Switch Theme:

TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





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.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 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".

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




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).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/24 16:19:09


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




The new marine codex and supplements is NOT good behavior
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





 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?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/24 19:56:59


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

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.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Too much of an improvement one might say.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/01/24 20:16:45


 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 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.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




More options is the last thing gw needs to make available.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

 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.
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission




Tacoma, WA, USA

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.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Washington State

 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.
   
Made in jp
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/25 00:46:03


 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/25 08:35:43


-- Arhurt
Dakhma Dynasty - My Necron army with unique convertions 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

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.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

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.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




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.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/01/25 14:15:33


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

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.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/25 16:59:23


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 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!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/25 17:19:29


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker




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.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/25 17:32:06


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





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

 
   
Made in gb
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker




 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.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/25 20:40:53


 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin






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.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/25 18:03:23


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: