problem-solving required during a game. If a wargame is effectively a problem that each player needs to solve to win then I think the ITC puts far too much emphasis on solving that problem before the battle. I think the game is much more interesting when that problem has to be solved on the battlefield itself. I think the concept of secondary objectives is the issue. They push scoring too far down the route of killing things because it's much easier to write a variety of secondary objectives that requires killing things rather than doing anything else. It'd be interesting to see something trialled that pushes armies more towards holding ground instead.
Care to give an example of a "problem to solve"? Something like Ciaphas Cain using basilisks to destroy a dam so its water can wash away thousands of orks? Have one army defend a point/position and the other to take it? Win/loss based on the the thing being taken or destroyed? Make a "space gate" that can take 20 wounds, but if still held by defenders by turn 5 it's a Defense Win? If destroyed anytime before that, Attacker wins?
Just sounds too asymmetrical for a tourney setting.
Besides that, I really think you're over looking the point of the game. The end result of most of 40k's mechanics is to remove enemy models: Smite & the Psy powers that boost performance, Shooting & Fighting phases. Objective Secured has its place in the designers' rules and in the ITC mission design.
What would your 'problem solving' look like in missions?
The point of the game is to have fun. Slipspace is describing the bare-bones framework of something which would increase his fun. Sounds like he's nailing the point of the game, not missing it, to me...
Dysartes wrote: The point of the game is to have fun. Slipspace is describing the bare-bones framework of something which would increase his fun. Sounds like he's nailing the point of the game, not missing it, to me...
Of course the point is fun and the comments in my sig ought to point out that I play for fun, too. ... but if Slipspace is talking about what's fun for him, and not a workable mechanic in ITC missions, then the post is misplaced.
But, I don't think that. My take on Slipspace's post is that he has posited that a different focus (solving problems) of missions could be used and I'd like to hear his ideas on what those could be.
To me the problem with the ITC at the moment is the lack of problem-solving required during a game. If a wargame is effectively a problem that each player needs to solve to win then I think the ITC puts far too much emphasis on solving that problem before the battle. I think the game is much more interesting when that problem has to be solved on the battlefield itself. I think the concept of secondary objectives is the issue. They push scoring too far down the route of killing things because it's much easier to write a variety of secondary objectives that requires killing things rather than doing anything else. It'd be interesting to see something trialled that pushes armies more towards holding ground instead.
Care to give an example of a "problem to solve"? Something like Ciaphas Cain using basilisks to destroy a dam so its water can wash away thousands of orks? Have one army defend a point/position and the other to take it? Win/loss based on the the thing being taken or destroyed? Make a "space gate" that can take 20 wounds, but if still held by defenders by turn 5 it's a Defense Win? If destroyed anytime before that, Attacker wins?
Just sounds too asymmetrical for a tourney setting.
Besides that, I really think you're over looking the point of the game. The end result of most of 40k's mechanics is to remove enemy models: Smite & the Psy powers that boost performance, Shooting & Fighting phases. Objective Secured has its place in the designers' rules and in the ITC mission design.
What would your 'problem solving' look like in missions?
Killing should be a means to an end, not the end itself.
Like controlling objectives on the table, you will kill models in the pursuit of this but killing isn't the main goal.
ITC with its many secondaries focused around killing and not even its primaries caring much about how many objectives you control leads to a game where the only consideration is how much can you kill per turn which has a big influence on list building.
Ordana wrote: Killing should be a means to an end, not the end itself.
Like controlling objectives on the table, you will kill models in the pursuit of this but killing isn't the main goal.
A great post in these forums not only naysays the other guy's post, but also answers and contributes, instead of just telling me I don't have it right.
To that end of making things better for all of us:
Then what is that main goal? What would you have it be?
a. Winning the game?
b. Having fun regardless of win or loss? (And what would that mission/secondary look like?)
c. something else?
Ordana wrote: ITC with its many secondaries focused around killing and not even its primaries caring much about how many objectives you control leads to a game where the only consideration is how much can you kill per turn which has a big influence on list building.
I assert, that what you typed in orange *is* the game's design mechanic, this *is* the game's purpose, and the evidence is pretty much at the end of every rule ends with the phrases "does wounds", "remove enemy model", "destroys the unit" etc.
Instead of just typing/saying what ITC missions do badly or pointing out the negatives, would you also please provide and contribute what can be changed for the better? Would you please provide that, "What else goes into considering a list's build?" if not its sheer design to remove enemy models?
Please, take some time and add to our community and fun, and provide some ideas that we can take to the table and play. Something like new ITC Secondaries:
1. At player's turn end, hold 3 or more objectives and score a point. 4 Points possible for the game, for this objective (in addition to a mission's bonus point?)
2. Perhaps a harder version of Recon: Hold 6 sectors of the table. Score a point (as above). Bisect the table longitudinally and then latitudinally (sp?) split into thirds? Call it "The Six pack".
To me the problem with the ITC at the moment is the lack of problem-solving required during a game. If a wargame is effectively a problem that each player needs to solve to win then I think the ITC puts far too much emphasis on solving that problem before the battle. I think the game is much more interesting when that problem has to be solved on the battlefield itself. I think the concept of secondary objectives is the issue. They push scoring too far down the route of killing things because it's much easier to write a variety of secondary objectives that requires killing things rather than doing anything else. It'd be interesting to see something trialled that pushes armies more towards holding ground instead.
Care to give an example of a "problem to solve"? Something like Ciaphas Cain using basilisks to destroy a dam so its water can wash away thousands of orks? Have one army defend a point/position and the other to take it? Win/loss based on the the thing being taken or destroyed? Make a "space gate" that can take 20 wounds, but if still held by defenders by turn 5 it's a Defense Win? If destroyed anytime before that, Attacker wins?
Just sounds too asymmetrical for a tourney setting.
Besides that, I really think you're over looking the point of the game. The end result of most of 40k's mechanics is to remove enemy models: Smite & the Psy powers that boost performance, Shooting & Fighting phases. Objective Secured has its place in the designers' rules and in the ITC mission design.
What would your 'problem solving' look like in missions?
