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.
They just lack the randomness to actually test a players tactical skills on the table. Since it's always "hold something/more, kill something/more", armies can be much more easily played by rote without any thought given to tactical adaptation or strategic nuances.
They are great at simplifying the game, I guess, accounting for the greater number of players and success of large events in the US, but they just aren't even remotely as cerebral as GW missions where you cannot predict the win conditions as easily and as predictably and actually need some skills to adapt to sometimes very different win condition that challenge players to change the way they play their army from game to game.
They just lack the randomness to actually test a players tactical skills on the table. Since it's always "hold something/more, kill something/more", armies can be much more easily played by rote without any thought given to tactical adaptation or strategic nuances.
They are great at simplifying the game, I guess, accounting for the greater number of players and success of large events in the US, but they just aren't even remotely as cerebral as GW missions where you cannot predict the win conditions as easily and as predictably and actually need some skills to adapt to sometimes very different win condition that challenge players to change the way they play their army from game to game.
I wouldn't call ITC missions a joke, they are just a different take on the game.
They just lack the randomness to actually test a players tactical skills on the table. Since it's always "hold something/more, kill something/more", armies can be much more easily played by rote without any thought given to tactical adaptation or strategic nuances.
They are great at simplifying the game, I guess, accounting for the greater number of players and success of large events in the US, but they just aren't even remotely as cerebral as GW missions where you cannot predict the win conditions as easily and as predictably and actually need some skills to adapt to sometimes very different win condition that challenge players to change the way they play their army from game to game.
I think this is a good distinction. ITC and the USA tournament meta (especially) want to be able to predict win conditions with as little randomness/deviation/surprises as possible. I suspect this is due to wanting the emphasis and primary skill of the game to be in creating an "uber" list that can beat people, rather than having to build a balanced list that can adapt to a variety of situations where you have to react to more than just your opponent's moves.
Technically, neither one is bad. There is a lot to be said about the MtG/X-Wing approach where it is all in what you bring and that's where the majority of skill lies. I Just don't feel that's appropriate for a true wargaming hobby. Others clearly disagree and think that's the right way to go.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/12 15:10:40
Wayniac wrote: It is pretty clear that ITC rewards certain builds and lists. Just look at the results of GW's "official" GTs and you'll find their meta way different than ITC where it's all similar types of armies across different factions.
That's the problem. People think ITC is the standard when ITC missions are designed to cater to a specific style and meta, while the GW missions are in a different way. I even recall someone saying that the GW Grand Tournament "didn't count" because it wasn't ITC. ITC is far from perfect. It rewards a specific type of list building/combo-building that competitive players seem to think should be the main factor of the game. I am pretty sure that's WHY GW's Eternal War and Maelstrom missions vary as much as they do: So you actually have to bring a BALANCED army to a tournament instead of a gimmicky skew list (which is what dominates ITC events). ITC missions encourage the skewy type of lists we see, which is why that's mostly what we see in ITC events and nowhere else.
The idea may be noble, but the execution has just caused the entire problem.
That's because GW's GTs average about 3 turns.
Maelstrom and Eternal War ain't balanced anywhere near as well as ITC missions. They all have their time and place - bar maybe Eternal War. I love Maelstrom for some silly drawing of cards and casual gaming, while ITC is much better balanced, ref Marmatag's post.
And you definitely list build for Maelstrom and Eternal War. Anything fast and durable (Wave Serpents) is great for Maelstrom, whereas anything durable/killy is great for Eternal War (Knights).
Marmatag wrote: 12 points of out secondaries is huge. The ability to choose to score based on position if you can't kill your opponents triple super-heavy list is really important. Without ITC this game is a one dimensional kill fest. And seriously, being able to get the bonus is a huge deal.
Also being able to score on objectives with more control if you go second is a big balancing factor in going first, versus going second. Without ITC missions this game is HEAVILY decided by who goes first. With ITC missions you actually see people choosing to go second quite frequently.
To be fair, most competitive games, GW, ITC or ETC often don’t get past turn 4 due to a tabling. In my 5 games at heat 3, I tabled 2 people in turn 4, got tabled in turn 5 and again in a 6th turn, and then had 1 game end naturally on turn 6.
By comparison, a lot of my previous ITC or ETC style games were often finishing around turn 4, and very rarely finished naturally on turn 6.
Now that is just personal experience, so I can’t claim that it is the “norm”, but, I will easily and confidently say that ITC games are just as likely to end “early” as GW games are. The only instances where they won’t finish early in ITC is where smart players will draw out the game for the additional points. Most players don’t do this though and just pick up the additional points from tabling and less effort.
In regards to the Marm quote, going second will give you a big advantage in the GW missions as well.
A good chunk of the CA18 missions are scored at the end of the battleround, not the end of the player turn (the much cried about Narrow the Search mission being a good example). The mission where 1 or all 5 objectives is worth double points is also scored in the same way.
ITC missions no longer have a monopoly on all the reasons why they are the best, as GW has adopted some of the better changes.
Also, now that you deploy your whole army in one go, it reduces the concern in regards to number of drops and number of kill points and allows people to consider options that would previously screw them over in ITC (i.e running additional drones in Pathfinders or Fire Warriors)
Kdash wrote: Also, now that you deploy your whole army in one go, it reduces the concern in regards to number of drops and number of kill points and allows people to consider options that would previously screw them over in ITC (i.e running additional drones in Pathfinders or Fire Warriors)
I think, regardless of anything else, ITC should adopt this new style of deployment in their next update.
In ITC missions you have to react to the player across from you. The people playing the game have the agency. Each side has the same chance to score points as those conditions are clear and equal at the outset of the game.
In GW missions, the win conditions don't give each army an equal chance of scoring points/achieving victory. This is a pretty standard definition of non-competitive. Sure it's fun to have to overcome all odds a pull out a victory but knowing that your opponent has an advantage over you means it's not a equal contest.
bullyboy wrote: From a harlequin's perspective (not daemons, we don't have those numbers) that mission is an almost auto lose, based on the scoring, You don't have the number of models to win with obsec most likely (and then your harlies will be on foot too), you can't get within 12" (granted the first few turns you gan stay at 18" and 15" respectively) unless you can absolutely guarantee that you can trap an enemy unit and not kill it to avoid being shot.
Sure you can play the run around the outside game, killing stuff, but that's not what wins these missions. You will need to get first strike, warlord (opponent should put warlord within 12" of objective) and linebreaker, but your opponent is going to get +1 at the end of every battle round. It's literally playing the game on hard mode. I'd rather play a Tactical marine based SM force than harlequins for this mission.
I don't believe this mission is not an auto lose at all for Harlequin armies. It would absolutely be difficult, but its definitely possible to win. Win the objective for three turns while preventing First Strike and/or Warlord, and you have an excellent chance at winning after 5 or tying after 6.
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
bananathug wrote: In ITC missions you have to react to the player across from you. The people playing the game have the agency. Each side has the same chance to score points as those conditions are clear and equal at the outset of the game.
In GW missions, the win conditions don't give each army an equal chance of scoring points/achieving victory. This is a pretty standard definition of non-competitive. Sure it's fun to have to overcome all odds a pull out a victory but knowing that your opponent has an advantage over you means it's not a equal contest.
I'm not sure how this is hard to understand.
Because, as in the old days, the mission giving a potential advantage is part of the overall balance. It encourages not simply taking a better list than your opponent and being able to win just on that. You need to bring a balanced force to account for getting a worse mission.
This approach worked fine for 15 years. It's only relatively recently that there's been a desire to change it. Does nobody remember the 3rd and 4th edition missions? Tournaments worked pretty well back in those days without custom missions.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/12 15:32:59
bananathug wrote: In ITC missions you have to react to the player across from you. The people playing the game have the agency. Each side has the same chance to score points as those conditions are clear and equal at the outset of the game.
In GW missions, the win conditions don't give each army an equal chance of scoring points/achieving victory. This is a pretty standard definition of non-competitive. Sure it's fun to have to overcome all odds a pull out a victory but knowing that your opponent has an advantage over you means it's not a equal contest.
I'm not sure how this is hard to understand.
I'm not sure you understand we are talking about CA 18 missions. Everyone recognizes that CA 17 and the BRB missions are not balanced.
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
GW missions are as a competitive as ITC missions by definition.
Okay Go ahead and prove this point, and I think you have an argument.
(This should be good)
I see it as obvious, but since you don't see it i guess we should start from the basis. What is your definition of "Competitive"?
Why do you think that a scenario like for example Scorched Earth is not competitive?
I'm going with Def 2, Competitive as in better or good as.
Some of the GW missions are in the good as. Taken in totality, I don't feel they are even as good as, and a number are terrible as I understand them.
I do agree the GW missions are more favorable and perhaps have some innovation missing in ITC, but unless its fair to all forces, it can't be as good as.
When some people say "the mission disadvantaged my army" what they are actually admitting is "my army wasn't flexible enough to achieve the objective." Earlier in the thread, I illustrated a plan with which I, as daemons, could potentially win the Null Zone mission. There's no way of knowing, without actually playing the game, of course. But I am willing to give it a go, because I like the challenge it causes. Other people would rather build "their" list as how they want it, and want to be as disadvantaged (or advantaged!) by the mission as little as possible.
I suppose the difference is what we want from the wargame. I want to have to confront difficulty in the course of play. I want a reason to have a different plan for each game, for each turn, for each model, for each attack. I want the missions to make me think, to present my list with unforseen challenges.
I view army lists like D&D Characters - you plop them in a world and see how they do. ITC is the other way around - army lists are static, and you can bend the world (choose the mission objectives) to match what you'd like your army to do. I have much more fun seeing how my 'character' overcomes challenges, then I do having the challenge difficulty able to be dialed on the fly in the name of "competition."
Playing the mission is just as challenging as playing the opponent sometimes, and that's a good thing imo.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/12 16:00:38
When some people say "the mission disadvantaged my army" what they are actually admitting is "my army wasn't flexible enough to achieve the objective." Earlier in the thread, I illustrated a plan with which I, as daemons, could potentially win the Null Zone mission. There's no way of knowing, without actually playing the game, of course. But I am willing to give it a go, because I like the challenge it causes. Other people would rather build "their" list as how they want it, and want to be as disadvantaged (or advantaged!) by the mission as little as possible.
I suppose the difference is what we want from the wargame. I want to have to confront difficulty in the course of play. I want a reason to have a different plan for each game, for each turn, for each model, for each attack. I want the missions to make me think, to present my list with unforseen challenges.
I view army lists like D&D Characters - you plop them in a world and see how they do. ITC is the other way around - army lists are static, and you can bend the world (choose the mission objectives) to match what you'd like your army to do. I have much more fun seeing how my 'character' overcomes challenges, then I do having the challenge difficulty able to be dialed on the fly in the name of "competition."
Playing the mission is just as challenging as playing the opponent sometimes, and that's a good thing imo.
Exactly this. The different missions are meant to make you bringing a flexible army. ITC missions put most things in your hands so you can listbuild and pick things that suit your list the most.
I feel like the new format, especially the fact you don't auto-win for tabling, is huge. So huge, in fact, I foresee this being standard in many formats.
Reason being, it punishes people who focus on alpha-strike, non-mobile armies, in favor of those who tackle the mission, and focus on more than just "I roll more dice and steamroll you"
Its a great change, IMO. Now, I still feel like some missions should have a kill based objective in some way though; because this prevents things like min-maxing to have so many targets your opponent can't kill them all.
