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.

I would personally like to see the ITC change scoring. In particular, creating a new category to delineate massive sized events like BAO, NOVA, LVO, So Cal Open, Adepticon from other Majors of lesser size. So Grand Tournament, Major, Master or something like that. Mostly it's just superficial but it helps people immediately recognize the difference in size, and thus the difficulty in placing at the event. The LVO with 800 players skews the final scores for players who attend LVO too much. For example, if a player went 4-2 at the LVO their score would be higher than if they took second place at NOVA or BAO. Scoring for Team Tournaments should be reworked. As it stands now the team that wins the ATC has a huge advantage in being the #1 team in the ITC at the end of the season. How the points scale for the events in general needs work.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Asking for feedback then rubbishing some of that feedback on the first page is... mmmkay. The first “thanks for the feedback” comment was a great response, the “lol” not so much!

~_~ wow, chill out man.


Your idea of feedback is nothing other than complaints and whining. Hardly constructive.

Rejecting feedback out of hand and being defensive is not a good way to respond to feedback. Why ask for feedback on the first place? It’s poor practise, as any feedback training will tell you.

(Having said that though... where was I emotional? Why “chill out”? Do you mean you disagree with me and are just trying some character sabotage? Let’s not, eh? PM me if you have an actual issue else let the thread roll.)

Not to resurrect the thread, but did anything come of this? I'd love for standard tournament size to drop to 1500 or 1750 so game times can come down.

I saw the beta rules for March, and wanted to point out a potential problem with the new King of the Hill.

If I have two rather large units, like two Plaguebearers or two 20-man boys squads, it will be unreasonably difficult for those units to score those points.
Mathematically only 68 bases that are 32mm can fit into that bubble. That's packed as tightly as they can be.

I think the rule should be changed to "mostly" rather than "wholly." This would mean a little bit of math and counting on the fly, but for a full unit of 20 boys, only 10 of them would need to be within the bubble for that unit to count as scoring.

Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.

I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.

In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.

If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.

 oni wrote:
Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.

I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.

In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.

If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.

What's NOVA got to do with the ITC missions?

Slipspace wrote:

 oni wrote:
Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.

I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.

In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.

If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.

What's NOVA got to do with the ITC missions?

My points remain valid.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I saw the beta rules for March, and wanted to point out a potential problem with the new King of the Hill.

If I have two rather large units, like two Plaguebearers or two 20-man boys squads, it will be unreasonably difficult for those units to score those points.
Mathematically only 68 bases that are 32mm can fit into that bubble. That's packed as tightly as they can be.

I think the rule should be changed to "mostly" rather than "wholly." This would mean a little bit of math and counting on the fly, but for a full unit of 20 boys, only 10 of them would need to be within the bubble for that unit to count as scoring.

We were aware of that when writing it. We decided on both 6in from the center and 2 units wholly within knowing that.

 oni wrote:
Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.

I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.

In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.

If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.

So basically you are saying "make non competive scenarios for event that tries to be competive". Hmm...Not sure how that's exactly going to help them for their goal though. They are trying to make 40k into competive game. Having non-competive scenarios is going against whole core idea.

Wayniac wrote:
Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.

I exalted you, and I wish I could do it 100 more times. HERE HERE.

Also, I'm disappointed. I had lots of feedback to offer, but it seems the only allowed feedback is about the missions! Why not do a general survey of those who went?

tneva82 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.

I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.

In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.

If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.

So basically you are saying "make non competive scenarios for event that tries to be competive". Hmm...Not sure how that's exactly going to help them for their goal though. They are trying to make 40k into competive game. Having non-competive scenarios is going against whole core idea.

What specifically makes ITC and NOVA missions "competitive" (i.e. more suited for 'competition' than other missions)?

 oni wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.

I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.

In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.

If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.

So basically you are saying "make non competive scenarios for event that tries to be competive". Hmm...Not sure how that's exactly going to help them for their goal though. They are trying to make 40k into competive game. Having non-competive scenarios is going against whole core idea.

What specifically makes ITC and NOVA missions "competitive" (i.e. more suited for 'competition' than other missions)?

I argument I keep seeing is that they are less random and everything is completely predetermined.
Somehow in their mind the fact that you can chose the likely winner before a model hits the table purely based off of who has the killiest army and can pick the better secondaries is somehow 'competitive' instead of a scenario where you actually have to adept and be the better general.

So overall ITC is fun but there are certainly problems with it. As others have touched on the ITC format clearly steers lists to be built in a certain direction, this direction be kill your opponent as efficiently as possible. This leads to all the castellan and ynnari lists. There is almost no focus on objectives outside of efficient slaughter, ya ya you have hold 1 kill 1 hold more kill more, but those just happen, and happen more via efficiently killing, while the tie break (secondaries) focus almost entirely on slaughter apart from 1 or 2 which are quite hard to score thus not efficient. However if you take say one of those top tournament lists from the ITC format and forced it to play another format it would go from being amazing to just good. The reason some variation to your missions is good is it prevents a full out kit out this list for 1 purpose that ITC suffers from, namely how can I build the most efficient death dealers possible. If you are trying to be competitive, which is the point of ITC rules like the idea or not, then consistency is needed, however when you focus this sooo much to a point everything else falls away and it dramatically changes metas, making some models useless and making others god tier.

I think you need to "dull" the point on your mission design so to speak. Embrace a little bit of variation, just not randomness. IE something like at LVO being, Mission #1 current ITC standard set up. Mission #2 Make it focused more on taking and holding objectives even secondaries highlight this, maybe mission #3 is like that too then missions #4 is current set up and mission # 5 you roll for between the previous missions. Currently the design of ITC rules is like watching football where running the ball isn't allowed.

^^^ Exactly this.

To me the problem with the ITC at the moment is the lack of problem-solving required during a game. If a wargame is effectively a problem that each player needs to solve to win then I think the ITC puts far too much emphasis on solving that problem before the battle. I think the game is much more interesting when that problem has to be solved on the battlefield itself. I think the concept of secondary objectives is the issue. They push scoring too far down the route of killing things because it's much easier to write a variety of secondary objectives that requires killing things rather than doing anything else. It'd be interesting to see something trialled that pushes armies more towards holding ground instead.

 Ordana wrote:

 oni wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

I find NOVA missions to be complete and utter garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Just build an army to exploit scoring mission points and you will win, it's that simple. Interaction with your opponent is optional... Seriously. There's even a false sense of choice with NOVA missions, choosing your primary and secondary mission objectives, but the reality is that these choices are made during army list creation, because the mission actually never changes from round to round, just the location of the objective markers. This leads back to my original point; NOVA missions foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. This then creates a bias of what is good and what is bad and skews community opinion even (which is horribly sad). The reality being that under different conditions (i.e. different missions) what's good at NOVA doesn't perform as well when playing say... CA:2018 missions or even Maelstrom of War missions. This then creates another bias that CA missions and Maelstrom of War missions are no good for tournament use.

I'm sure those of you who love and praise NOVA missions will jump on me with falsehood's of why you believe I'm wrong.

In summation:
1. Creating missions that are simple, concise and vastly different in their objectives from round to round (and perhaps even allowing for a little bit of randomness) offers the best opportunity for different types of play style and different types of army builds to flourish.
2. There needs to be variety and slight imbalance (yes, imbalance) in the table terrain.

If the race track never changes than it will only ever be the driver with the most powerful engine that wins.

So basically you are saying "make non competive scenarios for event that tries to be competive". Hmm...Not sure how that's exactly going to help them for their goal though. They are trying to make 40k into competive game. Having non-competive scenarios is going against whole core idea.

What specifically makes ITC and NOVA missions "competitive" (i.e. more suited for 'competition' than other missions)?

I argument I keep seeing is that they are less random and everything is completely predetermined.
Somehow in their mind the fact that you can chose the likely winner before a model hits the table purely based off of who has the killiest army and can pick the better secondaries is somehow 'competitive' instead of a scenario where you actually have to adept and be the better general.

Thank you, your response is excellent and helps to point out a major flaw in ITC and NOVA missions.

My question was rhetorical, the answer of course being that ITC and NOVA missions are most certainly not more suited for competition than say... Eternal War missions from various GW books.

GrinNfool and Slipspace have excellent comments as well.

Slipspace wrote:
^^^ Exactly this.

To me the problem with the ITC at the moment is the lack of problem-solving required during a game. If a wargame is effectively a problem that each player needs to solve to win then I think the ITC puts far too much emphasis on solving that problem before the battle. I think the game is much more interesting when that problem has to be solved on the battlefield itself. I think the concept of secondary objectives is the issue. They push scoring too far down the route of killing things because it's much easier to write a variety of secondary objectives that requires killing things rather than doing anything else. It'd be interesting to see something trialled that pushes armies more towards holding ground instead.

Care to give an example of a "problem to solve"? Something like Ciaphas Cain using basilisks to destroy a dam so its water can wash away thousands of orks? Have one army defend a point/position and the other to take it? Win/loss based on the the thing being taken or destroyed? Make a "space gate" that can take 20 wounds, but if still held by defenders by turn 5 it's a Defense Win? If destroyed anytime before that, Attacker wins?

Just sounds too asymmetrical for a tourney setting.

Besides that, I really think you're over looking the point of the game. The end result of most of 40k's mechanics is to remove enemy models: Smite & the Psy powers that boost performance, Shooting & Fighting phases. Objective Secured has its place in the designers' rules and in the ITC mission design.

What would your 'problem solving' look like in missions?

 Brothererekose wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
^^^ Exactly this.

To me the problem with the ITC at the moment is the lack of problem-solving required during a game. If a wargame is effectively a problem that each player needs to solve to win then I think the ITC puts far too much emphasis on solving that problem before the battle. I think the game is much more interesting when that problem has to be solved on the battlefield itself. I think the concept of secondary objectives is the issue. They push scoring too far down the route of killing things because it's much easier to write a variety of secondary objectives that requires killing things rather than doing anything else. It'd be interesting to see something trialled that pushes armies more towards holding ground instead.

Care to give an example of a "problem to solve"? Something like Ciaphas Cain using basilisks to destroy a dam so its water can wash away thousands of orks? Have one army defend a point/position and the other to take it? Win/loss based on the the thing being taken or destroyed? Make a "space gate" that can take 20 wounds, but if still held by defenders by turn 5 it's a Defense Win? If destroyed anytime before that, Attacker wins?

Just sounds too asymmetrical for a tourney setting.

Besides that, I really think you're over looking the point of the game. The end result of most of 40k's mechanics is to remove enemy models: Smite & the Psy powers that boost performance, Shooting & Fighting phases. Objective Secured has its place in the designers' rules and in the ITC mission design.

What would your 'problem solving' look like in missions?

The point of the game is to have fun. Slipspace is describing the bare-bones framework of something which would increase his fun. Sounds like he's nailing the point of the game, not missing it, to me...

 Dysartes wrote:
The point of the game is to have fun. Slipspace is describing the bare-bones framework of something which would increase his fun. Sounds like he's nailing the point of the game, not missing it, to me...

Of course the point is fun and the comments in my sig ought to point out that I play for fun, too. ... but if Slipspace is talking about what's fun for him, and not a workable mechanic in ITC missions, then the post is misplaced.

But, I don't think that. My take on Slipspace's post is that he has posited that a different focus (solving problems) of missions could be used and I'd like to hear his ideas on what those could be.

 Brothererekose wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
^^^ Exactly this.

To me the problem with the ITC at the moment is the lack of problem-solving required during a game. If a wargame is effectively a problem that each player needs to solve to win then I think the ITC puts far too much emphasis on solving that problem before the battle. I think the game is much more interesting when that problem has to be solved on the battlefield itself. I think the concept of secondary objectives is the issue. They push scoring too far down the route of killing things because it's much easier to write a variety of secondary objectives that requires killing things rather than doing anything else. It'd be interesting to see something trialled that pushes armies more towards holding ground instead.

Care to give an example of a "problem to solve"? Something like Ciaphas Cain using basilisks to destroy a dam so its water can wash away thousands of orks? Have one army defend a point/position and the other to take it? Win/loss based on the the thing being taken or destroyed? Make a "space gate" that can take 20 wounds, but if still held by defenders by turn 5 it's a Defense Win? If destroyed anytime before that, Attacker wins?

Just sounds too asymmetrical for a tourney setting.

Besides that, I really think you're over looking the point of the game. The end result of most of 40k's mechanics is to remove enemy models: Smite & the Psy powers that boost performance, Shooting & Fighting phases. Objective Secured has its place in the designers' rules and in the ITC mission design.

What would your 'problem solving' look like in missions?

Killing should be a means to an end, not the end itself.
Like controlling objectives on the table, you will kill models in the pursuit of this but killing isn't the main goal.

ITC with its many secondaries focused around killing and not even its primaries caring much about how many objectives you control leads to a game where the only consideration is how much can you kill per turn which has a big influence on list building.

 Ordana wrote:
Killing should be a means to an end, not the end itself.
Like controlling objectives on the table, you will kill models in the pursuit of this but killing isn't the main goal.

A great post in these forums not only naysays the other guy's post, but also answers and contributes, instead of just telling me I don't have it right.

To that end of making things better for all of us:

Then what is that main goal? What would you have it be?

a. Winning the game?
b. Having fun regardless of win or loss? (And what would that mission/secondary look like?)
c. something else?

 Ordana wrote:
ITC with its many secondaries focused around killing and not even its primaries caring much about how many objectives you control leads to a game where the only consideration is how much can you kill per turn which has a big influence on list building.

I assert, that what you typed in orange *is* the game's design mechanic, this *is* the game's purpose, and the evidence is pretty much at the end of every rule ends with the phrases "does wounds", "remove enemy model", "destroys the unit" etc.

Instead of just typing/saying what ITC missions do badly or pointing out the negatives, would you also please provide and contribute what can be changed for the better? Would you please provide that, "What else goes into considering a list's build?" if not its sheer design to remove enemy models?

Please, take some time and add to our community and fun, and provide some ideas that we can take to the table and play. Something like new ITC Secondaries:
1. At player's turn end, hold 3 or more objectives and score a point. 4 Points possible for the game, for this objective (in addition to a mission's bonus point?)
2. Perhaps a harder version of Recon: Hold 6 sectors of the table. Score a point (as above). Bisect the table longitudinally and then latitudinally (sp?) split into thirds? Call it "The Six pack".

Whacha got to *add* to the discussion?

 Brothererekose wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
^^^ Exactly this.

To me the problem with the ITC at the moment is the lack of problem-solving required during a game. If a wargame is effectively a problem that each player needs to solve to win then I think the ITC puts far too much emphasis on solving that problem before the battle. I think the game is much more interesting when that problem has to be solved on the battlefield itself. I think the concept of secondary objectives is the issue. They push scoring too far down the route of killing things because it's much easier to write a variety of secondary objectives that requires killing things rather than doing anything else. It'd be interesting to see something trialled that pushes armies more towards holding ground instead.

Care to give an example of a "problem to solve"? Something like Ciaphas Cain using basilisks to destroy a dam so its water can wash away thousands of orks? Have one army defend a point/position and the other to take it? Win/loss based on the the thing being taken or destroyed? Make a "space gate" that can take 20 wounds, but if still held by defenders by turn 5 it's a Defense Win? If destroyed anytime before that, Attacker wins?

Just sounds too asymmetrical for a tourney setting.

Besides that, I really think you're over looking the point of the game. The end result of most of 40k's mechanics is to remove enemy models: Smite & the Psy powers that boost performance, Shooting & Fighting phases. Objective Secured has its place in the designers' rules and in the ITC mission design.

What would your 'problem solving' look like in missions?

I think you've taken the "problem solving" part of my quote a little too literally. What I meant was simply that any wargame can be boiled down to a problem that needs to be solved, whether that's as simple as killing more points of stuff by the end of the game or some complex asymmetric set of goals. For example, X-Wing has a very simple "problem" that you need to solve, which is to kill more points than you lose, but the game's mechanics make solving that problem interesting and engaging on the tabletop. IMO, 40k's mechanics are extremely shallow and therefore the mission design needs to be more complex in order to make the game interesting. ITC's "problem" to solve basically boils down to kill more stuff because the various missions to hold ground are either trivially easy (such as Recon, or hold a single objective) or extremely difficult to the point that you're likely already winning if you're achieving them consistently (many of the bonus primaries fall into this category). This then leads to a more-or-less solved game state where pure killing power is king and some units are total liabilities because they give up too many points while gaining too few back. Just look at the difference between the armies at the ITC and those at the GW GT Finals. There's been a lot of discussion about how the winning Tau list would have been terrible in ITC because of all the small units of drones, yet it was able to do well in a different format where killing isn't the end goal of the game.

As far as what I'd like to see changed, I'm not 100% sure what it would look like, but I do want to see at least a small amount more randomness introduced into ITC and much, much less emphasis on killing stuff. I'm not suggesting going full Maelstrom, but something that alters the basic premise away from a guaranteed set of goals and a guaranteed set-up of objectives would be welcome. I think Star Wars Legion has a system that has players eliminate objectives and set-ups from a pool of cards to generate the deployment and objectives. Something similar to that might be more interesting. It might even be an interesting experiment to simply remove all secondaries and the primaries for killing units form the ITC missions and see what results. Imagine going even further and removing the points for holding the objective(s) closest to your deployment zone. People might actually have to move around for a reason other than just to get LoS.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Killing should be a means to an end, not the end itself.
Like controlling objectives on the table, you will kill models in the pursuit of this but killing isn't the main goal.

A great post in these forums not only naysays the other guy's post, but also answers and contributes, instead of just telling me I don't have it right.

To that end of making things better for all of us:

Then what is that main goal? What would you have it be?

a. Winning the game?
b. Having fun regardless of win or loss? (And what would that mission/secondary look like?)
c. something else?

 Ordana wrote:
ITC with its many secondaries focused around killing and not even its primaries caring much about how many objectives you control leads to a game where the only consideration is how much can you kill per turn which has a big influence on list building.

I assert, that what you typed in orange *is* the game's design mechanic, this *is* the game's purpose, and the evidence is pretty much at the end of every rule ends with the phrases "does wounds", "remove enemy model", "destroys the unit" etc.

Instead of just typing/saying what ITC missions do badly or pointing out the negatives, would you also please provide and contribute what can be changed for the better? Would you please provide that, "What else goes into considering a list's build?" if not its sheer design to remove enemy models?

Please, take some time and add to our community and fun, and provide some ideas that we can take to the table and play. Something like new ITC Secondaries:
1. At player's turn end, hold 3 or more objectives and score a point. 4 Points possible for the game, for this objective (in addition to a mission's bonus point?)
2. Perhaps a harder version of Recon: Hold 6 sectors of the table. Score a point (as above). Bisect the table longitudinally and then latitudinally (sp?) split into thirds? Call it "The Six pack".

Whacha got to *add* to the discussion?

Since we are talking competitive the goal is obviously to win, but to win through objectives that don't necessarily involve killing, killing makes completing your objectives easier, but isn't the objective itself.

What would I rather see? Something as simple as 1 point per objective instead of just hold 1 can go a long way to getting armies to spread across the table. You can leave Hold More in there.
Get rid of kill more and a bunch of the kill things secondaries, plus select less then 3 to play with because there will be less choice now.

I know not everyone likes it but I enjoy Maelstrom, especially when combined with a more standard Eternal War mission. Yes there is randomness in the cards but that can be mitigated through varies means, from letting you remove cards from the deck for the tournament, or letting you draw 4/5 pick 3. It adds a degree of complexity to the missions, of suddenly having to worry about something else. It presents a problem to solve instead of just following a flowchart of 'Kill x, y, z. Win game".

Slipspace wrote:
I think you've taken the "problem solving" part of my quote a little too literally. What I meant was simply t

Spoiler:

hat any wargame can be boiled down to a problem that needs to be solved, whether that's as simple as killing more points of stuff by the end of the game or some complex asymmetric set of goals. For example, X-Wing has a very simple "problem" that you need to solve, which is to kill more points than you lose, but the game's mechanics make solving that problem interesting and engaging on the tabletop. IMO, 40k's mechanics are extremely shallow and therefore the mission design needs to be more complex in order to make the game interesting. ITC's "problem" to solve basically boils down to kill more stuff because the various missions to hold ground are either trivially easy (such as Recon, or hold a single objective) or extremely difficult to the point that you're likely already winning if you're achieving them consistently (many of the bonus primaries fall into this category). This then leads to a more-or-less solved game state where pure killing power is king and some units are total liabilities because they give up too many points while gaining too few back. Just look at the difference between the armies at the ITC and those at the GW GT Finals. There's been a lot of discussion about how the winning Tau list would have been terrible in ITC because of all the small units of drones, yet it was able to do well in a different format where killing isn't the end go

al of the game.

Well stated and good point.

Slipspace wrote:
As far as what I'd like to see changed, I'm not 100% sure what it would look like, but I do want to see at least a small amount more randomness introduced into ITC and much, much less emphasis on killing stuff. I'm not suggesting going full Maelstrom, but something that alters the basic premise away from a guaranteed set of goals and a guaranteed set-up of objectives would be welcome. I think Star Wars Legion has a system that has players eliminate objectives and set-ups from a pool of cards to generate the deployment and objectives. ... .

Perhaps, a better version of using the Maelstrom cards, as Ordana suggests below?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
Since we are talking competitive the goal is obviously to win, but to win through objectives that don't necessarily involve killing, killing makes completing your objectives easier, but isn't the objective itself.

What would I rather see? Something as simple as 1 point per objective instead of just hold 1 can go a long way to getting armies to spread across the table. You can leave Hold More in there.
Get rid of kill more and a bunch of the kill things secondaries, plus select less then 3 to play with because there will be less choice now.

I know not everyone likes it but I enjoy Maelstrom, especially when combined with a more standard Eternal War mission. Yes there is randomness in the cards but that can be mitigated through varies means, from letting you remove cards from the deck for the tournament, or letting you draw 4/5 pick 3. It adds a degree of complexity to the missions, of suddenly having to worry about something else. It presents a problem to solve instead of just following a flowchart of 'Kill x, y, z. Win game".

Good ideas.

I recall, when 7e initiated, that the complaint from players at my LGS was that too quickly, Maelstrom/Tac card objectives would tip the game. Random card draws could just bone you hard, despite your tactical acumen, even dominance of the table (making it necessary to table the opponent to win, which is kinda what we're discussing as something to avoid). In the couple of our RTTs that we *did* use Mael/Tactical cards, a rule existed that had an auto-redraw if an objective was impossible to achieve, like shooting down an enemy flier, fry an enemy psycher that didn't exist, etc. But it was the randomness made the game more of a game of chance, a gamble (hold that protest, "But it's a DICE game!!") than skill and tactical acumen, etc.

And we didn't like that. We didn't like the card draw's random factor.

I like it in poker. And I think we all can like games-of-chance, like craps or Black Jack. But 40k is a opponent vs opponent game, and I think that mindset is, "Can I outsmart this guy, with reasonable dice odds?"

When we (you, me, the 40k community) see that same players in a meta, achieving the top tables, it is obvious that the dice don't have an overbearing effect, so much as the player's skill. If I see Brandon Grant at a tourney (and he'll be at the next GT ), I only wonder who's gonna come in second.

Now, back to the, "But Casey, it *IS* a dice game!" Yes, it is, but all the really good players I talk to, the ones that have multiple RTT and GT wins, they talk about target selection, positioning/deployment and matching units up correctly. Favorite dice never come. Overall, the dice don't weigh in as much.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I do like your idea of selecting Tac cards down to a few good ones. However, it's going to come back to either killing something, taking an objective(s) which are good ones. Or silly things like successfully casting a Psy-power, iirc. I don't own any cards anymore. Were there some really bad, codex specific easy ones? Like 'succeed a charge with wyches'?

Do you have some you could post as good examples?

Something that would weight the missions more towards objectives that could be "borrowed with love" (totally not stolen) from Maelstrom is the concept of defending objectives.

Either as a secondary or as part of scoring, get one point for every objective that you held at the beginning of the battle round and still hold at the end of the battle round.

Yes, you still have to kill things, but you also have to hold them. It might even bring back fortifications, as you have to hold things against lists designed just to kill you off objectives but not hold them.

Not seen this anywhere else yet, but, it appears there is another mini poll up in regards to how to award and score Best in Faction for the ITC.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfyxPgWjqSANX2yzfsyhpsCxZBWk5oShrxf-TrO8LGHptlTiw/viewform?usp=sf_link

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/b67rai/official_vote_for_how_the_itc_decides_best_in/

It gives 2 options, keep it as is, or move to a 100% “pure” list for each faction whilst adding in the “imperium/chaos/aeldari” etc “factions”.

Should’ve had a middle option for something like 75% pure. I don’t think it’s reasonable to throw a 1915 wolves/85 assassin list in with a 666/666/668 imperial soup split.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Should’ve had a middle option for something like 75% pure. I don’t think it’s reasonable to throw a 1915 wolves/85 assassin list in with a 666/666/668 imperial soup split.

I think reinforcement points won't alter the "pureness" of a list. Will need clarification though.

Reinforcements don't effect if your army is pure, only detachments.


I don't like the fact that a 200 or less detachment ruins your pure status, but I suppose that is the most fair way to do it.

Reece address that issue in the comment section.

As I’ve explained numerous times, that doesn’t address the issue that was brought up to start this in the first place: when competing for best in faction, a lot of players expressed frustration at playing an army for best in faction against a soup list. The degree to which you soup isn’t super relevant to the core issue.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2019/03/26/poll-how-should-the-itc-calculate-best-in-faction-awards/

Abuse Puppy points out.

Pure. Army faction is calculated from your list, not from models you bring in as reinforcements. (The same is currently true for a CSM army that summons daemons, for example.)

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Should’ve had a middle option for something like 75% pure. I don’t think it’s reasonable to throw a 1915 wolves/85 assassin list in with a 666/666/668 imperial soup split.

Agreed, though I'd rather see "pure" than what it is now. I'm curious to see (if this is implemented) how a change to classification will affect the "statistics" for each army to include representation and win rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brothererekose wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
As far as what I'd like to see changed, I'm not 100% sure what it would look like, but I do want to see at least a small amount more randomness introduced into ITC and much, much less emphasis on killing stuff. I'm not suggesting going full Maelstrom, but something that alters the basic premise away from a guaranteed set of goals and a guaranteed set-up of objectives would be welcome. I think Star Wars Legion has a system that has players eliminate objectives and set-ups from a pool of cards to generate the deployment and objectives. ... .

Perhaps, a better version of using the Maelstrom cards, as Ordana suggests below?

I actually think that the way to do in a tournament this isn't more randomness within the mission, but rather more variety of missions. Right now every single mission is ITC primary+secondaries, with the only variable being where the objectives are placed. Changing the points each objective is worth, having a mission with a lot, one with a few, having a kill points mission, bringing back the Relic (but in a sensible way), or even having one with only end game scoring are all ways to make each game feel different.