Switch Theme:

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

TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 15:28:18


Post by: Ishagu


During the craziness of 7th edition, and the relatively rough start that encapsulated the early days of 8th, a very strong case could be made for a custom mission pack that created a sense of order in the chaos that was 40k.
There is no doubt that the ITC missions were a good addition and a positive force in the game when 8th edition dropped.

This is no longer the case, I'm afraid to say. Frankly I am surprised that huge parts of the community are woefully ignorant of the fact that the Chapter Approved Eternal War missions in the 2018 and now 2019 books are not only well balanced and designed to reward list variety, but are also far more varied and fun than what the ITC mission pack offers.

Let's not beat about the bush. The ITC mission pack is effectively one single missions with tiny variations - there are utterly minimal changes. In addition to this, it promotes spam lists and static gun-lines. When you have a system of play where players can CHOSE what to score, it creates an environment where you spam units that make it easy to achieve the objectives you want. In ITC you can literally win most of your games without moving. Kill More, Hold More - a classic staple of gun line lists. Or how about you spam flyers and chose to focus on table quarters and behind enemy lines?
No matter how you swing it, it does create a negative play experience and it's a reason why so many abusive lists exist. Things will die in games of 40k anyway, don't make it a focus of mission objectives in every mission on top of that.

Look at the recent tournament at GW. The lists and faction variety was far greater, and looking at the top 30 the meta looks far, far healthier than what ITC events create the impression of. To put it bluntly, if you have a list that doesn't move you will typically lose 5/6 Chapter Approved missions.
They reward variety of lists - you need to bring a healthy amount of troops, fast moving units, objective scorers, characters, etc, etc in order to score the varied mission objectives.

Lack of data means we cannot categorically prove that the CA mission pack is strictly more balanced. It certainly does not promote spam/gunlines as much as the ITC missions do, that is a fact. It's also far more fun and varied than the single ITC mission with minor variations from game to game that has become the staple of so many people's gaming experience.
My eyes were opened after getting involved in some ETC style events a while back, and following on from them it was a case of experimentation and experience at smaller events that used the CA mission pack. As I have played more and more using the CA format, by comparison the ITC missions have looked more and more dull.

Let's no understate how much good work the ITC guys have done. Things like leader-boards, hobby track, promoting the game, etc. The mission pack has now become restrictive and is no longer the most positive way to play the game.

I also expect many competitive ITC players to refute what I say. They'll have limited experience with CA missions, they might refuse to believe that GW has done a good job with the pack, and they might simply be too set in they ways.
There is no question, no disputation, that the ITC mission pack is less varied. There is no question that it promotes spam lists and gun-lines due to players choosing what to score. There is no need to use it any more.

We've accepted the rules that GW put out without having to modify them. Let's accept their mission packs too.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 15:34:40


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


No ITC does not affect win rates as top armies will continue to be top armies. Also there was a thread already done here which shows, if anything, the win rate gap in ITC is less. Yes the missions in CA2019 are okay. No, they don't fox the core issue which is imbalanced codices and poor core mechanics in the base rulebook. Those need to actually be fixed instead of continuing to use that garbage.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 15:38:21


Post by: Ishagu


Even if balance is not improved, mission variety and the fun factor most certainly is. Unless you personally feel that playing the same mission over and over with minor variations is a better experience?

How many CA missions have you played and have you tried them in a competitive environment? Game balance is only one of the points in this discussion.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 16:38:35


Post by: Karol


if it doesn't fix balance problems, wouldn't it just mean you are spending time and money on learning to play the game in a different way, but not better in anyway. And am considering here that the armies that are OP under ITC and are bad under CA, are balanced against the OP CA armies that are bad under a ITC rule set.

Seems to me like it is a group of people, mostly from UK, trying to force the rest of the world to play the game their way. And most people already dislike and ignore the painted restrictions, and hate the legacy thing.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 16:51:20


Post by: iGuy91


Well, at the end of the day, ITC is a codified set of house rules and missions. If you don't want to use them, don't.

For tournaments, ITC just provides an easy go-to, reducing some of the randomness and some of the planning burden.

That being said, I'd support moving away from it to use GW missions for the newest CA. They're steadily improving in quality.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 16:52:21


Post by: Xenomancers


ITC is basically a gimmick at this point. Automatic LOS blockers on every table creates a game where you can literally plan your path to victory before you have even seen the battlefield. Magic boxes are a joke. Picking your objectives is bad too.

Miss the days when 40k was about tabling your opponent. Fight to the death. Standing on poker chips and being shot by things you can't return fire at can't possible be fun for anyone can it?

At least give me variety in some missions. Some missions should have just 1 central objective (like in CA). Some tables should be bowling balls - some should be cityscapes. It's just too easy to build a list to the mission in ITC.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 16:54:28


Post by: bananathug


I used to be a die-hard ITC defender but having played a couple games with the 2019 CA missions (2018 CA missions are still bad) I like them better than the ITC mission pack.

The secondaries of ITCs punish certain units/armies far too much and reward others.

Get rid of faction specific maelstrom cards and add all the options to customize maelstrom decks and a lot of the "I drew the right card I win" or "I drew the wrong cards I lose" seems to have been removed.

Fearless hordes still seem to have an advantage (# of bodies > value of bodies) when it comes to contesting/controlling objectives so I'm sure it will skew the meta in some ways but I'm not sure how to get around that.

I'd love to see some of the "pro" players play a couple games and get their feedback. From what I remember a lot of the ITC/Frontline guys have a hand in designing the CA missions so I wouldn't be surprised to see them moving towards the 2019 ones.

Although the game is so broken at the moment I haven't played a competitive game for a while. Who cares what the mission is when an untargetable blob of possessed can kill your entire army in 2 turns, SM artillery can blow you off any objective regardless of LOS, GK can drop down and put 20-40 mortal wounds + who knows how many psi-bolt shots, unkillable levi dreads are stomping around, untargetable chaplain dreads are blasting everything off the board, crimson hunter exarchs can table an army in 3 turns and it's just getting worse with each release...


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:06:16


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is basically a gimmick at this point. Automatic LOS blockers on every table creates a game where you can literally plan your path to victory before you have even seen the battlefield. Magic boxes are a joke. Picking your objectives is bad too.

Miss the days when 40k was about tabling your opponent. Fight to the death. Standing on poker chips and being shot by things you can't return fire at can't possible be fun for anyone can it?

At least give me variety in some missions. Some missions should have just 1 central objective (like in CA). Some tables should be bowling balls - some should be cityscapes. It's just too easy to build a list to the mission in ITC.


I have no idea how to take this post. Is this sarcasm?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:14:55


Post by: Xenomancers


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is basically a gimmick at this point. Automatic LOS blockers on every table creates a game where you can literally plan your path to victory before you have even seen the battlefield. Magic boxes are a joke. Picking your objectives is bad too.

Miss the days when 40k was about tabling your opponent. Fight to the death. Standing on poker chips and being shot by things you can't return fire at can't possible be fun for anyone can it?

At least give me variety in some missions. Some missions should have just 1 central objective (like in CA). Some tables should be bowling balls - some should be cityscapes. It's just too easy to build a list to the mission in ITC.


I have no idea how to take this post. Is this sarcasm?

It was a slight rant. My main issues with ITC is automatic table elements that will be on every table and picking your objectives. This makes building your list to the mission far to easy. Also the parts of 40k I enjoy the most are fighting in the open and advancing at the opponent. ILOS and Character targeting rules are already kind of bonkers - they should not be made even better with automatic places to hide most of your army.

Also the lack in mission variety is gross in ITC.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:19:27


Post by: Slipspace


While I'm not sure we have enough data to say for sure that CA2019 promotes more variety and stops spam armies I agree with the basic premise that ITC missions should probably be replaced, at least at some of the big tournaments, to give us more data to work with. ITC feels more and more like a solved system with each month that goes by and I think the lack of mission variety is a big part of that. You don't really need to think about 6 different missions. There are maybe 2 different types of mission in ITC (ones where you need to be able to hold more than 1-2 objectives and ones where 1 is often enough) and the secondaries at this point basically boil down to a cheat sheet players can refer to depending on their opponent.

At the moment the entire competitive conversation revolves around ITC, which often means all conversation about the game revolves around ITC. I don't think that's good for new players and I think the game as a whole is better off when everyone is playing the same version of it and the community isn't fractured by different sets of tournament rules.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:19:44


Post by: ccs


 Xenomancers wrote:
Standing on poker chips and being shot by things you can't return fire at can't possible be fun for anyone can it?


What?

As for being shot at by things out of your LoS - like mortars & arty? Yeah, that's a valid thing in many miniatures games. That's the whole point of mortars & such. In this case it's on you to learn how to play better to counter that.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:21:05


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is basically a gimmick at this point. Automatic LOS blockers on every table creates a game where you can literally plan your path to victory before you have even seen the battlefield. Magic boxes are a joke. Picking your objectives is bad too.

Miss the days when 40k was about tabling your opponent. Fight to the death. Standing on poker chips and being shot by things you can't return fire at can't possible be fun for anyone can it?

At least give me variety in some missions. Some missions should have just 1 central objective (like in CA). Some tables should be bowling balls - some should be cityscapes. It's just too easy to build a list to the mission in ITC.


I have no idea how to take this post. Is this sarcasm?

It was a slight rant. My main issues with ITC is automatic table elements that will be on every table and picking your objectives. This makes building your list to the mission far to easy. Also the parts of 40k I enjoy the most are fighting in the open and advancing at the opponent. ILOS and Character targeting rules are already kind of bonkers - they should not be made even better with automatic places to hide most of your army.

Also the lack in mission variety is gross in ITC.


You do not have a solid grasp of these issues, in my opinion. I'd get into a debate, but I think it would be a little too exhausting.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:28:46


Post by: Xenomancers


ccs wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Standing on poker chips and being shot by things you can't return fire at can't possible be fun for anyone can it?


What?

As for being shot at by things out of your LoS - like mortars & arty? Yeah, that's a valid thing in many miniatures games. That's the whole point of mortars & such. In this case it's on you to learn how to play better to counter that.

By l2p im pretty sure you mean do the exact same thing myself. Spam character dreads and TFC and not give my opponent a shooting phase by hiding ? We are literally talking about uncounterable aspects of the game. Which are rewarded in ITC by have a dumb objective like (kill more) which treats a chaff infantry squad the same as an IK. Hold more is also really dumb. I miss the old cleanse mission. So much better than any modern mission types. Turn based scoring might actually be the big issue here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is basically a gimmick at this point. Automatic LOS blockers on every table creates a game where you can literally plan your path to victory before you have even seen the battlefield. Magic boxes are a joke. Picking your objectives is bad too.

Miss the days when 40k was about tabling your opponent. Fight to the death. Standing on poker chips and being shot by things you can't return fire at can't possible be fun for anyone can it?

At least give me variety in some missions. Some missions should have just 1 central objective (like in CA). Some tables should be bowling balls - some should be cityscapes. It's just too easy to build a list to the mission in ITC.


I have no idea how to take this post. Is this sarcasm?

It was a slight rant. My main issues with ITC is automatic table elements that will be on every table and picking your objectives. This makes building your list to the mission far to easy. Also the parts of 40k I enjoy the most are fighting in the open and advancing at the opponent. ILOS and Character targeting rules are already kind of bonkers - they should not be made even better with automatic places to hide most of your army.

Also the lack in mission variety is gross in ITC.


You do not have a solid grasp of these issues, in my opinion. I'd get into a debate, but I think it would be a little too exhausting.

No I have a solid grasp. There is nothing to debate.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:34:12


Post by: Sterling191


 Xenomancers wrote:

No I have a solid grasp.


Given the recurring frequency with which you get facts painfully wrong, that statement is dubious at best.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:37:10


Post by: Xenomancers


Sterling191 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

No I have a solid grasp.


Given the recurring frequency with which you get facts painfully wrong, that statement is dubious at best.
You must realize that is a logical fallacy.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:41:50


Post by: Sterling191


 Xenomancers wrote:
You must realize that is a logical fallacy.


Yes, pointing out that you routinely get basic facts wrong is a logical fallacy.



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:50:38


Post by: solkan


Odd that this is posted in "40k General Discussion" and not "Tournament Discussion".



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:55:43


Post by: Dudeface


Karol wrote:
if it doesn't fix balance problems, wouldn't it just mean you are spending time and money on learning to play the game in a different way, but not better in anyway. And am considering here that the armies that are OP under ITC and are bad under CA, are balanced against the OP CA armies that are bad under a ITC rule set.

Seems to me like it is a group of people, mostly from UK, trying to force the rest of the world to play the game their way. And most people already dislike and ignore the painted restrictions, and hate the legacy thing.


By contrast aren't ITC a group from the US trying to force people to play the game their way? Whilst the nationality of it all is only partially relevant, the rules come from the UK and it's understandable that as a locality/nationalism stand point they want to use those rules first. Represent the home team and all that.

Most of the issue is that people should be willing to play both, events should give both sets a try, but the ITC is so ingrained in peoples mentality and communities over on the US I can't see them relinquishing it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:58:54


Post by: Sunny Side Up


I think ITC is pretty good for beginner players and the younger and/or more casual crowd.

The whole “choose-your-own-Adventure-secondaries” and similarity of missions reduces complexity a lot and demands far less on-the-spot decision-making between sub-optimal choices and adaptation between rounds to very different win conditions.

I think the simplification of the game through ITC is one of the reasons the 40K became a lot more popular in the US in particular, opening the Hobby to people who might’ve been put off by the challenge of older book/etc-style missions.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 17:59:41


Post by: Xenomancers


Sterling191 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
You must realize that is a logical fallacy.


Yes, pointing out that you routinely get basic facts wrong is a logical fallacy.


A mistake in the past does not make you wrong now. You have to deal with the argument in front of you. Like seriously. This is debate 101. Plus I rarely get facts wrong anyways and nothing I stated above is incorrect. ITC a large number of automatic LOS blocking features (usually buildings) in each deployment zone and elseware on the table. Plus the house rule you can't shoot through cracks and windows. It creates and environment that infantry can hide all game and characters and ILOS units have free reign on the battlefield unless you have your own ILOS weapons. This is not debatable and a huge divergence from GW's core rules.



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 18:01:56


Post by: the_scotsman


 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is basically a gimmick at this point. Automatic LOS blockers on every table creates a game where you can literally plan your path to victory before you have even seen the battlefield. Magic boxes are a joke. Picking your objectives is bad too.

Miss the days when 40k was about tabling your opponent. Fight to the death. Standing on poker chips and being shot by things you can't return fire at can't possible be fun for anyone can it?

At least give me variety in some missions. Some missions should have just 1 central objective (like in CA). Some tables should be bowling balls - some should be cityscapes. It's just too easy to build a list to the mission in ITC.


I think the fundamental problem I have is that the core rules of 8th just...do not support sparse terrain setups. Cover, and interruptions of LOS, NEED to exist on the table in order for anything but turn 2-3 tablings to occur.

I'm currently playtesting for a campaign I'm setting up that will involve a bunch of different warzones - basically themed terrain sets at each table that have photographs of suggested terrain densities and 1-2 unique rules per table - and to make the sparser setups work I've had to implement blanket defensive rules.

Of course, in the denser setups I've also worked to alleviate some of the problems in ITC that you run into.

My set for a Desert zone for example is

Sandstorm: shooting attacks declared from over 12" away suffer -1 to hit rolls and any charge declared where all targets are over 7" away suffers a -1 to the charge roll.

Howling Winds: The range of any Aura Abilities present on unit datasheets (excluding the tyranid Synapse ability) is reduced by ½, rounding up.

And my setup for an LOS blocking Zone Mortalis board is

Lifts, Doors, and Ladders: Any unit that ends their movement phase within 1" of a door can choose to open the door or close it if it is already open. Remove the door from the terrain piece, it no longer blocks movement or line of sight. If a unit ends its movement phase wholly within 3" of a ladder or lift, it can elect to use that to climb to the top of the terrain structure. Remove the unit from the board and set it back up wholly within 3" of the top of the ladder or lift and over 1" away from enemy models. If any model in the unit cannot be placed in such a way, the ladder or lift cannot be used by any models in the unit.

Dense Sprawl: Any weapon that normally has an ability that allows it to ignore line of sight loses that ability in this warzone.

Wall of Death: When any unit is chosen to shoot in the shooting phase, GRENADE weapons and weapons that hit automatically roll 2 dice and choose the highest when determining the number of shots they fire. Additionally, when any unit fires Overwatch, GRENADE and weapons that hit automatically may still attack even if the unit that declared them as a charge target is out of line of sight. (This rule is not subject to Dense Sprawl above)

So, no LOS-ignoring weapons, and there is a limitation on the ability to hide a model out of LOS and declare a charge, at least on that board.

My goal is always to see models on the table at turn 5, which is when all the missions end. IMO any game that ends in tabling is a failure of the mission set, because then you may as well have not played with any mission.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 18:05:30


Post by: Blood Hawk


Dudeface wrote:
Karol wrote:
if it doesn't fix balance problems, wouldn't it just mean you are spending time and money on learning to play the game in a different way, but not better in anyway. And am considering here that the armies that are OP under ITC and are bad under CA, are balanced against the OP CA armies that are bad under a ITC rule set.

Seems to me like it is a group of people, mostly from UK, trying to force the rest of the world to play the game their way. And most people already dislike and ignore the painted restrictions, and hate the legacy thing.


By contrast aren't ITC a group from the US trying to force people to play the game their way? Whilst the nationality of it all is only partially relevant, the rules come from the UK and it's understandable that as a locality/nationalism stand point they want to use those rules first. Represent the home team and all that.

Most of the issue is that people should be willing to play both, events should give both sets a try, but the ITC is so ingrained in peoples mentality and communities over on the US I can't see them relinquishing it.

As someone from the US I would say that mentality is only really ingrained among the con going crowd. I have met people that hate ITC events but they don't go to the cons as much or just go anyway and accept the rules because they basically have to. At lot of people are very apathetic about it as well. Outside of cons you will find plenty of people that play using GW missions or their own custom missions that are not ITC.

Edit:. Also I would say that if GW did put forward a supported tournament format with a packet GW wrote and financially supported ITC would probably fall away in popularity.

Edit 2:. Also I would say that ITC being popular among the con crowd has very little to do with ITC. GW doesn't give event organizers a tournament packet to work with and in that vacuum people just use ITC. It's easier to just copy someone else's packet then make your own and competitive tournaments in the US are very popular at cons.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 18:14:42


Post by: Sterling191


 Xenomancers wrote:

A mistake in the past does not make you wrong now.


You're so far beyond "one mistake" it's not even funny.

 Xenomancers wrote:

. It creates and environment that infantry can hide all game and characters and ILOS units have free reign on the battlefield unless you have your own ILOS weapons. This is not debatable and a huge divergence from GW's core rules.


Case in point: the above is fundamentally wrong.

But please continue to tell us how you never get anything wrong, ever, when you just got done accusing a guy of cheating because you couldnt be bothered to check your information regarding his actual tournament results.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 18:28:46


Post by: Xenomancers


Sterling191 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

A mistake in the past does not make you wrong now.


You're so far beyond "one mistake" it's not even funny.

 Xenomancers wrote:

. It creates and environment that infantry can hide all game and characters and ILOS units have free reign on the battlefield unless you have your own ILOS weapons. This is not debatable and a huge divergence from GW's core rules.


Case in point: the above is fundamentally wrong.

But please continue to tell us how you never get anything wrong, ever, when you just got done accusing a guy of cheating because you couldnt be bothered to check your information regarding his actual tournament results.

I am asking you politely to just stop diverting conversation topics to personally attack me. You are the instigator. You are going of topic. Everyone has gotten things wrong before. Even you get things wrong.

Also the above is not fundamentally wrong. That is precisely how it works. It is the reason a white scars lists with 12 assault cents a few MSU of scouts and an ironhands detachment with 2 character dreads and 2 TFC and eliminators can win a game. Because of house rule magic boxes. That list would get stomped so hard in a CA mission on a standard 40k table with TLOS.

I used to like ITC but after playing it a ton. It is probably the least fun and least competitive way to play the game. Fundamentally though the game has such poor balance to begin with it is pretty hard to make the situation worse. You can just change the parameters around why it's bad.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 18:35:50


Post by: Sterling191


 Xenomancers wrote:

I am asking you politely to just stop diverting conversation topics to personally attack me. You are the instigator. You are going of topic. Everyone has gotten things wrong before. Even you get things wrong.


I'm not the one in this conversation claiming that I'm infallible. But by all means, please continue to play the victim card when you get called on your hyperbolic bs. It's a very simple equation: if you dont want to continue to be called a liar, stop lying.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Also the above is not fundamentally wrong. That is precisely how it works. It is the reason a white scars lists with 12 assault cents a few MSU of scouts and an ironhands detachment with 2 character dreads and 2 TFC and eliminators can win a game. Because of house rule magic boxes. That list would get stomped so hard in a CA mission on a standard 40k table with TLOS.


You're moving the goalposts again. You just claimed that artillery is the only counterplay to magic boxes. That statement is definitively false, yet here you are trying to wiggle your way out by changing the subject.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 18:39:41


Post by: bananathug


I gotta make sure to bring those characters on bikes and thunder fire cannons in my DA army so I can deepstrike my knights next to my landspeeders and play my army that is more powerful than iron hands...

Xeno is definitely a person on here we should listen to about game balance...

Most ITC games come with pre-positioned objectives which the majority are placed out in the open. Being able to grab those and score them at the end of your turn instead of the way the CA missions score is another way where a small difference in wording has changed the way the game plays in my couple of CA games.

I think adding in variable terrain set-up (pile it on the table, take turns deploying it on the table BEFORE you know deployment zones) would change the way the game is played (vs static terrain deployment). Where the volume of the terrain is consistent (preventing table bowling ball) the arrangement of that terrain is different (some rules to terrain deployment, > 9" from a table edge, each player deploys a piece in each quadrant, some more rules that people smarter than me can come up with).

But, at the end of the day it is becoming more and more clear that GW doesn't want a balanced game. Releasing such powerful supplements piecemeal leaves the game in such an unbalanced state for such a prolong period of time that any ideas around balanced missions just falls apart due to GWs piss poor pay to win power creep half-assed attempts at balance.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 18:42:10


Post by: Platuan4th


Sunny Side Up wrote:
I think ITC is pretty good for beginner players and the younger and/or more casual crowd.
.


ITC is terrible for the casual crowd. It pushes for power builds rather than throwing your dudemans on the table, pushing them around, and playing to play. Most casuals play for the spectacle, and ITC stifles that more than promotes it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 19:19:31


Post by: Xenomancers


Sterling191 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

I am asking you politely to just stop diverting conversation topics to personally attack me. You are the instigator. You are going of topic. Everyone has gotten things wrong before. Even you get things wrong.


I'm not the one in this conversation claiming that I'm infallible. But by all means, please continue to play the victim card when you get called on your hyperbolic bs. It's a very simple equation: if you dont want to continue to be called a liar, stop lying.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Also the above is not fundamentally wrong. That is precisely how it works. It is the reason a white scars lists with 12 assault cents a few MSU of scouts and an ironhands detachment with 2 character dreads and 2 TFC and eliminators can win a game. Because of house rule magic boxes. That list would get stomped so hard in a CA mission on a standard 40k table with TLOS.


You're moving the goalposts again. You just claimed that artillery is the only counterplay to magic boxes. That statement is definitively false, yet here you are trying to wiggle your way out by changing the subject.

Uhh yeah the counter magic boxes is ILOS...This is pretty obvious to most people. So I am not going to explain it. At no point did I say it was the only counter ether. So you are misquoting me.

In actual GW rules the counter to magic boxes is there are no magic boxes. If there is a window or a doorway and I can see into a nub on one of your models I can shoot.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 19:22:04


Post by: Sterling191


 Xenomancers wrote:

Uhh yeah the counter magic boxes is ILOS...This is pretty obvious to most people. So I am not going to explain it.


You cant even be consistent with your own argument. Beautiful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
At no point did I say it was the only counter ether. So you are misquoting me.


 Xenomancers wrote:
It creates and environment that infantry can hide all game and characters and ILOS units have free reign on the battlefield unless you have your own ILOS weapons.


I'm sorry, what were you lying about this time?

This is what happens every single time. You make a hyperbolic, and factually deficient, off the cuff statement, get called on your lies, and spend the next several pages ranting about how you're never wrong.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 19:25:12


Post by: Vaktathi


I personally like the new CA missions more than ITC stuff, the ITC stuff is too easy to play gimmicks with and the newer missions really do a good job of mostly being relatively balanced with less to keep track of. That said, neither are perfect.

But I'll take almost anything over Maelstrom.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 19:27:07


Post by: Yarium


TO THE OP:

I agree that the new GW missions are fantastic! If it were solely a matter of enjoyment, I would say YES to dropping ITC missions and changing just to GW missions. I love ITC missions, but the new GW missions really do have a great amount of true variety in how to play them such that playing ITC in order to have a fun and balanced experience is not necessary. Even the GW missions that seem to reward some builds over others really just mean that certain armies have to change their style of play rather than making some armies auto-lose a bad mission.

However, I think there's something to be said about consistency from a competitive standpoint. The method that ITC has to calculate victory points over turns provides powerful and valuable data to the tournament circuit. In some of the GW missions it's easier (for both players) to score victory points than in others, such that what qualifies as a high scoring or low scoring game can differ quite a bit from mission to mission. That is not the case in ITC, where there is a consistent maximum possible VP count. This consistency allows the tracking of specific players and factions in a way that is very reliable.

So, for that reason, I think ITC remains a superior format for a competitive circuit of players.

HOWEVER, if you wanted an enjoyable, balanced game, or you were running anything less than a tournament billing itself as being on the competitive circuit, then I would recommend the GW missions.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 19:28:09


Post by: Martel732


"Magic boxes" are a lot better than gws terrain. That said, if events go to ca missions, i guess im doing them.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 19:32:12


Post by: Xenomancers


 Vaktathi wrote:
I personally like the new CA missions more than ITC stuff, the ITC stuff is too easy to play gimmicks with and the newer missions really do a good job of mostly being relatively balanced with less to keep track of. That said, neither are perfect.

But I'll take almost anything over Maelstrom.

Maelstroms key problem is it is too random. Cards that score D3 compared to 1. Cards that you can't score. Drawing a score objective card that you started on? Secrete objectives? Just terrible.



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 19:42:48


Post by: Crimson


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
I personally like the new CA missions more than ITC stuff, the ITC stuff is too easy to play gimmicks with and the newer missions really do a good job of mostly being relatively balanced with less to keep track of. That said, neither are perfect.

But I'll take almost anything over Maelstrom.

Maelstroms key problem is it is too random. Cards that score D3 compared to 1. Cards that you can't score. Drawing a score objective card that you started on? Secrete objectives? Just terrible.


Have you read CA 2019?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 19:43:14


Post by: Sim-Life


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
I personally like the new CA missions more than ITC stuff, the ITC stuff is too easy to play gimmicks with and the newer missions really do a good job of mostly being relatively balanced with less to keep track of. That said, neither are perfect.

But I'll take almost anything over Maelstrom.

Maelstroms key problem is it is too random. Cards that score D3 compared to 1. Cards that you can't score. Drawing a score objective card that you started on? Secrete objectives? Just terrible.



You're aware that you can construct a deck of 18 objectives now? And if you don't like your initial draw you can mulligan it. And that OP wasn't talking about using Maelstrom scenarios, just Eternal War scenarios which have static objectives?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 19:50:16


Post by: greyknight12


Unfortunately this thread is basically worthless now due to bickering, but a couple thoughts:

1. "Gimmick lists" and "Powergaming" aren't a product of the ITC mission pack, it's correlation not causation. Meaning, tournament players are going to play to win and if all the tournaments use ITC, you're going to see all those lists/mechanics in ITC tournaments. It would be no different if everyone used a different mission pack.

2. The ITC Champions mission pack IS bland, it's playing the same mission 6 times at a tournament. It should be revised based on the state of the game and I personally would like to see each mission emphasize different aspects, like in one mission "hold more" is worth 2 points and there is no "kill more", for example. Making certain objectives worth more points than others (aka old-school "The Scouring") is another way.

3. As the game gets more lethal, having "kill stuff" as a primary objective becomes increasingly bad for the tournament scene. In the Champions Missions you can get 2/3 of max points by holding one objective and killing more stuff than your opponent as long as you can get killy secondaries...aka just try and table your opponent.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 19:56:21


Post by: Sim-Life


 Yarium wrote:
The method that ITC has to calculate victory points over turns provides powerful and valuable data to the tournament circuit.


All the ITC data shows is what models are best are raw damage output.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 20:00:07


Post by: the_scotsman


 Vaktathi wrote:
I personally like the new CA missions more than ITC stuff, the ITC stuff is too easy to play gimmicks with and the newer missions really do a good job of mostly being relatively balanced with less to keep track of. That said, neither are perfect.

But I'll take almost anything over Maelstrom.


The new drawdeck maelstrom is actually fairly fun every once in a while. it still has the problem of being essentially the same mission every game and boy oh boy did I play enough maelstrom in 7th but it is loads better than unmodified maelstrom.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 20:00:30


Post by: ccs


 Xenomancers wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Standing on poker chips and being shot by things you can't return fire at can't possible be fun for anyone can it?


What?

As for being shot at by things out of your LoS - like mortars & arty? Yeah, that's a valid thing in many miniatures games. That's the whole point of mortars & such. In this case it's on you to learn how to play better to counter that.


Never mind, it just hit me that your poker chip comment was meant to be a derogatory swipe at controlling objective points on the table.
You prefer a simplistic smash models together style of game.


 Xenomancers wrote:
By l2p im pretty sure you mean do the exact same thing myself. Spam character dreads and TFC and not give my opponent a shooting phase by hiding ? We are literally talking about uncounterable aspects of the game.


You adapt your play style to fit the environment you choose to play in + the army you choose to use.


 Xenomancers wrote:
Which are rewarded in ITC by have a dumb objective like (kill more) which treats a chaff infantry squad the same as an IK. Hold more is also really dumb. I miss the old cleanse mission. So much better than any modern mission types. Turn based scoring might actually be the big issue here.


Your the one playing this format. You know how it determines victory. Build an appropriate force.
If you don't like the format, stop playing it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 20:01:42


Post by: bananathug


 Yarium wrote:

However, I think there's something to be said about consistency from a competitive standpoint. The method that ITC has to calculate victory points over turns provides powerful and valuable data to the tournament circuit. In some of the GW missions it's easier (for both players) to score victory points than in others, such that what qualifies as a high scoring or low scoring game can differ quite a bit from mission to mission. That is not the case in ITC, where there is a consistent maximum possible VP count.


I think this is something I overlooked in my one-off CA 2019 missions. Although if everyone plays the same mission round 1/2/3 then scores would be normalized across the tournament and the placing at the tournaments would still be key in determining ITC placing.

Take a peak over in the "interesting stats" thread to see just how much granular ITC tournament data is worth (hint: not much) so I'm not sure you miss out on much knowing how many points per round player x with y army is scoring.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 20:25:54


Post by: DominayTrix


As long as the tournament scene can go "nah we are going to balance our packet instead of yours" its going to be harder to get GW to finally wake up and realize that competitive balance matters. ITC missions are consistent, but their house rules are awful. Magic boxes are a good idea in theory for dealing with LOS for things like windows giving you a view of part of a single pauldron so you can murder the whole squad, but not being able to overwatch a unit charging through a literal open doorway is awful. It also tends to make non-LOS weapons significantly more valuable.

That being said, ITC is a lot better about fixing things like running 9 man infantry squads with a heavy weapon mostly to deny reaper. In the age of "GW Playtesters" it feels like a waste of resources to try to balance multiple mission packets that share the same point values. ETC/ITC should be brought into the fold much like MTG brought EDH into the fold. Let them mostly run themselves, but we really don't need 3+ tournament formats.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 20:44:09


Post by: Dudeface


 DominayTrix wrote:
As long as the tournament scene can go "nah we are going to balance our packet instead of yours" its going to be harder to get GW to finally wake up and realize that competitive balance matters. ITC missions are consistent, but their house rules are awful. Magic boxes are a good idea in theory for dealing with LOS for things like windows giving you a view of part of a single pauldron so you can murder the whole squad, but not being able to overwatch a unit charging through a literal open doorway is awful. It also tends to make non-LOS weapons significantly more valuable.

That being said, ITC is a lot better about fixing things like running 9 man infantry squads with a heavy weapon mostly to deny reaper. In the age of "GW Playtesters" it feels like a waste of resources to try to balance multiple mission packets that share the same point values. ETC/ITC should be brought into the fold much like MTG brought EDH into the fold. Let them mostly run themselves, but we really don't need 3+ tournament formats.


But the FLG guys are the playtesters. They suggest balance changes, it was mentioned in other threads that they offer feedback on stuff using GW missions.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 20:47:52


Post by: Crimson


Dudeface wrote:

But the FLG guys are the playtesters. They suggest balance changes, it was mentioned in other threads that they offer feedback on stuff using GW missions.

And for some reason they do not think that those missions they themselves helped to balance are good enough... It makes no fething sense.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 20:53:38


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Crimson wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

But the FLG guys are the playtesters. They suggest balance changes, it was mentioned in other threads that they offer feedback on stuff using GW missions.

And for some reason they do not think that those missions they themselves helped to balance are good enough... It makes no fething sense.


Unless it implies that GW doesn't listen to their suggestions...


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 20:58:20


Post by: Dr. Mills


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

But the FLG guys are the playtesters. They suggest balance changes, it was mentioned in other threads that they offer feedback on stuff using GW missions.

And for some reason they do not think that those missions they themselves helped to balance are good enough... It makes no fething sense.


Unless it implies that GW doesn't listen to their suggestions...


That's the thing though. GW did listen, but FLG thinks they know better than GW at this point. Because why else would they stick with their missions than use the CA2018 missions like many were asking in their feedback thread? And go against GW FAQ in rulings which I find disrespectful.

Because if anything, FLG doesn't listen.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:01:29


Post by: Sim-Life


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

But the FLG guys are the playtesters. They suggest balance changes, it was mentioned in other threads that they offer feedback on stuff using GW missions.

And for some reason they do not think that those missions they themselves helped to balance are good enough... It makes no fething sense.


Unless it implies that GW doesn't listen to their suggestions...


Or maybe they know the 40K competitive is such a fickle bunch that they CAN'T switch to CA2019 because people would get pissed off with them because they'll never admit that maybe yes, ITC has grown stagnant and is a bit gak now. They'd rather entrench on the ITC side and decry anything different as inferior.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:01:32


Post by: Martel732


Everyone knows better than GW. That's the problem. GW has proven to be incompetent at rules and math since the early 90s.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:07:08


Post by: Sim-Life


Martel732 wrote:
Everyone knows better than GW. That's the problem. GW has proven to be incompetent at rules and math since the early 90s.


Unfortunately GW never claimed to be making a competitive game. They want to make a game thats fun to play with your friends on the kitchen table/garage/wargame club.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:07:57


Post by: Martel732


Trying to parse their gak ass rules even with friends is not my definition of a good time.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:11:02


Post by: ERJAK


Why reduce variety? If maelstrom is competitively viable, use them. Same with ITC.

Feth eternal war. Boring, one note, 'turbo boost for the win' garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Everyone knows better than GW. That's the problem. GW has proven to be incompetent at rules and math since the early 90s.


Unfortunately GW never claimed to be making a competitive game. They want to make a game thats fun to play with your friends on the kitchen table/garage/wargame club.


Yes they have. It's a game where two players compete against each other. It's inherently competitive. They might not have made a Tournament game, but they certainly made a competitive one.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:15:07


Post by: Sim-Life


Martel732 wrote:
Trying to parse their gak ass rules even with friends is not my definition of a good time.


My friends manage fine. But then most of us played 2nd Ed 40k as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote:
Why reduce variety? If maelstrom is competitively viable, use them. Same with ITC.

Feth eternal war. Boring, one note, 'turbo boost for the win' garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Everyone knows better than GW. That's the problem. GW has proven to be incompetent at rules and math since the early 90s.


Unfortunately GW never claimed to be making a competitive game. They want to make a game thats fun to play with your friends on the kitchen table/garage/wargame club.


Yes they have. It's a game where two players compete against each other. It's inherently competitive. They might not have made a Tournament game, but they certainly made a competitive one.


Don't be deliberatly obtuse for the sake of argument. You know what I meant.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:16:06


Post by: Martel732


Yeah, so did some of us. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I kinda hate 3rd ed for making me hang around this terrible company.

"Don't be delibeeatly obtuse for the sake of argument."

And this shows WHY you need tight rules, because people will argue almost anything to save their precious plastic men.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:20:47


Post by: Xenomancers


 Crimson wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
I personally like the new CA missions more than ITC stuff, the ITC stuff is too easy to play gimmicks with and the newer missions really do a good job of mostly being relatively balanced with less to keep track of. That said, neither are perfect.

But I'll take almost anything over Maelstrom.

Maelstroms key problem is it is too random. Cards that score D3 compared to 1. Cards that you can't score. Drawing a score objective card that you started on? Secrete objectives? Just terrible.


Have you read CA 2019?

Wasn't aware Maelstrom changed at all I have only played the eternal war missions. That is how interested everyone is here around Maelstrom. Taking out half the cards in the deck will sure help. 1 mulligan will help too. I'll try it out.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:21:58


Post by: Sim-Life


Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, so did some of us. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I kinda hate 3rd ed for making me hang around this terrible company.

"Don't be delibeeatly obtuse for the sake of argument."

And this shows WHY you need tight rules, because people will argue almost anything to save their precious plastic men.


Well thats on you. I enjoyed 2nd 5th and 8th. When 6th and 7th proved to be not to my liking I played other games for a few years. Its not GWs fault you hang around them like an abused spouse because you choose to play in an environment that invites toxic behaviour, by which I mean tournament level 40k (unless you're Karol and its literally your only option and you don't get any satisfaction out of the collecting/painting side of the hobby).

Also damn you for making me use the word "toxic" like that.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:22:03


Post by: ERJAK


 Dr. Mills wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

But the FLG guys are the playtesters. They suggest balance changes, it was mentioned in other threads that they offer feedback on stuff using GW missions.

And for some reason they do not think that those missions they themselves helped to balance are good enough... It makes no fething sense.


Unless it implies that GW doesn't listen to their suggestions...


That's the thing though. GW did listen, but FLG thinks they know better than GW at this point. Because why else would they stick with their missions than use the CA2018 missions like many were asking in their feedback thread? And go against GW FAQ in rulings which I find disrespectful.

Because if anything, FLG doesn't listen.


Why should they listen? Why wouldn't they know better than GW? It's not like GW's 40k knowledge is that high of a bar.

Do you remember Ironhands on launch? I do. Do you remember how GW was flabbergasted that players figured out a salamanders combo to do 20 mortal wounds in a phase? I do.

GW has not demonstrated any particular expertise when it comes to 40k. There's no reason to trust them over pretty much any random player on the street. When they show that they actually have special insight into the functionality of the game, then we can start critisizing TOs for modifying their rules. As it stands they've bumbled their way through the last several codexes and deserve no benefit of the doubt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, so did some of us. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I kinda hate 3rd ed for making me hang around this terrible company.

"Don't be delibeeatly obtuse for the sake of argument."

And this shows WHY you need tight rules, because people will argue almost anything to save their precious plastic men.


Well thats on you. I enjoyed 2nd 5th and 8th. When 6th and 7th proved to be not to my liking I played other games for a few years. Its not GWs fault you hang around them like an abused spouse because you choose to play in an environment that invites toxic behaviour, by which I mean tournament level 40k (unless you're Karol and its literally your only option and you don't get any satisfaction out of the collecting/painting side of the hobby).

Also damn you for making me use the word "toxic" like that.


Tournament play invites toxic behavoir? Then why are the absolute most toxic people in 40k the casual/ anti-tournament crowd? Why is it that it's only ever people like you dismissing an entire facet of how people enjoy the game? No one goes onto narrative threads an says gak like you do.

Why are you even here if you don't play tournaments? What difference does it make to you whether competitive events use ITC or CA? Do you really have so little going on?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:34:59


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Sim-Life wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Everyone knows better than GW. That's the problem. GW has proven to be incompetent at rules and math since the early 90s.


Unfortunately GW never claimed to be making a competitive game. They want to make a game thats fun to play with your friends on the kitchen table/garage/wargame club.


So why do they make a game where you need the expertise to rejigger the points on the fly to avoid the people who bought the wrong models getting wiped off the table in a turn and a half by the people who bought the right models?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:35:10


Post by: catbarf


 Xenomancers wrote:
Also the parts of 40k I enjoy the most are fighting in the open and advancing at the opponent. ILOS and Character targeting rules are already kind of bonkers - they should not be made even better with automatic places to hide most of your army.


I never thought I'd see someone argue that terrain is bad and being able to avoid enemy fire is a problem. I know you play Ultramarines, but do you also happen to play any non-gunline armies to understand the other perspective? My Guard love a bare table, but my Tyranids simply don't function on planet bowling ball.

I've long maintained the opposite view: I get much more enjoyable games by applying area terrain rules (TLOS can die in a fire) and having enough terrain density that it meaningfully impacts maneuver and targeting. If I have unobstructed line of sight to even half the enemy's army after deployment, something has gone wrong.

Dense terrain + take-and-hold objectives heavily disincentivize static gunlines, and IMO that's purely a good thing. Heavier emphasis on maneuver, and having a real tradeoff to staying back in a far corner, makes for a more dynamic and less meat grinder-y, listbuilding-driven game.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:35:11


Post by: Sim-Life


ERJAK wrote:
 Dr. Mills wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

But the FLG guys are the playtesters. They suggest balance changes, it was mentioned in other threads that they offer feedback on stuff using GW missions.

And for some reason they do not think that those missions they themselves helped to balance are good enough... It makes no fething sense.


Unless it implies that GW doesn't listen to their suggestions...


That's the thing though. GW did listen, but FLG thinks they know better than GW at this point. Because why else would they stick with their missions than use the CA2018 missions like many were asking in their feedback thread? And go against GW FAQ in rulings which I find disrespectful.

Because if anything, FLG doesn't listen.


Why should they listen? Why wouldn't they know better than GW? It's not like GW's 40k knowledge is that high of a bar.

Do you remember Ironhands on launch? I do. Do you remember how GW was flabbergasted that players figured out a salamanders combo to do 20 mortal wounds in a phase? I do.

GW has not demonstrated any particular expertise when it comes to 40k. There's no reason to trust them over pretty much any random player on the street. When they show that they actually have special insight into the functionality of the game, then we can start critisizing TOs for modifying their rules. As it stands they've bumbled their way through the last several codexes and deserve no benefit of the doubt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, so did some of us. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I kinda hate 3rd ed for making me hang around this terrible company.

"Don't be delibeeatly obtuse for the sake of argument."

And this shows WHY you need tight rules, because people will argue almost anything to save their precious plastic men.


Well thats on you. I enjoyed 2nd 5th and 8th. When 6th and 7th proved to be not to my liking I played other games for a few years. Its not GWs fault you hang around them like an abused spouse because you choose to play in an environment that invites toxic behaviour, by which I mean tournament level 40k (unless you're Karol and its literally your only option and you don't get any satisfaction out of the collecting/painting side of the hobby).

Also damn you for making me use the word "toxic" like that.


Tournament play invites toxic behavoir? Then why are the absolute most toxic people in 40k the casual/ anti-tournament crowd? Why is it that it's only ever people like you dismissing an entire facet of how people enjoy the game? No one goes onto narrative threads an says gak like you do.

Why are you even here if you don't play tournaments? What difference does it make to you whether competitive events use ITC or CA? Do you really have so little going on?


The irony in this post is just too much.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:37:26


Post by: Karol


 Sim-Life wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Everyone knows better than GW. That's the problem. GW has proven to be incompetent at rules and math since the early 90s.


Unfortunately GW never claimed to be making a competitive game. They want to make a game thats fun to play with your friends on the kitchen table/garage/wargame club.


The game was not very fun to to play on the kitchen table also, that is the problem. GW rules writing, the size of armies and number of books required points rather at the fact, that the claim of not making a tournament game is just a smoke screen. And it is impossible to make an army with a winer and lose non competitive. w40k is not playing house, it is a game like chess, football or any fight sports.


tournament play invites toxic behavoir? Then why are the absolute most toxic people in 40k the casual/ anti-tournament crowd? Why is it that it's only ever people like you dismissing an entire facet of how people enjoy the game? No one goes onto narrative threads an says gak like you do.

True. I have never been to a big tournament, and played only in two store ones. At the same time, it wasn't really hard to play a few times against real donkey-caves. And there was no coleration with them playing in tournaments or not.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:43:25


Post by: Sim-Life


Karol wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Everyone knows better than GW. That's the problem. GW has proven to be incompetent at rules and math since the early 90s.


Unfortunately GW never claimed to be making a competitive game. They want to make a game thats fun to play with your friends on the kitchen table/garage/wargame club.


The game was not very fun to to play on the kitchen table also, that is the problem. GW rules writing, the size of armies and number of books required points rather at the fact, that the claim of not making a tournament game is just a smoke screen. And it is impossible to make an army with a winer and lose non competitive. w40k is not playing house, it is a game like chess, football or any fight sports.


tournament play invites toxic behavoir? Then why are the absolute most toxic people in 40k the casual/ anti-tournament crowd? Why is it that it's only ever people like you dismissing an entire facet of how people enjoy the game? No one goes onto narrative threads an says gak like you do.

True. I have never been to a big tournament, and played only in two store ones. At the same time, it wasn't really hard to play a few times against real donkey-caves. And there was no coleration with them playing in tournaments or not.


But the thing about not playing in tournaments is that you can choose not to play the donkey-caves (unless you're Karol etc etc). Then if EVERYONE won't play the donkey-caves eventually they might go "Am I the donkey-cave?"


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:46:23


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Sim-Life wrote:
...But the thing about not playing in tournaments is that you can choose not to play the donkey-caves (unless you're Karol etc etc). Then if EVERYONE won't play the donkey-caves eventually they might go "Am I the donkey-cave?"


Is the donkey-cave in this situation the person who says "I'm just playing my army, stop whining and get better/buy different models!" or the person who says "I want to play my army but I can't because yours is OP, stop playing your army and buy different models!"?

Just curious.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:47:24


Post by: Wayniac


Oh this again?

ITC missions are bad (IMHO). The scoring is fine. So is, arguably, the first floor LOS blocking rule. It's just the missions that are problematic, doubly so because the AOS missions are good enough but 40k are not and need special missions to "fix" them for tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
...But the thing about not playing in tournaments is that you can choose not to play the donkey-caves (unless you're Karol etc etc). Then if EVERYONE won't play the donkey-caves eventually they might go "Am I the donkey-cave?"


Is the donkey-cave in this situation the person who says "I'm just playing my army, stop whining and get better/buy different models!" or the person who says "I want to play my army but I can't because yours is OP, stop playing your army and buy different models!"?

Just curious.
The first one definitely. The second most likely depending on circumstances but likely yes.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:54:15


Post by: Sim-Life


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
...But the thing about not playing in tournaments is that you can choose not to play the donkey-caves (unless you're Karol etc etc). Then if EVERYONE won't play the donkey-caves eventually they might go "Am I the donkey-cave?"


Is the donkey-cave in this situation the person who says "I'm just playing my army, stop whining and get better/buy different models!" or the person who says "I want to play my army but I can't because yours is OP, stop playing your army and buy different models!"?

Just curious.


So everyone should just approach the game from the perspective of "I had my fun, and that's all that matters."?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 21:58:43


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Sim-Life wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
...But the thing about not playing in tournaments is that you can choose not to play the donkey-caves (unless you're Karol etc etc). Then if EVERYONE won't play the donkey-caves eventually they might go "Am I the donkey-cave?"


Is the donkey-cave in this situation the person who says "I'm just playing my army, stop whining and get better/buy different models!" or the person who says "I want to play my army but I can't because yours is OP, stop playing your army and buy different models!"?

Just curious.


So everyone should just approach the game from the perspective of "I had my fun, and that's all that matters."?


I don't know who you define as an donkey-cave. If your argument is that the game is designed to be a kitchen-table fun afternoon where people don't have to do prep work or analysis to produce close and interesting games isn't that an argument that as-written points and balance are more important? Or is your argument that the rules don't really matter that much and we should all be playing make-believe instead of playing a game because clear and consistent rules to resolve conflict in games of make-believe aren't "fun"? Is the donkey-cave the person who bought Grey Knights and grumbles about losing every game or is the donkey-cave the person who bought Iron Hands and crushes everyone else every game? How does your "don't play with the donkey-caves" theory prevent people from being donkey-caves when the rules of the game turn everyone into donkey-caves?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:00:22


Post by: Octopoid


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
...But the thing about not playing in tournaments is that you can choose not to play the donkey-caves (unless you're Karol etc etc). Then if EVERYONE won't play the donkey-caves eventually they might go "Am I the donkey-cave?"


Is the donkey-cave in this situation the person who says "I'm just playing my army, stop whining and get better/buy different models!" or the person who says "I want to play my army but I can't because yours is OP, stop playing your army and buy different models!"?

Just curious.


So everyone should just approach the game from the perspective of "I had my fun, and that's all that matters."?


I don't know who you define as an donkey-cave. If your argument is that the game is designed to be a kitchen-table fun afternoon where people don't have to do prep work or analysis to produce close and interesting games isn't that an argument that as-written points and balance are more important? Or is your argument that the rules don't really matter that much and we should all be playing make-believe instead of playing a game because clear and consistent rules to resolve conflict in games of make-believe aren't "fun"? Is the donkey-cave the person who bought Grey Knights and grumbles about losing every game or is the donkey-cave the person who bought Iron Hands and crushes everyone else every game? How does your "don't play with the donkey-caves" theory prevent people from being donkey-caves when the rules of the game turn everyone into donkey-caves?


It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:04:59


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Octopoid wrote:
...It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...


I don't know. I applied a definition of "donkey-cave" that seems consistent with what seems to happen when you ask people to start playing a new game that is wildly out of balance because it seems to me that Sim-Life's suggestion about not playing with the donkey-caves to make them realize they're donkey-caves doesn't account for the fact that people tend to assume other people are the donkey-cave in situations like those he's described. How do you define "donkey-cave"?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:06:52


Post by: Octopoid


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
...It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...


I don't know. I applied a definition of "donkey-cave" that seems consistent with what seems to happen when you ask people to start playing a new game that is wildly out of balance because it seems to me that Sim-Life's suggestion about not playing with the donkey-caves to make them realize they're donkey-caves doesn't account for the fact that people tend to assume other people are the donkey-cave in situations like those he's described. How do you define "donkey-cave"?


For me, a donkey-cave is someone who, for whatever reason, makes playing the game not fun. That's not a particularly helpful definition, though, since what makes the game "not fun" for me might be the thing that makes the game fun for someone else.

I guess, given that, I'd say a true donkey-cave is someone who doesn't care about whether or not their opponent is having fun.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:09:07


Post by: Catulle


 AnomanderRake wrote:
How do you define "donkey-cave"?


"Failing the Voight-Kampff test"


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:11:00


Post by: Sim-Life


The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time. I guess I'm in a minority that I want my opponent to have a good time as well when I play a game?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:11:13


Post by: catbarf


 AnomanderRake wrote:
If your argument is that the game is designed to be a kitchen-table fun afternoon where people don't have to do prep work or analysis to produce close and interesting games isn't that an argument that as-written points and balance are more important?


Thank you. I hate this idea that balance isn't important for casual play. Two players getting into an argument over whether player B keeps losing because player A's army is overpowered or because player B just sucks is not a positive, friendly, fun interaction.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:16:15


Post by: Octopoid


 Sim-Life wrote:
The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.


This. This says what I was trying to say better than I said it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:26:34


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Octopoid wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
...It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...


I don't know. I applied a definition of "donkey-cave" that seems consistent with what seems to happen when you ask people to start playing a new game that is wildly out of balance because it seems to me that Sim-Life's suggestion about not playing with the donkey-caves to make them realize they're donkey-caves doesn't account for the fact that people tend to assume other people are the donkey-cave in situations like those he's described. How do you define "donkey-cave"?


For me, a donkey-cave is someone who, for whatever reason, makes playing the game not fun. That's not a particularly helpful definition, though, since what makes the game "not fun" for me might be the thing that makes the game fun for someone else.

I guess, given that, I'd say a true donkey-cave is someone who doesn't care about whether or not their opponent is having fun.


Hypothetical scenario (Sim-Life, this is for you too): Two people decide to start playing 40k. They go out, decide on which models they think are cool, buy a bunch of stuff, paint it up, bring it in, play a game. One of them decided Knights looked cool and the other decided Deathwatch looked cool so the Knight player casually rolls over the Deathwatch player. Neither one of them had any fun.

Now. Freeze-frame. Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the Deathwatch player for picking a weak army? Is it a fault of the Knight player for picking an army the Deathwatch don't have the weapons to counter? Who's responsible for going out and buying a different army to make the game more fun next time? Or is it perhaps the fault of the rules writers, who told them that 2,000pts of Deathwatch are capable of playing a game with 2,000pts of Knights?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:30:28


Post by: Octopoid


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
...It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...


I don't know. I applied a definition of "donkey-cave" that seems consistent with what seems to happen when you ask people to start playing a new game that is wildly out of balance because it seems to me that Sim-Life's suggestion about not playing with the donkey-caves to make them realize they're donkey-caves doesn't account for the fact that people tend to assume other people are the donkey-cave in situations like those he's described. How do you define "donkey-cave"?


For me, a donkey-cave is someone who, for whatever reason, makes playing the game not fun. That's not a particularly helpful definition, though, since what makes the game "not fun" for me might be the thing that makes the game fun for someone else.

I guess, given that, I'd say a true donkey-cave is someone who doesn't care about whether or not their opponent is having fun.


Hypothetical scenario (Sim-Life, this is for you too): Two people decide to start playing 40k. They go out, decide on which models they think are cool, buy a bunch of stuff, paint it up, bring it in, play a game. One of them decided Knights looked cool and the other decided Deathwatch looked cool so the Knight player casually rolls over the Deathwatch player. Neither one of them had any fun.

Now. Freeze-frame. Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the Deathwatch player for picking a weak army? Is it a fault of the Knight player for picking an army the Deathwatch don't have the weapons to counter? Who's responsible for going out and buying a different army to make the game more fun next time? Or is it perhaps the fault of the rules writers, who told them that 2,000pts of Deathwatch are capable of playing a game with 2,000pts of Knights?


Why does someone need to be at fault? Why can't they agree to both make some changes to their armies and try again? Or agree to not play each other and find someone else to play with? Why didn't they discuss with one another beforehand what models they might bring?

In this case, the fault lies with the system, if fault there must be, but some of the fault falls on both players' shoulders as well. Neither one is a donkey-cave in this scenario, but neither one is totally blameless, either.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:34:18


Post by: JNAProductions


But why should the players be expected to know about the existence of hard counters and crap armies, let alone which is which? When the game implies, at the very least, that 2,000 points is a good match for 2,000 points.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:36:59


Post by: Octopoid


 JNAProductions wrote:
But why should the players be expected to know about the existence of hard counters and crap armies, let alone which is which? When the game implies, at the very least, that 2,000 points is a good match for 2,000 points.


They shouldn't be expected to be masters of the game's nuances, but they should be expected to do some research into a game they're about to play, especially one with as high a buy-in as 40K. Maybe look at some netlists, maybe talk to some existing players, maybe even generalize based on previous gaming experience (if any).

If what you're looking for is a reason to blame GW, feel free to take that reason. I'm not going to say their points system couldn't use some... tweaking, let's say. But at the same time, every game is going to have a learning curve, and so players should expect said curve. If they don't do their due diligence, then some of the blame (again, if we have to blame anyone) must fall on them.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:38:55


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Octopoid wrote:
...Why didn't they discuss with one another beforehand what models they might bring?...


EXACTLY.

Why does GW say "Hey, guys, we've written a game with points values intended to determine what two evenly-matched armies should look like!" if you still need to negotiate with your opponent about what army book you're allowed to use?

The situation created by GW where there is no functional objective way of making sure there is a balanced game (most games have balanced points, balanced scenarios, etc.) forces people into situations where you get subjectively labeled an "donkey-cave" for not accommodating your subjective experience, or get to label other people as "donkey-caves" for not accommodating your experience, because there is no way of figuring out what a good and interesting game is going to be outside of peoples' subjective experience.

Which means you have the choice of arguing about what should/shouldn't be on the table and risk being labeled "the donkey-cave", nodding mournfully and saying "yes maybe I should buy a different army" while seething inside at other people being donkey-caves and forcing you to go spend vast amounts of money on new stuff, or quitting and getting labeled "the donkey-cave" for not playing along with what everyone else is having fun with.

Which is why I say that the nature of the rules forces everyone to be an donkey-cave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Octopoid wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
But why should the players be expected to know about the existence of hard counters and crap armies, let alone which is which? When the game implies, at the very least, that 2,000 points is a good match for 2,000 points.


They shouldn't be expected to be masters of the game's nuances, but they should be expected to do some research into a game they're about to play, especially one with as high a buy-in as 40K. Maybe look at some netlists, maybe talk to some existing players, maybe even generalize based on previous gaming experience (if any)...


How much of your prior gaming experience involved being told "Oh, you bought the wrong army book, you're screwed"? Do any other games work this way? I've never run across one.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:40:31


Post by: Octopoid


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
...Why didn't they discuss with one another beforehand what models they might bring?...


EXACTLY.

Why does GW say "Hey, guys, we've written a game with points values intended to determine what two evenly-matched armies should look like!" if you still need to negotiate with your opponent about what army book you're allowed to use?

The situation created by GW where there is no functional objective way of making sure there is a balanced game (most games have balanced points, balanced scenarios, etc.) forces people into situations where you get subjectively labeled an "donkey-cave" for not accommodating your subjective experience, or get to label other people as "donkey-caves" for not accommodating your experience, because there is no way of figuring out what a good and interesting game is going to be outside of peoples' subjective experience.

Which means you have the choice of arguing about what should/shouldn't be on the table and risk being labeled "the donkey-cave", nodding mournfully and saying "yes maybe I should buy a different army" while seething inside at other people being donkey-caves and forcing you to go spend vast amounts of money on new stuff, or quitting and getting labeled "the donkey-cave" for not playing along with what everyone else is having fun with.

Which is why I say that the nature of the rules forces everyone to be an donkey-cave.


Well, sounds like you've got yourself a position there. Maybe you should just not play Warhammer 40K?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
[How much of your prior gaming experience involved being told "Oh, you bought the wrong army book, you're screwed"? Do any other games work this way? I've never run across one.


It's happened a time or two. I bought the Monster Manual for AD&D before I knew what the game really was, and was told I needed a different book to play it. Fair enough, my fault, I didn't do my due diligence. At the end of the day though, I still had a fun book with some cool monsters in it.

Maybe instead of looking for someone to blame, you should focus on finding out how to have fun with what you already have? Just a thought.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:47:23


Post by: Sim-Life


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
...It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...


I don't know. I applied a definition of "donkey-cave" that seems consistent with what seems to happen when you ask people to start playing a new game that is wildly out of balance because it seems to me that Sim-Life's suggestion about not playing with the donkey-caves to make them realize they're donkey-caves doesn't account for the fact that people tend to assume other people are the donkey-cave in situations like those he's described. How do you define "donkey-cave"?


For me, a donkey-cave is someone who, for whatever reason, makes playing the game not fun. That's not a particularly helpful definition, though, since what makes the game "not fun" for me might be the thing that makes the game fun for someone else.

I guess, given that, I'd say a true donkey-cave is someone who doesn't care about whether or not their opponent is having fun.


Hypothetical scenario (Sim-Life, this is for you too): Two people decide to start playing 40k. They go out, decide on which models they think are cool, buy a bunch of stuff, paint it up, bring it in, play a game. One of them decided Knights looked cool and the other decided Deathwatch looked cool so the Knight player casually rolls over the Deathwatch player. Neither one of them had any fun.

