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.

 Blndmage wrote:
The ITC ranking and such, rules for running tunrey, on their website doesn't require you to use their missions, terrain rules, or anything specific.

You can run an ITC sanction event and use the GW mission and such. All they care about is the size of the event.

Oh stop with your lies. What's next? The I in ITC stands for independent because they want people to play games and run tournaments however they want? Ha. We all know ITC is only out for a cash grab from all of the tiny 8 man tournies scattered about the world. </sarcasm>

Martel732 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I mean proper ig with 100+ meat bags and the artillery death line. I'm using ig and still struggle vs mono ig.

The kind that never wins tournaments, compared to Imperium soup, right?

I dont think that's accurate, but even if it were, it's still soul crushing to play against. Cant out shoot it, cant melee it. You are an npc faction in an ig Turkey shoot.

I suspect that without itc secondary scoring mono ig dominate. I dont see how anything stops them.

With the fly change, they pay 400 pts to turn off every melee unit in the game.

Have you tried the CA2018 missions - they often require quite a bit of movenent and you can't win by tabling - most require you to be agressive. Sitting back with artillery cheese won't win you the game.

I can't score with no army, either. You can still win via tabling by crippling the enemy's ability to score.

No but if you score enough points in the preceeding rounds that they can't catch up then you win regardless of if you have been tabled or not. I have seen that in games we have played using these new scenarios.

There are no preceding rounds. The IG turkey shoot starts instantly thanks to range and ignore los. Dont forget guardsmen move faster than my jump troops with move move move. They easily outscore power armor lists while tabling them.

 Mr Morden wrote:


No but if you score enough points in the preceeding rounds that they can't catch up then you win regardless of if you have been tabled or not. I have seen that in games we have played using these new scenarios.

I played the mission with the null zone yesterday against a shooty deathskullz army (yes, shooty Ork armies are a thing now).

We were both playing with the goal of eliminating model count and it was quite close. I lost, because I should have ceded him the early round points and focused on the supa kannons and other big guns and then focused on numbers as he was running a very elite style army. I probably would have fared better against a big ork mob.

I enjoyed the decision making on how to go about extracting his boyz hiding behind gun wagons and so on.

I picked the deployment zone, which seemed to be another important factor in how these missions play out as I figured my early numbers advantage would have worked for me with Search and Destroy. Unfortunately I think giving him that extra 3" was also a deciding factor especially with him getting the choice on who goes first.

I'm pretty happy with the CA missions. There's less book keeping than ITC, but still a fair amount of tactic choice. I can't say which I prefer at the moment.

No better time than now to have your say,

Reece just posted up the feedback for this exact topic for the new ITC season.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/769307.page

Why not go on there and say CA missions please!

 Nithaniel wrote:
No better time than now to have your say,

Reece just posted up the feedback for this exact topic for the new ITC season.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/769307.page

Why not go on there and say CA missions please!

Well, that was super biased toward keeping their missions and even doubling down on divergence by introducing selectable primaries too. The was one question about introducing some elements of CA missions (which they erroneously called CA 19.)

Martel732 wrote:
There are no preceding rounds. The IG turkey shoot starts instantly thanks to range and ignore los. Dont forget guardsmen move faster than my jump troops with move move move. They easily outscore power armor lists while tabling them.

Do you mean "Marine" lists or Power armour as someone who plays Sisters quite a bit?

I am only going by the various games I observed - which included IG artillery castle - which lost against Chaos.

 Crimson wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
No better time than now to have your say,

Reece just posted up the feedback for this exact topic for the new ITC season.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/769307.page

Why not go on there and say CA missions please!

Well, that was super biased toward keeping their missions and even doubling down on divergence by introducing selectable primaries too. The was one question about introducing some elements of CA missions (which they erroneously called CA 19.)

Yeah I just wrote all elements of CA please. You're absolutely right though it looks like their divergence from mainstream 40k is the way they want to play it. We will never have a true 40k meta until there is one unified tournament format. Write that in their comments and see if anything changes

I wrote that they should use CA2018 Eternal War missions as-is, with no deviation. I also mentioned that they should consider the Cities of Death terrain rules.

