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.

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Exactly. I play against 120 guardsmen guy and 150 guardsmen guy. I can't win the ca missions against them. The board is flooded and spend the whole game not scoring in gw missions.

Wow, I wonder how those players actually win anything... that many guardsmen is bad...

If you're playing a mission that is primarily based around progressive scoring from holding objectives then it's actually amazing. You can't really physically remove enough guardsmen fast enough in order to stop them running away with points. Even if you do manage to do it they'll have likely built up such a huge lead already. This issue exists in ITC to some degree but having 80 guardsmen and multiple units die while not actually being able to kill much in return can allow the other army to keep even or overtake them in points. I'm not going to sit here and say that type of army is bad in ITC because I've played enough guard and plaguebearer hordes to know how strong it is, but you can at least be competitive with it it. I love the CA2018 missions but there are a couple of them where I don't think a 200 model IG army could actually technically lose.

At least someone gets it. IG players denial of reality is becoming more upsetting than the actual math at this point.

Martel732 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Exactly. I play against 120 guardsmen guy and 150 guardsmen guy. I can't win the ca missions against them. The board is flooded and spend the whole game not scoring in gw missions.

Wow, I wonder how those players actually win anything... that many guardsmen is bad...

If you're playing a mission that is primarily based around progressive scoring from holding objectives then it's actually amazing. You can't really physically remove enough guardsmen fast enough in order to stop them running away with points. Even if you do manage to do it they'll have likely built up such a huge lead already. This issue exists in ITC to some degree but having 80 guardsmen and multiple units die while not actually being able to kill much in return can allow the other army to keep even or overtake them in points. I'm not going to sit here and say that type of army is bad in ITC because I've played enough guard and plaguebearer hordes to know how strong it is, but you can at least be competitive with it it. I love the CA2018 missions but there are a couple of them where I don't think a 200 model IG army could actually technically lose.

At least someone gets it. IG players denial of reality is becoming more upsetting than the actual math at this point.

While I agree with this point, it is clearly the reason why massed plaguebearer lists do better in non ITC formats the devils advocate would be that there are a couple of missions in CA where this kind of list will struggle.

Adding secondaries to fix extreme lists is not as good as improving mission design.

How about fixing points costs.

Martel732 wrote:
Exactly. I play against 120 guardsmen guy and 150 guardsmen guy. I can't win the ca missions against them. The board is flooded and i spend the whole game not scoring in gw missions. You don't see this as much in itc because reaper and butchers bill exist. There is no downside to this in gw missionsm

So after this guy has taken his 8 mandatory HQs, his 6 mandatory elites and his 6 mandatory fast attacks after spending no less than 600 points in troops, what is he exactly hitting you with?

I seriously doubt that such a list would be really good on the field. It hoses assault yes, but would lose a shooting fight against even tyranids. Turn 2 it loses any heavy hitter, even turn 1 against some lists, and between turn 2 and 4 all the guards since he is suffering the full firepower of the enemy list untouched. Even by swarming the board in the first turns, i don't see many CA missions where this would be a winning strategy. Maybe a couple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Exactly. I play against 120 guardsmen guy and 150 guardsmen guy. I can't win the ca missions against them. The board is flooded and spend the whole game not scoring in gw missions.

Wow, I wonder how those players actually win anything... that many guardsmen is bad...

If you're playing a mission that is primarily based around progressive scoring from holding objectives then it's actually amazing. You can't really physically remove enough guardsmen fast enough in order to stop them running away with points. Even if you do manage to do it they'll have likely built up such a huge lead already. This issue exists in ITC to some degree but having 80 guardsmen and multiple units die while not actually being able to kill much in return can allow the other army to keep even or overtake them in points. I'm not going to sit here and say that type of army is bad in ITC because I've played enough guard and plaguebearer hordes to know how strong it is, but you can at least be competitive with it it. I love the CA2018 missions but there are a couple of them where I don't think a 200 model IG army could actually technically lose.

But it would be at a severe disadvantage in the other 4. That's how the CA missions work. You can be lucky on the single mission, but if you don't bring a balanced list you are not going to get consistent results.

No fast attacks. They don't have to be brigades.

Martel732 wrote:
No fast attacks.

Does he go for triple battalion with full troops?

It might be double. Each battalion can hold 60. Ig doesnt really need cp.

The basic point is though, that the CA missions dont reward a variety of armies, they almost universally reward hordes which can flood the board to take objectives. Because once those hordes have taken the board presence that they pretty much always get early game, then they gain an unassailable lead, without having to kill much at all, they just need more bodies than their opponent can ever realistically hope to deal with. And while armies, do have some anti horde solutions, as soon as these are compromised by an assault, they become useless, there are relatively few effective anti horde melle units, which themselves are not a horde.

As discussed Guard are a scary version of this, but plague bearers and orks and tzangors which were already exceptional units, become even better in these missions, to the extent that we could end up with situations where by counting the number of shots that your opponent can output per turn, you will know before a game that they cannot mathematically beat you.

8th has always had a horde problem, and these CA missions if adopted competitively will only make it worse.

I for one, cant think of a more dull meta to be involved in.

secretForge wrote:

8th has always had a horde problem, and these CA missions if adopted competitively will only make it worse.

If that indeed is the case, then half of the major tournaments playing with houserules which hide this problem is not gonna help to get it fixed.

 Crimson wrote:

secretForge wrote:

8th has always had a horde problem, and these CA missions if adopted competitively will only make it worse.

If that indeed is the case, then half of the major tournaments playing with houserules which hide this problem is not gonna help to get it fixed.

I dont trust GW to be capable of fixing it, if these missions are any indication of their competance.

 Crimson wrote:

secretForge wrote:

8th has always had a horde problem, and these CA missions if adopted competitively will only make it worse.

If that indeed is the case, then half of the major tournaments playing with houserules which hide this problem is not gonna help to get it fixed.

Maybe, but I'm not playing in a poorly constructed event just so GW might get the message. GW should let 3rd parties write all their rules and stick to plastic.

Martel732 wrote:
There are no preceding rounds. The IG turkey shoot starts instantly thanks to range and ignore los. Dont forget guardsmen move faster than my jump troops with move move move. They easily outscore power armor lists while tabling them.

Take transports....

Way too many people complaining about morter spam and artillery spam when all they have to do is hop in some rhinos or whatever it is you use. You're dying because all your stuff is out in the open, you know, where you don't want to be when artillery is falling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

secretForge wrote:

8th has always had a horde problem, and these CA missions if adopted competitively will only make it worse.

If that indeed is the case, then half of the major tournaments playing with houserules which hide this problem is not gonna help to get it fixed.

Maybe, but I'm not playing in a poorly constructed event just so GW might get the message. GW should let 3rd parties write all their rules and stick to plastic.

They tried that and almost went bankrupt......

 Crimson wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
No better time than now to have your say,

Reece just posted up the feedback for this exact topic for the new ITC season.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/769307.page

Why not go on there and say CA missions please!

Well, that was super biased toward keeping their missions and even doubling down on divergence by introducing selectable primaries too. The was one question about introducing some elements of CA missions (which they erroneously called CA 19.)

Man, some people see what they want to see.

If you would change anything about the current ITC Missions primary objectives, what would it be? If you would change anything about the current ITC Missions secondary objectives or wanted to see an option we do not currently provide, what would it be? Would you like to see selectable primary objectives in addition to secondary? Would you be interested in using any of the mission elements from Chapter Approved in the the 2019 season ITC Missions? If you would like to use any of the elements from the Chapter Approved 2019 supplement, which would they be?

 sfshilo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are no preceding rounds. The IG turkey shoot starts instantly thanks to range and ignore los. Dont forget guardsmen move faster than my jump troops with move move move. They easily outscore power armor lists while tabling them.

Take transports....

Way too many people complaining about morter spam and artillery spam when all they have to do is hop in some rhinos or whatever it is you use. You're dying because all your stuff is out in the open, you know, where you don't want to be when artillery is falling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

secretForge wrote:

8th has always had a horde problem, and these CA missions if adopted competitively will only make it worse.

If that indeed is the case, then half of the major tournaments playing with houserules which hide this problem is not gonna help to get it fixed.

Maybe, but I'm not playing in a poorly constructed event just so GW might get the message. GW should let 3rd parties write all their rules and stick to plastic.

They tried that and almost went bankrupt......

The artillery kills the transports too.... Everything dies vs IG. Quickly. That's the problem.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
The ITC ranking and such, rules for running tunrey, on their website doesn't require you to use their missions, terrain rules, or anything specific.

You can run an ITC sanction event and use the GW mission and such. All they care about is the size of the event.

Oh stop with your lies. What's next? The I in ITC stands for independent because they want people to play games and run tournaments however they want? Ha. We all know ITC is only out for a cash grab from all of the tiny 8 man tournies scattered about the world. </sarcasm>

Woah!

No need to be aggressive!

I don't play ITC, so I went and looked at their site.

It says you can run tournaments at a minimum of 1,000pnts/75PL, and that anything under 1,500 counts as an RTT.
They suggest their own mission packs, but don't require them. So you Can play an ITC sanctioned event with the GW missions! Hell you can even run it with Power Levels!

 Blndmage wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
The ITC ranking and such, rules for running tunrey, on their website doesn't require you to use their missions, terrain rules, or anything specific.

You can run an ITC sanction event and use the GW mission and such. All they care about is the size of the event.

Oh stop with your lies. What's next? The I in ITC stands for independent because they want people to play games and run tournaments however they want? Ha. We all know ITC is only out for a cash grab from all of the tiny 8 man tournies scattered about the world. </sarcasm>

Woah!

No need to be aggressive!

I don't play ITC, so I went and looked at their site.

It says you can run tournaments at a minimum of 1,000pnts/75PL, and that anything under 1,500 counts as an RTT.
They suggest their own mission packs, but don't require them. So you Can play an ITC sanctioned event with the GW missions! Hell you can even run it with Power Levels!

Haha.. I guess my sarcasm didn't come across quite right.
Too many casual players get their panties in a knot when you mention ITC. I've played in ITC highlander events. ITC is just a reporting tool to rank players. Reece doesn't rule with an iron fist.