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.

 Toofast wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is really the randomness in itself which requires more skill, it is the variety of missions. If different missions require different strengths from the army, it forces you to build more balanced list and vary your tactics accordingly.

Randomness does not require more skill. In fact, it reduces the skill gap between a bad player and a good player by introducing elements that are completely outside of their control. The more factors you have control over in a game, the more skill determines the winner. The less control you have, ie the more rng the game has, the more luck will determine the winner. I'm not sure why you are pretending to be willfully ignorant of this established fact. This is why cars in NASCAR don't have random horsepower, everyone is the same, players in Dota choose their heroes rather than each team being given 5 random heroes, a first down in football is always 10 yards, not a random number, both players start with the exact same pieces in chess, effects in MtG have you choose a card, player, whatever rather than targeting random things, because randomness should be used as little as possible to determine a winner in a contest of skill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Why should I have to? You said yourself above the missions are boring. Why should I spend my time playing a mission that's boring after the time, effort and money I put into making the army? Why shouldn't the ITC adapt instead and make their missions fun?

Because the majority of people do not agree with you or ITC events wouldn't be selling out months in advance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Only partly agree. The experience yes, but i'm there to play and have fun playing games. If i'm not having fun during the games, then what's the point?

If you don't have fun playing a certain mission packet, don't attend events that use that mission packet. Wow, what a concept! Mind = blown! I find it hard to believe that your events are dominated by the ITC in France.

Who said i was in France? And where is it selling out? I don't think i've seen an ITC event for god knows how long. Show's how popular it is from my location.

Let me showcase exactly what’s going on in this thread.

There are 3 types of posters

1) People who live in the U.S. and have adopted to ITC. They prefer ITC over GW missions and are extremely unlikely to change their mind despite whatever logic is thrown at them.

2) People who live in Europe and have adopted to GW missions. They prefer these missions over ITC and are extremely unlikely to change their minds dispite whatever logic is thrown at them.

3) Somewhat casual players who win more games with GW missions because those missions favor weaker lists (more in game luck can offset the disadvantage a weaker list has). Because GW missions favor these players “balanced lists” ‘more, they will prefer those mission over ITC ones, despite whatever logic is thrown at them.

So there you have it. I still believe that ITC missions are the best choice (even if I know I’m biased), because they feel the most balenced out all the msisions I’ve played.

 Toofast wrote:


Because the majority of people do not agree with you or ITC events wouldn't be selling out months in advance.

Unfortunately this is a moot point. The vast majority of events, ITC missions or not, that award ITC POINTS sell out remarkably quickly over here in the UK. Likewise, some other events (big and small) that aren't part of the ITC circuit also sell out quickly - i mean, all the tickets for all 4 GW Heats originally sold out within like an hour or 2, and each time they released extra tickets they were also instantly snapped up.

The ITC circuit is, in part, responsible for this, but, it also goes to show how popular the game is getting once more. The missions themselves are often a secondary point used to determine what style of list you take to said event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Salt donkey wrote:
Let me showcase exactly what’s going on in this thread.

There are 3 types of posters

1) People who live in the U.S. and have adopted to ITC. They prefer ITC over GW missions and are extremely unlikely to change their mind despite whatever logic is thrown at them.

2) People who live in Europe and have adopted to GW missions. They prefer these missions over ITC and are extremely unlikely to change their minds dispite whatever logic is thrown at them.

3) Somewhat casual players who win more games with GW missions because those missions favor weaker lists (more in game luck can offset the disadvantage a weaker list has). Because GW missions favor these players “balanced lists” ‘more, they will prefer those mission over ITC ones, despite whatever logic is thrown at them.

So there you have it. I still believe that ITC missions are the best choice (even if I know I’m biased), because they feel the most balenced out all the msisions I’ve played.

As someone in the UK that plays the majority of games with ITC missions, prior to this CA, i'd agree with ITC being better in regards to offering ever sort of army the opportunity to score points. The ITC missions doesn't offer every army the opportunity to win however - only to score points.

Also, right now looking at the CA18 Eternal War missions, i am struggling to see where "game luck" will overcome you playing a weak list vs a strong list. It's just not going to happen, except in the rarest of occasions (something of which also occasionally happens with ITC missions).

I am personally reserving my judgement on whether these new missions are better or worse than the current ITC missions until i've played a few games with them. I do however firmly believe that the "gap" between them is waaaaaaay smaller than what a lot of commentators on here actually believe. It might turn out, after a month of testing that the new missions are hot garbage. However, it might also turn out that the new missions are way more balanced, inclusive and diverse than ITC missions.

Noone can say for sure that this is the case, unless you were part of the playtest time. Until then, people need to stop saying that ITC is "better" because it's more "balanced", whilst referencing the missions from the rulebook and CA18.

All the Codices aren't balanced. ITC missions aren't balanced in a way that allows all Codices to win events. GW rulebook missions aren't balanced. GW CA17 missions aren't balanced. Hell, i'm prepared to say GW CA18 Maelstrom missions aren't balanced. However, the jury is firmly out on whether or not GW CA18 Eternal War missions are balanced or not, and where they fit in the sliding scale of "fairness".

Ok I can see wanting to wait and see if the new missions are good. Still it’s undeniable these missions do have more an element of luck than ITC, missions, which depending on your position could be good or bad. From the sounds of it Frontline might consider adding elements from the new missions into ITC, but will keep their own missions.

 JNAProductions wrote:
If you could find the post number, that'd be appreciated.

Page 3 post 17 and then the next page or two of on and off discussion.

It's important to shake up the missions. I'd be happy if they incorporated any potential good ideas GW comes up with.

BTW From what I understand, Frontline gaming will be handing/emailing out questionair's to all attendee's of the LVO about changes they would like to see at the next LVO.


There are going to be around 800 guys attending the Warhammer champs event this year, so we should see either some major changes or almost no changes depending on whether people like the current ruleset or want something more random.

dhallnet wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
How does eternal war do that while itc fails?

Well for one they can win buy tabling you if the objectives are not in their favor....

So... not saying that's what is happenning but in this case why would a player not build a list to table people instead of playing the objective ? If objective are a variable, you just remove it and go for tabling your opponent.
And in this case, why even have missions ?

 Toofast wrote:
Because the majority of people do not agree with you or ITC events wouldn't be selling out months in advance.

Genuine question : What would be the ratio of ITC to non ITC tournaments in the US ? High Profile/Not so high profile.

All of the biggest events except for NOVA use ITC or a slight variation of it. Nearly every small event at FLGS I've been to used ITC or their own variation of it. My FLGS here in Cape Coral does a monthly 2k tournament using ITC rules and mission packet. Most games people play in between tournaments are 2k and using ITC missions to practice for the events. I don't think it's very popular in Europe due to ETC doing their own thing, gaming clubs being prevalent and having their own sets of house rules, etc. However, here in the US, it's become the standard. A few years ago I had to beg people to use ITC rules and missions so I could get enough practice games in, but now it's the norm even for casual games.

So having picked up Chapter Approved today and reading the Eternal War missions, IMHO they are really, really good. Like, really good. I love that they encourage you to bring a well-rounded force (I've been arguing this more than once in this very thread).

I stand by what I said before even more now: These are what should be used for tournaments moving forward over the ITC missions. They really espouse what a solid game of Warhammer 40,000 should be.

The Maelstrom missions are... well they are Maelstrom. They are what they are; fun but can be too random. The Eternal War ones though I think are top notch.

I don't see how they are any better than itc. I would use the same lists in both.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't see how they are any better than itc. I would use the same lists in both.

In my opinion, I like how they subtly change some things. I like them better. YMMV.

Played cut off the head yesterday. It's just another exercise in tabling, imo. Way less interesting than ITC. No liability incurred for 10 man guard squads at all. Unacceptable. At least guardsmen bleed VPs in ITC.

Martel732 wrote:
Played cut off the head yesterday. It's just another exercise in tabling, imo. Way less interesting than ITC. No liability incurred for 10 man guard squads at all. Unacceptable. At least guardsmen bleed VPs in ITC.

Why should there be a liability for 10 man guard squads? Is this to encourage all units to spend 5 pounds on a mortar. Seems a niche thing to deem a mission unacceptable for lacking. Or am I misunderstanding?

I don't get how Cut the Head is an "exercise in tabling" because it uses Intel Points on characters, and has the tabling is not an auto victory thing in play anyways. Maybe I missed something in what Martel was talking about.

Martel732 wrote:
Played cut off the head yesterday. It's just another exercise in tabling, imo. Way less interesting than ITC. No liability incurred for 10 man guard squads at all. Unacceptable. At least guardsmen bleed VPs in ITC.

Ok, let me understand this.

So you are saying that ITC missions are better than GW missions because they are more fair to models and builds than GW's missions, but an ITC missions is better than a GW missions because it penalizes guards? Did i miss something? Where's the logic in this?

Because the best way to wax characters is to kill every thing between you and them. If you kill the intel characters, its basically an autovictory.

10 man guard squads give up "butcher's bill" points in ITC rather easily, as well as "reaper". Although most hordes qualify for reaper, but no one is quite as hordey as the IG now. In cut the head, there is no downside to having hundreds of ablative dum dums between your characters and the enemy. In fact, its desirable and has no downside.

No one plays the GW missions here, so I have a question. Does anyone who played them, thinks that maybe GK could work better in those CA missions?

No. GK are better off in ITC. Absolutely so.

Martel732 wrote:
Because the best way to wax characters is to kill every thing between you and them. If you kill the intel characters, its basically an autovictory.

10 man guard squads give up "butcher's bill" points in ITC rather easily, as well as "reaper". Although most hordes qualify for reaper, but no one is quite as hordey as the IG now. In cut the head, there is no downside to having hundreds of ablative dum dums between your characters and the enemy. In fact, its desirable and has no downside.

If you have to put your chars in the middle, you can remove them by old good assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
No. GK are better off in ITC. Absolutely so.

Reason?

You don't have to. That only yields a single point. It's more important to keep them alive. That's one point PER character. It comes down to character murder. The middle is a sideshow, imo.

GK can harvest many VPs from weak squads that they are good at killing with stormbolters. Most eternal war missions give them nothing for this. Again, ITC gives a downside to the most obnoxious unit in the game.

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because the best way to wax characters is to kill every thing between you and them. If you kill the intel characters, its basically an autovictory.

10 man guard squads give up "butcher's bill" points in ITC rather easily, as well as "reaper". Although most hordes qualify for reaper, but no one is quite as hordey as the IG now. In cut the head, there is no downside to having hundreds of ablative dum dums between your characters and the enemy. In fact, its desirable and has no downside.

If you have to put your chars in the middle, you can remove them by old good assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
No. GK are better off in ITC. Absolutely so.

Reason?

I'd wager something based around being able to tailor your secondaries. That seems to be held as the main reason ITC is "better". You can basically pick what you need to do based on what your opponent brings, rather than have to adapt to the mission. ITC gives 1 point for each objective you held, and 1 point if you killed any units (can't remember if it's more than your opponent did, or just any unit) and then up to 4 for each secondary so like, if you face a horde you can pick Reaper, if you fight knights you can pick one of the ones against big guys. Unlike the GW missions where you have to change, you can basically change the mission to suit what your army can do best.

There is no adapting to 100+ guardsmen unless there is a downside to 100+ guardsmen.

" you can basically change the mission to suit what your army can do best"

Yeah, decisions have consequences, and making good decisions rewards you with more VP in ITC.

GW missions are still who can murder faster in some absolute sense.