I doubt it will change anything. They seem convinced that their missions are better, but it's worth a try. I still find it incredibly funny they don't see the need to create custom missions and allow customizing objectives in AOS, but they are fine doing it for 40k.

I'm new to the ITC format and will be attending first tournament next month. What is wrong with an Independent group dictating a different way to play? I applaud them for at least trying to make a balanced approach to the game. Sure, it changes the meta, but so what? As mentioned, you don't have to attend, go to other events that play the CA missions (which look like a blast too. Why hate on a group that has put in a lot of effort to broaden the game and make it widely appealing? If your group only plays ITC, you should have an honest talk with them or find other opponents.

Wayniac wrote:
I wrote that they should use CA2018 Eternal War missions as-is, with no deviation. I also mentioned that they should consider the Cities of Death terrain rules.

I doubt it will change anything. They seem convinced that their missions are better, but it's worth a try. I still find it incredibly funny they don't see the need to create custom missions and allow customizing objectives in AOS, but they are fine doing it for 40k.

I assume there are many minor reasons they dont look at AOS.

In no particular order off the top of my head.

1. They arent really regular AOS players, neither are the majority of their competitive contacts.
2. AOS missions are much harder to write than 40k ones as the double turn plays such a pivotal role.
3. While I am by no means as involved in AOS than I am in 40k, the aos community that I have been exposed to, even at competitive events, are more easy going, and have a much more flexible attitude about the game, and how whacky it is, which is also caused imo in no small part by how weird and wonderful AOS is compared to 40k, the AOS missions provided by GW are all sorts of crazy, and this plays to the core feel of the game, which isnt the same feeling that 40k has at all. AOS breaks its own rules in wild and wonderful ways, encourages combos, and has many missions where a single play will immediately and decisively finish a game (which, while oddly enjoyable in the frame of AOS, is not something that I want from my 40k experience).

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are no preceding rounds. The IG turkey shoot starts instantly thanks to range and ignore los. Dont forget guardsmen move faster than my jump troops with move move move. They easily outscore power armor lists while tabling them.

Do you mean "Marine" lists or Power armour as someone who plays Sisters quite a bit?

I am only going by the various games I observed - which included IG artillery castle - which lost against Chaos.

I don't trust the new missions to keep ig under control. I just don't.

Martel732 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are no preceding rounds. The IG turkey shoot starts instantly thanks to range and ignore los. Dont forget guardsmen move faster than my jump troops with move move move. They easily outscore power armor lists while tabling them.

Do you mean "Marine" lists or Power armour as someone who plays Sisters quite a bit?

I am only going by the various games I observed - which included IG artillery castle - which lost against Chaos.

I don't trust the new missions to keep ig under control. I just don't.

At this point, I'd be shocked to learn you trusted anything short of rendering IG into an NPC faction to control IG.

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm new to the ITC format and will be attending first tournament next month. What is wrong with an Independent group dictating a different way to play? I applaud them for at least trying to make a balanced approach to the game. Sure, it changes the meta, but so what? As mentioned, you don't have to attend, go to other events that play the CA missions (which look like a blast too. Why hate on a group that has put in a lot of effort to broaden the game and make it widely appealing? If your group only plays ITC, you should have an honest talk with them or find other opponents.

All of this is easier said than done. Saying "If your group plays ITC and you don't like it, find another group" means nothing when that's the only group around; you're essentially saying "suck it up or don't play". The issue is that there's no reason to change the game so fundamentally, especially when Reese and the ITC have what is presumed to be a good amount of say in the "direction" of 40k. To best have that there's no reason to fork the game. You don't see any other game where a third party deviates so much from the game.

I get why it was needed in the past, but I don't think it's needed anymore, and it's time that ITC started to play the same game as everyone else, instead of vice versa.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are no preceding rounds. The IG turkey shoot starts instantly thanks to range and ignore los. Dont forget guardsmen move faster than my jump troops with move move move. They easily outscore power armor lists while tabling them.

Do you mean "Marine" lists or Power armour as someone who plays Sisters quite a bit?

I am only going by the various games I observed - which included IG artillery castle - which lost against Chaos.

I don't trust the new missions to keep ig under control. I just don't.

At this point, I'd be shocked to learn you trusted anything short of rendering IG into an NPC faction to control IG.

I'm sick of seeing them as a crutch detachment and winning in three turns with minimal movement. They are miserable to play against.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm new to the ITC format and will be attending first tournament next month. What is wrong with an Independent group dictating a different way to play? I applaud them for at least trying to make a balanced approach to the game. Sure, it changes the meta, but so what? As mentioned, you don't have to attend, go to other events that play the CA missions (which look like a blast too. Why hate on a group that has put in a lot of effort to broaden the game and make it widely appealing? If your group only plays ITC, you should have an honest talk with them or find other opponents.

All of this is easier said than done. Saying "If your group plays ITC and you don't like it, find another group" means nothing when that's the only group around; you're essentially saying "suck it up or don't play". The issue is that there's no reason to change the game so fundamentally, especially when Reese and the ITC have what is presumed to be a good amount of say in the "direction" of 40k. To best have that there's no reason to fork the game. You don't see any other game where a third party deviates so much from the game.

I get why it was needed in the past, but I don't think it's needed anymore, and it's time that ITC started to play the same game as everyone else, instead of vice versa.

There is a reason. IG.

I am missing something, what exactly about IG does ITC fix that the CA missions do not?

Butchers bill and reaper provide downsides to guardsmen. Actual vp downsides. Also picking secondaries is cool in general.

Martel732 wrote:
Butchers bill and reaper provide downsides to guardsmen. Actual vp downsides. Also picking secondaries is cool in general.

I can't speak about the first part since I rarely play against IG anyway, although I know what the secondaries are. But the second I disagree with because I feel picking secondaries just adds another element of list building to the game, when IMHO list building already has too much emphasis.

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm new to the ITC format and will be attending first tournament next month. What is wrong with an Independent group dictating a different way to play? I applaud them for at least trying to make a balanced approach to the game. Sure, it changes the meta, but so what? As mentioned, you don't have to attend, go to other events that play the CA missions (which look like a blast too. Why hate on a group that has put in a lot of effort to broaden the game and make it widely appealing? If your group only plays ITC, you should have an honest talk with them or find other opponents.

There is nothing wrong with it.

ITC have gained so much prominence in 40k competitive formats worldwide. Its just so different that its actually playing a different game. It house rules. GW are coming back to the 40k scene and are running heats and tournaments with regularity now. It is a valid argument to suggest that its better in competitive 40k that we're all playing the same game.

House rules are great for your living room table games or garage hammer but to run the biggest tournament in the world and be a leader in competitive gaming and to house rule is suspect at best.

EDIT: The ITC can no longer be called independent. Reece and Frankie and several others in the ITC have signed NDA's and taken GW money to feedback as professional games testers for 40k. If they are responsible for shaping the rules that we play why don't they follow those rules?

I like it. A lot. If nothing else it provokes questions about the enemy list. How many characters, etc. Player agency is good. You can try to list build against it, but maybe that's part of the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nithaniel wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm new to the ITC format and will be attending first tournament next month. What is wrong with an Independent group dictating a different way to play? I applaud them for at least trying to make a balanced approach to the game. Sure, it changes the meta, but so what? As mentioned, you don't have to attend, go to other events that play the CA missions (which look like a blast too. Why hate on a group that has put in a lot of effort to broaden the game and make it widely appealing? If your group only plays ITC, you should have an honest talk with them or find other opponents.

There is nothing wrong with it.

ITC have gained so much prominence in 40k competitive formats worldwide. Its just so different that its actually playing a different game. It house rules. GW are coming back to the 40k scene and are running heats and tournaments with regularity now. It is a valid argument to suggest that its better in competitive 40k that we're all playing the same game.

House rules are great for your living room table games or garage hammer but to run the biggest tournament in the world and be a leader in competitive gaming and to house rule is suspect at best.

EDIT: The ITC can no longer be called independent. Reece and Frankie and several others in the ITC have signed NDA's and taken GW money to feedback as professional games testers for 40k. If they are responsible for shaping the rules that we play why don't they follow those rules?

GW ceded all authority in the competitive realm. I'll never trust them in that arena anyway. GW is still playing checkers with their missions, imo.

Martel732 wrote:
I like it. A lot. If nothing else it provokes questions about the enemy list. How many characters, etc. Player agency is good. You can try to list build against it, but maybe that's part of the point.

But see, IMHO the CA2018 missions do roughly the same thing: They make YOU consider what you take, because the missions can vary. For example, there's a mission where you have to give up to 3 characters "Intel Points" which converts to VP for each one alive after Round 3. There's a mission where objectives can move, and units with FLY supersedes all others for holding it (because it represents them being dropped in and the flying units can swoop in before it lands).

The missions encourage you to build lists that can potentially handle all of the scenarios; maybe you don't go too high on Invulnerable saves in case you get the mission with Null Zone. Maybe you include at least 1-2 units that can fly if you get the supply mission. Maybe it forces you to play more conservative with your characters so they don't get killed too early in the Intel Point mission.

These seem to be along those same lines albeit in a different way.

Random mission types with random wonky rules is NOT player agency.

I've read their missions. They're not as good. And there's nothing keeping ig in check.

Martel732 wrote:
Random mission types with random wonky rules is NOT player agency.

But what is basically the same mission with objectives in different places and letting you tailor what you go after is somehow better?

Let me say for the record I don't dislike the ITC missions. I just don't think they're needed anymore.

Wayniac wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Random mission types with random wonky rules is NOT player agency.

But what is basically the same mission with objectives in different places and letting you tailor what you go after is somehow better?

My analysis of the opposing list matters. My choices matter.

Martel732 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Random mission types with random wonky rules is NOT player agency.

But what is basically the same mission with objectives in different places and letting you tailor what you go after is somehow better?

My analysis of the opposing list matters. My choices matter.

Fair enough, I think I understand where you're coming from now. You want to be able to look at your opponent's list and think "He has a lot of troops, I can take Reaper and get bonus points for thinning him down so he doesn't overwhelm me", instead of "I don't know what mission I could get, I shouldn't rely too much on any one unit type to minimize the chances I'll get a bad mission."

Exactly. I play against 120 guardsmen guy and 150 guardsmen guy. I can't win the ca missions against them. The board is flooded and i spend the whole game not scoring in gw missions. You don't see this as much in itc because reaper and butchers bill exist. There is no downside to this in gw missionsm

Martel732 wrote:
Exactly. I play against 120 guardsmen guy and 150 guardsmen guy. I can't win the ca missions against them. The board is flooded and spend the whole game not scoring in gw missions.

Wow, I wonder how those players actually win anything... that many guardsmen is bad...

GW abandoned competitive gaming in the past. Actively campaigned against it to some extent.

As a competitive gamer, why is it in my best interest to trust them to not change this policy, or allow them to have any say over competitive gaming activity?

Reese and Co's ITC isn't flawless, but they do have a few things GW doesn't. First they only have the desire for competitive play. That is their only product. If someone else makes a better tourney format, competitive gamers will abandon like rats off a sinking ship.

Also, ITC is pretty ruthless on stealing good ideas. This is a good thing. I want the tightest, strongest, most intuitive, fairest, tourney system around.

If GW wants to take that spot from them, it is easy to do. Put out a competitive format that does it better than ITC, and it will happen.

Shows what you know. Not reemule.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Exactly. I play against 120 guardsmen guy and 150 guardsmen guy. I can't win the ca missions against them. The board is flooded and spend the whole game not scoring in gw missions.

Wow, I wonder how those players actually win anything... that many guardsmen is bad...

If you're playing a mission that is primarily based around progressive scoring from holding objectives then it's actually amazing. You can't really physically remove enough guardsmen fast enough in order to stop them running away with points. Even if you do manage to do it they'll have likely built up such a huge lead already. This issue exists in ITC to some degree but having 80 guardsmen and multiple units die while not actually being able to kill much in return can allow the other army to keep even or overtake them in points. I'm not going to sit here and say that type of army is bad in ITC because I've played enough guard and plaguebearer hordes to know how strong it is, but you can at least be competitive with it it. I love the CA2018 missions but there are a couple of them where I don't think a 200 model IG army could actually technically lose.