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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 05:40:48
Subject: Re:How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles
|
ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 07:22:20
Subject: Re:How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
DominayTrix wrote:ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 07:33:54
Subject: Re:How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
karandrasss wrote: DominayTrix wrote:ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K ( IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 07:40:57
Subject: Re:How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Sunny Side Up wrote:karandrasss wrote: DominayTrix wrote:ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K ( IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
How is vanilla 40k more tactical? How is it less easy to plan for when your single objective in vanilla 40k is often to table the opponent? What adapting do you have to do in vanilla 40k other than stop and think where the end game objectives are in turns 4-5 if you think you're unable to table your opponent? How does ITC remove risk?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/27 07:43:44
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 12:40:57
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Committed Chaos Cult Marine
|
karandrasss wrote:
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?
It's not that it's easier, but it's more likely to gain you a victory. The ITC missions and Maelstrom, give you other opportunities to win other than having the most units left on the field in certain places - the whole game matters. The army list incentives changes. If the goal is to just control 3 objectives in the last turn, it's easier to ensure your opponent doesn't have the ability. In case of Maelstrom, mobility is encouraged to rush around the table, and Troops are marginally better through Objective Secured. ITC missions encourage much more diverse lists through Secondaries and similarly, doesn't encourage the same kind of gunline lists.
To me, Eternal War makes sense from a narrative perspective. The fight is for the hill etc., but that doesn't translate that well into game mechanics.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/27 12:42:17
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 14:13:50
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Karol wrote: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".
Why not try it for a game or two? It costs you nothing and at least gives you deeper insight, right?
It's also very easy to pick up.
I guarantee you'll experience very interesting scenarios during play.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 14:29:58
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
karandrasss wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Heafstaag wrote: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.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heafstaag wrote: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.
How am I being contradictory?
Holding territory is part of war true. Getting out of your fox hole to stand out in the open on a poker chip is not. It is fething dumb.
|
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 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 14:34:07
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
That is why am asking how to do it. Where I live american=don't know how to play, so when I mentioned wanting to play with the rules, people just laughed at me. I don't know the rule set, and I don't know what is good about it, other then being told that GK do really good in it. So any tips on how to force people to play it would be good. Summer is here and I have no one to play against right now ;/
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 14:40:38
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
Karol wrote:That is why am asking how to do it. Where I live american=don't know how to play, so when I mentioned wanting to play with the rules, people just laughed at me. I don't know the rule set, and I don't know what is good about it, other then being told that GK do really good in it. So any tips on how to force people to play it would be good. Summer is here and I have no one to play against right now ;/
The only format GK do good in is narrative play. They are unanimously considered the worst army in the game here in the states. Are rules really that big of an issue for finding games where you are? I kinda just go with whatever anyone wants to play - even if it's not what I prefer.
|
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 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 15:32:54
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
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.
Xenomancers wrote:Heafstaag wrote: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.
Sisters are the definition of durable infantry. When you camp a couple squads on objectives they will be 2+ with cover. They are flatly better at holding objectives than most troops in the game. Especially when you view the objectives as in the back of the base. They're only getting hit with artillery or long range shots, which are going to be Strength 8+. Meaning T3 doesn't come into play.
But to your rules...
1. Only troops hold objectives. Don't like it. It's a step in the wrong direction. Elite armies already suffer and you only compound this imbalance. More on this later.
2. Every objective scores. This obviously rewards armies with cheap, spammable troops, or cheap durable troops. It is far better to get a point for controlling one objective, and cap it. Board presence is already a very strong way to win in ITC, and you only make this infinitely easier. I play a horde army, your rules would make the games very very simple for me. In some of these scenarios i could put my models on the table and just win by existing.
3. A mission where you've got 1 objective within range of every Leman Russ and tank in the freaking game, while built to gunline, and hey, you can shoot up the units that your opponent MUST keep in their deployment zone? "Oh, hello. I see you've got two troops squads planted in the back of your base to hold the mandatory two objectives. Good thing i have basilisk and manticores and i'm cadia, so i'll shoot them off turn 1. Then, i'll just outscore you by castling."
4. Where are the points for killing units? Where are the secondary objectives? In essence here is every game: Who can sit on objectives better. That's it.
It's not a good rule set. Have you played in an ITC tournament in the past year? It'd be a good experience for you to see how the current rules play. They're actually pretty solid.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 15:42:03
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Xenomancers wrote:Karol wrote:That is why am asking how to do it. Where I live american=don't know how to play, so when I mentioned wanting to play with the rules, people just laughed at me. I don't know the rule set, and I don't know what is good about it, other then being told that GK do really good in it. So any tips on how to force people to play it would be good. Summer is here and I have no one to play against right now ;/
The only format GK do good in is narrative play. They are unanimously considered the worst army in the game here in the states. Are rules really that big of an issue for finding games where you are? I kinda just go with whatever anyone wants to play - even if it's not what I prefer.
Well people play matched play here. I have never seen someone play anything else, and I heard some jokes about narrative play that make me think that people would not be willing to try it. I am a new players, so what I want is not really considered much. People played against my army, mostly my friends, when I got the army, but after 2-3 games everyone just tells me they don't want to use up game time. We only have 2 tables, and it costs half a $ for hour of playing, unless you bought stuff this week, and it is not like we are the only people at the store, there are also 9th age players and those that play warmahordes.
1. Only troops hold objectives. Don't like it. It's a step in the wrong direction. Elite armies already suffer and you only compound this imbalance. More on this later.
that does seem problematic for armies with stuff like paladins.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 15:51:11
Subject: Re:How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
A consistent Tournament rules pack across the States is why ITC missions are great.
Secondaries like Reaper are why ITC missions suck.
I like the ITC primaries... i think they need to revamp the secondaries. The fix for reaper is simple, make it models per army instead of unit.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 15:53:15
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Xenomancers wrote:karandrasss wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Heafstaag wrote: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.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heafstaag wrote: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.
How am I being contradictory?
Holding territory is part of war true. Getting out of your fox hole to stand out in the open on a poker chip is not. It is fething dumb.
You seem to like the game vanilla enough yet at the same time blame it for being problematic with the imbalanced factions. Custom mission formats aim to fix this imbalance, yet you reject them. What gives?
It's not a poker chip, and it's only in the open if you choose it to be. It could be the remains of a fallen soldier, supplies, an information packet, a terminal you download data from hence having to hold it for more than a turn, etc.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 16:07:59
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Scenario design is a weird thing. You really need to decide how you want the game to play and where you want players to be when. I'm not sure 40k has ever fully committed to a game flow outside of the concepts of First Blood, Slay the Warlod, and Linebreaker.
I think the big flaw in the way the scenarios work is just the size of the objectives. It just doesn't feel like most units in the game can effectively move from one to another in a reasonably manner over the course of the game. When, without advancing, you consider that most obsec units essentially move 30" total over the course of the entire game on a board with an 86.5" diagonal, the idea of needing to be in a 6" circle with as many models as possible is pretty at odds with the flow of most games. Transports could probably help with this, but its never felt like transports are really about achieving objectives in most instances.
I think the scenario design is a big area of improvement, but given how binary melee combat tends to be, I'm not sure how to make position based scenarios work the way they do in something like Warmachine. I'm honestly kind of curious if something more along the lines of Batman or even Shadespire's objectives would be a better fit for the game. It really depends on how they want the game to flow.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 18:54:11
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter
|
Marmatag wrote:
Sisters are the definition of durable infantry. When you camp a couple squads on objectives they will be 2+ with cover. They are flatly better at holding objectives than most troops in the game. Especially when you view the objectives as in the back of the base. They're only getting hit with artillery or long range shots, which are going to be Strength 8+. Meaning T3 doesn't come into play.
But to your rules...
1. Only troops hold objectives. Don't like it. It's a step in the wrong direction. Elite armies already suffer and you only compound this imbalance. More on this later.
2. Every objective scores. This obviously rewards armies with cheap, spammable troops, or cheap durable troops. It is far better to get a point for controlling one objective, and cap it. Board presence is already a very strong way to win in ITC, and you only make this infinitely easier. I play a horde army, your rules would make the games very very simple for me. In some of these scenarios i could put my models on the table and just win by existing.
3. A mission where you've got 1 objective within range of every Leman Russ and tank in the freaking game, while built to gunline, and hey, you can shoot up the units that your opponent MUST keep in their deployment zone? "Oh, hello. I see you've got two troops squads planted in the back of your base to hold the mandatory two objectives. Good thing i have basilisk and manticores and i'm cadia, so i'll shoot them off turn 1. Then, i'll just outscore you by castling."
4. Where are the points for killing units? Where are the secondary objectives? In essence here is every game: Who can sit on objectives better. That's it.
It's not a good rule set. Have you played in an ITC tournament in the past year? It'd be a good experience for you to see how the current rules play. They're actually pretty solid.
Yeah, I've played a lot of games with the ITC rules. I haven't played a non ITC game since last year some time. I don't play in big tournaments, since I don't have the means, but I do play in local leagues and tournaments.
My primary complaint is that they give about 75% of the total points awarded for destruction of the enemy, and 25% for holding the objectives. Seriously, all your secondary points, and half of the primary points, are awarded for killing units. In addition, the secondaries aren't very secondary, they're worth as much points as the difference between scores in the primary missions [yeah, the primaries are worth a theoretical 30 points, but holding one and killing one are both effectively automatic points, and the bonus points is basically only accomplished once before the game is over, so there's really only 12 points on the table.]
Games should be determined by sitting on objectives better, and should not be determined by destruction of enemy units. Destruction of enemy units is how you make it possible to sit on objectives.
I don't think the ITC rules are bad. They're definitely better than maelstrom, and eternal war is basically "table to win", since points aren't awarded early enough. But I have a lot of complaints with them too. The secondaries are just flat awful. Awarding kill points is tolerable, but as I said it wouldn't be part of any ideal scoring sceme.
So, here's what happened in my test: IG with my standard ITC list set up, vs. Orks. Orks had some boyz, and some boyz in tanks, some flashgitz in a tank, and some gretchin in trucks, and went first. Rolled up with vehicle-boyz and flashgitz tank to the middle, and used Da Jump to get the other squad across the board and into my front rank, wiping it out, while the other shooty stuff exclusively targeted my infantry. I retaliated by wrecking his tanks, and taking out the guys in my face, and got charged by the guys who were in the tanks. I eventually flipped it around and cleared all his stuff out, since my list is supposed to do that and he had no AT resources, but I didn't have any scoring units remaining with which to win the game.
I realized a couple of things:
Reducing the scoring units to just obsec units wound up making it effective easier to "table" the enemy, since killing their troops ends the game. So I added the clause that a tabling awards 5 points for the final scoring, independent of how many troops you have remaining, so that it will still usually result in a victory, but if you build to table then you'll still be vulnerable to just having your scoring guys picked off and winding up down even after you wipe them out.
Tanks and transports that score become good, since it means that you have to go through two types of target to shoot them off. Since he didn't have any real AT, if I had a Spearhead of tanks, or a few less squads and a few more transports, he wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. I actually think this is a positive effect though, so I'm keeping the clause that loaded transports score.
+1 for each unit over made mechanized armies guaranteed to go first, so I reduced to to +1 for each 3 units over [round up], so it wasn't so guaranteed but still very likely. This probably needs more calibration.
If the objective is too far back, it's too much of a free point per turn that will only get taken if you're losing so badly it's not worth considering, and it will devolve into a melee in the center, especially if both objectives are very far back. However, I'm afraid that putting all the objectives forward will make fast melee armies unbeatable by leaving no ground to give, so I'm not sure what to do about that, and I think I'd need to try more games to make an actual judgement.
I don't want fast melee blitz to be the word of the day. It's the opposite of a fun game. But at the same time, I feel like there needs to be an odd number of points available every round, and that's going to force an objective to be dead center. So that means baking in the means for a slower army to turn the tide and come back and still win.
I think 5 is the optimal number of objectives. The game shouldn't be too swingy, but there needs to be ability to come back from a losing position. It's only the difference in scores that matters. Untakable objectives might as well not exist. Here's a consideration: an objective that nobody starts controlling is effectively worth 1 point per turn, but one that the enemy starts controlling, or should be assumed to be controlling, is worth 2, +1 for you and -1 for them. Taking back your own objective doesn't recoup the 2 points, they're still 2 points ahead, you're just not falling further behind. In order to make back those points, you need to hold the middle for 2 turns, or take one of their natural objectives, which means that, in this scenario fast units that can move fast consistently and fight well at close range are optimal.
I don't think that particular scenario is very good, in it both objectives are too far back to be "in play", especially since they're close. Ergo, the game is decided in the middle. The scenario I tested also falls into that category. I think scenario 6 might be better, or maybe scenario 2, if I get a chance to try them again.
I also don't think the scenarios need to facilitate all armies equally. If an army winds up being good at the set above all others, that needs to be addressed, but not all situations of an army being weak need to be addressed. Armies that are significant outliers in natural power [Grey Knights], can be assumed to just be too bad to cater to. Armies that are strange and not really standalone armies [Imperial Knights, Inquisition, Assassins, etc], can probably also be ignored, unless they break things. I have enough armies of different styles to test the scenarios by myself, but that's not productive since I'm also not capable of discovering my own holes though play, since I know how I intend them to play and work..
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/06/27 19:09:33
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! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 19:17:48
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran
McCragge
|
I really like ITC missions the best but sure they can always be improved. I pretty much don't play any maelstrom missions - way too random, perfect for those who want beer & pretzel games. I really like the eternal war missions that were released in CA -they are always fun to play.
|
Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!
Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."
"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."
DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 20:17:12
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Primark G wrote:I really like ITC missions the best but sure they can always be improved. I pretty much don't play any maelstrom missions - way too random, perfect for those who want beer & pretzel games. I really like the eternal war missions that were released in CA -they are always fun to play.
Personally, I hope going forward we can see GW start to push the CA scenarios as THE scenarios to run, even if that means reprinting some scenarios from CA2017 and the BRB that they still consider the current scenarios to focus on. Getting people to look forward to the new crop of scenarios seems like a better selling point for CA than the point adjustment push we got last year and cycling scenarios in and out keeps the game fresh even without models or actually new scenarios.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 21:15:51
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Yeah, I've played a lot of games with the ITC rules. I haven't played a non ITC game since last year some time. I don't play in big tournaments, since I don't have the means, but I do play in local leagues and tournaments. My primary complaint is that they give about 75% of the total points awarded for destruction of the enemy, and 25% for holding the objectives. Seriously, all your secondary points, and half of the primary points, are awarded for killing units. This is false. Half of your base primary points will be split even between objectives and kills. There are bonus points, and these are tied to objectives. So technically more points are for objectives than kills. Also, it's worth noting, that killing 1 unit and killing 100 units is worth the same points: 1 per turn base, 2 if you killed more. That's it. Overkilling isn't always smart (for instance, you won't get "last strike" if you overkill the easy stuff early on, -1 point). Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:In addition, the secondaries aren't very secondary, they're worth as much points as the difference between scores in the primary missions [yeah, the primaries are worth a theoretical 30 points, but holding one and killing one are both effectively automatic points, and the bonus points is basically only accomplished once before the game is over, so there's really only 12 points on the table.]
Holding and killing are not automatic points. 12 points from secondaries aren't automatic, either. Secondary objectives are worth a little less than half if you get a 4 turn game, and worth a little more than a third if you're getting to 6 turns, assuming you get all 12 points. Holding more is a nice way to get points. I play a board control army, and usually win because of objectives. Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Games should be determined by sitting on objectives better, and should not be determined by destruction of enemy units. Destruction of enemy units is how you make it possible to sit on objectives.
I disagree. This rewards huge armies that don't need to move. I would re-evaluate the ITC format. It has evolved quite a bit - it's very solid now. As a few of us have said, coming up with refined secondary objectives that aren't easily gamed (like reaper) would be a good place to start.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/27 21:16:23
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/27 21:58:25
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter
|
Marmatag wrote: Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Yeah, I've played a lot of games with the ITC rules. I haven't played a non ITC game since last year some time. I don't play in big tournaments, since I don't have the means, but I do play in local leagues and tournaments.
My primary complaint is that they give about 75% of the total points awarded for destruction of the enemy, and 25% for holding the objectives. Seriously, all your secondary points, and half of the primary points, are awarded for killing units.
This is false. Half of your base primary points will be split even between objectives and kills. There are bonus points, and these are tied to objectives. So technically more points are for objectives than kills. Also, it's worth noting, that killing 1 unit and killing 100 units is worth the same points: 1 per turn base, 2 if you killed more. That's it. Overkilling isn't always smart (for instance, you won't get "last strike" if you overkill the easy stuff early on, -1 point).
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:In addition, the secondaries aren't very secondary, they're worth as much points as the difference between scores in the primary missions [yeah, the primaries are worth a theoretical 30 points, but holding one and killing one are both effectively automatic points, and the bonus points is basically only accomplished once before the game is over, so there's really only 12 points on the table.]
Holding and killing are not automatic points. 12 points from secondaries aren't automatic, either. Secondary objectives are worth a little less than half if you get a 4 turn game, and worth a little more than a third if you're getting to 6 turns, assuming you get all 12 points. Holding more is a nice way to get points. I play a board control army, and usually win because of objectives.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Games should be determined by sitting on objectives better, and should not be determined by destruction of enemy units. Destruction of enemy units is how you make it possible to sit on objectives.
I disagree. This rewards huge armies that don't need to move.
I would re-evaluate the ITC format. It has evolved quite a bit - it's very solid now.
As a few of us have said, coming up with refined secondary objectives that aren't easily gamed (like reaper) would be a good place to start.
You only lose the point for "kill one" and "hold one" if you've basically lost the game. There are some situations where you don't get "kill one" against armies like knights, but for the most part you can easily plok something every turn if nothing else.
So those two points are natural points you should score every turn if you're still in the running to win. Kill more and hold more are tossups, they decide the balance of primary objectives.
Bonus points: Scenario 2: Hold the middle and the opponent's objective. Scenario 6: hold an objective the opponent chooses, and gets to move 6" to a secure place. etc. If you score the bonus point, you've effectively won the game already, soit's not game deciding either.
That's 6 turns, of which kill more and hold more are available to score. So that's 12 game-deciding points from the primaries, with 12 "free" points, and 6 points that basically exist so that when you're about to win, instead of going for the kill, you sit around for the last 2 turns leaving that one 2-wound razorback limping around in the corner. Unless your opponent only brought 6 units, there will usually be enough units on the board not to worry about having killed all of them, since you can just leave a crippled tank or two and kill it when it's convenient to keep your point income. This is actually something I'm kind of annoyed about, and consider poor form.
Then we get to the secondaries. They're designed explicitly to punish specific things that appear in specific armies, which is up there on the list of "things not to do in game design".
Reaper is a textbook case of a thing that should not be an objective. Gangbuster, Big Game, Headhunter, none of these should even be on the list.
You can say that "well, everyone has 4 characters since you need 4 for 2 brigades", but that doesn't really excuse it, just means it hurts everybody except for specific armies.
You can also say that "well, Guard is strong, for 4 objectives that target the guard, vs. none that trip the Grey Knights, is fair," but it's not and that's also not good design. You fix a problem like that in the Grey Knight codex, or with a house rule like " CP can only be spent by the faction that generated them" or "indirect fire requires a spotter".
Personally, I think Recon and Behind Enemy Lines are examples of better secondaries. But nobody takes those, because it's easier and faster to take Reaper, Big Game Hunter, etc. which you will naturally complete on your way to a victory, rather than the others, which you have to go out of your way to do. [Okay, hyperbole, I see recon taken, especially against armies designed to deny the other objectives, since it's easy]
In addition, not all are equally difficult. Killing 4 vehicles is generally a lot easier than killing 4 characters, barring some exceptional lists. Units of 10+ models are infinitely more available, and tend to be a lot easier to kill, than units consisting of models with 5+ wounds. It's obviously easier to stick your toe into each board quarter than push all the way to the opponent's board edge, and you can start scoring Recon on turn 1 but can't score Behind Enemy Lines until like turn 3, at best, which is also the last turn you have to make it there for full points.
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather play ITC than the rulebook missions, and think they're very good, but I think that it's possible to make better ones, and think they've made some questionable inclusions that just eliminating would improve them drastically.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/06/27 22:07:34
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! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/28 05:27:32
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Marmatag wrote:
Sisters are the definition of durable infantry. When you camp a couple squads on objectives they will be 2+ with cover. They are flatly better at holding objectives than most troops in the game. Especially when you view the objectives as in the back of the base. They're only getting hit with artillery or long range shots, which are going to be Strength 8+. Meaning T3 doesn't come into play.
But to your rules...
1. Only troops hold objectives. Don't like it. It's a step in the wrong direction. Elite armies already suffer and you only compound this imbalance. More on this later.
2. Every objective scores. This obviously rewards armies with cheap, spammable troops, or cheap durable troops. It is far better to get a point for controlling one objective, and cap it. Board presence is already a very strong way to win in ITC, and you only make this infinitely easier. I play a horde army, your rules would make the games very very simple for me. In some of these scenarios i could put my models on the table and just win by existing.
3. A mission where you've got 1 objective within range of every Leman Russ and tank in the freaking game, while built to gunline, and hey, you can shoot up the units that your opponent MUST keep in their deployment zone? "Oh, hello. I see you've got two troops squads planted in the back of your base to hold the mandatory two objectives. Good thing i have basilisk and manticores and i'm cadia, so i'll shoot them off turn 1. Then, i'll just outscore you by castling."
4. Where are the points for killing units? Where are the secondary objectives? In essence here is every game: Who can sit on objectives better. That's it.
It's not a good rule set. Have you played in an ITC tournament in the past year? It'd be a good experience for you to see how the current rules play. They're actually pretty solid.
Yeah, I've played a lot of games with the ITC rules. I haven't played a non ITC game since last year some time. I don't play in big tournaments, since I don't have the means, but I do play in local leagues and tournaments.
My primary complaint is that they give about 75% of the total points awarded for destruction of the enemy, and 25% for holding the objectives. Seriously, all your secondary points, and half of the primary points, are awarded for killing units. In addition, the secondaries aren't very secondary, they're worth as much points as the difference between scores in the primary missions [yeah, the primaries are worth a theoretical 30 points, but holding one and killing one are both effectively automatic points, and the bonus points is basically only accomplished once before the game is over, so there's really only 12 points on the table.]
Games should be determined by sitting on objectives better, and should not be determined by destruction of enemy units. Destruction of enemy units is how you make it possible to sit on objectives.
I don't think the ITC rules are bad. They're definitely better than maelstrom, and eternal war is basically "table to win", since points aren't awarded early enough. But I have a lot of complaints with them too. The secondaries are just flat awful. Awarding kill points is tolerable, but as I said it wouldn't be part of any ideal scoring sceme.
So, here's what happened in my test: IG with my standard ITC list set up, vs. Orks. Orks had some boyz, and some boyz in tanks, some flashgitz in a tank, and some gretchin in trucks, and went first. Rolled up with vehicle-boyz and flashgitz tank to the middle, and used Da Jump to get the other squad across the board and into my front rank, wiping it out, while the other shooty stuff exclusively targeted my infantry. I retaliated by wrecking his tanks, and taking out the guys in my face, and got charged by the guys who were in the tanks. I eventually flipped it around and cleared all his stuff out, since my list is supposed to do that and he had no AT resources, but I didn't have any scoring units remaining with which to win the game.
I realized a couple of things:
Reducing the scoring units to just obsec units wound up making it effective easier to "table" the enemy, since killing their troops ends the game. So I added the clause that a tabling awards 5 points for the final scoring, independent of how many troops you have remaining, so that it will still usually result in a victory, but if you build to table then you'll still be vulnerable to just having your scoring guys picked off and winding up down even after you wipe them out.
Tanks and transports that score become good, since it means that you have to go through two types of target to shoot them off. Since he didn't have any real AT, if I had a Spearhead of tanks, or a few less squads and a few more transports, he wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. I actually think this is a positive effect though, so I'm keeping the clause that loaded transports score.
+1 for each unit over made mechanized armies guaranteed to go first, so I reduced to to +1 for each 3 units over [round up], so it wasn't so guaranteed but still very likely. This probably needs more calibration.
If the objective is too far back, it's too much of a free point per turn that will only get taken if you're losing so badly it's not worth considering, and it will devolve into a melee in the center, especially if both objectives are very far back. However, I'm afraid that putting all the objectives forward will make fast melee armies unbeatable by leaving no ground to give, so I'm not sure what to do about that, and I think I'd need to try more games to make an actual judgement.
I don't want fast melee blitz to be the word of the day. It's the opposite of a fun game. But at the same time, I feel like there needs to be an odd number of points available every round, and that's going to force an objective to be dead center. So that means baking in the means for a slower army to turn the tide and come back and still win.
I think 5 is the optimal number of objectives. The game shouldn't be too swingy, but there needs to be ability to come back from a losing position. It's only the difference in scores that matters. Untakable objectives might as well not exist. Here's a consideration: an objective that nobody starts controlling is effectively worth 1 point per turn, but one that the enemy starts controlling, or should be assumed to be controlling, is worth 2, +1 for you and -1 for them. Taking back your own objective doesn't recoup the 2 points, they're still 2 points ahead, you're just not falling further behind. In order to make back those points, you need to hold the middle for 2 turns, or take one of their natural objectives, which means that, in this scenario fast units that can move fast consistently and fight well at close range are optimal.
I don't think that particular scenario is very good, in it both objectives are too far back to be "in play", especially since they're close. Ergo, the game is decided in the middle. The scenario I tested also falls into that category. I think scenario 6 might be better, or maybe scenario 2, if I get a chance to try them again.
I also don't think the scenarios need to facilitate all armies equally. If an army winds up being good at the set above all others, that needs to be addressed, but not all situations of an army being weak need to be addressed. Armies that are significant outliers in natural power [Grey Knights], can be assumed to just be too bad to cater to. Armies that are strange and not really standalone armies [Imperial Knights, Inquisition, Assassins, etc], can probably also be ignored, unless they break things. I have enough armies of different styles to test the scenarios by myself, but that's not productive since I'm also not capable of discovering my own holes though play, since I know how I intend them to play and work..
What do you say to the "sitting on objectives arbitrarily is dumb is pointless" camp?
My community also thinks ITC players are just bad if they can't win by tabling. Lol.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/28 05:30:49
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/28 12:15:10
Subject: Re:How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles
|
karandrasss wrote:Sunny Side Up wrote:karandrasss wrote: DominayTrix wrote:ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K ( IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
How is vanilla 40k more tactical? How is it less easy to plan for when your single objective in vanilla 40k is often to table the opponent? What adapting do you have to do in vanilla 40k other than stop and think where the end game objectives are in turns 4-5 if you think you're unable to table your opponent? How does ITC remove risk?
Vanilla 40k (I am assuming you are talking about both BRB and CA missions) have some random objectives that can force decisions that you don't expect. Tabling an opponent also is a completely different balance issue. It is too easy to table an opponent and that is creating the problems. The missions could be perfect in every way, but as long as you can table people by turn 3 more often than not it won't matter. Tabling needs to be a winner take all option, but it is currently too easy to do. ITC removes risk by making it so you can always just play the objectives and never worry about an all-in. You also don't have to worry about being able to table someone since you will always have the objectives YOU picked to achieve.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/28 12:19:34
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
a) no tabling does not need to be winner take all and that would be actually unrealistic
b) it's not tactical to have to pray for good objectives when there's nothing you can really do to deal with it
|
2024 painted/bought: 109/109 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/28 13:32:25
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
tneva82 wrote:a) no tabling does not need to be winner take all and that would be actually unrealistic
b) it's not tactical to have to pray for good objectives when there's nothing you can really do to deal with it
Why unrealistic? Is not the objective of war to eliminate the enemy force? Automatically Appended Next Post: DominayTrix wrote:karandrasss wrote:Sunny Side Up wrote:karandrasss wrote: DominayTrix wrote:ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K ( IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
How is vanilla 40k more tactical? How is it less easy to plan for when your single objective in vanilla 40k is often to table the opponent? What adapting do you have to do in vanilla 40k other than stop and think where the end game objectives are in turns 4-5 if you think you're unable to table your opponent? How does ITC remove risk?
Vanilla 40k (I am assuming you are talking about both BRB and CA missions) have some random objectives that can force decisions that you don't expect. Tabling an opponent also is a completely different balance issue. It is too easy to table an opponent and that is creating the problems. The missions could be perfect in every way, but as long as you can table people by turn 3 more often than not it won't matter. Tabling needs to be a winner take all option, but it is currently too easy to do. ITC removes risk by making it so you can always just play the objectives and never worry about an all-in. You also don't have to worry about being able to table someone since you will always have the objectives YOU picked to achieve.
What's stopping a list that tables everyone from winning a tournament?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/28 13:34:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/28 14:43:51
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles
|
karandrasss wrote:tneva82 wrote:a) no tabling does not need to be winner take all and that would be actually unrealistic
b) it's not tactical to have to pray for good objectives when there's nothing you can really do to deal with it
Why unrealistic? Is not the objective of war to eliminate the enemy force?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DominayTrix wrote:karandrasss wrote:Sunny Side Up wrote:karandrasss wrote: DominayTrix wrote:ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K ( IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
How is vanilla 40k more tactical? How is it less easy to plan for when your single objective in vanilla 40k is often to table the opponent? What adapting do you have to do in vanilla 40k other than stop and think where the end game objectives are in turns 4-5 if you think you're unable to table your opponent? How does ITC remove risk?
Vanilla 40k (I am assuming you are talking about both BRB and CA missions) have some random objectives that can force decisions that you don't expect. Tabling an opponent also is a completely different balance issue. It is too easy to table an opponent and that is creating the problems. The missions could be perfect in every way, but as long as you can table people by turn 3 more often than not it won't matter. Tabling needs to be a winner take all option, but it is currently too easy to do. ITC removes risk by making it so you can always just play the objectives and never worry about an all-in. You also don't have to worry about being able to table someone since you will always have the objectives YOU picked to achieve.
What's stopping a list that tables everyone from winning a tournament?
Responding to the first half: I agree that killing your opponents soldiers to a man should count as a victory. The problem is that right now it is too easy to achieve and the average speed at which it is achieved makes it so it is less of a commitment. Random objectives vs chosen objectives is a whole different debate from tabling. I find things that are done strictly to deny your opponents secondaries to be too gamey. The problem is secondary denial turns into a requirement as more and more people do it. Allowing your opponents free/easier points isn't very viable if you are the only doing it. Now to answer your question on why tabling is less likely to win a tournament falls under the "Game Length, Tabling, and Concession Scoring" section. Basically once a player is tabled, the game is over and the score is finalized with the person who tabled their opponent getting 4 pts per battle round in primary mission points and any remaining secondary objective points. It also adds in some various caveats for why a victor may be denied some of the bonus points with the most common being not enough scoring units. Winning tournaments is more about getting the most points possible for the leaderboard rather than simply beating your opponents. So yes you could win an entire tournament by tabling people, but you are more likely to have a lower overall average points. This says nothing about how terrible it feels getting the game dragged out so your opponent can farm you better for points. No, you cannot concede since you will be scored 0. All of this taken with a grain of salt because some CA and BRB missions are really bad. Recon, Cloak and Shadows, and Roving Patrol all come to mind.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/28 15:46:36
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
tneva82 wrote:a) no tabling does not need to be winner take all and that would be actually unrealistic
b) it's not tactical to have to pray for good objectives when there's nothing you can really do to deal with it
Complete annihilation of your opponent should not only be a winner take all option. It should award bonus points.
Imagine the battle of midway. How crucial it was that the US Navy destroyed all carriers in the Japanese fleet attacking midway. Japan at that point was unable to continue their assault on the island and had to sail home with the rest of their fleet. In the first day of the battle there was a point at which that Japanese had lost 2 carriers and the US had lost 1 and another was crippled beyond use. They made a choice to hunt the other 2 Japanese carriers the next day and destroyed them - instead of running away outnumbered. It was the right decision. It stopped the Japanese from being able to continue their attack.
I view this decision as an analog for choosing to play objectives or tabling.
Technically the US had already won the battle - they sunk 2 carriers and lost only 1 (the would repair the other) but that was not enough - total annihilation is what was required to win that war.
An objective set should always have tabling as an option and it should be the ultimate form of victory - you should have options though. You should be able to win through strategic victory conditions too. Really though - strategic victory is almost determined by damage done to the enemy and who is forced to retreat - in war there are almost never situations where you get any value out of holding a position for a few seconds (which is what a game turn equates to).
Also I am not a fan of static objectives for another reason. I want to maneuver my army - I don't want the board to maneuver my army - that is what objectives do. Objectives actually make the game less for for me.
|
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 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/28 16:30:35
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.
Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.
I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"
Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."
I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/28 16:40:21
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Marmatag wrote:Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.
Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.
I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"
Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."
I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."
Why would 2.5 hours not be enough to table? If anything, games are faster when you're just trying to kill each other rather than carefully measuring whether you have units in all table quarters, near objectives etc., no?
What do you usually play and what "tabling lists" have you crushed?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/28 16:40:33
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
|
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 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/28 16:44:34
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
DominayTrix wrote:karandrasss wrote:tneva82 wrote:a) no tabling does not need to be winner take all and that would be actually unrealistic
b) it's not tactical to have to pray for good objectives when there's nothing you can really do to deal with it
Why unrealistic? Is not the objective of war to eliminate the enemy force?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DominayTrix wrote:karandrasss wrote:Sunny Side Up wrote:karandrasss wrote: DominayTrix wrote:ITC rules haven't made my games better for the most part they have made them different at best. The secondaries are just as bad as some of the bad missions in the BRB or CA. Secondaries warp lists and can outright make or break armies. It is easier to stomach bad luck rolling objectives than losing to custom rules favoring one army over another. The terrain rules are largely better if you are using terrain that wasn't made for 8th, but has drawbacks of its own. It can result in clunky situations where a unit is 2 inches away from an enemy and cannot shoot through an open doorway on the first floor. The opponent can then charge through that doorway without any overwatch and only requiring 2 inches.
Would you say ITC is more list-dependent than BRB or CA?
ITC is easier to plan for, and less 'tactical' as in you need to adapt for things on the fly.
A lot of GW games are risk-management game, where a lot can potentially ride on a single die roll, and you have to anticipate/plan for the possiblity (not just 40K, also Blood Bowl, etc...)
ITC purposefully takes a lot of this out of the equation, making the game easier to mathhammer, significantly buffing board-control/hoard armies and reducing the variability that makes vanilla 40K ( IMO) a far more tactial but also potentially more frustrating and less newbie-friendly game.
How is vanilla 40k more tactical? How is it less easy to plan for when your single objective in vanilla 40k is often to table the opponent? What adapting do you have to do in vanilla 40k other than stop and think where the end game objectives are in turns 4-5 if you think you're unable to table your opponent? How does ITC remove risk?
Vanilla 40k (I am assuming you are talking about both BRB and CA missions) have some random objectives that can force decisions that you don't expect. Tabling an opponent also is a completely different balance issue. It is too easy to table an opponent and that is creating the problems. The missions could be perfect in every way, but as long as you can table people by turn 3 more often than not it won't matter. Tabling needs to be a winner take all option, but it is currently too easy to do. ITC removes risk by making it so you can always just play the objectives and never worry about an all-in. You also don't have to worry about being able to table someone since you will always have the objectives YOU picked to achieve.
What's stopping a list that tables everyone from winning a tournament?
the person who tabled their opponent getting 4 pts per battle round in primary mission points and any remaining secondary objective points.
Why is this bad? Isn't this nearly a perfect score (you only miss on the bonus objectives)? Automatically Appended Next Post: Xenomancers wrote:Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.
You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.
See, I'm trying to bring over more tactical/balanced mission formats to my meta, but it's hard to convince people that it won't all end in tabling anyway. 2.5 hours is a lot of time if you're not doing any bookkeeping and figuring out how you go about your objectives. Time is not a problem in my meta, the use of BRB or wonky variations is.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/28 16:47:45
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/06/28 17:00:06
Subject: How much do ITC/ETC formats improve your gaming experience?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
karandrasss wrote: Marmatag wrote:Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.
Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.
I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"
Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."
I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."
Why would 2.5 hours not be enough to table? If anything, games are faster when you're just trying to kill each other rather than carefully measuring whether you have units in all table quarters, near objectives etc., no?
What do you usually play and what "tabling lists" have you crushed?
Logistically tabling someone in 2.5 hours - which includes all mission prep & setup time - is not easy. Don't confuse "essentially tabled" with "actually tabled." You can have someone clearly beaten within 2.5 hours no problem, but actually killing *every* model isn't easy.
My gaming resume doesn't really matter, but if you'd like to see it shoot me a PM.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
|
|