TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.

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.

**JNAProductions**

And the research shows that Deathwatch and Knights are both good, but not top tier. And yet, one hard counters the other-seems obvious to those who play it, but for a new player? Might not be so clear till AFTER they sink hundreds of dollars.

**Octopoid**

JNAProductions wrote:
And the research shows that Deathwatch and Knights are both good, but not top tier. And yet, one hard counters the other-seems obvious to those who play it, but for a new player? Might not be so clear till AFTER they sink hundreds of dollars.

What, exactly, do you want me to say?

**JNAProductions**

That new players cannot be reasonably expected to know what works and what doesn’t, even with appropriate research, because GW is such a colossal feth-up? Something like that

**AnomanderRake**

Octopoid wrote:
catbarf wrote:
You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.

That's a straw man, and you know it. I CAN reasonably expect casual players to do some research before dropping a hundred or more dollars on a new game, EACH, and then also expect them to come to some kind of agreement about how to have fun playing that game.

There are, what, twenty 'armies' with unique standalone Codexes in the game, plus three types of soup, plus however you want to define all the available sub-factions. Do you really think it's reasonable to expect a newbie to fill out a 23*23 (or bigger ) grid of how all armies fare in every possible match-up when they need to dig through a lot of random arguments (endlessly derailed by Martel who wants to make everything about Blood Angels) to get even a vague sense of what one square of their grid looks like before they decide what army to purchase/what models to purchase?

And you still think 40k is designed to be a simple casual beer-and-pretzels game?

**chimeara**

I haven't played any CA missions to date. But my dudes tell me they're awesome. I play a lot of ITC, the missions don't bother me, but I do wish for more variation. One GT I was in did modified ITC and Nova missions. I actually liked the Nova style missions and scoring. They seemed a little contrived at first reading, once I actually got in the event it made way more sense.

**Octopoid**

JNAProductions wrote:
That new players cannot be reasonably expected to know what works and what doesn’t, even with appropriate research, because GW is such a colossal feth-up? Something like that

Good luck. It seems to me that if GW were such a colossal failure, there would never be new players, or old players, or players at all. The fact that so many people seem able to derive an enjoyable game from what they have produced, yourself included, seems to indicate they may have done exactly what they wanted and made a game that reasonable people communicating reasonably can manage to eke some fun out of.

**catbarf**

Sim-Life wrote:
Why not? Do they live somewhere that has Warhammer but no internet access? Do they not use Facebook? Are they Chinese and Google is banned? Who are these mysterious people who live on a desert island with only each other for company and only a single, unstaffed Warhammer store and no internet access?

Yeah, actually, I spent a couple of years in sub-Saharan Africa where the only Internet access was through the embassy and we weren't going to tie up the diplomat's phone line to look up wargame metas. Maybe an extreme example, but we're talking about a completely physical product with no Internet-based component whatsoever. It shouldn't need Internet commentary from the fanbase to be made playable.

I also was alive before the Internet was ubiquitous, and we had wargames back then too. It's easier than ever to find house rules and commentary to help fix a game- but by the same token it's easier than ever to conduct playtesting and get substantive feedback to deliver a better game and, more importantly, fix it after the fact.

Octopoid wrote:
catbarf wrote:
You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.

That's a straw man, and you know it. I CAN reasonably expect casual players to do some research before dropping a hundred or more dollars on a new game, EACH, and then also expect them to come to some kind of agreement about how to have fun playing that game.

That's not a straw man; that's just the (very high) requirement for two casual players to know exactly how their game is imbalanced and agree on the best resolution. Otherwise if they recognize a problem but disagree on the severity, cause, or solution, you get the kinds of arguments I posted right above that line.

But okay, let's say everyone's on the same page and they figure out exactly what's wrong with their matchup and how to address it. Now is 'sorry, I guess we can't build the armies we wanted, the rules will break, take these units you have no interest in but the Internet says are essential' someone's idea of fun?

You're asking casual players to do the designer's job of balancing out their respective armies, before they even buy into the game. Lots of great games out there don't have that requirement. Back in the pre-Internet days that wasn't even an option.

Let me be clear: I'm not asking for perfect design. I'm asking to not blame the players for not having the foresight and expertise to go on the Internet, figure out that their matchup is broken, and figure out how they can fix it before they even play the game. I'm also asking to not use 'well you can just sort it out with your friends' to justify bad design, as if the fact that we can put on our designer hats and fix it ourselves means those flaws don't exist. I don't think these are unreasonable things to ask.

**Octopoid**

Then you got what you want several posts ago. I already said that if anyone is to blame it’s the system, and that GW should make it better. So... maybe call it good and stop stretching my arguments to their most absurd lengths to get what I already gave?

**catbarf**

Octopoid wrote:
Then you got what you want several posts ago. I already said that if anyone is to blame it’s the system, and that GW should make it better. So... maybe call it good and stop stretching my arguments to their most absurd lengths to get what I already gave?

......???

but some of the fault falls on both players' shoulders as well.

'Yeah the game is broken, but also you didn't go on the Internet and become an armchair expert on the meta so that you could preemptively fix the game before you even play it, so really nobody's blameless here'?

**Octopoid**

catbarf wrote:
Octopoid wrote:
Then you got what you want several posts ago. I already said that if anyone is to blame it’s the system, and that GW should make it better. So... maybe call it good and stop stretching my arguments to their most absurd lengths to get what I already gave?

......???

but some of the fault falls on both players' shoulders as well.

'Yeah the game is broken, but also you didn't go on the Internet and become an armchair expert on the meta so that you could preemptively fix the game before you even play it, so really nobody's blameless here'?

There’s that straw man again. Never said expert, armchair or otherwise, never said preemptively fixing anything, never said game was broken. What I said was, and apparently I have to say it again, it is reasonable to expect reasonable people to do reasonable research into a game before dropping a lot of money on it, and that those same reasonable people using reasonable communication should be able to find fun in said game.

**Sim-Life**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Octopoid wrote:
catbarf wrote:
You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.

That's a straw man, and you know it. I CAN reasonably expect casual players to do some research before dropping a hundred or more dollars on a new game, EACH, and then also expect them to come to some kind of agreement about how to have fun playing that game.

There are, what, twenty 'armies' with unique standalone Codexes in the game, plus three types of soup, plus however you want to define all the available sub-factions. Do you really think it's reasonable to expect a newbie to fill out a 23*23 (or bigger ) grid of how all armies fare in every possible match-up when they need to dig through a lot of random arguments (endlessly derailed by Martel who wants to make everything about Blood Angels) to get even a vague sense of what one square of their grid looks like before they decide what army to purchase/what models to purchase?

And you still think 40k is designed to be a simple casual beer-and-pretzels game?

I don't know why you think its so hard to go to google and type in "Death Guard advice" or go to Facebook, type "Death Guard", join one of the multiple groups (one of which has 15k members and averages 90 posts a day) and say "We just started 40k and my friend plays knights but I can't beat him, advice please?"
But then I suppose when you apply any sort of autonomy or initative to these players your argument falls apart.

**JNAProductions**

Oky. And what happens when the advice is “Buy a double-thermal Renegade Knight”?

That’s about $200 on the model and codex.

**Octopoid**

JNAProductions wrote:
Oky. And what happens when the advice is “Buy a double-thermal Renegade Knight”?

That’s about $200 on the model and codex.

I know you weren’t asking me, but my response is, if that’s the only advice they get, they got bad advice. Maybe the Knights player could play down some points, or maybe since he already has the codex, they could share for a bit. Maybe they both want to try new armies, or maybe the DW player could try adding more terrain or objectives.

The point is, it’s not a white room scenario. People make bad investments in bad games all the time and still manage to have fun with them. Reasonable people communicating reasonably can derive fun from a broken system.

**Daedalus81**

JNAProductions wrote:
Oky. And what happens when the advice is “Buy a double-thermal Renegade Knight”?

That’s about $200 on the model and codex.

People starting off don't need to,and often won't be, ultra cutting edge.

**Sim-Life**

JNAProductions wrote:
Oky. And what happens when the advice is “Buy a double-thermal Renegade Knight”?

That’s about $200 on the model and codex.

Can you please stop with these ridiculous hypotheticals and straw men (which you seem to be clutching at the innards of).

Currently you've presented us with two fictional players, the two of which are the only players in the area, who are apparently mute except for when playing a game of Warhammer, have no ability to work things out for themselves and have found a Facebook group where the only advice via the unanimous consensus of 15000 people is "buy a knight as well". It's off topic and silly.

**alextroy**

Why has this thread about ITC Missions versus Chapter Approved 2019 Missions transformed into a discussion about two new players playing highly specialized list against each other? It's not really on topic.

On topic is why does every discussion of ITC vs CA2019 descend into someone saying FLG are evil overlords attempting to form WH40K into their own image?

I have to assume people making these accusations don't actually do any research into that FLG is thinking. They have literally said on many occasions that the run their tournaments the way people want to play them. From 2K point, developing and updating the ITC Missions, and everything else it is all about getting the players in the door with their dollar. They must be doing something right since over 1000 people decided to buy tickets to the LVO Championship Tournament.

As for giving up the ITC Missions, they have actually said they will be discussing with the community for the next ITC Season (aka after LVO) about changing the missions for future tournaments. If you are one of the people that playing their events, they will want to hear your opinion.

**Togusa**

Ishagu wrote:
During the craziness of 7th edition, and the relatively rough start that encapsulated the early days of 8th, a very strong case could be made for a custom mission pack that created a sense of order in the chaos that was 40k.
There is no doubt that the ITC missions were a good addition and a positive force in the game when 8th edition dropped.

This is no longer the case, I'm afraid to say. Frankly I am surprised that huge parts of the community are woefully ignorant of the fact that the Chapter Approved Eternal War missions in the 2018 and now 2019 books are not only well balanced and designed to reward list variety, but are also far more varied and fun than what the ITC mission pack offers.

Let's not beat about the bush. The ITC mission pack is effectively one single missions with tiny variations - there are utterly minimal changes. In addition to this, it promotes spam lists and static gun-lines. When you have a system of play where players can CHOSE what to score, it creates an environment where you spam units that make it easy to achieve the objectives you want. In ITC you can literally win most of your games without moving. Kill More, Hold More - a classic staple of gun line lists. Or how about you spam flyers and chose to focus on table quarters and behind enemy lines?
No matter how you swing it, it does create a negative play experience and it's a reason why so many abusive lists exist. Things will die in games of 40k anyway, don't make it a focus of mission objectives in every mission on top of that.

Look at the recent tournament at GW. The lists and faction variety was far greater, and looking at the top 30 the meta looks far, far healthier than what ITC events create the impression of. To put it bluntly, if you have a list that doesn't move you will typically lose 5/6 Chapter Approved missions.
They reward variety of lists - you need to bring a healthy amount of troops, fast moving units, objective scorers, characters, etc, etc in order to score the varied mission objectives.

Lack of data means we cannot categorically prove that the CA mission pack is strictly more balanced. It certainly does not promote spam/gunlines as much as the ITC missions do, that is a fact. It's also far more fun and varied than the single ITC mission with minor variations from game to game that has become the staple of so many people's gaming experience.
My eyes were opened after getting involved in some ETC style events a while back, and following on from them it was a case of experimentation and experience at smaller events that used the CA mission pack. As I have played more and more using the CA format, by comparison the ITC missions have looked more and more dull.

Let's no understate how much good work the ITC guys have done. Things like leader-boards, hobby track, promoting the game, etc. The mission pack has now become restrictive and is no longer the most positive way to play the game.

I also expect many competitive ITC players to refute what I say. They'll have limited experience with CA missions, they might refuse to believe that GW has done a good job with the pack, and they might simply be too set in they ways.
There is no question, no disputation, that the ITC mission pack is less varied. There is no question that it promotes spam lists and gun-lines due to players choosing what to score. There is no need to use it any more.

We've accepted the rules that GW put out without having to modify them. Let's accept their mission packs too.

I despise ITC rules and avoid them at all costs. Using CA18-19 is my preferred way of playing along with Open War which I personally think is best for events. It's quick and fun!

**Crimson**

alextroy wrote:

I have to assume people making these accusations don't actually do any research into that FLG is thinking. They have literally said on many occasions that the run their tournaments the way people want to play them. From 2K point, developing and updating the ITC Missions, and everything else it is all about getting the players in the door with their dollar. They must be doing something right since over 1000 people decided to buy tickets to the LVO Championship Tournament.

As for giving up the ITC Missions, they have actually said they will be discussing with the community for the next ITC Season (aka after LVO) about changing the missions for future tournaments. If you are one of the people that playing their events, they will want to hear your opinion.

Well, that is new, as last time they definitely didn't want to hear anyone's opinion if it differed from their preconceived notions. Their previous* questionnaire literally didn't even list using CA missions as an option, they merely asked about various ways to improve their own missions. When I pointed this out, they seemed perplexed, and were just "oh, no one wants to use CA missions, so we didn't put the option there."

(* I think it was the previous one, but I'm not absolutely sure.)

**Daedalus81**

Crimson wrote:
alextroy wrote:

I have to assume people making these accusations don't actually do any research into that FLG is thinking. They have literally said on many occasions that the run their tournaments the way people want to play them. From 2K point, developing and updating the ITC Missions, and everything else it is all about getting the players in the door with their dollar. They must be doing something right since over 1000 people decided to buy tickets to the LVO Championship Tournament.

As for giving up the ITC Missions, they have actually said they will be discussing with the community for the next ITC Season (aka after LVO) about changing the missions for future tournaments. If you are one of the people that playing their events, they will want to hear your opinion.

Well, that is new, as last time they definitely didn't want to hear anyone's opinion if it differed from their preconceived notions. Their previous* questionnaire literally didn't even list using CA missions as an option, they merely asked about various ways to improve their own missions. When I pointed this out, they seemed perplexed, and were just "oh, no one wants to use CA missions, so we didn't put the option there."

(* I think it was the previous one, but I'm not absolutely sure.)

Well, the previous CA missions also were not as refined as the current ones.

**Martel732**

"Refined". This is Geedubs.

**Daedalus81**

Martel732 wrote:
"Refined". This is Geedubs.

And we're capable of judging them on their actual merits are we not?

**AnomanderRake**

alextroy wrote:
Why has this thread about ITC Missions versus Chapter Approved 2019 Missions transformed into a discussion about two new players playing highly specialized list against each other? It's not really on topic.

On topic is why does every discussion of ITC vs CA2019 descend into someone saying FLG are evil overlords attempting to form WH40K into their own image?

I have to assume people making these accusations don't actually do any research into that FLG is thinking. They have literally said on many occasions that the run their tournaments the way people want to play them. From 2K point, developing and updating the ITC Missions, and everything else it is all about getting the players in the door with their dollar. They must be doing something right since over 1000 people decided to buy tickets to the LVO Championship Tournament.

As for giving up the ITC Missions, they have actually said they will be discussing with the community for the next ITC Season (aka after LVO) about changing the missions for future tournaments. If you are one of the people that playing their events, they will want to hear your opinion.

Because a few pages back someone said that maybe GW really does know what they're doing and the ITC folks are pushing their flawed and static format out of inertia, and then some other folks said "GW knows what they're doing? Are you mad?", and the rest of the argument was an attempt to establish that GW doesn't know what they're doing in general.

**Dudeface**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Crimson wrote:
alextroy wrote:

I have to assume people making these accusations don't actually do any research into that FLG is thinking. They have literally said on many occasions that the run their tournaments the way people want to play them. From 2K point, developing and updating the ITC Missions, and everything else it is all about getting the players in the door with their dollar. They must be doing something right since over 1000 people decided to buy tickets to the LVO Championship Tournament.

As for giving up the ITC Missions, they have actually said they will be discussing with the community for the next ITC Season (aka after LVO) about changing the missions for future tournaments. If you are one of the people that playing their events, they will want to hear your opinion.

Well, that is new, as last time they definitely didn't want to hear anyone's opinion if it differed from their preconceived notions. Their previous* questionnaire literally didn't even list using CA missions as an option, they merely asked about various ways to improve their own missions. When I pointed this out, they seemed perplexed, and were just "oh, no one wants to use CA missions, so we didn't put the option there."

(* I think it was the previous one, but I'm not absolutely sure.)

Well, the previous CA missions also were not as refined as the current ones.

Refined or otherwise is irrelevant, if you're only presented with multiple types of chocolate ice cream to choose from, you're only ever going to end up with chocolate ice cream.

**Yoyoyo**

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm currently playtesting for a campaign I'm setting up that will involve a bunch of different warzones - basically themed terrain sets at each table that have photographs of suggested terrain densities and 1-2 unique rules per table.

This is pretty interesting, I like the idea of different biomes and different terrain.

I think competitive players sometimes value repetition over diversity, hence the ITC. But obviously units have different strengths. A lot of people are talking about "balance" but they really only mean within a single mission, terain setup, and points level.

**tneva82**

solkan wrote:
Odd that this is posted in "40k General Discussion" and not "Tournament Discussion".

Maybe because ITC missions are used outside tournaments as well?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
I think ITC is pretty good for beginner players and the younger and/or more casual crowd.

The whole “choose-your-own-Adventure-secondaries” and similarity of missions reduces complexity a lot and demands far less on-the-spot decision-making between sub-optimal choices and adaptation between rounds to very different win conditions.

I think the simplification of the game through ITC is one of the reasons the 40K became a lot more popular in the US in particular, opening the Hobby to people who might’ve been put off by the challenge of older book/etc-style missions.

ITC meanwhile adds set of secondaries you need to build with in mind in advance AND then think based on opponents army. So not sure how that makes it more easier for new players who needs to learn to minimize secondaries opponent can score during list building and what secondaries to take vs each opponent.

**Not Online!!!**

Octopoid wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.

Bingo.

If people are engaging with each other in good faith, you will laugh about imbalance and adjust the lists/mission as needed to have fun.

If people aren't engaging in good faith... well, who cares about their opinion anyway?

I lament that I can give you but one Exalt, good sir.

will do my humble duty.

and go one further, if the balance issues get too deep, you might aswell adjust locally and implement handicapp systems for certain factions, handicapp systems for certain players, etc.
Maybee you switch it up and do some outlandish narrative style campaign that doesn't allow for certain unit types, etc.

That doesn't however excuse GW from responsibility.

**Gir Spirit Bane**

This thread quickly devolved into gakking all over GW and certain forum members...

OT though, I think ITC missions are becoming a relic of the past with the newer CA missions just being overall more fun and adding some flair whilst the ITC are just several bowls of absolutely serviceable porridge. It's filling, it gets the job done, and there are some grumpy bears defending it.

**tneva82**

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
This thread quickly devolved into gakking all over GW and certain forum members...

OT though, I think ITC missions are becoming a relic of the past with the newer CA missions just being overall more fun and adding some flair whilst the ITC are just several bowls of absolutely serviceable porridge. It's filling, it gets the job done, and there are some grumpy bears defending it.

The ITC do have one redeeming factor for tournament use though. Consistent points. Unless you go for simplistic "win=x pts, draw=y pts, loss=z pts" then it matters quite a lot if some scenarios have 18 pts max and others have 12 pts max. Or you need to create tournament point convertor for each scenario...Basically if you rate grade of victory consistent point scale for each scenario is essential.

That's something for CA20 to work for!

**Nazrak**

Martel732 wrote:
Trying to parse their gak ass rules even with friends is not my definition of a good time.

I mean, literally nobody is making you play it, so why don't you just find something you *do* enjoy to do instead? Cos as far as I can tell you just sit on this forum, year after year, pissing and moaning about something you hate. Get a better hobby, pal.

**AngryAngel80**

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills as each talk of playing warhammer falls into the same issues.

" This would be better. "

" No it's not, GW is awful with rules "

" The rules aren't supposed to be good, they're supposed to be fun if you're wasted "

" Well they aren't even fun then "

On and on it goes. You know, as has been said now a million times at least. The whole they are making a game to be fun is great, but the tighter rules are the easier it is to have balanced fun. The easier it is to imbalance it if that is what players want as you know you're starting from a inherently balanced system.

GW talks out both sides of its mouth. They say they don't make the game to be balanced, then sell balance patches and crow about how good they balance things, until they fail then it was never their intention.

If GW missions are that cool, then they should get used at the higher levels as stagnation is bad. However the people who run the scenes have vested interest in keeping the status quo and are hardly impartial to their system.

The only way it would change is if GW too a hard line stance on it to force their missions being used. However for that to happen they'd need to tighten up their rules. Which while it is difficult to imagine, depends on how much they want to push their missions. They'd also need to front and organize large tournaments and denounce the others. I don't see GW doing that unless it goes to their bottom line in a big way in the positive.

I'd say people should try the missions out though, all you have to waste is a few games worth of time and it could be much fun. I mean, GW has to do something right sometime. It's inevitable.