Switch Theme:

ITC 2019 Season Update: Feedback Wanted  [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
Awesome Autarch






San Diego, California

In order to roll smoothly into the next season of the ITC, we have to figure out what–if anything–is going to change now so that we can get it ready for 2019. So, please give us your feedback to help shape the future of the ITC!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe0eQMWlCGIp4mtBFSXGxVwS-R3TgPUlVatzBBbePHO71Cmgg/viewform?usp=sf_link

Based on player feedback we’re taking a look at possibly altering the ITC Missions. Largely they’ve been extremely well received but you can always look to improve. By taking this survey we will get a better idea for what elements of the missions could use a tweak, or if we’re good to go and leave them alone for the 2019 season.

Also, any ideas for changes for the 2019 season in general are welcome on this post.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






put mine in. People complain about many things, but you guys have always asked for feedback and constantly try to improve. This is why your the best.

keep it up FLG

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

 Crimson wrote:
Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.


This. With respect Reese, you don't have custom missions for AOS. Why keep it for 40k? I get before that you had to "fix" the game when GW didn't care, and the initial missions in 8th edition were lackluster. But the Chapter Approved 2018 Eternal War (not Maelstrom ofc) missions are IMHO stellar. You should just use those, and not have what is essentially your own version of the game with completely different missions that change fundamental things about gameplay and list design. You did your part to get GW to pay attention to tournaments; it's time to come back in the fold and end your rebellion.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/04 13:28:36


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Wayniac wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.


This. With respect Reese, you don't have custom missions for AOS. Why keep it for 40k? I get before that you had to "fix" the game when GW didn't care, and the initial missions in 8th edition were lackluster. But the Chapter Approved 2018 missions are IMHO stellar. You should just use those, and not have what is essentially your own version of the game.


I would prefer the adoption of the CA deployment methods, which I agree are superior.

Though i think the specifics of the individual missions are trash tier, and have similar problems to some of the AOS missions, in that they strongly favor horde armies, or anything that can early game dominate the board, as games can be ended at the tail end of turn 3, without there being a possibility for the other player to recover. While such a scenario is also possible in ITC missions, it would generally mean that the player that is so far ahead at the end of turn three, would more than likely remain that way for the rest of the game. However with the CA missions, early game dominance, often wont properly show how the game would look after 2/3/4 more turns, as it doesn't take into account kills (yes except for the one mission that does, which is heavily influenced by ITC). And nothing feels worse than turning a game around, into a position of dominance, without the possibility of getting a victory out of it.

Plus at a TO level, the GW missions are very low scoring, which results in more draws, which from what I'm told isn't good for determining overall winners etc, and in turn being low scoring, makes 'first blood' a far more valuable commodity than is desirable in a competitive game where first turn is decided by a single die roll.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/04 13:56:28


 
   
Made in gb
Lead-Footed Trukkboy Driver




London UK

Wayniac wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.


This. With respect Reese, you don't have custom missions for AOS. Why keep it for 40k? I get before that you had to "fix" the game when GW didn't care, and the initial missions in 8th edition were lackluster. But the Chapter Approved 2018 Eternal War (not Maelstrom ofc) missions are IMHO stellar. You should just use those, and not have what is essentially your own version of the game with completely different missions that change fundamental things about gameplay and list design. You did your part to get GW to pay attention to tournaments; it's time to come back in the fold and end your rebellion.


I strongly agree with these opinions. While I wouldn't accuse you of being game designers the ITC missions have always from the outside appeared to be trying to fix the problems with 40k main rules. The new missions in CA while not perfect have clearly adopted things from ITC and other major tournaments.

Reece, you (the ITC) have a lot of power in the 40k community. What you've achieved for the game is phenomenal. Listening to the feedback is important but you should consider adopting the main CA eternal war missions. If you can use your power to move towards a unified tournament format then the credibility of 40k as a competitive 'sport' would be cemented.

Please consider asking in your feedback form whether people would like to play the CA missions in their entirety.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




secretForge wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.


This. With respect Reese, you don't have custom missions for AOS. Why keep it for 40k? I get before that you had to "fix" the game when GW didn't care, and the initial missions in 8th edition were lackluster. But the Chapter Approved 2018 missions are IMHO stellar. You should just use those, and not have what is essentially your own version of the game.


I would prefer the adoption of the CA deployment methods, which I agree are superior.

Though i think the specifics of the individual missions are trash tier, and have similar problems to some of the AOS missions, in that they strongly favor horde armies, or anything that can early game dominate the board, as games can be ended at the tail end of turn 3, without there being a possibility for the other player to recover. While such a scenario is also possible in ITC missions, it would generally mean that the player that is so far ahead at the end of turn three, would more than likely remain that way for the rest of the game. However with the CA missions, early game dominance, often wont properly show how the game would look after 2/3/4 more turns, as it doesn't take into account kills (yes except for the one mission that does, which is heavily influenced by ITC). And nothing feels worse than turning a game around, into a position of dominance, without the possibility of getting a victory out of it.

Plus at a TO level, the GW missions are very low scoring, which results in more draws, which from what I'm told isn't good for determining overall winners etc, and in turn being low scoring, makes 'first blood' a far more valuable commodity than is desirable in a competitive game where first turn is decided by a single die roll.


The new missions don't have first blood.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





thouht they had the same as ITC now .. first strike ... bringing them closer in line
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
secretForge wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.


This. With respect Reese, you don't have custom missions for AOS. Why keep it for 40k? I get before that you had to "fix" the game when GW didn't care, and the initial missions in 8th edition were lackluster. But the Chapter Approved 2018 missions are IMHO stellar. You should just use those, and not have what is essentially your own version of the game.


I would prefer the adoption of the CA deployment methods, which I agree are superior.

Though i think the specifics of the individual missions are trash tier, and have similar problems to some of the AOS missions, in that they strongly favor horde armies, or anything that can early game dominate the board, as games can be ended at the tail end of turn 3, without there being a possibility for the other player to recover. While such a scenario is also possible in ITC missions, it would generally mean that the player that is so far ahead at the end of turn three, would more than likely remain that way for the rest of the game. However with the CA missions, early game dominance, often wont properly show how the game would look after 2/3/4 more turns, as it doesn't take into account kills (yes except for the one mission that does, which is heavily influenced by ITC). And nothing feels worse than turning a game around, into a position of dominance, without the possibility of getting a victory out of it.

Plus at a TO level, the GW missions are very low scoring, which results in more draws, which from what I'm told isn't good for determining overall winners etc, and in turn being low scoring, makes 'first blood' a far more valuable commodity than is desirable in a competitive game where first turn is decided by a single die roll.


The new missions don't have first blood.


I stand corrected. I'm also not a big fan of first strike, or whatever the kill something in the first round rule is called, but its an improvement on first blood certainly. This was my most minor of complaints about the CA missions though, so I still actively dislike them (not their framework, but the mission specifics).
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Perfected Haemonculi Living Sculpture






 Crimson wrote:
Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.


This!

Last years CA (eternal war) were already better IMHO. But now 2018 has even better missions and better fixes with the new deployment and acceptable casualties. The ITC missions are bland do to simple primaries but the secondaries bloat the game and eat way too much time in the pregame. BTW the reverting of previous editions deployment method also cuts time way down.

My other beef is the new enclosed ruins. It's attempting to fix one issue by creating 10 more. Use occums razor and just treat solid buildings as BLOS impassible terrain pieces already. Nobody wants to play jack in the box or Whack-a-mole 40k. If someone wants to play with a bunker then let them pay points for it and let it be destroyed. It only gets worse when you realize 40k requires two centrally placed BLOS pieces, generally the ones in question.

   
Made in us
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General






Home Base: Waconia, MN (Minneapolis)

I'd take a look at the overall scoring system. LVO is literally all that matters if you have any scores for faction determination. I'd like to see LVO have less of an impact (i.e. not make it's score possibly worth more than possibly all scores coming in).

And I'd like to see the older method (now new again) of deployment brought back. Unit by unit is needless wasted time. Plus with chess clocks becoming more a thing this will help there too.

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






San Diego, California

Thanks for the feedback, guys!

   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high

At the very least, I'd fully support a transition from First Blood to First Strike. (Allowing both players to score that point, rather than whoever happened to go first)

And, i'd remove victory by tabling. (Acceptable Casualties) If someone accumulates enough points to win with no models left, they deserve a win.

I think the secondaries are very confusing to be honest.

Bedouin Dynasty: 9000 pts
The Silver Lances: 4k pts
The Emperor's Finest 2k pts

MajorStoffer wrote:
...
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum. 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






San Diego, California

Don't forget, we don't dictate things. If you all prefer any other type of missions and in your events want to run them, feel free to. You can still participate in the ITC global community and have fun and play the game the way you want to if that is the general consensus in your area.

The idea is to have fun and participate, how you choose to do that is up to you and your local community.

As for what we do as the baseline of the ITC, that comes down to what participants want. Everyone has their own perspective on it, often conflicting, so this is why we solicit feedback to find the most broadly appealing choice. It isn't always exactly what we all want (myself included) but compromise is the name of the game. The hope is to come close to what we all want but we do have to accept none of us are likely to get exactly what we want down to the smallest details.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, lol, that comment about not being game designers is pretty ironic considering we had direct input on the CA missions as play testers, haha.

So, in a sense, using community designed ITC missions is actually me being LESS of a game designer than using CA missions! That's funny.

Ah, that made me laugh, but, put your feedback in the form and we will see what the majority of people want to do. I just want fun, fair, balanced missions that make people excited to play.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/05 02:23:54


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

Casey's 2 cents:

IMHO - EO missions are not consistent enough for tourney play, and have a couple other elements that aren't tourney friendly.

One element being the determining deployment type. If the deployment type is chosen by dice off, I'm going to get an enormous advantage by getting to choose what favors my army. And that is Search and Destroy, allowing my drukhari wyches a near guaranteed 1st turn assault. Very few 2k armies will be able to deploy out of assault range if I get to pick Search and Destroy, shoving them into less than a quarter of the table. And that'd be 50% of the time.

The shooty army player will choose Hammer & Anvil to blow opponents away at range. Yes, tactical objectives mitigate that, but if you table him ... And I know that it was mentioned that Tabling ought to be elminated ... okay, so what scoring mechanic have any of you guys drawn up that make this work?

This heavy skew of d-types will make one player's experience really suck. ITC missions mitigate that, evening the playing field. Instead of a hard 50/50 coin flip like EO deployment, ITC has you rolling the 1 outta 6 deployment types per game. This gives a far wider, fairer ranToo Long : Won't Read
IMHO - EO missions are not consistent enough for tourney play, and have a couple other elements that aren't tourney friendly.

One element being the determining deployment type. If the deployment type is chosen by dice off, I'm going to get an enormous boost by getting to choose what favors my army. And that is Search and Destroy, allowing my drukhari wyches a near guaranteed 1st turn assault. Very few armies will be able to deploy out of assault range if I get to pick Search and Destroy. And that'd be 50% of the time.

This heavy skew of d-types will one player's experience really suck. ITC missions mitigate that, evening the playing field. Instead of a hard 50/50 coin flip like EO deployment, ITC rolling the 1 outta 6 deployment types per game give a far wider, fairer randomizing, for a better play experience for the Beer&Pretzel guys, the "going to lose, but have fun" players, of which I'm a charter member.


Too Long : Won't Read
In the spoiler is the scoring bit on EO missions.
Spoiler:

First, the EO missions look like a lot of fun. I have read and reread them. Not having played them, I can still see some problems for tourney play.

secretForge wrote:
Plus at a TO level, the GW missions are very low scoring, which results in more draws, which from what I'm told isn't good for determining overall winners etc, and in turn being low scoring, makes 'first blood' a far more valuable commodity than is desirable in a competitive game where first turn is decided by a single die roll.


More than this; they're inconsistent in how they score. Narrow the Search's VPs max at 10, but one can get up to 73 VPs for Vital Intel (however unlikely). One might counter argue that all players will have the same missions, and thus same scoring opportunities during a tournament. But, it's hard to put my finger on it, but the lack of consistency when missions score up from 10 VPs to the others which score maximums of 24, 27, 39 to the 73 VPs (I tried my best to calculate that out) ... ties won't be a problem. But the lack of consistency is.

I'm going to have to readjust how to score each game. With ITC missions, the game mechanics are consistent, with only the bonus point needing a quick check.

There's already so much to try to remember and plan for. Let's say I'm at a GT, big GT or small GT. EO missions will be used, let's say all 6 EO missions. I'm going to try to remember, as best possible, all the armies and their codexes (rules and stratagems) and how to counter and deal with them. Each game, I then need to have a plan or think about the terrain variables, how to deploy one of 12 ways, because I might deploy differently if I know I'm going first, and deploying first or second, so that's a fresh think at each game. And then I need to load up my brain with that mission, hopefully in order, starting with Narrow the Search.

And then the quite varied formats of the EO missions, or just that one, for that game. Lather, rinse and repeat 5 to 6 times for that GT.

When I play at a GT, it's hard enough to remember all that per next opponent. With the ITC missions, I don't have to rethink what I have to do to score points, I only have to rethink the new terrain (which is getting uniform in shape at FLG events, but always a great variety of colors & themes), opponent's army, and the how to score the bonus point, which is the same the whole mission (have 3 characters on objects, control all objectives, etc.).

Secondaries missions:
These do not bog down the game. I know pretty much what I'm going to chose, every game, with one choice depending on the opponent, deployment type, etc.


@Crimson, Wayniac, Nithaniel, Red Corsair

Question: Do you attend tourneys?

Q#2: Do you not attend ITC tourneys because they use ITC missions?
If yes, then ask your local players to have a tourney using EO missions. With some advance notice, I bet your local set of players would accept. I would. And, as Reece posted, the ITC points can still be scored.

Overall, your criticisms here really ought to be voiced in the survey. And if you're not ITC members because the ITC missions are dominant at your LGS, then doing something about it by getting your local crew to adapt and change your event, as Reece stated.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/05 03:26:46


"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:
Casey's 2 cents:

IMHO - EO missions are not consistent enough for tourney play, and have a couple other elements that aren't tourney friendly.

One element being the determining deployment type. If the deployment type is chosen by dice off, I'm going to get an enormous advantage by getting to choose what favors my army. And that is Search and Destroy, allowing my drukhari wyches a near guaranteed 1st turn assault. Very few 2k armies will be able to deploy out of assault range if I get to pick Search and Destroy, shoving them into less than a quarter of the table. And that'd be 50% of the time.

The shooty army player will choose Hammer & Anvil to blow opponents away at range. Yes, tactical objectives mitigate that, but if you table him ... And I know that it was mentioned that Tabling ought to be elminated ... okay, so what scoring mechanic have any of you guys drawn up that make this work?

This heavy skew of d-types will make one player's experience really suck. ITC missions mitigate that, evening the playing field. Instead of a hard 50/50 coin flip like EO deployment, ITC has you rolling the 1 outta 6 deployment types per game. This gives a far wider, fairer ranToo Long : Won't Read
IMHO - EO missions are not consistent enough for tourney play, and have a couple other elements that aren't tourney friendly.

One element being the determining deployment type. If the deployment type is chosen by dice off, I'm going to get an enormous boost by getting to choose what favors my army. And that is Search and Destroy, allowing my drukhari wyches a near guaranteed 1st turn assault. Very few armies will be able to deploy out of assault range if I get to pick Search and Destroy. And that'd be 50% of the time.

This heavy skew of d-types will one player's experience really suck. ITC missions mitigate that, evening the playing field. Instead of a hard 50/50 coin flip like EO deployment, ITC rolling the 1 outta 6 deployment types per game give a far wider, fairer randomizing, for a better play experience for the Beer&Pretzel guys, the "going to lose, but have fun" players, of which I'm a charter member.


Bit confused with this bit. All the CA2018 missions determine the deployment type the same way as every other mission, the winner of the roll off rolls another dice to determine which map is played. They then get to pick a deployment zone. They don't get to just pick Hammer and Anvil or Search and Destroy.

Too Long : Won't Read
In the spoiler is the scoring bit on EO missions.
Spoiler:

First, the EO missions look like a lot of fun. I have read and reread them. Not having played them, I can still see some problems for tourney play.

secretForge wrote:
Plus at a TO level, the GW missions are very low scoring, which results in more draws, which from what I'm told isn't good for determining overall winners etc, and in turn being low scoring, makes 'first blood' a far more valuable commodity than is desirable in a competitive game where first turn is decided by a single die roll.


More than this; they're inconsistent in how they score. Narrow the Search's VPs max at 10, but one can get up to 73 VPs for Vital Intel (however unlikely). One might counter argue that all players will have the same missions, and thus same scoring opportunities during a tournament. But, it's hard to put my finger on it, but the lack of consistency when missions score up from 10 VPs to the others which score maximums of 24, 27, 39 to the 73 VPs (I tried my best to calculate that out) ... ties won't be a problem. But the lack of consistency is.

I'm going to have to readjust how to score each game. With ITC missions, the game mechanics are consistent, with only the bonus point needing a quick check.

There's already so much to try to remember and plan for. Let's say I'm at a GT, big GT or small GT. EO missions will be used, let's say all 6 EO missions. I'm going to try to remember, as best possible, all the armies and their codexes (rules and stratagems) and how to counter and deal with them. Each game, I then need to have a plan or think about the terrain variables, how to deploy one of 12 ways, because I might deploy differently if I know I'm going first, and deploying first or second, so that's a fresh think at each game. And then I need to load up my brain with that mission, hopefully in order, starting with Narrow the Search.

And then the quite varied formats of the EO missions, or just that one, for that game. Lather, rinse and repeat 5 to 6 times for that GT.

When I play at a GT, it's hard enough to remember all that per next opponent. With the ITC missions, I don't have to rethink what I have to do to score points, I only have to rethink the new terrain (which is getting uniform in shape at FLG events, but always a great variety of colors & themes), opponent's army, and the how to score the bonus point, which is the same the whole mission (have 3 characters on objects, control all objectives, etc.).

Secondaries missions:
These do not bog down the game. I know pretty much what I'm going to chose, every game, with one choice depending on the opponent, deployment type, etc.


@Crimson, Wayniac, Nithaniel, Red Corsair

Question: Do you attend tourneys?

Q#2: Do you not attend ITC tourneys because they use ITC missions?
If yes, then ask your local players to have a tourney using EO missions. With some advance notice, I bet your local set of players would accept. I would. And, as Reece posted, the ITC points can still be scored.

Overall, your criticisms here really ought to be voiced in the survey. And if you're not ITC members because the ITC missions are dominant at your LGS, then doing something about it by getting your local crew to adapt and change your event, as Reece stated.


In regards to draws, draws aren't a bad thing, and it is actually better to have a close scoring game than having one guy on 35 points and the other on 10. You don't need a range of 0 to 42 points to determine a winner.

I think more events will start to use the CA missions in place of the ITC missions, especially in Europe where it already feels like the majority are already non ITC missions, but, i'd be interested to see what happens in the USA based on the LVO. The event i'm at next weekend is the LCO. It was always dubbed as the last major event before the LVO previous, as such it runs ITC missions to allow players going to the LVO a chance to practice in the current meta. If the LVO changes, so will the LCO.

The scoring methods for the CA18 missions are no more difficult the adjust to than the changes between each ITC mission scoring. In fact, there is less of an issue trying to remember everything. You have the remember, that the ITC mission isn't the primary or secondary objectives, they are actually the "bonus" point you can score each turn. Primary and Secondary objectives just bump up the possible score tally. The actual mission point should be worth more than a single bonus point imp, as it'd then actually start to drive people toward achieving the mission, as opposed to achieving their pre-event selected secondaries.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




As Reece said, as testers we have a lot of input on the CA missions and a lot of understanding of what GW actually thinks and intends. Anyone who claims GW intends tournaments to be played with CA missions or their missions in particular has no insight into what gw actually wants and the direction they're going.

Also take a look at their official Kill Team tournament missions and take a look at the newly announced Arena when it releases, then also take a look at ways in which CA is starting to resemble things you've seen in Nova and ITC for years, like first strike.

I join Reece in chuckling a lot when people claim they know what gw intends and that organizers of WHC-Approved events are just rebels in the dark.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




MVBrandt wrote:
As Reece said, as testers we have a lot of input on the CA missions and a lot of understanding of what GW actually thinks and intends. Anyone who claims GW intends tournaments to be played with CA missions or their missions in particular has no insight into what gw actually wants and the direction they're going.

Also take a look at their official Kill Team tournament missions and take a look at the newly announced Arena when it releases, then also take a look at ways in which CA is starting to resemble things you've seen in Nova and ITC for years, like first strike.

I join Reece in chuckling a lot when people claim they know what gw intends and that organizers of WHC-Approved events are just rebels in the dark.


I think the vast majority of people can see the links between ITC and the new missions and it's great that certain aspects are being taken on by GW in their new missions.

I think what a lot of people are talking about though, is, now that a lot of the "best bits" have been incorporated, is there an actual need for other "basic" mission styles in events? I can see the case of having a reduced amount of secondaries ran alongside the new CA18 missions, but, is there a need, now, for the primaries and "bonus" mission points to exist in ITC?

It's very different here in the UK compared to the US, i accept that, but for a long time i've started to feel that secondaries are more of a primary than the primaries are in ITC missions, and the actual "mission" is nothing more than a side note often forgotten about and very very rarely built around list wise. This might be completely different over in the US, where the mission objective actually has an impact on the outcome of a game, but, currently i see no reason why i'd just not build a list to hold and object, kill a unit and then also score 3 pre-selected secondaries that i build my list around, whilst ensuring my list also restricts the amount of secondaries my opponent can achieve.
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






San Diego, California

@kdash

Well, considering you can score 30 points on primary and only 12 on secondaries if you built a list to ignore the primary you'd likely lose most of your games. Even assuming the bonus point is a touch out of reach every turn, it's still more than 2 to 1, primary to secondary.

Also, with the UK meta being "6 months ahead of the US", I'd think you gents would have no issue keeping an eye on a primary and secondary win condition

I kid of course, but I think really it's just a matter of not being used to the kind of missions we run over here. Looking at the feedback so far, as you noted, it is very regional. European and UK voters tend to lean towards book missions or ETC/Maelstrom type missions more so than this hemisphere which makes sense, that is what you all tend to play. People often go with what they know. US, Canada and Oz tends to go ITC missions form my observations.

@Thread

Missions like we have aren't just arbitrarily drawn up, they're the result of years of trial and error. Whether you like them or not is up to you of course and no hard feelings if you don't, but they work well and by and large, are what we've been asked for. What are or are not the best bits is entirely subjective, but I am glad to hear you like the CA missions and feel that good parts of the ITC/NOVA/etc. mission sets were incorporated, as we all worked hard on them.

CA missions are also very new, many players have not even played them yet, probably not even read them in many cases so determining which are better or worse is not possible for a lot of people. And, many of the folks advocating for them likely haven't gotten a lot of reps in, either, and sounds like many of you probably haven't gotten a lot of reps in with ITC missions. I say that not to be mean, it's just certainly appears that way. So, it feels like a lot of opinions being thrown around with perhaps not having enough time/reps/interest to get a strong feel for it.

Also to put it in context hardly anyone is asking to use the CA missions, whereas a LOT of people are saying they prefer deploying entire armies as opposed to unit by unit. Like, off the cuff, it's like maybe 5% of the respondents are saying they want to use CA missions entirely. It's a very small minority at this time, just a bit more than people asking for Maelstrom missions. So at least at this point in time, it certainly does not seem to reflect the desires of many ITC participants.

Regarding the scoring thing, it does matter how you score a mission for a lot of different reasons. You want to generate the same potential score every game, that is very important. You don't want a potential 10 point game then a potential 20 point game, etc. I think ties are fine, too, but the amount of points scored per missions is actually very important for overall tournament structure.

As soon as you go in and start changing things though, you are no longer playing out of the book and you are being an "amateur game designer." I mean, lol, I can't tell you how many times I have had this debate in the past. Getting deja vu! We're just really seeing how much the ITC is becoming international as we're having conversations again we put to rest years ago in the USA. Not saying that to put anyone down or act superior, it just makes me laugh a bit as in the AoS community they're going through a lot of the same debates and discussions and I had sort of forgotten about them a bit as we went through them ages ago. Over the years in the USA we've played with book missions, with homemade missions, and combinations of the two. And ultimately, the marketplace proved what folks wanted. We're playing the missions we're playing now because people WANT to play them. The ITC doesn't tell what to do, we ask you all what YOU wand US to do, and then we do. That is how we've gotten where we are now.

The ITC is about giving people the competitive play experience they want. If in your area, the UK, in Europe, etc. people want to participate but in their own way, by all means, go for it! If any of you think the CA missions, maelstrom, ETC, NOVA, ITC, Adepticon, narrative or whatever missions are "the best" then please, play them and have fun and grow thriving gaming communities. That is what the ITC is for: to energize and empower people to go out, play games and participate in the global community of gamers.

   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




Little Rock, Arkansas

-I would like to see one less secondary chosen.

-New CA deployment/first turn method should be adopted.

-Also for itc faction rankings, I would like to see imperial, aeldari, chaos, and tyranid-mix (guard/gsc/nids) as faction categories. If a player does not have at least say...75% of their list drawn from a single codex, they get thrown into one of the big soup category rankings.
It’s silly to see “best dark angel player” with a list that has something like 33% guard, 33% knights, and 34% dark angels.

-As someone mentioned above, the pendulum swung too far the other way for big event points. I realize you want big events to be important for ranking, but what I’m seeing is people who can’t make it to LVO disinterested, feeling like they’re instantly disqualified from winning a ranking due to missing one particular event. (For reference, just being in the top 250ish players of this year’s LVO will give a score that blows away first place winners from say...a 60 man major.)

I would suggest putting a cap on the attendee multiplier. I recognize that larger events raise the overall competitiveness of lists and player skill that you will run into on the way to the podium, but I find somewhere around the time you hit major status, those factors have pretty much topped out. (IE you can expect high level lists and opponents every round after the first, sometimes second.)

A simple cap of 100 players counted for the bonus would probably work, giving a max of 155.76 from a 6 round event.

-One last detail, especially in light of many point costs being reduced, I would like to see the “standard” point level drop to 1750 for the purposes of fitting games into the time limit. I’m well aware that in theory TO Joe can set his event to whatever point level he wants, but the reality is that he feels pressured to keep the same point level as “the big events,” and so is too scared to make a necessary change.
I also know the “popular player-opinion” is that many of them want ALL THE POINTS EVER on the table, and won’t be happy until every deployment zone is filled and every game requires a chess clock just to make it to turn 3. We’re going to have to accept that those players don’t know what is healthy for the tournament scene and shouldn’t be listened to.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/06 03:24:44


20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Reecius wrote:
Also to put it in context hardly anyone is asking to use the CA missions, whereas a LOT of people are saying they prefer deploying entire armies as opposed to unit by unit. Like, off the cuff, it's like maybe 5% of the respondents are saying they want to use CA missions entirely. It's a very small minority at this time, just a bit more than people asking for Maelstrom missions. So at least at this point in time, it certainly does not seem to reflect the desires of many ITC participants.

Formatting of your questionnaire certainly affects that. It is mostly about improving ITC missions, there is a question about adopting CA elements. There is not even a question that directly asks whether CA missions should be used as they are. If you want that, you need to explicitly write it in. As any pollster knows, how and what questions are asked greatly influences the answers you get. If you have twelve questions about how to improve you hamburgers and one question about whether some elements of tacos could be incorporated into your hamburgers, most people are not gonna say that they'd rather just eat tacos, as the questions direct them thinking that it's really not an option to begin with.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Crimson that's just one questionnaire here. Reece and Franky talk about this stuff ALL YEAR LONG with people and at other big events.


ITC champ missions are, atm, the most professional and competitive missions out there. They might not be the most exciting, or even the most challenging, but they are fair, consistent, and provide something any real sport needs.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Eihnlazer wrote:

ITC champ missions are, atm, the most professional and competitive missions out there. They might not be the most exciting, or even the most challenging, but they are fair, consistent, and provide something any real sport needs.

I don't think that this level of 'consistency' is a good thing. When you can literally tailor the missions to suit your needs it gets pretty ridiculous. That just isn't something that should exist. There is already way too much focus on the competitive side of this game on list building instead of adapting in the actual game and being able to make sure that the mission is pretty much exactly what your army was specifically build for just makes it worse. Some GW missions favour certain builds, sure, and some other of their missions favour others. But that's kinda the point; if you don't know what sort of mission you're facing you need to build a balanced list rather than just double down on certain thing.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Look we get it, you like "random". That's fine at home or at your FLGS, but for big events its just no good.


I don't see how this crusade of yours is helping anything.

ITC is made for COMPETITIVE 40k. Its the closest thing to e-sports we get. If you don't have fun playing it then don't play it. Go play some beerhammer. There is no reason to keep bashing it when you haven't proposed any way to improve the competitive aspects.


Saying "you never have to adapt in the middle of battle" is quite frankly incorrect. You always have to adapt to your opponents style of play, no matter what missions your using. If your opponents are all playing exactly the same I can see how this becomes an issue, but they really shouldn't be, as there is usually many ways to go about the game.


If you are just mad because people can pick secondaries that favor their army then you must also be mad that NFL teams have playbooks, or that homefield advantage exists.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Eihnlazer wrote:
Look we get it, you like "random". That's fine at home or at your FLGS, but for big events its just no good.


I don't see how this crusade of yours is helping anything.

ITC is made for COMPETITIVE 40k. Its the closest thing to e-sports we get. If you don't have fun playing it then don't play it. Go play some beerhammer. There is no reason to keep bashing it when you haven't proposed any way to improve the competitive aspects.


Saying "you never have to adapt in the middle of battle" is quite frankly incorrect. You always have to adapt to your opponents style of play, no matter what missions your using. If your opponents are all playing exactly the same I can see how this becomes an issue, but they really shouldn't be, as there is usually many ways to go about the game.


If you are just mad because people can pick secondaries that favor their army then you must also be mad that NFL teams have playbooks, or that homefield advantage exists.

This thread was about feedback. Your response to said feedback is 'play ITC missions or get feth out of here.' If this is the general attitude in the ITC circles towards people who prefer GW missions, it is really no wonder more people do not voice their opinion!

Furthermore, your post shows staggering arrogance, many competitive events outside US use GW missions, and they're doing just fine. If I was being equally flippant, I could say that there is no need to houserule the game beyond recognition just because you're bad at playing it as it actually is.

But my actual main concern is that I just find it unwise to fork the game this strongly; it is just not good for the health of the game if half of the competitive scene is basically playing a different game, and if there is to be one standard, then the official GW one must be it.


This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/01/06 14:25:01


Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Eihnlazer wrote:
Look we get it, you like "random". That's fine at home or at your FLGS, but for big events its just no good.


I don't see how this crusade of yours is helping anything.

ITC is made for COMPETITIVE 40k. Its the closest thing to e-sports we get. If you don't have fun playing it then don't play it. Go play some beerhammer. There is no reason to keep bashing it when you haven't proposed any way to improve the competitive aspects.


Saying "you never have to adapt in the middle of battle" is quite frankly incorrect. You always have to adapt to your opponents style of play, no matter what missions your using. If your opponents are all playing exactly the same I can see how this becomes an issue, but they really shouldn't be, as there is usually many ways to go about the game.


If you are just mad because people can pick secondaries that favor their army then you must also be mad that NFL teams have playbooks, or that homefield advantage exists.


There is no correct way to play 40K "competitive".
ITC missions are not more "competitive" than vanilla missions, so drop that attitude, it's not helping the discussion.

This is a big problem of modern 40K, the fact that the game is balanced for a set of rules and half the player base uses another one, which drastically alters the effectiveness of the units. Just the fact that ITC uses killpoints and Canon40K doesn't, makes a world of difference.

The main problem here is not if one set of rules is better than the other, but if the CA2018 missions are so unfeasible in an ITC environment to justify this scisma.
Until now i have heard only one truly troubling aspect of the CA2018 missions which indeed could make it unfeasible for the kind of big events where ITC is used, and is the fact that missions don't always reward the same amount of points, which is a huge problem when a large number of players is involved. In GW official events this isn't a problem because the W/L points are only one of the aspects of the final score, but you try to ladder 150 players only by using CA2018 points, then you start having some hardly insignificant issues.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Perfected Haemonculi Living Sculpture






I honestly like the simplicity of the ITC primaries, the things that I dislike about the format most by far are the secondaries, there too clunky and they drain too much pregame time. The responsibility of list checking is placed on the players but between points creep, alternating deployment and selecting mission objectives there just isn't that time. Often questions need to be make during game when it's too late.

I also hope there is a future poll for terrain. I was happy ITC implemented the ruins fix early in 8th, but having been out for a while I think it can be improved a bit. I think playing it closer to 3rd edition forests would make more sense, you can't see through a ruin to a unit on the opposite side, but once they enter it they can both see out and be seen.

I feel the new enclosed ruins made the issues worse. Having invisible units occupying a solid building is just bad design. Your essentially letting them have free reserve or transport defense. I'd rather see solid block buildings become impassible, or only let the rooftops be played depending on height. Nobody wants to see 12 bulgryn or 10 grotesque immune to direct fire or psychic powers, it's way too gamey and eliminates one of their weaknesses based on a crap shoot of which table/depoyment you get. It also gets gamed by shooting units, 10 ynari reapers jack in the boxing onto the roof and firing twice only to fire and fade back inside is stupid. Same with hiveguard. Obviously terrain should impact games, but I feel this changes it too far and allows certain units to exploit and abuse it.

Thanks for asking for feedback btw.

   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





 Red Corsair wrote:
I honestly like the simplicity of the ITC primaries, the things that I dislike about the format most by far are the secondaries, there too clunky and they drain too much pregame time. The responsibility of list checking is placed on the players but between points creep, alternating deployment and selecting mission objectives there just isn't that time. Often questions need to be make during game when it's too late.

I also hope there is a future poll for terrain. I was happy ITC implemented the ruins fix early in 8th, but having been out for a while I think it can be improved a bit. I think playing it closer to 3rd edition forests would make more sense, you can't see through a ruin to a unit on the opposite side, but once they enter it they can both see out and be seen.

I feel the new enclosed ruins made the issues worse. Having invisible units occupying a solid building is just bad design. Your essentially letting them have free reserve or transport defense. I'd rather see solid block buildings become impassible, or only let the rooftops be played depending on height. Nobody wants to see 12 bulgryn or 10 grotesque immune to direct fire or psychic powers, it's way too gamey and eliminates one of their weaknesses based on a crap shoot of which table/depoyment you get. It also gets gamed by shooting units, 10 ynari reapers jack in the boxing onto the roof and firing twice only to fire and fade back inside is stupid. Same with hiveguard. Obviously terrain should impact games, but I feel this changes it too far and allows certain units to exploit and abuse it.

Thanks for asking for feedback btw.

QFT! all of the above

I get that you want to sell you own terrain but making these rules up to fit your sales model is frankly absurd! -- solid buildings should be impassable LOS blocking.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Perfected Haemonculi Living Sculpture






 Eihnlazer wrote:
Look we get it, you like "random". That's fine at home or at your FLGS, but for big events its just no good.


I don't see how this crusade of yours is helping anything.

ITC is made for COMPETITIVE 40k. Its the closest thing to e-sports we get. If you don't have fun playing it then don't play it. Go play some beerhammer. There is no reason to keep bashing it when you haven't proposed any way to improve the competitive aspects.


Saying "you never have to adapt in the middle of battle" is quite frankly incorrect. You always have to adapt to your opponents style of play, no matter what missions your using. If your opponents are all playing exactly the same I can see how this becomes an issue, but they really shouldn't be, as there is usually many ways to go about the game.


If you are just mad because people can pick secondaries that favor their army then you must also be mad that NFL teams have playbooks, or that homefield advantage exists.


This is not constructive at all. Reece asked for feedback, Crimson is being honest and polite. You disagree with his view, that's fine, but acting like you have more authority then him and trying to shut him down based on BS assumptions is a waste of everyones time. Telling a player to stick to beerhammer because they critique these houserules after being asked for feedback is a ridiculous attitude to have because you talking past him now. He DID suggest changes, just changes you disagree with. He suggested the use of the CA2018 missions, which I think is fair to consider rather then being hand-waved away. Reece wants credit for the design of those very missions, but he doesn't want to use them, which is funny. Or maybe he does, at which point he should have put it in the poll as Crimson suggested. Either way your working towards derailing the thread rather then being constructive.

This isn't e-sports or the NFL by the way, stick to 40k is you want anyone to take your arguments about 40k at face value.

   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/06 16:14:34


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: