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.
2018/06/25 17:44:18
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
karandrasss wrote: How do you play Eternal War/Maelstrom and not feel like the loser of the roll-off for placing objectives has a massive advantage? Personally, I almost always win 6 objective marker missions when I lose the roll-off.
If the enemy dumps all the objectives in their deployment zone
It's not like they have to. In fringe cases it might be better to place the objectives elsewhere. Being able to place second (i.e. reactively) and choose your zone after is still a huge advantage. How's your Slaneesh performing btw?
Not just fringe cases. My superheavies like to get into assault too. In fact, all but one of my armies appreciates having to move across the board, and the one that doesn't is completely uncompetitive (malcador spam ftw!)
It's pretty good actually; it fairly easy rips up Guard and Knights, though it struggles against the really high-tier tournament lists, and ironically it struggles against CSM. In general, Slaanesh CSM are considerably better than Slaanesh Daemons, but I love my Daemons so *shrug*. I confess I /have/ attached two Defilers and some cultists lately for knight smashing. Defilers are pretty fantabulous at that. Considering making them Soul Grinders though...
2018/06/25 18:03:45
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
I have never played ITC format, how much diffferent from normal games is it?
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2018/06/25 18:08:28
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
ITC has several sub-formats. I personally prefer *combined arms* missions.
Combined arms missions each have a maelstrom component that uses a table instead of cards and an eternal war component.
The maelstrom portion is worth 8 VP, the eternal war, 8 VP, and there are three small side objectives worth 1 VP each, making each match out of 19 VP possible.
2018/06/25 18:14:20
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
How is the book with the system is called, I tried looking for ITC on their site, but they have no such rule set. It sounds very cool.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2018/06/25 18:23:27
Subject: Re:How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
greyknight12 wrote: The main benefit of playing ITC/ETC formats is practicing for big tournaments that use them (though in the US I doubt you'll see ETC format).
Otherwise, there are some interesting/useful FAQs from ITC, like "lower levels of ruins block LOS".
My personal opinion though is that ITC missions are overall bad for the the game and the community. With the champions mission pack, ITC "jumped the shark": they revised an iteration of their mission concept that has been around since 6th/7th, rather than starting from scratch and the BRB missions because since those mission were bad in 7th, they must be bad in 8th. Basically, they created a new game where secondary objectives are king and the scoring format is very different than anything published by GW. Even when chapter approved came out, ITC doubled down on their decision to use their own missions. If the game is being played differently than designed, there's going to be balance issues. The worst part of it though is that ITC drives a wedge in the community in ways that an online forum never can; by creating an actual difference in gaming between "casual" and "competitive" players on the local level, where the tournament preppers are looking through the latest mission pack and the casual players are thumbing through the rulebook while they look for a pickup game.
There's going to be balance issues and even more with GW missions as is. You assume GW is actually trying to balance and have scenarios for that...Grave mistake. GW doesn't even attempt to make balanced game. Just shuffle meta around to sell models.
And GW scenarios SUCK encouraging just static gun lines. Couple that with GW's hideous terrain rules that make anything but big square blocks useless means SOMEBODY has to do something to fix mess GW has created to ensure fun and interesting games.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2018/06/25 18:28:58
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Having a variety of scenarios available and in common use helps keep the gaming party of the hobby fresh. If I was only playing BRB eternal war missions or something I would have burned out quickly again.
I personally play mostly Chapter Approved Maelstrom for FLGS night and ITC for events/event prep. This provides a nice balance.
I mostly play ITC champion pack missions (as I mostly play in local tournaments and tourney prep games and that's what my local uses).
I do agree with other posters though that ITC seems to be trying to fix balance at the same time GW is "trying" to do it so it feels like they are working cross purpose (I'd love to hear from anyone who knows the frontline guys or others who have influence on the ITC missions as to what they think about this). I know the ETC captains get together every so often to help try to balance their vs GWs balance and that would be an interesting place to be a fly on the wall as well.
2018/06/25 18:43:03
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
greyknight12 wrote: The main benefit of playing ITC/ETC formats is practicing for big tournaments that use them (though in the US I doubt you'll see ETC format).
Otherwise, there are some interesting/useful FAQs from ITC, like "lower levels of ruins block LOS".
My personal opinion though is that ITC missions are overall bad for the the game and the community. With the champions mission pack, ITC "jumped the shark": they revised an iteration of their mission concept that has been around since 6th/7th, rather than starting from scratch and the BRB missions because since those mission were bad in 7th, they must be bad in 8th. Basically, they created a new game where secondary objectives are king and the scoring format is very different than anything published by GW. Even when chapter approved came out, ITC doubled down on their decision to use their own missions. If the game is being played differently than designed, there's going to be balance issues. The worst part of it though is that ITC drives a wedge in the community in ways that an online forum never can; by creating an actual difference in gaming between "casual" and "competitive" players on the local level, where the tournament preppers are looking through the latest mission pack and the casual players are thumbing through the rulebook while they look for a pickup game.
There's going to be balance issues and even more with GW missions as is. You assume GW is actually trying to balance and have scenarios for that...Grave mistake. GW doesn't even attempt to make balanced game. Just shuffle meta around to sell models.
And GW scenarios SUCK encouraging just static gun lines. Couple that with GW's hideous terrain rules that make anything but big square blocks useless means SOMEBODY has to do something to fix mess GW has created to ensure fun and interesting games.
What is so bad about the terrain rules? You want free 4++ saves for standing in bushes? Were those good terrain rules?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2018/06/25 19:00:16
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Quite a bit. It's easier to table your opponent if you're playing Eternal War, while Maelstrom can be thrown out of whack by lucky card draws. Domination and Supremacy being two cards that are only good if you've almost tabled your opponent and you want to rub it in spring to mind.
Blndmage wrote: I've been sticking to the missions in the book. The game, the codexes, indexes, and such were built around them, not these other formats. (I don't have Chapter Approved yet, so I can't play those missions, but I'll add them to the list.)
The issue I have with the, in some cases automatic assumption, idea that everyone plays with ITC or ETC rules means that people can't easily discuss the game any more.
It creates weird moments, like when people give list advice and are referencing those formats, they tend to look down on folks that just play the missions in the book.
The ITC missions were built around the codices and considerable player feedback and data. While the codices are subject to frequent erratas and FAQs, this isn't the same for the BRB. The BRB missions are for casual, varied fun, not balance. I play both, and enjoy both, but I think it's an incorrect assumption to think the codices and indices were built around the missions.
2018/06/25 19:03:01
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
karandrasss wrote: My meta is exclusively BRB missions (not even Chapter Approved most of the time) and I'm trying to introduce other mission formats but it's been a struggle.
What would you say are the advantages of the ITC/ETC formats over BRB missions? How much better is your gaming experience? Is it pretty much the same? Is there too much unnecessary bookkeeping? Or is it as tactical and balanced as it seems to be to someone who hasn't played it but really wants to?
The advantage is that it's scored every turn, like maelstrom, but isn't random. 1 point for holding a point, 1 point for.holding more points, 1 point for killing a unit, 1 point for killing more units, 1 bonus point based on the mission, which I've only seen scored once by tabling all but one rhino and then playing the next 3 turns.
The disadvantage is that there are a dozen secondaries, each of which is worth up to 4 points, and you pick 3 to go for before the game. I don't like them. They're very list skewing among other things, and there are quite a few idiosyncrasies that appear in lists because of them [that's why Guard infantry squads need mortars in them, there's an objective for killing 10-model units]. In addition, I think they're worth too many points, since they must be achieved to have a chance at winning though the objectives, so they're more like primaries with taking the points as secondaries.
Honestly, is my game better for using ITC missions? No. Not at all. I like the idea of scoring objectives each turn, but their secondaries are awful.
I don't really agree. The secondaries need to be important, because they drastically change the decision making on the table.
Even if IG have "9 man" squads they're still very open to Death by a Thousand Cuts. If they were susceptible to Reaper as well then the opponent could spend all game shooting IS to score points.
What they need is more varied secondaries and they're taking feedback on secondary changes currently.
2018/06/25 19:05:02
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
I think the combined arms introduces too much randomness into the missions for hard core competitive players? Also, with the ITC season I think it may be considered bad form to change the scoring mid-stream?
I think they look fun but I'm starting to realize I'm more semi-competitive than really competitive (I still play SM...) and some of the more competitive players like as little left up to chance as possible (just another guess)
2018/06/25 19:07:13
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
karandrasss wrote: My meta is exclusively BRB missions (not even Chapter Approved most of the time) and I'm trying to introduce other mission formats but it's been a struggle.
What would you say are the advantages of the ITC/ETC formats over BRB missions? How much better is your gaming experience? Is it pretty much the same? Is there too much unnecessary bookkeeping? Or is it as tactical and balanced as it seems to be to someone who hasn't played it but really wants to?
The advantage is that it's scored every turn, like maelstrom, but isn't random. 1 point for holding a point, 1 point for.holding more points, 1 point for killing a unit, 1 point for killing more units, 1 bonus point based on the mission, which I've only seen scored once by tabling all but one rhino and then playing the next 3 turns.
The disadvantage is that there are a dozen secondaries, each of which is worth up to 4 points, and you pick 3 to go for before the game. I don't like them. They're very list skewing among other things, and there are quite a few idiosyncrasies that appear in lists because of them [that's why Guard infantry squads need mortars in them, there's an objective for killing 10-model units]. In addition, I think they're worth too many points, since they must be achieved to have a chance at winning though the objectives, so they're more like primaries with taking the points as secondaries.
Honestly, is my game better for using ITC missions? No. Not at all. I like the idea of scoring objectives each turn, but their secondaries are awful.
I don't really agree. The secondaries need to be important, because they drastically change the decision making on the table.
Even if IG have "9 man" squads they're still very open to Death by a Thousand Cuts. If they were susceptible to Reaper as well then the opponent could spend all game shooting IS to score points.
What they need is more varied secondaries and they're taking feedback on secondary changes currently.
I've yet to have someone take 1k Cuts against me. Usually it's Headhunter, Big Game, and Old School, [because Tank Commanders qualify for both Big Game and Headhunter].
Though it's not about that fact that Reaper and Gangbuster and 1k Cuts are of whole different magnitudes in effect on an army, it's how many points they're worth. Currently, they're weighted to be roughly equal in stature to the primaries. I don't think they should be. Maybe 3 secondaries for 1 point each.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/25 19:45:24
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2018/06/25 21:29:02
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
ITC missions make the game more than just "who kills better."
BRB missions are awful.
I would have quit 40k if ITC didn't introduce progressive scoring. The game sucks without it.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/06/26 01:46:30
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
That's the point. If you drive them back off the objective and deny them access, they should lose unless they can counterattack quickly, and in force. If you get totally overrun it should be game ending.
If were to design a "Katherine's Mission Pack", I'd go:
5 Objectives. At the end of the battle round, each objective is worth 1 point for controlling it. 6 different distributions for 6 missions.
1 Bonus Point, scenario dependent, that should be accomplish-able in early turns and from a position of disadvantage, so that way a player who's only slightly behind in position can keep up and the score not turn into a runaway snowball, but if you really get rolled back it won't help you.
Hold on, that's a good idea, I think, I'm going to do that right now.
I thought about a scoring scheme that utilized progressive scoring, and did away with some of the parts of ITC that I don't like. Here's a draft of a scoring scheme and a few different objective dispersal patterns that might lead to different games. Any changes you think should be made?
Mission [Rationale in italics]
Spoiler:
DEPLOYMENT:
1: Players roll off.
2: The player who won the roll off rolls a die to determine the objective deployment scenario.
3: The player who won the roll off chooses the deployment pattern
4: The player who did not chose the deployment pattern chooses his/her deployment zone.
5: The player who won the roll off begins deployment, placing the first unit.
BEGINNING THE GAME:
1: Players roll off for the first turn. The player who finished deployment first gains a +1 to this roll for every 3 more units his/her opponent deployed than s/he deployed.
2: The player who won the roll off may chose to move first or second.
3: Players take all actions that occur “after deployment, but before the first player takes the first turn”. The player who will be taking the first turn takes these actions first.
The current +1 for finishing deployment first isn't enough. I feel that the rule as the edition dropped [first to finish goes first] was better, but it broke down when there were two armies with similar numbers of drops. This way, there's a small difference if your armies are close in size, but if your army is massive then you're not going to get off the first turn. Having a big army has so many advantages right now, at the very least a high chance of not going first should offset that some.
Seize the Initiative should also be done away with. In the past, it was basically a ticket to victory, and isn't a necessary measure of randomness.
GAME LENGTH:
Each game lasts 6 battle rounds. Each battle round consists of 2 player turns.
SCORING:
Take and Hold: At the end of each battle round, each player scores one point for each objective s/he controls.
Victory Needs No Explanation: At the end of the 6th battle round, each player scores one additional point for each objective s/he controls.
I think that end-of-round scoring is better than end-of-turn scoring. It will compensate for the disadvantage the second player has by making it require less for them to secure the objectives and deny them to their opponent, who doesn't just have to take it, but hold it.
There's concern is that an early lead may turn into a runaway lead, and that early pressure from fast troops might become too strong. To remedy this, during the last round, the objectives are worth additional points, so that an army that began the game on the backfoot can turn around and finish strong and still win.
Perhaps mission "twists" can be added to further increase diversity, but I'd like to stay away from points for killing things. Minor secondaries can be added, but I'd want to keep the secondary, which is my biggest complain with ITC missions.
CONTROLLING OBJECTIVES:
Objective Secured: An objective is considered “controlled” by a player if s/he has at least one friendly scoring unit and no enemy scoring units within 3” of the objective.
Stand Your Ground: An objective is considered “contested” if both players have scoring units within 3” of the objective. A contested objective within, or partially within, a deployment zone is considered controlled by the player whose deployment zone it is within. A contested objective that is not within a deployment zone is considered uncontrolled.
These measures make it harder for aggressive and mobile armies to completely dominate static ones if they can't continue to keep up the pressure. It's still disadvantageous to be on the defense, but not going to turn into a runaway lead that you can't recover from unless you get really overrun.
SCORING UNITS:
Backbone of the Army: Objectives are controlled by units referred to as “scoring units”. These are units which have a special rule indicating that it controls an objective marker even if there are more enemy models nearby the objective [IE: Defenders of Humanity, Despoilers of the Galaxy, etc.]. As a rule of thumb, these are infantry units with the “Troops” battlefield role. Transports with scoring units embarked on board count scoring units.
Objective Focus: A single scoring unit can only control one objective at a time.
I don't think it was a good idea for non-troops to score. This should lead to a general increase in the prevalence of troops choices, and a greater focus on protecting them and destroying your enemy's than just going ham on the enemy. By my consideration, 5-6 troop choices should be optimal.
TIES:
Ties are resolved in the following order:
1: The player who controls more objectives at the end of the game is awarded the victory.
2: The player who has a greater percent of his/her army remaining on the table is awarded the victory.
CONCESSION, TABLING, AND SHORT GAMES
Concession: If a player concedes before the game’s natural conclusion, s/he forfeits all scored points [his/her final score becomes 0 points] and his/her opponent immediately scores 5 points for each unfinished battle round.
Timeout: If the game timer expires before 6 rounds can be completed, no additional points are scored.
Sudden Death: If at the end of any battle round a player has no models remaining on the table, the game is not considered to immediately end, though play may be ceased and the players be awarded the maximum number of points they could score with their surviving units for unplayed turns. If, upon the conclusion of the game, a player has no models surviving, his/her opponent counts as controlling all 5 objectives for Victory Needs No Explanation only. Example: On turn 4, Alice destroys Bob's last unit, but only has 2 of her scoring units remaining. For Take and Hold on turns 4, 5, and 6, she would score 2 points each, and then score 5 for Victory Needs No Explanation, for a total of 11 additional points scored.
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
Scenario 3:
Scenario 4:
Scenario 5:
Scenario 6:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/26 01:50:57
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2018/06/26 02:06:05
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Karol wrote: I have never played ITC format, how much diffferent from normal games is it?
ITC missions reward you for playing the exact armies that the owners of Frontline Games play and punish you for playing ones they don't.
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
2018/06/26 02:18:19
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Karol wrote: I have never played ITC format, how much diffferent from normal games is it?
ITC missions reward you for playing the exact armies that the owners of Frontline Games play and punish you for playing ones they don't.
I don't think so.
The objectives are definitely not balanced to affect all the armies equally, though. It's probably not the armies they play, but I assume that it's not one guy with one army writing these things.
IG runs afoul of Reaper, Big Game Hunter, Headhunter, and 1k Cuts. You just sort of accept that you're giving up some and use odd workarounds for the others.
By comparison, Custodes, who should be the poster child for Gangbuster targets will actually almost never have it selected against them, because they actually only give up 1 or 2 points to it.
I don't have a problem with the primary objectives, but I don't like the secondaries.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/26 02:42:29
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2018/06/26 02:44:30
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
karandrasss wrote: How do you play Eternal War/Maelstrom and not feel like the loser of the roll-off for placing objectives has a massive advantage? Personally, I almost always win 6 objective marker missions when I lose the roll-off.
If the enemy dumps all the objectives in their deployment zone
It's not like they have to. In fringe cases it might be better to place the objectives elsewhere. Being able to place second (i.e. reactively) and choose your zone after is still a huge advantage. How's your Slaneesh performing btw?
Not just fringe cases. My superheavies like to get into assault too. In fact, all but one of my armies appreciates having to move across the board, and the one that doesn't is completely uncompetitive (malcador spam ftw!)
It's pretty good actually; it fairly easy rips up Guard and Knights, though it struggles against the really high-tier tournament lists, and ironically it struggles against CSM. In general, Slaanesh CSM are considerably better than Slaanesh Daemons, but I love my Daemons so *shrug*. I confess I /have/ attached two Defilers and some cultists lately for knight smashing. Defilers are pretty fantabulous at that. Considering making them Soul Grinders though...
Superheavies are so easy to outnumber though, and most of them don't even have obsec. I guess you have a different meta, because I can't imagine our Guard and Knight players struggling against Slaneesh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChazSexington wrote: Quite a bit. It's easier to table your opponent if you're playing Eternal War, while Maelstrom can be thrown out of whack by lucky card draws. Domination and Supremacy being two cards that are only good if you've almost tabled your opponent and you want to rub it in spring to mind.
Blndmage wrote: I've been sticking to the missions in the book. The game, the codexes, indexes, and such were built around them, not these other formats. (I don't have Chapter Approved yet, so I can't play those missions, but I'll add them to the list.)
The issue I have with the, in some cases automatic assumption, idea that everyone plays with ITC or ETC rules means that people can't easily discuss the game any more.
It creates weird moments, like when people give list advice and are referencing those formats, they tend to look down on folks that just play the missions in the book.
The ITC missions were built around the codices and considerable player feedback and data. While the codices are subject to frequent erratas and FAQs, this isn't the same for the BRB. The BRB missions are for casual, varied fun, not balance. I play both, and enjoy both, but I think it's an incorrect assumption to think the codices and indices were built around the missions.
Why would it be easier to table with one mission format over another? Assuming you can house rule "first floor of ruins block line of sight" for BRB games or have sufficient terrain that don't need that rule anyway?
I think the combined arms introduces too much randomness into the missions for hard core competitive players? Also, with the ITC season I think it may be considered bad form to change the scoring mid-stream?
I think they look fun but I'm starting to realize I'm more semi-competitive than really competitive (I still play SM...) and some of the more competitive players like as little left up to chance as possible (just another guess)
My problem is the opposite. I'm a competitive player surrounded by people who think they're competitive but also think BRB missions are fine. Kill points and relic, seriously?
Karol wrote: I have never played ITC format, how much diffferent from normal games is it?
ITC missions reward you for playing the exact armies that the owners of Frontline Games play and punish you for playing ones they don't.
I don't think so.
The objectives are definitely not balanced to affect all the armies equally, though. It's probably not the armies they play, but I assume that it's not one guy with one army writing these things.
IG runs afoul of Reaper, Big Game Hunter, Headhunter, and 1k Cuts. You just sort of accept that you're giving up some and use odd workarounds for the others.
By comparison, Custodes, who should be the poster child for Gangbuster targets will actually almost never have it selected against them, because they actually only give up 1 or 2 points to it.
I don't have a problem with the primary objectives, but I don't like the secondaries.
My unconvinced meta would ask, "Why doesn't the IG player just build a list to table the opponent?"
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/26 02:57:49
2018/06/26 03:10:17
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
I really don't like missions where points are scored for holding an objective on turn 2, for example. Who cares who holds it turn 2? Its who holds at the end of the game that matters. How much of your army is left at the end, how many kill points, etc you have.
The 40k theory is to kill more than the opponent, hold objectives at the end. I don't like maelstrom or itc as during the battle it really doesn't matter who holds what. The end is what matters.
Personally I think every mission should have old school fantasy style victory points incorporated to better represent what actually happened in the battle. This is not to say there should not be objectives, but the main reason why most people play, to kill the enemies army, is a major component of any victory conditions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/26 03:14:44
2018/06/26 03:12:33
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Heafstaag wrote: I really don't like missions where points are scored for holding an objective on turn 2, for example. Who cares who holds it turn 2? Its who holds at the end of the game that matters. How much of your army is left at the end, how many kill points, etc you have.
The 40k theory is to kill more than the opponent, hold objectives at the end. I don't like maelstrom or itc as during the battle it really doesn't matter who holds what. The end is what matters.
In that case the killier armies like Drukhari and IK will win every single time.
2018/06/26 03:16:10
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Heafstaag wrote: I really don't like missions where points are scored for holding an objective on turn 2, for example. Who cares who holds it turn 2? Its who holds at the end of the game that matters. How much of your army is left at the end, how many kill points, etc you have.
The 40k theory is to kill more than the opponent, hold objectives at the end. I don't like maelstrom or itc as during the battle it really doesn't matter who holds what. The end is what matters.
In that case the killier armies like Drukhari and IK will win every single time.
I amended my post above with further thoughts.
Some armies may win more than others, but that's always been the way of 40k.
2018/06/26 03:21:21
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
The objectives are definitely not balanced to affect all the armies equally, though. It's probably not the armies they play, but I assume that it's not one guy with one army writing these things.
IG runs afoul of Reaper, Big Game Hunter, Headhunter, and 1k Cuts. You just sort of accept that you're giving up some and use odd workarounds for the others.
By comparison, Custodes, who should be the poster child for Gangbuster targets will actually almost never have it selected against them, because they actually only give up 1 or 2 points to it.
I don't have a problem with the primary objectives, but I don't like the secondaries.
My unconvinced meta would ask, "Why doesn't the IG player just build a list to table the opponent?"
... That's the result, and the exact thing we want mission design to discourage.
We don't want the mission design to encourage leaving that one miserable unit alive to farm more points, but we also don't want the mission design to favor ignoring the objectives completely in favor of trying to table them.
Also, while I've done it in a lot of games my IG has played, tabling someone who's trying to avoid being tabled at all costs is actually pretty hard.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2018/06/26 03:31:08
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
2018/06/26 03:42:13
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
karandrasss wrote: I guess my first course of action is to convince people that going for a wipe out every single game is boring, but how? They've done that since forever, and a lot of them think BRB Eternal War missions are objectives-based enough.
Tabling the opponent shouldn't be punished, and managing to hold out at all costs and sticking through a losing game should be rewarded, but at the same time, if you reward building a list that doesn't interact with the mission and just tries to obliterate the enemy, that's what will happen.
I think that, for some armies, ITC does highly encourage this. On your way to tabling the enemy, you'll score your secondaries, which are worth a ton of points, and succeeding in it means that you count as completing all the primaries anyway whether you actually did them. However, if you make those points just not happen, then you'll get a situation where you have one 2-wound razorback sitting in the corner that's been explicitly left alive so the opponent can farm points, knowing that it can't fight and you can't concede.
Anyway, I don't think ITC is the be all and end all of objective play and the savior of 40k. It's just another set of missions that you can use to play, and in some ways is an improvement, and in some ways is a downgrade. However, if you're happy playing to tabling, go ahead, and consider the open war missions and cards, it'll add a little extra diversity to your game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/26 03:46:45
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2018/06/26 04:27:29
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Karol wrote: I have never played ITC format, how much diffferent from normal games is it?
ITC missions reward you for playing the exact armies that the owners of Frontline Games play and punish you for playing ones they don't.
bs
If only there were a mountain of evidence and corroborating testimony by Frontline Games themselves that this was the actual case.
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
2018/06/26 05:16:33
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
