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.

Just gauging what people think is the biggest areas for ITC to focus on?

They could put some blooming effort into the terrain for a start.

Paint buckets that don't suck! Snips that cost less than models and don't break twice as fast! Paint brushes that weren't made with Peruvian Virgin tears (their costs)! Special Weapons SPRUs! EZ-BUILD KNIGHTS! Animatable characters (Think Rockemsockem robots, but with ORKS!) 40k Baby themed toys! 40k Themed ADULT TOYS! (CREEEEEED!) Glue that doesn't dry after you look at it funny but before opening it! TACTICAL MULLET SPRUS FOR OUR HELMETLESS MODELS!

Turn the ITC on its head. Insist on mono-codex armies. Easy way to completely throw the entire tournament scene into chaos and provide a lot more interest.

I mean, all of that in the poll sounds interesting. If Cities of Death was more accepted in my area, I'd play it more often.

But, since the debate on soup or not to soup is very pervasive when it comes to competitive play.... Addressing that first could be a big first step in progressing their format.

I dont like ITC mostly you mostly only care about killing VP's, the Missions dont matter for most games and objectives doesnt matter as well but for 1-2 points.

Its just a game of who can kill who better.

Sure that fits 40k really well, but leads to a boring game and a boring list.

I want better missions, but i dont want to remove Invuls, the game has WAY to much fire power to remove invuls, if anything we need more invuls or less fire power.

Edit: Spelling

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I dont like ITC mostly you mostly only care about killing VP's, the Missions dont matter for most games and objectives doesnt matter as well but for 1-2 points.

Its just a game of who can kill who better.

Sure that fits 40k really well, but leads to a boring game and a boring list.

I want better missions, but i dont want to remove Invuls, the game has WAY to much fire power to remove invuls, if anything we need more invuls or less fire power.

Edit: Spelling

Less firepower and less invuls would be better, as that would still allow antitank and other roles to matter. Proliferating invuls for everyone hurts that distinction, very few things should reach even 4++.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I dont like ITC mostly you mostly only care about killing VP's, the Missions dont matter for most games and objectives doesnt matter as well but for 1-2 points.

Its just a game of who can kill who better.

Sure that fits 40k really well, but leads to a boring game and a boring list.

I want better missions, but i dont want to remove Invuls, the game has WAY to much fire power to remove invuls, if anything we need more invuls or less fire power.

Edit: Spelling

Less firepower and less invuls would be better, as that would still allow antitank and other roles to matter. Proliferating invuls for everyone hurts that distinction, very few things should reach even 4++.

I agree with that.

As a harlequin player, an mission that removes my invuls right now means i wont play, its literally the only thing that keeps me even remotely playable (Im talking about everything but Skyweavers), but if the fire power went down by 1/2 (like in 5th) i wouldnt mind having a 4+ and only a 4++ in melee like Wyches

I'm not sure that really changing the ratio of Invulns and Firepower is achievable in a tourney setting. That is more FAQ changes.

Tourney play can really only magnify or diminish existing parts of the game, with some rare exceptions. (one rare exception being solid 1st level ruins in ITC play)

Sounds like you want ITC to just change the rules of the game. Which they cannot do.
If you don't like ITC, don't play it. Simple

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Sounds like you want ITC to just change the rules of the game. Which they cannot do.
If you don't like ITC, don't play it. Simple

+1


ITC doesn't make the rules. They can make missions, and that can enforce their own terrain rules and FAQ's for things that are unclear or which they find beneficial, but they do not make the rules. I really like the ITC format, to avoid it becoming stale I think they need to change up the missions. I really hope they can strike lightning twice, because their current missions do a great job of balancing things out.

I didn't mean for this to be a critique of ITC play. It is what it is.

But I also recognize it is the 800 pound gorilla in that format.

I wish they'd just play the actual 40K instead of their own mutated version of it. CA18 missions are fine.

 Crimson wrote:
I wish they'd just play the actual 40K instead of their own mutated version of it. CA18 missions are fine.

You say GW missions are fine. But if they are how come so many people vehemently disagree? I'm not going to say one way or another. I really only play ITC, as I never really have opportunity to play the GW side. And I'll even go as far to say If you get the major events in the western US to move to GW missions, and abandon ITC I'll move with them.

You have to resolve that before your not just sour grape griping.

 Crimson wrote:
I wish they'd just play the actual 40K instead of their own mutated version of it. CA18 missions are fine.

You do realize GW encourages making your own missions right?

 Crimson wrote:
I wish they'd just play the actual 40K instead of their own mutated version of it. CA18 missions are fine.

I don't think they are. Not at all. Also, I like that they reversed GW's assault ruling.

I put the CA-style deployment, because honestly I feel like that would cut down on the time per game alot and I personally think it makes deployment a little more strategic.
Not on the list: I would like to see a “small army format”, something like 1250 points as an tournament event. It would provide new players a less intimidating tournament intro and give more experienced players a break from 2K every game.

The deployment is not bad. The missions are.

Reemule wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I wish they'd just play the actual 40K instead of their own mutated version of it. CA18 missions are fine.

You say GW missions are fine. But if they are how come so many people vehemently disagree?

In a lot of cases it's a combination of only ever playing ITC and a general hatred of GW's design team. Personally I find the ITC "missions" to be dull as ditchwater. There's not really much functional difference between any of them and they place far too much emphasis on killing things for my liking. I don't think the GW missions are perfect either but the ETC uses a combination of Eternal War and Maelstrom and seem to be able to produce a competitive tournament using that method so clearly elements of GW's missions can be used in a competitive environment.

I'd like to see tournament missions as more of a problem to be solved by each player and something that encourages dynamic play and more balanced lists. At the moment the ITC missions tend towards not even having to care about your opponent's army too much. The primary is pretty much functionally the same each game and you have secondaries like Recon that are completely independent of your opponent's army, while most of the general "kill things" secondaries are interchangeable depending on a very trivial analysis of your opponent's army.

Just to say that the poll is a bit rubbish. I agree with 3 of those and can only vote for 1...

Same as last time this was asked:

1) Use CA2018 missions instead of their bland "Champions" missions.

2) Use Cities of Death as the standard terrain rules.

#1 will be argued until the cows come home, despite other major tournaments including the "real" GT held in Nottingham not using ITC missions and not having any problem at all. But #2 I think would go a long way to fix things and help make the CoD missions more accepted rather than just being "for narrative play, not matched play"

Also, this poll needs to be multiple choice, not a single choice.