Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2020/02/03 10:01:52
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Slipspace wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:happy_inquisitor wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
"Several"
Then post these several results.
At this point why bother? We can safely assume however many results are posted that will always not be enough for you and certain other people. What we can see, from 3 separate events using the CA19 missions, is that there seems to be a trend of more varied factions winning and placing highly. Even the latest results from the WHW GT had just over half of the top 30 as SM of some sort but there was much more variety even within those SM armies than we're seeing right now in ITC.
If you think it’s worth changing then you will keep collecting data and posting it’s in places of discussion. If you and others simply give up posting data, it’s honestly just looks like a bit of hot air to push against ITC.
GW has quite the history against them, but if you can put this together it’s good data to push for a change.
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 10:04:24
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Wy try to push against itc?
More games and tournaments are playing non itc.
The only prob is no good data collection about it.
The whole topic is more or less blah, cause itc is the minor part not the big one.
The question should be y should more people play itc instead of chapter aprroved rules
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/03 10:25:48
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 11:03:52
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
T1nk4bell wrote:Wy try to push against itc?
More games and tournaments are playing non itc.
The only prob is no good data collection about it.
The whole topic is more or less blah, cause itc is the minor part not the big one.
The question should be y should more people play itc instead of chapter aprroved rules
Mostly for continuity.
There was an era, where the game was actually saved by the existence of ITC. It was 100% unplayable without some form of house ruling, so many areas gathered around the ITC flag.
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 11:30:41
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
No question about that house rules where made because of only way to play competetiv. But how the hell you think itc was it? mayb in America I would totaly agree. But in the rest of the world other systems done the same because of the same problem.
Now the ca rules are totaly fine for competetiv play and alot of people play them + alot other systems ( non itc) t3, ttm, etc, ab just to word some bigger ones + CA ruling tournaments.
Just stop to think that itc is something that was cared on other places.
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 12:33:42
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
ITC wasn't so spread outside US. Italy during 7th was an ETC area, even for non team games. I tried in every way to make them switch to ITC rules, without success.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/03 12:34:14
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 13:09:15
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 13:41:38
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
Unfortunately there will be a set of players set in their ways who will refuse to even consider that something may have changed, that CA might br better, and that it might be worth giving it a try instead of perpetuating the ITC mission set.
|
-~Ishagu~- |
|
|
|
2020/02/03 14:21:58
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Apple fox wrote:Slipspace wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:happy_inquisitor wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
"Several"
Then post these several results.
At this point why bother? We can safely assume however many results are posted that will always not be enough for you and certain other people. What we can see, from 3 separate events using the CA19 missions, is that there seems to be a trend of more varied factions winning and placing highly. Even the latest results from the WHW GT had just over half of the top 30 as SM of some sort but there was much more variety even within those SM armies than we're seeing right now in ITC.
If you think it’s worth changing then you will keep collecting data and posting it’s in places of discussion. If you and others simply give up posting data, it’s honestly just looks like a bit of hot air to push against ITC.
GW has quite the history against them, but if you can put this together it’s good data to push for a change.
My point was more related to that specific poster rather than the thread as a whole. I agree more data would be better for making any determination for most people but in this specific case it seems like it wouldn't change anything because Slayer-Fan has already made up their mind.
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 14:30:00
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar
|
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:In a manner yes. The data doesn't matter because the game isn't being pushed. Recording local people that just threw together a bunch of models for gaks and giggles isn't data worth reviewing whatsoever.
But we're talking about comp games in local stores - that's no more "threw together a bunch of models" than ITC is.
Not to mention how utterly narrow-minded the idea that a game is only valid if it's "being pushed".
|
They/them
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 15:34:31
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Slipspace wrote:Apple fox wrote:Slipspace wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:happy_inquisitor wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
"Several"
Then post these several results.
At this point why bother? We can safely assume however many results are posted that will always not be enough for you and certain other people. What we can see, from 3 separate events using the CA19 missions, is that there seems to be a trend of more varied factions winning and placing highly. Even the latest results from the WHW GT had just over half of the top 30 as SM of some sort but there was much more variety even within those SM armies than we're seeing right now in ITC.
If you think it’s worth changing then you will keep collecting data and posting it’s in places of discussion. If you and others simply give up posting data, it’s honestly just looks like a bit of hot air to push against ITC.
GW has quite the history against them, but if you can put this together it’s good data to push for a change.
My point was more related to that specific poster rather than the thread as a whole. I agree more data would be better for making any determination for most people but in this specific case it seems like it wouldn't change anything because Slayer-Fan has already made up their mind.
It’s not always any matter if you change the mind of who you engage with, it’s about changing the minds of others that may read it.
For me, I only looked at the new missions since this thread started.
I do not play ITC, but i do not used the GW missions ether due to history.
So i do think it’s of value here to engage with them to a point, but I also understand where you are getting at.
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 16:10:54
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Pious Palatine
|
Kdash wrote:It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
GW events have their own problems well outside of the mission rules they use. Like doggak TOs and rules packets that massively overemphasize painting. It's like the michigan GT, Slaanesh won that against pre-nerf ironhands...despite being down nearly 100 battle points because 50% of their championship score was painting (which created an entirely new set of shady BS I won't get into here.)
Tournaments that have painting as more than about 15% of your score are fluff events and any results from them come with a BIG asterisk.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 16:15:43
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Battleship Captain
|
ERJAK wrote:Kdash wrote:It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
GW events have their own problems well outside of the mission rules they use. Like doggak TOs and rules packets that massively overemphasize painting. It's like the michigan GT, Slaanesh won that against pre-nerf ironhands...despite being down nearly 100 battle points because 50% of their championship score was painting (which created an entirely new set of shady BS I won't get into here.)
Tournaments that have painting as more than about 15% of your score are fluff events and any results from them come with a BIG asterisk.
As a TRUE Scotsman I feel like I should say something but I'm not sure what.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 16:29:16
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
ERJAK wrote:Kdash wrote:It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
GW events have their own problems well outside of the mission rules they use. Like doggak TOs and rules packets that massively overemphasize painting. It's like the michigan GT, Slaanesh won that against pre-nerf ironhands...despite being down nearly 100 battle points because 50% of their championship score was painting (which created an entirely new set of shady BS I won't get into here.)
Tournaments that have painting as more than about 15% of your score are fluff events and any results from them come with a BIG asterisk.
What is so difficult about extracting the battle points from the total?
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 18:18:14
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
If Frontline gaming doesn't move their big tournaments (BAO, SoCAL, LVO) away from the ITC mission packs I think there will be a tough time getting more CA 2019 mission data.
Out here in California if you want to go to a GT you have to be ready to use the ITC champions mission and most TOs and players understand that so it is very hard to move away from that. If GW would hold more events on the west coast state-side (Texas is so far away, they really need to start running regional majors) that players interested in CA 2019 could attend I think we would see the popularity increase.
With each CA 2019 data point we see the meta at the top is much more varied. We need a lot more data for that and comparing anything against the LVO is a bad idea (just the player base there is so "professional" it's easy to dismiss other tournaments as "amateur") but it is hard to look at the last GW GTs and not see a pattern.
I'm curious what the fronline guys are going to do.
WHERE THE FETH IS MY CA 2019 FAQ (sorry)
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 18:38:31
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Spoletta wrote:ERJAK wrote:Kdash wrote:It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
GW events have their own problems well outside of the mission rules they use. Like doggak TOs and rules packets that massively overemphasize painting. It's like the michigan GT, Slaanesh won that against pre-nerf ironhands...despite being down nearly 100 battle points because 50% of their championship score was painting (which created an entirely new set of shady BS I won't get into here.)
Tournaments that have painting as more than about 15% of your score are fluff events and any results from them come with a BIG asterisk.
What is so difficult about extracting the battle points from the total?
because clearly people will be choosing their army / models for gaming the painting score system which will throw off the process of discovering the winningest list.
