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.

I'm of the belief that ITC shouldn't be using their own separate rules/missions. Regarding balancing moving forward, forking the game seems like a dumb idea to me. I have not yet tried the CA18 missions, but they have mostly been well received from what I understand.

Should the tournament circuit drop its custom ruleset/missionset and adopt CA18 missions?

DISCUSS.

We had this discussion a few weeks ago, it got pretty heated FYI.

In my opinion yes, absolutely. They don't fork the game with custom missions for AOS, it's time they stopped doing it for 40k as well. The CA18 missions are IMHO amazing, well balanced and most of all encourage taking an well-rounded armylist to deal with potentials of getting an unfavorable mission.

Let me be clear I'm talking about Eternal War. The Maelstrom missions while interesting, are still too random for the majority of tournament play.

The CA2018 missions have many plus points:

No tabling
First Strike rather than First Blood.
Well thought out objectives
Different play styles required in each mission.

If that works for tournament play?

I would say yes as well, as they encourage balanced armies to try to tackle all the potential situations the missions set up for you.

There's nothing saying ITC won't adopt new features.

Why not get involved with ITC so you can provide better feedback?

They should, but they never will.

They are too arrogant.

While I don’t like the the “only certain units score” features in some of the missions, a lot of the other stuff is good and I definitely think ITC should take a hard look at incorporating it (including the cities of death narrative stuff).
I’ve said it before, but I’m not a fan of the scoring in ITC Champions missions since you can get 2/3 of the max points every game from killing stuff, and killing stuff has always been easier than grabbing objectives (especially if your opponent is trying to table you at the same time). Killing should be a means to an end, not the end itself.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
They should, but they never will.

They are too arrogant.

Kay.

No, they still have too many drawbacks when it comes to tournament play. I have a feeling most of the people voting yes have never and will never even participate in an ITC event. From the people I've talked to that actually play in these events, they still prefer the ITC missions, as do I.

Could ITC just publish their own game as they apparently don't want to actually play 40K?

 Crimson wrote:
Could ITC just publish their own game as they apparently don't want to actually play 40K?

Or, and I know this sounds crazy but bear with me, the people who don't like ITC format could just not play in events that use ITC format. If the majority of people paying to attend these events want to use GW missions, then that's what they will switch to.

 Toofast wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Could ITC just publish their own game as they apparently don't want to actually play 40K?

Or, and I know this sounds crazy but bear with me, the people who don't like ITC format could just not play in events that use ITC format. If the majority of people paying to attend these events want to use GW missions, then that's what they will switch to.

As long as people playing ITC never again speak about balance then i'm fine.

You see, the problem here is not that ITC is a niche format that you can avoid if you want, but has such a following that many pretend for 40K to be balanced around ITC.

This is the reason why they should take this opportunity to merge back into the canonic rules, so that this awkward situation can end.

Spoletta wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Could ITC just publish their own game as they apparently don't want to actually play 40K?

Or, and I know this sounds crazy but bear with me, the people who don't like ITC format could just not play in events that use ITC format. If the majority of people paying to attend these events want to use GW missions, then that's what they will switch to.

As long as people playing ITC never again speak about balance then i'm fine.

You see, the problem here is not that ITC is a niche format that you can avoid if you want, but has such a following that many pretend for 40K to be balanced around ITC.

This is the reason why they should take this opportunity to merge back into the canonic rules, so that this awkward situation can end.

THIS. So much this. But the die hard try hards will fight to the death over their "balanced" rule set. The reason i personally hate the ITC ruleset is because so many people in my local only use it and refuse to play any other way. These new missions are actually super great, and way more fun and involving than most people realize at this point, if they could take two steps away from ITC stuff

I love all the complaining that the games not balanced toward ITC, yet GW attends the large conventions (most of which use ITC rulesets) and make determinations there... and balance the game against their mission set.

I have yet to play the CA2018 missions, but I will say they are a huge step forward compared to the old mission sets. I actually like the ITC format, I like that it has dynamic secondaries that create a sense of decision making each game. I don't, however, like how ITC does value killing stuff over tactical play more often; I really feel like if they implement something like Acceptable Casualties you will see a huge meta shift (oh, and some more objective based secondaries).

I think GW is taking lessons from ITC, and I feel ITC can do the same thing.

 Zid wrote:

I think GW is taking lessons from ITC, and I feel ITC can do the same thing.

Agreed. I think that's what might be best in the long run. Wasn't the guy who runs the ITC saying something about really liking the new missions?

Spoletta wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Could ITC just publish their own game as they apparently don't want to actually play 40K?

Or, and I know this sounds crazy but bear with me, the people who don't like ITC format could just not play in events that use ITC format. If the majority of people paying to attend these events want to use GW missions, then that's what they will switch to.

As long as people playing ITC never again speak about balance then i'm fine.

You see, the problem here is not that ITC is a niche format that you can avoid if you want, but has such a following that many pretend for 40K to be balanced around ITC.

This is the reason why they should take this opportunity to merge back into the canonic rules, so that this awkward situation can end.

You act like units are unbalanced only in ITC but fine in core rulebook missions. This is patently false. Loyal 32 is a problem no matter what mission packet is being used. So is Ynnari soup. Whichever mission packet GW are using to point cost their units, they still can't get it right. That's why people complain about balance. GW showed how much they either fundamentally missed the point or are willfully ignorant because they want to shift models when their "fix" for soup was to limit detachments to 1 faction and INCREASE the amount of CP generated by things like the loyal 32.

Until gw lets puts in a downside to guardsmen like reaper and butchers bill, I'll stick with ITC so I have a hope against ig. I dont think I have a chance vs ig in the ca 2018 missions.

Martel732 wrote:
Until gw lets puts in a downside to guardsmen like reaper and butchers bill, I'll stick with ITC so I have a hope against ig. I dont think I have a chance vs ig in the ca 2018 missions.

Because 32 geq models is so difficult to deal with.

Martel732 wrote:
Until gw lets puts in a downside to guardsmen like reaper and butchers bill, I'll stick with ITC so I have a hope against ig. I dont think I have a chance vs ig in the ca 2018 missions.

So ITC missions put downsides on the Guard.
GW relies on tournament data, a lot of it ITC for their balancing.
Guard doesn't get nerfed.

Coincidence? I think not!

I mean proper ig with 100+ meat bags and the artillery death line. I'm using ig and still struggle vs mono ig.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Until gw lets puts in a downside to guardsmen like reaper and butchers bill, I'll stick with ITC so I have a hope against ig. I dont think I have a chance vs ig in the ca 2018 missions.

Because 32 geq models is so difficult to deal with.

Harder than 32 marines for their price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Until gw lets puts in a downside to guardsmen like reaper and butchers bill, I'll stick with ITC so I have a hope against ig. I dont think I have a chance vs ig in the ca 2018 missions.

So ITC missions put downsides on the Guard.
GW relies on tournament data, a lot of it ITC for their balancing.
Guard doesn't get nerfed.

Coincidence? I think not!

GW should fix that, I agree.

Martel732 wrote:
I mean proper ig with 100+ meat bags and the artillery death line. I'm using ig and still struggle vs mono ig.

The kind that never wins tournaments, compared to Imperium soup, right?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I mean proper ig with 100+ meat bags and the artillery death line. I'm using ig and still struggle vs mono ig.

The kind that never wins tournaments, compared to Imperium soup, right?

I dont think that's accurate, but even if it were, it's still soul crushing to play against. Cant out shoot it, cant melee it. You are an npc faction in an ig Turkey shoot.

I suspect that without itc secondary scoring mono ig dominate. I dont see how anything stops them.

With the fly change, they pay 400 pts to turn off every melee unit in the game.

Naah. Take the good parts of CA missions but that's it. ITC scenarios are meant for competive games. GW scenarios don't suit that.

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I mean proper ig with 100+ meat bags and the artillery death line. I'm using ig and still struggle vs mono ig.

The kind that never wins tournaments, compared to Imperium soup, right?

I dont think that's accurate, but even if it were, it's still soul crushing to play against. Cant out shoot it, cant melee it. You are an npc faction in an ig Turkey shoot.

I suspect that without itc secondary scoring mono ig dominate. I dont see how anything stops them.

With the fly change, they pay 400 pts to turn off every melee unit in the game.

Have you tried the CA2018 missions - they often require quite a bit of movenent and you can't win by tabling - most require you to be agressive. Sitting back with artillery cheese won't win you the game.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I mean proper ig with 100+ meat bags and the artillery death line. I'm using ig and still struggle vs mono ig.

The kind that never wins tournaments, compared to Imperium soup, right?

I dont think that's accurate, but even if it were, it's still soul crushing to play against. Cant out shoot it, cant melee it. You are an npc faction in an ig Turkey shoot.

I suspect that without itc secondary scoring mono ig dominate. I dont see how anything stops them.

With the fly change, they pay 400 pts to turn off every melee unit in the game.

Have you tried the CA2018 missions - they often require quite a bit of movenent and you can't win by tabling - most require you to be agressive. Sitting back with artillery cheese won't win you the game.

I can confirm this. I played a game with my Death Guard against Primaris Ultramarines w/New Calgar, Victrix Guard and the Indomitus Crusaders specialist detachment from Vigilus. He was able to outshoot me at all turns, but we were playing a mission that required heroes to get VP. So by end of 3 I had managed to kill all but 1 of his (got *really* lucky and Typhus onerounded Calgar), then he failed to kill any of mine top of 4 and bottom of 4 I killed his last hero and he conceded as I was up by 3 VP (we didn't start scoring until the end of 3, at which point I had killed 2 of his heroes including his Warlord so I got 4 VP and he only got 1 from his last remaining hero, and after that hero was dead he had no way to get VP and wouldn't win if he tabled me).

If not for the mission, I probably would have just gotten taken apart by superior shooting. Because of the mission, I was able to play to the mission and win against a superior army. The no tabling rule alone makes these missions amazing.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I mean proper ig with 100+ meat bags and the artillery death line. I'm using ig and still struggle vs mono ig.

The kind that never wins tournaments, compared to Imperium soup, right?

I dont think that's accurate, but even if it were, it's still soul crushing to play against. Cant out shoot it, cant melee it. You are an npc faction in an ig Turkey shoot.

I suspect that without itc secondary scoring mono ig dominate. I dont see how anything stops them.

With the fly change, they pay 400 pts to turn off every melee unit in the game.

Have you tried the CA2018 missions - they often require quite a bit of movenent and you can't win by tabling - most require you to be agressive. Sitting back with artillery cheese won't win you the game.

Exactly! People need to play the missions before saying they don't suit competitive meta. If these missions were the only thing you play in tournaments then they would change the meta. ITC missions arose in a 40k world where the game designers chose not to chase a competitive scene. That world is fading away slowly. ITC will change their mission pack for the new season and I think it would be great if they adopt CA but ITC players have gotten so used to the concept of primaries and secondaries that they won't want to see this change. Some of these secondaries have become infamous in 40k. I could imagine them adopting CA missions and keeping their secondaries on top.

The ITC missions reward some forces and hurt others.

The GW missions reward some forces and hurt others.

Reality is people are just picking their bias with them I think. I play ITC because the big tourneys in the western US play ITC.

All GW has to do to take all the market share from ITC back is build missions that are better. But we are getting to where GW’s missions are better than they were.

Reemule wrote:
The ITC missions reward some forces and hurt others.

The GW missions reward some forces and hurt others.

Reality is people are just picking their bias with them I think. I play ITC because the big tourneys in the western US play ITC.

All GW has to do to take all the market share from ITC back is build missions that are better. But we are getting to where GW’s missions are better than they were.

Actually I think what would be in someway cool is to have a bit of a mix of both styles of missions so that it really does become a player skill challenge more than a list building min-max affair.

I'm not downplaying the skills of the guys winning tournaments but I do think it would be cool to have say, ITC missions to get the top 36 or so then switch to CA missions to really test the ability of top players and counter some of that inherent design bais.

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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I mean proper ig with 100+ meat bags and the artillery death line. I'm using ig and still struggle vs mono ig.

The kind that never wins tournaments, compared to Imperium soup, right?

I dont think that's accurate, but even if it were, it's still soul crushing to play against. Cant out shoot it, cant melee it. You are an npc faction in an ig Turkey shoot.

I suspect that without itc secondary scoring mono ig dominate. I dont see how anything stops them.

With the fly change, they pay 400 pts to turn off every melee unit in the game.

Have you tried the CA2018 missions - they often require quite a bit of movenent and you can't win by tabling - most require you to be agressive. Sitting back with artillery cheese won't win you the game.

I can't score with no army, either. You can still win via tabling by crippling the enemy's ability to score.