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 was wondering if in a nutshell if someone could compare and contrast nova to ITC and also ... Where are these mission packs available ? I searched nova mission packs 40k and got no hits

Thanks

They are so similar that most people can't tell the difference.

Well but where do you get the rules from ?

Vizzin72 wrote:
Well but where do you get the rules from ?

To answer your question, the only time I've seen the rules (and I think they come out closer to events, due to updates to the games and such) is on an actual printout... pamphlet, I think? It was a while ago. I don't really do tournament stuff, but I know at the FLGS where I do weekend work, we have something from them. I can take a look this Saturday and see what it is.

Thanks

Vizzin72 wrote:
I was wondering if in a nutshell if someone could compare and contrast nova to ITC and also ... Where are these mission packs available ? I searched nova mission packs 40k and got no hits

Thanks

C'mon, man, that's some lazy assed-'Net fu!

You can download from here:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-season-40k-tournament-format/

and

https://novaopen.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/EXkKRx2bChpLoOIwPpkTAvkBiivZ23n8qz3fODGShWyTLQ?rtime=5Ih_bHpX10g

Scroll down a-ways for the NOVA mission specifics.

If we ever meet in person, you owe me a beer.

Thanks but I’m taking about purchasing the pack I hear people taking about it ... it comes with cards

Vizzin72 wrote:
Thanks but I’m taking about purchasing the pack I hear people taking about it ... it comes with cards

There are no official ITC card packs - some people may make their own for events. You might be thinking of the scoresheets - those are in the ITC pack linked above. You can also use the ITC Battles app.

NOVA had a set of cards for the missions and deployment made up this year to give out to attendees - GW actually printed these for them, and they were extremely high quality. They weren't being sold, though, they were just a freebie for people in the GT.

I think all that works out to me still getting a beer. Poster Corrode, too.

Nova... The only randomness you'll find here are your dice rolls. Nova removes all randomness from the mission and terrain. This leads to a heavily influenced meta because the players can play the exact same mission every game and count on having the exact same terrain advantages/disadvantages in the same locations every game. The play style is very rinse & repeat game to game and always favors the optimization algorithm.

ITC... Largely the same. Except they still use randomly determined deployment zones, still have some missions without predefined objective locations and don't have strict guidelines for terrain layout.

 oni wrote:
Nova... The only randomness you'll find here are your dice rolls. Nova removes all randomness from the mission and terrain. This leads to a heavily influenced meta because the players can play the exact same mission every game and count on having the exact same terrain advantages/disadvantages in the same locations every game. The play style is very rinse & repeat game to game and always favors the optimization algorithm.

ITC... Largely the same. Except they still use randomly determined deployment zones, still have some missions without predefined objective locations and don't have strict guidelines for terrain layout.

NOVA and ITC both move objective placement so there is variance even there. You also can't play every match up the same. I think ITC also uses some of the 'players alternate deploying entire army' sometimes now and not just 'players alternate deploying units'. Both also have randomization determine who goes first (or gets to choose who goes first) and who gets to choose which players are in which deployment zones. So there's still some randomness in setup, but there is a focus on giving people some certainty it seems, which I would guess is so they could develop strategies ahead of time. I find it rather enjoyable.

The only practical difference presently is in terrain layouts and the way the primary works. There are wrinkles between our secondaries but you would only notice it side by side. The NOVA primaries are a bit more granular, while the ITC primary is very straightforward and easier to consume at a glance. Most preference for one or the other comes down to location, "which you played first," etc, and people tend to back into arguments for one or the other from there.

As another poster said, the super cool mission pack card decks were created in partnership with GW, who printed them for the event. You could try eBay but there aren't anymore for sale. We really appreciated it though, and the attendees loved them!

Audustum wrote:

 oni wrote:
NOVA and ITC both move objective placement so there is variance even there. You also can't play every match up the same. I think ITC also uses some of the 'players alternate deploying entire army' sometimes now and not just 'players alternate deploying units'. Both also have randomization determine who goes first (or gets to choose who goes first) and who gets to choose which players are in which deployment zones. So there's still some randomness in setup, but there is a focus on giving people some certainty it seems, which I would guess is so they could develop strategies ahead of time. I find it rather enjoyable.

Are the terrain placements symmetrical? At least many of the "competive" events I have seen pictures seems to be symmetric terrain so who is in what is irrelevant.

tneva82 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 oni wrote:
NOVA and ITC both move objective placement so there is variance even there. You also can't play every match up the same. I think ITC also uses some of the 'players alternate deploying entire army' sometimes now and not just 'players alternate deploying units'. Both also have randomization determine who goes first (or gets to choose who goes first) and who gets to choose which players are in which deployment zones. So there's still some randomness in setup, but there is a focus on giving people some certainty it seems, which I would guess is so they could develop strategies ahead of time. I find it rather enjoyable.

Are the terrain placements symmetrical? At least many of the "competive" events I have seen pictures seems to be symmetric terrain so who is in what is irrelevant.

NOVA uses symmetrical placements, as there is no skill in choosing the correct side when one is more favorable.

Isn't the skill recognizing which one is more favorable? Kind of like the skill of 40k is recognizing target priority and knowing the odds of a given action's success so you can allocate resources appropriately.

There's equally no skill in choosing the correct side when they're both exactly the same.

Rihgu wrote:
Isn't the skill recognizing which one is more favorable? Kind of like the skill of 40k is recognizing target priority and knowing the odds of a given action's success so you can allocate resources appropriately.

There's equally no skill in choosing the correct side when they're both exactly the same.

I largely agree, but tournaments have to be careful with non-symmetrical set-ups. While ideally I'd prefer some variation so selecting a beneficial deployment zone is part of the skill of the game, in practice it's not so easy to set that up across 100+ tables without making the choice so obvious it's not actually testing any sort of skill. What you've got is a fine line you're trying to provide in your table set-ups and getting it wrong can lead to some very bad player experiences so the safer and simpler option is to make everything symmetrical.

Slipspace wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
Isn't the skill recognizing which one is more favorable? Kind of like the skill of 40k is recognizing target priority and knowing the odds of a given action's success so you can allocate resources appropriately.

There's equally no skill in choosing the correct side when they're both exactly the same.

I largely agree, but tournaments have to be careful with non-symmetrical set-ups. While ideally I'd prefer some variation so selecting a beneficial deployment zone is part of the skill of the game, in practice it's not so easy to set that up across 100+ tables without making the choice so obvious it's not actually testing any sort of skill. What you've got is a fine line you're trying to provide in your table set-ups and getting it wrong can lead to some very bad player experiences so the safer and simpler option is to make everything symmetrical.

I'll agree with this. I guess another alternative is having X "known good" setups and repeating it across 100 tables but then it becomes a memorization game. "Is this layout 5? Then I want side B", etc.
I forgot to take into account the scope of events. if it was just a 6 table local event there'd be little issue but much larger than that and it does become exhausting to come up with unique table configurations .

Mmm, if you think there's meaningful skill in recognizing which side of a board has better terrain, I'm not sure there's a point in arguing.

If it's a well designed table, it is? You have to factor in how well your army can make use of area terrain, how well their armor can mitigate cover, LoS, etc.
Vs army X you may want a deployment zone that has more area terrain because they have generally low AP but vs army Y that ignores cover or has high AP you may go for the zone with more LoS blocking terrain. If you have long range units you may want the side with tall buildings, or you may wish to take that side to deny your opponent said tall buildings.
Each army has different favorable terrain and recognizing that is definitely a meaningful skill...
There's a reason Infinity, for example, values picking deployment zone as much as it values who gets first turn in each round.

MVBrandt wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 oni wrote:
NOVA and ITC both move objective placement so there is variance even there. You also can't play every match up the same. I think ITC also uses some of the 'players alternate deploying entire army' sometimes now and not just 'players alternate deploying units'. Both also have randomization determine who goes first (or gets to choose who goes first) and who gets to choose which players are in which deployment zones. So there's still some randomness in setup, but there is a focus on giving people some certainty it seems, which I would guess is so they could develop strategies ahead of time. I find it rather enjoyable.

Are the terrain placements symmetrical? At least many of the "competive" events I have seen pictures seems to be symmetric terrain so who is in what is irrelevant.

NOVA uses symmetrical placements, as there is no skill in choosing the correct side when one is more favorable.

It's symmetrical in type, but not all your ruins are identical, for example, so the tables aren't literally mirrors (though NOVA gets closer to that than any of else seems to!).

It's not a bad thing either way I think, was just highlighting randomness given the complaint.