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 18:55:07
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
I have changed my mind after seeing the results at the recent GW GT, Champions missions are to a significant degree to blame for SM competitive dominance. 43/91 play Adeptus Astartes (including a good chunk of BA and a surprising amount of GK), 3/10 got top 10 with Adeptus Astartes (two IH and one mixed). We have previously seen that Adeptus Astartes had balanced results at two previous GW GTs and now they've suffered a major loss in terms of performance with no top 3s, the rational conclusion is that this is more than a couple of outliers given that ITC with all their tournaments have as far as I know only had balanced Astartes results in two grand tournaments in a row, not 3. On top of that, this isn't just Marines having an ok result so it's the final nail in the coffin. So maybe Iron Hands need another little tap in general (they still did relatively well for their number of entrants) and FLG needs to revamp their Champions missions to favour Marines less somehow or favour other factions more. I still think Champions is fun, I like picking secondaries and after playing a few more Eternal War missions I still don't love EW format as much as I do Champions (for competitive) or Maelstrom (for casual). I really hope it doesn't just come down to SM having a huge amount of choices available and being able to build too well for missions that are similar because I still don't want my competitive games to be heavily influenced by which specific mission is being played against which faction. Champions was a largely balanced format before Marines and I hope it will be again when they amend the rules for the new season. Xenomancers wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:How about the Battle of Thermopylae? I don't think matched play is very conducive to setting up anything resembling the logic of an actual military operation. You need to scratch-build custom scenarios with more specific win conditions and force compositions for that.
Which I am entirely down for. Please give us something like that. How cool would it be if we had missions that were set up drastically different. Like for example a Dunkirk type mission. Where the defender in this mission their only objective is to preserve their force and keep the enemy out of their deployment zone. An ambush type mission where one army has to set up basically in the open and go second but the attacking army has to come in piece meal and only starts with a few units. A pitched battle type mission with 2 armies meeting on an open field and fight to the death. I mean there are lots of ideas you could throw out there...there needs to be some variety. The idea of objectives as poker chips...is just boring to me. Objectives should be less about standing in a arbitrary position. More about doing something that could actaully be seen as being an important military objective.
Why do you play matched play? There are tonnes of narrative missions available and you could always create your own. For me what you describe does not sound cool.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/03 18:55:53
|
|
|
|
2020/02/03 19:12:36
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Cymru
|
nareik wrote:Spoletta wrote:
What is so difficult about extracting the battle points from the total?
because clearly people will be choosing their army / models for gaming the painting score system which will throw off the process of discovering the winningest list.
Should be trivial with the 2020 series as they do not have paint scores included at all. They do have sports scores but the max of those is only 10% of your max gaming score so it is a real edge case for it to alter the overall standings except as a tiebreaker.
|
|
|
|
2020/02/04 08:22:47
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
ERJAK wrote:Kdash wrote:It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
GW events have their own problems well outside of the mission rules they use. Like doggak TOs and rules packets that massively overemphasize painting. It's like the michigan GT, Slaanesh won that against pre-nerf ironhands...despite being down nearly 100 battle points because 50% of their championship score was painting (which created an entirely new set of shady BS I won't get into here.)
Tournaments that have painting as more than about 15% of your score are fluff events and any results from them come with a BIG asterisk.
I would have agreed with you, if the latest event was the same as the previous ones. As it is, it was substantially different.
For example, painting scores look like they had ZERO impact on the overall score (they weren't even included on the final score sheet).
As for the mission pack, it is basically.... "2000 points, 3 detachments max, rule of 3, CA19 missions". Can't get more simple than that really, unless they pre-determined the deployment zones for each mission, which they do not.
In regards to TOs at the event, it is a tricky one where they pretty much always lean towards RAW unless it has been FAQd and are more inclined to make the players read the rules and potentially roll off if it is super unclear than to make individual judgements. However, bad and/or inconsistent TOing is not limited to GW, and was even highlighted as something that "unfortunately just happens" even at the LVO.
The next GW heat is in April, i fully expect it to follow the same format as the last one, which, is a cause for celebration imo.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/04 08:25:40
|
|
|
|
2020/02/04 08:35:21
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
The last GW GT listed pts destroyed and the top players roughly destroyed most. Edit: Point being it wasn't just painting.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/04 08:45:08
|
|
|
|
2020/02/04 08:39:11
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Cymru
|
vict0988 wrote:The last GW GT listed pts destroyed and the top players roughly destroyed most.
They use that as a tiebreaker of last resort. If you tie on GT score it would matter. That did not affect the rankings at the top, I did not look all the way down to see if it ever mattered for anyone. It probably did once you get into the 4-1 and 3-2 players where there will be a lot of tied battle point scores and quite likely a tie on favourite game scores too. Usually those positions are no big deal but in this case it is a qualifying event for the GT final so it is quite possible someone made the qualification bracket on pts destroyed.
|
|
|
|
2020/02/05 06:21:20
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I’ve given some thought, and I’m not sure if Simon’s GT winning ork horde is an argument specifically for CA2019.
I believe I’ve seen his list and it looked very familiar... indeed so familiar I’m fairly sure he also won a previous GT with basically the same list.
The list is 3 units of 30 boyz (each with a 2:1 mix of choppa:shoota), 2 units of 30 stormboyz. Unit leaders have killsaw and choppa. A waaagh! banner, painboy, kff megamek, biker boss with killing klaw, fw bikerboss. All evil sunz in a battalion. Another battalion all evil sunz except a thinking cap jump weirdboy, also including: warpath weirdboy, 2x20 grots and 12 grots.
Obviously the player is a common element here, and CA 2019 isn’t. I suppose one could argue ITC is less ork friendly than either iteration of CA?
|
|
|
|
2021/12/07 02:04:42
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
nareik wrote:I’ve given some thought, and I’m not sure if Simon’s GT winning ork horde is an argument specifically for CA2019.
I believe I’ve seen his list and it looked very familiar... indeed so familiar I’m fairly sure he also won a previous GT with basically the same list.
The list is 3 units of 30 boyz (each with a 2:1 mix of choppa:shoota), 2 units of 30 stormboyz. Unit leaders have killsaw and choppa. A waaagh! banner, painboy, kff megamek, biker boss with killing klaw, fw bikerboss. All evil sunz in a battalion. Another battalion all evil sunz except a thinking cap jump weirdboy, also including: warpath weirdboy, 2x20 grots and 12 grots.
Obviously the player is a common element here, and CA 2019 isn’t. I suppose one could argue ITC is less ork friendly than either iteration of CA?
Eh CA2018, CA2019, both still differ from ITC "line up and shoot'em'up without worrying about objectives" scenarios.
If CA2018 was more like ITC you would have point but here we simply see non-marines doing better in non-ITC which is hardly a new trend. ITC has been long favouring gunline game buffing marines while on europe marine domination has been less even before CA2019. CA2019 is fine tuning already existing concept. Not complete rework causing major balance shift between armies like ITC did with it's inception
|
|
|
|
2020/02/05 08:25:11
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Cymru
|
nareik wrote:I’ve given some thought, and I’m not sure if Simon’s GT winning ork horde is an argument specifically for CA2019.
I believe I’ve seen his list and it looked very familiar... indeed so familiar I’m fairly sure he also won a previous GT with basically the same list.
The list is 3 units of 30 boyz (each with a 2:1 mix of choppa:shoota), 2 units of 30 stormboyz. Unit leaders have killsaw and choppa. A waaagh! banner, painboy, kff megamek, biker boss with killing klaw, fw bikerboss. All evil sunz in a battalion. Another battalion all evil sunz except a thinking cap jump weirdboy, also including: warpath weirdboy, 2x20 grots and 12 grots.
Obviously the player is a common element here, and CA 2019 isn’t. I suppose one could argue ITC is less ork friendly than either iteration of CA?
Obviously the player is a common element - even the greatest of Remembrancers cannot tell the tale of when Simon Priddis last lost a game in a 40K GT
However it is the contrast between the top lists at the GT and at LVO - especially when we look at the GT final from last month as well. Yes, marines make a strong showing in the GTs but it is not oppressive or dominating like marines were at LVO and have been at pretty much every ITC major recently that uses their missions.
It is the difference between building your list knowing what the current top faction is and throwing your list onto ebay and just buying the current top faction because you see no other way to win.
Two top players in GT and ITC formats both playing T'au coming into this year. The top GT player switched to a different Xenos faction to go on to win the next GT event. The top ITC player abandoned his Xenos faction to play Iron Hands to win the next event. See the difference in the way that impacts the variety in the meta?
|
|
|
|
2020/02/05 08:28:33
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk
|
nareik wrote:Obviously the player is a common element here, and CA 2019 isn’t. I suppose one could argue ITC is less ork friendly than either iteration of CA?
Considering that there have been 0 top 4 placement for orks this year in ITC and three in non-ITC events, it at least seems that way. It's not surprising that an army whose signature feature is having dozens of easy to kill units suffers when missions reward killing stuff as much as ITC does.
|
|
|
|
2020/02/05 11:04:30
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
It's up to the community to promote the CA missions. There was a local tournament last week that was listed as using the ITC missions, but pressure from players attending made the TO switch to using CA2019 missions. More players came as a result, and the ITC crowd still attended because the event still gave points.
And it wasn't won by Iron Hands.
The problem is that I really don't expect or trust the most dedicated ITC crowd to come to their senses and realise that the CA missions have become as good as they have. It's a combination of stubbornness, ignorance and lack of faith in GW that makes people close minded, if left alone. You can't use historic precedence to paint your opinions forever.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/05 11:12:45
-~Ishagu~- |
|
|
|
2020/02/05 11:35:43
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Battleship Captain
|
Ishagu wrote:
The problem is that I really don't expect or trust the most dedicated ITC crowd to come to their senses and realise that the CA missions have become as good as they have. It's a combination of stubbornness, ignorance and lack of faith in GW that makes people close minded, if left alone. You can't use historic precedence to paint your opinions forever.
Well thats evident in this very thread.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/02/05 11:57:17
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
TBF GW did not give them much to work with faith wise over the course of it's existence that is.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/05 11:57:33
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH. |
|
|
|
2020/02/05 12:13:46
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
Yes but they've quite clearly changed, that's not up for debate.
Frequent, timely FAQs, annual mission updates, annual rule revisions, interaction with the community etc - none of this happened 3 years ago.
This has all taken place, and yet when a new set of missions is released that has a positive impact on the game from a balance and game-play perspective is released, people refuse to give it a try or even believe it. Ironically most complaints about game balance occur in relations to ITC experiences, and those don't accurately reflect the game or the intent behind it.
It shows the cynicism of certain elements in the community. Always complaining, never willing to acknowledge that things are getting better.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/05 12:20:20
-~Ishagu~- |
|
|
|
2020/02/05 12:24:58
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Jervis Johnson
|
There's really only two tournament organisers that set the trend, Frontline and ETC (now of course departed and called WTC for World Team Championship).
ITC rulespack is great, but of course doesn't really require dynamic armies that need to move around the board and adapt to changing scenarios. The strength of the pack is that you can win marginally and still get the win you need, and you can get that win by playing the scenario, while in an ETC/WTC based tournament setting with combined Eternal/Mael missions you won't get far by winning 11-9 -- You really need to rack up those 20-0 wins.
The current ETC proposal pack is terrible and most who have played it would agree (personally I've played nearly 100 games of 40K since the previous ETC), and the predecessors have been terrible as well. This is because of a number of reason that I won't go in here too deeply (for example, massive end game scoring). Maelstrom under Schemes of War is predictable and the old 'luck factor' is long gone, but at the top of the power level the matches are still 'just kill everything' based. The greatest problem to me is that even tight matches that are decided around turn 4 or 5 will still end up in 20-0 scores because of how endgame works. It's not beyond redemption though, if the people behind this rulespack want to adapt.
Hybrids are available too, for example, Swedish major tournaments have designed their own missions only slightly based on the ETC proposal pack. They for example cap the amount of Eternal War and Maelstrom of War and KP you can score in the game, making it more important to play the scenario straight from turn one, instead of just playing shoot em up and then grabbing end game and kill points for a 20-0 win. The Swedes have done a great job about this.
In Finland, ITC started replacing ETC based singles tournaments at the end of last year, and this year it looks like nearly all the singles events will use ITC. I welcome this change for variety's sake, because I will still play the 'other ruleset' in team tournaments like the upcoming BTC (Belgian Team Championships), Home Nations, and World Team Championships.
I'm curious to see where this all will go when 9th rolls around, but if I was a betting man I'd say nothing will change. The powers that are behind the team tournament scene will stick to their guns and will keep making mission packs based on whatever GW releases, and Frontline and generally speaking US/UK singles tournaments will play ITC. It's a pity that rules aren't harmonious but you can put a positive spin on it too and just enjoy the variety. Playing different types of tournaments makes you a better player.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/05 12:26:50
|
|
|
|
2020/02/05 12:27:13
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Cymru
|
Ishagu wrote:It's up to the community to promote the CA missions. There was a local tournament last week that was listed as using the ITC missions, but pressure from players attending made the TO switch to using CA2019 missions. More players came as a result, and the ITC crowd still attended because the event still gave points.
That is interesting. The downside is that I tend to just ignore a tournament once I see it has ITC missions so even if a TO did change I would not very likely know about it and consider going. Still nice to see that some TOs are responsive to player sentiment.
|
|
|
|
|