When some people say "the mission disadvantaged my army" what they are actually admitting is "my army wasn't flexible enough to achieve the objective." Earlier in the thread, I illustrated a plan with which I, as daemons, could potentially win the Null Zone mission. There's no way of knowing, without actually playing the game, of course. But I am willing to give it a go, because I like the challenge it causes. Other people would rather build "their" list as how they want it, and want to be as disadvantaged (or advantaged!) by the mission as little as possible.
I suppose the difference is what we want from the wargame. I want to have to confront difficulty in the course of play. I want a reason to have a different plan for each game, for each turn, for each model, for each attack. I want the missions to make me think, to present my list with unforseen challenges.
I view army lists like D&D Characters - you plop them in a world and see how they do. ITC is the other way around - army lists are static, and you can bend the world (choose the mission objectives) to match what you'd like your army to do. I have much more fun seeing how my 'character' overcomes challenges, then I do having the challenge difficulty able to be dialed on the fly in the name of "competition."
Playing the mission is just as challenging as playing the opponent sometimes, and that's a good thing imo.
Exactly this. The different missions are meant to make you bringing a flexible army. ITC missions put most things in your hands so you can listbuild and pick things that suit your list the most.
These guys get it!
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
Good. Just Do it. Make the event. I'll even come to one that is local to me.
Get people in, get them to walk away saying okay that was a better experience than ITC is, and I think you will see people switch, or ask for more of that format.
But the idea that ITC should just swap over isn't going to happen (although I think you might see some of the ideas incorporated into ITC quickly).
GW missions are as a competitive as ITC missions by definition.
Okay Go ahead and prove this point, and I think you have an argument.
(This should be good)
I see it as obvious, but since you don't see it i guess we should start from the basis. What is your definition of "Competitive"?
Why do you think that a scenario like for example Scorched Earth is not competitive?
I'm going with Def 2, Competitive as in better or good as.
Some of the GW missions are in the good as. Taken in totality, I don't feel they are even as good as, and a number are terrible as I understand them.
I do agree the GW missions are more favorable and perhaps have some innovation missing in ITC, but unless its fair to all forces, it can't be as good as.
ITC though is not fair to all forces, that too is a common accepted fact. So why it is a requirement for GW missions but not for ITC missions?
Examples of this:
IG is greatly empowered by the LoS rules of ITC. If you play against Aeldari, you are severely limited in what you can select for secondaries. Big characters such as Magnus are punished by being a double target for secondaries. MSU lists are handicapped by the primary objectives. Slow lists are handicapped by primary objectives.
And so on.
Often this "unfairness" is aimed at limiting popular builds, so it is tacitly accepted. This doesn't mean that the format does not warp the meta.
ITC missions are not fair to all armies and builds, so in the competitive scale it qualifies as "Barely good enough", which is the same level of GW missions. The only difference between the 2 formats is that in one the unfairness is always the same, so you can build within its limitations, while GW mission's unfairness isn't predictable, so you cannot "solve" it during list building.
Both are good basis for "competition".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/12 16:53:11
To be fair, most competitive games, GW, ITC or ETC often don’t get past turn 4 due to a tabling. In my 5 games at heat 3, I tabled 2 people in turn 4, got tabled in turn 5 and again in a 6th turn, and then had 1 game end naturally on turn 6.
By comparison, a lot of my previous ITC or ETC style games were often finishing around turn 4, and very rarely finished naturally on turn 6.
Now that is just personal experience, so I can’t claim that it is the “norm”, but, I will easily and confidently say that ITC games are just as likely to end “early” as GW games are. The only instances where they won’t finish early in ITC is where smart players will draw out the game for the additional points. Most players don’t do this though and just pick up the additional points from tabling and less effort.
In regards to the Marm quote, going second will give you a big advantage in the GW missions as well.
A good chunk of the CA18 missions are scored at the end of the battleround, not the end of the player turn (the much cried about Narrow the Search mission being a good example). The mission where 1 or all 5 objectives is worth double points is also scored in the same way.
ITC missions no longer have a monopoly on all the reasons why they are the best, as GW has adopted some of the better changes.
Also, now that you deploy your whole army in one go, it reduces the concern in regards to number of drops and number of kill points and allows people to consider options that would previously screw them over in ITC (i.e running additional drones in Pathfinders or Fire Warriors)
From my visit to WHW, they didn't have that many LoS-blockers per table, which wouldn't really help. ITC have some guidelines, which helps to get a "fairer" game.
I don't disagree massively, tbh. Some of the new missions look pretty solid, so this is more of a general view of things. I'd say the incentives to table someone in ITC games are smaller than in Maelstrom and certainly in EW. I might eschew a unit's shooting in Maelstrom or ITC to get a hold more or grab an objective I just drew, and in the case of ITC, not necessarily murder every single unit I can every time as the scoring doesn't encourage that. Generally in EW (I know the newer missions use some progressive scoring and end of battle round) it's easier to just murder my opponent's units by T5. It means they get it, but it doesn't quite solve the issue either - not that ITC does either, just that it's not as pronounced. I recently tabled an opponent in T5 in ITC, but that was because my opponent went for a riskier certain win than a probable win, which didn't work out for him.
The main issue is the YGIG system combined with the current price of durability vs. firepower they insist on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/12 17:01:44
When some people say "the mission disadvantaged my army" what they are actually admitting is "my army wasn't flexible enough to achieve the objective." Earlier in the thread, I illustrated a plan with which I, as daemons, could potentially win the Null Zone mission. There's no way of knowing, without actually playing the game, of course. But I am willing to give it a go, because I like the challenge it causes. Other people would rather build "their" list as how they want it, and want to be as disadvantaged (or advantaged!) by the mission as little as possible.
I suppose the difference is what we want from the wargame. I want to have to confront difficulty in the course of play. I want a reason to have a different plan for each game, for each turn, for each model, for each attack. I want the missions to make me think, to present my list with unforseen challenges.
I view army lists like D&D Characters - you plop them in a world and see how they do. ITC is the other way around - army lists are static, and you can bend the world (choose the mission objectives) to match what you'd like your army to do. I have much more fun seeing how my 'character' overcomes challenges, then I do having the challenge difficulty able to be dialed on the fly in the name of "competition."
Playing the mission is just as challenging as playing the opponent sometimes, and that's a good thing imo.
Exactly this. The different missions are meant to make you bringing a flexible army. ITC missions put most things in your hands so you can listbuild and pick things that suit your list the most.
That's the point. In order to accurately test relative player capability, the outside influences, such as the battlefield and missions, must be tightly controlled.
If you're just testing yourself, covering a wide range of changing conditions provides a more complete view of your performance, but when conducting a comparative test, the variance in parameters outside the control of the players should be controlled to a minimum.
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!
bananathug wrote: In ITC missions you have to react to the player across from you. The people playing the game have the agency. Each side has the same chance to score points as those conditions are clear and equal at the outset of the game.
In GW missions, the win conditions don't give each army an equal chance of scoring points/achieving victory. This is a pretty standard definition of non-competitive. Sure it's fun to have to overcome all odds a pull out a victory but knowing that your opponent has an advantage over you means it's not a equal contest.
I'm not sure how this is hard to understand.
This is it, right here. Well put sir. Hey - we're going to be doing a fun / casual escalation league on the side. Me and some of my team mates + Thomas are going to be doing it. Let me know if you're in. You don't need to buy new models. I am, because, you know, i'm a whale. And so is Tom. But it's not required. Black Templars would probably be viable.
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.
Frankly, I think big tournaments should use GW missions, completely irrespective of how good or bad they are. GW relies on tournament results for balancing, but if tournaments are not even using the actual 40K rules that feths up the data.
What if the competition is to see how well you compensate for bad missions compared to others? What if "winning despite the odds" is part of the test?
The whole point of playing 6 games is that you'll inevitably encounter a mission that your army is "disadvantaged" in, unless it's built well. If everyone encounters a mission like that, then the only players who will win it despite the disadvantage are obviously better than the players who lose it despite the disadvantage.
On the other hand, if the player builds their army well enough that even despite these missions, they never are disadvantaged, then they're also a good player, because they know how to build a good army that can deal with a wide variety of situations (which is, itself, good play).
Is competition trying to find out who the most skilled player is? If so, then, I would argue that the pinnacle of skill is not what ITC tests; the pinnacle of skill is to be able to go into an unpredictable environment (including missions that you have no control over) and still be skilled enough to come out ahead.
Conversely, playing your opponent is only some portion of a smaller whole. Being a good player in an ITC environment has no correlation with how good you are at 40k. Unless you admit the missions don't matter.
Reemule wrote: You guys feel this has weight and can roll.
Good. Just Do it. Make the event. I'll even come to one that is local to me.
Get people in, get them to walk away saying okay that was a better experience than ITC is, and I think you will see people switch, or ask for more of that format.
But the idea that ITC should just swap over isn't going to happen (although I think you might see some of the ideas incorporated into ITC quickly).
The ITC have said they are quite open to refreshing their missions for next season after the LVO. Whether they would go so far as to suggest using the CA missions I really do not know, although that is exactly their suggestion for AoS in the ITC.
Other than finding the ITC missions rather dull I do not object to them. I do think that their terrain rules were a crude but necessary band-aid that should no longer be necessary. The improved terrain rules in CA look a lot better to me than the rather binary way that ITC just defines terrain to block LOS.
They just lack the randomness to actually test a players tactical skills on the table. Since it's always "hold something/more, kill something/more", armies can be much more easily played by rote without any thought given to tactical adaptation or strategic nuances.
They are great at simplifying the game, I guess, accounting for the greater number of players and success of large events in the US, but they just aren't even remotely as cerebral as GW missions where you cannot predict the win conditions as easily and as predictably and actually need some skills to adapt to sometimes very different win condition that challenge players to change the way they play their army from game to game.
It is not a lack of randomness, it is a lack of variety. It would be like having an olympic decathlon where you run 10 110m hurdles races but there is a slight variation in the placing and sizes of the hurdles. Athletes would only need to prepare for the running, jumping, hurdling challenges which means that they would typically be better at that sort of event but if the format were changed back to what Decathlon has been before there would be the same complaints of some of the events being unfair to some athletes.
Bringing back the variety of missions that was around in earlier editions feels like that. The tournament circuits have decided that the precise combination challenge they have is fine and why would they want to bring back all those other challenges when the current players - especially those who currently love the format and hence they see the most - do not want to see a change.
The decathlon is not unfair because some parts of it are more challenging for some athletes. It is widely considered one of the best tests of all-round athleticism precisely because of the variety of the challenges it poses.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/12 17:43:42
From my visit to WHW, they didn't have that many LoS-blockers per table, which wouldn't really help. ITC have some guidelines, which helps to get a "fairer" game.
I agree. GW doesn't generally do "good" tables at WHW or their events. Sure, they are adequate and some tables are great, but most are "alright" or "lacking". This is something they need to address, but, they are also pretty limited on what they can do due to the terrain kits they make and sell. Maybe we'll eventually see them sell a "building" kit or something similar, then we'll start to see more LoS blocking on their tables, but until then we have to rely on statues (some of which are actually big enough to hide a Helverin or Dreadnough) or stacks of Crates.
I think its great to incorporate ITC and GW missions. I know we have done this with our group after everyone shows up with their army. That way people try to bring a more flexible army that can play any type of game and typically leads to more balanced engagements. For example, if you built for having few drops then play one of the new missions where you only have a 50% chance to go first regardless it could bite you. So people will not bring an army that has to go first
Crimson wrote: Frankly, I think big tournaments should use GW missions, completely irrespective of how good or bad they are. GW relies on tournament results for balancing, but if tournaments are not even using the actual 40K rules that feths up the data.
This is another important point that is getting lost in the ITC vs. non-ITC argument. We all agree it's important for GW to balance the game around tournaments, yes? Well, part of the issue here is that they aren't balancing the game against ITC missions (because they are unofficial, despite widespread acceptance), they are balancing them around Eternal War and maybe even Maelstrom missions. I think this might be why we tend to see a strange discrepancy with the adjustments GW comes up with: They are, presumably, reacting to data provided by ITC and kneejerk reacting to them when not all of those issues are present (or present in different quantities) in non-ITC missions. For example, it's commonly accepted that ITC missions favor Aeldari due to how the secondaries work (I believe, based on things I've read in many places), which is why you see Aeldari usually dominating ITC tournaments. While they are undoubtedly good, the results from GW's tournaments show Aeldari as strong but not dominating. Is the data GW getting faulty then, because it's provided under a different context than the norm?
If the data that is given to GW (I'm not sure if this is given by FLG or what) says that Unit X is too good because in ITC missions they can dominate, is it right for GW to nerf them if they aren't nearly as bad in non-ITC missions? Why are ITC missions the baseline approach to giving GW suggestions and information on what constitutes "too good" or "not good enough"?
When some people say "the mission disadvantaged my army" what they are actually admitting is "my army wasn't flexible enough to achieve the objective." Earlier in the thread, I illustrated a plan with which I, as daemons, could potentially win the Null Zone mission. There's no way of knowing, without actually playing the game, of course. But I am willing to give it a go, because I like the challenge it causes. Other people would rather build "their" list as how they want it, and want to be as disadvantaged (or advantaged!) by the mission as little as possible.
I suppose the difference is what we want from the wargame. I want to have to confront difficulty in the course of play. I want a reason to have a different plan for each game, for each turn, for each model, for each attack. I want the missions to make me think, to present my list with unforseen challenges.
I view army lists like D&D Characters - you plop them in a world and see how they do. ITC is the other way around - army lists are static, and you can bend the world (choose the mission objectives) to match what you'd like your army to do. I have much more fun seeing how my 'character' overcomes challenges, then I do having the challenge difficulty able to be dialed on the fly in the name of "competition."
Playing the mission is just as challenging as playing the opponent sometimes, and that's a good thing imo.
Exactly this. The different missions are meant to make you bringing a flexible army. ITC missions put most things in your hands so you can listbuild and pick things that suit your list the most.
That's the point. In order to accurately test relative player capability, the outside influences, such as the battlefield and missions, must be tightly controlled.
If you're just testing yourself, covering a wide range of changing conditions provides a more complete view of your performance, but when conducting a comparative test, the variance in parameters outside the control of the players should be controlled to a minimum.
So then why is there a variance in terrain? Why is there a variance in the measuring devices and dice used to play the game? The notion that everything is tightly controlled is complete malarkey. The game has so many random elements, that randomness must be accepted completely. If you're truly going to put forth the notion that randomness must be controlled, then there should be a standard terrain setup, to include the exact same terrain for every table, for each mission/deployment type. Measuring devices and dice should be provided and players should not be allow to use their own.
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
When some people say "the mission disadvantaged my army" what they are actually admitting is "my army wasn't flexible enough to achieve the objective." Earlier in the thread, I illustrated a plan with which I, as daemons, could potentially win the Null Zone mission. There's no way of knowing, without actually playing the game, of course. But I am willing to give it a go, because I like the challenge it causes. Other people would rather build "their" list as how they want it, and want to be as disadvantaged (or advantaged!) by the mission as little as possible.
I suppose the difference is what we want from the wargame. I want to have to confront difficulty in the course of play. I want a reason to have a different plan for each game, for each turn, for each model, for each attack. I want the missions to make me think, to present my list with unforseen challenges.
I view army lists like D&D Characters - you plop them in a world and see how they do. ITC is the other way around - army lists are static, and you can bend the world (choose the mission objectives) to match what you'd like your army to do. I have much more fun seeing how my 'character' overcomes challenges, then I do having the challenge difficulty able to be dialed on the fly in the name of "competition."
Playing the mission is just as challenging as playing the opponent sometimes, and that's a good thing imo.
Exactly this. The different missions are meant to make you bringing a flexible army. ITC missions put most things in your hands so you can listbuild and pick things that suit your list the most.
That's the point. In order to accurately test relative player capability, the outside influences, such as the battlefield and missions, must be tightly controlled.
If you're just testing yourself, covering a wide range of changing conditions provides a more complete view of your performance, but when conducting a comparative test, the variance in parameters outside the control of the players should be controlled to a minimum.
So then why is there a variance in terrain? Why is there a variance in the measuring devices and dice used to play the game? The notion that everything is tightly controlled is complete malarkey. The game has so many random elements, that randomness must be accepted completely. If you're truly going to put forth the notion that randomness must be controlled, then there should be a standard terrain setup, to include the exact same terrain for every table, for each mission/deployment type. Measuring devices and dice should be provided and players should not be allow to use their own.
In fact, if you really wanted to control for randomness, just have a machine that calculates the average outcome of any given attack and apply that. No need for dice at all!
Wayniac wrote: For example, it's commonly accepted that ITC missions favor Aeldari due to how the secondaries work (I believe, based on things I've read in many places), which is why you see Aeldari usually dominating ITC tournaments. While they are undoubtedly good, the results from GW's tournaments show Aeldari as strong but not dominating. Is the data GW getting faulty then, because it's provided under a different context than the norm?
I would tentatively agree. Shining Spears probably didn't need a point increase. Playing with GW terrain and terrain rules, they are far more likely to be shot of the table turn 1, than they are in ITC.
Inversely, Tau probably didn't need as much of a drop and, as an army, is generally stronger in "normal 40K" with no auto-LOS block and far less opportunities for armies to charge them from out-of-LOS buildings, "kill something/kill more" not being a thing in most missions and only 1, maybe 2 KP missions in a 5-6 round tournament, etc..
Etc.., etc..,
But that's the crazy world we're living in. Overall, it's (atm) still better than 7th, so you take the bad/weird with the good.
It is not a lack of randomness, it is a lack of variety. It would be like having an olympic decathlon where you run 10 110m hurdles races but there is a slight variation in the placing and sizes of the hurdles. Athletes would only need to prepare for the running, jumping, hurdling challenges which means that they would typically be better at that sort of event but if the format were changed back to what Decathlon has been before there would be the same complaints of some of the events being unfair to some athletes.
Bringing back the variety of missions that was around in earlier editions feels like that. The tournament circuits have decided that the precise combination challenge they have is fine and why would they want to bring back all those other challenges when the current players - especially those who currently love the format and hence they see the most - do not want to see a change.
The decathlon is not unfair because some parts of it are more challenging for some athletes. It is widely considered one of the best tests of all-round athleticism precisely because of the variety of the challenges it poses.
Randomizing helps to make it less predicable and forces players to "make decisions on the table" rather than just setting a plan pre-game.
- If you have something like "hold something/hold more" but maybe a random mechanic that "disables" 2 objectives on the table or different objectives are worth different "amounts" for the purpose of hold more each turn, you couldn't sync the optimal positioning of your army for points with the optimal positioning for killing-power/defense, e.g. you'll have to weigh risks/opportunities and make a tactical choice in ways you don't in current ITC.
- If you have something like "kill something/kill more", but the units eligible for these points were randomized in your opponents army (along more randomized secondaries), you would again create trade-offs and decision making between the optimal target-priority for taking out threats and the optimal target priority for scoring points. In current ITC, this tactical choice again doesn't exist and you can always pick the "no brainer", creating a less tactical and flatter game where the player is never "under pressure" to make a choice between two (or more) suboptimal alternatives.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/12 18:17:05
6k
2k
2k 