Now. Freeze-frame. Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the Deathwatch player for picking a weak army? Is it a fault of the Knight player for picking an army the Deathwatch don't have the weapons to counter? Who's responsible for going out and buying a different army to make the game more fun next time? Or is it perhaps the fault of the rules writers, who told them that 2,000pts of Deathwatch are capable of playing a game with 2,000pts of Knights?


Do the players know each other? How long? Were they friends prior to starting 40k? Who suggested starting 40k? Are they going to regularly play each other? Does one player have more money than the other? Did either player seek advice on the internet? Will the Knight player insist on continuing to use Knights knowing he will easily beat the DG player? Are they the only players in the area? Do they have an FLGS or similar group? Did they have a lot of terrain? Did they play a scenario or just try to kill each other? Did someone actually teach them how to play or are they learning themselves? Did they make lists or just buy models and plonk them on the table?

I could keep going. Unfortunately social interaction isn't as simple as you'd like to make it out to be. For example a new guy joined our group recently and he's never played an actual game before. Never written a list even. So I wrote a really soft tyranid list full of sub-optimal units. He was playing space marines. If I'd played against him like I would any of our other group members I would have steamrolled him. He wouldn't have fun, I'd feel gakky, both people have a bad time and at least one is potentially out of the game because his first game was awful.

But by the logic of some on here I should have lost because SM are OP currently and Tyranids are near the bottom of the power rankings. It would be nice if everything was as simple as "tournament rankings are the be all and end all" but there are far more factors in a game at play than people like to admit.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:48:17


Post by: DarknessEternal


ITC continues to exist only to stroke the egos of the people that run it. If they aren't allowed to have 40k play exactly according to their rules, they aren't interested.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:48:25


Post by: Yoyoyo


 Sim-Life wrote:
The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.

Bingo.

If people are engaging with each other in good faith, you will laugh about imbalance and adjust the lists/mission as needed to have fun.

If people aren't engaging in good faith... well, who cares about their opinion anyway?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:48:53


Post by: Octopoid


Yoyoyo wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.

Bingo.

If people are engaging with each other in good faith, you will laugh about imbalance and adjust the lists/mission as needed to have fun.

If people aren't engaging in good faith... well, who cares about their opinion anyway?


I lament that I can give you but one Exalt, good sir.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:49:44


Post by: JNAProductions


Except Wizards of The Coast don’t TELL YOU that you only need the MM to play! (And TSR before them as well.)

While it is labeled a core book, it is one of three-and with those three books, you have functioning game. (At least for 4E and 5E. 3.5 is a mess, and I lack experience with before then.) 40k, if you go off what GW says, can easily result in a game so one-sided as to be non functional.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 22:51:22


Post by: Octopoid


 JNAProductions wrote:
Except Wizards of The Coast don’t TELL YOU that you only need the MM to play! (And TSR before them as well.)

While it is labeled a core book, it is one of three-and with those three books, you have functioning game. (At least for 4E and 5E. 3.5 is a mess, and I lack experience with before then.) 40k, if you go off what GW says, can easily result in a game so one-sided as to be non functional.


So make it functional! Change the missions, have one player play down some points, fiddle with it to make it fun! Or don't play it!

Yes, GW should make a "better" game, where "better" means "more balanced." Feel free to quote me on that. At the same time, if you hate it so much, why play it? And if you don't play it, why do you come to squat on those who do?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 23:08:27


Post by: JNAProductions


I’m not crapping in anyone but GW. I do have fun playing, but here’s the thing-I don’t play SM anymore. They’re too powerful-it’s not fun to play as them.

GW needs to do a better job. We can have fun IN SPITE of GW’s crappy work. But they need to do a better job.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 23:10:12


Post by: catbarf


 Octopoid wrote:
Why does someone need to be at fault? Why can't they agree to both make some changes to their armies and try again? Or agree to not play each other and find someone else to play with? Why didn't they discuss with one another beforehand what models they might bring?


I've seen this play out before.

'Hey, I think your Knights army might be a bit too effective against my Deathwatch, can you change up your army?'

Pick from any one of the following responses:

'I don't think so, I think you may just be playing wrong.'
'Okay.' [swaps a single Knight for a pair of Armigers, same result]
'I don't have any other models, what am I supposed to do?'
'I like my army. Why don't you try taking different models instead?'

You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.

 Octopoid wrote:
In this case, the fault lies with the system, if fault there must be, but some of the fault falls on both players' shoulders as well. Neither one is a donkey-cave in this scenario, but neither one is totally blameless, either.


Nah, I don't think it's at all reasonable to blame players for playing the game as written, running into a massive imbalance caused by the game's writing, and not having fun as a result. They've done literally nothing wrong.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 23:12:54


Post by: JNAProductions


Also, if I HAVE offended anyone with my words, I apologize. I don’t mean to be mean to anyone but GW. GW has done crappy work, but those who play it are fine folk, generally.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 23:27:39


Post by: Sim-Life


 JNAProductions wrote:
I’m not crapping in anyone but GW. I do have fun playing, but here’s the thing-I don’t play SM anymore. They’re too powerful-it’s not fun to play as them.

GW needs to do a better job. We can have fun IN SPITE of GW’s crappy work. But they need to do a better job.


I actually don't disagree but more because I think GW are being too heavy handed in there attempts to make balanced. Indexhammer was pretty balanced but got pretty boring pretty quickly because no of the units made me excited to field. Part of why I dropped 7th was the same thing. Necrons and Nids were just boring to play and I started Warmachine and delighted in finding weird synergies and combos in the armies and to this day I will choose to play my janky Old Witch1 or Rhyas1 list because I love the interactions they have over the tournament lists that have been done to death. Assassinating a character with Old Witch teleporting from across the board will always be more satisfying and fun to me than whatever metalisting nonsense most people will expect at tournaments.

But to drag this thread kicking and screaming back to the topic the CA2019 missions are actually something GW have done a good job on. I haven't had such close game in years and often the game is fairly even until turn 4. Something has to go seriously wrong early on for one player for them to be totally dominated by the opponent in terms of VP.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 23:33:58


Post by: bananathug


Let's not get into the weeds of why 40k is a crappy game. There are a million threads for that.

I'm curious to see people experience with the CA 2019 missions vs the ITC champion mission pack or just your experiences with the CA 2019 missions (as I've played enough ITC to know how it works and where it falls short).

Has anyone actually tried to play a competitive tournament using the CA 2019 missions? Where do you think they promote imbalance/skew? What are your favorite parts and what do you think could be changed?

I've only played casual games with the 2019 missions (no marine supplements). I think they favor fearless hordes at the expense of more expensive troops. They break once you include faction specific maelstrom cards in your deck. Also, not a huge fan of the variable VP (d3 sucks almost as bad as d6). You need troops that can hold objectives and you actually are punished for going first which kind of makes up for how much of your opponents army you can kill with alpha strikes.

No amount of mission massaging can fix the broken mess that GW has made of 8th edition but I find the list building restrictions of the ITC secondaries to be more imbalanced and less fun than the CA 2019 missions with some small tweaks.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 23:37:00


Post by: Sim-Life


 catbarf wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
Why does someone need to be at fault? Why can't they agree to both make some changes to their armies and try again? Or agree to not play each other and find someone else to play with? Why didn't they discuss with one another beforehand what models they might bring?


I've seen this play out before.

'Hey, I think your Knights army might be a bit too effective against my Deathwatch, can you change up your army?'

Pick from any one of the following responses:

'I don't think so, I think you may just be playing wrong.'
'Okay.' [swaps a single Knight for a pair of Armigers, same result]
'I don't have any other models, what am I supposed to do?'
'I like my army. Why don't you try taking different models instead?'

You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.

 Octopoid wrote:
In this case, the fault lies with the system, if fault there must be, but some of the fault falls on both players' shoulders as well. Neither one is a donkey-cave in this scenario, but neither one is totally blameless, either.


Nah, I don't think it's at all reasonable to blame players for playing the game as written, running into a massive imbalance caused by the game's writing, and not having fun as a result. They've done literally nothing wrong.


Why not? Do they live somewhere that has Warhammer but no internet access? Do they not use Facebook? Are they Chinese and Google is banned? Who are these mysterious people who live on a desert island with only each other for company and only a single, unstaffed Warhammer store and no internet access?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/23 23:58:51


Post by: Octopoid


 catbarf wrote:
You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.


That's a straw man, and you know it. I CAN reasonably expect casual players to do some research before dropping a hundred or more dollars on a new game, EACH, and then also expect them to come to some kind of agreement about how to have fun playing that game.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:21:25


Post by: JNAProductions


And the research shows that Deathwatch and Knights are both good, but not top tier. And yet, one hard counters the other-seems obvious to those who play it, but for a new player? Might not be so clear till AFTER they sink hundreds of dollars.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:25:43


Post by: Octopoid


 JNAProductions wrote:
And the research shows that Deathwatch and Knights are both good, but not top tier. And yet, one hard counters the other-seems obvious to those who play it, but for a new player? Might not be so clear till AFTER they sink hundreds of dollars.


What, exactly, do you want me to say?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:28:34


Post by: JNAProductions


That new players cannot be reasonably expected to know what works and what doesn’t, even with appropriate research, because GW is such a colossal feth-up? Something like that


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:31:49


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Octopoid wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.


That's a straw man, and you know it. I CAN reasonably expect casual players to do some research before dropping a hundred or more dollars on a new game, EACH, and then also expect them to come to some kind of agreement about how to have fun playing that game.


There are, what, twenty 'armies' with unique standalone Codexes in the game, plus three types of soup, plus however you want to define all the available sub-factions. Do you really think it's reasonable to expect a newbie to fill out a 23*23 (or bigger ) grid of how all armies fare in every possible match-up when they need to dig through a lot of random arguments (endlessly derailed by Martel who wants to make everything about Blood Angels) to get even a vague sense of what one square of their grid looks like before they decide what army to purchase/what models to purchase?

And you still think 40k is designed to be a simple casual beer-and-pretzels game?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:31:52


Post by: chimeara


I haven't played any CA missions to date. But my dudes tell me they're awesome. I play a lot of ITC, the missions don't bother me, but I do wish for more variation. One GT I was in did modified ITC and Nova missions. I actually liked the Nova style missions and scoring. They seemed a little contrived at first reading, once I actually got in the event it made way more sense.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:32:07


Post by: Octopoid


 JNAProductions wrote:
That new players cannot be reasonably expected to know what works and what doesn’t, even with appropriate research, because GW is such a colossal feth-up? Something like that


Good luck. It seems to me that if GW were such a colossal failure, there would never be new players, or old players, or players at all. The fact that so many people seem able to derive an enjoyable game from what they have produced, yourself included, seems to indicate they may have done exactly what they wanted and made a game that reasonable people communicating reasonably can manage to eke some fun out of.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:34:25


Post by: catbarf


 Sim-Life wrote:
Why not? Do they live somewhere that has Warhammer but no internet access? Do they not use Facebook? Are they Chinese and Google is banned? Who are these mysterious people who live on a desert island with only each other for company and only a single, unstaffed Warhammer store and no internet access?


Yeah, actually, I spent a couple of years in sub-Saharan Africa where the only Internet access was through the embassy and we weren't going to tie up the diplomat's phone line to look up wargame metas. Maybe an extreme example, but we're talking about a completely physical product with no Internet-based component whatsoever. It shouldn't need Internet commentary from the fanbase to be made playable.

I also was alive before the Internet was ubiquitous, and we had wargames back then too. It's easier than ever to find house rules and commentary to help fix a game- but by the same token it's easier than ever to conduct playtesting and get substantive feedback to deliver a better game and, more importantly, fix it after the fact.

 Octopoid wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.


That's a straw man, and you know it. I CAN reasonably expect casual players to do some research before dropping a hundred or more dollars on a new game, EACH, and then also expect them to come to some kind of agreement about how to have fun playing that game.


That's not a straw man; that's just the (very high) requirement for two casual players to know exactly how their game is imbalanced and agree on the best resolution. Otherwise if they recognize a problem but disagree on the severity, cause, or solution, you get the kinds of arguments I posted right above that line.

But okay, let's say everyone's on the same page and they figure out exactly what's wrong with their matchup and how to address it. Now is 'sorry, I guess we can't build the armies we wanted, the rules will break, take these units you have no interest in but the Internet says are essential' someone's idea of fun?

You're asking casual players to do the designer's job of balancing out their respective armies, before they even buy into the game. Lots of great games out there don't have that requirement. Back in the pre-Internet days that wasn't even an option.

Let me be clear: I'm not asking for perfect design. I'm asking to not blame the players for not having the foresight and expertise to go on the Internet, figure out that their matchup is broken, and figure out how they can fix it before they even play the game. I'm also asking to not use 'well you can just sort it out with your friends' to justify bad design, as if the fact that we can put on our designer hats and fix it ourselves means those flaws don't exist. I don't think these are unreasonable things to ask.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:36:49


Post by: Octopoid


Then you got what you want several posts ago. I already said that if anyone is to blame it’s the system, and that GW should make it better. So... maybe call it good and stop stretching my arguments to their most absurd lengths to get what I already gave?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:40:11


Post by: catbarf


 Octopoid wrote:
Then you got what you want several posts ago. I already said that if anyone is to blame it’s the system, and that GW should make it better. So... maybe call it good and stop stretching my arguments to their most absurd lengths to get what I already gave?


......???

but some of the fault falls on both players' shoulders as well.


'Yeah the game is broken, but also you didn't go on the Internet and become an armchair expert on the meta so that you could preemptively fix the game before you even play it, so really nobody's blameless here'?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:44:02


Post by: Octopoid


 catbarf wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
Then you got what you want several posts ago. I already said that if anyone is to blame it’s the system, and that GW should make it better. So... maybe call it good and stop stretching my arguments to their most absurd lengths to get what I already gave?


......???

but some of the fault falls on both players' shoulders as well.


'Yeah the game is broken, but also you didn't go on the Internet and become an armchair expert on the meta so that you could preemptively fix the game before you even play it, so really nobody's blameless here'?


There’s that straw man again. Never said expert, armchair or otherwise, never said preemptively fixing anything, never said game was broken. What I said was, and apparently I have to say it again, it is reasonable to expect reasonable people to do reasonable research into a game before dropping a lot of money on it, and that those same reasonable people using reasonable communication should be able to find fun in said game.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:47:24


Post by: Sim-Life


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.


That's a straw man, and you know it. I CAN reasonably expect casual players to do some research before dropping a hundred or more dollars on a new game, EACH, and then also expect them to come to some kind of agreement about how to have fun playing that game.


There are, what, twenty 'armies' with unique standalone Codexes in the game, plus three types of soup, plus however you want to define all the available sub-factions. Do you really think it's reasonable to expect a newbie to fill out a 23*23 (or bigger ) grid of how all armies fare in every possible match-up when they need to dig through a lot of random arguments (endlessly derailed by Martel who wants to make everything about Blood Angels) to get even a vague sense of what one square of their grid looks like before they decide what army to purchase/what models to purchase?

And you still think 40k is designed to be a simple casual beer-and-pretzels game?


I don't know why you think its so hard to go to google and type in "Death Guard advice" or go to Facebook, type "Death Guard", join one of the multiple groups (one of which has 15k members and averages 90 posts a day) and say "We just started 40k and my friend plays knights but I can't beat him, advice please?"
But then I suppose when you apply any sort of autonomy or initative to these players your argument falls apart.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 00:50:40


Post by: JNAProductions


Oky. And what happens when the advice is “Buy a double-thermal Renegade Knight”?

That’s about $200 on the model and codex.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 01:01:17


Post by: Octopoid


 JNAProductions wrote:
Oky. And what happens when the advice is “Buy a double-thermal Renegade Knight”?

That’s about $200 on the model and codex.


I know you weren’t asking me, but my response is, if that’s the only advice they get, they got bad advice. Maybe the Knights player could play down some points, or maybe since he already has the codex, they could share for a bit. Maybe they both want to try new armies, or maybe the DW player could try adding more terrain or objectives.

The point is, it’s not a white room scenario. People make bad investments in bad games all the time and still manage to have fun with them. Reasonable people communicating reasonably can derive fun from a broken system.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 01:02:07


Post by: Daedalus81


 JNAProductions wrote:
Oky. And what happens when the advice is “Buy a double-thermal Renegade Knight”?

That’s about $200 on the model and codex.


People starting off don't need to,and often won't be, ultra cutting edge.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 01:04:48


Post by: Sim-Life


 JNAProductions wrote:
Oky. And what happens when the advice is “Buy a double-thermal Renegade Knight”?

That’s about $200 on the model and codex.


Can you please stop with these ridiculous hypotheticals and straw men (which you seem to be clutching at the innards of).

Currently you've presented us with two fictional players, the two of which are the only players in the area, who are apparently mute except for when playing a game of Warhammer, have no ability to work things out for themselves and have found a Facebook group where the only advice via the unanimous consensus of 15000 people is "buy a knight as well". It's off topic and silly.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 01:19:04


Post by: alextroy


Why has this thread about ITC Missions versus Chapter Approved 2019 Missions transformed into a discussion about two new players playing highly specialized list against each other? It's not really on topic.

On topic is why does every discussion of ITC vs CA2019 descend into someone saying FLG are evil overlords attempting to form WH40K into their own image?

I have to assume people making these accusations don't actually do any research into that FLG is thinking. They have literally said on many occasions that the run their tournaments the way people want to play them. From 2K point, developing and updating the ITC Missions, and everything else it is all about getting the players in the door with their dollar. They must be doing something right since over 1000 people decided to buy tickets to the LVO Championship Tournament.

As for giving up the ITC Missions, they have actually said they will be discussing with the community for the next ITC Season (aka after LVO) about changing the missions for future tournaments. If you are one of the people that playing their events, they will want to hear your opinion.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 01:30:01


Post by: Togusa


 Ishagu wrote:
During the craziness of 7th edition, and the relatively rough start that encapsulated the early days of 8th, a very strong case could be made for a custom mission pack that created a sense of order in the chaos that was 40k.
There is no doubt that the ITC missions were a good addition and a positive force in the game when 8th edition dropped.

This is no longer the case, I'm afraid to say. Frankly I am surprised that huge parts of the community are woefully ignorant of the fact that the Chapter Approved Eternal War missions in the 2018 and now 2019 books are not only well balanced and designed to reward list variety, but are also far more varied and fun than what the ITC mission pack offers.

Let's not beat about the bush. The ITC mission pack is effectively one single missions with tiny variations - there are utterly minimal changes. In addition to this, it promotes spam lists and static gun-lines. When you have a system of play where players can CHOSE what to score, it creates an environment where you spam units that make it easy to achieve the objectives you want. In ITC you can literally win most of your games without moving. Kill More, Hold More - a classic staple of gun line lists. Or how about you spam flyers and chose to focus on table quarters and behind enemy lines?
No matter how you swing it, it does create a negative play experience and it's a reason why so many abusive lists exist. Things will die in games of 40k anyway, don't make it a focus of mission objectives in every mission on top of that.

Look at the recent tournament at GW. The lists and faction variety was far greater, and looking at the top 30 the meta looks far, far healthier than what ITC events create the impression of. To put it bluntly, if you have a list that doesn't move you will typically lose 5/6 Chapter Approved missions.
They reward variety of lists - you need to bring a healthy amount of troops, fast moving units, objective scorers, characters, etc, etc in order to score the varied mission objectives.

Lack of data means we cannot categorically prove that the CA mission pack is strictly more balanced. It certainly does not promote spam/gunlines as much as the ITC missions do, that is a fact. It's also far more fun and varied than the single ITC mission with minor variations from game to game that has become the staple of so many people's gaming experience.
My eyes were opened after getting involved in some ETC style events a while back, and following on from them it was a case of experimentation and experience at smaller events that used the CA mission pack. As I have played more and more using the CA format, by comparison the ITC missions have looked more and more dull.

Let's no understate how much good work the ITC guys have done. Things like leader-boards, hobby track, promoting the game, etc. The mission pack has now become restrictive and is no longer the most positive way to play the game.

I also expect many competitive ITC players to refute what I say. They'll have limited experience with CA missions, they might refuse to believe that GW has done a good job with the pack, and they might simply be too set in they ways.
There is no question, no disputation, that the ITC mission pack is less varied. There is no question that it promotes spam lists and gun-lines due to players choosing what to score. There is no need to use it any more.

We've accepted the rules that GW put out without having to modify them. Let's accept their mission packs too.


I despise ITC rules and avoid them at all costs. Using CA18-19 is my preferred way of playing along with Open War which I personally think is best for events. It's quick and fun!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 01:31:41


Post by: Crimson


 alextroy wrote:

I have to assume people making these accusations don't actually do any research into that FLG is thinking. They have literally said on many occasions that the run their tournaments the way people want to play them. From 2K point, developing and updating the ITC Missions, and everything else it is all about getting the players in the door with their dollar. They must be doing something right since over 1000 people decided to buy tickets to the LVO Championship Tournament.

As for giving up the ITC Missions, they have actually said they will be discussing with the community for the next ITC Season (aka after LVO) about changing the missions for future tournaments. If you are one of the people that playing their events, they will want to hear your opinion.

Well, that is new, as last time they definitely didn't want to hear anyone's opinion if it differed from their preconceived notions. Their previous* questionnaire literally didn't even list using CA missions as an option, they merely asked about various ways to improve their own missions. When I pointed this out, they seemed perplexed, and were just "oh, no one wants to use CA missions, so we didn't put the option there."

(* I think it was the previous one, but I'm not absolutely sure.)



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 02:07:37


Post by: Daedalus81


 Crimson wrote:
 alextroy wrote:

I have to assume people making these accusations don't actually do any research into that FLG is thinking. They have literally said on many occasions that the run their tournaments the way people want to play them. From 2K point, developing and updating the ITC Missions, and everything else it is all about getting the players in the door with their dollar. They must be doing something right since over 1000 people decided to buy tickets to the LVO Championship Tournament.

As for giving up the ITC Missions, they have actually said they will be discussing with the community for the next ITC Season (aka after LVO) about changing the missions for future tournaments. If you are one of the people that playing their events, they will want to hear your opinion.

Well, that is new, as last time they definitely didn't want to hear anyone's opinion if it differed from their preconceived notions. Their previous* questionnaire literally didn't even list using CA missions as an option, they merely asked about various ways to improve their own missions. When I pointed this out, they seemed perplexed, and were just "oh, no one wants to use CA missions, so we didn't put the option there."

(* I think it was the previous one, but I'm not absolutely sure.)



Well, the previous CA missions also were not as refined as the current ones.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 02:56:23


Post by: Martel732


"Refined". This is Geedubs.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 03:51:23


Post by: Daedalus81


Martel732 wrote:
"Refined". This is Geedubs.


And we're capable of judging them on their actual merits are we not?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 06:31:38


Post by: AnomanderRake


 alextroy wrote:
Why has this thread about ITC Missions versus Chapter Approved 2019 Missions transformed into a discussion about two new players playing highly specialized list against each other? It's not really on topic.

On topic is why does every discussion of ITC vs CA2019 descend into someone saying FLG are evil overlords attempting to form WH40K into their own image?

I have to assume people making these accusations don't actually do any research into that FLG is thinking. They have literally said on many occasions that the run their tournaments the way people want to play them. From 2K point, developing and updating the ITC Missions, and everything else it is all about getting the players in the door with their dollar. They must be doing something right since over 1000 people decided to buy tickets to the LVO Championship Tournament.

As for giving up the ITC Missions, they have actually said they will be discussing with the community for the next ITC Season (aka after LVO) about changing the missions for future tournaments. If you are one of the people that playing their events, they will want to hear your opinion.


Because a few pages back someone said that maybe GW really does know what they're doing and the ITC folks are pushing their flawed and static format out of inertia, and then some other folks said "GW knows what they're doing? Are you mad?", and the rest of the argument was an attempt to establish that GW doesn't know what they're doing in general.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 07:03:33


Post by: Dudeface


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 alextroy wrote:

I have to assume people making these accusations don't actually do any research into that FLG is thinking. They have literally said on many occasions that the run their tournaments the way people want to play them. From 2K point, developing and updating the ITC Missions, and everything else it is all about getting the players in the door with their dollar. They must be doing something right since over 1000 people decided to buy tickets to the LVO Championship Tournament.

As for giving up the ITC Missions, they have actually said they will be discussing with the community for the next ITC Season (aka after LVO) about changing the missions for future tournaments. If you are one of the people that playing their events, they will want to hear your opinion.

Well, that is new, as last time they definitely didn't want to hear anyone's opinion if it differed from their preconceived notions. Their previous* questionnaire literally didn't even list using CA missions as an option, they merely asked about various ways to improve their own missions. When I pointed this out, they seemed perplexed, and were just "oh, no one wants to use CA missions, so we didn't put the option there."

(* I think it was the previous one, but I'm not absolutely sure.)



Well, the previous CA missions also were not as refined as the current ones.


Refined or otherwise is irrelevant, if you're only presented with multiple types of chocolate ice cream to choose from, you're only ever going to end up with chocolate ice cream.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 07:35:01


Post by: Yoyoyo


the_scotsman wrote:
I'm currently playtesting for a campaign I'm setting up that will involve a bunch of different warzones - basically themed terrain sets at each table that have photographs of suggested terrain densities and 1-2 unique rules per table.

This is pretty interesting, I like the idea of different biomes and different terrain.

I think competitive players sometimes value repetition over diversity, hence the ITC. But obviously units have different strengths. A lot of people are talking about "balance" but they really only mean within a single mission, terain setup, and points level.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 08:35:02


Post by: tneva82


 solkan wrote:
Odd that this is posted in "40k General Discussion" and not "Tournament Discussion".



Maybe because ITC missions are used outside tournaments as well?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
I think ITC is pretty good for beginner players and the younger and/or more casual crowd.

The whole “choose-your-own-Adventure-secondaries” and similarity of missions reduces complexity a lot and demands far less on-the-spot decision-making between sub-optimal choices and adaptation between rounds to very different win conditions.

I think the simplification of the game through ITC is one of the reasons the 40K became a lot more popular in the US in particular, opening the Hobby to people who might’ve been put off by the challenge of older book/etc-style missions.


ITC meanwhile adds set of secondaries you need to build with in mind in advance AND then think based on opponents army. So not sure how that makes it more easier for new players who needs to learn to minimize secondaries opponent can score during list building and what secondaries to take vs each opponent.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 08:41:37


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Octopoid wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.

Bingo.

If people are engaging with each other in good faith, you will laugh about imbalance and adjust the lists/mission as needed to have fun.

If people aren't engaging in good faith... well, who cares about their opinion anyway?


I lament that I can give you but one Exalt, good sir.


will do my humble duty.

and go one further, if the balance issues get too deep, you might aswell adjust locally and implement handicapp systems for certain factions, handicapp systems for certain players, etc.
Maybee you switch it up and do some outlandish narrative style campaign that doesn't allow for certain unit types, etc.


That doesn't however excuse GW from responsibility.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 10:01:39


Post by: Gir Spirit Bane


This thread quickly devolved into gakking all over GW and certain forum members...

OT though, I think ITC missions are becoming a relic of the past with the newer CA missions just being overall more fun and adding some flair whilst the ITC are just several bowls of absolutely serviceable porridge. It's filling, it gets the job done, and there are some grumpy bears defending it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 10:12:09


Post by: tneva82


Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
This thread quickly devolved into gakking all over GW and certain forum members...

OT though, I think ITC missions are becoming a relic of the past with the newer CA missions just being overall more fun and adding some flair whilst the ITC are just several bowls of absolutely serviceable porridge. It's filling, it gets the job done, and there are some grumpy bears defending it.


The ITC do have one redeeming factor for tournament use though. Consistent points. Unless you go for simplistic "win=x pts, draw=y pts, loss=z pts" then it matters quite a lot if some scenarios have 18 pts max and others have 12 pts max. Or you need to create tournament point convertor for each scenario...Basically if you rate grade of victory consistent point scale for each scenario is essential.

That's something for CA20 to work for!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 10:12:32


Post by: Nazrak


Martel732 wrote:
Trying to parse their gak ass rules even with friends is not my definition of a good time.

I mean, literally nobody is making you play it, so why don't you just find something you *do* enjoy to do instead? Cos as far as I can tell you just sit on this forum, year after year, pissing and moaning about something you hate. Get a better hobby, pal.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 10:30:52


Post by: AngryAngel80


I feel like I'm taking crazy pills as each talk of playing warhammer falls into the same issues.

" This would be better. "

" No it's not, GW is awful with rules "

" The rules aren't supposed to be good, they're supposed to be fun if you're wasted "

" Well they aren't even fun then "

On and on it goes. You know, as has been said now a million times at least. The whole they are making a game to be fun is great, but the tighter rules are the easier it is to have balanced fun. The easier it is to imbalance it if that is what players want as you know you're starting from a inherently balanced system.

GW talks out both sides of its mouth. They say they don't make the game to be balanced, then sell balance patches and crow about how good they balance things, until they fail then it was never their intention.

If GW missions are that cool, then they should get used at the higher levels as stagnation is bad. However the people who run the scenes have vested interest in keeping the status quo and are hardly impartial to their system.

The only way it would change is if GW too a hard line stance on it to force their missions being used. However for that to happen they'd need to tighten up their rules. Which while it is difficult to imagine, depends on how much they want to push their missions. They'd also need to front and organize large tournaments and denounce the others. I don't see GW doing that unless it goes to their bottom line in a big way in the positive.

I'd say people should try the missions out though, all you have to waste is a few games worth of time and it could be much fun. I mean, GW has to do something right sometime. It's inevitable.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 11:14:33


Post by: Sim-Life


I wish this thread had a poll. I'd be curious to see how many ITC die-hards have actually played the CA2019 mission as it seems many of them haven't even looked at them.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 11:17:27


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"Refined". This is Geedubs.


And we're capable of judging them on their actual merits are we not?

HOWEVER, do you blame people not bothering to look at something new they did due to past efforts? It took me about a whole month to even bother to look at the new missions before saying "oh I guess these aren't that terrible".


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 16:16:09


Post by: bananathug


tneva82 wrote:

The ITC do have one redeeming factor for tournament use though. Consistent points. Unless you go for simplistic "win=x pts, draw=y pts, loss=z pts" then it matters quite a lot if some scenarios have 18 pts max and others have 12 pts max. Or you need to create tournament point convertor for each scenario...Basically if you rate grade of victory consistent point scale for each scenario is essential.

That's something for CA20 to work for!


Can you explain this to me because I feel like there is something I'm missing?

If everyone uses the 14 point max scenario for round one and the 18 point max for round 2 how does this lead to any imbalance? If I get a blow out in the 14 point round and a close game in the 18 point? I feel that encourages true TAC lists not just builds that squeak by in some scenarios and ROFL PWN in others. If we are talking about season long ITC rankings, I'm not sure how ITC does the tie-breaker stuff and could present a problem but I'm ignorant about how much your margin of victory or total VPs impact your ITC rankings.

Edit:
I didn't look at the CA 2019 missions until I stopped playing competitively and was shocked. The book missions CA 2017 and CA 2018 were really bad, unbalanced RNG nightmares and I was shocked at how well CA 2019 worked (with a couple of small changes).


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 18:50:47


Post by: LunarSol


I agree with the OP but its not something that's going to happen overnight. What needs to happen is a major event or 2 needs to use CA19 to generate feedback and build community trust.

At the core of the matter though, we WANT GW to control the mission pack for the same reasons we want them providing regular errata. When the community is playing the game the designers are designing, the feedback is a lot better and as long as you're working with a receptive design team it will lead to overall better missions.

CA19 may not be better than ITC, but if we invest and play it, it will improve. The best games are the ones where the developers and community are working together to make the best game possible, and using CA19 is part the other side of the trust coin. It's a way to encourage the generally good behavior GW has shown in 8th and not something we want them to give up on.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 19:50:25


Post by: Martel732


The new marine codex and supplements is NOT good behavior


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 19:56:14


Post by: Sim-Life


 LunarSol wrote:
I agree with the OP but its not something that's going to happen overnight. What needs to happen is a major event or 2 needs to use CA19 to generate feedback and build community trust.


Honestly I don't see that happening. Look at how the tournament community react in threads like this, then imagine if at the end of this years LVO (just an example cause its happening now) they said "Next year we'll be using CA2020. No, you don't have a choice and no there will be no houserules." As much as I would love to mine the salt of that particular announcement I don't see it happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
The new marine codex and supplements is NOT good behavior


What the hell does that have to do with anything?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 20:02:54


Post by: Blood Hawk


Martel732 wrote:
The new marine codex and supplements is NOT good behavior

The core concept behind supplements is great Are there balance issues? Sure. Marine codex 2.0 is a big improvement over the first one IMO.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 20:05:46


Post by: Martel732


Too much of an improvement one might say.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 20:13:26


Post by: Blood Hawk


Martel732 wrote:
Too much of an improvement one might say.

I wasn't referring to balance. The supplements give players more options. The successor system is also great. I have a strong dislike of soup lists so I like the super doctrines conceptually. Etc.

Edit I played Marines a lot in 8th, with the old codex Marines felt very bland as an army. They reminded me a lot of Skorne from M2 Warmahordes and not in a good way.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 20:18:45


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Blood Hawk wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Too much of an improvement one might say.

I wasn't referring to balance. The supplements give players more options. The successor system is also great. I have a strong dislike of soup lists so I like the super doctrines conceptually. Etc.

Edit I played Marines a lot in 8th, with the old codex Marines felt very bland as an army. They reminded a lot of Skorne from M2 Warmahordes and not in a good way.


Yes and no. Yes the supplements add more stuff, but 8e reminds me a lot of D&D 3e in that the core system ("I move 30ft and roll an attack!") is pretty dull and the scramble to extend it with more and more and more WTs/Relics/Stratagems feels like 3e's push to hundreds and hundreds of pages of spells and feats and prestige classes. Bloat piled on top of a shaky foundation because without the bloat it isn't a very interesting game.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 20:24:04


Post by: Martel732


More options is the last thing gw needs to make available.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 20:32:31


Post by: Blood Hawk


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Blood Hawk wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Too much of an improvement one might say.

I wasn't referring to balance. The supplements give players more options. The successor system is also great. I have a strong dislike of soup lists so I like the super doctrines conceptually. Etc.

Edit I played Marines a lot in 8th, with the old codex Marines felt very bland as an army. They reminded a lot of Skorne from M2 Warmahordes and not in a good way.


Yes and no. Yes the supplements add more stuff, but 8e reminds me a lot of D&D 3e in that the core system ("I move 30ft and roll an attack!") is pretty dull and the scramble to extend it with more and more and more WTs/Relics/Stratagems feels like 3e's push to hundreds and hundreds of pages of spells and feats and prestige classes. Bloat piled on top of a shaky foundation because without the bloat it isn't a very interesting game.

And? You can't fix that with a codex. You would have make a new edition to change that.

That said it has been clear to me for awhile that GW is copying the old rpg rules model. One that I am very familiar with.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 23:16:49


Post by: alextroy


bananathug wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

The ITC do have one redeeming factor for tournament use though. Consistent points. Unless you go for simplistic "win=x pts, draw=y pts, loss=z pts" then it matters quite a lot if some scenarios have 18 pts max and others have 12 pts max. Or you need to create tournament point convertor for each scenario...Basically if you rate grade of victory consistent point scale for each scenario is essential.

That's something for CA20 to work for!


Can you explain this to me because I feel like there is something I'm missing?

If everyone uses the 14 point max scenario for round one and the 18 point max for round 2 how does this lead to any imbalance? If I get a blow out in the 14 point round and a close game in the 18 point? I feel that encourages true TAC lists not just builds that squeak by in some scenarios and ROFL PWN in others. If we are talking about season long ITC rankings, I'm not sure how ITC does the tie-breaker stuff and could present a problem but I'm ignorant about how much your margin of victory or total VPs impact your ITC rankings.
Many tournaments use Victory Points gained to determine the winner, either as the score or the tie breaker. So let's take a 5 round Tournament in which the top two players go 4-1. The maximum VP per round are 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 due to the different scenario rules. Each player gets maximum points in 4 of the scenarios and 0 in the fifth.

Player A got 10 - 12 - 14 -16 - 0 VP, total of 52
Player B got 0 -12 - 14 - 16 - 18 VP, total of 60

Should the winner of the Tournament really be decided by which player lost their game in the round that had a higher VP total available? If the VP per round was equal, they would have identical scores.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/24 23:31:20


Post by: necrontyrOG


 alextroy wrote:
bananathug wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

The ITC do have one redeeming factor for tournament use though. Consistent points. Unless you go for simplistic "win=x pts, draw=y pts, loss=z pts" then it matters quite a lot if some scenarios have 18 pts max and others have 12 pts max. Or you need to create tournament point convertor for each scenario...Basically if you rate grade of victory consistent point scale for each scenario is essential.

That's something for CA20 to work for!


Can you explain this to me because I feel like there is something I'm missing?

If everyone uses the 14 point max scenario for round one and the 18 point max for round 2 how does this lead to any imbalance? If I get a blow out in the 14 point round and a close game in the 18 point? I feel that encourages true TAC lists not just builds that squeak by in some scenarios and ROFL PWN in others. If we are talking about season long ITC rankings, I'm not sure how ITC does the tie-breaker stuff and could present a problem but I'm ignorant about how much your margin of victory or total VPs impact your ITC rankings.
Many tournaments use Victory Points gained to determine the winner, either as the score or the tie breaker. So let's take a 5 round Tournament in which the top two players go 4-1. The maximum VP per round are 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 due to the different scenario rules. Each player gets maximum points in 4 of the scenarios and 0 in the fifth.

Player A got 10 - 12 - 14 -16 - 0 VP, total of 52
Player B got 0 -12 - 14 - 16 - 18 VP, total of 60

Should the winner of the Tournament really be decided by which player lost their game in the round that had a higher VP total available? If the VP per round was equal, they would have identical scores.


I can see why. The last games should be harder fought since you've made your way up the field. Sure the 1st game might have been hard, but it's not as guaranteed as the last game being hardest.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 00:43:05


Post by: Spoletta


A lot of tournaments, even big ones, have always used the CA missions since 2017. It's just that they do not figure in bcp, so people don't know that they exist.

When doing those kind of tournaments, you play using the following tiebreakers:

1) Wins are wins. If you win by 10 point or by zero points, no one cares.

2) Total score on secondaries is the first tiebreaker. So first strike, slay the warlord and linebreaker.

3) The second tiebreaker is the difference in destruction points suffered and inflicted.

As you see, there are no problems in that area, we have been doing that for years.

I would like to point out that the rule 1, is one of the biggest differences in the CA meta. In ITC to compete you don't only need a list that wins, but you need one which wins big or you will not make it to the top. In CA a list which wins barely but consistently is an excellent list.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 00:58:05


Post by: arhurt


Having played both formats, but neither to extremes.

I've never won nor placed well in any ITC tournaments. I have had a few good placements in local, small scale tournaments using custom packets (from 1 detachment, mono-codex, no-FW, ITC style missions to narrative events with very customized mission packs and scoring systems). I'd like to give my perspective. I also play kitchen-hammer a lot, both against begginers/curious people but also against veteral kitchen-hammers and smaller player groups.

For the TL;DR crowd: CA2019 eternal war missions are the most fun, most balanced and most varied missions I have ever played in 8th edition. I like some of the strengths of ITC format but ultimately, IMHO, for a semi-casual semi-competitive player base I could see more overall enjoyment, in-game and meta-game agency and more leveled playing field in the CA2019 mission packs.

Now let me define that I understand that ITC format brings in very positive aspects: the standardized scoring system allows for easier meta and tournament pairing analysis and discussion. The standardized table and terrain makes it easy to run large events and have terrain for all tables.

However, IMHO as a not so successful competitive player who also enjoys the more narrative moments of a game, I have to say I have found my ITC matches to be too restrictive. I dislike not encountering situations I have to severely change my game plan to adapt to, the decisions around what secondaries to pick and how to ruin my army become flattened if compared to the wild nature of CA2019 missions. Granted, it's great for people who crave that predictability of "I built my army so tight I can deal with it all" but it does result in flatter decision-making. It ultimately mostly boils down to realizing what unit combinations pay the best for your buck and keep you still tactically-flexible to deal with the current top-meta and gatekeeper builds. However, generally, upon hitting the table there is one predictable method to play against each type of opponent deployment/style and that's it, irregardless of what table, mission or secondaries you are taking. The game is set and it has been pre-set even before when you are building your list.

What I have enjoyed on the events and home games I played with using 2019CA is that some of the missions really throw a wrench in the plans. Now this can result in what people would identify as imbalance: running into the quintessential knight list with a deathwatch army in a mission that favors killing. now that is not an inherent flaw of the missions themselves, but rather the tournament structure. Players could have the ability to bid for deployment/missions, or have some control over what mission gets played in this specific round, and that should be part of solving for these so called "imbalanced missions".

So onto the topic of 2019CA missions themselves, I've played them all in different points-values, sometimes aiming for the WAAC and sometimes just for narrative's sake. What I have found is that they usually put both players in interesting scenarios that can really change their gameplan. The trifecta of Warlord kill, first strike and line breaker are always there to add some ways to have assured scoring, but they mostly pose interesting challenges that are not easily solved by the same tools:
1 - Crusade is pretty much standard 40k with fixed objectives.
2 - Scorched Earth is cool because you can deny your opponents objectives by destroying them, usually using throwaway units that can infiltrate or something that can get in and out fast. It creates interesting trade-off scenarios and can be extremely rewarding to play when both players are circling about trying to deny each other and end up swapping deployment zones =P
3 - Ascension is the kind of "broken" mission I can see lots of players complaining about, but it's interesting how it can lock your characters in place and how that can change the game so much.
4 - Front-Line Warfare is like Crusade on steroids as there are less objectives, but the aggression level can be much higher and a last-minute grab on your opponent's side of the table can flip over the game to your side.
5 - The Four Pillars is very interesting in the fact that scoring tends to be very balanced despite opponents sometimes being extremely lopsided on board control. Even if you control 1 and the enemy controls 3, he only gets 1 point. That is sometimes enough for a specialist force to be able to kill more consistently and eventually flip the score over on a horde.
6 - Finally Lockdown is the most fun I have ever had. It's very tactically challenging as the board basically narrows down to a few locations as the game progresses.

At the end of the day, I like the volatile nature of CA2019 missions more when also coupled with more varied terrain placement. Now granted, I understand the frustration of building an army and then finding out the mission+terrain greatly favors your opponent. That's why I also believe that players should set the terrain beforehand for each mission (then it's on their hands to make sure they have the proper conditions) as well as having some control over their mission-selection (bidding for mission-selection with command-points as an example).

However I also entertain why for a large event those can pose issues: having pre-set terrain/missions speeds up games, especially when you have to play 3-4 games a day across dozens of tables.

But for me, I'll keep playing my CA2019 and organizing small-scale events around those. I'll play major GTs and etc with ITC rules and just accept it as that's whats available, but if it was up to me I'd chase that higher variance, flatter playing field instead of the flattened variance, steeper challenge that ITC provides.

Couple other unrelated notes:
- Setting up terrain before the match is an art in itself and increases the skill ceiling, but I think arguably most players (both casual and competitive) would enjoy that.
- ITC missions flattening would do a good job of making it easier for a beginner in theory, but in practice, the extremely unique meta fallout of the preplaced terrain/objectives makes it a steeper learning curve that alienates some players (myself included) from ever truly having any chance.
- GW terrain rules are mucky but I also believe that a flat 1st floor blocks LoS is too simplistic and steers from the nature of the game. There should be more wiggle room. This is entirely GW's fault with having terrain kits that mismatch their rulesets.

Thanks for reading and I hope I have provided some insight into CA2019 missions if you are interested in them.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 07:42:37


Post by: Ishagu


That's a great write up.

I've just been watching the LVO live and I tuned it out after a while. The ITC missions are just a poor, homebrew game at this point.

The game is very offensive, and the ITC missions reward killing units even more in every single mission you play. The moment I heard "ooh he got kill and kill more" I simply started to tune it out. The way they play out is so dull, and the games are definitely more static.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 13:24:13


Post by: Wayniac


The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 13:49:20


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 14:05:38


Post by: Blood Hawk


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.

Not in my experience. What is OP in CA is still OP in ITC and vice versa. ITC doesn't really fix the balance at all. It just gives you a different way to play the game. Whether or not it is a better way to play is very subjective IMO.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 16:21:01


Post by: Ishagu


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


Not true at all. ITC clearly does not create a more balanced meta. It's home brew rules that don't provide a better experience than the official rules, which are ironically in turn being ignored by large portions of the community.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 16:58:59


Post by: Sim-Life


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 17:18:47


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ishagu wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


Not true at all. ITC clearly does not create a more balanced meta. It's home brew rules that don't provide a better experience than the official rules, which are ironically in turn being ignored by large portions of the community.

They're ignored because everyone doesn't expect GW to do even a mediocre job with the core rules and missions!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 17:28:15


Post by: Dudeface


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ishagu wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


Not true at all. ITC clearly does not create a more balanced meta. It's home brew rules that don't provide a better experience than the official rules, which are ironically in turn being ignored by large portions of the community.

They're ignored because everyone doesn't expect GW to do even a mediocre job with the core rules and missions!


People expect GW to do a poor job but not bad enough they don't want to play it. The minute you fully balance and iron out everything, the second you add an additional variable in, you have to start the whole lot again. So yes using ITC as a controlled environment would allow for increased balance on the grounds you never played any other mission, any other way and retested the whole shebang every release.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 17:28:22


Post by: Wayniac


I actually don't disagree with Slayer, just feel that isn't such a huge concern. ITC missions DO help isolate what might be a balance issue because it removes so many unknowns. But for me those unknowns are intended balance, whether right or wrong. The imbalanced missions are, IMHO, intended to encourage more rounded armies. So removing that may help show X is too good (and remove cases where X was nullified by a mission condition) but also removes part of the game specifically intended to help lessen the effectiveness of X. So it sort of causes its own problems. The unknown/randomness so loathed by the ITC is the very thing which is intended to keep things in check. So of course removing that means something else needs to fill the void left. IMHO of course.

I have warmed up to ITC missions, but I still feel they deviate too far from "normal" 40k and that by itself is bad. I think the biggest problem I have is the sort of lists they encourage building. We can wax philosophical all day about the missions and how those affect the game, and that's mostly perception (as illustrated in the other thread talking about statistics or whatever). But IMHO it's objective fact that you see different list builds in ITC events than you do in non-ITC events, and not often for the better (again IMHO). You are more likely to see variety in non-ITC events than in ITC ones, and I feel variety is great for 40k.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 17:32:29


Post by: Sim-Life


But Eternal War missions aren't random. They have static objectives and point scoring.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 17:41:58


Post by: Dudeface


 Sim-Life wrote:
But Eternal War missions aren't random. They have static objectives and point scoring.


To know that, people would need to actually read & use chapter approved rather than ITC. There is a blind assumption maelstrom is the GW way to play for some reason.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 17:51:05


Post by: Blood Hawk


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?

Not really. You don't need to play ITC to see the Castellan was a problem prenerf for instance. There is too many variables that aren't controlled to make ITC missions somehow much better for testing than CA 2019 missions for tournaments or pickup games. Things like luck with dice rolls, player skill, terrain, etc. are arguably more important than the mission really. Also 2019 CA has maelstrom and eternal war. Maelstrom missions are more random sure, but eternal war only randomizes deployment zone, who gets first turn, and game length. ITC randomizes first turn as well and deployment with the championship missions. Which leaves game length, which is by far the least important of those three. So no they aren't "super" random.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 17:56:53


Post by: vict0988


Just play ITC and add 2d6 to your score at the end of the game if you want more randomness and excitement, its not competitive. My mission format even makes it so you have to finish the game to know who wins omg guys I am a genius stop playing the game how you like. I hereby also introduce a new tiebreaker rule (because ties are omg not lol), whoever does the most jumping jacks wins, no time limit, tournaments will have to wait until a contestant gives up.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 18:02:35


Post by: Martel732


Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.


I think these variables you describe just randomize the outcome, just the way GW likes it. In most tournament formats of most games I'm aware of, the unknowns are minimized on purpose to filter that out of the results. Also, "well-rounded" is ill-defined and seems far from guaranteed by adding in more randomness.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 18:10:46


Post by: Blood Hawk


Martel732 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.


I think these variables you describe just randomize the outcome, just the way GW likes it. In most tournament formats of most games I'm aware of, the unknowns are minimized on purpose to filter that out of the results. Also, "well-rounded" is ill-defined and seems far from guaranteed by adding in more randomness.

The only thing more random about the CA 2019 eternal war missions is the game length. Most 40k games are decided by the end of turn 5 anyway so...


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 18:16:34


Post by: Gadzilla666


Martel732 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.


I think these variables you describe just randomize the outcome, just the way GW likes it. In most tournament formats of most games I'm aware of, the unknowns are minimized on purpose to filter that out of the results. Also, "well-rounded" is ill-defined and seems far from guaranteed by adding in more randomness.

"Randomness " makes competitive games more interesting. It's why we don't call off football games just because it fething snows. This is a war game after all and wars aren't fought in ideal conditions. A good tactician brings a force that can adapt to changing conditions and adjusts his tactics to those conditions.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 18:17:30


Post by: Insectum7


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?


No, because the data set may be skewed towards scenarios that diverge too far from the design space of the product-as-intended. It only really provides "balancing data" for ITC.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 18:42:32


Post by: Slipspace


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?


Since nobody suggested making things super randomised, who cares? You need randomness to force players to adapt in-game. ITC at the moment is far too prescriptive, to the point of even being able to decide secondaries pre-tournament in many cases because secondaries are fundamentally independent of terrain, and often independent of your opponent's army. There's a level of randomness that is good. Original Maelstrom rules were too random but ITC swings far too far the other way.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 18:44:55


Post by: Daedalus81


Nevermind - misread maybe


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 18:45:40


Post by: Martel732


I guess we're looking for different things, then. That's fine. I understand the idea that ca 2019 missions are more fun or varied, but ultimately i think they are less probative.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 18:49:06


Post by: Wayniac


Slipspace wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?


Since nobody suggested making things super randomised, who cares? You need randomness to force players to adapt in-game. ITC at the moment is far too prescriptive, to the point of even being able to decide secondaries pre-tournament in many cases because secondaries are fundamentally independent of terrain, and often independent of your opponent's army. There's a level of randomness that is good. Original Maelstrom rules were too random but ITC swings far too far the other way.
Which I think goes back to the idea that tournament players WANT that. They seem to want everything to be predictable and prescriptive, for some unknown reason. I bet if someone found a way to remove dice, the tournament players would be all over that to "balance" things.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 18:53:28


Post by: alextroy


Which is why tournament players love re-rolls. The more re-rolls you have, the less random your results.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 18:56:22


Post by: Sim-Life


Wayniac wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?


Since nobody suggested making things super randomised, who cares? You need randomness to force players to adapt in-game. ITC at the moment is far too prescriptive, to the point of even being able to decide secondaries pre-tournament in many cases because secondaries are fundamentally independent of terrain, and often independent of your opponent's army. There's a level of randomness that is good. Original Maelstrom rules were too random but ITC swings far too far the other way.
Which I think goes back to the idea that tournament players WANT that. They seem to want everything to be predictable and prescriptive, for some unknown reason. I bet if someone found a way to remove dice, the tournament players would be all over that to "balance" things.


What I don't understand is why the ITC uses the same terrain set up on every board. Even Warmahordes uses different terrain on every table. Just seems weird to me.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 19:08:33


Post by: Martel732


Wayniac wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?


Since nobody suggested making things super randomised, who cares? You need randomness to force players to adapt in-game. ITC at the moment is far too prescriptive, to the point of even being able to decide secondaries pre-tournament in many cases because secondaries are fundamentally independent of terrain, and often independent of your opponent's army. There's a level of randomness that is good. Original Maelstrom rules were too random but ITC swings far too far the other way.
Which I think goes back to the idea that tournament players WANT that. They seem to want everything to be predictable and prescriptive, for some unknown reason. I bet if someone found a way to remove dice, the tournament players would be all over that to "balance" things.


I'd like dice to be gone.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 19:11:47


Post by: Crimson


Martel732 wrote:

I'd like dice to be gone.

Seriously, stop playing 40K. Just stop. You don't like the basic fething premise of the game, it is not for you.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 19:14:28


Post by: Sim-Life


Martel732 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?


Since nobody suggested making things super randomised, who cares? You need randomness to force players to adapt in-game. ITC at the moment is far too prescriptive, to the point of even being able to decide secondaries pre-tournament in many cases because secondaries are fundamentally independent of terrain, and often independent of your opponent's army. There's a level of randomness that is good. Original Maelstrom rules were too random but ITC swings far too far the other way.
Which I think goes back to the idea that tournament players WANT that. They seem to want everything to be predictable and prescriptive, for some unknown reason. I bet if someone found a way to remove dice, the tournament players would be all over that to "balance" things.


I'd like dice to be gone.


Try Malifaux. It uses a deck of cards, so you know exactly how many of each result you have in your deck. If you get a run of low cards you know you have a bunch of high ones left, you also have a hand of cards that act like miracle dice. Except they're cards. Seems like your thing.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 20:09:00


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Blood Hawk wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?

Not really. You don't need to play ITC to see the Castellan was a problem prenerf for instance. There is too many variables that aren't controlled to make ITC missions somehow much better for testing than CA 2019 missions for tournaments or pickup games. Things like luck with dice rolls, player skill, terrain, etc. are arguably more important than the mission really. Also 2019 CA has maelstrom and eternal war. Maelstrom missions are more random sure, but eternal war only randomizes deployment zone, who gets first turn, and game length. ITC randomizes first turn as well and deployment with the championship missions. Which leaves game length, which is by far the least important of those three. So no they aren't "super" random.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ishagu wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


Not true at all. ITC clearly does not create a more balanced meta. It's home brew rules that don't provide a better experience than the official rules, which are ironically in turn being ignored by large portions of the community.

They're ignored because everyone doesn't expect GW to do even a mediocre job with the core rules and missions!

They are ignored by most people because they are house rules. That is it really.

If that were really the case, it wouldn't have taken GW as long as they did to actually nerf said Castellan.
Also since when is CA considered house rules?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 20:36:52


Post by: Blood Hawk


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If that were really the case, it wouldn't have taken GW as long as they did to actually nerf said Castellan.
Also since when is CA considered house rules?

I was referring to ITC not CA.

Edit: Rereading the posts again I think I misread them, ignore that last part.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 21:13:25


Post by: Martel732


 Crimson wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

I'd like dice to be gone.

Seriously, stop playing 40K. Just stop. You don't like the basic fething premise of the game, it is not for you.


What do you consider the premise?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 21:22:33


Post by: Yoyoyo


Martel732 wrote:
I'd like dice to be gone.

All talk of 40k aside, I enjoy the vibe you bring to the forum


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 21:42:19


Post by: Crimson


Martel732 wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

I'd like dice to be gone.

Seriously, stop playing 40K. Just stop. You don't like the basic fething premise of the game, it is not for you.

What do you consider the premise?

It is a miniature wargame that uses dice. Wanting to get rid of dice makes about as much sense than wanting Star Trek to stop being set in space.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 22:02:03


Post by: Martel732


Theres no reason 40k has to use dice. You like dice. I dont
Simple.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 22:02:59


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Martel732 wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

I'd like dice to be gone.

Seriously, stop playing 40K. Just stop. You don't like the basic premise of the game, it is not for you.


What do you consider the premise?
Nah, this is about you here - what do you consider the premise of a dice-based tabletop game? It's not like dice are a new thing. Why did you get involved in 40k, a dice based game, and continue to frequent 40k gaming boards (not lore or background or modelling), for a dice based game, when you dislike the fact that they use dice?

Actually, just so I get an idea if you're being consistent with your logic here, would you take me seriously if I said I play Chess but hate that both teams have the same pieces? What about any card based game, but I hate cards? How about any grid/tile-based game, but I dislike the limited movement? What if I was playing Bolt Action, but actually wanted to play as Iron Age Mesopotamians?

If I started playing MTG, and hated the fact they use cards, wouldn't you think that me playing MTG would be a terrible decision, and that my opinion isn't really contiguous to those of other players?

Just to get an idea if this is a general opinion of yours.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Theres no reason 40k has to use dice. You like dice. I dont
Simple.
So why do you play it? Or, if you don't, why are you on a 40k board?

If I didn't like the core system of how a game was played, the basic mechanic it's always been played with, why on earth would I interact with it in any way, shape, or form?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/25 23:58:49


Post by: Ishagu


What's the obsession with removing anything remotely random from the game?
Eternal War isn't random by the way, it's simply more varied and makes it hard for a list to perform well in every mission, thus actually pushing for more balanced and varied lists.

For those obsessed with having control over everything, have you guys ever heard of chess? Go try it out lol

@Martel
Sounds like you're playing the wrong game. I actually don't think you play 40k as a matter of fact - you don't seem to like anything about it. I certainly wouldn't spend hours of my free time doing something I dislike lol
Are you just a forum troll who likes to complain? Saying you hate dice games is a bit on the nose lol


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 00:02:24


Post by: Crimson


 Ishagu wrote:

For those obsessed with having control over everything, have you guys ever heard of chess? Go try it out lol

But then they couldn't blame bad luck or GW when they lose.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 00:40:24


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Crimson wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:

For those obsessed with having control over everything, have you guys ever heard of chess? Go try it out lol

But then they couldn't blame bad luck or GW when they lose.

Yeah, damn those Grey Knight and Ork and Dark Angels for not taking blame for their poorly written codices!

There is such a thing as randumb. Some randomness is okay. However, too much is uncalled for (especially with the number of DD3 or DD6 weapons going on). This is especially true with last edition, rolling for your powers and Warlord Traits and one army entirely at mercy to it (Daemons).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Theres no reason 40k has to use dice. You like dice. I dont
Simple.

This is a stupid post, but losing some of the randomness in weapons would be very much welcomed.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 00:49:16


Post by: ERJAK


 Ishagu wrote:
What's the obsession with removing anything remotely random from the game?
Eternal War isn't random by the way, it's simply more varied and makes it hard for a list to perform well in every mission, thus actually pushing for more balanced and varied lists.

For those obsessed with having control over everything, have you guys ever heard of chess? Go try it out lol

@Martel
Sounds like you're playing the wrong game. I actually don't think you play 40k as a matter of fact - you don't seem to like anything about it. I certainly wouldn't spend hours of my free time doing something I dislike lol
Are you just a forum troll who likes to complain? Saying you hate dice games is a bit on the nose lol


Imma go the other way with it.

Eternal war is boring. They're 'kill your opponent' missions with some half assed 'turbo boost ftw' tacked on.

If you wanna ditch ITC, then fine. But ditch it for the new Maelstrom missions, not Eternal Snore.

That said, why ditch any of them? As much as I think Eternal Snore is a waste of a game, I wouldn't just reject all of them outright, I would add them to the mission pool.

Age of Sigmar has 18+ Matched play missions just from GW. Some are great and get played a lot, some are bad and get played very seldomly. Just carry that over to all available missions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Theres no reason 40k has to use dice. You like dice. I dont
Simple.


Stupid*


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 00:52:23


Post by: Wayniac


ERJAK wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
What's the obsession with removing anything remotely random from the game?
Eternal War isn't random by the way, it's simply more varied and makes it hard for a list to perform well in every mission, thus actually pushing for more balanced and varied lists.

For those obsessed with having control over everything, have you guys ever heard of chess? Go try it out lol

@Martel
Sounds like you're playing the wrong game. I actually don't think you play 40k as a matter of fact - you don't seem to like anything about it. I certainly wouldn't spend hours of my free time doing something I dislike lol
Are you just a forum troll who likes to complain? Saying you hate dice games is a bit on the nose lol


Imma go the other way with it.

Eternal war is boring. They're 'kill your opponent' missions with some half assed 'turbo boost ftw' tacked on.

If you wanna ditch ITC, then fine. But ditch it for the new Maelstrom missions, not Eternal Snore.

That said, why ditch any of them? As much as I think Eternal Snore is a waste of a game, I wouldn't just reject all of them outright, I would add them to the mission pool.

Age of Sigmar has 18+ Matched play missions just from GW. Some are great and get played a lot, some are bad and get played very seldomly. Just carry that over to all available missions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Theres no reason 40k has to use dice. You like dice. I dont
Simple.


Stupid*
Interesting to note for all the ITC has better comments, that for AOS ITC doesn't feth with the missions. They only handle scoring and seemingly think the AOS battleplans are suitable for competitive play without modification.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 00:56:54


Post by: ERJAK


Wayniac wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?


Since nobody suggested making things super randomised, who cares? You need randomness to force players to adapt in-game. ITC at the moment is far too prescriptive, to the point of even being able to decide secondaries pre-tournament in many cases because secondaries are fundamentally independent of terrain, and often independent of your opponent's army. There's a level of randomness that is good. Original Maelstrom rules were too random but ITC swings far too far the other way.
Which I think goes back to the idea that tournament players WANT that. They seem to want everything to be predictable and prescriptive, for some unknown reason. I bet if someone found a way to remove dice, the tournament players would be all over that to "balance" things.


Please don't act like the Tournament community is a monolithic entity that all want the same thing. It is not and even if it was, you've never had enough desire to understand(rather than judge) to get what they actually want.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
What's the obsession with removing anything remotely random from the game?
Eternal War isn't random by the way, it's simply more varied and makes it hard for a list to perform well in every mission, thus actually pushing for more balanced and varied lists.

For those obsessed with having control over everything, have you guys ever heard of chess? Go try it out lol

@Martel
Sounds like you're playing the wrong game. I actually don't think you play 40k as a matter of fact - you don't seem to like anything about it. I certainly wouldn't spend hours of my free time doing something I dislike lol
Are you just a forum troll who likes to complain? Saying you hate dice games is a bit on the nose lol


Imma go the other way with it.

Eternal war is boring. They're 'kill your opponent' missions with some half assed 'turbo boost ftw' tacked on.

If you wanna ditch ITC, then fine. But ditch it for the new Maelstrom missions, not Eternal Snore.

That said, why ditch any of them? As much as I think Eternal Snore is a waste of a game, I wouldn't just reject all of them outright, I would add them to the mission pool.

Age of Sigmar has 18+ Matched play missions just from GW. Some are great and get played a lot, some are bad and get played very seldomly. Just carry that over to all available missions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Theres no reason 40k has to use dice. You like dice. I dont
Simple.


Stupid*
Interesting to note for all the ITC has better comments, that for AOS ITC doesn't feth with the missions. They only handle scoring and seemingly think the AOS battleplans are suitable for competitive play without modification.


That's largely because the AoS battleplans are, and have always been, far superior for what AoS is than the 40k ones are. The book 40k missions were utter trash until literally THIS chapter approved. The AoS missions being good meant there was never a reason to design their own mission packets.

The problem that remains is that they're basically just copy pasting AoS missions into 40k with a twist or two, which means they have some significant issues that aren't present in the Sigmar version. 40k is a faster(in terms of area covered by models per turn on average) deadlier game and GW hasn't really adjusted their mission paradigm to deal with it.

The new missions are good, if boring in the case of Eternal War, but they're not AS good for 40k as the missions GW designed for AoS are for AoS.

And you know what, I'm going to take this a step further. AoS is a far superior tournament game to 40k as well and it is clear that either the teams are different and the AoS one is far more competent, or the teams are the same and they just understand AoS better. While Sigmar is by no means perfect, it doesn't have the constant weight around it's neck that 40k seems to when you try organized play.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 01:06:46


Post by: vict0988


 Ishagu wrote:
What's the obsession with removing anything remotely random from the game?
Eternal War isn't random by the way, it's simply more varied and makes it hard for a list to perform well in every mission, thus actually pushing for more balanced and varied lists.

For those obsessed with having control over everything, have you guys ever heard of chess? Go try it out lol

The question is why you are so obsessed with tournaments playing Champions missions?

"made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision." when do you choose which EW mission you play and against what faction? Variance decided by randomness.

Go back to your EW roulette game and let TOs use Champions missions if they want, you can host your own roulette tournaments, see what people prefer.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 01:18:31


Post by: Sim-Life


 vict0988 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
What's the obsession with removing anything remotely random from the game?
Eternal War isn't random by the way, it's simply more varied and makes it hard for a list to perform well in every mission, thus actually pushing for more balanced and varied lists.

For those obsessed with having control over everything, have you guys ever heard of chess? Go try it out lol

The question is why you are so obsessed with tournaments playing Champions missions?

"made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision." when do you choose which EW mission you play and against what faction? Variance decided by randomness.

Go back to your EW roulette game and let TOs use Champions missions if they want, you can host your own roulette tournaments, see what people prefer.


Well we want people to ditch ITC because its not the same game everyone else is playing. The people who want balance most is the tournament players but they want it balanced for THEIR way of playing, which is different to a majority of 40k players but they're easily the most vocal group.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 01:31:39


Post by: Spoletta


A lot of players discussing have not even read the ca19. Lol at the turbo boost comment...


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 02:16:44


Post by: MordinSolus


I don't quite understand the hate against Maelstrom of War with the new Schemes of war system.

It's true it still has some random component in it, but for me it has just the right point of random objectives and prebattle selection ITC style.

You can select the 18 objectives that you like the most and you feel will be scoring against that oponent and fits your playstyle AFTER seeing your opponents lists, so just for starters you are customizing you're deck in each game, I like that small planning before the game and the adaptation.

Then you draw 5 objectives, and put 3 on the table, one being hidden to play some mind games, and you have 3 stratagems to play with the cards and have even more gimmicks to choose from.

I'm not saying that is better than Eternal War (that's the new winner for me, more than ITC at least) but I found it more interesting than the dull ITC system and a lot less random than people say. The only thing I would change is getting rid off the faction objectives, some of them are busted.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 02:42:10


Post by: AngryAngel80


 Sim-Life wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.


I refuse to believe that you posted this and actually mean it.

If everything keeps being super randomized all the time, it becomes harder to look at the data to show GW stuff is broken. Yes or no?


Since nobody suggested making things super randomised, who cares? You need randomness to force players to adapt in-game. ITC at the moment is far too prescriptive, to the point of even being able to decide secondaries pre-tournament in many cases because secondaries are fundamentally independent of terrain, and often independent of your opponent's army. There's a level of randomness that is good. Original Maelstrom rules were too random but ITC swings far too far the other way.
Which I think goes back to the idea that tournament players WANT that. They seem to want everything to be predictable and prescriptive, for some unknown reason. I bet if someone found a way to remove dice, the tournament players would be all over that to "balance" things.


I'd like dice to be gone.


Try Malifaux. It uses a deck of cards, so you know exactly how many of each result you have in your deck. If you get a run of low cards you know you have a bunch of high ones left, you also have a hand of cards that act like miracle dice. Except they're cards. Seems like your thing.


I like the setting for Malifaux, but I really didn't dig the card system. It felt like most attacks tended to be very middle of the road and did very little aside from the rare big swings. Just felt like games of slap and tickle that took forever with a zillion different victory conditions. Which is about how I thought it would feel using cards instead of dice.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 03:41:04


Post by: Martel732


What a glorious pack of internet bullies. All because i said i don't like dice.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 05:32:44


Post by: EnTyme


In a game whose most basic mechanic is rolling dice.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 06:26:26


Post by: Slipspace


Martel732 wrote:
What a glorious pack of internet bullies. All because i said i don't like dice.


You think a handful of people asking why you don't like dice in a dice-based game is bullying? That's a pretty radical interpretation of the responses, IMO. If you really think the responses were bullying perhaps report them to a Mod?

You still haven't explained why you don't like dice and what you think the solution is, either. Perhaps if you actually explained your reasoning and responded to any of the comments people made both sides might be able to understand better where the other is coming from. But just like many of your recent posts where you complain about something you don't actually articulate why you feel a certain way or what the real problem is. It's hardly surprising people struggle to understand where you're coming from.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 06:40:32


Post by: AnomanderRake


 MordinSolus wrote:
...You can select the 18 objectives that you like the most and you feel will be scoring against that oponent and fits your playstyle AFTER seeing your opponents lists, so just for starters you are customizing you're deck in each game, I like that small planning before the game and the adaptation...


People keep bringing up the "but you can build your deck!" bit, but 18 of 36 Maelstrom objectives are "hold objective (X)", so from my experience building Underworlds decks that means your 18 cards are going to be chosen from a pool of 24 (in a mono-faction army), so it doesn't seem like there's that much deck-building involved.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 07:09:21


Post by: Slipspace


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 MordinSolus wrote:
...You can select the 18 objectives that you like the most and you feel will be scoring against that oponent and fits your playstyle AFTER seeing your opponents lists, so just for starters you are customizing you're deck in each game, I like that small planning before the game and the adaptation...


People keep bringing up the "but you can build your deck!" bit, but 18 of 36 Maelstrom objectives are "hold objective (X)", so from my experience building Underworlds decks that means your 18 cards are going to be chosen from a pool of 24 (in a mono-faction army), so it doesn't seem like there's that much deck-building involved.


That's not really the case. There's enough deck-building that you can remove all the impossible cards and still have meaningful decisions to make about which other cards to include. You also get to choose 3 out of the 5 cards you have in hand to play at any one time which opens up a bit more flexibility when building your deck since you don't need to just include cards you can definitely score at all times. Also, your numbers are wrong - 6 of 36 are "Hold Objective X" and 6 are "Defend Objective X". Cards 11-16 are your faction-specific ones and usually about half of those are good cards to have.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 16:39:16


Post by: AngryAngel80


Martel732 wrote:
What a glorious pack of internet bullies. All because i said i don't like dice.


Are you serious ? If you felt that was bullying, makes me wonder if you've ever seen actual bullies. As really its going to raise eye brows when you say you hate dice in a game that is seemingly all about the dice.

It's an awful lot like playing tons of Computer RPGs and being like " I hate numbers " Or playing a table top RPG and being like " I hate role playing ". You can see where it might make people go hmmm ?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 07:25:59


Post by: vict0988


 Sim-Life wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
What's the obsession with removing anything remotely random from the game?
Eternal War isn't random by the way, it's simply more varied and makes it hard for a list to perform well in every mission, thus actually pushing for more balanced and varied lists.

For those obsessed with having control over everything, have you guys ever heard of chess? Go try it out lol

The question is why you are so obsessed with tournaments playing Champions missions?

"made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision." when do you choose which EW mission you play and against what faction? Variance decided by randomness.

Go back to your EW roulette game and let TOs use Champions missions if they want, you can host your own roulette tournaments, see what people prefer.


Well we want people to ditch ITC because its not the same game everyone else is playing. The people who want balance most is the tournament players but they want it balanced for THEIR way of playing, which is different to a majority of 40k players but they're easily the most vocal group.

So if the game is balanced only for 12 missions then that's enough? Terrain is a bigger deal than mission format, should GW mandate 12 terrain set-ups and if you use something slightly different (because ITC isn't that different) the game becomes an unbalanced mess? Stuff like the Ogryn BS or Marine release, they're not fair. If EW and/or Maelstrom were fair then Champions format would be fair as well. What change do you think negatively affects your play experience was caused by Champions? Nerf to Castellan, Lootas, Malefic Lords?

How about match-making or tournament format, don't think that changes things? I spoke with the Knight player who was on atream 5 of LVO 2020 and he said he built his list in part to satisfy the monofaction requirement for the best in faction prize. You are wrong if you think GW is close enough to balance that meta is 90% decided by mission format.

Champions missions are very fun for me. Maelstrom is as well, all Maelstrom does is give the worse general and the worse faction a better chance of winning on luck alone, this is ideal for casual games, tournament hosts aren't taking that away from you, it is just not a great way to decide who deserves to win a tournament. People get super salty when they go second and loose in a tournament because they feel like luck decided the game. Travelling for a competitive event, training etc requires a less frustrating environment. Claiming anyone that likes Champions is just uninformed is annoying. Play whatever format you enjoy, host and attend tournaments you enjoy. FLG let you use their leaderboard regardless of mission and tournament format.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 09:18:31


Post by: Ishagu


ERJAK wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
What's the obsession with removing anything remotely random from the game?
Eternal War isn't random by the way, it's simply more varied and makes it hard for a list to perform well in every mission, thus actually pushing for more balanced and varied lists.

For those obsessed with having control over everything, have you guys ever heard of chess? Go try it out lol

@Martel
Sounds like you're playing the wrong game. I actually don't think you play 40k as a matter of fact - you don't seem to like anything about it. I certainly wouldn't spend hours of my free time doing something I dislike lol
Are you just a forum troll who likes to complain? Saying you hate dice games is a bit on the nose lol


Imma go the other way with it.

Eternal war is boring. They're 'kill your opponent' missions with some half assed 'turbo boost ftw' tacked on.

If you wanna ditch ITC, then fine. But ditch it for the new Maelstrom missions, not Eternal Snore.

That said, why ditch any of them? As much as I think Eternal Snore is a waste of a game, I wouldn't just reject all of them outright, I would add them to the mission pool.

Age of Sigmar has 18+ Matched play missions just from GW. Some are great and get played a lot, some are bad and get played very seldomly. Just carry that over to all available missions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Theres no reason 40k has to use dice. You like dice. I dont
Simple.


Stupid*


You haven't played the new CA missions at all, evidently.
This is an example of the community writing something off without ever sampling it.

Go and play all of the Eternal War mission in CA19 a few times.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 09:43:32


Post by: happy_inquisitor


 Blood Hawk wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.

Not in my experience. What is OP in CA is still OP in ITC and vice versa. ITC doesn't really fix the balance at all. It just gives you a different way to play the game. Whether or not it is a better way to play is very subjective IMO.


The imbalances in the rulebooks are there for all missions. What the ITC does is remove variance which narrows the statistical bell curve of results - it is like the canary in the coal mine when it comes to highlighting imbalances in the game. Yes, it does serve a bit of a purpose for that but also for that exact reason I do not want to play ITC tournaments.

The CA19 missions have variance between the missions which broadens the statistical bell curve - it has a wider catchment of what is tolerably competitive and might do OK for you at the top tables.

Its really, REALLY, hard to look at the LVO top 8 and say that the ITC missions with fixed terrain have done anything other than magnify the imbalances in the game. Compare and contrast with the recent results at Caledonian Uprising and the GW GT finals which were run with the exact same set of rules permitted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ishagu wrote:


You haven't played the new CA missions at all, evidently.
This is an example of the community writing something off without ever sampling it.

Go and play all of the Eternal War mission in CA19 a few times.


Even more than this - go and play a tournament using CA19 missions. You only really understand the difference when people are bringing the filth and playing hard for prizes.

I have only played one CA19 tournament so far but after doing so I would not go back to playing ITC missions. Unless FLG radically overhaul that mission I am just skipping past tournaments which use them when looking for my next event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote:


Eternal war is boring. They're 'kill your opponent' missions with some half assed 'turbo boost ftw' tacked on.



I have to conclude that not only have you never played the CA19 missions you have not even read them.

So anything you say has zero value because it is based on nothing.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 09:58:49


Post by: Dysartes


 MordinSolus wrote:
I'm not saying that is better than Eternal War (that's the new winner for me, more than ITC at least) but I found it more interesting than the dull ITC system and a lot less random than people say. The only thing I would change is getting rid off the faction objectives, some of them are busted.

Busted good, or busted bad? Maybe it's just a case of them needing a review pass now all the expected Codex books have been released, to make sure they're broadly on par with each other?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 10:23:59


Post by: Ishagu


After I took part in events using the CA missions I lost any and all interest in the game using ITC rules to the point where I'm not even looking at the LVO results or even watching the games. It's really unfortunate that people still haven't sampled what GW has made, and have no understanding of the drastic improvement that has taken place in their mission design.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 10:44:29


Post by: Yoyoyo


People are stubborn.

They'll eventually come around.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 10:47:07


Post by: happy_inquisitor


 Ishagu wrote:
After I took part in events using the CA missions I lost any and all interest in the game using ITC rules to the point where I'm not even looking at the LVO results or even watching the games. It's really unfortunate that people still haven't sampled what GW has made, and have no understanding of the drastic improvement that has taken place in their mission design.


That is pretty much how I feel.

The CA18 missions still had one or two oddball missions in there, in general, they were good. The CA19 missions have cleaned that up and are more consistently good; I am in two minds about just one of the missions - partly because I have not played it in real competition so I will suspend judgment on it until I do.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 13:25:00


Post by: Blood Hawk


happy_inquisitor wrote:
 Blood Hawk wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.

That is what makes it balanced and helping find the imbalances though.

Not in my experience. What is OP in CA is still OP in ITC and vice versa. ITC doesn't really fix the balance at all. It just gives you a different way to play the game. Whether or not it is a better way to play is very subjective IMO.


The imbalances in the rulebooks are there for all missions. What the ITC does is remove variance which narrows the statistical bell curve of results - it is like the canary in the coal mine when it comes to highlighting imbalances in the game. Yes, it does serve a bit of a purpose for that but also for that exact reason I do not want to play ITC tournaments.

The CA19 missions have variance between the missions which broadens the statistical bell curve - it has a wider catchment of what is tolerably competitive and might do OK for you at the top tables.

Its really, REALLY, hard to look at the LVO top 8 and say that the ITC missions with fixed terrain have done anything other than magnify the imbalances in the game. Compare and contrast with the recent results at Caledonian Uprising and the GW GT finals which were run with the exact same set of rules permitted.

The only variance ITC removes is the random game length compared to CA 2019 Eternal War. There are six different missions yes but if you really think different missions every round of an event is a problem you could always just run the same mission every round. There is nothing stopping people from just using crusade every round.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 13:54:01


Post by: Ishagu


Again, you have clearly not played them. The missions are significantly different from one another, and the objectives are specific to each one.

If you think there is no variation and that they compare to the ITC it indicates you definitely haven't experienced them in any great detail. This is my biggest issue with the community at the moment, there is a great level of wilful ignorance in terms of what GW has done in recent times in terms of their mission design and balance.

Heck, even the Maelstrom missions deserve attention due to the deck building that exists now, but this isn't the topic for that.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 13:59:59


Post by: Sim-Life


 Ishagu wrote:
Again, you have clearly not played them. The missions are significantly different from one another, and the objectives are specific to each one.

If you think there is no variation and that they compare to the ITC it indicates you definitely haven't experienced them in any great detail. This is my biggest issue with the community at the moment, there is a great level of wilful ignorance in terms of what GW has done in recent times in terms of their mission design and balance.

Heck, even the Maelstrom missions deserve attention due to the deck building that exists now, but this isn't the topic for that.


I don't know what you mean. A scenario with 4 objectives plays exactly the same as a scenario with a single objective. Are you mad? Being sarcaatic obviously.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 14:04:18


Post by: Blood Hawk


 Ishagu wrote:
Again, you have clearly not played them. The missions are significantly different from one another, and the objectives are specific to each one.

If you think there is no variation and that they compare to the ITC it indicates you definitely haven't experienced them in any great detail. This is my biggest issue with the community at the moment, there is a great level of wilful ignorance in terms of what GW has done in recent times in terms of their mission design and balance.

Heck, even the Maelstrom missions deserve attention due to the deck building that exists now, but this isn't the topic for that.




I was talking about the amount of random elements within the missions. If you compare one ITC champion mission to any of the eternal war missions the only random element present in CA 2019 Eternal War missions not present in ITC is random game length. That is it. ITC missions aren't even the same every round either due the number and placement of objectives changing.

Also I have played CA 2019 and have run events using them. So take your ignorant assumptions elsewhere.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 14:04:21


Post by: Ishagu


And yet you seem to have reached a conclusion different from everyone else that has.

The ITC missions are just one mission with minimal variation, with players selecting what to score based on what favours them from one opponent to another.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 14:34:59


Post by: Blood Hawk


 Ishagu wrote:
And yet you seem to have reached a conclusion different from everyone else that has.

Oh really? What conclusion did I reach that everyone else hasn't? Since you were dead wrong on your first assumption I personally curious what you think my conclusion is.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 15:00:17


Post by: Ishagu


Are you actually trying to tell me that the missions in Chapter Approved 2019 offer no more variation than the ITC missions in terms of gameplay and mission design?

That's a staggering position to take.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 15:15:44


Post by: Blood Hawk


 Ishagu wrote:
Are you actually trying to tell me that the missions in Chapter Approved 2019 offer no more variation than the ITC missions in terms of gameplay?

That's a staggering position to take.

Another swing and another miss. There is more variation between the six CA 2019 eternal missions primary objectives vs the six ITC championship missions however the isn't much more random elements. Both formats randomize the deployment type and who gets first turn. CA also has random game length but that is it. That was my point. CA missions aren't super random.

If you really don't like the different missions for events you can also run the same mission every round or pick the missions that are similar.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 15:39:05


Post by: Daedalus81


Yoyoyo wrote:
People are stubborn.

They'll eventually come around.


I'm not stubborn. I want assertions supported by evidence and analysis. Something that is severely lacking in these discussions.

I'm incredibly open-minded and I'm all for making a push, but if you want to prove the system then someone needs to record sufficient data from tournaments they run.



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 15:53:08


Post by: Sim-Life


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
People are stubborn.

They'll eventually come around.


I'm not stubborn. I want assertions supported by evidence and analysis. Something that is severely lacking in these discussions.

I'm incredibly open-minded and I'm all for making a push, but if you want to prove the system then someone needs to record sufficient data from tournaments they run.



What data? That IH are still OP?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 16:03:42


Post by: Daedalus81


 Sim-Life wrote:


What data? That IH are still OP?


That CA fundamentally affects the balance of the game.

If say, the balance is equivalent then the case can be made that CA is preferable, because it is more dynamic and therefore more fun. But if it doesn't then there would be little reason to change right now.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 16:09:02


Post by: Ishagu


 Blood Hawk wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Are you actually trying to tell me that the missions in Chapter Approved 2019 offer no more variation than the ITC missions in terms of gameplay?

That's a staggering position to take.

Another swing and another miss. There is more variation between the six CA 2019 eternal missions primary objectives vs the six ITC championship missions however the isn't much more random elements. Both formats randomize the deployment type and who gets first turn. CA also has random game length but that is it. That was my point. CA missions aren't super random.

If you really don't like the different missions for events you can also run the same mission every round or pick the missions that are similar.


And where in the original topic post do I specifically push for maximum radom elements?

The topic makes two specific arguments:

1: ITC does not seem to offer any increase in balance of the game, in fact by allowing players to chose what they score it actually pushed people into spamming units that excel in a certain function and chose objectives around that function.

2: The ITC missions offer minimal variation and are less interesting and less enjoyable than what CA offers. The ITC missions are not the most enjoyable or optimum way to enjoy the game, and are very fatigued at this point.

You might enjoy only playing 1 mission. That's perfectly fine. The majority will enjoy greater variation that plays on the strengths of different lists.
I did say that trying to remove all random elements is going against the intent behind the game. There were people in this topic saying they hate dice games. That's just silly in a 40k discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
People are stubborn.

They'll eventually come around.


I'm not stubborn. I want assertions supported by evidence and analysis. Something that is severely lacking in these discussions.

I'm incredibly open-minded and I'm all for making a push, but if you want to prove the system then someone needs to record sufficient data from tournaments they run.



What data? That IH are still OP?


Game balance is not the only argument being made. Does greater mission variation not matter in your opinion?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 17:28:28


Post by: Sim-Life


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


What data? That IH are still OP?


That CA fundamentally affects the balance of the game.

If say, the balance is equivalent then the case can be made that CA is preferable, because it is more dynamic and therefore more fun. But if it doesn't then there would be little reason to change right now.


To get that data you would need both IH to be nerfed and for the tournament/ITC crowd to actually be willing to try it for a year. Only one of those things will ever happen.

The thing is if you'll remember back to previous threads many CA2019 players have said that the armies in their meta are more balanced than ITC. I would argued that "tournament data" is basically only useful for finding out what models are the best at killing stuff


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 17:49:21


Post by: Daedalus81


 Sim-Life wrote:


To get that data you would need both IH to be nerfed and for the tournament/ITC crowd to actually be willing to try it for a year. Only one of those things will ever happen.

The thing is if you'll remember back to previous threads many CA2019 players have said that the armies in their meta are more balanced than ITC. I would argued that "tournament data" is basically only useful for finding out what models are the best at killing stuff


Those are still unverifiable statements. People are playing CA tournaments. We should be logging similar data to that of ITC/ETC/WZ.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 18:02:45


Post by: The Salt Mine


Even with all the changes to Maelstrom missions there is still a heavy RNG factor involved. I don't think they are great for competitive play as you are stacking more RNG into an already RNG heavy game. You are lessening the impact of player interaction and decisions the more RNG you add into the system. Its one reason why ITC missions are popular you can plan several turns in advanced on how you are going to complete your objectives.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 18:04:45


Post by: Ishagu


The Salt Mine wrote:
Even with all the changes to Maelstrom missions there is still a heavy RNG factor involved. I don't think they are great for competitive play as you are stacking more RNG into an already RNG heavy game. You are lessening the impact of player interaction and decisions the more RNG you add into the system. Its one reason why ITC missions are popular you can plan several turns in advanced on how you are going to complete your objectives.


I make a case for the Eternal War missions, not the Maelstrom.

You are aware there are two sets of missions in CA2019, right?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 18:06:21


Post by: Racerguy180


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The biggest problem I have with ITC missions, as I frequently say, is the let you basically pre-plan everything before the game. Having some sort of variable that can come up SHOULD encourage building a more well-rounded force to account for the unknowns. Since there are basically zero unknowns in ITC missions barring dice and maybe specific terrain placement, you can build a skew or jank list and plan out every move before you ever play the game. So at the table you're just mechanically going through predefined steps versus actually playing.


I think these variables you describe just randomize the outcome, just the way GW likes it. In most tournament formats of most games I'm aware of, the unknowns are minimized on purpose to filter that out of the results. Also, "well-rounded" is ill-defined and seems far from guaranteed by adding in more randomness.

"Randomness " makes competitive games more interesting. It's why we don't call off football games just because it fething snows. This is a war game after all and wars aren't fought in ideal conditions. A good tactician brings a force that can adapt to changing conditions and adjusts his tactics to those conditions.

this, so so very much this. WAR ISNT FAIR!
Sim-Life wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
What's the obsession with removing anything remotely random from the game?
Eternal War isn't random by the way, it's simply more varied and makes it hard for a list to perform well in every mission, thus actually pushing for more balanced and varied lists.

For those obsessed with having control over everything, have you guys ever heard of chess? Go try it out lol

The question is why you are so obsessed with tournaments playing Champions missions?

"made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision." when do you choose which EW mission you play and against what faction? Variance decided by randomness.

Go back to your EW roulette game and let TOs use Champions missions if they want, you can host your own roulette tournaments, see what people prefer.


Well we want people to ditch ITC because its not the same game everyone else is playing. The people who want balance most is the tournament players but they want it balanced for THEIR way of playing, which is different to a majority of 40k players but they're easily the most vocal group.


The game, without variance is boring and is a+b=c. The game, with a pretty good amount of variety is incredibly fun and makes the outcome reliant on the tactician, rather than min/max spammers.


I'm thankful that my flgs has players that aren't soooo focused on "ITC this" and "tournament that". We even have players who went to LVO this year & the best part is, they'll even play open war deck and non-ITC missions.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 18:22:31


Post by: Sim-Life


 Ishagu wrote:
The Salt Mine wrote:
Even with all the changes to Maelstrom missions there is still a heavy RNG factor involved. I don't think they are great for competitive play as you are stacking more RNG into an already RNG heavy game. You are lessening the impact of player interaction and decisions the more RNG you add into the system. Its one reason why ITC missions are popular you can plan several turns in advanced on how you are going to complete your objectives.


I make a case for the Eternal War missions, not the Maelstrom.

You are aware there are two sets of missions in CA2019, right?


It's fun having to say that every 5 posts.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 20:28:23


Post by: Spoletta


A case can be made that the additional randomness inserted by ca19 missions, since you are given the tools to manage it as a player, makes the game MORE competitive than the alternative.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 20:43:04


Post by: Wayniac


I still maintain that having each mission with a different "twist" on the objective, if CA19 still has those (I know CA18 did), adds to removing the "stagnant" nature of the game. If you don't know what mission you may get with a specific twist, it should encourage you to build a list to account for that rather than know everything you might come across beforehand so you just build the same old skew/min-max/netlist since there's no drawback to taking it. But if you could get a mission where only characters can hold objectives, or where models with FLY get super objective secured even over troops (CA18 had a mission like this), now all of a sudden you need to prepare for that happening. Your list needs to be more diverse to handle those things which might happen, since they are unknowns and you can't fully prepare for them beforehand.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 20:55:48


Post by: The Salt Mine


 Ishagu wrote:
The Salt Mine wrote:
Even with all the changes to Maelstrom missions there is still a heavy RNG factor involved. I don't think they are great for competitive play as you are stacking more RNG into an already RNG heavy game. You are lessening the impact of player interaction and decisions the more RNG you add into the system. Its one reason why ITC missions are popular you can plan several turns in advanced on how you are going to complete your objectives.


I make a case for the Eternal War missions, not the Maelstrom.

You are aware there are two sets of missions in CA2019, right?


There are posts right above mine talking about Maelstrom missions. You do realize there are other people posting in this thread right?

Snark aside. I actually agree with you. If only because I think the game would be easier to balance if all competitive 40k events used the same set of missions. One of the larger problems with this game right now is the more rules there are the harder they are to balance. This is even more compounded by the fact that many different competitive events across the world are using different mission rule sets.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 21:08:48


Post by: Argive


I havent bothered reading 8 pages of ishagus ramblings and repetetive circular arguments.

But in a nutshell, is he basicaly claiming marines with their ninja centurions centurion, milliond of re-rollable dice and character dreads abusing the poor targeting mechanic etc
Are only busted in itc and gw has done no wrong and everyone is wrong about GW being terrible at balancing the game?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 21:25:13


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Martel732 wrote:What a glorious pack of internet bullies. All because i said i don't like dice.
You cry out that you hate dice, in a dice based game, and then call foul when people wonder just what you're actually doing playing a dice game?
There's nothing wrong with hating dice - but why would you hang around on a forum talking about a dice game? Seems rather much like a waste of your time, and a waste of ours-
Oh.

I should have known that this was a troll attempt.
Gr8 b8.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 21:31:42


Post by: Catulle


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Martel732 wrote:What a glorious pack of internet bullies. All because i said i don't like dice.
You cry out that you hate dice, in a dice based game, and then call foul when people wonder just what you're actually doing playing a dice game?
There's nothing wrong with hating dice - but why would you hang around on a forum talking about a dice game? Seems rather much like a waste of your time, and a waste of ours-
Oh.

I should have known that this was a troll attempt.
Gr8 b8.


Master baiting, in fact!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 22:15:29


Post by: Ishagu


 Argive wrote:
I havent bothered reading 8 pages of ishagus ramblings and repetetive circular arguments.

But in a nutshell, is he basicaly claiming marines with their ninja centurions centurion, milliond of re-rollable dice and character dreads abusing the poor targeting mechanic etc
Are only busted in itc and gw has done no wrong and everyone is wrong about GW being terrible at balancing the game?


Lol maybe you should read through the topic. I've actually posted very little, and I'm not claiming GW is balancing anything perfectly.

And guess what, particular unit discussion has nothing to do with this topic.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/26 23:50:13


Post by: vict0988


Spoletta wrote:
A case can be made that the additional randomness inserted by ca19 missions, since you are given the tools to manage it as a player, makes the game MORE competitive than the alternative.

Why don't you make the case instead of making an empty assertion then? Adding randomness to a game only increases the likelihood of the winner being randomly selected, if something is random it is not earned.
Wayniac wrote:
I still maintain that having each mission with a different "twist" on the objective, if CA19 still has those (I know CA18 did), adds to removing the "stagnant" nature of the game. If you don't know what mission you may get with a specific twist, it should encourage you to build a list to account for that rather than know everything you might come across beforehand so you just build the same old skew/min-max/netlist since there's no drawback to taking it. But if you could get a mission where only characters can hold objectives, or where models with FLY get super objective secured even over troops (CA18 had a mission like this), now all of a sudden you need to prepare for that happening. Your list needs to be more diverse to handle those things which might happen, since they are unknowns and you can't fully prepare for them beforehand.

Champions missions each come with a twist, not to mention that half the missions use alternating while the other half uses all at once deployment. Unlike what some would have you believe, choosing your own secondaries quite often shakes up games. The bonus objective is just a relatively small part of the game and the you're never forced to play kill points against Knights or something equally silly. Champions format is pretty complicated, it has its own learning curve, but it's fun and often gives me a feeling that I could improve and potentially win games I lost.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 00:12:53


Post by: Racerguy180


 vict0988 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
A case can be made that the additional randomness inserted by ca19 missions, since you are given the tools to manage it as a player, makes the game MORE competitive than the alternative.

Why don't you make the case instead of making an empty assertion then? Adding randomness to a game only increases the likelihood of the winner being randomly selected, if something is random it is not earned.
Spoiler:

Wayniac wrote:
I still maintain that having each mission with a different "twist" on the objective, if CA19 still has those (I know CA18 did), adds to removing the "stagnant" nature of the game. If you don't know what mission you may get with a specific twist, it should encourage you to build a list to account for that rather than know everything you might come across beforehand so you just build the same old skew/min-max/netlist since there's no drawback to taking it. But if you could get a mission where only characters can hold objectives, or where models with FLY get super objective secured even over troops (CA18 had a mission like this), now all of a sudden you need to prepare for that happening. Your list needs to be more diverse to handle those things which might happen, since they are unknowns and you can't fully prepare for them beforehand.

Champions missions each come with a twist, not to mention that half the missions use alternating while the other half uses all at once deployment. Unlike what some would have you believe, choosing your own secondaries quite often shakes up games. The bonus objective is just a relatively small part of the game and the you're never forced to play kill points against Knights or something equally silly. Champions format is pretty complicated, it has its own learning curve, but it's fun and often gives me a feeling that I could improve and potentially win games I lost.


so all those dice rolls aren't earned? man, I must be playing the game wrong. Kinda weird thing to say in a game that's pretty much dependant on said die rolls.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 00:23:08


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Racerguy180 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
A case can be made that the additional randomness inserted by ca19 missions, since you are given the tools to manage it as a player, makes the game MORE competitive than the alternative.

Why don't you make the case instead of making an empty assertion then? Adding randomness to a game only increases the likelihood of the winner being randomly selected, if something is random it is not earned.
Spoiler:

Wayniac wrote:
I still maintain that having each mission with a different "twist" on the objective, if CA19 still has those (I know CA18 did), adds to removing the "stagnant" nature of the game. If you don't know what mission you may get with a specific twist, it should encourage you to build a list to account for that rather than know everything you might come across beforehand so you just build the same old skew/min-max/netlist since there's no drawback to taking it. But if you could get a mission where only characters can hold objectives, or where models with FLY get super objective secured even over troops (CA18 had a mission like this), now all of a sudden you need to prepare for that happening. Your list needs to be more diverse to handle those things which might happen, since they are unknowns and you can't fully prepare for them beforehand.

Champions missions each come with a twist, not to mention that half the missions use alternating while the other half uses all at once deployment. Unlike what some would have you believe, choosing your own secondaries quite often shakes up games. The bonus objective is just a relatively small part of the game and the you're never forced to play kill points against Knights or something equally silly. Champions format is pretty complicated, it has its own learning curve, but it's fun and often gives me a feeling that I could improve and potentially win games I lost.


so all those dice rolls aren't earned? man, I must be playing the game wrong. Kinda weird thing to say in a game that's pretty much dependant on said die rolls.

You're missing the point. It shouldn't be THAT randumb. That's the complaint.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 00:53:03


Post by: vict0988


Racerguy180 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
A case can be made that the additional randomness inserted by ca19 missions, since you are given the tools to manage it as a player, makes the game MORE competitive than the alternative.

Why don't you make the case instead of making an empty assertion then? Adding randomness to a game only increases the likelihood of the winner being randomly selected, if something is random it is not earned.
Spoiler:

Wayniac wrote:
I still maintain that having each mission with a different "twist" on the objective, if CA19 still has those (I know CA18 did), adds to removing the "stagnant" nature of the game. If you don't know what mission you may get with a specific twist, it should encourage you to build a list to account for that rather than know everything you might come across beforehand so you just build the same old skew/min-max/netlist since there's no drawback to taking it. But if you could get a mission where only characters can hold objectives, or where models with FLY get super objective secured even over troops (CA18 had a mission like this), now all of a sudden you need to prepare for that happening. Your list needs to be more diverse to handle those things which might happen, since they are unknowns and you can't fully prepare for them beforehand.

Champions missions each come with a twist, not to mention that half the missions use alternating while the other half uses all at once deployment. Unlike what some would have you believe, choosing your own secondaries quite often shakes up games. The bonus objective is just a relatively small part of the game and the you're never forced to play kill points against Knights or something equally silly. Champions format is pretty complicated, it has its own learning curve, but it's fun and often gives me a feeling that I could improve and potentially win games I lost.


so all those dice rolls aren't earned? man, I must be playing the game wrong. Kinda weird thing to say in a game that's pretty much dependant on said die rolls.

Nope, youhave not earned your dice rolls and to the degree they decided the game instead of your choices the game is more luck and less skill-based. Having different missions for different goals makes sense. The less obfuscated by luck, the best list and general is at a competitive event the better. The more obfuscated the easier it is to bring less powerful lists and the more forgivibg of mistakes the game will be. Tic tac toe is a solved game, if you want to test who has solved the game and who hasnn't then randomizing every other move is a bad idea, if you are playing it casually it might be fun to add more randomness.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 00:57:06


Post by: Argive


 Ishagu wrote:
 Argive wrote:
I havent bothered reading 8 pages of ishagus ramblings and repetetive circular arguments.

But in a nutshell, is he basicaly claiming marines with their ninja centurions centurion, milliond of re-rollable dice and character dreads abusing the poor targeting mechanic etc
Are only busted in itc and gw has done no wrong and everyone is wrong about GW being terrible at balancing the game?


Lol maybe you should read through the topic. I've actually posted very little, and I'm not claiming GW is balancing anything perfectly.

And guess what, particular unit discussion has nothing to do with this topic.


And guess what.. In your OP you claiming that certain lists(therefore UNITS) only work in ITC and are spammed because ITC. Therefore the data provided from ITC is useless to determine if things are balance..
You are claiming that if only everyone would play CA 2019 missions the meta would magically sort itself out because reasons..
You are claiming certain factions/lists (therefore UNITS) would not be spammed or be as OP under CA2019 .. Does CA 2019 suddenly take away layers of rules from the main offended the SM faction ?

Its ridiculous. But you keep peddling your "SM are fine really.. honest data is wrong.. nothing to see here". You do you bro.

For the record I don't play ITC at all and only play CA2018/19 missions.
However, suggesting that ITC data is irrelevant to gauge meta is down right crazy!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 05:50:05


Post by: Ishagu


It's not what I said at all. I pointed out that the ITC mission style has not helped in creating a perfectly balanced meta, and that CA missions wouldn't cause additional damage. I also point out that the ITC missions have significantly less variation, and by allowing you to chose what scores you points they reward the spam of units because you chose objectives they can get in every game.

There is this magical thing called neance. Not everything is black or white.

There is no instant solution that creates a perfectly balanced experience. If you're looking for that the closest you'll get is chess. Go play it instead.
Or now about you actually try all of the CA missions at a tournament and actually experience how positive they are?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 05:58:42


Post by: Yoyoyo


Is it really controversial to say different armies are stronger in different formats?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 06:10:46


Post by: Ishagu


Yoyoyo wrote:
Is it really controversial to say different armies are stronger in different formats?


No it's not, but unfortunately a lot of people on the forum are dismissive and ignorant of things and refuse to accept something new unless it's some sort of magical, perfect fix to every problem that exists.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 06:32:57


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Yoyoyo wrote:
Is it really controversial to say different armies are stronger in different formats?

It's not exactly controversial, but it would be controversial to imply things are somehow so much more balanced in differing formats, simply because of terrible core rules and codex writing. Ishahu always implies the latter when saying CA19 missions > ITC missions. Yes more variation is good, but it honestly does not fix the game whatsoever.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 06:36:31


Post by: Gadzilla666


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
Is it really controversial to say different armies are stronger in different formats?

It's not exactly controversial, but it would be controversial to imply things are somehow so much more balanced in differing formats, simply because of terrible core rules and codex writing. Ishahu always implies the latter when saying CA19 missions > ITC missions. Yes more variation is good, but it honestly does not fix the game whatsoever.

True. Loyalist marines are broken in either format.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 06:37:17


Post by: Ishagu


So you have absolutely no interest in more mission variation?

You basically just confirmed my statement about certain individuals being dismissive unless something is a magical fix that creates perfect balance. BTW perfect balance would be bad for 40k. This game needs a shifting meta to keep things exciting.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 06:38:59


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Ishagu wrote:
So you have absolutely no interest in more mission variation?

You basically just confirmed my statement about bring dismissive unless something is a magical fix that creates perfect balance. BTW perfect balance would be bad for 40k. This game needs a shifting meta to keep things exciting.

You know what actually creates excitement? New balanced units, missions, and campaigns. A shifting meta that turns entire swathes of models you put together and paints into useless pieces of junk is NOT exciting.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 06:41:51


Post by: Ishagu


If your number one priority for a game is perfect balance you're in the wrong hobby.
Warhammer 40k has literally never had a strong balance as a defining feature, in literally any edition in the past 25 years.

Can it be more balanced? Sure.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 06:55:45


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Ishagu wrote:
If your number one priority for a game is perfect balance you're in the wrong hobby.
Warhammer 40k has literally never had a strong balance as a defining feature, in literally any edition in the past 25 years.

Can it be more balanced? Sure.

I agree that perfect balance would detract from the game and that mission variety increases the level of enjoyment but massive imbalance, such as we currently have with certain marine chapters greatly detracts from the experience.

What fun is it if you have little chance of winning? Or for the loyalist marine player in having little chance of losing?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 07:05:07


Post by: Dudeface


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
So you have absolutely no interest in more mission variation?

You basically just confirmed my statement about bring dismissive unless something is a magical fix that creates perfect balance. BTW perfect balance would be bad for 40k. This game needs a shifting meta to keep things exciting.

You know what actually creates excitement? New balanced units, missions, and campaigns. A shifting meta that turns entire swathes of models you put together and paints into useless pieces of junk is NOT exciting.


If the meta isn't shifting that means something is a stable auto-pick top of the pack choice and "the best" options are found.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 07:12:39


Post by: Yoyoyo


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You know what actually creates excitement? New... units, missions, and campaigns. A shifting meta...

Aside from your complaints about balancing, this is exactly what GW has done since index releases.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 07:53:12


Post by: nareik


I disagree that containing random elements reduces skill. Sure, having only random elements means players have no agency. 40k isn’t at that point yet. There are still important decisions to make.

Informing decision making, having some random elements introduces the skills of estimating probability distributions and contingency planning. Someone mentioned the sheer weight of rerolls space marines get. These rerolls greatly increase the probability of success and as such reduce the need to plan for failure. Using such a force means it is easier for a player to do well, not that the player is ‘better’ at 40k (beyond being competent at the ‘choose an army’ stage). I’m unsure how this talk of randomness relates to EW 2019 missions though, which are mostly about board control.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 08:47:43


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Yoyoyo wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You know what actually creates excitement? New... units, missions, and campaigns. A shifting meta...

Aside from your complaints about balancing, this is exactly what GW has done since index releases.

Except it doesn't matter if the the latter three points are some because point #1 is not. GW could release 10 units for each army tomorrow, but how is that exciting if 95% of those units ended up being worse than Conscripts, already a terrible unit now?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 09:14:06


Post by: happy_inquisitor


Gadzilla666 wrote:

True. Loyalist marines are broken in either format.


Very strong yes, broken no.

I have played marines in CA19 missions - leafblower IH followed by RG successor in my last tournament. I handily beat them with a list that was built to play the missions - as a challenge to myself I was playing T'au with no riptides or shield drones.

Similarly, if you look at the GT finals at Nottingham, sure the marines did good but nothing like the boring dominance they showed at LVO or the succession of other ITC mission tournaments leading up to it.

Of all those GTs showing up on BCP recently, only one was not dominated by marines - that was Caledonian Uprising which did not use the ITC missions.

The evidence that they are "broken" in other formats is simply not there, to the extent that we have enough data to call it evidence it is to the contrary. They are good but not ridiculously good.

Marines are really good right now. Iron Hands are arguably a bit too good in a couple of aspects that might want fixing. They only look ridiculous because the ITC format exaggerates how good the "best" army is at any point in time due to its lack of variety and the ability of players to effectively choose the mission that suits whatever is most good about that "best" army.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 09:36:49


Post by: Ishagu


The recent tournaments at GW show the same outcome.

Marines do not dominate to the same extent in non ITC formats.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 09:48:19


Post by: Apple fox


Had a quick read of the missions.

They look for the most part fairly good, Mostly very similar to what we use already it seems.

But i think for here, it just seems no one thinks that GW will put anything good in the missions anyway. So have not bother giving them a look at all.

Not sure they would be much improvement to the game on there own.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 09:58:52


Post by: Yoyoyo


Strong ranged offense that can de facto prevent the midfield objectives from being accessible solves "Hold one, hold more".

Really strong defense solves "kill more". If can you remove 1-2 units a turn while the opponent doesn't, you've won the primary mission.

As far as secondaries go, clever list construction probably means your opponent can't score max points easily on the secondaries. SM troops have a big advantage here as they won't give up either Reaper or Gangbusters, and you can't designate the PL7+ units as Marked for Death either and not have it interfere with other secondaries like Big Game Hunter.

So against a list with 40x Intercessors (2x10 and 4x5), an unkillable Leviathan Warlord, 3x untargetable Chaplain Dreads, and 3x3 Eliminators, what do you pick? Butcher's Bill I guess, but then you run into issues with "Kill More" in the later stages of the game once the easy targets are gone.

So tailoring a list to deny scoring against both the primary and secondary mission is something that can be done very effectively in ITC. Whereas I imagine it's harder in CA.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 10:38:33


Post by: Ordana


I think the LVO finals nicely showed the issue with scoring points by killing in ITC.

An army could completely give up all board control for 3 turns and still win because killing gives enough points.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 11:37:58


Post by: happy_inquisitor


 Ordana wrote:
I think the LVO finals nicely showed the issue with scoring points by killing in ITC.

An army could completely give up all board control for 3 turns and still win because killing gives enough points.


I think the semi-final with Sean Nayden really summed up the problem with the ITC mission to me.

Sean knew that he could not compete with the kill/kill more and killing secondaries so he basically declined to engage. He sat everything out of sight scoring hold and engineers each turn - keeping the scores very low so that a turn 6 grab would be decisive unless his opponent gambled by actually coming out of hiding.

Richard won but honestly the odds of his intercessor Sargent killing 4 shining spears like that were vanishingly small - 0.6% by my reckoning. Even killing 3 had a less than 7% chance.

The kill points are routinely claimed to encourage players to engage actively rather than camp on objectives but when you combine it with ITC terrain rules then it often has exactly the opposite effect. Most armies have no reason at all to engage an IH gunline if they can possibly avoid it because it gives up so few kill points and secondaries while having more than enough firepower to claim them in return.

Honestly how much fun is the mission when any smart player will realise that the only way to play is to hide out of line of sight until turn 6 and then jump out onto the objectives?

Note : i am not complaining about the way Sean Nayden played at all. Given the mission and the way an IH list can just rack up points by killing things it was the only rational way for him to play - the problem is that the missions skew things so much that effectively refusing to engage with your opponent can be the only route to victory. The kill points for primary and secondaries force a negative play style in this situation.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 13:02:35


Post by: bullyboy


I just came back from the LVO, and outside of the massive cock-up that was the third round (I almost took a zero to go enjoy the rest of my Friday night....and I for sure just rolled dice in that game with little care) I had a good time.
However, for sure you are playing one single mission the entire tournament, the differences just don't mean much. ITC took a step last year to incorporate the deployment rules in 1/2 of the missions, perhaps they will be open to changing the missions in those 3 games to 3 of the GW ones. yes, it means a little more thinking, but it might be a step in the right direction.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 14:32:57


Post by: catbarf


 vict0988 wrote:
Why don't you make the case instead of making an empty assertion then? Adding randomness to a game only increases the likelihood of the winner being randomly selected, if something is random it is not earned.


Okay, I'll bite: Randomly selected missions are not 'adding randomness', per se. You are not rolling a die to see who wins before the game even starts or to give one player an un-mitigable advantage, you are rolling a die to determine which of a set of curated, balanced missions you will be playing.

The central conceit is that a balanced list should be equally capable regardless of what the actual mission is, so a player is only negatively impacted by that randomness if they've chosen to overspecialize.

The difference is that you are given all the tools you need to completely mitigate random objectives. If you decide to bring an army that can only do half of the mission types, that's all on you. Whereas the in-game dice rolls could, through the vagaries of probability, end up favoring one player over the other and disrupting an otherwise skill-based outcome.

Counter-example: If you had missions that blatantly favored one player over another, like Mission 1 is 'Player A gets 500 extra points' and Mission 6 is 'Player B gets to recycle units infinitely', then it would be adding randomness and detracting from the skill involved in the game. The random mission selection at the start would have a non-negligible chance of screwing a player over with nothing to mitigate it. But if the missions are all putting both players on even footing, then that isn't the case.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 15:09:23


Post by: Karol


 catbarf wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Why don't you make the case instead of making an empty assertion then? Adding randomness to a game only increases the likelihood of the winner being randomly selected, if something is random it is not earned.


Okay, I'll bite: Randomly selected missions are not 'adding randomness', per se. You are not rolling a die to see who wins before the game even starts or to give one player an un-mitigable advantage, you are rolling a die to determine which of a set of curated, balanced missions you will be playing.

The central conceit is that a balanced list should be equally capable regardless of what the actual mission is, so a player is only negatively impacted by that randomness if they've chosen to overspecialize.

The difference is that you are given all the tools you need to completely mitigate random objectives. If you decide to bring an army that can only do half of the mission types, that's all on you. Whereas the in-game dice rolls could, through the vagaries of probability, end up favoring one player over the other and disrupting an otherwise skill-based outcome.

Counter-example: If you had missions that blatantly favored one player over another, like Mission 1 is 'Player A gets 500 extra points' and Mission 6 is 'Player B gets to recycle units infinitely', then it would be adding randomness and detracting from the skill involved in the game. The random mission selection at the start would have a non-negligible chance of screwing a player over with nothing to mitigate it. But if the missions are all putting both players on even footing, then that isn't the case.


the thing is not all armies are balanced and able to achive all objectives. Under ITC rules you can tailor your list to do specific things. Better or worse then other lists, but you will have a clear way to win. If the missions are random, then only the most flexible armies and the ones with simplest way to play are going to benefit, because it is just going to be easier to play them. there won't be any opponent got this mission and I drew this cards, and that lost me the game, because GW decided to write our army rules in a specific way.

There is also stuff that is hard to put points on. How many points is it worth, to be able to stable mobile without losing fire power or relocating from one objective to another with ease? Because GW does not point proper points costs on armies and units that can do that. All they do is to hike price on melee units, that most often work only in perfect conditions, or mixed armed units that get hit by hikes for both being shoty and melee.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 15:38:13


Post by: Xenomancers


Yoyoyo wrote:
Strong ranged offense that can de facto prevent the midfield objectives from being accessible solves "Hold one, hold more".

Really strong defense solves "kill more". If can you remove 1-2 units a turn while the opponent doesn't, you've won the primary mission.

As far as secondaries go, clever list construction probably means your opponent can't score max points easily on the secondaries. SM troops have a big advantage here as they won't give up either Reaper or Gangbusters, and you can't designate the PL7+ units as Marked for Death either and not have it interfere with other secondaries like Big Game Hunter.

So against a list with 40x Intercessors (2x10 and 4x5), an unkillable Leviathan Warlord, 3x untargetable Chaplain Dreads, and 3x3 Eliminators, what do you pick? Butcher's Bill I guess, but then you run into issues with "Kill More" in the later stages of the game once the easy targets are gone.

So tailoring a list to deny scoring against both the primary and secondary mission is something that can be done very effectively in ITC. Whereas I imagine it's harder in CA.
Doesn't this kind of prove the OP's point?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 15:40:55


Post by: happy_inquisitor


Karol wrote:


the thing is not all armies are balanced and able to achive all objectives. Under ITC rules you can tailor your list to do specific things. Better or worse then other lists, but you will have a clear way to win. If the missions are random, then only the most flexible armies and the ones with simplest way to play are going to benefit, because it is just going to be easier to play them. there won't be any opponent got this mission and I drew this cards, and that lost me the game, because GW decided to write our army rules in a specific way.



We all know that was the design intent of the ITC mission and what their supporters claim they do. Look at the LVO results and try to tell anyone that they actually do that while keeping a straight face. Now go back over the ITC mission GTs for the rest of January and keep trying to say it. Wind back the clock to the height of the Castellan meta and do the same. Whatever the meta is it is consistently more extreme in the ITC mission format than it is outside it.

As for drawing cards, only people throwing distractions into the thread are mentioning cards. The OP was about eternal war missions that are no more random than ITC - just more varied.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 15:49:29


Post by: Xenomancers


Yoyoyo wrote:
Is it really controversial to say different armies are stronger in different formats?
Not at all. Foot Custodians would be top teir if the object of the game was to control a central objective in the middle of the table. So would a lot of horde armies. That is what is great about CA rolling for random mission types and deployment types. Certain armies are stronger for certain missions so you will have more army variety. ITC has some good ideas but it is sad how the game at the top levels basically revolves around not engaging and shooting with ILOS weapons and characters that are untargetable. I can't imagine a less fun game than that.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 16:02:54


Post by: catbarf


Karol wrote:
the thing is not all armies are balanced and able to achive all objectives. Under ITC rules you can tailor your list to do specific things. Better or worse then other lists, but you will have a clear way to win. If the missions are random, then only the most flexible armies and the ones with simplest way to play are going to benefit, because it is just going to be easier to play them. there won't be any opponent got this mission and I drew this cards, and that lost me the game, because GW decided to write our army rules in a specific way.


Can you give some examples of objectives that certain armies simply can't perform? I mean, yeah, mech Eldar will have an easier time in mobility-oriented missions and a harder time in take-and-hold, but that's a tradeoff, and they can still do both.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 16:05:10


Post by: Ishagu


Armies can perform all objectives, but not to an equally strong extent. That's why missions with variation that tests different aspects of an army create an effect of balance.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 16:09:12


Post by: TheAvengingKnee


 bullyboy wrote:
I just came back from the LVO, and outside of the massive cock-up that was the third round (I almost took a zero to go enjoy the rest of my Friday night....and I for sure just rolled dice in that game with little care) I had a good time.
However, for sure you are playing one single mission the entire tournament, the differences just don't mean much. ITC took a step last year to incorporate the deployment rules in 1/2 of the missions, perhaps they will be open to changing the missions in those 3 games to 3 of the GW ones. yes, it means a little more thinking, but it might be a step in the right direction.


I didn’t get a chance to keep up with the LVO, what happened in round 3?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 0142/06/15 16:34:52


Post by: bananathug


There was a 5-1 foot custode list (Bridger Hann) at LVO so that's pretty top tier to me.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 16:40:49


Post by: Dysartes


TheAvengingKnee wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
I just came back from the LVO, and outside of the massive cock-up that was the third round (I almost took a zero to go enjoy the rest of my Friday night....and I for sure just rolled dice in that game with little care) I had a good time.
However, for sure you are playing one single mission the entire tournament, the differences just don't mean much. ITC took a step last year to incorporate the deployment rules in 1/2 of the missions, perhaps they will be open to changing the missions in those 3 games to 3 of the GW ones. yes, it means a little more thinking, but it might be a step in the right direction.


I didn’t get a chance to keep up with the LVO, what happened in round 3?

Not sure about round 3, but I know BCP committed seppeku after round 1, so round 2 was late starting by well over an hour.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 17:52:11


Post by: bananathug


As an ITC apologist this post from reddit caused me to re-examine my support. (https://old.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/eup3fo/state_of_tyranids_after_lvo/)

"Sorry but there is no way I can agree that ITC doesn't have abusive format elements. Secondaries heavily influence list building and what units are viable or not. "It gives up to many secondaries" is a common thing you can see when discussing units. Let me copy what I said in the LVO winner thread about the winning list

Marked for Death: Bad because there are only 2 10m Intercessor squads (not to bad to kill) and 4 Dreadnoughts, 3 of which are characters and all of them nigh impossible to kill.

Gang Busters, Titan Slayer, Reaper: No viable target

Big Game Hunter: 4 unkillable dreadnoughts, 3 of which are characters.

Pick your Poison: only 1 possible.

Kingslayer: The Levi is possible but it only gives up 3 points base (so it needs to be healed to get all 4 points) and its nigh impossible to kill.

Headhunter: 2 non-dread Characters in the army. GL with that.

So your left with Butchers Bill. Which is possible but not easy to do for 4 turns while an IH army is tearing you a new one. Your likely to run out of firepower to kill 2 units in 1 turn.

Now compare that to the list that came second at the Caladonian Open which uses ETC rules.

Nids

Broodlord

Prime

2x10 Termgants

10 Warriors

6 Hiveguard

GSC

2x Patriarch

Primus

Jackal Alphus

3x10 Neophytes

2x15 Acolytes with saws

20 Acolytes with Hand Flamers

Clamavus

Compared to the LVO winner this has 8 units possible for Marked for Death, 5 of which are not characters, 3 of which are extremely squishy (the Acolytes)

The warrior unit alone is 5 Gang Buster points, the Hive Guard are another 3 The Prime (who was warlord) gives up full King Slayer points.

Headhunter: 3 pretty squishy GSC characters and the Broodlord and Patriarchs are going to have to come forward to do work.

Butchers Bill: Plenty of squishy units of guardsmen and equiv to kill 2 per turn.

So you have a Marine list that has almost no viable kill secondary targets forcing you to pick objective based ones that then force you to come out into the open to claim them where the Marines can kill you VS a Tyranid list that 5 'easy' kill secondaries to pick against it so the opponent can castle up on 1 objective for Hold every turn and just win by outscoring on secondaries.

The Nid list isn't very viable in ITC "because it gives up to many secondaries"."

Seems a pretty bullet-proof case how ITC mission design warps the game even if I don't want to admit it...


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 17:58:19


Post by: Yoyoyo


bananathug wrote:
Seems a pretty bullet-proof case how ITC mission design warps the game even if I don't want to admit it...

Don't feel too bad. Most people have nothing but respect for those who can admit being mistaken about something. Some people will never change their mind about something, no matter what logic or evidence gets thrown their way.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 18:19:10


Post by: Daedalus81


Spoiler:
bananathug wrote:
As an ITC apologist this post from reddit caused me to re-examine my support. (https://old.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/eup3fo/state_of_tyranids_after_lvo/)

"Sorry but there is no way I can agree that ITC doesn't have abusive format elements. Secondaries heavily influence list building and what units are viable or not. "It gives up to many secondaries" is a common thing you can see when discussing units. Let me copy what I said in the LVO winner thread about the winning list

Marked for Death: Bad because there are only 2 10m Intercessor squads (not to bad to kill) and 4 Dreadnoughts, 3 of which are characters and all of them nigh impossible to kill.

Gang Busters, Titan Slayer, Reaper: No viable target

Big Game Hunter: 4 unkillable dreadnoughts, 3 of which are characters.

Pick your Poison: only 1 possible.

Kingslayer: The Levi is possible but it only gives up 3 points base (so it needs to be healed to get all 4 points) and its nigh impossible to kill.

Headhunter: 2 non-dread Characters in the army. GL with that.

So your left with Butchers Bill. Which is possible but not easy to do for 4 turns while an IH army is tearing you a new one. Your likely to run out of firepower to kill 2 units in 1 turn.

Now compare that to the list that came second at the Caladonian Open which uses ETC rules.

Nids

Broodlord

Prime

2x10 Termgants

10 Warriors

6 Hiveguard

GSC

2x Patriarch

Primus

Jackal Alphus

3x10 Neophytes

2x15 Acolytes with saws

20 Acolytes with Hand Flamers

Clamavus

Compared to the LVO winner this has 8 units possible for Marked for Death, 5 of which are not characters, 3 of which are extremely squishy (the Acolytes)

The warrior unit alone is 5 Gang Buster points, the Hive Guard are another 3 The Prime (who was warlord) gives up full King Slayer points.

Headhunter: 3 pretty squishy GSC characters and the Broodlord and Patriarchs are going to have to come forward to do work.

Butchers Bill: Plenty of squishy units of guardsmen and equiv to kill 2 per turn.

So you have a Marine list that has almost no viable kill secondary targets forcing you to pick objective based ones that then force you to come out into the open to claim them where the Marines can kill you VS a Tyranid list that 5 'easy' kill secondaries to pick against it so the opponent can castle up on 1 objective for Hold every turn and just win by outscoring on secondaries.

The Nid list isn't very viable in ITC "because it gives up to many secondaries"."

Seems a pretty bullet-proof case how ITC mission design warps the game even if I don't want to admit it...


I don't disagree with some of this, but there are a couple problems with the analysis:

1) It is a narrow view for when you're facing pretty much Iron Hands and it would be the exception rather than the norm were it not for IH
2) None of the analysis discussed taking non-killing secondaries, which Nayden did and had relative success until Siegler baited him out and scored a significant number of hits and wounds with a TH

These things don't necessarily refute the points, but is it important to discuss them in context.



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 18:22:00


Post by: catbarf


TBH I've never understood why secondary objectives, especially kill-oriented ones, are necessary to begin with.

I've seen very, very few army builds over the lifetime of this game that could reliably accomplish mission objectives while simultaneously being killed to a man. And being able to leaf-blower the enemy list off the table is inherently a great way to stop the enemy from accomplishing their objectives, and accomplish your own without resistance.

When the main objectives already involve killing the enemy, adding secondary objectives that specifically reward killing seems gratuitous, and non-killing secondaries on top of that just seem like trying (unsuccessfully, I would argue) to walk it back.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 18:40:43


Post by: G00fySmiley


 catbarf wrote:
TBH I've never understood why secondary objectives, especially kill-oriented ones, are necessary to begin with.

I've seen very, very few army builds over the lifetime of this game that could reliably accomplish mission objectives while simultaneously being killed to a man. And being able to leaf-blower the enemy list off the table is inherently a great way to stop the enemy from accomplishing their objectives, and accomplish your own without resistance.

When the main objectives already involve killing the enemy, adding secondary objectives that specifically reward killing seems gratuitous, and non-killing secondaries on top of that just seem like trying (unsuccessfully, I would argue) to walk it back.


part of the reason for secondary in my understanding is more to avoid the paper rock scissor issue in lists. A person could bring 250 ork boyz for 1750 points, leaving room for HQs most take all comers lists would struggle there btu it would give away a lot of secondaries. same for if you bring a take all comers list that has to somehow deal with that ork green tide list AND somehow be ready for a pure knights list.

now how effective it is vs just making a system where people build armies for secondaries over the normal missions may need looking into.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 18:54:30


Post by: bort


Since talking about the LVO scoring here, can someone please explain to me the scoring in round 6 of the final? I saw they started 17-17 and then IH won I think 21-20? Where did his points come from?

RG had 2 objectives and fired everything at the Levi, failing to kill it, but it looked IH pulled an entire squad with Martyrdom, so isn’t that still a RG kill?

IH then walked the Levi on to an objective to hold 2 and then it was unclear whether he killed the RG scouts or not, but I thought not.

If they both got hold, no one had hold more, and RG killed a unit, how did the IH get 4pts to win?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 19:05:43


Post by: bananathug


The amount of work the FLG guys have put into the ITC secondaries shouldn't be down played at all.

I almost feel like they are GW in the sense that they put together a good framework that the players went out and broke.

The ITC missions are trying soooo hard to balance the game instead of making GW do it. There should be game balance reasons why hordes of fearless troops are not a huge advantage and can exists in the same game as a couple t8 24 wound models. Trying to make secondaries that "punish" high wound model units (gang busters) or are specifically tailored to deal with knights (titan slayer) to curb the meta warping of those units has put us in a weird place where there is a second layer of "balancing" going on over GW piss poor attempts at it to make a game where orks and knights can be reasonable opponents vs. the same army.

More objective based secondaries should be a thing. But then how do you create a game state to deal with fearless hordes? The game then just becomes warped around army creation that can hold more for x # of turns.

I strongly feel the criteria for who holds the objective should go to points on the objective tie-breaker for obsec troops instead of bodies.

There has to be a downside to just swamping the board with bodies and getting a lead too big at the beginning of the game.

It is such a delicate balancing act that you think a multi-million dollar company would try harder than a group of guys from a game store but that's the situation we find ourselves in.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 19:12:37


Post by: happy_inquisitor


bananathug wrote:
The amount of work the FLG guys have put into the ITC secondaries shouldn't be down played at all.

I almost feel like they are GW in the sense that they put together a good framework that the players went out and broke.

The ITC missions are trying soooo hard to balance the game instead of making GW do it. There should be game balance reasons why hordes of fearless troops are not a huge advantage and can exists in the same game as a couple t8 24 wound models. Trying to make secondaries that "punish" high wound model units (gang busters) or are specifically tailored to deal with knights (titan slayer) to curb the meta warping of those units has put us in a weird place where there is a second layer of "balancing" going on over GW piss poor attempts at it to make a game where orks and knights can be reasonable opponents vs. the same army.

More objective based secondaries should be a thing. But then how do you create a game state to deal with fearless hordes? The game then just becomes warped around army creation that can hold more for x # of turns.

I strongly feel the criteria for who holds the objective should go to points on the objective tie-breaker for obsec troops instead of bodies.

There has to be a downside to just swamping the board with bodies and getting a lead too big at the beginning of the game.

It is such a delicate balancing act that you think a multi-million dollar company would try harder than a group of guys from a game store but that's the situation we find ourselves in.


What makes you think that fearless hordes are actually a problem in missions other than ITC? The GW GT series has been using pure chapter approved missions for years now and this supposed domination by fearless hordes has never happened.

This seems to be something that people theory-hammer outside of actually playing those missions in competitive games. Yes some people have tried to take fearless horde armies to GT events, no they did not win or even do particularly well. The downside appears to be that it does not work very well, that other armies have the tools to counter it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 19:14:03


Post by: bullyboy


 Dysartes wrote:
TheAvengingKnee wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
I just came back from the LVO, and outside of the massive cock-up that was the third round (I almost took a zero to go enjoy the rest of my Friday night....and I for sure just rolled dice in that game with little care) I had a good time.
However, for sure you are playing one single mission the entire tournament, the differences just don't mean much. ITC took a step last year to incorporate the deployment rules in 1/2 of the missions, perhaps they will be open to changing the missions in those 3 games to 3 of the GW ones. yes, it means a little more thinking, but it might be a step in the right direction.


I didn’t get a chance to keep up with the LVO, what happened in round 3?

Not sure about round 3, but I know BCP committed seppeku after round 1, so round 2 was late starting by well over an hour.


Sorry, yes, it was after round one. However. It pushed the 3rd round so late that it wasn't getting started until after 8pm.
No communication, people just hanging around waiting.
They should have made a decision to delay the rounds and allow people to go rest/relax while getting it fixed.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 19:39:17


Post by: Sim-Life


happy_inquisitor wrote:
bananathug wrote:
The amount of work the FLG guys have put into the ITC secondaries shouldn't be down played at all.

I almost feel like they are GW in the sense that they put together a good framework that the players went out and broke.

The ITC missions are trying soooo hard to balance the game instead of making GW do it. There should be game balance reasons why hordes of fearless troops are not a huge advantage and can exists in the same game as a couple t8 24 wound models. Trying to make secondaries that "punish" high wound model units (gang busters) or are specifically tailored to deal with knights (titan slayer) to curb the meta warping of those units has put us in a weird place where there is a second layer of "balancing" going on over GW piss poor attempts at it to make a game where orks and knights can be reasonable opponents vs. the same army.

More objective based secondaries should be a thing. But then how do you create a game state to deal with fearless hordes? The game then just becomes warped around army creation that can hold more for x # of turns.

I strongly feel the criteria for who holds the objective should go to points on the objective tie-breaker for obsec troops instead of bodies.

There has to be a downside to just swamping the board with bodies and getting a lead too big at the beginning of the game.

It is such a delicate balancing act that you think a multi-million dollar company would try harder than a group of guys from a game store but that's the situation we find ourselves in.


What makes you think that fearless hordes are actually a problem in missions other than ITC? The GW GT series has been using pure chapter approved missions for years now and this supposed domination by fearless hordes has never happened.

This seems to be something that people theory-hammer outside of actually playing those missions in competitive games. Yes some people have tried to take fearless horde armies to GT events, no they did not win or even do particularly well. The downside appears to be that it does not work very well, that other armies have the tools to counter it.


Speaking as a Nid player I've never had any real luck bringing hordes in CA2019. They die in droves. They're useful as a roadblock but they also evaporate and can't kill much of anything. If a Marine even glances in their direction they fall over and they can't do a lot of damage in return. Objective sitting is literally their only use but its not a good long term gameplan. If someone swamps the board then they might dominate the scoring early game but after turn 3 the scoring swings back to the opponent.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 21:36:11


Post by: Ishagu


It's pretty clear that this LVO has really showcased the shortcomings of the ITC mission design.
It's really fascinating how so many players have absolutely no play experience using the official GW missions, and many refuse to entertain the possibility they might be better.
Funny enough a lot of the ITC top players will likely fall into this category as chasing a top position in the ITC leaves no room for playing often using the CA missions.

Also, the truth is that GW cannot be held to account for any meta that is built around 3rd party, homebrew rules. Hard to accept but it is what it is.
If the same volumes of data show the same problems in CA missions then we have more ground to complain. The recent events they've held have not suffered from faction dominance the same was as the ITC have, and that is also a fact.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 21:42:22


Post by: Insectum7


bananathug wrote:
Spoiler:
As an ITC apologist this post from reddit caused me to re-examine my support. (https://old.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/eup3fo/state_of_tyranids_after_lvo/)

"Sorry but there is no way I can agree that ITC doesn't have abusive format elements. Secondaries heavily influence list building and what units are viable or not. "It gives up to many secondaries" is a common thing you can see when discussing units. Let me copy what I said in the LVO winner thread about the winning list

Marked for Death: Bad because there are only 2 10m Intercessor squads (not to bad to kill) and 4 Dreadnoughts, 3 of which are characters and all of them nigh impossible to kill.

Gang Busters, Titan Slayer, Reaper: No viable target

Big Game Hunter: 4 unkillable dreadnoughts, 3 of which are characters.

Pick your Poison: only 1 possible.

Kingslayer: The Levi is possible but it only gives up 3 points base (so it needs to be healed to get all 4 points) and its nigh impossible to kill.

Headhunter: 2 non-dread Characters in the army. GL with that.

So your left with Butchers Bill. Which is possible but not easy to do for 4 turns while an IH army is tearing you a new one. Your likely to run out of firepower to kill 2 units in 1 turn.

Now compare that to the list that came second at the Caladonian Open which uses ETC rules.

Nids

Broodlord

Prime

2x10 Termgants

10 Warriors

6 Hiveguard

GSC

2x Patriarch

Primus

Jackal Alphus

3x10 Neophytes

2x15 Acolytes with saws

20 Acolytes with Hand Flamers

Clamavus

Compared to the LVO winner this has 8 units possible for Marked for Death, 5 of which are not characters, 3 of which are extremely squishy (the Acolytes)

The warrior unit alone is 5 Gang Buster points, the Hive Guard are another 3 The Prime (who was warlord) gives up full King Slayer points.

Headhunter: 3 pretty squishy GSC characters and the Broodlord and Patriarchs are going to have to come forward to do work.

Butchers Bill: Plenty of squishy units of guardsmen and equiv to kill 2 per turn.

So you have a Marine list that has almost no viable kill secondary targets forcing you to pick objective based ones that then force you to come out into the open to claim them where the Marines can kill you VS a Tyranid list that 5 'easy' kill secondaries to pick against it so the opponent can castle up on 1 objective for Hold every turn and just win by outscoring on secondaries.

The Nid list isn't very viable in ITC "because it gives up to many secondaries"."

Seems a pretty bullet-proof case how ITC mission design warps the game even if I don't want to admit it...

That's a great set of observations..

And yeah, on the rare occasions when I've played ITC the ramifications of secondaries have always rubbed me the wrong way.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 22:54:34


Post by: Racerguy180


vict0988 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
A case can be made that the additional randomness inserted by ca19 missions, since you are given the tools to manage it as a player, makes the game MORE competitive than the alternative.

Why don't you make the case instead of making an empty assertion then? Adding randomness to a game only increases the likelihood of the winner being randomly selected, if something is random it is not earned.
Spoiler:

Wayniac wrote:
I still maintain that having each mission with a different "twist" on the objective, if CA19 still has those (I know CA18 did), adds to removing the "stagnant" nature of the game. If you don't know what mission you may get with a specific twist, it should encourage you to build a list to account for that rather than know everything you might come across beforehand so you just build the same old skew/min-max/netlist since there's no drawback to taking it. But if you could get a mission where only characters can hold objectives, or where models with FLY get super objective secured even over troops (CA18 had a mission like this), now all of a sudden you need to prepare for that happening. Your list needs to be more diverse to handle those things which might happen, since they are unknowns and you can't fully prepare for them beforehand.

Champions missions each come with a twist, not to mention that half the missions use alternating while the other half uses all at once deployment. Unlike what some would have you believe, choosing your own secondaries quite often shakes up games. The bonus objective is just a relatively small part of the game and the you're never forced to play kill points against Knights or something equally silly. Champions format is pretty complicated, it has its own learning curve, but it's fun and often gives me a feeling that I could improve and potentially win games I lost.


so all those dice rolls aren't earned? man, I must be playing the game wrong. Kinda weird thing to say in a game that's pretty much dependant on said die rolls.

Nope, youhave not earned your dice rolls and to the degree they decided the game instead of your choices the game is more luck and less skill-based. Having different missions for different goals makes sense. The less obfuscated by luck, the best list and general is at a competitive event the better. The more obfuscated the easier it is to bring less powerful lists and the more forgivibg of mistakes the game will be. Tic tac toe is a solved game, if you want to test who has solved the game and who hasnn't then randomizing every other move is a bad idea, if you are playing it casually it might be fun to add more randomness.


sounds like you've never been shot at, luck has a significant impact on the battlefield. it's making the most of a given situation(positive or negative), with which tools you have, where those tools are in relation to the threat & how good ol' Murphy is feeling that day/time.

I've just never understood why you'd try to make a game like 40k into something the designers obviously dont(otherwise they would).



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/27 23:14:45


Post by: Ordana


Fearless Hordes are always brough up as the reason for needing ITC secondaries and yet I don't think a Fearless Horde list has been dominant outside of ITC since the days of Malific Lord spam?

If it was a problem then GW's own tournaments or the ETC would be suffering from it. Look at the results and see they are not.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 01:07:00


Post by: Sim-Life


 Ordana wrote:
Fearless Hordes are always brough up as the reason for needing ITC secondaries and yet I don't think a Fearless Horde list has been dominant outside of ITC since the days of Malific Lord spam?

If it was a problem then GW's own tournaments or the ETC would be suffering from it. Look at the results and see they are not.


Wasn't conscript spam a big problem in early 8th? Or was it just when paired with knights? Because again that speaks to me that it was a problem with being able to win a game without leaving your deployment zone.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 01:10:07


Post by: Spoletta


You are talking about an age where we played with BRB missions. That is a completely different game compared to what we have now.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 01:20:19


Post by: Ordana


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
Fearless Hordes are always brough up as the reason for needing ITC secondaries and yet I don't think a Fearless Horde list has been dominant outside of ITC since the days of Malific Lord spam?

If it was a problem then GW's own tournaments or the ETC would be suffering from it. Look at the results and see they are not.


Wasn't conscript spam a big problem in early 8th? Or was it just when paired with knights? Because again that speaks to me that it was a problem with being able to win a game without leaving your deployment zone.
since the days of Malific Lord spam
That was before, back when BRB missions and indexes were the game.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 01:40:02


Post by: Sim-Life


How much have ITC missions changed since conscript/malefic spam days? Genuine question.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 02:54:28


Post by: puma713


Just thought I'd move this from the other similar thread to this one:

Smellingsalts wrote:
This has been a very loaded thread! Before I put in my two cents let me say that I personally know Reece and consider him a friend. I own a game store and our league uses ITC rules. The problem I see in some peoples' dissatisfaction with the ITC is that it seems that ITC has been made to provide the most balanced game between two equally talented opponents as you can create. This obviously influences the meta. Reece and crew did not approach the tournament scene with the idea of making cool interesting gaming tables with special rules that affect units differently. Nor did they try to create some underlying narrative for each game where objectives are different and may favor some armies over others (although you could say some of that is included in the secondary objectives each player chooses).The problem is in the game design and lore that GW has created. So step one, to make us all special snow flakes, so that my army is different from yours, all armies have strengths and weaknesses. You need this to make armies interesting, otherwise we may as well all play Space Marines. In theory, any given army should be able to play any other and achieve a win. The problem GW inevitably tends to fall into is Soup. As soon as you allow allies, it lets players use another army to compensate for their weaknesses and give them strengths. They have taken care of the problem in AOS but not 40K. Compare the number of lists an Imperial player has to draw upon to, say, a Tyranid. The player with access to the most lists has a powerful advantage because part of creating a tournament list is anticipating/compensating for what you will fight. How do you anticipate the synergy's created by mixing 20 lists? So soup is a major problem that needs to be fixed, Not to mention it is easier for game designers to balance one distinct army from another when allies are not included.

The next issue is scenarios. I personally feel that ITC missions try to include too many objectives all at once. For people who would like some kind of narrative experience in their competitive play (and believe it or not, there are a lot of them) this makes all ITC games feel like Vanilla. It takes some of the fun out of the game. There is a maxim for retailers, but it holds true for any activity where your trying to grow the base of participants. "Don't make them jump through too many hoops." Let's say an ITC mission is 7 hoops. Do you really need 7? Could you get it done with just 4? How many players drop off at hoop 3?; at hoop 6? I remember when GW ran their own tournaments and you couldn't wait to see the scenario pack they would post so you could imagine how you would craft an army that could handle each one. That was fun! Keeping score on ITC missions just feels like homeworking I'm being punished to finish.

Tables are another issue. Terrain rules are not played out of the book because vehicles most of the time can't take cover behind a building. With true line of sight you can see through windows and pop them. So ITC makes the rule that you can't see through the first level of a building. So now the meta favors tanks over infantry. So meta changes and vehicles are popular. What do vehicles have over guys on foot? Mobility and fire power. How do guys on foot fight that? Gunlines and turtling up around objectives. So meta changes and favors gunlines. Meanwhile all of your buildings might as well be square boxes because all they do is block line of sight, so terrain on board becomes less interesting because why model a cool ruin when a square box is what is needed. I remember going to GW tournaments and seeing amazing tables with really cool modeled terrain. Were some of those tables not good for my army? Sure. Did I still want to play on them? Heck yeah!

Finally, ITC minimizes any scoring that is subjective. The problem with that is that if sportsmanship won't make or break you except in extreme cases, sportsmanship is minimized. If painting is not an integral part of your score, the hobby aspect is minimized (and I realize that ITC is trying to make hobby matter by being more strict on what you bring to the table, but really you can do the minimum and win).This all creates a meta where people are looking for the next broken list and making that army, and then discarding it when the next broken list comes out. This leads to borrowhammer, another issue the ITC is wrestling with. So is the future of the ITC netlists and borrowhammer? Is the game going to become so competitive that it drives away potential players (as has Warmachine imho).
My sense is that GW will start to exert control over the ITC and gradually shape it in a way that is more like their old tournaments where soft scores were more important. They will use the heroine that is playtesting, free product and foreknowledge of upcoming products, along with that GW seal of approval to bend the ITC to their will. It's already happening in the new level of painting required. Next you will only be able to use GW models in "official" tournaments." My hope is that Reece and crew can navigate these waters and continue to run these large events, however they may end up.


This. All of this. Exalted.

It seems to want to drive to the point of: if everything was equal - two equal armies, two equal deployments, equal cover, equal LOS blocking terrain, equal objectives - who is the better general? But is that really the test of a great general? And is that really 40k anymore?

I would think the test of an even greater general is navigating the field with shifting terrain, shifting objectives and a diverse opponent pool. Is the ITC really finding the best general? Or is it finding the best person who can build a list that takes advantage of a relatively fixed system?




TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 03:46:32


Post by: bort


 puma713 wrote:


It seems to want to drive to the point of: if everything was equal - two equal armies, two equal deployments, equal cover, equal LOS blocking terrain, equal objectives - who is the better general? But is that really the test of a great general? And is that really 40k anymore?

I would think the test of an even greater general is navigating the field with shifting terrain, shifting objectives and a diverse opponent pool. Is the ITC really finding the best general? Or is it finding the best person who can build a list that takes advantage of a relatively fixed system?




As a general competitive game design principle, you have to favor the balanced map. Whether that's "true 40K" or not is subjective, but it's the only way to run a ladder tournament system. If you were to play against the same person for say 5 games straight, yeah, every mission should be quite diverse. But when you are setting up a tourney system of 1 off games, no one wants to be the one going in randomly at a disadvantage. And if you win, does that even prove anything beyond you got the better map side? Look at esports for comparison. Maps are symmetrical so anyone can be tossed in randomly and have a fair game and all games can be compared for balance and for rankings.

All that said, I want GW to be the one releasing the tournament balanced scenarios and good terrain rules, not ITC.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 05:49:07


Post by: Spoletta


Remember that one player chooses the side and the other one goes first.


The game is designed for asymmetrical maps.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 08:12:22


Post by: Jidmah


I really would like to see a tournament where they just play a pre-communicated fixed CA2019 eternal war mission and a different one each round. Those mission are really balanced for almost all armies and if you know which mission you are going to play, you can avoid screwing yourself over by building an army that falls flat on its face in one of them.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 08:27:56


Post by: An Actual Englishman


From the other thread discussing this;


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Spoiler:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
What ‘house rule’ are you talking about? Do you mean ITC, the most popular way to play 40k competitively? Yes the results are somewhat relevant.
No they're not.

Imagine if every year the rules for soccer were revised, but based only on matches played between LA Galaxy and Los Angeles FC. They wouldn't represent a fraction of the league soccer tournaments across the world, yet their results would be reflected in a yearly rules update. That would be absurd.

This is why GW making changes to the game based on ITC is stupid.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Gents it doesn’t matter what any of us believe. GW believe that ITC is most popular, or at the very least there’s a market there. They’re acting on that belief. That is all.
So you've been unable to counter any points made against you, so have resorted to "Well... it just is!".

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
E - I’ve just realised this is all off topic anyways. I’m out.
And then you're going to run away, having got in the last word. Classy.


I think you need to calm down. I don't really care about this discussion, I have no stake one way or another. I've already said my club has transitioned into playing Maelstrom missions instead of ITC.

I'm simply trying to explain to you why GW think balancing around ITC is a sensible thing to do. If you disagree with them, take it up with them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:GW believe that ITC is most popular
Do they? Even more popular than their own published rules?

I think not. But, if you can give a source...
or at the very least there’s a market there.
There's also a market for people who like more casual games, or only play Narrative/Open play games.

I'm not saying ITC doesn't have a market, or that it's not considerable, but until you've got proof that it's the most popular/common way to play 40k (which, I'm sorry to say, it really probably isn't), you shouldn't be making comments suggesting that it is, and that GW should cater to what is still, at the end of the day, a third party set of rules.


Would you FIFA to rewrite their rules and regulations because of schoolyard football games being played across the world?

You're strawmanning. Read my posts - I have also said I don't believe competitive is the most popular way to play 40k full stop. Not ITC, not ETC or any other mission set.

What I have said is that ITC is the most popular way to play 40k COMPETITIVELY. As to my proof of this I don't have any conclusive proof, obviously, but the largest 40k tournament ever uses ITC rules....


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 08:48:57


Post by: jivardi


My biggest issue at my LGS is only one other person like the MoW missions. The other 6 or 7 prefer the simple Eternal War.

I like the direction GW has gone with the MoW missions and all other missions that use the random tactical objectives. It adds some excitement to the games rather than just kill everything or park 90 plaguebearers on or near an objective and hold for 5 turns and win because none of my opponents have armies that can shift 90 plaguebearers.



TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 08:50:51


Post by: happy_inquisitor


 Jidmah wrote:
I really would like to see a tournament where they just play a pre-communicated fixed CA2019 eternal war mission and a different one each round. Those mission are really balanced for almost all armies and if you know which mission you are going to play, you can avoid screwing yourself over by building an army that falls flat on its face in one of them.


The GW GT final was this. Each of the 6 missions was played once.

Normal GT events only play 5 out of the 6 missions, I guess so that people can get back home on the Sunday. I do not believe they pre-communicate which one they are skipping so you may as well do your list design like you would for the final so you do not risk getting caught out by a mission you did not design for.

My local RTTs use 3 of the missions, the TO will communicate which ones if you bother to ask


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 10:06:22


Post by: tneva82


 puma713 wrote:
Just thought I'd move this from the other similar thread to this one:

Smellingsalts wrote:
This has been a very loaded thread! Before I put in my two cents let me say that I personally know Reece and consider him a friend. I own a game store and our league uses ITC rules. The problem I see in some peoples' dissatisfaction with the ITC is that it seems that ITC has been made to provide the most balanced game between two equally talented opponents as you can create. This obviously influences the meta. Reece and crew did not approach the tournament scene with the idea of making cool interesting gaming tables with special rules that affect units differently. Nor did they try to create some underlying narrative for each game where objectives are different and may favor some armies over others (although you could say some of that is included in the secondary objectives each player chooses).The problem is in the game design and lore that GW has created. So step one, to make us all special snow flakes, so that my army is different from yours, all armies have strengths and weaknesses. You need this to make armies interesting, otherwise we may as well all play Space Marines. In theory, any given army should be able to play any other and achieve a win. The problem GW inevitably tends to fall into is Soup. As soon as you allow allies, it lets players use another army to compensate for their weaknesses and give them strengths. They have taken care of the problem in AOS but not 40K. Compare the number of lists an Imperial player has to draw upon to, say, a Tyranid. The player with access to the most lists has a powerful advantage because part of creating a tournament list is anticipating/compensating for what you will fight. How do you anticipate the synergy's created by mixing 20 lists? So soup is a major problem that needs to be fixed, Not to mention it is easier for game designers to balance one distinct army from another when allies are not included.

The next issue is scenarios. I personally feel that ITC missions try to include too many objectives all at once. For people who would like some kind of narrative experience in their competitive play (and believe it or not, there are a lot of them) this makes all ITC games feel like Vanilla. It takes some of the fun out of the game. There is a maxim for retailers, but it holds true for any activity where your trying to grow the base of participants. "Don't make them jump through too many hoops." Let's say an ITC mission is 7 hoops. Do you really need 7? Could you get it done with just 4? How many players drop off at hoop 3?; at hoop 6? I remember when GW ran their own tournaments and you couldn't wait to see the scenario pack they would post so you could imagine how you would craft an army that could handle each one. That was fun! Keeping score on ITC missions just feels like homeworking I'm being punished to finish.

Tables are another issue. Terrain rules are not played out of the book because vehicles most of the time can't take cover behind a building. With true line of sight you can see through windows and pop them. So ITC makes the rule that you can't see through the first level of a building. So now the meta favors tanks over infantry. So meta changes and vehicles are popular. What do vehicles have over guys on foot? Mobility and fire power. How do guys on foot fight that? Gunlines and turtling up around objectives. So meta changes and favors gunlines. Meanwhile all of your buildings might as well be square boxes because all they do is block line of sight, so terrain on board becomes less interesting because why model a cool ruin when a square box is what is needed. I remember going to GW tournaments and seeing amazing tables with really cool modeled terrain. Were some of those tables not good for my army? Sure. Did I still want to play on them? Heck yeah!

Finally, ITC minimizes any scoring that is subjective. The problem with that is that if sportsmanship won't make or break you except in extreme cases, sportsmanship is minimized. If painting is not an integral part of your score, the hobby aspect is minimized (and I realize that ITC is trying to make hobby matter by being more strict on what you bring to the table, but really you can do the minimum and win).This all creates a meta where people are looking for the next broken list and making that army, and then discarding it when the next broken list comes out. This leads to borrowhammer, another issue the ITC is wrestling with. So is the future of the ITC netlists and borrowhammer? Is the game going to become so competitive that it drives away potential players (as has Warmachine imho).
My sense is that GW will start to exert control over the ITC and gradually shape it in a way that is more like their old tournaments where soft scores were more important. They will use the heroine that is playtesting, free product and foreknowledge of upcoming products, along with that GW seal of approval to bend the ITC to their will. It's already happening in the new level of painting required. Next you will only be able to use GW models in "official" tournaments." My hope is that Reece and crew can navigate these waters and continue to run these large events, however they may end up.


This. All of this. Exalted.

It seems to want to drive to the point of: if everything was equal - two equal armies, two equal deployments, equal cover, equal LOS blocking terrain, equal objectives - who is the better general? But is that really the test of a great general? And is that really 40k anymore?

I would think the test of an even greater general is navigating the field with shifting terrain, shifting objectives and a diverse opponent pool. Is the ITC really finding the best general? Or is it finding the best person who can build a list that takes advantage of a relatively fixed system?




So in their misguided attempt to make esport out of game that is fool's errand they have managed to...make balance worse. Good job!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 10:12:42


Post by: Yoyoyo


You can discuss the merits of the ITC missions, but I think their efforts and the interest they've generated towards the more competitive side of 40k are unquestionable.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 10:22:44


Post by: happy_inquisitor


 puma713 wrote:
Just thought I'd move this from the other similar thread to this one:

Smellingsalts wrote:


Finally, ITC minimizes any scoring that is subjective. The problem with that is that if sportsmanship won't make or break you except in extreme cases, sportsmanship is minimized. If painting is not an integral part of your score, the hobby aspect is minimized (and I realize that ITC is trying to make hobby matter by being more strict on what you bring to the table, but really you can do the minimum and win).This all creates a meta where people are looking for the next broken list and making that army, and then discarding it when the next broken list comes out. This leads to borrowhammer, another issue the ITC is wrestling with. So is the future of the ITC netlists and borrowhammer? Is the game going to become so competitive that it drives away potential players (as has Warmachine imho).


This. All of this. Exalted.

It seems to want to drive to the point of: if everything was equal - two equal armies, two equal deployments, equal cover, equal LOS blocking terrain, equal objectives - who is the better general? But is that really the test of a great general? And is that really 40k anymore?

I would think the test of an even greater general is navigating the field with shifting terrain, shifting objectives and a diverse opponent pool. Is the ITC really finding the best general? Or is it finding the best person who can build a list that takes advantage of a relatively fixed system?




I agree with about 80% of that which is remarkable on the internet

I just wanted to note something slightly surprising that I have noticed over the past year or so. The move to streaming - and the reaction to visible bad sports and even cheating - has had more of an effect than I expected. There are several of the very top players now who are looking to make this semi-professional and who as a result are making a very real effort to be conspicuous good sports. From what we can see on stream I think it would be a pleasure to be beaten by players like Richard Seigler or Nick Nanavati. This is very different to the situation maybe two years ago when we could all see a lot of unsporting or shady behaviour from top players and the top tables honestly looked like a rather toxic place to be.

The ITC has not directly found a way to address poor sportsmanship but it does look like the spotlight of streaming on top tables is beginning to have the required effect - when being a jerk is so visible and people are willing to call players out on it maybe that is enough of a reason to not be a jerk? Or maybe we have just been lucky with what was on stream this year - I know someone was clocking up yellow cards real fast on the top tables so it is not yet the case that everyone is playing nice.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 10:25:47


Post by: Dudeface


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
From the other thread discussing this;


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Spoiler:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
What ‘house rule’ are you talking about? Do you mean ITC, the most popular way to play 40k competitively? Yes the results are somewhat relevant.
No they're not.

Imagine if every year the rules for soccer were revised, but based only on matches played between LA Galaxy and Los Angeles FC. They wouldn't represent a fraction of the league soccer tournaments across the world, yet their results would be reflected in a yearly rules update. That would be absurd.

This is why GW making changes to the game based on ITC is stupid.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Gents it doesn’t matter what any of us believe. GW believe that ITC is most popular, or at the very least there’s a market there. They’re acting on that belief. That is all.
So you've been unable to counter any points made against you, so have resorted to "Well... it just is!".

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
E - I’ve just realised this is all off topic anyways. I’m out.
And then you're going to run away, having got in the last word. Classy.


I think you need to calm down. I don't really care about this discussion, I have no stake one way or another. I've already said my club has transitioned into playing Maelstrom missions instead of ITC.

I'm simply trying to explain to you why GW think balancing around ITC is a sensible thing to do. If you disagree with them, take it up with them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:GW believe that ITC is most popular
Do they? Even more popular than their own published rules?

I think not. But, if you can give a source...
or at the very least there’s a market there.
There's also a market for people who like more casual games, or only play Narrative/Open play games.

I'm not saying ITC doesn't have a market, or that it's not considerable, but until you've got proof that it's the most popular/common way to play 40k (which, I'm sorry to say, it really probably isn't), you shouldn't be making comments suggesting that it is, and that GW should cater to what is still, at the end of the day, a third party set of rules.


Would you FIFA to rewrite their rules and regulations because of schoolyard football games being played across the world?

You're strawmanning. Read my posts - I have also said I don't believe competitive is the most popular way to play 40k full stop. Not ITC, not ETC or any other mission set.

What I have said is that ITC is the most popular way to play 40k COMPETITIVELY. As to my proof of this I don't have any conclusive proof, obviously, but the largest 40k tournament ever uses ITC rules....


If you don't care , don't engage to avoid the hostile situations, although I understand why you're trying to show your reasoning for you thinking GW should want to balance around ITC, however you don't know what they're reasoning is and hence all this is subjective at best. The LVO is so big partly due to years of invested effort creating a community, partly because they can actually host that many when many organisers can't, but most importantly the American scene is so ingrained into ITC and this is the big soap box drama showdown for the whole season.

Adepticon looks to not be ITC missions this year and has 310 player capacity, which will hopefully provide some interesting results.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 10:39:04


Post by: Kdash


So, my thoughts…
Secondaries in ITC are an issue, though I think the main issue is that there is usually a big advantage to build your list to a) deny your opponent secondaries, and b) setup your list to focus on at least 2 secondaries with multiple options for reliably achieving a 3rd based on your opponent. This therefore means that it becomes a game of list building and secondary scoring, opposed to a game about the actual, primary, mission.
That for me doesn’t help balance in any shape or form and comes down to it being a matchup between those that understand ITC list building and (I feel) the majority that do not. Hence why the entire Brohammer team took exactly the same list to the LVO.

Unfortunately, the only real way for ITC to get around this problem is to scrap secondaries entirely, or, have them randomly decided at the start of each game.

You still have the issue of being able to pre-build your list to do well in x amount of primary missions, but, I feel that this is an area where GW is ahead of the ITC, in that the way that their primaries are scored is sufficiently (or close to) different mission to mission to deny 1 list from being able to stomp through all of them without issue or matchup concern.

I’ve not played the new Maelstrom missions yet, but, some of the most intense competitive games I’ve played have been where the ET missions have been combined with the Maelstrom missions. Now that the issue of randomness has been reduced due to the new deck building rules, I feel like this should be something to go back and look at. It also adds an additional level of list building and planning skill to each player, as they’ll have to decide on whether to double down on the ET mission, or, work on a way to cover off both missions whilst being strong enough to compete.

Now, I include myself in this next comment, but I think it needs to be said.
People enjoy ITC because they know what is going to happen and know what their list can do even in hard counter situations. They might not be able to win, but, they’ll know how to score points to aid their overall placing.
People are scared to move away from this, because the vast majority of people aren’t skilled enough to adapt mid game to score points if something throws a spanner into the works. We’d all rather blame bad dice or “imbalance” for our losses, rather than the idea that our list couldn’t handle a small bit of randomness. Which is also why I personally think some level of randomness SHOULD be strived for in the competitive scene. Independent and quick thinking should be way more valuable than netlisting and practicing with the list a dozen times.

For me, you should win the battle on the day on the tabletop due to skill and decision making, regardless of what random things happen in the game, not 4 weeks beforehand when you build your list.

For those wanting some data on competitive CA19 events, we are unfortunately lacking right now, simply because most stats collators blank any event not on BCP, or not running 2000 points (which includes the GW heats and finals). I get that it can be hard to collect the data, and specifically the lists, but, even when that is known some events just get instantly dismissed because they are run at 1750 points or simply “aren’t ITC”. This isn’t going to change imo.
With that in mind, below is some of the info from the Caledonian event and the GW finals.
Caledonian Uprising –
Top 10
Thousand Sons & un-aligned Daemons soup.
Forces of the Hive Mind.
CSM & Nurgle soup.
Imperial Fists.
Raven Guard & Imperial Fists.
Iron Hands (Astraeus & Repulsors).
GSC.
Blood Angels.
Iron Hands.
Orks.
Full lists can be found here - https://tabletop.to/caledonian-uprising-2020

GW Finals –
Top 10
Iron Hands.
T’au.
Grey Knights & Guard & BA.
Imperial Fists.
Drukhari.
Blood Angels.
Iron Hands.
Orks.
Chaos Soup.
Harlequins.
It is worth noting here, that outside of the 2 placings I’ve listed as soup, I am unable to confirm if the other lists souped or not.
Final standings can be found as pictures on the Warhammer World Events Facebook page.

Now, if we count the GK/Guard/BA list as Marines, we see that over the 2 events, 50% of the top 10’s were Space Marine lists. Whilst this is still higher than we’d all like to see, we can already see the difference between “competitive” diversity between this format and the ITC format. We 100% need more data, but, as both of these events were attended by a lot of the best players in the country, inc some that performed very well at the LVO this year, we can potentially start to draw a bit of information from the results and at least begin to wonder what the possibilities could be.

The final comment I’d like to make is in response to “soft scores” someone mentioned a few pages back. Personally, I think soft scores should remain outside of “best general” rankings. Maybe you can have a separate ranking at the event which includes it, but, it should not affect the rankings on “who played best”. Like it or not, you’re more likely to get awarded a “best game” vote in games where you get absolutely destroyed, than in games where you handily win, unless you are an exceptional person to game with.

ITC has been a fantastic pillar for the scene to stand on and grow from, and the circuit will remain so, regardless of what happens. However, I feel that their format is nearing its end as a requirement now that GW is offering a viable alternative.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 10:40:59


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


An Actual Englishman wrote:What I have said is that ITC is the most popular way to play 40k COMPETITIVELY.
Yes, and that's what I'm disagreeing with.
As to my proof of this I don't have any conclusive proof, obviously, but the largest 40k tournament ever uses ITC rules....
Yes, a tournament - but there's several other factors to consider:
- It's in the US, so that immediately more attractive to the American audience (who seems to be a more competitive bunch anyways - not that I have proof, but that mindset seems more common in my very limited experience)
- Isn't it only once per year? Compared to the competitively run events that GW hold at WHW nearly every weekend, that have pretty nice turnouts? So, for every LVO, there's probably at least a dozen comp events being run with GW's own ruleset in an official capacity.
- That doesn't factor in all the people playing games in hobby stores or at home competitively - which is realistically the largest proportion of competitive players anyways.

Basically, what I'm saying is that while LVO might be the single most populated tournament, is it big enough that the rest of the game should be balanced around a 3rd party ruleset that, as people are discussing in this thread, isn't too much more "balanced" than basic 40k's? From my understanding, what the ITC ruleset does is akin to taking a square, whittling down the corners to make it fit in a circular hole, and still struggling to squeeze it through.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 10:50:18


Post by: Kdash


happy_inquisitor wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
Just thought I'd move this from the other similar thread to this one:

Smellingsalts wrote:


Finally, ITC minimizes any scoring that is subjective. The problem with that is that if sportsmanship won't make or break you except in extreme cases, sportsmanship is minimized. If painting is not an integral part of your score, the hobby aspect is minimized (and I realize that ITC is trying to make hobby matter by being more strict on what you bring to the table, but really you can do the minimum and win).This all creates a meta where people are looking for the next broken list and making that army, and then discarding it when the next broken list comes out. This leads to borrowhammer, another issue the ITC is wrestling with. So is the future of the ITC netlists and borrowhammer? Is the game going to become so competitive that it drives away potential players (as has Warmachine imho).


This. All of this. Exalted.

It seems to want to drive to the point of: if everything was equal - two equal armies, two equal deployments, equal cover, equal LOS blocking terrain, equal objectives - who is the better general? But is that really the test of a great general? And is that really 40k anymore?

I would think the test of an even greater general is navigating the field with shifting terrain, shifting objectives and a diverse opponent pool. Is the ITC really finding the best general? Or is it finding the best person who can build a list that takes advantage of a relatively fixed system?




I agree with about 80% of that which is remarkable on the internet

I just wanted to note something slightly surprising that I have noticed over the past year or so. The move to streaming - and the reaction to visible bad sports and even cheating - has had more of an effect than I expected. There are several of the very top players now who are looking to make this semi-professional and who as a result are making a very real effort to be conspicuous good sports. From what we can see on stream I think it would be a pleasure to be beaten by players like Richard Seigler or Nick Nanavati. This is very different to the situation maybe two years ago when we could all see a lot of unsporting or shady behaviour from top players and the top tables honestly looked like a rather toxic place to be.

The ITC has not directly found a way to address poor sportsmanship but it does look like the spotlight of streaming on top tables is beginning to have the required effect - when being a jerk is so visible and people are willing to call players out on it maybe that is enough of a reason to not be a jerk? Or maybe we have just been lucky with what was on stream this year - I know someone was clocking up yellow cards real fast on the top tables so it is not yet the case that everyone is playing nice.


Personally, I think the ITC need to hard reset their mentality on discipline enforcement. At times it feels like they will do everything possible to either not card someone, or to not DQ someone for multiple offenses.

The way I see it, initially, is go strict and then ease back until you find the right balance. I’d personally just start with – “If you get a yellow card at any point, then you’re not eligible to enter the final cut regardless of your score”.
For example, if someone gets a yellow due to their list not being submitted on time, but they then go 6-0 at the LVO, they’d not make the finals cut.

It might seem harsh, but it is not going to affect 95%+ of the players that go to events, as they behave and conduct themselves perfectly for the entire event, and if I am being bold, I’d suggest that anyone that was “scared” or “put off” by something like this, I’d have to question why?

All this of course requires the TO teams to be strong and completely impartial, which is a challenge in of itself.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:What I have said is that ITC is the most popular way to play 40k COMPETITIVELY.
Yes, and that's what I'm disagreeing with.
As to my proof of this I don't have any conclusive proof, obviously, but the largest 40k tournament ever uses ITC rules....
Yes, a tournament - but there's several other factors to consider:
- It's in the US, so that immediately more attractive to the American audience (who seems to be a more competitive bunch anyways - not that I have proof, but that mindset seems more common in my very limited experience)
- Isn't it only once per year? Compared to the competitively run events that GW hold at WHW nearly every weekend, that have pretty nice turnouts? So, for every LVO, there's probably at least a dozen comp events being run with GW's own ruleset in an official capacity.
- That doesn't factor in all the people playing games in hobby stores or at home competitively - which is realistically the largest proportion of competitive players anyways.

Basically, what I'm saying is that while LVO might be the single most populated tournament, is it big enough that the rest of the game should be balanced around a 3rd party ruleset that, as people are discussing in this thread, isn't too much more "balanced" than basic 40k's? From my understanding, what the ITC ruleset does is akin to taking a square, whittling down the corners to make it fit in a circular hole, and still struggling to squeeze it through.


The LVO has the highest participation levels of any events in the world for one reason – it is the final event of the ITC season and has the potential to massively change your standing and get you in the running for a prize. It also has the benefit of being well established over multiple years, and it being held in a country with a very strong competitive scene.

If the LVO had decided to run CA19 missions this year, it would still have been the biggest event in the world.

it is the Crown Jewel event of the year and the big finale to a year of hard work. That isn’t going to change just because the missions they use might change.
The ITC is a scene. It is a year long race for points. A mentality and a strive to be the best Warhammer player over the course of the year. The ITC is not a mission set.


I feel like this is something that people have truly lost focus on, and instead only see the ITC as a ruleset.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 11:06:01


Post by: Yoyoyo


If each yellow card subtracts -3pts from your game score, they will disappear fast.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 12:17:12


Post by: Jidmah


Kdash wrote:
Spoiler:
So, my thoughts…
Secondaries in ITC are an issue, though I think the main issue is that there is usually a big advantage to build your list to a) deny your opponent secondaries, and b) setup your list to focus on at least 2 secondaries with multiple options for reliably achieving a 3rd based on your opponent. This therefore means that it becomes a game of list building and secondary scoring, opposed to a game about the actual, primary, mission.
That for me doesn’t help balance in any shape or form and comes down to it being a matchup between those that understand ITC list building and (I feel) the majority that do not. Hence why the entire Brohammer team took exactly the same list to the LVO.

Unfortunately, the only real way for ITC to get around this problem is to scrap secondaries entirely, or, have them randomly decided at the start of each game.

You still have the issue of being able to pre-build your list to do well in x amount of primary missions, but, I feel that this is an area where GW is ahead of the ITC, in that the way that their primaries are scored is sufficiently (or close to) different mission to mission to deny 1 list from being able to stomp through all of them without issue or matchup concern.

I’ve not played the new Maelstrom missions yet, but, some of the most intense competitive games I’ve played have been where the ET missions have been combined with the Maelstrom missions. Now that the issue of randomness has been reduced due to the new deck building rules, I feel like this should be something to go back and look at. It also adds an additional level of list building and planning skill to each player, as they’ll have to decide on whether to double down on the ET mission, or, work on a way to cover off both missions whilst being strong enough to compete.

Now, I include myself in this next comment, but I think it needs to be said.
People enjoy ITC because they know what is going to happen and know what their list can do even in hard counter situations. They might not be able to win, but, they’ll know how to score points to aid their overall placing.
People are scared to move away from this, because the vast majority of people aren’t skilled enough to adapt mid game to score points if something throws a spanner into the works. We’d all rather blame bad dice or “imbalance” for our losses, rather than the idea that our list couldn’t handle a small bit of randomness. Which is also why I personally think some level of randomness SHOULD be strived for in the competitive scene. Independent and quick thinking should be way more valuable than netlisting and practicing with the list a dozen times.

For me, you should win the battle on the day on the tabletop due to skill and decision making, regardless of what random things happen in the game, not 4 weeks beforehand when you build your list.

For those wanting some data on competitive CA19 events, we are unfortunately lacking right now, simply because most stats collators blank any event not on BCP, or not running 2000 points (which includes the GW heats and finals). I get that it can be hard to collect the data, and specifically the lists, but, even when that is known some events just get instantly dismissed because they are run at 1750 points or simply “aren’t ITC”. This isn’t going to change imo.
With that in mind, below is some of the info from the Caledonian event and the GW finals.
Caledonian Uprising –
Top 10
Thousand Sons & un-aligned Daemons soup.
Forces of the Hive Mind.
CSM & Nurgle soup.
Imperial Fists.
Raven Guard & Imperial Fists.
Iron Hands (Astraeus & Repulsors).
GSC.
Blood Angels.
Iron Hands.
Orks.
Full lists can be found here - https://tabletop.to/caledonian-uprising-2020

GW Finals –
Top 10
Iron Hands.
T’au.
Grey Knights & Guard & BA.
Imperial Fists.
Drukhari.
Blood Angels.
Iron Hands.
Orks.
Chaos Soup.
Harlequins.
It is worth noting here, that outside of the 2 placings I’ve listed as soup, I am unable to confirm if the other lists souped or not.
Final standings can be found as pictures on the Warhammer World Events Facebook page.

Now, if we count the GK/Guard/BA list as Marines, we see that over the 2 events, 50% of the top 10’s were Space Marine lists. Whilst this is still higher than we’d all like to see, we can already see the difference between “competitive” diversity between this format and the ITC format. We 100% need more data, but, as both of these events were attended by a lot of the best players in the country, inc some that performed very well at the LVO this year, we can potentially start to draw a bit of information from the results and at least begin to wonder what the possibilities could be.

The final comment I’d like to make is in response to “soft scores” someone mentioned a few pages back. Personally, I think soft scores should remain outside of “best general” rankings. Maybe you can have a separate ranking at the event which includes it, but, it should not affect the rankings on “who played best”. Like it or not, you’re more likely to get awarded a “best game” vote in games where you get absolutely destroyed, than in games where you handily win, unless you are an exceptional person to game with.

ITC has been a fantastic pillar for the scene to stand on and grow from, and the circuit will remain so, regardless of what happens. However, I feel that their format is nearing its end as a requirement now that GW is offering a viable alternative.


So much great stuff written here. Exalted!


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 12:34:19


Post by: Sim-Life


Kdash wrote:

it is the Crown Jewel event of the year and the big finale to a year of hard work. That isn’t going to change just because the missions they use might change.
The ITC is a scene. It is a year long race for points. A mentality and a strive to be the best Warhammer player over the course of the year. The ITC is not a mission set.


I feel like this is something that people have truly lost focus on, and instead only see the ITC as a ruleset.


Thats because to most people thats what it is. The ITC is nothing to most people outside America and even then IN America I'd say most 40k players don't care. Outside of America its at most a talking point for other players to go "did you see what happened at the ITC? Why would you subject yourself to that, sounds awful." Just because you revere the ITC as some kind of glorious event doesn't mean anyone else does. It could disappear tomorrow and a majority of the community would say "That sucks" and get on with their life.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 12:34:47


Post by: Wayniac


I remember when soft scores were an expected part of RTTs and GTs, yes including the dreaded "comp score". But you know what? It made sense for the overall winner to be the person who best represented the hobby as a whole rather than the person who can build the best list. So I think soft scores should remain/come back, but only affect the overall winner. You still have (and had back in the day) the "Best General" for the guy who crushed everyone, but if they had a minimally painted army, was an donkey-cave to play against or clearly didn't give two feths about the background and lore, it was unlikely they would be the overall winner and would have to be content with Best General and not "Champion".

I get the reason for ITC having their missions the way they are, it's like they tried to mimic the Warmahordes Steamroller scenarios. Which, having played Warmahordes a couple of years, had the same effect: They dominated everything as being the "most balanced" way to game (and this went doubly so since Warmahordes was being pushed as a competitive game) and as a result not only were the non-SR missions pretty garbage and uninspiring (and really didn't suit the tone of the game) but you rarely if ever saw anything but Steamroller scenarios played, even in a casual meta, which lent itself towards seeing more and more game nights that were little more than unorganized tournaments which used all of the tournament rules anyways.

Nevermind the IMHO ridiculousness of trying to turn Warhammer, of all games, into a "t-sport" like some people are trying, it just makes for bland gameplay. Some element of randomness/unknown mission is part of the way 40k gets balanced, whether that's good or bad. Removing it by knowing in advance every mission and how to build for it just lets you build a skew list rather than be penalized for going too far into skew if you get that one mission which goes against your list.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 12:46:54


Post by: happy_inquisitor


Kdash wrote:
So, my thoughts…
Secondaries in ITC are an issue, though I think the main issue is that there is usually a big advantage to build your list to a) deny your opponent secondaries, and b) setup your list to focus on at least 2 secondaries with multiple options for reliably achieving a 3rd based on your opponent. This therefore means that it becomes a game of list building and secondary scoring, opposed to a game about the actual, primary, mission.
That for me doesn’t help balance in any shape or form and comes down to it being a matchup between those that understand ITC list building and (I feel) the majority that do not. Hence why the entire Brohammer team took exactly the same list to the LVO.



The other thing about secondaries is that it skews balance within factions almost more than it skews balance between factions.

For my marine army any concern about secondaries would not affect my list build at all - none of the stuff I want to put in gives away easy secondaries.

For my Tau army it is a nightmare. I really like Piranhas but they are just free VP for any opponent who picks the right secondaries, That means I basically play at a 4VP penalty just for taking units I consider to be good. I really like massed kroot lists for their table control and scoring potential - but they give up Reaper points far too easily in addition to the kill/kill-more VPs. It almost does not matter how much GW reduce the points cost on those units - they are a double liability in ITC due to the secondaries and the kill points. Riptides do not give up secondary points and hardly ever give up kill/kill-more points - guess what you see in almost every T'au ITC list and which even T'au players will agree is really boring? Of course the easiest way out of this is to just never go to ITC format events, its not like I find the missions interesting or fun anyway.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 12:52:22


Post by: Karol


 puma713 wrote:



This. All of this. Exalted.

It seems to want to drive to the point of: if everything was equal - two equal armies, two equal deployments, equal cover, equal LOS blocking terrain, equal objectives - who is the better general? But is that really the test of a great general? And is that really 40k anymore?

I would think the test of an even greater general is navigating the field with shifting terrain, shifting objectives and a diverse opponent pool. Is the ITC really finding the best general? Or is it finding the best person who can build a list that takes advantage of a relatively fixed system?




This is exactly what makes you a good player, as finding the best guy to win maximum number of times per career within a given set of rules. Unless your in it for the sponsorship money, no one cares how you look, what you do, where you do it, and the whole idea of sportsmanship has very little to do with actual sports.

The diverse pool of obsticles ends you with results like triathlon. No one wants to watch it and no one cares, who is the best at doing 3-5 things. When very soon people find out that you don't have to be the best at all 3-5 things, it is enough to be the best at two and somewhere in the upper middle in other things.

And this is sports, where unless you do something REALLY stupid, social aspects don't matter much. Saying that to win an event, how you are liked or how you paint should matter. Is like saying that to win a world cup, it should matter what uniforms you wear and what sponsors you have.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 13:03:04


Post by: Spoletta


Except that uniforms are not part of the sport. Painting and modeling instead is at least half of what Warhammer is. I except a Warhammer tournament to require a winner to be good at Warhammer, not at a subset of it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 13:26:51


Post by: Sim-Life


Spoletta wrote:
Except that uniforms are not part of the sport. Painting and modeling instead is at least half of what Warhammer is. I except a Warhammer tournament to require a winner to be good at Warhammer, not at a subset of it.


This. One of the most awful things about Warmachine is that most of the players never paint their models. I once played a guy who hadn't even built his warcaster. He'd just glued him onto the base and called it a day because per the conversion rules it was at least 50% of the original model so therefore legal.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 13:28:14


Post by: Daedalus81


 Sim-Life wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Except that uniforms are not part of the sport. Painting and modeling instead is at least half of what Warhammer is. I except a Warhammer tournament to require a winner to be good at Warhammer, not at a subset of it.


This. One of the most awful things about Warmachine is that most of the players never paint their models. I once played a guy who hadn't even built his warcaster. He'd just glued him onto the base and called it a day because per the conversion rules it was at least 50% of the original model so therefore legal.


Yea that's when you've lost the soul of the game. For all its flaws Warhammer is more engaging - especially because of the people who put so much love into their armies.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 13:55:00


Post by: Kdash


 Sim-Life wrote:
Kdash wrote:

it is the Crown Jewel event of the year and the big finale to a year of hard work. That isn’t going to change just because the missions they use might change.
The ITC is a scene. It is a year long race for points. A mentality and a strive to be the best Warhammer player over the course of the year. The ITC is not a mission set.


I feel like this is something that people have truly lost focus on, and instead only see the ITC as a ruleset.


Thats because to most people thats what it is. The ITC is nothing to most people outside America and even then IN America I'd say most 40k players don't care. Outside of America its at most a talking point for other players to go "did you see what happened at the ITC? Why would you subject yourself to that, sounds awful." Just because you revere the ITC as some kind of glorious event doesn't mean anyone else does. It could disappear tomorrow and a majority of the community would say "That sucks" and get on with their life.


Oh, I wouldn’t call it a “glorious” event, not consider myself to “revere” it. I simply tried to make a point about what the ITC actually is, rather than what most people consider it to be, and highlight the fact that if the missions do get replaced, the LVO will still remain the largest event in the world.

For me, at the end of the day it is a curiosity and a ranking system I can check in on from time to time to see how well I am performing here in the UK, or whether I’m doing well in a chosen faction for the year. I’ll likely never go to the LVO or any of the other big NA events as I don’t have several grand spare to do so.

I 100% agree that the whole thing ended tomorrow, people would carry on going to events and someone else would setup some form of circuit, however, in the gap between the ending of the current circuit and the start of a new one, I firmly believe that event participation and frequency would drop substantially.

The ITC gives people a reason to hold, and attend, competitive events around the world.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 14:07:43


Post by: Wayniac


The rankings are perfectly fine, I don't think most people have an issue with that. It's just the missions/secondaries that are the point of concern. Having a ranking system for Warhammer like what is it called for magic, ELO? That's fine. But they shouldn't change the game and the meta with their own missions and objectives.

Remove that and have ITC standardize on CA missions, and keep the ranking an everything else, and that would work great. It works great for AOS, so why not 40k?


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 15:19:45


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Wayniac wrote:
I remember when soft scores were an expected part of RTTs and GTs, yes including the dreaded "comp score". But you know what? It made sense for the overall winner to be the person who best represented the hobby as a whole rather than the person who can build the best list. So I think soft scores should remain/come back, but only affect the overall winner. You still have (and had back in the day) the "Best General" for the guy who crushed everyone, but if they had a minimally painted army, was an donkey-cave to play against or clearly didn't give two feths about the background and lore, it was unlikely they would be the overall winner and would have to be content with Best General and not "Champion".

I get the reason for ITC having their missions the way they are, it's like they tried to mimic the Warmahordes Steamroller scenarios. Which, having played Warmahordes a couple of years, had the same effect: They dominated everything as being the "most balanced" way to game (and this went doubly so since Warmahordes was being pushed as a competitive game) and as a result not only were the non-SR missions pretty garbage and uninspiring (and really didn't suit the tone of the game) but you rarely if ever saw anything but Steamroller scenarios played, even in a casual meta, which lent itself towards seeing more and more game nights that were little more than unorganized tournaments which used all of the tournament rules anyways.

Nevermind the IMHO ridiculousness of trying to turn Warhammer, of all games, into a "t-sport" like some people are trying, it just makes for bland gameplay. Some element of randomness/unknown mission is part of the way 40k gets balanced, whether that's good or bad. Removing it by knowing in advance every mission and how to build for it just lets you build a skew list rather than be penalized for going too far into skew if you get that one mission which goes against your list.

Absolutely not. Soft Scores have nothing to do with the game itself. You should just have a nice army because you wanted go work on a nice army.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 15:47:46


Post by: Bharring


Not that I'm in favor of soft scores, but whether soft scores are part of the game itself or not depends on what you mean by the game itself.

So you've got an argument that's thoroughly damning to anyone who already believed it, yet thoroughly a crackpot to anyone who didn't already believe it.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 16:24:37


Post by: Galas


Soft scores are stupid.

Make a Painting Tournament and the Gaming Tournament. Then give sportmanship points that don't influence the Gaming Tournament rankings. Have a winner for both tournaments and then a "Man of the century" or something like that for the guy with the highest points in every category of the tournaments you are running + Spormantship points.


TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention. @ 2020/01/28 16:25:57


Post by: Jidmah


IMO Soft scores done right are a very good thing - before one of the GWs here closed, they used to give separate prices for best general, best painter and best sportsman.