Wayniac wrote:


I'd wager something based around being able to tailor your secondaries. That seems to be held as the main reason ITC is "better". You can basically pick what you need to do based on what your opponent brings, rather than have to adapt to the mission. ITC gives 1 point for each objective you held, and 1 point if you killed any units (can't remember if it's more than your opponent did, or just any unit) and then up to 4 for each secondary so like, if you face a horde you can pick Reaper, if you fight knights you can pick one of the ones against big guys. Unlike the GW missions where you have to change, you can basically change the mission to suit what your army can do best.

Wait what? You can pick your secondary objectives? That's just crazy, ITC is even more bonkers than I thought.

Yes, picking secondary objectives is one of the key features that makes it interesting.

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, picking secondary objectives is one of the key features that makes it interesting.

That has basically the same effect than list tailoring, which is usually frowned upon. ITC obviously should be excluded from any discussion of the 40K balance, as they're not really playing 40K.

That's not list tailoring at all. It does not have even close to the same effect. Number one, the other side gets to do it, too. Number two, it doesn't actually make any given army better at removing the other side's models. What it does do is make you think very hard about what you are facing in that match up.

Martel732 wrote:
That's not list tailoring at all. It does not have even close to the same effect. Number one, the other side gets to do it, too. Number two, it doesn't actually make any given army better at removing the other side's models. What it does do is make you think very hard about what you are facing in that match up.

If you get to choose your objectives, you don't need to build a balanced list that can achieve varied objectives. And regardless of how 'good' or 'bad' these missions are, it is such an fundamental change that it is not really playing the same game anymore.

Isn't the idea to have certain missions favor different style lists thus encouraging you to run a more balanced army?
So far the new GW mission seem to do a good job of this (i have not yet played a game with them as I just got the book last night) But from the first look at it they have a variety
>only troops can gold objectives
>only flyers can hold objectives
>only characters can hold objectives
>objectives scored at the being of rounds
>objectives scored at the end of rounds
>one central objective
>hidden objectives
and on and on. From what I'm reading if you are truly playing a random mission from the pack you are going to need a very well rounded army and the best part is killing an army to the man doesn't guarantee a win so you can build the nastiest gun line of all time but if you don't have mobility early in the game you will most likely still not win

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's not list tailoring at all. It does not have even close to the same effect. Number one, the other side gets to do it, too. Number two, it doesn't actually make any given army better at removing the other side's models. What it does do is make you think very hard about what you are facing in that match up.

If you get to choose your objectives, you don't need to build a balanced list that can achieve varied objectives. And regardless of how 'good' or 'bad' these missions are, it is such an fundamental change that it is not really playing the same game anymore.

The secondary objectives are the minority of total points in the match. They can help tip the balance, though.

I think you have a better argument if you were to assert that the perma-los blocking 1st floor rule fundamentally changes the game. The scoring system really doesn't.

Asmodios wrote:
Isn't the idea to have certain missions favor different style lists thus encouraging you to run a more balanced army?
So far the new GW mission seem to do a good job of this (i have not yet played a game with them as I just got the book last night) But from the first look at it they have a variety
>only troops can gold objectives
>only flyers can hold objectives
>only characters can hold objectives
>objectives scored at the being of rounds
>objectives scored at the end of rounds
>one central objective
>hidden objectives
and on and on. From what I'm reading if you are truly playing a random mission from the pack you are going to need a very well rounded army and the best part is killing an army to the man doesn't guarantee a win so you can build the nastiest gun line of all time but if you don't have mobility early in the game you will most likely still not win

That's the idea, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's not list tailoring at all. It does not have even close to the same effect. Number one, the other side gets to do it, too. Number two, it doesn't actually make any given army better at removing the other side's models. What it does do is make you think very hard about what you are facing in that match up.

If you get to choose your objectives, you don't need to build a balanced list that can achieve varied objectives. And regardless of how 'good' or 'bad' these missions are, it is such an fundamental change that it is not really playing the same game anymore.

The secondary objectives are the minority of total points in the match. They can help tip the balance, though.

I think you have a better argument if you were to assert that the perma-los blocking 1st floor rule fundamentally changes the game. The scoring system really doesn't.

You just admitted that it does because you can punish guards.