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.

dhallnet wrote:
It's easier to balance a faction with the objective that it is able to do decently well in a specific set of mission rather than against all other factions.
We should be giving feedback on this new set of missions rather than dismissing them (without even knowing all of them afaik) because "lolz GW missions".
Some factions will do well in some missions and poorer in others and you can't tailor your list to a set of objective in advance, so you won't see massive one trick ponies. It's fine really.
If you're annoyed that an objective in a mission can be worth one point because a die roll said so, maybe you can have a part of your army dedicated to steal these, I dunno. You just have to put more troops in range after all.

Rather than talk in circles I would like you to provide me example of a less screwed/tailored list winning a majore GW tournament vs an ITC tournament. I don’t follow GW tournaments so the modt recent example of a winning list I know of is that slow playing ork list.

As for “you just have to put more troops in range after all” that’s ok thought aside from 2 exceptions. The first is sometimes that won’t be possible no regardless of any list or game desiscions you make “see Table Top Tactics video, no matter what army or units Beard took, there was no way he was going take the double point objective from bone). The second is that good oppenents (I.E anyone you see at top tables) will everything in their power to ensure they keep an important objective. This means that an important objective appearing under my dudes very likely means I’m keeping. It doesn’t take much tactical ablity to conclude it’s better to have a 2 point objective than a 1 point objective. Likewise you don’t have to be list building master to know taking deamons and harlequins will hurt you during the null zone mission.

Salt donkey wrote:

dhallnet wrote:
It's easier to balance a faction with the objective that it is able to do decently well in a specific set of mission rather than against all other factions.
We should be giving feedback on this new set of missions rather than dismissing them (without even knowing all of them afaik) because "lolz GW missions".
Some factions will do well in some missions and poorer in others and you can't tailor your list to a set of objective in advance, so you won't see massive one trick ponies. It's fine really.
If you're annoyed that an objective in a mission can be worth one point because a die roll said so, maybe you can have a part of your army dedicated to steal these, I dunno. You just have to put more troops in range after all.

Rather than talk in circles I would like you to provide me example of a less screwed/tailored list winning a majore GW tournament vs an ITC tournament. I don’t follow GW tournaments so the modt recent example of a winning list I know of is that slow playing ork list.

As for “you just have to put more troops in range after all” that’s ok thought aside from 2 exceptions. The first is sometimes that won’t be possible no regardless of any list or game desiscions you make “see Table Top Tactics video, no matter what army or units Beard took, there was no way he was going take the double point objective from bone). The second is that good oppenents (I.E anyone you see at top tables) will everything in their power to ensure they keep an important objective. This means that an important objective appearing under my dudes very likely means I’m keeping. It doesn’t take much tactical ablity to conclude it’s better to have a 2 point objective than a 1 point objective. Likewise you don’t have to be list building master to know taking deamons and harlequins will hurt you during the null zone mission.

Regarding the "null zone" mission, you don't have to stand in it AT ALL to be able to win the mission. There are 3 other objectives you can score while denying them to your opponent. Which means if you get the central objective for 2 turns, you win. The real issue with this mission imho is number. If your opponent has a lot of troops and you don't, you're screwed. The null zone though ? Debatable.

No I can't give examples because I don't give a damn, but it's obvious most armies consistently winning are designed to "abuse" some very strong points. I was talking about what "balancing" factions against a set of missions instead of against all other factions can do. And it is, imho, a decent way to balance the game (to a point, if you have to get destroyed every time to win a mission, it isn't really fun, even if you win) thus I wish people were at least thinking about these missions rather than dismissing them before hand.
Regarding the random objective giving one more point and the TTT video, pretty sure he could have at least attempted to remove the guy(s) on top of the objectives if he had any presence that side of the board as he was playing second. Of course he couldn't do anything about it, he ignored this whole side of the battlefield (not saying he had a choice not to though).

dhallnet wrote:

No I can't give examples, but it's obvious

You must play Imperial Guard.

This hilarious line right here also sums up dakka dakka, and people who think BRB missions are balanced.

 Marmatag wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

No I can't give examples, but it's obvious

You must play Imperial Guard.

This hilarious line right here also sums up dakka dakka, and people who think BRB missions are balanced.

Nice editing. (edit : you're making me say something I didn't)

Do you mean dumping a lot of PC/Psy powers into powerful units for example aren't obvious "abuse" of strong points, since it was my original sentence ? Or are you trying to imply it isn't done ?

Also, we aren't talking about BRB's missions.

 Marmatag wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

No I can't give examples, but it's obvious

You must play Imperial Guard.

This hilarious line right here also sums up dakka dakka, and people who think BRB missions are balanced.

Nobody is talking about the BRB missions, Marm. We're talking about CA2018 missions, which seems to be part of how GW balances the game. That's the point. ITC missions do not (as of now) take into account any of the balancing GW puts into their missions. In short the perceived imbalance that the GW missions tend to have are, in fact, part of the overall balance for the game due to exactly why they seem imbalanced: The entire point is to make it so there's a potential counter to certain armies, or certain list builds, in an effort to provide real diversity (not ITC's "look how diverse the game is!" when every faction uses a similar list) to the game. Just like how in AOS they flat out stated that the "omg unbalanced" realm rules were actually part of the balance (and still got summarily ignored by the community).

What you think is unbalanced is actually part of what counterbalances the game.

The premise that "playing the mission" is more important than just "I am odds on to table you by turn 4" is a reasonable one.

Whether it actually works - and encourages lists which are less "tabley" - remains to be seen.
Part of the criticism is that ye Imperial/Eldar Soups are likely to be equally adept at both.

With the CA finally in my hands i have to say that i LOVE the new missions, they are perfect.

No end game scoring.
Only end of battle round scoring.
No kill points of any kind.
Tabling is never a win condition in any mission.
Solved the issue with one player having the advantage on objective placing.
Severely limited the first turn advantage.
For every mission in which a type of play stile/army composition is at an handicap, there is another in which it has the upper hand.

Just perfect. This is how a tournament mission set should look like.

Spoletta wrote:
With the CA finally in my hands i have to say that i LOVE the new missions, they are perfect.

No end game scoring.
Only end of battle round scoring.
No kill points of any kind.
Tabling is never a win condition in any mission.
Solved the issue with one player having the advantage on objective placing.
Severely limited the first turn advantage.
For every mission in which a type of play stile/army composition is at an handicap, there is another in which it has the upper hand.

Just perfect. This is how a tournament mission set should look like.

I'll definitely give them a go.

Spoletta wrote:
With the CA finally in my hands i have to say that i LOVE the new missions, they are perfect.

No end game scoring.
Only end of battle round scoring.
No kill points of any kind.
Tabling is never a win condition in any mission.
Solved the issue with one player having the advantage on objective placing.
Severely limited the first turn advantage.
For every mission in which a type of play stile/army composition is at an handicap, there is another in which it has the upper hand.

Just perfect. This is how a tournament mission set should look like.

Tabling isn't an option? guess I wont be playing any of those garbage missions.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
With the CA finally in my hands i have to say that i LOVE the new missions, they are perfect.

No end game scoring.
Only end of battle round scoring.
No kill points of any kind.
Tabling is never a win condition in any mission.
Solved the issue with one player having the advantage on objective placing.
Severely limited the first turn advantage.
For every mission in which a type of play stile/army composition is at an handicap, there is another in which it has the upper hand.

Just perfect. This is how a tournament mission set should look like.

Tabling isn't an option? guess I wont be playing any of those garbage missions.

Tabling is absolutely an option, but its not an automatic win. There are strategic parameters involved in all that missions that require actual thought instead of the point, click, delete methodology that has existed up to this point.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
With the CA finally in my hands i have to say that i LOVE the new missions, they are perfect.

No end game scoring.
Only end of battle round scoring.
No kill points of any kind.
Tabling is never a win condition in any mission.
Solved the issue with one player having the advantage on objective placing.
Severely limited the first turn advantage.
For every mission in which a type of play stile/army composition is at an handicap, there is another in which it has the upper hand.

Just perfect. This is how a tournament mission set should look like.

Tabling isn't an option? guess I wont be playing any of those garbage missions.

Tabling is absolutely an option, but its not an automatic win. There are strategic parameters involved in all that missions that require actual thought instead of the point, click, delete methodology that has existed up to this point.

It's already hard enough to table armies in this game. It should reward you a victory. What is actually not hard is taking a ton of chaff and moving it onto objectives and force your opponent to be aggressive.

Spoletta wrote:
With the CA finally in my hands i have to say that i LOVE the new missions, they are perfect.

No end game scoring.
Only end of battle round scoring.
No kill points of any kind.
Tabling is never a win condition in any mission.
Solved the issue with one player having the advantage on objective placing.
Severely limited the first turn advantage.
For every mission in which a type of play stile/army composition is at an handicap, there is another in which it has the upper hand.

Just perfect. This is how a tournament mission set should look like.

Ironically, that's exactly the sort of stuff the tournament players think don't belong in tournaments.

People act like ITC has some nefarious plan. It doesn't.

ITC wants calm rational missions that are easy to allow people to play, and maintain a close relation to the game. Its set to allow people come, play the game and have a good chance at having a fair and fun time, while being hard to master.

GW's missions so far have been the Table Top equivalent of "ow my balls" from idiocracy. So far the point hasn't been to have a fair game, but more to provide bystanders amusement, as far as I can tell.

Reemule wrote:
People act like ITC has some nefarious plan. It doesn't.

ITC wants calm rational missions that are easy to allow people to play, and maintain a close relation to the game. Its set to allow people come, play the game and have a good chance at having a fair and fun time, while being hard to master.

GW's missions so far have been the Table Top equivalent of "ow my balls" from idiocracy. So far the point hasn't been to have a fair game, but more to provide bystanders amusement, as far as I can tell.

The missions from ITC are a lot better than this garbage set of CA missions. My issue with ITC is not the missions - but their house rules.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The missions from ITC are a lot better than this garbage set of CA missions. My issue with ITC is not the missions - but their house rules.

So you haven't even seen the new mission let alone played them but have already decided that they're garbage? Ok.

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The missions from ITC are a lot better than this garbage set of CA missions. My issue with ITC is not the missions - but their house rules.

So you haven't even seen the new mission let alone played them but have already decided that they're garbage? Ok.

I've looked the first mission that turns off invo saves if you are near objectives within 12". Man - I'd hate to play Daemons/Harliquens/DE/or Custodians in that game. Plus - no tabling was a condition in that too. Safe to assume they are all equally garbage. In fact - any mission set that specifically states you can lose all your models and still win is complete gak.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The missions from ITC are a lot better than this garbage set of CA missions. My issue with ITC is not the missions - but their house rules.

So you haven't even seen the new mission let alone played them but have already decided that they're garbage? Ok.

I've looked the first mission that turns off invo saves if you are near objectives within 12". Man - I'd hate to play Daemons/Harliquens/DE/or Custodians in that game. Plus - no tabling was a condition in that too. Safe to assume they are all equally garbage. In fact - any mission set that specifically states you can lose all your models and still win is complete gak.

As a Daemon player, I think I'm more willing to give this mission a go than you are.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The missions from ITC are a lot better than this garbage set of CA missions. My issue with ITC is not the missions - but their house rules.

So you haven't even seen the new mission let alone played them but have already decided that they're garbage? Ok.

I've looked the first mission that turns off invo saves if you are near objectives within 12". Man - I'd hate to play Daemons/Harliquens/DE/or Custodians in that game. Plus - no tabling was a condition in that too. Safe to assume they are all equally garbage. In fact - any mission set that specifically states you can lose all your models and still win is complete gak.

As a Daemon player, I think I'm more willing to give this mission a go than you are.

Bro I've already done this with a nullzone libraian jump advancing into Harliquen lines. I destroyed half his army with bolters and other garbage weapons. It would be even worse against daemons who don't have -1 to hit's and wound all over the place. Hes my good friend too and he pretty much said he knew that was gonna happen and didn't want to play from the start. The thing is in that game I had to get lucky to pull it off - in this game i'll place my objectives where you can't ignore them and ether autowin from standing on them all game or auto win when you move into the aura. I'll spare you the lack of fun - lets play a mission that doesn't suck.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The missions from ITC are a lot better than this garbage set of CA missions. My issue with ITC is not the missions - but their house rules.

So you haven't even seen the new mission let alone played them but have already decided that they're garbage? Ok.

I've looked the first mission that turns off invo saves if you are near objectives within 12". Man - I'd hate to play Daemons/Harliquens/DE/or Custodians in that game. Plus - no tabling was a condition in that too. Safe to assume they are all equally garbage. In fact - any mission set that specifically states you can lose all your models and still win is complete gak.

As a Daemon player, I think I'm more willing to give this mission a go than you are.

in this game i'll place my objectives where you can't ignore them and ether autowin from standing on them all game or auto win when you move into the aura.

lmao. It's clear you've not read the mission if you still think you can place your objectives.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The missions from ITC are a lot better than this garbage set of CA missions. My issue with ITC is not the missions - but their house rules.

So you haven't even seen the new mission let alone played them but have already decided that they're garbage? Ok.

I've looked the first mission that turns off invo saves if you are near objectives within 12". Man - I'd hate to play Daemons/Harliquens/DE/or Custodians in that game. Plus - no tabling was a condition in that too. Safe to assume they are all equally garbage. In fact - any mission set that specifically states you can lose all your models and still win is complete gak.

As a Daemon player, I think I'm more willing to give this mission a go than you are.

Bro I've already done this with a nullzone libraian jump advancing into Harliquen lines. I destroyed half his army with bolters and other garbage weapons. It would be even worse against daemons who don't have -1 to hit's and wound all over the place. Hes my good friend too and he pretty much said he knew that was gonna happen and didn't want to play from the start. The thing is in that game I had to get lucky to pull it off - in this game i'll place my objectives where you can't ignore them and ether autowin from standing on them all game or auto win when you move into the aura. I'll spare you the lack of fun - lets play a mission that doesn't suck.

Reading comprehension is key, Bro. There is one objective, which happens to be in the center of the table. Harlequin players can use their speed to win the first two turns, and then play the secondary objectives. Wow, sounds like you'll need to employ a bit of strategy with some armies...

The mission sucks. Accept it. I'm a space marine player - I don't even have invo saves and I think it sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The missions from ITC are a lot better than this garbage set of CA missions. My issue with ITC is not the missions - but their house rules.

So you haven't even seen the new mission let alone played them but have already decided that they're garbage? Ok.

I've looked the first mission that turns off invo saves if you are near objectives within 12". Man - I'd hate to play Daemons/Harliquens/DE/or Custodians in that game. Plus - no tabling was a condition in that too. Safe to assume they are all equally garbage. In fact - any mission set that specifically states you can lose all your models and still win is complete gak.

As a Daemon player, I think I'm more willing to give this mission a go than you are.

Bro I've already done this with a nullzone libraian jump advancing into Harliquen lines. I destroyed half his army with bolters and other garbage weapons. It would be even worse against daemons who don't have -1 to hit's and wound all over the place. Hes my good friend too and he pretty much said he knew that was gonna happen and didn't want to play from the start. The thing is in that game I had to get lucky to pull it off - in this game i'll place my objectives where you can't ignore them and ether autowin from standing on them all game or auto win when you move into the aura. I'll spare you the lack of fun - lets play a mission that doesn't suck.

Spoiler:

Reading comprehension is key, Bro. There is one objective, which happens to be in the center of the table. Harlequin players can use their speed to win the first two turns, and then play the secondary objectives. Wow, sounds like you'll need to employ a bit of strategy with some armies...

So basically A quin army does what it always does but they can't fight in the middle of the map. Amazing - What if I am on the middle of the map?

 Xenomancers wrote:
The mission sucks. Accept it. I'm a space marine player - I don't even have invo saves and I think it sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The missions from ITC are a lot better than this garbage set of CA missions. My issue with ITC is not the missions - but their house rules.

So you haven't even seen the new mission let alone played them but have already decided that they're garbage? Ok.

I've looked the first mission that turns off invo saves if you are near objectives within 12". Man - I'd hate to play Daemons/Harliquens/DE/or Custodians in that game. Plus - no tabling was a condition in that too. Safe to assume they are all equally garbage. In fact - any mission set that specifically states you can lose all your models and still win is complete gak.

As a Daemon player, I think I'm more willing to give this mission a go than you are.

Bro I've already done this with a nullzone libraian jump advancing into Harliquen lines. I destroyed half his army with bolters and other garbage weapons. It would be even worse against daemons who don't have -1 to hit's and wound all over the place. Hes my good friend too and he pretty much said he knew that was gonna happen and didn't want to play from the start. The thing is in that game I had to get lucky to pull it off - in this game i'll place my objectives where you can't ignore them and ether autowin from standing on them all game or auto win when you move into the aura. I'll spare you the lack of fun - lets play a mission that doesn't suck.

Spoiler:

Reading comprehension is key, Bro. There is one objective, which happens to be in the center of the table. Harlequin players can use their speed to win the first two turns, and then play the secondary objectives. Wow, sounds like you'll need to employ a bit of strategy with some armies...

So basically A quin army does what it always does but they can't fight in the middle of the map. Amazing - What if I am on the middle of the map?

Then you get annihilated by letting the rest of my ultra-fast harlequins/daemons blitz around you and pick apart your everything? My plan for this mission generally includes feeding 10-girl, 60 point Daemonette squads into the center at the end of every battle round, after choosing to go second, and then cutting off your ability to get close to the center of the board with my speedy units by staying 12" away from the objective?

It's not like you just deploy there, lol. It should be fairly trivial to surround the objective and then feed it cheap stuff or even park a character on it so you can't target them with shooting, either, and then keep the rest of your army away while mine is more than 12" away?

EDIT:
Picture this: A herald standing on the center objective, untargetable while the rest of my Daemons dive into your deployment zone, pinning you there and being the closest model, so you can't target the herald with shooting. Your options are to deep strike more than 9" away from the objective/herald, and kill her, which means I turn around and devour that unit that deep struck, or fly over my close combat army and challenge the herald with a Fly unit. I've significantly reduced your options just by existing, and played to the mission.

Wow. 10/10 gud taktiks.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The mission sucks. Accept it. I'm a space marine player - I don't even have invo saves and I think it sucks.

Awesome! Please tell me what else you think sucks so that I know what to think in regarding those items as well. Your viewpoint is your own, and its incredulous as you haven't played it once yet. If my 2k Frozen Stars list gets mowed down in this mission 70% of the time, then I'll be willing to give your viewpoint credence. However, I'm going to play this a bunch of times before I just call it trash.

So your pinning me and going second...This really is fascinating.

 Xenomancers wrote:
So your pinning me and going second...This really is fascinating.

Yes? Unless you want to move into the center of the table and have it guaranteed that I make it into combat. You're not getting a shooting phase at any of my units in the no-invulnerable field until I am in combat either way, and guaranteeing I make it into combat by moving up turn 1 is a really good way to lose to Slaanesh, lol.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The missions from ITC are a lot better than this garbage set of CA missions. My issue with ITC is not the missions - but their house rules.

So you haven't even seen the new mission let alone played them but have already decided that they're garbage? Ok.

I've looked the first mission that turns off invo saves if you are near objectives within 12". Man - I'd hate to play Daemons/Harliquens/DE/or Custodians in that game. Plus - no tabling was a condition in that too. Safe to assume they are all equally garbage. In fact - any mission set that specifically states you can lose all your models and still win is complete gak.

But don't ITC missions also say if you table your opponent you don't auto win, just you continue to "play" to get points? I'm pretty sure the ITC Champions missions have something like that rule already.

And the null zone thing is part of the balance to encourage a well-rounded force, because you might get that mission or might not. That's the intent. The missions are supposed to help balance out the listbuilding by having some missions be detrimental.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So your pinning me and going second...This really is fascinating.

Yes? Unless you want to move into the center of the table and have it guaranteed that I make it into combat. You're not getting a shooting phase at any of my units in the no-invulnerable field until I am in combat either way, and guaranteeing I make it into combat by moving up turn 1 is a really good way to lose to Slaanesh, lol.

I absolutely am moving my entire army into the middle of the table. I can really see the veteren intercessor ability being strong here. 3 attacks per intercessor against units that aren't even getting saves and I'm rerolling all hits and wounds. You really want to try this?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So your pinning me and going second...This really is fascinating.

Yes? Unless you want to move into the center of the table and have it guaranteed that I make it into combat. You're not getting a shooting phase at any of my units in the no-invulnerable field until I am in combat either way, and guaranteeing I make it into combat by moving up turn 1 is a really good way to lose to Slaanesh, lol.

I absolutely am moving my entire army into the middle of the table. I can really see the veteren intercessor ability being strong here. 3 attacks per intercessor against units that aren't even getting saves and I'm rerolling all hits and wounds. You really want to try this?

Yes, because Slaanesh always strikes first in combat and I will mutilate your army before it retaliates in CC.

Remember, a Keeper of Secrets gets 6 attacks at Str 7, -3 Rend, 3 damage AND d3 attacks at Str 6, -2 Rend, 3 damage, always fights first, can fight 3 times in a single battle round so long as it has units to constantly pile in to, and is -1 to be hit in melee. I have no fear whatsoever of close combat with your Veteran Intercessors, because I was never relying on that 5++ for my survivability anyways. Who would? It's a single 5++.

Oh, and all of that is for 165 after Chapter Approved.

Heres how it works bud. I move up my whole army and take about 200 shots at whatever you have in front of me. In other words - not much that is within range to charge me next turn will exist any longer. Your keeper can come. Honestly hell be lucky to survive the overwatch without a save.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Heres how it works bud. I move up my whole army and take about 200 shots at whatever you have in front of me. In other words - not much that is within range to charge me next turn will exist any longer. Your keeper can come. Honestly hell be lucky to survive the overwatch without a save.

And now we're moving beyond the mission. If I'm outside of 12" of the objective and you shot me to death even with my invulns, then the mission doesn't particularly matter, does it? Your entire criticism falls flat.

As for surviving overwatch, we can do the math. 10 intercessors hitting on 6s with auto bolt rifles is 7 hits. For generosity, let's say all of them wound (on 5s), I have no save, suffer 7 wounds, and then eviscerate your squad.