Switch Theme:

Objectives are not worth enough points in ITC format.  [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
Daemonic Dreadnought






The current ITC system is good and is better than the take objectives with lurking obsec jetbikes 5 minutes before the clock ends the game 7th ed meta but with the recent deep strike nerf and little need for obsec we are going to see a static gun line meta. The #1 problem with the current ITC meta is that objectives are not worth enough points and obsec is rarely relative.

Over 6 rounds holding objectives only count for 12 out of 36 possible points, but 6 of those points are for the hold a single objective which is essentially a participation trophy. If a player can not get those 6 points it’s usually because they are nearly tabled. That means objectives only tends to matter for 6 out of 36 points, and obsec doesn’t always come into play for those 6 points.

Kill 1 unit is also a participation trophy making participation trophies worth ⅓ of the total points available and almost irrelevant as both players should get the points.

Obsec means even less if the game ends before turn 5. In the first 4 turns objectives only counts for 1 out every 7 points, 2 out of 7 are participation trophies, 1 out of 7 is for killing more units, and 3/7 are from secondaries.

When the participation trophies are removed from the equation because they are largely irrelevant the breakdown goes as follows.

1 in 5 points is for killing more
1 in 5 points is for objectives
3 in 5 points are for secondaries

Obsec is completely irrelevant in 80% of the competitive points that are not participation trophies.

I have some ideas for possible fixes.

#1) Eliminate participation trophies and recycle 6 or 12 points of those points into the more difficult task of holding more objectives. IMO start scoring 1 point per player turn for holding more objectives starting at the end of player 2’s turn and score hold more objectives at the end of both players turns. It would be too much of a free point to score it at the end of player 1’s first turn, maybe also make the last turn worth double points.. Even if that reduces the total number of objective points from 12 to 11 the number of highly competitive points goes from 6 to 11. In a 6 turn game where one player held more objectives for 10 out of 12 player turns the score would change from 7-11 (+4 gain) under the current system to 2-10 (+8 gain)

#2) Make obsec more relevant in secondary objectives. Possible buffs might include double points towards the maximum 4 points per game if recon or behind enemy lines is scored entirely with obsec units. Another possibility is -1 reaper points once per game if the dead unit is obsec.

Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I agree. I think the ITC missions reward killing things too much and holding objectives too little. IMO, the game should be about objectives and killing the enemy should be something you do to help hold those objectives, not to score objective points.

Your solutions seem OK but maybe we need to go even further and completely re-evaluate how many points are available for killing things in a given turn too? I'd rather see a system where >50% of the points are earned through taking objectives as I think it leads to a more dynamic game.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Reco taking a look at NOVA missions.

That said, the current ITC missions are a huge improvement over the former and quite awesome.

Also you can certainly select secondaries that are very similar to objective control in that they aren't kill centric.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 13:03:53


 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

I personally disagree, armies that are geared towards board control, ITC is typically very friendly towards them, over those that are designed to just blast guys into oblivion.

1st Legion Dark Angels

Eldar Craftworld Eth-Kariel
Spear of Kornous - High Elf Expeditionary Army (Retired) 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





ETC is a better overall format to play objective based missions, try that instead

Winner of LVO 2016 - Bringing the Gold back to the UK! 
   
Made in us
Implaccable Grey Knight Paladin




San Diego, CA

 djones520 wrote:
I personally disagree, armies that are geared towards board control, ITC is typically very friendly towards them, over those that are designed to just blast guys into oblivion.

With the numbers quoted from the OP, a knee-jerk “but ITC is awesome!” reaction just really doesn’t hold water. And the number get more and more in favor of the “kill ‘em all” lists as the number of turns decreases. To MVBrandt’s point: yes, there are “objective-holding” secondaries. However, these can be harder to obtain in some cases. For example, the “unit in every corner” sounds great, but it takes 4 turns of spreading your army across the whole table to get max points, while focused firepower can get you full points from big game hunter in a single turn. Since the “kill” secondaries can be achieved in 2-3 turns and you can’t score objectives if you’re dead...going for the table is the most reliable way to get a win.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought






The objective like secondaries do not require troops or obsec which is irrelevant to the secondaries. In the current meta wave serpent or cheap expendable units easily score recon and behind enemy lines. Those are worth 2 points per turn compared to 1 point per turn for holding more objectives. There is also little counter play to them. It's a lot easier to deny 3" from an objective than an entire table corner or a 1 by 6 foot length of table.

ITC has been a fantastic tournament scene, but I think it will need to change the format a bit after the deep strike nerfs.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/20 01:31:48


Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Oops.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/26 23:13:19


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





East Bay, Ca, US

Well, it's more than that:

6 for holding 1
6 for holding more
6 for bonus
4 for recon (board control)
4 for linebreaker / behind enemy (board control)

The challenge is that the bonus is usually inordinately difficult to achieve. It would be nice to see more secondaries devoted to control rather than killing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/26 19:30:24


To compute the probability of a specific outcome on N DK dice, use the generating function F= (x+ x^2 + x^3 + . . . + x^k-1 + x^k)^n

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy.
How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

 
   
Made in us
Implaccable Grey Knight Paladin




San Diego, CA

 Marmatag wrote:
Well, it's more than that:

6 for holding 1
6 for holding more
6 for bonus
4 for recon (board control)
4 for linebreaker / behind enemy (board control)

The challenge is that the bonus is usually inordinately difficult to achieve. It would be nice to see more secondaries devoted to control rather than killing.

On the other hand, you have:

6 for killing 1
6 for killing more
4 for headhunter
4 for kingslayer
4 for reaper
4 for big game hunter
4 for titan slayer
4 for gang busters
4 for death by a thousand cuts
3 points for old school

Granted some of these are more difficult to achieve than others, but they all are varied enough that you can almost always pick something in your opponent's army that your list is set up well to remove. The other point is that the objective/control based secondaries are at most 1 pt/turn, while you can get full points from any kill objectives (except for the old school ones) in a single turn if you're destructive enough. So it's in the best interest of any player to 1) maximize firepower and 2) go for the early table, cause if the game lasts 3 turns and everyone achieves their secondaries, the "board control player" loses on secondaries every time. Additionally, up to turn 3 the secondaries are worth more than the primary (max 12 from each on T3) and out to T4 if you only get 3 primary objectives per turn...which is when a lot of games have been ending anyway
As a sidenote, ITC's missions faced similar criticism early in 7th, namely that their progressive missions favored killing units equally with holding objectives. Some of it got fixed, some of it was hand-waved away.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




The problem with the secondaries is that they are usually trivial to achieve, probably because there are so many of them. This is exacerbated by the wide choice of secondaries. So while a lot of armies may struggle to achieve, for example, Titan Slayer, that's not a problem since so many other "kill things" objectives are available. In practical terms, Death by a Thousand Cuts and Reaper are actually very similar when you get right down to it. Killing large units of models and killing the same number of models across multiple units is functionally the same in 8th edition, thanks to split fire.

I've slightly reconsidered my position from earlier where I suggested objectives should be worth >50% of the points in a game. I'm now wondering what the game would be like if the only way to score points was through objectives that didn't directly involve killing anything or only involved killing things under specific conditions. So what about a system where you gain more points for securing an objective your opponent controlled at the start of the turn? Sure, you need to kill the enemy but it's a bit more a of a targeted and dynamic condition than just "kill any unit anywhere on the board".

Or what about progressive scoring where units gain more points the longer they hold an objective? So if they hold it for 1 turn it's 1 point, for 2 turns they get an additional 2 points, etc. Probably need to specify it only works for objectives outside of deployment zones. The players would then need to consider what the best strategy is: kill a unit that's not that dangerous but is racking up lots of points, or take out a more dangerous unit that won't directly earn you or your opponent any points.

Just some random suggestions off the top of my head. They could almost certainly be tweaked and balanced better, but you get the idea.
   
Made in pl
Swift Swooping Hawk





Slipspace wrote:
The problem with the secondaries is that they are usually trivial to achieve, probably because there are so many of them. This is exacerbated by the wide choice of secondaries. So while a lot of armies may struggle to achieve, for example, Titan Slayer, that's not a problem since so many other "kill things" objectives are available. In practical terms, Death by a Thousand Cuts and Reaper are actually very similar when you get right down to it. Killing large units of models and killing the same number of models across multiple units is functionally the same in 8th edition, thanks to split fire.

I've slightly reconsidered my position from earlier where I suggested objectives should be worth >50% of the points in a game. I'm now wondering what the game would be like if the only way to score points was through objectives that didn't directly involve killing anything or only involved killing things under specific conditions. So what about a system where you gain more points for securing an objective your opponent controlled at the start of the turn? Sure, you need to kill the enemy but it's a bit more a of a targeted and dynamic condition than just "kill any unit anywhere on the board".

Or what about progressive scoring where units gain more points the longer they hold an objective? So if they hold it for 1 turn it's 1 point, for 2 turns they get an additional 2 points, etc. Probably need to specify it only works for objectives outside of deployment zones. The players would then need to consider what the best strategy is: kill a unit that's not that dangerous but is racking up lots of points, or take out a more dangerous unit that won't directly earn you or your opponent any points.

Just some random suggestions off the top of my head. They could almost certainly be tweaked and balanced better, but you get the idea.


I exclusively play a custom progressive scoring format where only objectives/specific kill tasks matter (including multiturn holding or multiple objective holding or multiple simultaneous kills required to score), there are no generic kill points and tabling only grant a small point bonus (around 10% of a maximum score). Such style of scoring generate vastly more dynamic play. If you can find someone/group to experiment with more complex winning conditions I strongly advise doing so - no matter the edition, 40K gains A LOT of depth with sensible mission format.

   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot








On the flip side, it makes no sense to me that tabling an opponent can actually cause you to get fewer points( as you can no longer score for holding), and you are better off leaving an enemy unit alive so you can keep grabbing objective points. Indeed, you almost should also plan to be able to kill one unit a turn until the end!

.Only a fool believes there is such a thing as price gouging. Things have value determined by the creator or merchant. If you don't agree with that value, you are free not to purchase. 
   
Made in pl
Swift Swooping Hawk





General Hobbs wrote:


On the flip side, it makes no sense to me that tabling an opponent can actually cause you to get fewer points( as you can no longer score for holding), and you are better off leaving an enemy unit alive so you can keep grabbing objective points. Indeed, you almost should also plan to be able to kill one unit a turn until the end!


I should have add (as it seems it wasn't obvious enough), that my format is no straightforwardly compatible with tournament rankings based on in-game VPs. If you can table your opponent fast enough so he cannot hold enough objectives/perform tasks worth more than your tasks+tabling bonus you won. Easy. To translate this into ranking you should now proportionally recalculate both sides VPs onto ranking score and voila!, you now have a system where tabling grants maximum score but your enemy can have a very close game and rank just slightly lower. But if you tabled someone after he held all objectives for 5-6 turns when you just stood in a gunline shooting and hoping for the best you shouldn't really win the game at all just because you've slain some cannon fodder in an eternal galactic conflict, because during that time your enemy could have achieved all of his strategic goals for that particular clash. It is really much more realistic and immersive if tabling is just bonus points.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




General Hobbs wrote:


On the flip side, it makes no sense to me that tabling an opponent can actually cause you to get fewer points( as you can no longer score for holding), and you are better off leaving an enemy unit alive so you can keep grabbing objective points. Indeed, you almost should also plan to be able to kill one unit a turn until the end!


There's a lot that makes no sense from a realism standpoint, but in general this kind of design is good. It's why I wouldn't go their route of having kills be relevant every single turn, and why I agree with the OP in pushing more for control and objectives. When you push your mission meta toward control, mobility, etc., you inherently reduce the # of armies that optimize success through flat killing in a dice-game. In that sense, you are minimizing the impact of dice on the outcome of games, and broadening the number of units that have merit (as their ability to kill is not the only consideration you have to have). I'm biased, since the ITC missions are very similar to NOVA's, but they (plus their quirky but good terrain rules) help accomplish a lot of value in pushing things away from pure kill ... with the exception of the residual over-killy elements.

In making Top 8 at LVO, that definitely was a factor for me, as I finished 5/6 of my qualifying games simply by clearing my opponent's army off the board by turn 3 // seeing them concede by that point. Since you get all but a few points thereafter, it was actually quite good for my BP score as well (so I'm not sure "tabling" is all that much of a hindrance).
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






San Diego, California

For anyone that had an opinion they wanted to express on this topic, we are soliciting feedback at this time: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSccLj8jSs3OAwRml5tRc1PpjJY1U95qiZGoLatjnvpXM7xkYw/viewform?usp=sf_link

   
Made in us
Deranged Necron Destroyer




Out of my Mind

I feel that one of the problems with that survey is that it can filter out those that currently play ITC from those that don’t.
There are also questions in there with answers that assume that they are active in the ITC, and don’t have a valid option to answer. Like the favorite/worst ITC scenario for example.

Personal Opinion:
Spoiler:
I don’t know what processes you use to make decisions on how to interpret / implement feedback. I understand that there is/was an issue with players filling out those surveys to skew the results, or vaguely remember something along those lines. Excluding input from a portion of the community still waiting for something that’s worth their time was a bad move. I stopped participating when that happened.

I simply do not enjoy the ITC at all. A large part of this is probably due to my experience with certain local players, and how toxic the ITC scene is. I have a few friends that will ask me to practice with them for the next upcoming event, which I do on occasion. Everytime I play, it’s not even 40k. Sure it uses the core rules, miniatures, and looks like 40k, but it’s just not there. Being a ranked ITC player, or running lists that are winning ITC Tournaments doesn’t qualify you as a good 40k player. Not participating in them doesn’t mean you’re a bad 40k player.

I have a strong opinion that this is what happens when you exclude feedback from those who are still looking for something that is going to include them. Again, I don’t know what the decision process is since I stopped following the ITC when they excluded that voice. I’m in a good place where I have a group of players who also play 40k, or aren’t bent on sticking to playing the ITC missions.

I just find it difficult to believe that I’m the only one that prefers 40k over the ITC, and felt the need to say something.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/11 15:44:02


Current Armies
(40k) Primaris Marines / WIP
(40k) Necron - Pending Codex
(AoS) Shadowblades - Shelved... 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine






Under the circumstances why should your opinion weigh as much as someone's with actual experience? It's a survey to improve the missions. If you want to tell Reece he is ruining 40k for you just email him.

“You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common, They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.” -- The Doctor 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block





 Reecius wrote:
For anyone that had an opinion they wanted to express on this topic, we are soliciting feedback at this time: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSccLj8jSs3OAwRml5tRc1PpjJY1U95qiZGoLatjnvpXM7xkYw/viewform?usp=sf_link


Great, submitted! I encourage anyone with ITC interest/experience to do the same.


-Ork
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Just submitted my rather longish thoughts. Will be interesting to see what comes out of this and what people are thinking.
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

My thoughts were mostly centered on I thought a few of the secondaries were pointless. How often does Death By a Thousand Cuts get used, for example.

Overall I'm pretty happy with the system. Find it much more balanced then the regular game.

1st Legion Dark Angels

Eldar Craftworld Eth-Kariel
Spear of Kornous - High Elf Expeditionary Army (Retired) 
   
Made in us
Implaccable Grey Knight Paladin




San Diego, CA

Here's what I put as my "any other comments":

Start with GW missions as the baseline. Go back to the source materials, playtest, and make modifications from there. Right now the current ITC missions resemble nothing produced by the game designers, or what someone just starting the tournament scene has experienced previously. Reconsider if progressive scoring is still better than end-game in 8th edition, or if assumptions made in 6th/7th are non longer valid. Start from scratch: eternal war/chapter approved missions as written, then gradually make modifications as necessary. And in the end, keep it simple: fewer secondaries, and a simple primary (or primaries).


In the earlier comments I also suggested that whatever combination of primary/secondary objectives they end up with the ratio should be close to 75-25 objectives-killing stuff (right now every mission can be the opposite). If lethality becomes more of a means to an end than the end itself I think you'll see a greater diversification of lists.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




McCragge

I really like the championship missions. They are fun to play too.

Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!

Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."

"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."

DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough. 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





The House that Peterbilt

 Akar wrote:
I feel that one of the problems with that survey is that it can filter out those that currently play ITC from those that don’t.
There are also questions in there with answers that assume that they are active in the ITC, and don’t have a valid option to answer. Like the favorite/worst ITC scenario for example.

The survey is specific to folks who participate in the ITC and want to provide feedback on the Championship missions. Its not a survey for whether people are happy with ITC or not. They aren't hurting for participation and continue to grow fast, probably too fast in some regards. So at this point a survey like you are looking for is not high on the priority, I imagine anyways.

That said, if you have feedback in general why not send FLG an email? Or one of their podcasters like Pablo? Or on their twitch channel on Wednesdays? They do a pretty good job of engaging the community as long as you are respectful. Many specific things I have personally asked for or provided as feedback has ended up in use, and I know I am not alone.

I simply do not enjoy the ITC at all. A large part of this is probably due to my experience with certain local players, and how toxic the ITC scene is. I have a few friends that will ask me to practice with them for the next upcoming event, which I do on occasion. Everytime I play, it’s not even 40k. Sure it uses the core rules, miniatures, and looks like 40k, but it’s just not there. Being a ranked ITC player, or running lists that are winning ITC Tournaments doesn’t qualify you as a good 40k player. Not participating in them doesn’t mean you’re a bad 40k player.

Lot to unpack here.

First, from the 40k Advanced Rules, pg 289
You may also find yourself inspired to write and fight your own missions – and we highly recommend it! The more you put into your hobby, the more rewards you will find waiting for you.

Custom missions have been a part of 40k, the hobby and organized competitive play since there was organized competitive play. ITC didn't start that tradition, GW themselves did and continue to encourage it. So whether you choose to play the matched play missions from the main book or ones that a TO has designed, you are still playing 40k. Anything else is just hyperbole to draw a line in the sand and create friction and drama.

Second, I think only you are assigning worth based on winning ITC missions or whatever. FLG has been very clear they want feedback from all participants of the ITC. Not just the top players. And not just because of winning or losing but just enjoyment, meta development, customer satisfaction and what not. But they do want it from participants because those are the folks that have skin in the game. The ones with money, travel and their hobby on the line.

Finally, given some of the hyperbole in your opinions, I wonder if the 'toxicity' in your area is as much due to you and yours as it is the ITC participants? I have found a minority of folks just want 40k to be all about how they want to play, whether its ITC or narrative or whatever, and are vocal about how any other form is bad, toxic, lame or whatever. Sometimes this is just old baggage that isn't even relevant currently. It is also not how most folks see the game imo, where they really do see value in ITC, Open war, multiplayer, campaigns - all of it. Just curious as you seem pretty opinionated on what 40k is and isn't. That sort of thing can create toxicity in my opinion.

I have a strong opinion that this is what happens when you exclude feedback from those who are still looking for something that is going to include them. Again, I don’t know what the decision process is since I stopped following the ITC when they excluded that voice. I’m in a good place where I have a group of players who also play 40k, or aren’t bent on sticking to playing the ITC missions.

It is something to note that 'ITC' does not equal 'ITC missions'. I run two major (58+ attendee) events a year, one using ITC missions and one using a very divergent, mission on every table format. This is just an example of how ITC is a bit more inclusive and open then you give them credit. Our ability to still sell out an ITC event without ITC missions/format shows its easier to take action in your community if you want to make a change, rather than put the blame on FLG. Want a scene and meta using the book missions, help get some tournaments going using those rules. That is the sort of thing that gets attention imo.

   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






State of Jefferson

I gotta say, I like the ITC missions.

12/36 points are objective-based
12/36 points are kill-based
12/36 points are selection-based

That seems pretty balanced to me. I think that my poor generalship needs "participation points." That may be due to my Gen Custer-like chokes at pivotal points though.

I would like my meta to do ITC missions only. Instead in our last tourney (that was ITC scored), it was a custom throw back to 7th ed including LOS arcs (ie turrets, sponsons, hull mounted etc) weird terrain rules among other stuff. I was pretty butt-hurt at the outset.

I am truly a whiner, too. Very shrill. Foot stampy. Table flippy exasperator.

Yet after some other players talked me down, it became quite enjoyable. Their reasoning was that I should think of it as a challenge to my tactical skills and that it introduces a puzzling new quirk to the game. In retrospect, this is how a battle should be. Unexpectedly asymmetrical in an unexpected manner.

Regardless, I will continue to whine... unabashedly

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I love ITC missions and pretty much every game I play is ITC champions mission (either at tournaments or in prep). I submitted feedback.

My main beef with them is the ability of armies to game the system. I'd love if the secondary missions were more "choose 3 of your opponents models/units. 1 vp if you kill one, 2 vp if you kill 2, 4 vp if you kill 3." Choose one of your own models/units. For every turn beyond the 2nd that this unit/model survives gain 1 vp (bonus cp for 4 total if it lives through turn 5). For every unit you kill in cqc gain 1 vp. Select a unit, gain 1 vp if it kills 1 units, 2 vp if it kills 2 and 4 vp if it kills 3.

I feel these types of missions will allow more interactive gameplay (denying your selected unit from killing mine instead of just killing as much of your army as possible. Hiding a unit of mine while you hunt him to deny my vps)

Less focus on what types of units are in the enemies list (big game hunter, reaper) more focus on how you use the units you are bringing to the table. Also a limit on stacking scoring. Kill something can and it can count for kill 1 or some other vp condition. A unit can only gain 1 vp for positioning (hold or recon or line breaker not more than 1).

It's frustrating to look over at the enemies list and realize that you can only choose the basic 3 secondaries (recon, behind enemy lines and old-school) because you are playing eldar and all they have are msu squads that are next to impossible to kill before they kill you. it is equally as frustrating to know that I can't play Celestine in my army because she gives up soooo many secondary points.
   
Made in us
Implaccable Grey Knight Paladin




San Diego, CA

 doktor_g wrote:
I gotta say, I like the ITC missions.

12/36 points are objective-based
12/36 points are kill-based
12/36 points are selection-based

That seems pretty balanced to me.

Is it though? That every game you can choose to get 2/3 of the max points from killing units? How about when you consider that in a 4 turn game there are only 28 points available unless you table your opponent? Only 1/6 of the standard BRB missions reward you for simply killing the enemy, but in the ITC missions you can win every game by simply denying a quarter of the table and out-killing your opponent.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






State of Jefferson

 greyknight12 wrote:
 doktor_g wrote:
I gotta say, I like the ITC missions.

12/36 points are objective-based
12/36 points are kill-based
12/36 points are selection-based

That seems pretty balanced to me.

Is it though? That every game you can choose to get 2/3 of the max points from killing units? How about when you consider that in a 4 turn game there are only 28 points available unless you table your opponent? Only 1/6 of the standard BRB missions reward you for simply killing the enemy, but in the ITC missions you can win every game by simply denying a quarter of the table and out-killing your opponent.


Said it yourself... You deny your opponent positional advantage and kill more of his units than he does of yours. You shouldn't win? I guess I don't understand.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




So, expanding on what others have said, and the comments I made in the survey –

I like the ITC missions scoring, but, I find the actual missions (as in the bonus mission points for holding x number of objectives/opponents + central etc) as pointless and bad.

Scoring a point for holding an objective, killing something, and then those bonus points are great – but, they have nothing to do with the actual “missions”.
How many times – especially since the Big FAQ, have you gained the bonus mission point in the mission Cut to the Heart, for example? What about the What’s yours is Mine, point? Generally, the only 1 I see getting scored regularly is the Crucible of Champions points, as it doesn’t involve having to somehow take and hold your opponent’s back field objective on turn 1 or 2 to make a difference in a 3-4 turn game.

Secondary’s, the idea of them are great and they really the main “mission” of any given game, when looked at in reality. Am I going to focus on getting 12/12 points from “secondary’s” or, am I going to focus on getting 0-3 bonus “primary” points instead? Especially, when most bonus mission points can’t get achieved turn 1, and, winning the other bonus points can often rely on whether or not you got your choice of going first or second.

In the events I’ve been to, the only time the primary points tend to overtake the gains of the secondary points, is when you table your opponent and then get the points for “free”. At which point, it just becomes more beneficial to focus on tabling your opponent and picking up the secondary’s while you do so.
   
Made in us
Implaccable Grey Knight Paladin




San Diego, CA

 doktor_g wrote:
 greyknight12 wrote:
 doktor_g wrote:
I gotta say, I like the ITC missions.

12/36 points are objective-based
12/36 points are kill-based
12/36 points are selection-based

That seems pretty balanced to me.

Is it though? That every game you can choose to get 2/3 of the max points from killing units? How about when you consider that in a 4 turn game there are only 28 points available unless you table your opponent? Only 1/6 of the standard BRB missions reward you for simply killing the enemy, but in the ITC missions you can win every game by simply denying a quarter of the table and out-killing your opponent.


Said it yourself... You deny your opponent positional advantage and kill more of his units than he does of yours. You shouldn't win? I guess I don't understand.

The entire point of “special” tournament missions and progressive objectives is ostensibly to prevent a game where simply having superior firepower will win the game. And “positional advantage” shouldn’t have to mean holding onto all table quarters to score one of the two secondaries that are objective-based.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: