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.
2018/06/26 05:19:05
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.
Guard generally can't handle my list because of how ridiculously good cc shenanigans are - catch a unit in combat with a single member from all my Daemonette squads and Zarakynel, but don't attack them - just make sure one model is surrounded so the unit can't fall back - then. Alternatively, catch a character in combat, Forbidden Gem them in the movement phase so they can't fall back, and be immune to bullets. Or snag a couple of fiends into something. Really? Slaanesh has the tools to make sure you can't fall back, and if you can't fall back, I am immune to bullets.
As for superheavies scoring: generally, my opponent's units don't live long enough to hold onto the objectives if they start on them (since I have big guns that can focus fire), and the superheavies themselves are so wide (with sponsons damn near exactly 7") that the enemy can't get within 3" of the center of the objective if I park on it, meaning they can't dive in and take it after the fact, either. Tallarn superheavies with the crush them! stratagem are especially fantastic at squishing their way to victory.
2018/06/26 05:23:41
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.
Guard generally can't handle my list because of how ridiculously good cc shenanigans are - catch a unit in combat with a single member from all my Daemonette squads and Zarakynel, but don't attack them - just make sure one model is surrounded so the unit can't fall back - then. Alternatively, catch a character in combat, Forbidden Gem them in the movement phase so they can't fall back, and be immune to bullets. Or snag a couple of fiends into something. Really? Slaanesh has the tools to make sure you can't fall back, and if you can't fall back, I am immune to bullets.
As for superheavies scoring: generally, my opponent's units don't live long enough to hold onto the objectives if they start on them (since I have big guns that can focus fire), and the superheavies themselves are so wide (with sponsons damn near exactly 7") that the enemy can't get within 3" of the center of the objective if I park on it, meaning they can't dive in and take it after the fact, either. Tallarn superheavies with the crush them! stratagem are especially fantastic at squishing their way to victory.
Good...until you have to cross over 30" and they're hugging the edges with plenty of bubble wrap and probably Custodes jetbikes to get to your squishy melee units first.
Superheavies blocking objectives is so situational (i.e. there isn't enough terrain on the table, opponent placed objectives in the open for some reason) I'm not sure you've actually played these games...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Reading this thread i get the feeling that people have never looked at CA missions. If i sum up this thread it is:
"ITC is a necessary evil that does indeed skew balance, but it offers progressive non random scoring missions, which are gold".
And yet GW has provided us with plenty of non random progressive scoring missions in CA.
Which CA missions do you think are fine? How do you get around the fact that going second in placing objectives is such an enormous advantage? I pretty much win all my Dominate and Destroy games where I place second, for example.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/26 05:35:36
2018/06/26 05:42:23
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Northern85Star wrote: ITC is way more fun than BRB missions. I never play the BRB missions anymore. With that said, no one in my play group makes lists in an attempt to deny VPs with the ITC format, so that might be why we enjoy it so much. I really dislike the card draws, where games are part decided by lucky/unlucky draws.
How do you stop it from being a tabling game anyway? The main concern of people unfamiliar with ITC/ETC is none of it will matter if you can table your opponent or cripple them so badly that you can just scoop up objectives late game.
Tabling is a thing in all the formats i’ve tried. ITC also adds a benefit to going second with the end of battle round scoring.
2018/06/26 06:27:18
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
ITC isn't perfect, but it's progressive, non-random scoring so it's a hell of a lot better than GW's mission offerings. Once I started playing ITC missions I decided I never wanted to draw another maelstrom card again...
2018/06/26 06:32:40
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Northern85Star wrote: ITC is way more fun than BRB missions. I never play the BRB missions anymore. With that said, no one in my play group makes lists in an attempt to deny VPs with the ITC format, so that might be why we enjoy it so much. I really dislike the card draws, where games are part decided by lucky/unlucky draws.
How do you stop it from being a tabling game anyway? The main concern of people unfamiliar with ITC/ETC is none of it will matter if you can table your opponent or cripple them so badly that you can just scoop up objectives late game.
Tabling is a thing in all the formats i’ve tried. ITC also adds a benefit to going second with the end of battle round scoring.
So why learn a non-GW ruleset when it all goes to tabling anyway?
2018/06/26 10:38:12
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: 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:
I think that you made a mistake in your scoring example regarding end of game/victory needs no explanation. In the rule you say score the objectives again at the end of the game. In your example you gave Alice a flat 5 points even though she could only control 2 objectives at the end of the turn.
Very well thought out. I think that I'd like a little more for scoring but I'm not sure just how/what they should be.
2018/06/26 12:46:25
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Do grey knights do better under the ITC rules, comparing to the normal GW rules?
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.
2018/06/26 13:03:08
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.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
2018/06/26 13:22:22
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.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
IDK, why fight an IRL war if the point isn't to murder as many people as quickly as possible (i.e. use nuclear weapons)?
2018/06/26 13:40:01
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
After playing my first ITC tourney, I understand the appeal; the CA and BRB mission suffer from the same issues, and that is many of the missions lack progressive scoring. From my games this always felt like the game was "punch each other, oh hey now objectives matter turn 4!"
From here on I'll be playing exclusively ITC, or ETC. Hopefully the next CA takes a note and all the missions will include multiple secondaries, missions with turn to turn scoring, and incentivize mobilization and scoring over pure pew-pew.
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.
Guard generally can't handle my list because of how ridiculously good cc shenanigans are - catch a unit in combat with a single member from all my Daemonette squads and Zarakynel, but don't attack them - just make sure one model is surrounded so the unit can't fall back - then. Alternatively, catch a character in combat, Forbidden Gem them in the movement phase so they can't fall back, and be immune to bullets. Or snag a couple of fiends into something. Really? Slaanesh has the tools to make sure you can't fall back, and if you can't fall back, I am immune to bullets.
As for superheavies scoring: generally, my opponent's units don't live long enough to hold onto the objectives if they start on them (since I have big guns that can focus fire), and the superheavies themselves are so wide (with sponsons damn near exactly 7") that the enemy can't get within 3" of the center of the objective if I park on it, meaning they can't dive in and take it after the fact, either. Tallarn superheavies with the crush them! stratagem are especially fantastic at squishing their way to victory.
Good...until you have to cross over 30" and they're hugging the edges with plenty of bubble wrap and probably Custodes jetbikes to get to your squishy melee units first.
Superheavies blocking objectives is so situational (i.e. there isn't enough terrain on the table, opponent placed objectives in the open for some reason) I'm not sure you've actually played these games...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Reading this thread i get the feeling that people have never looked at CA missions. If i sum up this thread it is:
"ITC is a necessary evil that does indeed skew balance, but it offers progressive non random scoring missions, which are gold".
And yet GW has provided us with plenty of non random progressive scoring missions in CA.
Which CA missions do you think are fine? How do you get around the fact that going second in placing objectives is such an enormous advantage? I pretty much win all my Dominate and Destroy games where I place second, for example.
Care to tell me why you think that the one going second has an advantage? I probably know what you mean, but since it actually hasn't ever been relevant in our tournaments, i want to be sure that you are not misplaying some rule (or that we are the one doing that).
2018/06/26 14:04:41
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Placing objectives second means you can load up an area with objectives (3-4 depending on how the opponent places their first) then pick that zone. There's a way to do it so that you get the objectives within/as close to your deployment zone as possible regardless of map, as shown in the 3plusplus article.
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.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Because a one-dimensional game with very little tactics involved aside from basic kiting and target prioritization is boring? Especially when some factions are better at "fighting" than other factions.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/26 15:38:56
2018/06/26 16:37:34
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: 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:
I think that you made a mistake in your scoring example regarding end of game/victory needs no explanation. In the rule you say score the objectives again at the end of the game. In your example you gave Alice a flat 5 points even though she could only control 2 objectives at the end of the turn.
Very well thought out. I think that I'd like a little more for scoring but I'm not sure just how/what they should be.
Thank you. If you have a chance to try it or revisions you think should be made, tell me!
I made an exception, to count all the objectives as held in the final scoring, so that if you get all your ObSec units killed and the enemy has more points, the game isn't over, unless they've been having a runaway game. At the same time, a build wholly optimized to wipe out the enemy that doesn't have enough scoring units wouldn't win, since it would be easy to outscore if you can live for 2 turns, but a list that keeps it close for most of the game, but has lost all or most of their troops, can still win by wiping out the enemy.
I do agree, it's really one set of scoring rules with 6 different objective distributions, and I feel like each one may need a bonus point awarded for doing a thing, but I also feel that a bonus point would upset the balance. If it's scorable by both players, it becomes a "if you can't do the bonus, you will lose", and if it's scorable only by one player, if it's scored by the leading player, it's going to really add to their lead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/26 16:41:56
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 17:40:18
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Ok, thanks guys. I will ask if someone at my store wants to switch to the rules.
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.
2018/06/26 18:31:54
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Karol wrote: Ok, thanks guys. I will ask if someone at my store wants to switch to the rules.
Well suggest ITC, not Katherine's rules. Her rules /missions show a bias towards the armies she plays.
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 19:17:14
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.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Some people think standing in arbitratry possitions during a battle (which is supposed to be taking place over like a 30 second period) should give them points for being good generals. IDK - I don't get it. It probably has to do with how people learned to play the game. When I was young and started playing we would just line up like napoleanic armies and fight it out. It was fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
karandrasss wrote: Placing objectives second means you can load up an area with objectives (3-4 depending on how the opponent places their first) then pick that zone. There's a way to do it so that you get the objectives within/as close to your deployment zone as possible regardless of map, as shown in the 3plusplus article.
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.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Because a one-dimensional game with very little tactics involved aside from basic kiting and target prioritization is boring? Especially when some factions are better at "fighting" than other factions.
Objectives don't add tactics. They just change army composition. This is the problem with the game. No faction should be "better at fighting" that is called imbalance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/26 19:19:49
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
2018/06/26 19:56:20
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Karol wrote: Ok, thanks guys. I will ask if someone at my store wants to switch to the rules.
Well suggest ITC, not Katherine's rules. Her rules /missions show a bias towards the armies she plays.
I haven't processed everything in that post, but what makes you think that?
Well I mean first and foremost, requiring a unit have objective secured in order to be able to hold an objective. Armies with cheap troops that are durable for their cost (Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard) naturally will dominate in this area. Especially when there are missions that flatly encourage this kind of play. Consider this mission:
In general the ITC mission pack is perfectly fine. If you are going to tweak it, i would adjust the secondaries, since people are gaming around them in list building.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/26 22:05:43
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 22:15:21
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Marmatag wrote: In general the ITC mission pack is perfectly fine. If you are going to tweak it, i would adjust the secondaries, since people are gaming around them in list building.
These Ops are worth up to 4 points each. Choose 3 during Mission Selection. Units which never count for awarding mission points do not award points for these (i.e. Mucolids may not be Marked for Death). You may not earn more than one point for destroying any one unit. If such a unit would award points to multiple Ops, you must decide which it scores at the time it is destroyed.
1. Moment of Bloodshed. Destroy 2+ enemy units during a turn to earn 1 Point.
2. Cull the Hordes. For every 20 enemy models destroyed, earn 1 Point.
3. Heart of the Matter. If your Warlord touches the centerpoint of the table at the end of your turn, earn 1 Point.
4. Shoot the Big Ones. Destroy an enemy model with 10+ wounds to earn 1 Point.
5. Strike the Rank and File. Destroy 1+ enemy Troop units during a Turn to earn 1 Point. If no enemy Troops exist at the start of your turn, earn 1 Point.
6. Marked for Death. Note four of your opponent's units. For each one you destroy, earn 1 Point.
7. Reconnaissance. If you have a unit wholly within each table quarter at the end of your Turn, earn 1 Point.
8. Headhunter. For every enemy Character destroyed, earn 1 Point.
9. Old School. Score 1 Point for each: Destroy an enemy unit in the first Battle Round; Destroy an enemy unit in the last Battle Round; Destroy your opponent's Warlord; End the game with 1+ models in your opponent's Deployment Zone.
10. Titanslayer. Destroy a Titanic Unit: 2 Points.
Spoletta wrote: Reading this thread i get the feeling that people have never looked at CA missions. If i sum up this thread it is:
"ITC is a necessary evil that does indeed skew balance, but it offers progressive non random scoring missions, which are gold".
And yet GW has provided us with plenty of non random progressive scoring missions in CA.
I actually really enjoy the ITC setup, from both the standardized terrain, to the progressive kills and objective scoring. The secondaries are nice too, they just need to be tweaked.
Your entire statement requires i agree that ITC is a necessary evil that skews balance. I disagree completely, their missions are great, their terrain is great, i prefer their terrain rules, and general rules changes (such as, +1 to go first, which they implemented before GW). Balance is far worse without ITC. Consider this, GW events feature big blobs of Orks sitting on objectives coupled with slowplaying to take the event. Meanwhile, that doesn't work in ITC, because the scoring is far better.
If i'm playing non-tournament objective based games, I actually prefer maelstrom. I mean, if we're being casual, why not go full casual?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/26 23:03:16
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.
2018/06/27 00:01:51
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Karol wrote: Ok, thanks guys. I will ask if someone at my store wants to switch to the rules.
Well suggest ITC, not Katherine's rules. Her rules /missions show a bias towards the armies she plays.
I actually think they benefit the opposite more. The structure of the scoring places emphasis on early aggression and sustained pressure, as well as controlling the center. I was actually personally worried that certain Chaos and Tyranid builds were just going to plow through and win easily, which is why I implemented the measure that you outcap your opponent inside of your deployment zone.
Well I mean first and foremost, requiring a unit have objective secured in order to be able to hold an objective. Armies with cheap troops that are durable for their cost (Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard) naturally will dominate in this area. Especially when there are missions that flatly encourage this kind of play. Consider this mission:
In general the ITC mission pack is perfectly fine. If you are going to tweak it, i would adjust the secondaries, since people are gaming around them in list building.
Not to be needlessly hostile, since I appreciate the feedback, but I think you're talking out of your ass.
The Sisters of Battle do not have cheap troops that are durable for their cost. They're basically T3, S3 Space Marines for slightly more than 2/3 the price. Also, my Sisters army fields no Sisters troops, just Dominions, Rets, and Seraphim, because Guardsmen [or Scouts, which for the specific application of the SoB I'd actually rather have] are so much better troops.
Second, yes, I think troops should be essential, and you should have a fair number of them. My estimates are about 5 or 6 squads are required to complete these missions.
Third, while that mission is deliberately more defensive than the others, I don't think it is particularly IG-favoring. It is deliberately designed to create a big pile of troops in the corner with a multi-layered defense, but at the same time winning is actually a matter of controlling the center and I think that both of those missions, because it's too hard to take backfield objectives, will actually be carried by armies of things like Khorne Berzerkers and Tyranids, which can blob into the middle and drive anyone away permanently. In addition, in inverse, there's scenario 2, which is the polar opposite, and definitely doesn't favor the guard.
I was actually trying to think of a way to have 5 objectives that doesn't somehow turn into a big pile of troops in close-combat in the center.
Also, I actually tried one of them, specifically scenario 1, and while it was intended to be somewhat defesnive-army favoring, the guard didn't win, and that's how I realized that, if the objectives weren't at the border of the deploy zone or in the no-man's land, they were basically going to turn into brawls for the middle in close combat, which is something I'm still trying to fix. I think removing backfield objectives entirely might be the way to go, but then I think that'd also make early rush armies too strong, since being pushed off all the objectives for 2 turns is almost game-losing. Test case, for the record, was Orks vs Guard. Basically, a big blob on the center stayed there long enough and did enough damage that there weren't enough points left available when the guard gained the advantage. I might try more tests when I get the time, but there's definitely a lot of room for improvement, since melee killblobs aren't what I want to encourage.
And, of course, they were written by one woman and tested exactly once by said one woman, so if you do have useful input and rationale that might improve them, share it. I'd like to make a mission set that's balanced, troop-focused, and encourages aggression but doesn't devolve into melee in the middle and awards all, or the vast majority, of it's points through control of objectives and very few, if any, for destruction of enemy units.
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.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Some people think standing in arbitratry possitions during a battle (which is supposed to be taking place over like a 30 second period) should give them points for being good generals. IDK - I don't get it. It probably has to do with how people learned to play the game. When I was young and started playing we would just line up like napoleanic armies and fight it out. It was fun.
The wargames I played before this were the sort on a hex grid, with conditions like "If the Allies control the bridge in hex D-BB-6 at the end of turn 8, Allied victory" or "If the Jordanians are able to exit 10 or more units off the east edge of the map, Arab victory". It was generally assumed to be impossible to completely destroy an enemy force.
We rarely play a "line up a shoot them" game. There's always something being fought over, control of which determines the game.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2018/06/27 00:58:54
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!
2018/06/27 00:40:57
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Well I am cool with a single objective - like a relic mission. This army came to collect this relic - this is their objective. A whole list of secondary objectives - with "slay the warlord" being a side piece....WOW. Killing a general in real warfare is basically good game. It's just not interesting me. Or like...Kill points...what a complete waste of time. I'll just go for the table every game and ignore these useless objectives which are basically rolling the dice to get a favorable matchup.
An objective like hold these two bridges by turn 5 for victory would be great. That is not how objectives work in this game. They are ether random - or arbitrary...usually involve killing something or spreading out to stand in randomly placed place with no significance.
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
2018/06/27 00:46:32
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Xenomancers wrote: Well I am cool with a single objective - like a relic mission. This army came to collect this relic - this is their objective. A whole list of secondary objectives - with "slay the warlord" being a side piece....WOW. Killing a general in real warfare is basically good game. It's just not interesting me. Or like...Kill points...what a complete waste of time. I'll just go for the table every game and ignore these useless objectives which are basically rolling the dice to get a favorable matchup.
An objective like hold these two bridges by turn 5 for victory would be great. That is not how objectives work in this game. They are ether random - or arbitrary...usually involve killing something or spreading out to stand in randomly placed place with no significance.
I don't like "kill unit" objectives at all. Killing units is how you get to the real objectives.
Yes, the placement of objectives is arbitrary. In a friendly game, we sometimes used to place the tokens in rooms, on hilltops, and in squares. However, in competitive play, they really need to be places in fixed and mirrored, or chosen-by-player, locations. You can adjust the terrain so that there's something there to capture.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/27 00:47:08
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!
2018/06/27 03:03:20
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.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Some people think standing in arbitratry possitions during a battle (which is supposed to be taking place over like a 30 second period) should give them points for being good generals. IDK - I don't get it. It probably has to do with how people learned to play the game. When I was young and started playing we would just line up like napoleanic armies and fight it out. It was fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
karandrasss wrote: Placing objectives second means you can load up an area with objectives (3-4 depending on how the opponent places their first) then pick that zone. There's a way to do it so that you get the objectives within/as close to your deployment zone as possible regardless of map, as shown in the 3plusplus article.
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.
That's literally why people play the game, man. Wiping out the other guys cool models with your cool models...
I mean, why even play a battle game if the point isn't to you know, actually fight?
Because a one-dimensional game with very little tactics involved aside from basic kiting and target prioritization is boring? Especially when some factions are better at "fighting" than other factions.
Objectives don't add tactics. They just change army composition. This is the problem with the game. No faction should be "better at fighting" that is called imbalance.
You contradict yourself. Custom mission formats are there precisely to address the weaknesses of the game.
Either nothing is arbitrary, or everything is. Holding territory is part of war, so is killing.
2018/06/27 05:03:07
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
Anyone has a good argument to convince people to switching to ITC rule set? I asked around here, and no one wants to play it "because its @#$% american meta".
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.