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.

While painting i always listen to 40k/aos podcasts, i dont need to look up like i do with batreps/moveis.

While listening to Chapter Tactics #103 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exmz8BZLXOQ Its always amazing hearing and see lists from other places. (Note it not a full ETC tournament, but mostly the same).

PS: Please note that english is very hard for me, sorry if there are spelling and grammar mistakes and if my thoughts are all over the place or the format is hard to read.


I wouldlike to talk about the differences in them and what each can learn from the other, and maybe created a better balanced environment, b.c i believe that ITC alone (As well as ETC alone and GW alone) are not balanced. Many here love ITC, and that is completely fine, i dont want to to be a talk about what system is better, but how they are different, how it changes the meta, and what we can do to get more units viable (Many units are good on paper or in a vacuum, but as soon as they are in ITC they are bad, or Maelstrom, or Eternal, many units are more viable in different metas).


Please listen to the 8min to 20min mark of the video, (NOTE: I am not plugging in this youtube channel, just using this 12min as a purpose).

TL: DW (Too long didnt watch) the video talks about how LVO had 8 Chimeras between all players, but top two at Prague open each had 5+ Chimeras just 2 players had more than everyone together at LVO (This is b.c of the missions).


So, this now comes down to, 1 system easily showing loads of troops footslogging as giant bubble wraps and wound soakers, then the other having fast moving tanks to protect less troops.
This is due to the differences in ITC/ETC.

For those that dont know ETC normally focus on the actual mission and uses Maelstrom (But you get to remove 6 cards from your deck that you dont like, this is were CA got it from i believe and it makes the game much more fun/balance compare, smaller deck and better options). ITC focus more on killing and placement of units, you pick your missions you want most of them are kill points then there is Kill more and a few ojectives like Hold more or placement units (recon, behind enemy lines).


Looking at lists from ITC and ETC games, they are clearily completely different aith different wargear for armies that does bring the same units (like Tau, they have lots of Plasma and other gear) and Castallens are not dominating as much, top player had Crusader even.

Seeing all of these differences, what do you like about each meta? What would you like to change/add to ITC/ETC? DO you like ITC or ETC more? I just want a general over all discussion about how to make 40k more open to more units without huge overhauls, b.c IMO there are a LARGE number of units that are good, but the events/missions doesnt allow them to be playable. So before we change units to much, maybe we should look at the missions being played. (Im not saying some units are not balanced, im talking about those units that are good, but not great and no one is able to give them a chance due to meta).

Eh they both have problems, but the problems are very different.

ETC suffers from the same problem playing BRB missions always do, an additional layer of randomness in a game already using dice. Depending on missions you get you could easily end up with games that you just can't win. The upside to this though, is honestly the game is a bit better balanced because you don't just auto lose any match up, and due the nature of the random objectives it encourages much more varied list building, as honestly, 40k was designed for. Don't get me wrong ETC has a lot of issues army wise too as there are some army set ups that just work great when dealing with the randomness.

ITC on the other hand tries to eliminate the randomness with the added house rules and their own mission list. A lot of their secondary objectives (a lot of your points) is tied into killing specific targets or numbers. It is heavily focused on fighting. The problem this though is the house rules create a very definitive "best list" that revolves almost completely around killing with only a subtle influence on playing other objectives. You don't have to account for random strange objectives you may have to do, so it allows a much more specific tailoring of list.

TLR ETC tries to follow closer to the spirit of the game the way GW designed it, embracing the problems with the game, but generally benefiting from more varied lists. ITC tries to house rule things its creators don't like and fixes some of the problems of GWs designed rules, however they also create a whole suite of other issues, like the ynnari castellan meta

As for changes, I think ETC should allow for more than 6 objectives to be removed, and be a bit more flexible on objective you draw that are just flat impossible.

ITC i would like to embrace some more dynamic objectives, I think only 2, maybe 3 can't recall from LVO, secondaries weren't about killing or wounding, and at least one of those was horrible and the other was only good for hordes. Forcing people to interact with their opponent is good but there are games that are rock paper scissors that your army can't win a straight up fight vs. Would be nice to have some objectives that focused on reaching something or holding something instead of being forced into a meat grinder.

Get ready for ITC elitits to storm in here and tell you that the real 40K is only ITC.

In general i agree with what Grimnfool said, i'm quite happy to know that i'm not the only one to see it this way:

ETC/CA18 meta: More varied and balanced, but more random and less suited for big scale events.
ITC: Less varied and balanced, but also less random.

A unit can be bad in a meta and be a star in the other, they are about as different as 7th and 8th by now.

Spoletta wrote:
Get ready for ITC elitits to storm in here and tell you that the real 40K is only ITC.

In general i agree with what Grimnfool said, i'm quite happy to know that i'm not the only one to see it this way:

ETC/CA18 meta: More varied and balanced, but more random and less suited for big scale events.
ITC: Less varied and balanced, but also less random.

A unit can be bad in a meta and be a star in the other, they are about as different as 7th and 8th by now.

The ETC missions do work best in the format they were designed for - team play. To an extent you can just ignore aspects of the ETC missions if all you want to do is win, you need to play to all of them in a team format to maximise your score for the team. The main ETC event is HUGE, I think claiming that their missions are unsuited to large events is quite an odd thing to say. What is probably fair is that they are only tolerably suitable for singles play, the European scene is heavily dominated by those missions largely because the players want to practice them and/or establish a reputation with them with a view to being in the main ETC competition each year.

The pure GW mission meta is different again - they are currently running the CA18 eternal war missions so not so much random card-drawing and dashing around the table but still the high level of variability between missions which makes it hard to list-tune to any one mission. It will be interesting to see how that meta is working out later this month with the GT finals, I expect it to be a bit similar to ETC and really quite different to ITC. I predict a tendency towards high model count durable lists and slow play, but would be happy to be proven wrong especially on the latter part.

The ITC mission pack is really not very varied at all - which is why it is more vulnerable to a static and "solved" meta than the other formats. Now if all the ITC players were happy with their Ynnari/Castellan meta that would be great but I keep hearing and seeing that they are not, so why so many tournaments are sticking to this very narrow mission set that has that outcome is hard to fully understand.

Is`t it fun, how they claim Ynnari are the best in all formats and in ETC the metta is again dominated by IG and friends ?
I mean having low coast units that can shoots and have decent melee is usable in all scenarios, much more than having fast gimmicky army.

Both formats are great imo. They are also both slowly undergoing slight changes every year to attempt to better themselves.

I think FLG have some plans to do a few big changes to the packet this year (swapping some secondaries and primaries, plus changing to the new deployment method) but since I don't work for them im not sure.

The ITC missions are less random, and for that I will always chose them. Random objectives are pretty much the epitome of not-fun.

I would much rather play with Castellans and Ravagers than do the whole "take the point all the way over there! No wait, kill a unit! No wait, this point here!"

Fixed objective missions allow you to actually meaningfully plan ahead.

I definitely wouldn't call the ITC set "less balanced" Balanced does not mean that a list of ratlings can beat a list of knights. And while a format with the random objectives is also balanced, since the odds of any given player having a bad hand or good hand are equal, it's definitely much less fun, and places more aspects of the game outside player control. With fixed objective, you're fighting the enemy, with random ones you're fighting the mission.


My one complaint with the ITC missions are that the rewards for destruction of units seem unreasonably high, and that the 5th point a turn is generally just there to indicate that you're winning really hard.

ITC missions are bland boring and simplistic and feel like they were designed by a committee. (and they kinda were). All they really have going for them is they are fair. GW missions feel like they should be on a SAW movie and someone self amputates an arm.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

For those that dont know ETC normally focus on the actual mission and uses Maelstrom (But you get to remove 6 cards from your deck that you dont like, this is were CA got it from i believe and it makes the game much more fun/balance compare, smaller deck and better options). ITC focus more on killing and placement of units, you pick your missions you want most of them are kill points then there is Kill more and a few ojectives like Hold more or placement units (recon, behind enemy lines).

I am unsure how removing 6 cards would prevent the all too often scenario of my opponent drawing all the objectives he currently holds and I draw all the ones he holds, too.

Is there a place I can easily look at all the lists at this tournament?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The ITC missions are less random, and for that I will always chose them. Random objectives are pretty much the epitome of not-fun.

I would much rather play with Castellans and Ravagers than do the whole "take the point all the way over there! No wait, kill a unit! No wait, this point here!"

Fixed objective missions allow you to actually meaningfully plan ahead.

I definitely wouldn't call the ITC set "less balanced" Balanced does not mean that a list of ratlings can beat a list of knights. And while a format with the random objectives is also balanced, since the odds of any given player having a bad hand or good hand are equal, it's definitely much less fun, and places more aspects of the game outside player control. With fixed objective, you're fighting the enemy, with random ones you're fighting the mission.


My one complaint with the ITC missions are that the rewards for destruction of units seem unreasonably high, and that the 5th point a turn is generally just there to indicate that you're winning really hard.

When i say "random" i do mean it without considering maelstrom (that's still out of the question). Since eternal war missions do each favor a different kind of army, even if your events play the full package of 6 missions so that you can plan for them, it still includes that more random element of getting to meet the right enemy list in the right mission..

When i say "more balanced" i don't mean that randomness plays a bigger role so winning chances are more equal, i mean that ITC narrows down the pool of "good" units and faction by a lot compared to CA18 missions. CA18 missions are more "balanced" because they are less list dependent.

I have played both ITC and ETC and to be honest I didn't find the experience that much more different.

The biggest difference of ETC is that the tournaments are team tournaments. You don't make your list. You make a list with an objetive in mind. To be a "sword" list or a "shield" list, and some factions are better ar something.

As teams can't repeat factions, lists will be also more varied, because only one will be able to take Imperial Knights, and if you have a Ynnari mixed faction list then you can't have a Drukhari or a Craftworld Eldar list.

Also, Maelstrom of War, when you can remove 6 objetives and then also remove the impossibles are much less "random and horrible and OMG MY OPONENT JUST REVEICE ALL THE BEST OPTIONS YOU WON'T BELEIVE IT" than people give it credit for.

I have found that ITC is more playing agaisnt the Tournament pack and less about adapting to the situation on the game and the opponent your team has chose for you because thats what will benefit the team.

ETC I think is not the right comparison for ITC because as has been said, ETC is a team tournament. Team tournaments work out totally different.

What should be compared is ITC with the official GW GTs that they hold at Warhammer World. Especially since those are the official grand tournament for the game; sponsored by the company itself and held virtually at their HQ.

Which they use:

Rules: Warhammer 40,000 Matched Play (see pages 214-215 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook).

Army size: 1,750 points.

Missions: Eternal War.

Number of games: Five.

Army selection: Battle-forged with a maximum of three Detachments. Excluding Troops and Dedicated Transports, each datasheet can be included a maximum of three times in your army.

Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books, Codexes, beta rules, FAQs and errata from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)

There is an addendum saying that they use Chapter Approved 2018 Eternal War missions (5 out of 6 for Heat 4, and all six for the Final) and are rolled just before the game. Also, all current beta rules are in effect.

Now IMHO, that should be the standard for 40k tournament play, full stop. It is what the company themselves use for their officially sponsored (i.e. the real) Grand Tournament, not an independent organization that, while they might be "endorsed" by the company isn't run by the company themselves.

To whit, apparently the GT Heat 3 was won by an Aeldari list but not the sort of horrible list you see in ITC events:

Saim-Hann Outrider
Autarch Skyrunner Warlord
3x5 Scatbikes

Ulthwé Spearhead
Eldrad
3x3 Dark Reapers
Wave Serpent

Alaitoc Air Wing
3 Hemlocks

Now that's a strong list, but it's not the sort of horsegak you see at ITC events like that horrible 7 flyer and 15ish scatbikes list at LVO

All this talk about meta and the top armies don't change.

It's not like there's a mission pack where Space Wolves are viable, for example.

A team tournament is obviously going to be fundamentally different.

What ITC added to the game was progressive scoring. End of game scoring is boring. Super boring. And random objectives lead to frustrating games. If you draw bad cards you essentially need to play for the table, making your game very one dimensional. The ITC secondaries are not great. But the core mission concept (hold, hold more, kill, kill more, objective based bonus) as the foundation for a mission pack is great. Absolutely great.

What you don't want:
1. Games where you cannot win, period, no matter how well you play. This is maelstrom sometimes.
2. Games where the mission is largely pointless. This is eternal war.

The big difference between Europe and America is terrain, not missions. Foam terrain says hello.

Yeah but CA2018 uses progressive scoring too. I think what ITC added that was actually needed was the rankings/points (I forget the term that Magic uses for it but that basically). I just don't think they need to fork the game anymore with extras.

Also if we're talking terrain, ITC uses too little terrain and too symmetrical. Picking what side you deploy on is supposed to be an actual tactical choice, and doesn't work when the terrain is virtually identical.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

For those that dont know ETC normally focus on the actual mission and uses Maelstrom (But you get to remove 6 cards from your deck that you dont like, this is were CA got it from i believe and it makes the game much more fun/balance compare, smaller deck and better options). ITC focus more on killing and placement of units, you pick your missions you want most of them are kill points then there is Kill more and a few ojectives like Hold more or placement units (recon, behind enemy lines).

I am unsure how removing 6 cards would prevent the all too often scenario of my opponent drawing all the objectives he currently holds and I draw all the ones he holds, too.

Is there a place I can easily look at all the lists at this tournament?

Never said prevent, but makes it "small and better" lowering the number off cards and removing bad ones will always make it better. Im not claiming its good, im saying it is better.

I personally dont like Maelstrom, but small things like that at least helps.

IDK about look? I know it was the Prague tournament, there might be info on that.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The ITC missions are less random, and for that I will always chose them. Random objectives are pretty much the epitome of not-fun.

I would much rather play with Castellans and Ravagers than do the whole "take the point all the way over there! No wait, kill a unit! No wait, this point here!"

Fixed objective missions allow you to actually meaningfully plan ahead.

I definitely wouldn't call the ITC set "less balanced" Balanced does not mean that a list of ratlings can beat a list of knights. And while a format with the random objectives is also balanced, since the odds of any given player having a bad hand or good hand are equal, it's definitely much less fun, and places more aspects of the game outside player control. With fixed objective, you're fighting the enemy, with random ones you're fighting the mission.


My one complaint with the ITC missions are that the rewards for destruction of units seem unreasonably high, and that the 5th point a turn is generally just there to indicate that you're winning really hard.

I think the question for the thread is are you happy with the meta that the ITC missions create. By having a set of missions that only really differ cosmetically you will tend to find that a unit which is good in one of them is almost automatically good in all of them - which leads to a much more polarised and settled meta than mission packs with a greater diversity. You may be one of the players totally happy that a couple of list archetypes have been top dog in ITC for 6 months and will stay that way until something is changed; in which case that is cool. On the other hand if you are sick of Ynnari/Castellan meta then you may need to reconsider the lack of variety which has caused a couple of powerful solutions to the mission pack problem to have been found.

ETC missions do have that random element . The CA18 missions do not.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The ITC missions are less random, and for that I will always chose them. Random objectives are pretty much the epitome of not-fun.

I would much rather play with Castellans and Ravagers than do the whole "take the point all the way over there! No wait, kill a unit! No wait, this point here!"

Fixed objective missions allow you to actually meaningfully plan ahead.

I definitely wouldn't call the ITC set "less balanced" Balanced does not mean that a list of ratlings can beat a list of knights. And while a format with the random objectives is also balanced, since the odds of any given player having a bad hand or good hand are equal, it's definitely much less fun, and places more aspects of the game outside player control. With fixed objective, you're fighting the enemy, with random ones you're fighting the mission.


My one complaint with the ITC missions are that the rewards for destruction of units seem unreasonably high, and that the 5th point a turn is generally just there to indicate that you're winning really hard.

I think the question for the thread is are you happy with the meta that the ITC missions create. By having a set of missions that only really differ cosmetically you will tend to find that a unit which is good in one of them is almost automatically good in all of them - which leads to a much more polarised and settled meta than mission packs with a greater diversity. You may be one of the players totally happy that a couple of list archetypes have been top dog in ITC for 6 months and will stay that way until something is changed; in which case that is cool. On the other hand if you are sick of Ynnari/Castellan meta then you may need to reconsider the lack of variety which has caused a couple of powerful solutions to the mission pack problem to have been found.

ETC missions do have that random element . The CA18 missions do not.

General this, thanks for helping explain. I can only explain my job well other things i am a lost of words.

What good is eternal war? It's a measure of whoever has the most models, with the fastest move & obsec being alive on the last turn. Remember when you would jump Scatbikes on an objective in the last turn to win the game, render the previous turns pointless? pepperidge farms remembers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The ITC missions are less random, and for that I will always chose them. Random objectives are pretty much the epitome of not-fun.

I would much rather play with Castellans and Ravagers than do the whole "take the point all the way over there! No wait, kill a unit! No wait, this point here!"

Fixed objective missions allow you to actually meaningfully plan ahead.

I definitely wouldn't call the ITC set "less balanced" Balanced does not mean that a list of ratlings can beat a list of knights. And while a format with the random objectives is also balanced, since the odds of any given player having a bad hand or good hand are equal, it's definitely much less fun, and places more aspects of the game outside player control. With fixed objective, you're fighting the enemy, with random ones you're fighting the mission.


My one complaint with the ITC missions are that the rewards for destruction of units seem unreasonably high, and that the 5th point a turn is generally just there to indicate that you're winning really hard.

I think the question for the thread is are you happy with the meta that the ITC missions create. By having a set of missions that only really differ cosmetically you will tend to find that a unit which is good in one of them is almost automatically good in all of them - which leads to a much more polarised and settled meta than mission packs with a greater diversity. You may be one of the players totally happy that a couple of list archetypes have been top dog in ITC for 6 months and will stay that way until something is changed; in which case that is cool. On the other hand if you are sick of Ynnari/Castellan meta then you may need to reconsider the lack of variety which has caused a couple of powerful solutions to the mission pack problem to have been found.

ETC missions do have that random element . The CA18 missions do not.

The meta is indicative of good armies essentially. It's Guard followed by Eldar EVERYWHERE you go. The fact that guard can win with Chimeras or not or whatever in entirely different formats just further proves the army is too god damn good.

I feel the GW Nottingham GTs are just not that competitive. People turn up with fluffy armies - or "look at my beautifully painted models" armies that are not optimised. Whereas at the LVO this doesn't seem to be the case. So comparing the two is a bit of an odd approach. Or maybe it isn't - but you can't really draw useful conclusions.

I mean I am pretty sure a Guard+Castellen build could win a GW tournament. But since it isn't 20-25% of all the lists, there are greater odds of bad luck knocking them out.

Did anyone count what percentage of LVO lists were Aeldari/Knight soups? I think 12% brought a Castellan? Considerably more brought knights of some description.

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah but CA2018 uses progressive scoring too. I think what ITC added that was actually needed was the rankings/points (I forget the term that Magic uses for it but that basically). I just don't think they need to fork the game anymore with extras.

Also if we're talking terrain, ITC uses too little terrain and too symmetrical. Picking what side you deploy on is supposed to be an actual tactical choice, and doesn't work when the terrain is virtually identical.

Well to be honest I'll say that simetrical terrain is good for matched play tournaments. Asimetrical terrain is good for narrative driven games.

Now, I don't think having people know how the terrain is gonna be beforehand is good. I think tables should have simetrical but unknown terrain for people so they can't tailor lists to that. Of course, terrain in a tournament is more times than not based around what the tournament has.

Also, about FOAM terrain, they actually had boxes and boxes of GW terrain that they didn't used because it wasn't LOS.


Also, I don't know what Eternal War missions people is playing, but most of the CA ones, both 2017 and 2018 have progresive scoring.

For me, the combination of one Maelstrom of War mission (Removing 6 objetive cards and removing impossibles) + One CA Eternal War mission with progresivve scoring is how more fun I have playing Warhammer.
It gives you something tangible (Eternal War) and a little bit of random to spice the game but without being that much random that it can make it impossible to try to win.

Tyel wrote:
I feel the GW Nottingham GTs are just not that competitive. People turn up with fluffy armies - or "look at my beautifully painted models" armies that are not optimised. Whereas at the LVO this doesn't seem to be the case. So comparing the two is a bit of an odd approach. Or maybe it isn't - but you can't really draw useful conclusions.

LVO has fluff players, too, but they get filtered out pretty quickly. It's why I hate when people quote performance for the whole set when clearly a decent portion of people came to just toss some dice at a big event.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I feel the GW Nottingham GTs are just not that competitive. People turn up with fluffy armies - or "look at my beautifully painted models" armies that are not optimised. Whereas at the LVO this doesn't seem to be the case. So comparing the two is a bit of an odd approach. Or maybe it isn't - but you can't really draw useful conclusions.

LVO has fluff players, too, but they get filtered out pretty quickly. It's why I hate when people quote performance for the whole set when clearly a decent portion of people came to just toss some dice at a big event.

There are going to be a chunk of people that play in the champs and have no business doing so, both because they're bad or because they're just running bad lists. I've always been a proponent that balance is about performance potential. It doesn't matter that the Valiant isn't great. When you discuss Guard + Knights you're talking about the Castellan. It's a specific build. Guard + Valiant shouldn't diminish the quality of Guard + Castellan. Yet people will come in here and argue "ThAt iS suRvIVorShiP BiaS!!1" when we talk about it.

It makes no sense to look at the scrubs when determining the meta, or the quality of an army. Because that's not what the meta is.

 Marmatag wrote:
What good is eternal war? It's a measure of whoever has the most models, with the fastest move & obsec being alive on the last turn. Remember when you would jump Scatbikes on an objective in the last turn to win the game, render the previous turns pointless? pepperidge farms remembers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The ITC missions are less random, and for that I will always chose them. Random objectives are pretty much the epitome of not-fun.

I would much rather play with Castellans and Ravagers than do the whole "take the point all the way over there! No wait, kill a unit! No wait, this point here!"

Fixed objective missions allow you to actually meaningfully plan ahead.

I definitely wouldn't call the ITC set "less balanced" Balanced does not mean that a list of ratlings can beat a list of knights. And while a format with the random objectives is also balanced, since the odds of any given player having a bad hand or good hand are equal, it's definitely much less fun, and places more aspects of the game outside player control. With fixed objective, you're fighting the enemy, with random ones you're fighting the mission.


My one complaint with the ITC missions are that the rewards for destruction of units seem unreasonably high, and that the 5th point a turn is generally just there to indicate that you're winning really hard.

I think the question for the thread is are you happy with the meta that the ITC missions create. By having a set of missions that only really differ cosmetically you will tend to find that a unit which is good in one of them is almost automatically good in all of them - which leads to a much more polarised and settled meta than mission packs with a greater diversity. You may be one of the players totally happy that a couple of list archetypes have been top dog in ITC for 6 months and will stay that way until something is changed; in which case that is cool. On the other hand if you are sick of Ynnari/Castellan meta then you may need to reconsider the lack of variety which has caused a couple of powerful solutions to the mission pack problem to have been found.

ETC missions do have that random element . The CA18 missions do not.

The meta is indicative of good armies essentially. It's Guard followed by Eldar EVERYWHERE you go. The fact that guard can win with Chimeras or not or whatever in entirely different formats just further proves the army is too god damn good.

I really have to ask at this point. When was the last time you played the GW format? Because your info is at least 2 years old.

All eternal war missions are progressive scoring.
Eldar bike like units are quite bad in CA18, since you don't score at the end of the turn. You have to survive a whole turn on the objective to score.
Factions have totally different effectiveness. Ynnary are not so broken in CA18, because killing never awards points and you need to survive on objectives, while mono custodes which is really bad in ITC is actually decent in CA18.

I understand that you are a rabid supporter of ITC, but please try to not post about stuff you don't know.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
What i really like about CA18 is that troops have a meaning.
In ITC where points are mostly dependent on killing, troops are a tax and you will always take the minimum amount of it, because troops usually lose against specialized units when it comes to kill. The exception to this rule are guards, whose troops do actually play a big role in the mechanics of the army, so IG tend to be good since they don't have a "tax".

In CA18 you take troops, and lots of it, because killing awards zero points. You either play the missions or you concede.
I can force hard choices on my opponent if i have a killy unit and a troop on an objective. Should i focus the killing unit and allow him to score a point, or kill the troop and leave the killy unit alive? In ITC you will never face this kind of choices, it's really an MTG style of game "show me your combo".

Killing absolutely awards points because if your opponent is tabled or dying horribly they can't control the map.

Like your average model is suddenly more resilient because the mission is different? Get out.

Roughly half of your points in ITC come from objectives. Hold, hold more, bonus = all objective based. Some of the position based secondaries are also worth taking. Recon, for example.

I find it absolutely hilarious you're in here trumpeting new GW missions when they basically lifted a portion of the ITC rules to update their garbo base mission pack.

I said it before and i'll say it again: ITC missions have flaws. The secondaries should be reworked to provide more emphasis on objectives and movement, and de-emphasize castling. But there is no point in playing GW missions. They're awful. Maelstrom of war?? Seriously? Oh I drew the Objective 6 card, which is essentially impossible. I guess i don't get points. Meanwhile my opponent also drew objective 6, and he's castled on top of it. #Skill is on display here guys.

Some secondaries in ITC are designed to balance out the game. For instance, Kingslayer and Titan Slayers are really important for when your opponent brings knights, or super heavies. Without these drawbacks those lists stomp even harder. Or how about Headhunter? if there's no downside to spamming supreme commands people are going to do it. Because killing your opponent is always the fastest way to win the game regardless of format.

Spoletta wrote:
In ITC where points are mostly dependent on killing, troops are a tax and you will always take the minimum amount of it, because troops usually lose against specialized units when it comes to kill. The exception to this rule are guards, whose troops do actually play a big role in the mechanics of the army, so IG tend to be good since they don't have a "tax".

In CA18 you take troops, and lots of it, because killing awards zero points. You either play the missions or you concede.
I can force hard choices on my opponent if i have a killy unit and a troop on an objective. Should i focus the killing unit and allow him to score a point, or kill the troop and leave the killy unit alive? In ITC you will never face this kind of choices, it's really an MTG style of game "show me your combo".

EXACTLY!

That's the real crux here. The way ITC missions are designed, you only have to care about objectives and killing. So you see troops as a tax, something that dies easily and gives you VP (or worse, secondaries to boot). Each Eternal War CA18 mission has some little twist to it that means some unit might shine or be not as good as it normally is, which is part of what helps balance out list design compared to ITC where you can basically just tailor your list to the missions (because they are identical apart from objective placement).

What's interesting is that ITC missions seem to have taken inspiration from Warmahordes' Steamroller (which is PP's official tournament packet) but seemed to have missed the part where Steamroller missions tend to be different types; some are zones, some are flags, some are objectives, some are a combination of the two so that the best option is really to bring a balanced list that can handle anything (albeit in Steamroller you get 2 lists and pick which you use).

Troops die easily regardless of format. Are you kidding me? There is no format where a tactical marine isn't complete garbage, for example.

People don't minimize troops as much as you claim. The top guard lists have quite a bit of bodies and they make amazing use out of them. Bad example because that faction is broken OP, but other factions do as well. I run 6 squads of Kabalite Warriors in my Dark Eldar list, and they perform famously. Necrons get a lot of mileage out of their troops. Tau get immense value out of firewarriors, triple riptide list depends on them, so does vehicle spam Tau. Eldar don't feature guardians but that's not because guardians are god awful it's because rangers are quite good. Rangers are troops and they do what they do very, very well. Tyranids have some of the best troops in the game. Genestealers are fantastic, hormagants and termagants also see play, but less because Ripper Swarms are overall better, despite the negligible difference in cost (40 vs 33). Genestealer Cults have fantastic troops as well, the Acolytes and Neophytes are actually worth it.

I mean the list goes on. You guys represent the ITC format as somehow being bad for troops but it's far from it. The only factions that are completely assed out worthless are the power armored sods that can't deal with weight of dice or anti-elite shooting. The profile of the guns doesn't vary based on format.

Tyel wrote:
I feel the GW Nottingham GTs are just not that competitive. People turn up with fluffy armies - or "look at my beautifully painted models" armies that are not optimised. Whereas at the LVO this doesn't seem to be the case. So comparing the two is a bit of an odd approach. Or maybe it isn't - but you can't really draw useful conclusions.

I mean I am pretty sure a Guard+Castellen build could win a GW tournament. But since it isn't 20-25% of all the lists, there are greater odds of bad luck knocking them out.

Did anyone count what percentage of LVO lists were Aeldari/Knight soups? I think 12% brought a Castellan? Considerably more brought knights of some description.

People turn up to just have fun in every tournament, it has nothing to do with whether the tournament is competitive on the top tables. However if you have a vast sense of your own superiority I have no interest in challenging it. Why even look at a thread about differing metas if you are so utterly convinced that only one of them adheres to your lofty standards of being competitive?

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I feel the GW Nottingham GTs are just not that competitive. People turn up with fluffy armies - or "look at my beautifully painted models" armies that are not optimised. Whereas at the LVO this doesn't seem to be the case. So comparing the two is a bit of an odd approach. Or maybe it isn't - but you can't really draw useful conclusions.

I mean I am pretty sure a Guard+Castellen build could win a GW tournament. But since it isn't 20-25% of all the lists, there are greater odds of bad luck knocking them out.

Did anyone count what percentage of LVO lists were Aeldari/Knight soups? I think 12% brought a Castellan? Considerably more brought knights of some description.

People turn up to just have fun in every tournament, it has nothing to do with whether the tournament is competitive on the top tables. However if you have a vast sense of your own superiority I have no interest in challenging it. Why even look at a thread about differing metas if you are so utterly convinced that only one of them adheres to your lofty standards of being competitive?

Isn't it a bit unfair to assume that a formal tournament circuit with a global ranking, as well as global in-faction rankings would measure equally as competitive/casual as GW's one-off tournament?

It is worth noting that all of these Troops are used because they excel at a role. Genestealers are excellent shock infantry. Hormagants and Termigants are cheap fearless bodies that are good at claiming space and holding space (ignoring the niche use of Termigants w/devourers). Fire Warriors and meaningful amounts of firepower and have excellent synergy with the rest of the army. GS Cult has 3 troop choices, two of which are excellent, and the third only suffers because Brood Brothers is so useful that Neophytes are an opportunity cost. You missed Orks, btw. Even Necrons, struggling as they are, get value out of their troops units.

The troops that don't get play time are Space Marines. This is because the basic design concept behind tactical marines translates poorly to a wargame. The game heavily rewards units being efficient at a single task as a way to solve a problem. Tactical marines are by design not that. We saw them in use when they had a role to fill (obsec as part of rhino spam in 5th, drop melta/plasma in 6th, so forth). In order to make them see play time, GW would have to shift the game to their strengths (MSU obsec) or redesign them. Considering that GW seems to be open to some extent of sideboard (see GSC summoning), I would suggest a strat or rule that let's them trade out heavy and special weapons at the start of the game, and a return to first turn drop pods.

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah but CA2018 uses progressive scoring too. I think what ITC added that was actually needed was the rankings/points (I forget the term that Magic uses for it but that basically). I just don't think they need to fork the game anymore with extras.

Also if we're talking terrain, ITC uses too little terrain and too symmetrical. Picking what side you deploy on is supposed to be an actual tactical choice, and doesn't work when the terrain is virtually identical.

Having symmetrical tables is a practical consideration as well as for fairness. Unless of course you enjoy walking pass a dozen other tables edge to edge in a crowded hall to get to the other side. If I lost a game at an event because of asymmetrical terrain or mission I would be pissed.


Also the CA2018 has some stinkers in them as well. "Cut off the Head" is fine unless they face off against a Vindicare.