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.

TO THE OP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I'll take almost anything over Maelstrom.

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

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

But I'll take almost anything over Maelstrom.

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

Have you read CA 2019?

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

But I'll take almost anything over Maelstrom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I'll take almost anything over Maelstrom.

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

 Xenomancers wrote:

ccs wrote:

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

What?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Yarium wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dudeface wrote:

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

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

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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

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

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

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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

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

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

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

Because if anything, FLG doesn't listen.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

But I'll take almost anything over Maelstrom.

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

Have you read CA 2019?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Dr. Mills wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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

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

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

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

Because if anything, FLG doesn't listen.

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Sim-Life wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ERJAK wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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

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

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

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

Because if anything, FLG doesn't listen.

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The irony in this post is just too much.

 Sim-Life wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Karol wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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