Switch Theme:

ITC mission pack shake up  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

 Argive wrote:
wouldn't ITC work better if the secondaries were randomised or cycled per battle?


An RTT was just played in the LVO judge's backyard; they used the d20 generator document that's floating around. One guy, mind you, just one, PM'd me that *he* liked the format. He said others liked it, too.

I looked at it and it looks fun to me. We'll see.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/11 05:43:45


"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.

"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013

Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Brothererekose wrote:

Um, this almost reads like, "Having a high score does *not* determine who wins a tourney." Am I reading that wrong?


Yes, you're reading it wrong. I'm not saying don't use VPs to determine who wins individual games and I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote. What I'm saying is the difference in VP score at the end of a 5-game tournament is not necessarily indicative of the difference in ability between two opponents who have not played against each other because there are variables such as the quality of the opposition they played against, particularly in the earlier rounds, that you just can't control for. Therefore the idea that you need this bigger potential spread of VPs isn't necessarily the case. It can be helpful for sorting players, yes, but not to the extent that you need to keep such a system if there is something wrong with the core of that system.

As for systems that use a straight W/L/D approach at tournaments, X-Wing springs to mind. They've just has a 500+ player tournament in the UK using that scoring system and it worked out just fine. It's the same system they've been using for years.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Argive wrote:
wouldn't ITC work better if the secondaries were randomised or cycled per battle?


The idea is that it always gives you something to play towards regardless of the enemy's army configuration. I don't really like them as a mission style, but making them random would undo their purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote:
What I'm saying is the difference in VP score at the end of a 5-game tournament is not necessarily indicative of the difference in ability between two opponents who have not played against each other because there are variables such as the quality of the opposition they played against, particularly in the earlier rounds, that you just can't control for.


There's really no perfect solution for tiebreakers, though personally differential scoring is my least favorite. Whenever I've TO'd a differential tourney, the results always read like "Frieza had a much easier time killing Krillen than Gohan did killing Cell. Therefore, Frieza is obviously stronger than Gohan." No matter what system you use though, it always sucks to rank one player over another that had equal records but never actually fought one another.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/11 14:41:41


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

Very politely answered, Slipspace. Nicer than my first response to you.

So, cheers.

Slipspace wrote:
What I'm saying is the difference in VP score at the end of a 5-game tournament is not necessarily indicative of the difference in ability between two opponents ...

But why would we want to know this? Outside Multiple-Mirror-match games, "Who is better" really hard to measure.

Slipspace wrote:
Therefore the idea that you need this bigger potential spread of VPs isn't necessarily the case. It can be helpful for sorting players, yes, but not to the extent that you need to keep such a system if there is something wrong with the core of that system.
It's purpose is exactly for helping sort pairings, and given dozens of RTTs a weekend, and ... 3 to 6 GTs a week? 8 a month? The 'core system', is that ITC missions? Or the secondaries (I'm not being obtuse on purpose, but trying to help you, help me, be clear).

Well, I'd point to how many tourneys ran last year, and so many more than the year before, I conclude the system, broken it might be, seems to moving along really well, for 14,000 ITC members, up 4k from the year before.

That is, it's not broken**.

Slipspace wrote:
As for systems that use a straight W/L/D approach at tournaments, X-Wing springs to mind. They've just has a 500+ player tournament in the UK using that scoring system and it worked out just fine. It's the same system they've been using for years.
I have no answer to this as I have no idea X-wing is scored.

- - - - - - - - - --
**If the current ITC secondaries are broken, then I dunno as change will help:

Moving forward:
I just looked at a d20 secondary objective generator document ... some guy developed, Steve something? Sorry, not enough memory to recall his name.

Anyway, it looks fun. I'd be perfectly happy to drop the present ITC misson set for this one. Or play EW missions 1-3 & 5-6. I'm not married to the ITC missions, or EW or any in particular. I'll play even if there's a Ro-Sham-Bo dreadsock between rounds 4 and 5. I have the 3e missions saved paper. "This is Heavy!" being a memorable one.

If the d20 one were to be adapted (unlikely) I'd alter my present aeldari builds. So would everyone else, and the Bitch&Complain cycle would start anew: "D20 secondaries have skewed the meta! D20ers have ruined the game!" You know it'd happen:

"Oh, no, there's h2h objectives! Charging and Fight phase objectives. I play Tau!"
"I play guard and I dun wanna buy Bullgryn!""

Same if we all (ITC) went with CA19 EW missions. List builds would alter, and the B&C cycle would be about *that*. I've been watching Dakka poster "Twighlight Pathways" batreps. Except for the last two, they're all mission cards. This, not the slightest, made watching his videos any less enjoyable. Good battles and humorous, too. Check 'em out!

Anyway, after all is said, and very little done ...
*shrug*
It seems to have been this way since I started in 4e, and the older Rogue Trader 1e guys I know say the same thing. Factions of players are always going to find something 'broken' in the game. And I'm going to continue to come back to the same silver bullet: git gud. I need to get a T-shirt with that.

And rumors of 9e are getting stronger. Damnit. I'd like to *not* buy replacement codices for another 2 years.

"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.

"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013

Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic 
   
Made in gb
Wicked Warp Spider






 LunarSol wrote:
 Argive wrote:
wouldn't ITC work better if the secondaries were randomised or cycled per battle?


The idea is that it always gives you something to play towards regardless of the enemy's army configuration. I don't really like them as a mission style, but making them random would undo their purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote:
What I'm saying is the difference in VP score at the end of a 5-game tournament is not necessarily indicative of the difference in ability between two opponents who have not played against each other because there are variables such as the quality of the opposition they played against, particularly in the earlier rounds, that you just can't control for.


There's really no perfect solution for tiebreakers, though personally differential scoring is my least favorite. Whenever I've TO'd a differential tourney, the results always read like "Frieza had a much easier time killing Krillen than Gohan did killing Cell. Therefore, Frieza is obviously stronger than Gohan." No matter what system you use though, it always sucks to rank one player over another that had equal records but never actually fought one another.


My point was that you cant bui d alist to gurantee you get your secondary... Like flyer spam obviously getting recon every time.

So if a shooty castly army gets Recon then they will have to move or give up the points.
Likewaise a forward moving army might get engineers so they will have to leave dudes behind..

Also not fan of the magic boxes..

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission




Tacoma, WA, USA

ITC 2020 Beta Missions are out. Go see if they fixed anything.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/02/14/40k-itc-champions-missions-are-updated/#comments
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






This will change nothing.

The issue is and always has been being able to choose from a fixed list of objects.
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Southeastern PA, USA

That's certainly something I don't like about the format that keeps me away from it.

Choosing secondaries definitely encourages extreme builds over more TAC lists. But it's also possible that choosing keeps a greater number of builds more competitive than they would be in a TAC environment. Seen this stuff cycle through for years, and GT formats almost always end up being a goalpost-moving exercise.

The healthiest thing would be for players and TOs to just accept that the game fundamentally isn't well-suited for competitive play...that it's always going to be square pegs and round holes, and therefore something that shouldn't be taken too seriously. But today's players and TOs sure want their esports pantomime. *shrug*

My World Eaters Showcase
View my Genestealer Cult! Article - Gallery - Blog
Best Appearance - GW Baltimore GT 2008, Colonial GT 2012

DQ:70+S++++G+M++++B++I+Pw40k90#+D++A+++/fWD66R++T(Ot)DM+++

 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






State of Jefferson

 bullyboy wrote:
This was a discussion on the General forum, but i figured I'd put it here to start a discussion where it belongs.

1. Do you think that ITC should adopt some of the new CA2019 missions in 50% of the games in 6 round tournaments (such as the LVO)?
2. With that in mind, do you think that would promote enough change in lists to change the meta in a positive way?
3. If #2 is not correct, then what would?

Cheers


1. No
2. It would change the meta, yes. I am too biased (because I play a single faction predominantly)to answer if it would change positively nor negatively.
3. I think that adopting a 50% NOVA-style and 50%-ITC style would change the meta the most and in a general positive direction. Again, I'm (we all are) biased,

Of the new secondaries, I think the change to reaper is likely the most positive in reigning in the power of the space marine factions
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






Seriously? Nova is even worse than the ITC.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

Something to consider:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/02/19/itc-2020-40k-missions-update/#comment-621143

"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.

"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013

Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut









...between round drinking being added to the pack? Huh?

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in us
God-like Imperator Titan Commander





Halifax

I believe that's a joke.

Maybe the Squats were all the Space Marines we made along the way.  
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





its just a fail from linking to a comment rather then the top of the article which is about actual changes made and some justification.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/02/19/itc-2020-40k-missions-update/

Tho the use of those statistics to defend removing sieze is horsegak since the winrate doesn't account for going first or not. If RG had a hypothetical 100% winrate going first and 0% winrate in going second under IGUG they would look perfectly balanced at 50% in that graph.
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: