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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Heres how it works bud. I move up my whole army and take about 200 shots at whatever you have in front of me. In other words - not much that is within range to charge me next turn will exist any longer. Your keeper can come. Honestly hell be lucky to survive the overwatch without a save.

And now we're moving beyond the mission. If I'm outside of 12" of the objective and you shot me to death even with my invulns, then the mission doesn't particularly matter, does it? Your entire criticism falls flat.

As for surviving overwatch, we can do the math. 10 intercessors hitting on 6s with auto bolt rifles is 7 hits. For generosity, let's say all of them wound (on 5s), I have no save, suffer 7 wounds, and then eviscerate your squad.

These boys also give you some love when they die too. Whats she got? 8 wounds?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Heres how it works bud. I move up my whole army and take about 200 shots at whatever you have in front of me. In other words - not much that is within range to charge me next turn will exist any longer. Your keeper can come. Honestly hell be lucky to survive the overwatch without a save.

And now we're moving beyond the mission. If I'm outside of 12" of the objective and you shot me to death even with my invulns, then the mission doesn't particularly matter, does it? Your entire criticism falls flat.

As for surviving overwatch, we can do the math. 10 intercessors hitting on 6s with auto bolt rifles is 7 hits. For generosity, let's say all of them wound (on 5s), I have no save, suffer 7 wounds, and then eviscerate your squad.

These boys also give you some love when they die too. Whats she got? 8 wounds?

12, at Toughness 7.

The idea here is the objective gives me a massive bonus. You lose all saves and I still retain a 3+. It's to the point I will start to win and melle...and you have practically no shooting.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The idea here is the objective gives me a massive bonus. You lose all saves and I still retain a 3+. It's to the point I will start to win and melle...and you have practically no shooting.

I get the point of what you are saying, but I am saying I would still give the mission a go.

Basically, what we are doing here in a text medium is playing the mission against each-other, clunkily and without nuance, but speculatively playing nonetheless (right down to your Intercessor squad getting a lucky 7 wounds! Good roll, Xeno!). I haven't heard anything that really dissuades me from trying the mission out, and I definitely don't automatically rule my army out of being able to compete as long as I have a sound plan.

I recognize that I am disadvantaged by the mission, and that's fun, because now I have a chance to plan around that, just like we are doing here. The fact that you assert the mission is skewed against me isn't going to make me not want to play it, because I already know that it's skewed against me.

If I win three turns in the middle, I've got an excellent chance of winning or drawing the mission. Go ahead and table me, but it probably won't matter unless it goes to turn 7.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Heres how it works bud. I move up my whole army and take about 200 shots at whatever you have in front of me. In other words - not much that is within range to charge me next turn will exist any longer. Your keeper can come. Honestly hell be lucky to survive the overwatch without a save.

If you're playing Imperial, you aren't winning anything in ITC anyway, so what's it matter?

Imperial Guard dominate in ITC.

Space Marines aren't winning in ITC, but that has little if anything to do with the ITC mission structure, and EVERYTHING to do with them being fundamentally overcosted and poorly designed.

Yeah obviosuly I'm not bringing Ultramarines to an ITC event. My argument that was these CA missions aren't fair to a lot of armies. I don't need to play them out. I can read.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah obviosuly I'm not bringing Ultramarines to an ITC event. My argument that was these CA missions aren't fair to a lot of armies. I don't need to play them out. I can read.

But the fact they "aren't fair to a lot of armies" seems to be by design. That's part of the balance against those armies, and it's something ITC does not have which is why we see the same armies dominating ITC events.

Wayniac wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah obviosuly I'm not bringing Ultramarines to an ITC event. My argument that was these CA missions aren't fair to a lot of armies. I don't need to play them out. I can read.

But the fact they "aren't fair to a lot of armies" seems to be by design. That's part of the balance against those armies, and it's something ITC does not have which is why we see the same armies dominating ITC events.

This is a bad post.

ITC is dominated by undercosted & overpowered models like any format. Ynnari and Imperial Guard are still amazing, regardless of format. A Castellan is still amazing regardless of format.

You are starting from the assumption that ITC is imbalanced because certain armies are winning. There is 0 evidence that those armies would suddenly cease to be viable in a different mission pack.

There is no evidence further to suggest that IG + Castellan or Ynnari wouldn't absolutely dominate in CA missions. Because those armies are incredibly lethal and durable.

I've won games in ITC with my Tyranids that i would not win in any GW format, because I was able to control the map and win on objectives. This doesn't simply work in GW missions because they're wonky and stupid. Genestealers without a 5++? I lose, automagically, without even needing to play the game.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah obviosuly I'm not bringing Ultramarines to an ITC event. My argument that was these CA missions aren't fair to a lot of armies. I don't need to play them out. I can read.

ITC is fair to "a lot of armies" then, is it? It is not. It promotes troop heavy lists (e.g. Plaguebearer spam, Guard Spam, etc) or Soups designed to table your opponent and then stand on objectives in the theory crafted turn 4/5.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah obviosuly I'm not bringing Ultramarines to an ITC event. My argument that was these CA missions aren't fair to a lot of armies. I don't need to play them out. I can read.

ITC is fair to "a lot of armies" then, is it? It is not. It promotes troop heavy lists (e.g. Plaguebearer spam, Guard Spam, etc) or Soups designed to table your opponent and then stand on objectives in the theory crafted turn 4/5.

You're conflating fundamental game imbalance with ITC imbalance. Marines aren't viable regardless of format.

And your understanding of ITC seems pretty terrible. Standing on objectives is a thing in EVERY format. Do you really think a giant blob of plaguebearers would suddenly be less effective standing on an objective if it was in a GW mission, instead of an ITC mission? News flash, it's the same thing my dude.

One big difference between ITC and GW is the way scoring rewards and punishes hordes. In ITC, reaper, butchers bill, both give you a trade-off in horde scoring versus opponent scoring - yes you can plop your 100 guardsmen on the objectives, but i'll get 8 points out of killing them. Whereas in GW there is literally 0 downside to flooding the table with models, because there is no counter-scoring based on that skew list.

So, to clear some things up for people.

Tabling does not equal an "auto-win" but, if you table your opponent you're highly likely to win anyway. Similar to ITC, you continue to score points in the turns after the tabling. If you table me on turn 3, the only way you're going to lose the mission is if you don't have enough units left to claim the objectives to overcome any lead i might have. Just like ITC, you need to plan to have those units alive to claim the secondaries.

The "Null Field" mission. You can still claim the objective AND keep your invuln save turns 1 and 2 due to the range of the objective being 18" and 15" respectively for those turns and the no invuln range being fixed at 12". Armies like Quinns will need to do what they currently do anyway - and that is do as much damage to your opponent as quickly as possible in order to have a chance at winning. First turn charge armies also have a strong starting point for this mission, as they can charge the "horde screening units" and tie them up preventing them from getting into objective range (depending on deployment) for a turn or 2. Sure, elite armies are going to struggle with this mission more than horde armies are going to, but, it doesn't mean they can't win. Most horde armies suffer extreme casualties in the first half of the game, where they try to trade their numbers for your numbers. if they fail, then the elite armies tend to have an advantage, especially if they are mobile. GK Interceptor spam for example is a great example where they can move up turn 1, remove a lot of the horde models and stay within the objective range and keep their invuln. Sure, GKs might need to soup it up, but, just having 30 Interceptors and 3-5 units of Marine scouts + whatever else you have in range after removing your opponents 3-4 screening units of guardsmen gives you a great starting point. Going 2nd will also be key here, as all you have to do is get 1 extra model in range for the point. If you score the points turns 1-4, then as long as you pick up first strike, you are forcing your opponent to have to table you to deny you WL and/or Linebreaker in order to win.

As for ITC vs these missions. ITC primary missions are more forgiving imo. You hold 1 objective and kill 1 unit then you are guaranteed 2 points. All it does is direct your focus onto killing as much as possible, in order to score the bonus points. It doesn't really reward good play or penalise bad play. It's all about game mathematics. The secondary missions are nice, but, lets face it, if you go into an ITC mission with a list where you haven't already picked 3 or 4 secondaries that you are going to max out every game, then, i'd be surprised. There is very little variance between the secondaries you pick in game 1 and the secondaries you pick in game 6. All you are doing is building your army to max out those mission points. You have to do the same for these new missions, the only difference is you actually have to fight your opponent for the points in the new missions, as opposed to farming 22 odd points plus whatever bonuses points you pick up here and there.
As for GW missions being less competitive. I played at the Vigilus weekender AND Heat 3 this weekend just gone. Some of the games i had were just as competitive, if not more so, than some of the ITC games i've played. Not only that, a good chunk of them were actually close games. Also, the lists people use and take were extremely varied and extremely competitive for the event. A lot of people said they were surprised at the sheer level of power at this event, compared to the first 2 heats. These missions can be just as competitive as ITC games, more so in some cases, just as they can be just as unbalanced as ITC games can be. A skilled Ynnari army will still perform just as well in either style of mission, just as a pure Primaris force will probably (prior to this CA and Vigilus) suck just as much in each style. There was 120 players at heat 3 with all kinds of lists that would get instantly dismissed as "trash" here on dakka, that were winning games vs "OP" armies due to the missions. For example, my game 2 was vs Custodes and 11 Assassins. The mission was Ascension. I got hammered on points as i just couldn't kill his units fast enough. That list also beat a BobbyG buffed list + Guard round 1 on an objective hold mission. Sure, it suffered in some of the other missions we played, but these missions really do give "trash" lists opportunities.

As for Guard having the "advantage", well, it just depends. Bring enough guns to kill me 120 Guardsmen or 120 Cultists, or bring enough firepower to deal with a Knight. Make sure your list can deal with 120 Boyz whilst surviving 10 Smasha Guns etc.

As for the idea of us getting a load of horde v horde games, well, i guess it's just another nod toward chess clocks.

No one seriously thinks Bobby G + Guard is OP. You don't see Roboute on tables anymore, really.

And assassins do very well against Guard heavy lists that don't bring an Imperial Knight. None of this is news to people playing ITC.

What ITC does, that the European meta doesn't really get, is that you have to move to win. You can't castle and win in ITC, by nature of the missions. Of course an English guy finds these refreshing because they force movement and discourage gunline, something you have probably never seen.

Fun fact: Most ITC games with good players & lists are very close. Sometimes you'll see a blowout but again, that's not because of the format, it's because someone is getting tabled on turn 3. Literally NO MISSION MATTERS when you're getting tabled, or essentially tabled, that early.

 Marmatag wrote:

Spoiler:

Wayniac wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah obviosuly I'm not bringing Ultramarines to an ITC event. My argument that was these CA missions aren't fair to a lot of armies. I don't need to play them out. I can read.

But the fact they "aren't fair to a lot of armies" seems to be by design. That's part of the balance against those armies, and it's something ITC does not have which is why we see the same armies dominating ITC events.

This is a bad post.

ITC is dominated by undercosted & overpowered models like any format. Ynnari and Imperial Guard are still amazing, regardless of format. A Castellan is still amazing regardless of format.

You are starting from the assumption that ITC is imbalanced because certain armies are winning. There is 0 evidence that those armies would suddenly cease to be viable in a different mission pack.

There is no evidence further to suggest that IG + Castellan or Ynnari wouldn't absolutely dominate in CA missions. Because those armies are incredibly lethal and durable.

I've won games in ITC with my Tyranids that i would not win in any GW format, because I was able to control the map and win on objectives. This doesn't simply work in GW missions because they're wonky and stupid. Genestealers without a 5++? I lose, automagically, without even needing to play the game.

I agree that certain units/armies will do well, regardless of whether it is in a GW mission or an ITC mission. As you say, armies are currently unbalanced (though how much so after we see how CA changes things will be interesting to see).

Genuine question now though.

How often are your Genestealers (or their targets) alive after round 2?

Pretty often.

It takes considerable dakka to drop a 20 model, 5++/5+++/-1 to hit unit that is morale immune. And, I bring 2 of these such units.

They're also fast and can hide behind walls & inside buildings. You have to play aggressively but also defensively. Paying 3CP to fight again, to pile around another unit so it cannot fall back (even one model is enough) protects the squad.

I usually lose all of them by turn 4. But by then they've done their job. And of course, if you're killing Genestealers you're not killing the rest of the list.

The biggest difference between ITC and GW missions and tournaments is the volume and variance in the terrain. Some ITC tables will have fully closed in, or nearly closed in, buildings. These hide infantry incredibly well. Meanwhile tournaments in London have gakky foam walls, and line of sight is as easy as 1-2-3. (Another reason why European meta favors gunlines. There's no reason not to bring guns when you always have line of sight).

 Marmatag wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah obviosuly I'm not bringing Ultramarines to an ITC event. My argument that was these CA missions aren't fair to a lot of armies. I don't need to play them out. I can read.

ITC is fair to "a lot of armies" then, is it? It is not. It promotes troop heavy lists (e.g. Plaguebearer spam, Guard Spam, etc) or Soups designed to table your opponent and then stand on objectives in the theory crafted turn 4/5.

You're conflating fundamental game imbalance with ITC imbalance. Marines aren't viable regardless of format.

And your understanding of ITC seems pretty terrible. Standing on objectives is a thing in EVERY format. Do you really think a giant blob of plaguebearers would suddenly be less effective standing on an objective if it was in a GW mission, instead of an ITC mission? News flash, it's the same thing my dude.

One big difference between ITC and GW is the way scoring rewards and punishes hordes. In ITC, reaper, butchers bill, both give you a trade-off in horde scoring versus opponent scoring - yes you can plop your 100 guardsmen on the objectives, but i'll get 8 points out of killing them. Whereas in GW there is literally 0 downside to flooding the table with models, because there is no counter-scoring based on that skew list.

This is all based on Xeno saying the GW missions are garbage and ITC does it better. It doesn't. A blob of plaguebearers standing on the null zone objective is absolutely less effective. That's the point of the mission variance. GW is trying to make well rounded lists a thing, where as ITC is set up to reward a specific list type. ITC is the EXACT same mission every time with different deployment zones and scattered objectives. The secondary objectives can change, but they likely won't. You'll be going for the same two or three secondaries every time.

 Marmatag wrote:
No one seriously thinks Bobby G + Guard is OP. You don't see Roboute on tables anymore, really.

And assassins do very well against Guard heavy lists that don't bring an Imperial Knight. None of this is news to people playing ITC.

What ITC does, that the European meta doesn't really get, is that you have to move to win. You can't castle and win in ITC, by nature of the missions. Of course an English guy finds these refreshing because they force movement and discourage gunline, something you have probably never seen.

These new missions require movement though, and, i'd also argue to a point, that gunlines have it easier in ITC than they will in these CA missions. One of the biggest things that hasn't been mentioned for a lot of these missions, is that they have fixed objective placements like the ITC missions do. This means you can't just pick the deployment zone that already somehow has 4 objectives placed within it, which can sometimes happen with the current missions. Also, most of the games i play are ITC or ETC missions, with ETC requiring the movement as well due to maelstrom being so swingy. I very rarely play the old BRB or CA17 missions.

A fair amount of ITC lists have some form of a "gunline" or "castle" in them, especially Imperial armies. 9 mortars and 2 basilisks is an example. T'au do it as well in ITC. A Castellen surrounded by 80 Guardsmen still has aspects of a "castle" in it, in that the Castellan isn't really getting into combat or moving excessively around the table. That style can still apply in these CA missions, as it covers the firepower and the manoeuvrability requirements of a strong force.

That's just not true.

The mission and bonus matter. Sometimes objective secured doesn't matter, sometimes characters hold objectives, etc.

And the terrain absolutely dictates what secondaries you might pick.

Stop being obtuse. You guys are assuming the secondaries are always the same. Hint. They're not. They vary based on whom you're playing and also what the map looks like. If I can hide inside buildings and win i'll do it, and take defensive secondaries.

Some of the best ITC guard lists are catachan and have melee guardsmen + bullgryns. Getting upfield is required to win. You need to hold more and you need the bonus. Hellhounds are close range models, too. IG is also a bad example because it is the no-skill faction with everything. They win, place or show in every format consistently.

There actually IS evidence that different missions have different results. GW's own Grand Tournaments, which currently used CA 2017 missions I believe, have VERY different armies performing well compared to the ITC missions. Therefore, the conclusion is the ITC missions is what favors the current armies we see doing well in ITC events. I actually remember a discussion here about it because you saw different armies and lists performing well compared to ITC. In fact I recall seeing a few dismissive comments saying that ITC events were more official than a GW GT at Warhammer World and more representative of the game.

Wayniac wrote:
There actually IS evidence that different missions have different results. GW's own Grand Tournaments, which currently used CA 2017 missions I believe, have VERY different armies performing well compared to the ITC missions. Therefore, the conclusion is the ITC missions is what favors the current armies we see doing well in ITC events.

You believe? how about you share some evidence you have confidence in. Are you talking about the tournament won by the slow playing ork player?

 Marmatag wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
There actually IS evidence that different missions have different results. GW's own Grand Tournaments, which currently used CA 2017 missions I believe, have VERY different armies performing well compared to the ITC missions. Therefore, the conclusion is the ITC missions is what favors the current armies we see doing well in ITC events.

You believe? how about you share some evidence you have confidence in. Are you talking about the tournament won by the slow playing ork player?

I do not remember which tournament. I just know there were official GTs that had different results than ITC, and yet people still seemed to think ITC was the "real" tournaments.

 Marmatag wrote:
Pretty often.

It takes considerable dakka to drop a 20 model, 5++/5+++/-1 to hit unit that is morale immune. And, I bring 2 of these such units.

They're also fast and can hide behind walls & inside buildings. You have to play aggressively but also defensively. Paying 3CP to fight again, to pile around another unit so it cannot fall back (even one model is enough) protects the squad.

I usually lose all of them by turn 4. But by then they've done their job. And of course, if you're killing Genestealers you're not killing the rest of the list.

The biggest difference between ITC and GW missions and tournaments is the volume and variance in the terrain. Some ITC tables will have fully closed in, or nearly closed in, buildings. These hide infantry incredibly well. Meanwhile tournaments in London have gakky foam walls, and line of sight is as easy as 1-2-3. (Another reason why European meta favors gunlines. There's no reason not to bring guns when you always have line of sight).

Bolded the important bit, but i agree with the whole post.

The thing i don't think you're fully envisioning right now though, is that those Genestealers can still survive til turn 4 in the "Null Field" mission. All it requires is that you''re outside of 12" of the centre of the table. With their speed and pile ins etc, you can make sure this happens, and, as you said, if you're targetting the genestealers cos they are in your face and preventing you from moving up the table, then, you aren't killing the rest of the army that is happily camping within 15" of the objective.

I agree 100% on terrain. 100%. However, this ISN'T a product of GW mission vs ITC mission. It is simply a GW EVENT thing. If you play these new missions on an "ITC Standard" table, then surely they are just as balanced as playing an ITC game on the same table. Also, i don't particularly like the whole enclosed building thing some ITC events have. The rules need to be fleshed out more imo, but, that could be said for all forms of terrain in the game atm.

Just because the London GT and most previous GW ran events have had terrain, doesn't mean that every event in the UK and/or Europe is the same.

The terrain does matter for the context of this discussion, because big ITC tournaments have incredibly different terrain. I would argue that terrain shapes lists more than secondaries. The argument is that the ITC mission pack shapes results. I would disagree. You can't bring a list with 7 eldar flyers and win an ITC event because you WILL encounter maps that have buildings. Same thing with 4 Imperial Knights or 3 Knights + Guard. You'll go 4-2. Which means your list isn't getting discussed.

Genestealers need to be in cover or in buildings. If the only place to hide is near the null-zone, it's GG. Again this depends on terrain, though. If the objective is placed in the center and you can't draw line of sight to it from any side, of course the game will fundamentally change. Maybe the genestealers will survive.

I've said it earlier and i should repeat it: I will give these new missions and honest chance. Hopefully the ITC will take what works from them.

 Marmatag wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
There actually IS evidence that different missions have different results. GW's own Grand Tournaments, which currently used CA 2017 missions I believe, have VERY different armies performing well compared to the ITC missions. Therefore, the conclusion is the ITC missions is what favors the current armies we see doing well in ITC events.

You believe? how about you share some evidence you have confidence in. Are you talking about the tournament won by the slow playing ork player?

Top 37 "factions" at Heat 3.



Bear in mind this was 1750 points and the only highlighted players "deliberately" slow playing didn't feature in the top 20.

Also, remember when talking about terrain, ITC have their own house rules which are not part of the base game (i.e. that the bottom level of ruins blocks LOS). So already ITC is deviating from the game as written even before you get to the missions, and that deviation (while I actually think it's better) already skews results because it does not exist in non-ITC events.

If you don't see the problems with the scores reflected on that page i don't know what to tell you.

Scoring based on how fun the army was to play, and how it looks, is going to dramatically alter what wins the tournament. How can you have a credible stance in regards to game balance when the outcome is based on how well you bat your eyes and how much time you spent painting your duders?

 Marmatag wrote:
The terrain does matter for the context of this discussion, because big ITC tournaments have incredibly different terrain. I would argue that terrain shapes lists more than secondaries. The argument is that the ITC mission pack shapes results. I would disagree. You can't bring a list with 7 eldar flyers and win an ITC event because you WILL encounter maps that have buildings. Same thing with 4 Imperial Knights or 3 Knights + Guard. You'll go 4-2. Which means your list isn't getting discussed.

Genestealers need to be in cover or in buildings. If the only place to hide is near the null-zone, it's GG. Again this depends on terrain, though. If the objective is placed in the center and you can't draw line of sight to it from any side, of course the game will fundamentally change. Maybe the genestealers will survive.

But, if you played Null Field on an ITC table, then, you have all those places to hide like you currently do.

Likewise, if you played an ITC game on a GW table, then you're genestealers will still be GG because they can't hide in a 2 storey, fully enclosed, no windowed building.

Terrain shapes your list in ITC, i agree, but so does the missions and secondaries. In my ITC lists, especially with Knights, i love running the Ironstorm pods simply because they ignore LoS and are a flat 2 damage. Goodbye mortar squads etc.Sure, they are less effective at a GW RAN EVENT, but, we aren't talking about these missions just being ran by GW. If the ITC ran these missions with the same standard of terrain as detailed in their mission packs and "advice packs" then their worth goes back up again. Terrain matters, yes, but, terrain should matter regardless of whether an event is ITC or not. The fact that it doesn't currently isn't a reflection on the missions being played, but rather the tables and event organisers setting up those tables.

 Marmatag wrote:
Imperial Guard dominate in ITC.

Space Marines aren't winning in ITC, but that has little if anything to do with the ITC mission structure, and EVERYTHING to do with them being fundamentally overcosted and poorly designed.

I think you forgot that Eldar exist. Yeah Guard/KNight lists are getting the most 1st place finishes, but overall Eldar have a far more consistent high level of performance.

 Marmatag wrote:
If you don't see the problems with the scores reflected on that page i don't know what to tell you.

Obviously the whole "favourite game/player" bits are worthless, i agree, but ignore them and look at the rest of the scores. Gaming and secondaries (secondaries being first blood, warlord and linebreaker), along with the additional tiebreaker of points destroyed.

If i'm honest, there isn't much difference between them as a lot of ITC events. Aeldari have strong showins, Orks are doing well, Chaos probably dropped a little as with Imperium lists.

Martel732 wrote:
ITC tries to remove randomness from what I can tell.

In practice it removes variety. They are all essentially one mission, the differences between them are pretty cosmetic from a list building point of view.

I tried it for one tournament and found it really dull after a while. I realise that is a matter of taste and obviously there are a lot of players who want to play essentially the same mission all weekend, just not me.