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.

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...

Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.

Martel732 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.

Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.

Anything that influences my list building is a negative.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.

Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.

Anything that influences my list building is a negative.

Wouldn't this be any change to the game?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.

Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.

Anything that influences my list building is a negative.

W-why? You must be new here; I don't think I've even gone more than a couple months in a row without seeing some new release for an army I like and want to consider putting into my list (and therefore shuffling it around).

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.

Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.

Anything that influences my list building is a negative.

Isn't that the point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...

Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.

I was never married to the kill part, but rather the choosing part. Can't tell if they kept that or not. I guess they did. They say "select".

Martel732 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.

Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.

You would think that wouldn't you? Not to sure about it myself. Never liked ITC. Need to see more of these secondary objectives.

What didn't you like? In my experience they made for much better games than GW missions.

I think that they found a good compromise between the 2 formats. They kept the best of them:

- From CA they kept the random primary mission and random deployment which makes sure that you cannot "solve" the meta that easily.

- From ITC they took the secondaries, which are good to make sure that you still get a way to win even in really bad matchups.

Seems reasonable to me.

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...

Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.

Any chance of a bit more info for us thickies? I’m kinda dimly aware of ITC stuff, but far from knowledgeable.

Martel732 wrote:
What didn't you like? In my experience they made for much better games than GW missions.

They allow for planning ahead on what you want to score with or deny your opponent and build your army around that. That's not a wargame. No plan survives the first shot.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...

Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.

Any chance of a bit more info for us thickies? I’m kinda dimly aware of ITC stuff, but far from knowledgeable.

many people believe that secondaries are too much of the "real" scoring of ITC and if you have them in the bag it is too easy to have a list that does the same hting every game regardless of the "Primary" objective. It also doesn't help that ITC missions are VERY standardized and simplified compared to the amount of variability in the somewhat less individually balanced GW missions.

While GW missions may advantage 1 playstyle for 1 mission and another for a different one, ITC missions due to their standardization have a tendency to have an "optimal" strategy, leading to less list variety/strategic variety overall.

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...

Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.

Making people take a range of secondaries means less skew lists since people can't just go all in on kill secondaries so that right off the bat makes me have some hope for the new system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.

Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.

You would think that wouldn't you? Not to sure about it myself. Never liked ITC. Need to see more of these secondary objectives.

They mentioned in the stream there will be a base set in the core rule book, each codex well see more secondaries introduced, and they'll have more for future mission packs as well.

Basically I think CA is going to be a mission pack release, and not just a points adjustment for tournament players.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...

Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.

Any chance of a bit more info for us thickies? I’m kinda dimly aware of ITC stuff, but far from knowledgeable.

many people believe that secondaries are too much of the "real" scoring of ITC and if you have them in the bag it is too easy to have a list that does the same hting every game regardless of the "Primary" objective. It also doesn't help that ITC missions are VERY standardized and simplified compared to the amount of variability in the somewhat less individually balanced GW missions.

While GW missions may advantage 1 playstyle for 1 mission and another for a different one, ITC missions due to their standardization have a tendency to have an "optimal" strategy, leading to less list variety/strategic variety overall.

Cool. Cheers dude

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What didn't you like? In my experience they made for much better games than GW missions.

They allow for planning ahead on what you want to score with or deny your opponent and build your army around that. That's not a wargame. No plan survives the first shot.

You can do that with any mission design in Warhammer 40,000 unless it's the organizer-supplied lists I've advocated, or the missions are kept secret until the players roll for initiative.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...

Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.

Making people take a range of secondaries means less skew lists since people can't just go all in on kill secondaries so that right off the bat makes me have some hope for the new system.

Sure they can. Just of the previewed Secondaries, 2/5 are kill based in two different categories. It's not a stretch to guess that there'll be a kill based Warpcraft Secondary, a kill based Battlefield Supremacy Secondary, and multiple kill based Faction Secondaries. I have a feeling it will be absolutely possible to go all in on kill Secondaries.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

So the new missions are the CA19 missions plus ITC secondaries (redesigned).... that's interesting i have to say...

Also, the biggest flaw of ITC isn't there. Max 15 points from kills on a total of 135. That's a good one in my book.

Making people take a range of secondaries means less skew lists since people can't just go all in on kill secondaries so that right off the bat makes me have some hope for the new system.

Sure they can. Just of the previewed Secondaries, 2/5 are kill based in two different categories. It's not a stretch to guess that there'll be a kill based Warpcraft Secondary, a kill based Battlefield Supremacy Secondary, and multiple kill based Faction Secondaries. I have a feeling it will be absolutely possible to go all in on kill Secondaries.

I always stand the risk of being wrong, but I remain hopeful that the game will keep the people from being able to go all in on any single scoring method (perhaps by capping how many points you can get by killing stuff, holding stuff, ect).

They already said Secondaries are globally capped at points they earn.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What didn't you like? In my experience they made for much better games than GW missions.

They allow for planning ahead on what you want to score with or deny your opponent and build your army around that. That's not a wargame. No plan survives the first shot.

I think it's perfectly reasonable.

The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.

Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.

Anything that influences my list building is a negative.

W-why? You must be new here; I don't think I've even gone more than a couple months in a row without seeing some new release for an army I like and want to consider putting into my list (and therefore shuffling it around).

That isn't what I meant and you know it. Don't be obtuse.

 Galas wrote:
The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.

I had no problem with that. I mean, GW randomly makes units bad all the time.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If Ishagu doesn't like ITC secondary missions, maybe they should avoid the latest preview.

Yeah. I'm not too pleased with it honestly.

Seems like more ways to score is a good thing to me.

Anything that influences my list building is a negative.

W-why? You must be new here; I don't think I've even gone more than a couple months in a row without seeing some new release for an army I like and want to consider putting into my list (and therefore shuffling it around).

That isn't what I meant and you know it. Don't be obtuse.

I actually have no idea what you meant and I'm still confused because your reply didn't answer anything.

What is so sacred about your list building that you don't want it influenced?

Martel732 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.

I had no problem with that. I mean, GW randomly makes units bad all the time.

Theres a ton of units that in ITC just don't work like Tau Piranhas, etc... bad units are bad in both CA and ITC but many units that are fine in CA become bad on ITC reducing even more the variety of lists. And thats the biggest flaw from that system for me.

I guess that's all about to become moot.

Martel732 wrote:
I guess that's all about to become moot.

Hmm. So are you actually happy about something gw has done for once?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Basically, the main thing I'm getting at is: if you think Apoc is better, play Apoc?

To really boil this all down to the core: I do think Apoc is a better game, but only in its intended scale, at the equivalent of 2000-6000pts in 40K. You can play it at smaller levels, but I find the play experience degrades substantially- that's where the description of 'company to battalion' scale comes from; it's the scale at which the game is designed and plays best, even if it could be played at smaller or larger scales.

Can you play a 200+ model battle with the Kill Team rules? Yes. Will it be fun? Maybe, but I would expect the takeaway would be that 40K works better at that scale.

The biggest difference between 40K and Apoc to me is how 40K represents individuals, while Apoc only tracks units. If I'm going to spend 2+ hours painting a model, I generally like for it to be individually represented. That's why I tend to prefer games at ~1500pts in 40K, where individual models still feel valuable, rather than the big 3k+ blowouts. Apoc abstracts out a lot of aspects of individual models, like small arms and wargear, into generic profiles or ignores them altogether. That's a very different game experience, and not a like substitute.

You can't turn Apoc into a skirmish ruleset without rewriting half the rules, since things like damage resolution wouldn't translate. But there's no reason why certain specific mechanics that work well can't be brought into 40K. The cover system is one, the activation system is another.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I guess that's all about to become moot.

Hmm. So are you actually happy about something gw has done for once?

Yes, they actually accepted the reality of the popularity of secondary missions. I didn't think it was possible.

Yes, it sucks that ITC tanked a few units, but GW turned my list into codex: tripoint. Which is worse?

Martel732 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I guess that's all about to become moot.

Hmm. So are you actually happy about something gw has done for once?

Yes, they actually accepted the reality of the popularity of secondary missions. I didn't think it was possible.

Yes, it sucks that ITC tanked a few units, but GW turned my list into codex: tripoint. Which is worse?

ITC invented the tripoint tactic...

But GW didn't errata it or address it. And their rules allowed it in the first place.

Spoletta wrote:
Well, the overwatch is changing, that much we know.

Also, the first turn lethality seems to be going down.

Is this going to be the magical fix needed for 40K? Difficult to say without details.

I wonder how GW is going to do it. It would be real nice if they do it right. But if it is just some blanket rule that makes interaction between armies on turn one very low, then we are just pushing the alfa striking to turn 2, and that would hardly be a fix.