I think you've taken the "problem solving" part of my quote a little too literally. What I meant was simply that any wargame can be boiled down to a problem that needs to be solved, whether that's as simple as killing more points of stuff by the end of the game or some complex asymmetric set of goals. For example, X-Wing has a very simple "problem" that you need to solve, which is to kill more points than you lose, but the game's mechanics make solving that problem interesting and engaging on the tabletop. IMO, 40k's mechanics are extremely shallow and therefore the mission design needs to be more complex in order to make the game interesting. ITC's "problem" to solve basically boils down to kill more stuff because the various missions to hold ground are either trivially easy (such as Recon, or hold a single objective) or extremely difficult to the point that you're likely already winning if you're achieving them consistently (many of the bonus primaries fall into this category). This then leads to a more-or-less solved game state where pure killing power is king and some units are total liabilities because they give up too many points while gaining too few back. Just look at the difference between the armies at the ITC and those at the GWGT Finals. There's been a lot of discussion about how the winning Tau list would have been terrible in ITC because of all the small units of drones, yet it was able to do well in a different format where killing isn't the end goal of the game.
As far as what I'd like to see changed, I'm not 100% sure what it would look like, but I do want to see at least a small amount more randomness introduced into ITC and much, much less emphasis on killing stuff. I'm not suggesting going full Maelstrom, but something that alters the basic premise away from a guaranteed set of goals and a guaranteed set-up of objectives would be welcome. I think Star Wars Legion has a system that has players eliminate objectives and set-ups from a pool of cards to generate the deployment and objectives. Something similar to that might be more interesting. It might even be an interesting experiment to simply remove all secondaries and the primaries for killing units form the ITC missions and see what results. Imagine going even further and removing the points for holding the objective(s) closest to your deployment zone. People might actually have to move around for a reason other than just to get LoS.
Ordana wrote: Killing should be a means to an end, not the end itself.
Like controlling objectives on the table, you will kill models in the pursuit of this but killing isn't the main goal.
A great post in these forums not only naysays the other guy's post, but also answers and contributes, instead of just telling me I don't have it right.
To that end of making things better for all of us:
Then what is that main goal? What would you have it be?
a. Winning the game?
b. Having fun regardless of win or loss? (And what would that mission/secondary look like?)
c. something else?
Ordana wrote: ITC with its many secondaries focused around killing and not even its primaries caring much about how many objectives you control leads to a game where the only consideration is how much can you kill per turn which has a big influence on list building.
I assert, that what you typed in orange *is* the game's design mechanic, this *is* the game's purpose, and the evidence is pretty much at the end of every rule ends with the phrases "does wounds", "remove enemy model", "destroys the unit" etc.
Instead of just typing/saying what ITC missions do badly or pointing out the negatives, would you also please provide and contribute what can be changed for the better? Would you please provide that, "What else goes into considering a list's build?" if not its sheer design to remove enemy models?
Please, take some time and add to our community and fun, and provide some ideas that we can take to the table and play. Something like new ITC Secondaries:
1. At player's turn end, hold 3 or more objectives and score a point. 4 Points possible for the game, for this objective (in addition to a mission's bonus point?)
2. Perhaps a harder version of Recon: Hold 6 sectors of the table. Score a point (as above). Bisect the table longitudinally and then latitudinally (sp?) split into thirds? Call it "The Six pack".
Whacha got to *add* to the discussion?
Since we are talking competitive the goal is obviously to win, but to win through objectives that don't necessarily involve killing, killing makes completing your objectives easier, but isn't the objective itself.
What would I rather see? Something as simple as 1 point per objective instead of just hold 1 can go a long way to getting armies to spread across the table. You can leave Hold More in there.
Get rid of kill more and a bunch of the kill things secondaries, plus select less then 3 to play with because there will be less choice now.
I know not everyone likes it but I enjoy Maelstrom, especially when combined with a more standard Eternal War mission. Yes there is randomness in the cards but that can be mitigated through varies means, from letting you remove cards from the deck for the tournament, or letting you draw 4/5 pick 3. It adds a degree of complexity to the missions, of suddenly having to worry about something else. It presents a problem to solve instead of just following a flowchart of 'Kill x, y, z. Win game".
Slipspace wrote: I think you've taken the "problem solving" part of my quote a little too literally. What I meant was simply t
Spoiler:
hat any wargame can be boiled down to a problem that needs to be solved, whether that's as simple as killing more points of stuff by the end of the game or some complex asymmetric set of goals. For example, X-Wing has a very simple "problem" that you need to solve, which is to kill more points than you lose, but the game's mechanics make solving that problem interesting and engaging on the tabletop. IMO, 40k's mechanics are extremely shallow and therefore the mission design needs to be more complex in order to make the game interesting. ITC's "problem" to solve basically boils down to kill more stuff because the various missions to hold ground are either trivially easy (such as Recon, or hold a single objective) or extremely difficult to the point that you're likely already winning if you're achieving them consistently (many of the bonus primaries fall into this category). This then leads to a more-or-less solved game state where pure killing power is king and some units are total liabilities because they give up too many points while gaining too few back. Just look at the difference between the armies at the ITC and those at the GWGT Finals. There's been a lot of discussion about how the winning Tau list would have been terrible in ITC because of all the small units of drones, yet it was able to do well in a different format where killing isn't the end go
al of the game.
Well stated and good point.
Slipspace wrote: As far as what I'd like to see changed, I'm not 100% sure what it would look like, but I do want to see at least a small amount more randomness introduced into ITC and much, much less emphasis on killing stuff. I'm not suggesting going full Maelstrom, but something that alters the basic premise away from a guaranteed set of goals and a guaranteed set-up of objectives would be welcome. I think Star Wars Legion has a system that has players eliminate objectives and set-ups from a pool of cards to generate the deployment and objectives. ... .
Perhaps, a better version of using the Maelstrom cards, as Ordana suggests below?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: Since we are talking competitive the goal is obviously to win, but to win through objectives that don't necessarily involve killing, killing makes completing your objectives easier, but isn't the objective itself.
What would I rather see? Something as simple as 1 point per objective instead of just hold 1 can go a long way to getting armies to spread across the table. You can leave Hold More in there.
Get rid of kill more and a bunch of the kill things secondaries, plus select less then 3 to play with because there will be less choice now.
I know not everyone likes it but I enjoy Maelstrom, especially when combined with a more standard Eternal War mission. Yes there is randomness in the cards but that can be mitigated through varies means, from letting you remove cards from the deck for the tournament, or letting you draw 4/5 pick 3. It adds a degree of complexity to the missions, of suddenly having to worry about something else. It presents a problem to solve instead of just following a flowchart of 'Kill x, y, z. Win game".
Good ideas.
I recall, when 7e initiated, that the complaint from players at my LGS was that too quickly, Maelstrom/Tac card objectives would tip the game. Random card draws could just bone you hard, despite your tactical acumen, even dominance of the table (making it necessary to table the opponent to win, which is kinda what we're discussing as something to avoid). In the couple of our RTTs that we *did* use Mael/Tactical cards, a rule existed that had an auto-redraw if an objective was impossible to achieve, like shooting down an enemy flier, fry an enemy psycher that didn't exist, etc. But it was the randomness made the game more of a game of chance, a gamble (hold that protest, "But it's a DICE game!!") than skill and tactical acumen, etc.
And we didn't like that. We didn't like the card draw's random factor.
I like it in poker. And I think we all can like games-of-chance, like craps or Black Jack. But 40k is a opponent vs opponent game, and I think that mindset is, "Can I outsmart this guy, with reasonable dice odds?"
When we (you, me, the 40k community) see that same players in a meta, achieving the top tables, it is obvious that the dice don't have an overbearing effect, so much as the player's skill. If I see Brandon Grant at a tourney (and he'll be at the next GT ), I only wonder who's gonna come in second.
Now, back to the, "But Casey, it *IS* a dice game!" Yes, it is, but all the really good players I talk to, the ones that have multiple RTT and GT wins, they talk about target selection, positioning/deployment and matching units up correctly. Favorite dice never come. Overall, the dice don't weigh in as much.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I do like your idea of selecting Tac cards down to a few good ones. However, it's going to come back to either killing something, taking an objective(s) which are good ones. Or silly things like successfully casting a Psy-power, iirc. I don't own any cards anymore. Were there some really bad, codex specific easy ones? Like 'succeed a charge with wyches'?
Something that would weight the missions more towards objectives that could be "borrowed with love" (totally not stolen) from Maelstrom is the concept of defending objectives.
Either as a secondary or as part of scoring, get one point for every objective that you held at the beginning of the battle round and still hold at the end of the battle round.
Yes, you still have to kill things, but you also have to hold them. It might even bring back fortifications, as you have to hold things against lists designed just to kill you off objectives but not hold them.
Should’ve had a middle option for something like 75% pure. I don’t think it’s reasonable to throw a 1915 wolves/85 assassin list in with a 666/666/668 imperial soup split.
niv-mizzet wrote: Should’ve had a middle option for something like 75% pure. I don’t think it’s reasonable to throw a 1915 wolves/85 assassin list in with a 666/666/668 imperial soup split.
I think reinforcement points won't alter the "pureness" of a list. Will need clarification though.
As I’ve explained numerous times, that doesn’t address the issue that was brought up to start this in the first place: when competing for best in faction, a lot of players expressed frustration at playing an army for best in faction against a soup list. The degree to which you soup isn’t super relevant to the core issue.
Pure. Army faction is calculated from your list, not from models you bring in as reinforcements. (The same is currently true for a CSM army that summons daemons, for example.)
niv-mizzet wrote: Should’ve had a middle option for something like 75% pure. I don’t think it’s reasonable to throw a 1915 wolves/85 assassin list in with a 666/666/668 imperial soup split.
Agreed, though I'd rather see "pure" than what it is now. I'm curious to see (if this is implemented) how a change to classification will affect the "statistics" for each army to include representation and win rate.
Slipspace wrote: As far as what I'd like to see changed, I'm not 100% sure what it would look like, but I do want to see at least a small amount more randomness introduced into ITC and much, much less emphasis on killing stuff. I'm not suggesting going full Maelstrom, but something that alters the basic premise away from a guaranteed set of goals and a guaranteed set-up of objectives would be welcome. I think Star Wars Legion has a system that has players eliminate objectives and set-ups from a pool of cards to generate the deployment and objectives. ... .
Perhaps, a better version of using the Maelstrom cards, as Ordana suggests below?
I actually think that the way to do in a tournament this isn't more randomness within the mission, but rather more varietyofmissions. Right now every single mission is ITC primary+secondaries, with the only variable being where the objectives are placed. Changing the points each objective is worth, having a mission with a lot, one with a few, having a kill points mission, bringing back the Relic (but in a sensible way), or even having one with only end game scoring are all ways to make each game feel different.
greyknight12 wrote: I actually think that the way to do in a tournament this isn't more randomness within the mission, but rather more varietyofmissions. Right now every single mission is ITC primary+secondaries, with the only variable being where the objectives are placed. Changing the points each objective is worth, having a mission with a lot, one with a few, having a kill points mission, bringing back the Relic (but in a sensible way), or even having one with only end game scoring are all ways to make each game feel different.
I like the sound of this, not only for new missions (the missions are pretty much the same for many months now, with subtle changes) but I think it brings us back to the problems ITC players complained about a couple years ago; some missions were inherently imbalanced, like Relic (which you do point out needs to be made sensible, if it were brought back) and well,
...
the following sounds lame coming out of my mouth (typing), but too many varied missions made it harder to keep your tactical goals in mind from one round to the next, especially in 5 to 6 round GTs. To restate, and summarize the ITC's response over the years, we (organizers, players, TOs, etc.) voted to streamline them, but trying to keep a tiny bit of variety.
And I think that's the crux, the very thin crossing of the two intents:
a. enough variety to keep from being bored game after game
and
b. similarity/familiarity in missions so one doesn't need to drastically alter what you're going to do from one round to the next.
I don't think there's a lot of room to nail it, and I would agree that while it *is* acceptable to most players, but it might not be possible to appease the minority (a large percentage, but less than the majority)
For me, an average to low tier player, I recall in 6e getting confused about what I needed to get done toward turn 4, heading into 5 or 6, and losing games because I moved models to win the previous game's mission. With 8e ITC missions being pretty much the same with slightly different garnish (usually the bonus points) I'm able to focus on making my complicated army (space elves of either type or chaos soup) and simply trying to make it work. While I would readily welcome quite varied missions, I dunno as I'd be able to 'shift gears' from one game to the next. It's enough for me to have just played against Ad Mech, and now must face Imperial soup and then round off against Space Wolves or orks.
I might think my skill level represents the average tourney attendee, and possibly be representative of the rest (Sherlock Holmes inductive reasoning, eh? ) and thus accepting of missions that don't vary too much, only in different numbers of objective markers & bonus points. But the game itself, with a score or so of different kinds of opponent match ups providing that variety.
Then again, maybe that thinking is the low-tier, baby-seal mentality that makes me a sucky player.
Sure you could add stuff in like "raze'ing" objectives, or only characters could score (like the data carriers).
I don't dislike those personally, but you also have to remember that the missions you get have to be equal points-wise to the others.
Something like being able to burn objectives would make your total primary score unable to match up to another mission that could let you score the whole game for example, making that round of the tourney worth less.
Sure you could add stuff in like "raze'ing" objectives, or only characters could score (like the data carriers).
I don't dislike those personally, but you also have to remember that the missions you get have to be equal points-wise to the others.
Something like being able to burn objectives would make your total primary score unable to match up to another mission that could let you score the whole game for example, making that round of the tourney worth less.
I don't think it's at all necessary to resort to burning objectives or straight-up maelstrom to add variety. Having varied points for each objective is one way; in past editions there have been missions like this (the scouring in 6th/7th). You just need to shift how you earn points in each mission, with the max remaining the same. Some example ideas:
1. Place 4 objectives, 1 in each corner. 2 of them (diagonal to each other) are worth 1 point, the others are 2 points with a 5th objective in the middle worth 3 points. You get a number of points each turn equal to the sum of objectives you hold, up to 5 max.
2. 2 objectives each worth 2 points outside of either player's deployment zone. You get the total points from objectives you hold each turn, plus one for "kill one" and one for "kill more".
3. 1 objective in the middle, worth 3 points per turn plus 2 others elsewhere worth 1 per turn. If you hold the center objective at the end of the game you get 10 points.
4. Kill points, you get points based on the percentage of your opponent's army (in points) you kill by the end of the game. 90% gives you full points.
5. The current ITC Champions scoring.
6. 4 objectives, each worth 2 points. Points per turn=sum of objectives (max 5).
Regardless of primary mission, you would still have your secondaries for a measure of consistency (in the current ITC ratio they are 1/3 of max points) and you'd still have to option of going for the table if sudden death is still a thing. These are just some basic ideas that "tournament-ify" previous GW mission concepts, I am sure that someone with more time and experience could make better ones.
Can someone help me understand the most recent Champions update?
Here's my situation: I take Headhunter and Butcher's Bill. In my turn I kill an enemy character and an enemy Troops unit. Do I get a point for both those secondaries? Or do Butcher's Bill and Headhunter not stack anymore?
Elric Greywolf wrote: Can someone help me understand the most recent Champions update?
Here's my situation:
I take Headhunter and Butcher's Bill. In my turn I kill an enemy character and an enemy Troops unit. Do I get a point for both those secondaries? Or do Butcher's Bill and Headhunter not stack anymore?
Based on neither of them having asterisks, I read it as you can’t stack them.
Not sure why its like that, those two should stack.
The only ones that shouldn't stack are the "kill This target" missions, such as MFD, kingslayer, Headhunter, and Big game hunter.
Reaper, Butcher's Bill, and Gang Busters should all be stackable. I might have missed a change with this, but these 3 aren't picking any target in particular.
UPDATE: Ahh yeah my mistake, looks like I missed a change they just made. Butcher's bill is no longer stackable (because it was too easy to accrue points quickly if you got it and big game hunter together). They did add two new secondaries in Engineers and Pick your poison, though I don't like either one. Engineers is too easy to abuse with armies that have cheap 5-10 man troop units in my opinion. Pick your poison is far too niche and since its not stackable will almost never get used. Kingslayer can now max out on Dawneagle warlords as well. Note that while Gang busters doesn't say its stackable it actually is. You just gain a point for every 6 wounds dealt to a multi-wound unit, not for killing the unit, so you still get the points even if you end up killing the unit and getting points from something else.
...the missions you get have to be equal points-wise to the others.
Something like being able to burn objectives would make your total primary score unable to match up to another mission that could let you score the whole game for example, making that round of the tourney worth less.
This is just one more of many issues with ITC and Nova missions. There is no 'win condition'. While you could consider scoring more points than your opponent as winning the game, the fact remains that this does nothing for you. Winning the game doesn't actually mean anything.
I think many of the ITC deployment zones are too small for some armies. I would suggest a minimum of 400 sq/in per deployment zone which is still over 100 sq/in smaller than the standard BRB deployment zones.
Wagguy80 wrote: I think many of the ITC deployment zones are too small for some armies. I would suggest a minimum of 400 sq/in per deployment zone which is still over 100 sq/in smaller than the standard BRB deployment zones.
Uh.... don't ITC deployment zones mirror BRB standard deployment zones?
Wagguy80 wrote: I think many of the ITC deployment zones are too small for some armies. I would suggest a minimum of 400 sq/in per deployment zone which is still over 100 sq/in smaller than the standard BRB deployment zones.
Uh.... don't ITC deployment zones mirror BRB standard deployment zones?
Yeah... The ITC missions use the BRB deployments. So...
...the missions you get have to be equal points-wise to the others.
Something like being able to burn objectives would make your total primary score unable to match up to another mission that could let you score the whole game for example, making that round of the tourney worth less.
This is just one more of many issues with ITC and Nova missions. There is no 'win condition'. While you could consider scoring more points than your opponent as winning the game, the fact remains that this does nothing for you. Winning the game doesn't actually mean anything.
Sounds like you just want a Narrative game more than a competitive tournament. They do have those, though admittedly less of those. GW used to do those big campaign events where depending on which side won (chaos, imperium, xenos) the storyline could progress a certain direction. They are great fun, but don't really have anything to do with balancing meta's vs mission packets.
...the missions you get have to be equal points-wise to the others.
Something like being able to burn objectives would make your total primary score unable to match up to another mission that could let you score the whole game for example, making that round of the tourney worth less.
This is just one more of many issues with ITC and Nova missions. There is no 'win condition'. While you could consider scoring more points than your opponent as winning the game, the fact remains that this does nothing for you. Winning the game doesn't actually mean anything.
Sounds like you just want a Narrative game more than a competitive tournament. They do have those, though admittedly less of those. GW used to do those big campaign events where depending on which side won (chaos, imperium, xenos) the storyline could progress a certain direction. They are great fun, but don't really have anything to do with balancing meta's vs mission packets.
No, actually your just trying to put words in his mouth.
What kind of "Win condition" are you asking for then?
Do you want something similar to kill team where you just have to run your guys off the board to win?
Mabey you want something like a Defend the crystal scenario, where whoever can smash the crystal first is the winner (pick one character to wield a relic hammer. That character must destroy the crystal. If he dies another character can pick it up)?
These are all fun missions that I myself would like to play, but I cant see how you could easily balance them out (battle point-wise) with other missions.
Even the BRB missions (except for the relic to an extent) come down to “have more points than your opponent”. Objectives are worth points, some other stuff is worth points, and you add up the points from what you hold at the end of the game (or throughout the game in maelstrom missions) and whoever has the most wins. I’m a huge critic of the current ITC missions, but I don’t really see that concept as the issue; rather most of the critiques here and elsewhere from players focus on how those points are accrued.
I'm not entirely sure how best to word a post that perfectly conveys the issue(s), but I'll try again.
Competition for; well, everything I can think of is based on a win / loss percentage and the victory condition is defined.
In ITC and Nova missions there is no defined game victory condition, when the game concludes, there is no determining a victor in any meaningful way; there's no award for winning the game.
Throughout ITC and Nova tournaments, the players each simply run through a set of game rounds accruing 'tournament points' to add to their pool.
At the end of the tournament the player who filled their pool the most wins the tournament.
Because the mission and 'tournament point' collecting mechanics never change and terrain remains largely unchanged as well, a player...
1. Effectively is just playing a single very long game of W40K.
2. Never needs to dramatically change their strategy.
3. Never needs to dramatically alter their deployment.
In competition, besting your opponent(s) is what determines victory, but in ITC and Nova a player just needs to amass tournament points and end the event with the most tournament points, not necessarily best their opponent(s).
Competition for; well, everything I can think of is based on a win / loss percentage and the victory condition is defined.
In ITC and Nova missions there is no defined game victory condition, when the game concludes, there is no determining a victor in any meaningful way; there's no award for winning the game.
Throughout ITC and Nova tournaments, the players each simply run through a set of game rounds accruing 'tournament points' to add to their pool.
At the end of the tournament the player who filled their pool the most wins the tournament.
I mean... We can use a sport like Football as an example of a competition. It has no "win condition". You score points in each quarter, and the person who has the most points added to their pool through the end of all four quarters wins the game.
As far as winning the actual tournament, to the best of my knowledge your win/loss rate is what matters the most, and after that there are some tiebreakers. But if you have a 3-0 record, with 60 total tournament points, and another guy has a 2-1 record and 61 total tournament points, you still win. The win/loss rate matters more.
Usually (at least from what I’ve seen) a win confers 1000 points in addition to the battle points accrued during a mission. So winning 2 games nets you 2000+battle points, the undefeated winner of a 6-round tourney has 6000+some number, etc. so that wins ultimately matter the most.
To Oni’s other points though, deployment changes as much as the BRB missions but the “decathlon” style nature of ITC missions does limit the variety from game to game, you can see some of my previous posts on the matter.
Horst wrote: Oni, I still don't understand though. You say:
Competition for; well, everything I can think of is based on a win / loss percentage and the victory condition is defined.
In ITC and Nova missions there is no defined game victory condition, when the game concludes, there is no determining a victor in any meaningful way; there's no award for winning the game.
Throughout ITC and Nova tournaments, the players each simply run through a set of game rounds accruing 'tournament points' to add to their pool.
At the end of the tournament the player who filled their pool the most wins the tournament.
I mean... We can use a sport like Football as an example of a competition. It has no "win condition". You score points in each quarter, and the person who has the most points added to their pool through the end of all four quarters wins the game.
As far as winning the actual tournament, to the best of my knowledge your win/loss rate is what matters the most, and after that there are some tiebreakers. But if you have a 3-0 record, with 60 total tournament points, and another guy has a 2-1 record and 61 total tournament points, you still win. The win/loss rate matters more.
Horst, I don't blame you, I'm failing miserably at explaining my point.
The thing is, if you don't like earning victory points, you don't like competitive gaming. That's literally how every professional/competitive sport is determined.
As I said earlier, you seem to want some sort of story driven big bang gameplay, which 40k wont provide for you.
Eihnlazer wrote: The thing is, if you don't like earning victory points, you don't like competitive gaming. That's literally how every professional/competitive sport is determined.
As I said earlier, you seem to want some sort of story driven big bang gameplay, which 40k wont provide for you.
Good thing 40k isn't a professional sport then, so shouldn't necessarily follow the same rules.
I think he's saying the issue many of us have with the ITC style missions. There are only two things you need to do: Kill enemy units and control objectives. Nothing else. So as long as you min/max a list to do both of those things, you have a "good" list for ITC missions.
oni wrote: I'm not entirely sure how best to word a post that perfectly conveys the issue(s), but I'll try again.
Competition for; well, everything I can think of is based on a win / loss percentage and the victory condition is defined.
In ITC and Nova missions there is no defined game victory condition, when the game concludes, there is no determining a victor in any meaningful way; there's no award for winning the game.
Throughout ITC and Nova tournaments, the players each simply run through a set of game rounds accruing 'tournament points' to add to their pool.
At the end of the tournament the player who filled their pool the most wins the tournament.
Because the mission and 'tournament point' collecting mechanics never change and terrain remains largely unchanged as well, a player...
1. Effectively is just playing a single very long game of W40K.
2. Never needs to dramatically change their strategy.
3. Never needs to dramatically alter their deployment.
In competition, besting your opponent(s) is what determines victory, but in ITC and Nova a player just needs to amass tournament points and end the event with the most tournament points, not necessarily best their opponent(s).
Sorry Oni this just isn't true. What you're confusing are missions and tournament format. In a tournament that is Swiss it is the W/L record that matters first, points second. You win a game by having accrued more points at the end than your opponent. Just like a game of football, soccer, basketball, baseball etc. You are then awarded points based upon your win, which seeds you into the tournament ladder appropriately. If you're playing in a tournament that is based on Battle Points then it works the way you're describing, where winning or losing the game is secondary to accruing the largest number of points per round possible. Your points 1-3 apply to a Battle Point tournament, but not a Swiss tournament like NOVA, LVO, So Cal Open, BAO, or the vast majority of 40k tournaments. There just isn't any way that what your arguing is true from the context of it being the missions fault, it is the tournament format you have an issue with, and specifically Battle Points format.
Eihnlazer wrote: The thing is, if you don't like earning victory points, you don't like competitive gaming. That's literally how every professional/competitive sport is determined.
As I said earlier, you seem to want some sort of story driven big bang gameplay, which 40k wont provide for you.
Good thing 40k isn't a professional sport then, so shouldn't necessarily follow the same rules.
I think he's saying the issue many of us have with the ITC style missions. There are only two things you need to do: Kill enemy units and control objectives. Nothing else. So as long as you min/max a list to do both of those things, you have a "good" list for ITC missions.
oni wrote: I'm not entirely sure how best to word a post that perfectly conveys the issue(s), but I'll try again.
Competition for; well, everything I can think of is based on a win / loss percentage and the victory condition is defined.
In ITC and Nova missions there is no defined game victory condition, when the game concludes, there is no determining a victor in any meaningful way; there's no award for winning the game.
Throughout ITC and Nova tournaments, the players each simply run through a set of game rounds accruing 'tournament points' to add to their pool.
At the end of the tournament the player who filled their pool the most wins the tournament.
Because the mission and 'tournament point' collecting mechanics never change and terrain remains largely unchanged as well, a player...
1. Effectively is just playing a single very long game of W40K.
2. Never needs to dramatically change their strategy.
3. Never needs to dramatically alter their deployment.
In competition, besting your opponent(s) is what determines victory, but in ITC and Nova a player just needs to amass tournament points and end the event with the most tournament points, not necessarily best their opponent(s).
Sorry Oni this just isn't true. What you're confusing are missions and tournament format. In a tournament that is Swiss it is the W/L record that matters first, points second. You win a game by having accrued more points at the end than your opponent. Just like a game of football, soccer, basketball, baseball etc. You are then awarded points based upon your win, which seeds you into the tournament ladder appropriately. If you're playing in a tournament that is based on Battle Points then it works the way you're describing, where winning or losing the game is secondary to accruing the largest number of points per round possible. Your points 1-3 apply to a Battle Point tournament, but not a Swiss tournament like NOVA, LVO, So Cal Open, BAO, or the vast majority of 40k tournaments. There just isn't any way that what your arguing is true from the context of it being the missions fault, it is the tournament format you have an issue with, and specifically Battle Points format.
Thank you greatly for the clarification. I felt like there was definitely a disconnect somewhere for me that was inhibiting me being clear. I see now that I was on a different page because my local TO's have been running "Battle Point" tournaments using Nova missions. I was under the impression that that's just the way it was. My mistake.
Even though I was muddling mission and tournament format together, I'm still firm in my belief that ITC and Nova missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Instead of the mission(s) forcing the hand of the player(s) to change their army composition in order to accomplish finite victory conditions that change round to round, an optimization algorithm has been introduced where the army composition is tailored to the victory conditions that are ever present for all games.
Eihnlazer wrote: The thing is, if you don't like earning victory points, you don't like competitive gaming. That's literally how every professional/competitive sport is determined.
As I said earlier, you seem to want some sort of story driven big bang gameplay, which 40k wont provide for you.
Good thing 40k isn't a professional sport then, so shouldn't necessarily follow the same rules.
I think he's saying the issue many of us have with the ITC style missions. There are only two things you need to do: Kill enemy units and control objectives. Nothing else. So as long as you min/max a list to do both of those things, you have a "good" list for ITC missions.
Correction, the whole point of ITC missions is that you Don't have to control objectives. putting your army on 1 objective and occasionally touching a second one is all you need to do.
The whole issue with meta problems in the ITC is that everything revolves around kill kill kill.
Wagguy80 wrote: I think many of the ITC deployment zones are too small for some armies. I would suggest a minimum of 400 sq/in per deployment zone which is still over 100 sq/in smaller than the standard BRB deployment zones.
Uh.... don't ITC deployment zones mirror BRB standard deployment zones?
Yeah... The ITC missions use the BRB deployments. So...
Odd checking their webpage on their missions some of their deployment zones were very small. Perhaps I was looking at a old link or something.
Eihnlazer wrote: The thing is, if you don't like earning victory points, you don't like competitive gaming. That's literally how every professional/competitive sport is determined.
As I said earlier, you seem to want some sort of story driven big bang gameplay, which 40k wont provide for you.
Good thing 40k isn't a professional sport then, so shouldn't necessarily follow the same rules.
I think he's saying the issue many of us have with the ITC style missions. There are only two things you need to do: Kill enemy units and control objectives. Nothing else. So as long as you min/max a list to do both of those things, you have a "good" list for ITC missions.
Correction, the whole point of ITC missions is that you Don't have to control objectives. putting your army on 1 objective and occasionally touching a second one is all you need to do.
The whole issue with meta problems in the ITC is that everything revolves around kill kill kill.
Even worse. That's part of the problem with them. When all you care about is killing, then guess what moves to the forefront? Listbuilding. Guess what shouldn't be such a huge part of the game? Listbuilding.
This is why we see things dominate ITC and not elsewhere, because ITC puts everything on listbuilding and winning the game with what you bring, not how you use it.
Wayniac wrote: This is why we see things dominate ITC and not elsewhere, because ITC puts everything on listbuilding and winning the game with what you bring, not how you use it.
I played 2 lists that pretty much mirrored the top IG/Imperial soup (pretty much Brandon Grant's list) that wins GTs. I beat one, lost to the another.
It was all player skills. I defeated the one guy because he picked poor target priority, and I won because *I* targeted better, and played better to objectives, and the guy who walloped me,
...
... was a far better player; he nailed my ravagers first thing, stymied my wyches, and bubble wrapped for my scourges. Nearly the same lists, but different competencies.
Wayniac wrote: This is why we see things dominate ITC and not elsewhere, because ITC puts everything on listbuilding and winning the game with what you bring, not how you use it.
I played 2 lists that pretty much mirrored the top IG/Imperial soup (pretty much Brandon Grant's list) that wins GTs. I beat one, lost to the another.
It was all player skills. I defeated the one guy because he picked poor target priority, and I won because *I* targeted better, and played better to objectives, and the guy who walloped me,
...
... was a far better player; he nailed my ravagers first thing, stymied my wyches, and bubble wrapped for my scourges. Nearly the same lists, but different competencies.
Your point is not valid.
Your sample size and scope of application are far too small. Wayniac's statement cannot possibly be deemed invalid, based on two (2) games that [i}you[/i] played. It's insufficient data. What we can look to as a juxtaposition are the results of GW's official Grand Tournaments. The armies that perform well and win at these events (and similar) are much different than those at ITC and Nova.
Wayniac wrote: This is why we see things dominate ITC and not elsewhere, because ITC puts everything on listbuilding and winning the game with what you bring, not how you use it.
I played 2 lists that pretty much mirrored the top IG/Imperial soup (pretty much Brandon Grant's list) that wins GTs. I beat one, lost to the another.
It was all player skills. I defeated the one guy because he picked poor target priority, and I won because *I* targeted better, and played better to objectives, and the guy who walloped me,
...
... was a far better player; he nailed my ravagers first thing, stymied my wyches, and bubble wrapped for my scourges. Nearly the same lists, but different competencies.
Your point is not valid.
Your sample size and scope of application are far too small. Wayniac's statement cannot possibly be deemed invalid, based on two (2) games that [i}you[/i] played. It's insufficient data. What we can look to as a juxtaposition are the results of GW's official Grand Tournaments. The armies that perform well and win at these events (and similar) are much different than those at ITC and Nova.
Seems pretty varied. I know Jim Vesal won Adepticon with Demons, and he just won an ITC event. Kind of supports the argument that good armies are good armies, and good players with good armies beat bad players with good armies. The new beta rules for ITC offer quite a few non-killing secondary objectives. Kill 1 enemy unit a turn, hold more objectives, and do Recon, Engineers, and Ground Control as secondaries... you could literally kill 6 enemy units total, and as long as you max those non-killing secondaries and try to deny your opponent some of his, you're looking at 36 points in the ITC format for a game.
oni wrote: Your sample size and scope of application are far too small. Wayniac's statement cannot possibly be deemed invalid, based on two (2) games that [i}you[/i] played. It's insufficient data.
Yes, my sample is singular and logically not representative, per a real survey/data gathering, etc.
Then again, when highway patrol tries to convince teen drivers that speed kills, and they only show one example of a wrecked car & the fatality (and all the facts it was speeding, etc), the kids' claim that "speed doesn't kill" still takes a hit. One car wreck from the highway patrol is insufficient data. However, you can't ignore it. It is a valid example supporting the argument, not invalidated just because it is *one* anecdote.
I could type out a long list of anecdotes, but after 6+ years of RTTs (monthly) and GTs (3 to 6 annually), I think I have valid expertise or experience in citing trends and facts of results.
Experience after experience, it's the players in southern (and northern) Calif. that play different lists and win, because they're good. Better players than me modify their armies and switch codexes and usually defeat me, because I play poorly. Sometimes good players *do* stick with one thing for a long time, e.g. Brandon Grant & AM. However, Geoff Robinson plays Custodes and 'Nids and usually finishes at the top of tourneys. Nanavati & Nayden bring different lists to LVO every year.
#NameDroppin' Perhaps I have not made Wayniac's point invalid, but it still is wrong when placed up to my experiences and the rankings in the ITC. Players' names, not their armies.
Let's look at the failures instead of the successes. There's valid info there.
I see the same Baby Seals in the kiddie pool, event after event, because we aren't that good. We play 'Net lists; we play fluffy lists. The consistent facts are the names of the dudes at the bottom. Not our armies. We're at the bottom tables because we forget to secure objective points, forget to 'kill one more', have poor target priority, we get "deer in the head lights" logic flinches: "Crap! I was gonna place this unit *there* but then I forgot and did that to protect this unit *here*. Damn-it! There goes Line Breaker!"
oni wrote: What we can look to as a juxtaposition are the results of GW's official Grand Tournaments. The armies that perform well and win at these events (and similar) are much different than those at ITC and Nova.
True, those army compositions may be different, but it doesn't have any bearing on our point, unless you'd like to point out some examples of "the results of GW's official Grand Tournaments." What GSC a top dog? Did Tau dominate the top tables? Did Sisters and GK shoulder out A.M. and the pure IK lists? Where were the elves?
Here's the Broadside Bash's top armies (from last weekend, April 13/14):
Imperium (Tallarn, an assassin & Grey Fax, no Imperial Knight)
Tau
Imperium (~85% Custodes & ~15%Admech)
Tyranids
Aeldari
Imperium (3 IKs and minimum A.M. battalion)
CSM Cult Mechanicus
CSM & orks for places 9 and 10.
There are 3 Imperial lists, but each is vastly different (I have direct access to the list compositions on BestCoastPairings cuz I attended the event). The names in those top places are: G. Robinson, R. Ahumada (local top aeldari), D. Hooson (BAO '18 winner), Waddel's 'Nids. And Mr. Raspy voice himself, Reece won it all with those Tallarn, an inquisitor and assassin.
#NameDroppin'LikeItsHAWT!
It is still my 6+ years of tourney experience that I lose to the Brandon Grants whether he's playing Dark Angels, Sisters or A.M. Carlos Kaiser (some GT on the east coast) wallops me with Custodes, Blood Angels, CSM, daemons.
A local guy finishes 4 and 1 a lot, Jon Starks, druhkari. I beat him once, because *I* have been playing drukhari since last summer and and knew precisely what needed to be done to his drukhari. I went first, Doomed and snuffed the first set of Talos, wacked his ravagers next, etc. He's defeated me 2 other times.
I play "net lists" like Doom-farseer supported drukhari.
It's not necessarily the lists. It's the doods. And their Skillz.
oni wrote: Your sample size and scope of application are far too small. Wayniac's statement cannot possibly be deemed invalid, based on two (2) games that [i}you[/i] played. It's insufficient data.
Yes, my sample is singular and logically not representative, per a real survey/data gathering, etc.
Then again, when highway patrol tries to convince teen drivers that speed kills, and they only show one example of a wrecked car & the fatality (and all the facts it was speeding, etc), the kids' claim that "speed doesn't kill" still takes a hit. One car wreck from the highway patrol is insufficient data. However, you can't ignore it. It is a valid example supporting the argument, not invalidated just because it is *one* anecdote.
I could type out a long list of anecdotes, but after 6+ years of RTTs (monthly) and GTs (3 to 6 annually), I think I have valid expertise or experience in citing trends and facts of results.
Experience after experience, it's the players in southern (and northern) Calif. that play different lists and win, because they're good. Better players than me modify their armies and switch codexes and usually defeat me, because I play poorly. Sometimes good players *do* stick with one thing for a long time, e.g. Brandon Grant & AM. However, Geoff Robinson plays Custodes and 'Nids and usually finishes at the top of tourneys. Nanavati & Nayden bring different lists to LVO every year.
#NameDroppin' Perhaps I have not made Wayniac's point invalid, but it still is wrong when placed up to my experiences and the rankings in the ITC. Players' names, not their armies.
Let's look at the failures instead of the successes. There's valid info there.
I see the same Baby Seals in the kiddie pool, event after event, because we aren't that good. We play 'Net lists; we play fluffy lists. The consistent facts are the names of the dudes at the bottom. Not our armies. We're at the bottom tables because we forget to secure objective points, forget to 'kill one more', have poor target priority, we get "deer in the head lights" logic flinches: "Crap! I was gonna place this unit *there* but then I forgot and did that to protect this unit *here*. Damn-it! There goes Line Breaker!"
oni wrote: What we can look to as a juxtaposition are the results of GW's official Grand Tournaments. The armies that perform well and win at these events (and similar) are much different than those at ITC and Nova.
True, those army compositions may be different, but it doesn't have any bearing on our point, unless you'd like to point out some examples of "the results of GW's official Grand Tournaments." What GSC a top dog? Did Tau dominate the top tables? Did Sisters and GK shoulder out A.M. and the pure IK lists? Where were the elves?
Here's the Broadside Bash's top armies (from last weekend, April 13/14):
Imperium (Tallarn, an assassin & Grey Fax, no Imperial Knight)
Tau
Imperium (~85% Custodes & ~15%Admech)
Tyranids
Aeldari
Imperium (3 IKs and minimum A.M. battalion)
CSM Cult Mechanicus
CSM & orks for places 9 and 10.
There are 3 Imperial lists, but each is vastly different (I have direct access to the list compositions on BestCoastPairings cuz I attended the event). The names in those top places are: G. Robinson, R. Ahumada (local top aeldari), D. Hooson (BAO '18 winner), Waddel's 'Nids. And Mr. Raspy voice himself, Reece won it all with those Tallarn, an inquisitor and assassin.
#NameDroppin'LikeItsHAWT!
It is still my 6+ years of tourney experience that I lose to the Brandon Grants whether he's playing Dark Angels, Sisters or A.M. Carlos Kaiser (some GT on the east coast) wallops me with Custodes, Blood Angels, CSM, daemons.
A local guy finishes 4 and 1 a lot, Jon Starks, druhkari. I beat him once, because *I* have been playing drukhari since last summer and and knew precisely what needed to be done to his drukhari. I went first, Doomed and snuffed the first set of Talos, wacked his ravagers next, etc. He's defeated me 2 other times.
I play "net lists" like Doom-farseer supported drukhari.
It's not necessarily the lists. It's the doods. And their Skillz.
If you're not winning, it's cuz you gotta git gud.
Wagguy80 wrote: I think many of the ITC deployment zones are too small for some armies. I would suggest a minimum of 400 sq/in per deployment zone which is still over 100 sq/in smaller than the standard BRB deployment zones.
Uh.... don't ITC deployment zones mirror BRB standard deployment zones?
Yeah... The ITC missions use the BRB deployments. So...
Yeah I apparently confused the way they drew their objectives placement with those being deployment zones. That said I've played 2 tournaments using ITC format since and I'm not impressed. First there is a bunch of wasted time choosing secondary objectives. Scoring is a crazy dance, and takes about as long. Overall not impressed with 8th edition in general, and it just feels like 8th edition with house rules.
Well, choosing secondary objectives doesn't take a lot of time if your familiar with them. Same for scoring objectives. It's an extra ~5 minutes maybe of book keeping. If you're new to ITC though, and aren't sure what secondaries there are (like if you don't have them memorized) then yea it adds a lot of extra time up front.
Wagguy80 wrote: That said I've played 2 tournaments using ITC format since and I'm not impressed. First there is a bunch of wasted time choosing secondary objectives. Scoring is a crazy dance, and takes about as long. Overall not impressed with 8th edition in general, and it just feels like 8th edition with house rules.
2 tourneys! You gotta try some more before passing judgment. And experience will shorten the time for scoring and secondary choosing.
Secondaries: Yeah, I'm used to making sure I don't chose turkey ones, and others that are less attainable. At this point, the tourney regulars chose up pretty fast, and if I'm playing a newB, I help them chose what is good against my army, etc. Try 6 or so RTTs, and maybe 2 GTs. I think you'll find you'll get into the swing of things.
Kabalite Warriors: Not good for enginseers. Too fragile.
Any elvish army: Recon! Mobility means this army is likely to get table control
9 ogryn? Take King of the Hill
Opponent has a Castellan? Take Titan Slayer
Facing Drukhari with loads of venoms and kabalites? Take Butcher's Bill.
Facing Astra M with several tanks? Go with Big Game Hunter
There are many such 'auto' takes on Secondaries, but with 20 or so codecies/armies, it does make for variety, particularly with different loads of pbjecitves ... and doesn't this answer to some folks' complaints in earlier pages/posts that ITC formats didn't provide enough varetiy?
Helpful advice I'm going to try to play a few more. However in two tournaments the first I took Eldar and I played poorly still won 2 out of 3 and felt like I was abusing people.
Second tournament I didn't want that so I took a balanced Imperial Fist army, and felt like I might as well not have bothered putting them on the table.
The game seems to be seriously lacking balance to me at the moment. Some models seem outright broken, while others utterly useless.
Wagguy80 wrote: Helpful advice I'm going to try to play a few more. However in two tournaments the first I took Eldar and I played poorly still won 2 out of 3 and felt like I was abusing people.
Second tournament I didn't want that so I took a balanced Imperial Fist army, and felt like I might as well not have bothered putting them on the table.
The game seems to be seriously lacking balance to me at the moment. Some models seem outright broken, while others utterly useless.
Wagguy80 wrote: Helpful advice I'm going to try to play a few more.
Yay!!!!!
Wagguy80 wrote: However in two tournaments the first I took Eldar and I played poorly still won 2 out of 3 and felt like I was abusing people.
Second tournament I didn't want that so I took a balanced Imperial Fist army, and felt like I might as well not have bothered putting them on the table.
The game seems to be seriously lacking balance to me at the moment. Some models seem outright broken, while others utterly useless.
3+ Wave Serpents and/or 3+ fliers. Don't feel bad.
*Never* feel bad! Crush them! Savor their salty tears of defeat! How'd Conan answer?
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women! "
miyaty,
You replied to a post made in January. There are 6 pages of this thread (I can see it's only your 2nd post). There are dates in the upper left near a poster's name and avatar/picture. Next time, you should read *aaaalllllll* the way through a thread as earl posts get 'lost' in the "conversation".
keep it up 
) but I was just hoping there was some wiggle room for you guys to explain a bit why ITC and 
design and it has no place in competitive events.
), I only wonder who's gonna come in second. 
