Switch Theme:

ITC mission pack shake up  [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
Longtime Dakkanaut





This was a discussion on the General forum, but i figured I'd put it here to start a discussion where it belongs.

1. Do you think that ITC should adopt some of the new CA2019 missions in 50% of the games in 6 round tournaments (such as the LVO)?
2. With that in mind, do you think that would promote enough change in lists to change the meta in a positive way?
3. If #2 is not correct, then what would?

Cheers
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





 bullyboy wrote:
This was a discussion on the General forum, but i figured I'd put it here to start a discussion where it belongs.

1. Do you think that ITC should adopt some of the new CA2019 missions in 50% of the games in 6 round tournaments (such as the LVO)?
2. With that in mind, do you think that would promote enough change in lists to change the meta in a positive way?
3. If #2 is not correct, then what would?

Cheers


I think the biggest impact ITC has on the meta is not as much the missions (much as people like to whine about them) and more the impact of readily available LOS blocking which alters the lists and factions somewhat that can greatly succeed.

Outside ITC, tau drones for example are far harder to hide from basic shooting weapons, which is presumably their intended counterplay measure.

There must be a way for terrain to realistically reduce offense without the strange power warp that magic boxes provide.
   
Made in us
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Norfolk, VA

Terrain is the issue with ITC. Terrain. All first level LOS blocking is terrible.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 bullyboy wrote:
This was a discussion on the General forum, but i figured I'd put it here to start a discussion where it belongs.

1. Do you think that ITC should adopt some of the new CA2019 missions in 50% of the games in 6 round tournaments (such as the LVO)?
2. With that in mind, do you think that would promote enough change in lists to change the meta in a positive way?
3. If #2 is not correct, then what would?

Cheers


1. Yes
2. Not necessarily. I think the more important factor would simply be getting real feedback on the CA19 missions themselves to help GW improve them for CA2020.
3. Fixing marines.
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan




Alabama

 LunarSol wrote:

2. Not necessarily. I think the more important factor would simply be getting real feedback on the CA19 missions themselves to help GW improve them for CA2020.


This. However, getting real feedback on CA2019 missions (in a competitive environment, where balance is the goal) is tough when a large demographic of the competitive environment doesn't use the missions. I think ITC should implement something like CA missions for the first half of the season, then tweaked missions for the second or something. You have to give the CA missions a chance, I think.

WH40K
Alaitoc Eldar 4000 pts.
Weeping Legion 1500 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




San Diego, CA

1. Perhaps not as written, but the closer the “rule book” missions are to what people play in tournaments the more accessible the game becomes.
2. No. Not even close. The problems in the meta are independent of mission pack (see point 3), but ITC should still review it’s pack annually to determine if it’s still meeting it’s goals. For example, killing as a primary objective may need to be de-emphasized.
3. Right now the game is an eerie echo of 7th; with hyper-efficient Eldar shooting, Chaos untargetable deathstars, and multiple powerful Space Marine builds benefiting from a lot of free special rules. There is too much damage flying around the battlefield, with a few factions able to benefit from abusing rules to be (mostly) invincible while they deal it. The game needs a massive toning down in damage output and/or a change in mechanics favoring survivability.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The problem with the ITC missions are the impacts of secondaries on the meta.

We have a meta that is very slanted towards Marines, and ITC makes the issue worse in similar ways to how they made first version of 8tu ynnari worse, secondary selection against them.

The faction already has built in advantages over others in terms of rule stacking/points cost. When you add in that it is very easy to design a supplement astartes list which won't give up any of the killing based secondaries, other than head hunter- you have a bad recipe for balance.

CA missions would go a long way towards fixing this if the ITC secondaries are not included, as they are in many ways more balanced across all factions.

Other than that ITC needs to take a serious review of their killing based secondaries, especially any that include PL as a metric in a points based match play game. Additionally they need to introduce some killing based secondaries that specifically target elite infantry i.e. 2 wound models.

Something like:
Death of champions
For every 5 models with 2 or more wounds you kill that come from non vehicle units score 1 point.

Or change gang Buster's to be 2+W.

Marked for death should also switch from being PL based to points based. PL and points don't mix well across factions. When you have Ork nobz which are PL7 for 5 because of all the extras they can take in a PL based game and a TFC cannon that is PL4 92 pts shouldn't be something not worth marking for death over the unit of 5 nobz PL7 70 pts.

Scaling and minimums- killing a 200pt character should award bonus points for things like headhunter (to a Max of 4) and killing cheaper characters (under 50pts) shouldn't award anything.

If you want to change the meta all of the ITC secondaries involving kills need to be seriously re-evaluated. The recent LVO had more top marine armies than any other tournament, I postulate that other than the imbalance the Marines already have in their favor the ITC format makes it even more imbalanced due to secondaries.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/27 17:31:24


 
   
Made in us
God-like Imperator Titan Commander





Halifax

Hard not to have missions impact the meta. There's quite a range of units in 40k, even where they're not sharing the same basic template. Trying to square Knights against Imperial Guard Infantry Squads is a nightmare for mission design.

Maybe the Squats were all the Space Marines we made along the way.  
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Between Alpha and Omega, and a little to the left

 Byte wrote:
Terrain is the issue with ITC. Terrain. All first level LOS blocking is terrible.

I'd argue the problem is 40k's terrible terrain/los rules in the first place. Seeing a small part of a model means you can shoot the entire unit. making any terrain that isn't a solid block ineffective, and I think most people would agree that having terrain that's actually functional and also not look awful is a pretty important part of the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/27 20:14:09


Want to help support my plastic addiction? I sell stories about humans fighting to survive in a space age frontier.
Lord Harrab wrote:"Gimme back my leg-bone! *wack* Ow, don't hit me with it!" commonly uttered by Guardsman when in close combat with Orks.

Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Luke_Prowler wrote:
 Byte wrote:
Terrain is the issue with ITC. Terrain. All first level LOS blocking is terrible.

I'd argue the problem is 40k's terrible terrain/los rules in the first place. Seeing a small part of a model means you can shoot the entire unit. making any terrain that isn't a solid block ineffective, and I think most people would agree that having terrain that's actually functional and also not look awful is a pretty important part of the game.


LOS rules are pretty awful. Something akin to the way Legion handles their LOS would be a huge improvement and actually works pretty seemlessly with the way cover functions now. The main issue comes down to finding a way to limit the ways an opponent can block their own line of sight to game the system. I think one of the big issues is that 8th edition's rules seems to be built around the idea of large rubble templates that are mostly 2D in line with the what you see from Warmachine instead of the boulders and buildings that a lot of people want to use (and GW actually sells). I think a mix of the two solves a lot of problems, but rules that work with the terrain GW sells would be nice.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/27 20:52:29


 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
 Byte wrote:
Terrain is the issue with ITC. Terrain. All first level LOS blocking is terrible.

I'd argue the problem is 40k's terrible terrain/los rules in the first place. Seeing a small part of a model means you can shoot the entire unit. making any terrain that isn't a solid block ineffective, and I think most people would agree that having terrain that's actually functional and also not look awful is a pretty important part of the game.


GWs terrain rules are terrible, agreed. But ITC (and Ars Bellica, which is the popular tournament package used locally) make it worse by adding too much LOS blocking, simply shifting the meta towards factions that can benefit from that the most. And that's the wrong factions to shift the meta towards when those factions are already too strong
   
Made in us
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker





Ohio

As a Chaos Knights player, I'd like to see magic boxes disappeared. I've lost many games because of them.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




1. CA missions are bad. No. Variety doesn't hurt, unless you implement variety with bad missions.

2. No, not at all - the meta would still be marine dominated right now. As others have stated, terrain on a table by table basis is a big part of how each event turns out at a micro level.

3. The meta is in a "worse" place right now than at other times in the edition due to marines, but that will change with time on their FAQ / renewal cycles.

The same top players continue to do well whether they are playing in NOVA, ITC, or ETC missions and formats around the world. When that stops and "the current good meta army" is going to random players with no proven skills on an RNG basis, that would be a better time for these questions.
   
Made in us
God-like Imperator Titan Commander





Halifax

@MVBrandt: Could you elaborate a bit on #1?

Maybe the Squats were all the Space Marines we made along the way.  
   
Made in ca
[MOD]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

MVBrandt wrote:
The same top players continue to do well whether they are playing in NOVA, ITC, or ETC missions and formats around the world. When that stops and "the current good meta army" is going to random players with no proven skills on an RNG basis, that would be a better time for these questions.

MVBrandt, you make good points before this, but can I just point out that you say this last part in response to any criticism, and have done so for years.

It's 100% true that top players excel regardless of format. But for organizers to continually say that in response to genuine concerns, constructive criticism, and things that could easily be improved by taking on a broad set of feedback, bothers me.

You guys, along with the ITC crew, do an awesome job. I know it's a thankless task, and you face trolls, the same gripes over and over, etc. But that shouldn't cause you to write off feedback as "The best players still win (as they always do) so this isn't that important to ask right now." Because the best players always win, that would mean it's never important to ask anything lol.

I mean this to be constructive, so hopefully it comes across that way. When feedback reaches a groundswell, it's not time to panic, but it is time to listen and possibly adjust, as I'm sure (and as you point out) GW will when they can. It would certainly behoove the ITC to at least consider doing the same (and I know, of course, that you are not connected).

Just my $0.02, again hopefully coming across how I mean it - constructive, not trolling!
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




MVBrandt wrote:
1. CA missions are bad. No. Variety doesn't hurt, unless you implement variety with bad missions.



As someone whose opinion I respect - why?

They have basically transposed the GHB missions from AoS to 40K which are universally and successfully used in tournaments in AoS. They are used with apparent success in tournaments - albeit mostly ones outside the ITC circuit.

I have only played one tournament with the CA19 missions so far but it ran smoothly and well - the missions are clear and the bookkeeping is very minimal.

So why do you think they are so bad? Why is 40K so different that it cannot be played competitively with the CA missions in your opinion?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





MVBrandt wrote:
1. CA missions are bad. No. Variety doesn't hurt, unless you implement variety with bad missions.

2. No, not at all - the meta would still be marine dominated right now. As others have stated, terrain on a table by table basis is a big part of how each event turns out at a micro level.

3. The meta is in a "worse" place right now than at other times in the edition due to marines, but that will change with time on their FAQ / renewal cycles.

The same top players continue to do well whether they are playing in NOVA, ITC, or ETC missions and formats around the world. When that stops and "the current good meta army" is going to random players with no proven skills on an RNG basis, that would be a better time for these questions.


Your last point is pretty arguable, considering how many "top" players switched to Marines from other factions this ITC season for various large tournaments.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




MVBrandt wrote:
1. CA missions are bad. No. Variety doesn't hurt, unless you implement variety with bad missions.

2. No, not at all - the meta would still be marine dominated right now. As others have stated, terrain on a table by table basis is a big part of how each event turns out at a micro level.

3. The meta is in a "worse" place right now than at other times in the edition due to marines, but that will change with time on their FAQ / renewal cycles.

The same top players continue to do well whether they are playing in NOVA, ITC, or ETC missions and formats around the world. When that stops and "the current good meta army" is going to random players with no proven skills on an RNG basis, that would be a better time for these questions.


I don't think the final sentence follows from the points above it, nor do I think it actually addresses the issue this thread is about. This thread isn't saying we want randomness to determine the winner of a tournament, it's asking whether the current ITC missions are necessary to provide a balanced, interesting tournament experience. Marines are broken right now, no question. But there is a question about whether or not ITC in particular is helping to exacerbate that.
   
Made in us
Irked Necron Immortal





Jackson, TN

Adapticon has released their mission pack for the Team event in March.

https://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2020/202040KChampPacketDraft.pdf

Would those missions work in an ITC environment?
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





MVBrandt wrote:
1. CA missions are bad. No. Variety doesn't hurt, unless you implement variety with bad missions.

2. No, not at all - the meta would still be marine dominated right now. As others have stated, terrain on a table by table basis is a big part of how each event turns out at a micro level.

3. The meta is in a "worse" place right now than at other times in the edition due to marines, but that will change with time on their FAQ / renewal cycles.

The same top players continue to do well whether they are playing in NOVA, ITC, or ETC missions and formats around the world. When that stops and "the current good meta army" is going to random players with no proven skills on an RNG basis, that would be a better time for these questions.
Since the top players switch armies like t-shirts they will always be winning the 'good Meta army'. And they do well regardless of format because they buy/borrow an army that is good for that format.

Your wondering why a F1 driver isn't getting beaten by an average Joe when both are in a Honda civic. It doesn't matter what type of car the pro drives, he is going to be better then the average smuck.


   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




San Diego, CA

MVBrandt wrote:
The same top players continue to do well whether they are playing in NOVA, ITC, or ETC missions and formats around the world. When that stops and "the current good meta army" is going to random players with no proven skills on an RNG basis, that would be a better time for these questions.

I too would like to see an explanation of #1 (CA missions are bad), because I personally have no experience designing a tournament packet and would be very interested in a review of the missions from a TO perspective.
However, I'd like to point out that this year in particular has seen a lot of upsets in the "same top players" field. Jim Vessel became a major name only this year, and Richard Siegler has only been playing competitively for a year and dominated with Tau until he switched to marines and won LVO. Meanwhile, Nick Nanavati lost in round 2 of LVO. There's a lot of new blood winning big events these days. I'm not in any way taking away from their skill; rather I'm saying that 40K prowess is no longer the domain of a select chosen few.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Perfected Haemonculi Living Sculpture






I hope his response to #1 isn't anything like his play testing feedback for GW lol.

   
Made in ie
Norn Queen






Dublin, Ireland

What blacktoof said basically.

Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be

By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

"Feelin' goods, good enough". 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




I like the terrain deployment rules of the adepticon packet for sure. So much more tactical than pre-set terrain.

Not a fan of solo blood. Armies that rely on outside of LOS or IH unkillable armies will rack this up too easily.

I like scorched earth a lot. You don't have to sit on an objective all game to impact it and just shooting me off of it doesn't help you win as much.

The more I look at the packet the more I like it. Varied missions played on varied tables. I don't like that the secondaries are tied to the different scenarios and I'd like to be able to pick one of the various secondaries regardless of the scenario.

I would love to go to a tourney that used this package (maybe I can talk a local TO into running one, these look great).

The downside is it seems like the pre-game set-up would take a bit more time so I think 3.5 hours would be minimum for round time (at least until people get the hang of it) which makes for a long day - 12 hours at least (3x 3.5hr rounds, 15 mins between rounds and an hour for lunch) but starting at 9am to 9pm isn't too bad could probably shave an hour off that by reducing games to 3hrs with 15 mins of set-up time and 10 mins between rounds 2 and 3.

I've never been to adepticon but man it seems interesting at the very least.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

MVBrandt wrote:
The same top players continue to do well whether they are playing in NOVA, ITC, or ETC missions and formats around the world. When that stops and "the current good meta army" is going to random players with no proven skills on an RNG basis, that would be a better time for these questions.


Extreme hypothetical: If the game/tournament format became so broken that there were only a single viable list, and only people who took that list had a chance, but the top names still kept winning the resulting mirror matches because they are the most skilled at the game, would you still infer that no changes are needed?

It doesn't follow that 'skilled players don't lose to randos' = 'everything is fine and nothing could be improved'.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/28 17:17:32


 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan




Alabama

There's another similar discussion going on in 40K General here, but thought I'd post this here as well because I don't think it can be understated:

Smellingsalts wrote:
This has been a very loaded thread! Before I put in my two cents let me say that I personally know Reece and consider him a friend. I own a game store and our league uses ITC rules. The problem I see in some peoples' dissatisfaction with the ITC is that it seems that ITC has been made to provide the most balanced game between two equally talented opponents as you can create. This obviously influences the meta. Reece and crew did not approach the tournament scene with the idea of making cool interesting gaming tables with special rules that affect units differently. Nor did they try to create some underlying narrative for each game where objectives are different and may favor some armies over others (although you could say some of that is included in the secondary objectives each player chooses).The problem is in the game design and lore that GW has created. So step one, to make us all special snow flakes, so that my army is different from yours, all armies have strengths and weaknesses. You need this to make armies interesting, otherwise we may as well all play Space Marines. In theory, any given army should be able to play any other and achieve a win. The problem GW inevitably tends to fall into is Soup. As soon as you allow allies, it lets players use another army to compensate for their weaknesses and give them strengths. They have taken care of the problem in AOS but not 40K. Compare the number of lists an Imperial player has to draw upon to, say, a Tyranid. The player with access to the most lists has a powerful advantage because part of creating a tournament list is anticipating/compensating for what you will fight. How do you anticipate the synergy's created by mixing 20 lists? So soup is a major problem that needs to be fixed, Not to mention it is easier for game designers to balance one distinct army from another when allies are not included.

The next issue is scenarios. I personally feel that ITC missions try to include too many objectives all at once. For people who would like some kind of narrative experience in their competitive play (and believe it or not, there are a lot of them) this makes all ITC games feel like Vanilla. It takes some of the fun out of the game. There is a maxim for retailers, but it holds true for any activity where your trying to grow the base of participants. "Don't make them jump through too many hoops." Let's say an ITC mission is 7 hoops. Do you really need 7? Could you get it done with just 4? How many players drop off at hoop 3?; at hoop 6? I remember when GW ran their own tournaments and you couldn't wait to see the scenario pack they would post so you could imagine how you would craft an army that could handle each one. That was fun! Keeping score on ITC missions just feels like homeworking I'm being punished to finish.

Tables are another issue. Terrain rules are not played out of the book because vehicles most of the time can't take cover behind a building. With true line of sight you can see through windows and pop them. So ITC makes the rule that you can't see through the first level of a building. So now the meta favors tanks over infantry. So meta changes and vehicles are popular. What do vehicles have over guys on foot? Mobility and fire power. How do guys on foot fight that? Gunlines and turtling up around objectives. So meta changes and favors gunlines. Meanwhile all of your buildings might as well be square boxes because all they do is block line of sight, so terrain on board becomes less interesting because why model a cool ruin when a square box is what is needed. I remember going to GW tournaments and seeing amazing tables with really cool modeled terrain. Were some of those tables not good for my army? Sure. Did I still want to play on them? Heck yeah!

Finally, ITC minimizes any scoring that is subjective. The problem with that is that if sportsmanship won't make or break you except in extreme cases, sportsmanship is minimized. If painting is not an integral part of your score, the hobby aspect is minimized (and I realize that ITC is trying to make hobby matter by being more strict on what you bring to the table, but really you can do the minimum and win).This all creates a meta where people are looking for the next broken list and making that army, and then discarding it when the next broken list comes out. This leads to borrowhammer, another issue the ITC is wrestling with. So is the future of the ITC netlists and borrowhammer? Is the game going to become so competitive that it drives away potential players (as has Warmachine imho).
My sense is that GW will start to exert control over the ITC and gradually shape it in a way that is more like their old tournaments where soft scores were more important. They will use the heroine that is playtesting, free product and foreknowledge of upcoming products, along with that GW seal of approval to bend the ITC to their will. It's already happening in the new level of painting required. Next you will only be able to use GW models in "official" tournaments." My hope is that Reece and crew can navigate these waters and continue to run these large events, however they may end up.


This. All of this. Exalted.

It seems to want to drive to the point of: if everything was equal - two equal armies, two equal deployments, equal cover, equal LOS blocking terrain, equal objectives - who is the better general? But is that really the test of a great general? And is that really 40k anymore?

I would think the test of an even greater general is navigating the field with shifting terrain, shifting objectives and a diverse opponent pool. Is the ITC really finding the best general? Or is it finding the best person who can build a list that takes advantage of a relatively fixed system?




This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/28 21:10:29


WH40K
Alaitoc Eldar 4000 pts.
Weeping Legion 1500 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

 Byte wrote:
Terrain is the issue with ITC. Terrain. All first level LOS blocking is terrible.

As opposed to Planet Bowling Ball? Without LOS-blocking, h2h armies, already behind the 8-ball, would have no real chance in games.

What do you propose as different?

"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:
 Byte wrote:
Terrain is the issue with ITC. Terrain. All first level LOS blocking is terrible.

As opposed to Planet Bowling Ball? Without LOS-blocking, h2h armies, already behind the 8-ball, would have no real chance in games.

What do you propose as different?


I know this is the internet where the only two options are always at completely opposite ends of the scale, but there is a middle ground between loads of LoS blocking and planet bowling ball. I think the current first level blocking LoS rules should probably be removed in favour of a more nuanced set of rules that doesn't guarantee you can hide an entire army in a single L-shaped ruin at the start of the game. Ideally modifying the terrain piece itself would be the way to go but even adopting the rules GW used at their last GT would be an improvement, I think.
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Slipspace wrote:
 Brothererekose wrote:
 Byte wrote:
Terrain is the issue with ITC. Terrain. All first level LOS blocking is terrible.

As opposed to Planet Bowling Ball? Without LOS-blocking, h2h armies, already behind the 8-ball, would have no real chance in games.

What do you propose as different?


I know this is the internet where the only two options are always at completely opposite ends of the scale, but there is a middle ground between loads of LoS blocking and planet bowling ball. I think the current first level blocking LoS rules should probably be removed in favour of a more nuanced set of rules that doesn't guarantee you can hide an entire army in a single L-shaped ruin at the start of the game. Ideally modifying the terrain piece itself would be the way to go but even adopting the rules GW used at their last GT would be an improvement, I think.


This, there exist lot's off possibilities to bring in terrain that is actual granular to stop shoeboxing or OTK dakka festivals.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/29 09:24:57


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 Brothererekose wrote:
 Byte wrote:
Terrain is the issue with ITC. Terrain. All first level LOS blocking is terrible.

As opposed to Planet Bowling Ball? Without LOS-blocking, h2h armies, already behind the 8-ball, would have no real chance in games.

What do you propose as different?


In our club we luckily simply have a lot of terrain that comes with at least some kind of line of sight blocking. Stuff like that Dark Angels tower base [Fortress of redemption?] exists and can be used, and we also have some ruins that have at least one blocking wall. Same goes for large rocks / mountain terrain and stuff like that.

We had to change how we set up terrain when 8th edition came out, but it's working better than just sticking with the old setups, or going with ITCs ground floor rules.

But it's clearly not a good solution as it requires you to either have enough terrain selection to deal with it or to modify your existing terrain to something in between ITC and the bowling ball decorations of previous editions.
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: