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 us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

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...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/25 18:13:28


 
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator



The dark hollows of Kentucky

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.
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






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.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Nevermind - misread maybe

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/25 18:45:42


   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




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.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

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.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission




Tacoma, WA, USA

Which is why tournament players love re-rolls. The more re-rolls you have, the less random your results.
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





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.

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




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.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






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.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





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.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 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?

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:

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/25 20:40:19


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 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?
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




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

All talk of 40k aside, I enjoy the vibe you bring to the forum
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






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.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Theres no reason 40k has to use dice. You like dice. I dont
Simple.
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought




Nottingham

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?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/25 22:04:11


Read the history of the Charadon Crusade: The Crusade of Fury was at an end.
Join the Crion Crusade: I think it's the combination of butt jokes, democratic necrons, explosions, and mind-fething that draws people to this Crusade like moths to a bug zapper - War Kitten
Rippy wrote:Never forgetti, template spaghetti.
DR:90S++G++MB+IPw40k07-D++A++/sWD366R++T(F)DM+ 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/26 00:01:21


-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 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.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/26 00:42:42


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
Confessor Of Sins




 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*

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/26 00:51:02


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

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.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/01/26 01:06:23


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin






 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.
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





 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.

 
   
Made in jp
Longtime Dakkanaut





A lot of players discussing have not even read the ca19. Lol at the turbo boost comment...
   
Made in ru
Fresh-Faced New User





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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: