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.

Watching the Tabletop Tactics video on the new chapter approved, one thing people don’t seem to be discussing as much is the new missions and mission format.

I feel the points adjustments made should be looked at taking into account this new way of playing as it completely changes how the game is played. For example, deployment is now done one whole army at a time with each player deploying knowing who has the choice to go first or second. Additionally, scoring objectives is now super important as tabling your opponent does not automatically mean you win.

These changes greatly reduce the effectiveness of knights and Ynnari and I think provide a much better balanced ruleset which encourages playing the objectives. The elephant in the room is however the ITC format. Previously I had much preferred ITC over book missions and almost all the competitive scene uses ITC.

However, now it may be that armies are balanced for a completely different way of playing than ITC. Whats everyones opions on this, will we start seeing more competitive play using the new CA missions or will ITC continue to dominate (and therefore knights, Ynnari etc).

I think they are great, but there wont be many changes to ITC until LVO (season is over). Next year I expect to see some changes.

Hard_rock_geo wrote:
Watching the Tabletop Tactics video on the new chapter approved, one thing people don’t seem to be discussing as much is the new missions and mission format.

I feel the points adjustments made should be looked at taking into account this new way of playing as it completely changes how the game is played. For example, deployment is now done one whole army at a time with each player deploying knowing who has the choice to go first or second. Additionally, scoring objectives is now super important as tabling your opponent does not automatically mean you win.

These changes greatly reduce the effectiveness of knights and Ynnari and I think provide a much better balanced ruleset which encourages playing the objectives. The elephant in the room is however the ITC format. Previously I had much preferred ITC over book missions and almost all the competitive scene uses ITC.

However, now it may be that armies are balanced for a completely different way of playing than ITC. Whats everyones opions on this, will we start seeing more competitive play using the new CA missions or will ITC continue to dominate (and therefore knights, Ynnari etc).

I think that it's bold of you to assume that GW would balance armies and missions against each other. Or balance anything correctly at all.

ITC is run by arrogant nonsense. They'll always think that their ideas are better.

I think the GW missions need to be the baseline. GW apparently does their points adjustments with their new missions in mind, while ITC is essentially a completely different game due to how it changes things (this is why there are generally great differences in the meta between ITC events and like GW's own GTs). Unfortunately, ITC is so ingrained in the USA that I doubt anyone will care about these missions; I already see people bitching over the one that Warhammer Community previewed because not allowing invulnerable saves near the objective "screws over Daemons and Harlequins"

I'm honestly tired of seeing ITC held up as the standard when it's fan-made stuff, basically house rules. Sure, Reece and his cronies might be "playtesting" for GW, but they have essentially forked the game. GW can't balance matched when the very guys they're getting input from on what to change don't even use the missions they are doing the balancing based around! I hope that ITC will adopt these missions but I doubt it and I am betting nothing will change as a result; the issue isn't so much the points/rules (which are problems, don't get me wrong) but the fact the missions are not helping and are actually CAUSING the meta we see in the major tournaments.

I think at this point ITC only needs to be ranking and not their own mission pack. Same like they do for AOS; the AOS ITC rules are basically "Use the matched play rules from the General's Handbook" and that's it. Only the 40k ones are completely deviant and, as a result, fork the game.

On that regard, do we have any spoilers on the rest of the missions?

Honestly, some of the CA18 missions feel a bit like the randomness of mission selection can feth you up.

For example, one mission punishes you for not having plenty of characters to go around, while another punishes you for having them.

One mission is basically "do you play an invul-based army? too bad, you lose."


Its just...not refined enough for competitive.
Its sure as hell great for semi-casual and just having a blast-but a competitive scene needs something a bit more solid.

They can be used as great bases for competitive missions (for example, merge the "feth chars" and "feth no chars" into one and it balances out and creates a dynamic decision making), but it requires some refinement.


Gotta say though-the ability to thin your deck preemptively is a welcome addition.

The missions from last years CA were already decent so much so that I didn't understand the need for ITC's house ruled missions. In my playgroup we'll mix the missions from both CAs (when we are playing matched play that is...)

ITC tries to remove randomness from what I can tell.

Martel732 wrote:
ITC tries to remove randomness from what I can tell.

Which is fine, and a great basis for competitive play because you're looking to enhance the effects of skill and reduce the effects of luck. However, I think often they go too far. The secondary missions still feel like something that you build your army around. The main problem I have with ITC is that the core, primary missions aren't really different enough from each other and secondaries still feel like they're worth too many points. I'd like to see some more variety in general and maybe now is a good time to run some tournaments using some of the new missions from CA.

I like building around secondary missions though, although I'm not enslaved to it.

Maelstrom gives me no feeling of how good I am playing or my army is performing; only how good I am at drawing cards.

Eternal war is just... limited.

they are probably not perfect (see the null zone one), but there are some ideas that should be adopted straight away in the ITC format,

1; who choses the side deploys all his army after the opponent and goes second...do you want first turn? you deploy all your army before me (really good Idea)

2: scoring objective at the end of the battleround and not turn, giving the possibility to counter
(another great idea)

CA 17/18 missions affect army selection. ITC missions affect army selection. An army that would be good in a CA18 mission may not be good in an ITC mission and vice versa. As long as ITC continues to think they know best for 40K and playing the game, this is always going to be an issue. For me, personally, I find the ITC missions bland and uninspiring to play.

The biggest problem with itc changing the game from the rules is the bottom floor ruins rule, this is what artifically buffs ynari

My local league uses ITC missions. I don't mind them; they're better than the Open War Card missions that we use for all the non-league games.

My 2c, though:
I feel that my primary complaint with the ITC is that the reward for destruction of enemy units is too high. Ideally, it'd be zero, with points only scored by occupying and holding positions.

However, the ITC missions are overall very consistent, I like, and they don't include many "interesting" features. I feel incredibly frustrated when the cards turn up a short deployment with "Eager for the Fight" or "Acid Rain". I can take it, but it's no fun when it seems the cards just decide to buff some armies and nerf some armies.


With regards to scoring...
I believe that the destruction of the hostile units should not contribute directly towards victory. Suppression of the enemy facilitates the capture and defense of positions. In addition, it allows us to focus more on destructive units with firepower. This further combines with the ability of non-troops to score, allowing the backfield positions to be held by the artillery and tanks, and allowing a greater density of destructive firepower to appear in lists.

Open War games get crazy. I like that they're an option, but I've had some pretty awful setups with them. I have some really fun games with them, too. But man, are they swingy.

ITC I've only played a few times and although I like what they're trying to do, they feel over-complicated and heavy-handed.

I tend I still have fine experiences with ye olde Eternal War missions, except for The Relic. They're simple and they work.

Looking forward to seeing what's in the new CA.

Slipspace wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
ITC tries to remove randomness from what I can tell.

Which is fine, and a great basis for competitive play because you're looking to enhance the effects of skill and reduce the effects of luck. However, I think often they go too far. The secondary missions still feel like something that you build your army around. The main problem I have with ITC is that the core, primary missions aren't really different enough from each other and secondaries still feel like they're worth too many points. I'd like to see some more variety in general and maybe now is a good time to run some tournaments using some of the new missions from CA.

So how exactly do the secondaries feel more important than the primary?


You can earn a possible of 30 primary points and 12 secondary points. Not even 50% of your points are secondary.


ITC missions are made with the intent that you play 6 turns of Warhammer 40k, not 3-4.

Except holding objectives clearly favors horde armies over elite armies.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
ITC tries to remove randomness from what I can tell.

Which is fine, and a great basis for competitive play because you're looking to enhance the effects of skill and reduce the effects of luck. However, I think often they go too far. The secondary missions still feel like something that you build your army around. The main problem I have with ITC is that the core, primary missions aren't really different enough from each other and secondaries still feel like they're worth too many points. I'd like to see some more variety in general and maybe now is a good time to run some tournaments using some of the new missions from CA.

So how exactly do the secondaries feel more important than the primary?


You can earn a possible of 30 primary points and 12 secondary points. Not even 50% of your points are secondary.


ITC missions are made with the intent that you play 6 turns of Warhammer 40k, not 3-4.

Which is contrary to reality. It ends up with people playing 3 turns then theory hammering the last 3 turns to inflate their scores in order to compete in the tournament.

Insectum7 wrote:Open War games get crazy. I like that they're an option, but I've had some pretty awful setups with them. I have some really fun games with them, too. But man, are they swingy.

ITC I've only played a few times and although I like what they're trying to do, they feel over-complicated and heavy-handed.

I tend I still have fine experiences with ye olde Eternal War missions, except for The Relic. They're simple and they work.

Looking forward to seeing what's in the new CA.

Yeah. I generally give up the Ruse to my opponent, and the twist always also feels like it hurts my army. Plus, the amount of times the no-man's land isn't 24"...

All in all; I still win these games since I bring a list that's mid-tier competitive, but it feels frustrating when every aspect of the mission is acting against you.

Eihnlazer wrote:
So how exactly do the secondaries feel more important than the primary?

You can earn a possible of 30 primary points and 12 secondary points. Not even 50% of your points are secondary.

ITC missions are made with the intent that you play 6 turns of Warhammer 40k, not 3-4.

Well...Only the difference between your score and your enemy score matters in determining the victory, [though the raw score matters too for tournaments and leagues, it doesn't drive victory].

The two basically automatic points for Holding 1 and Killing 1 basically only count for tournament scoring; since you have to be really, really losing, like tabled losing, to not score both. So there's 3 points up for grabs each round from primary, and the Bonus point is generally really hard to get unless you're really winning, so that's really 2 points up for grabs.

With regards to secondaries, there's at least a few points you can be reasonably assured of getting if you really can't get anything else.

12 game-deciding points from primaries. and like 8 or 10 from secondaries, plus the somewhat game-skewing effect on list building secondaries can have, makes them fairly valuable.

However... my bigger complaint is that half the primary and pretty much the entire secondary set are based on destruction of enemy units, rewarding building lists that are good at blowing away chunks of the army without moving out to cap objectives.

If you go to a tourney expecting 6 of the same bland scoring missions you are not competing, you are picking a style of play as an organizer and rewarding it.

If you do as the BRB suggests and mix it up, then and only then will you find the "best" player imo.

It would be nice if I knew that everyone had to deal with the same drastic swings each mission to get to the finals. Removing the "kill everyone" mission type is wrong, removing any type of mission is wrong. Pick many types and reward players that can play to each of those well.

 sfshilo wrote:
If you go to a tourney expecting 6 of the same bland scoring missions you are not competing, you are picking a style of play as an organizer and rewarding it.

If you do as the BRB suggests and mix it up, then and only then will you find the "best" player imo.

It would be nice if I knew that everyone had to deal with the same drastic swings each mission to get to the finals. Removing the "kill everyone" mission type is wrong, removing any type of mission is wrong. Pick many types and reward players that can play to each of those well.

ITC terrain varies wildly over 6 rounds of play. You should try a 6 round tournament before you parrot the nonsense that BRB = the way to play.

Predictability in scoring is only one piece of the game. And if you know all the BRB missions it's the same predictability.

feth the brb. GW writes terrible missions. At least itc allows me to extract vp from busted guardsmen.

Missions are a variable beyond player control, which is why it's incredibly un-fun to get Acid Rain and a 0" No-Man's land.

As such it is important in a competitive scenario to ensure that the missions are as constant as possible, and available to the participants before the event.

List contents is something that is within your control. The mission isn't; and that's not good for competitive play [or fun play really].

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Open War games get crazy. I like that they're an option, but I've had some pretty awful setups with them. I have some really fun games with them, too. But man, are they swingy.

ITC I've only played a few times and although I like what they're trying to do, they feel over-complicated and heavy-handed.

I tend I still have fine experiences with ye olde Eternal War missions, except for The Relic. They're simple and they work.

Looking forward to seeing what's in the new CA.

Yeah. I generally give up the Ruse to my opponent, and the twist always also feels like it hurts my army. Plus, the amount of times the no-man's land isn't 24"...

All in all; I still win these games since I bring a list that's mid-tier competitive, but it feels frustrating when every aspect of the mission is acting against you.

The last Open War mission I played was essentially The Relic. 0" No Mans land. It was the dumbest game I've played in a while. I gobbled up Imperial Soup, Custodes, Guard Castellan and all, with my Nids. But only because I went first. If my opponent had gone first, clear victory the other direction. I'll be editing the draw of Open War games from now on.

 Marmatag wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
If you go to a tourney expecting 6 of the same bland scoring missions you are not competing, you are picking a style of play as an organizer and rewarding it.

If you do as the BRB suggests and mix it up, then and only then will you find the "best" player imo.

It would be nice if I knew that everyone had to deal with the same drastic swings each mission to get to the finals. Removing the "kill everyone" mission type is wrong, removing any type of mission is wrong. Pick many types and reward players that can play to each of those well.

ITC terrain varies wildly over 6 rounds of play. You should try a 6 round tournament before you parrot the nonsense that BRB = the way to play.

Predictability in scoring is only one piece of the game. And if you know all the BRB missions it's the same predictability.

ITC missions are all the same. The only variance comes from the tertiary and bonus objectives. The primary objective only changes in the location of the objective markers and the deployment map, while the secondary mission is just you picking the most optimal selections based on your opponent. ITC rewards one type of list building, while the new objectives reward variety and reinforce the requirement for skill.

It is pretty clear that ITC rewards certain builds and lists. Just look at the results of GW's "official" GTs and you'll find their meta way different than ITC where it's all similar types of armies across different factions.

That's the problem. People think ITC is the standard when ITC missions are designed to cater to a specific style and meta, while the GW missions are in a different way. I even recall someone saying that the GW Grand Tournament "didn't count" because it wasn't ITC. ITC is far from perfect. It rewards a specific type of list building/combo-building that competitive players seem to think should be the main factor of the game. I am pretty sure that's WHY GW's Eternal War and Maelstrom missions vary as much as they do: So you actually have to bring a BALANCED army to a tournament instead of a gimmicky skew list (which is what dominates ITC events). ITC missions encourage the skewy type of lists we see, which is why that's mostly what we see in ITC events and nowhere else.

The idea may be noble, but the execution has just caused the entire problem.

12 points of out secondaries is huge. The ability to choose to score based on position if you can't kill your opponents triple super-heavy list is really important. Without ITC this game is a one dimensional kill fest. And seriously, being able to get the bonus is a huge deal.

Also being able to score on objectives with more control if you go second is a big balancing factor in going first, versus going second. Without ITC missions this game is HEAVILY decided by who goes first. With ITC missions you actually see people choosing to go second quite frequently.

 Marmatag wrote:
12 points of out secondaries is huge. The ability to choose to score based on position if you can't kill your opponents triple super-heavy list is really important. Without ITC this game is a one dimensional kill fest. And seriously, being able to get the bonus is a huge deal.

Also being able to score on objectives with more control if you go second is a big balancing factor in going first, versus going second. Without ITC missions this game is HEAVILY decided by who goes first. With ITC missions you actually see people choosing to go second quite frequently.

And the new GW missions change both of those. It's like they've taken the best parts of ITC and stripped out the garbage that is "only list type X has viability"

The new missions are still trash, imo.