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.

ITC missions = No variety

That's my biggest issue. More stale meta and more stale gameplay.

 Therion wrote:
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).

In the UK I think GW is still pretty influential. The fact that the GT tournaments exist keeps up a certain grassroots support for the format they use - Chapter Approved missions.

What is true is that when you look online at the YouTube/Podcast/Blog environment there is almost no sign of any of this. It tends to be grassroots tournaments at local clubs/stores and of course GW themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
ITC missions = No variety

That's my biggest issue. More stale meta and more stale gameplay.

This discussion has really helped my understand why I have developed a dislike of the ITC missions. If I were to summarise that would be

1. It is a big jump for beginners and especially youngsters. The mission structure is totally different from any GW mission and very often your existing army will just get stomped..
2. It is inherently rather repetitive and dull. The only variety comes from facing different opposition; but...
3. The missions inhibit variety in the meta. They severely limit what is viable within factions and somewhat limit faction variety. The ITC meta is clearly less diverse than CA missions.

As a mature and established (if occasional) tournament player my issue with them is boredom. At a wider level my concern is that they are a hurdle to entering the competitive scene for youngsters that is totally unnecessary - it almost seems like it is more complex and different just for the sake of being more complex and different.

 Ishagu wrote:
ITC missions = No variety

That's my biggest issue. More stale meta and more stale gameplay.

Agree with this sentiment.

Yeah. I understand the appeal of having everything under control for the more straight forward competitive crown. But as a casual tournament player I prefer the variety in ETC combined missions.

I'm not particularly fond of the ETC format, as it messes with the game substantially as well. It's more varied than ITC at least.

Honestly I am not sure anymore if FLG is pushing their own agenda with the ITC missions or what. It's hard to tell with how they behave sometimes, as sometimes it's like the GW Ministry of Propaganda and sometimes it's like they know better than GW.

In any event, I think unless FLG comes out and says they are dropping the missions, simply giving the option will keep the ITC missions around for people who either think GW can't get anything right or enjoy the predictable meta that ITC provides.

If you personally controlled a variant of gaming meta, and dictated the rules, it would be hard to give that up even if was for the best.

Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.

 Ishagu wrote:
I'm not particularly fond of the ETC format, as it messes with the game substantially as well. It's more varied than ITC at least.

I can see the reason for removing the faction specific objetives. Those were designed by a GW rules writer that was also drunk or something. But 3D objetives giving 2 points always is a great change. And I find that playing the combined Maelstrom/Eternal War mission gives you flexibility and even more objetives to play instead of killing the enemy.

But TBH thats the only part of ETC that we use.

Martel732 wrote:
Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.

Try playing against a different army. Tau are rather dull in 8th. I say that as someone who has played them since 4th.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah. I understand the appeal of having everything under control for the more straight forward competitive crown. But as a casual tournament player I prefer the variety in ETC combined missions.

The funny thing is that ITC missions are less variable but MORE random than CA19, simply due to them using the old deployment rules.

When you deploy before knowing who will go first and who will go second, you have matches literally decided by going first or second, something that has been a complain to the ITC format for quite some time.

At least in CA19 when you go second, you already know this and can deploy with this in mind, not to mention that you will deploy after you have seen your opponent full deployment.

Add to this that the tables are not symmetric and the player going second chooses the side, not to mention the fact that many missions favor going second, and going first or second becomes an actual choice.

How many times have you heard someone say "I would have won if i went first" or "Against that list i have to go first"?

Martel732 wrote:
Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.

I think you're stuck in an ITC mentality. You're expecting to earn some direct compensation for killing things when the whole point of most of the CA missions is that killing things is a means to an end, not the end itself. In my experience, players who mainly play CA missions simply don't have the problem you do because the mentality and expectations are different.

Martel732 wrote:
Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.

I play Tau but after playing CA missions for a couple of years now the lists I run are hugely different from anything you would see in ITC. Maybe I would blow you off the table but it would not be by playing a static gunline that ignores damage due to spamming shield drones - it would be because I am moving fast and overwhelming parts of your army each turn while leaving other parts on the wrong side of the table doing not much.

I hope you and your group give it a bit more tiime and also do try it more competitively, it is only when you are playing for prizes and glory that some players really get out of their comfort zone and properly think about what list is good for the missions. You only really see the improved gameplay when people shift their lists around towards the missions - if you play an ITC list in a CA19 mission it is quite probably still a rather negative kill-denial list especially with a faction like Tau.


tl;dr give it time, it takes time for lists to adjust away from an ITC mentality

Slipspace wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.

I think you're stuck in an ITC mentality. You're expecting to earn some direct compensation for killing things when the whole point of most of the CA missions is that killing things is a means to an end, not the end itself. In my experience, players who mainly play CA missions simply don't have the problem you do because the mentality and expectations are different.

I play a lot of GHB(AOS CA) and the approach to scoring is so much different to ITC. In GHB/CA you can try to deny scoring objectives and tar pit other units to give you a head start, but in ITC you are easily punished for that because the unit you used for those tactical maneuvers most likely results in secondary objective points that in turn just make your entire tactic null and void. It is this unintended consequences that I am liking less and less in ITC. In ITC nobody cares how much you try to maneuver because the thing that is going to give you the most point is killing and not getting killed.

Which kinda makes me realize that ITC is basically the Deathmatch version whereas GHB/CA is more CTF/KOH.

Martel732 wrote:
Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.

also try playing without a tailored list. Any rule set may seem okeyish if your army can tailor the living hell out of the opponent. a tri whirlwind list wouldn't do very well against marines or eldar lists.

It wasn't tailored. I brought them b/c of the terrain rules.

Maybe play more than one game with one of the missions lol

The way you talk it should be immediately obvious they are superior. Tau were still miserable, and with GW terrain rules I would have lost easily.

I don't know how you played the mission or what the full lists were. I've never said the CA missions transform 40k into the gamer's utopia instantly. I'm saying the missions are more varied, and thus ultimately more fun, and that the balance isn't sacrificed by moving away from 3rd party homebrew rules. With these factors in mind there isn't a justification to push unofficial, 3rd party rules in place of the official ones.

LoS blocking and ruins without vantage on the ground floor are possible under both rule-sets.

The terrain argument is a separate issue, and it's widely known that players don't put the same effort into building well functional terrain as they do their armies.

how is more varied fun? a structure and repentivness are what is good. If two identical armies played in identical ways don't give the same result, just because of random rolls one has no influence on it is the definition of unfun.

It is like losing a match,that went to time twice, to a referee coin toss.

Do you think that playing the same mission over and over again is more fun than playing a set of varied missions with significant differences in terms of play and objectives?

Is it not common opinion that variety is more fun than repetition?

I'm not sure thats a safe assumption.

I will again agree that it wasnt as different as i feared. Surviving tau was the biggest issue

So to throw my two cents in here.I'm going to talk about my game last night. Matched play, CA19 mission, used GW tourni terrain rules. And we used the Chaos world terrain rules from the Ritual of the Damned PA book.

All official GW rules, no home brew.

The Objectives were draw 5, play three at a time. You can only draw one more a time if you control more objectives at start of your turn. So get objective control to get more cards to get more points.

Attacker goes first and sets up first.

Defender goes second but get's to choose set up lay out, deployment zone and get's benefit of seeing opponents army.

The terrain rules also allowed for stratagems which gave any unit (one per movement phase) access to removing and re-setting up 9" away. Also brought in a table for random effect to board for it being a chaos world. And at the start of each battle round you can move unoccupied terrain (any terrain as long as un-occupied) up to 2d3", alternating.

What resulting was an unpredictable match that required advance thinking and planning. Adaptive strategies and one of the most single fun games ever.

I have played a few ITC and I whole heartily recommend CA19.

Karol wrote:
how is more varied fun? a structure and repentivness are what is good. If two identical armies played in identical ways don't give the same result, just because of random rolls one has no influence on it is the definition of unfun.

It is like losing a match,that went to time twice, to a referee coin toss.

CA19 isn't more random than ITC, it is more varied, which is different.

If you were to play the same CA19 EW missions multiple times it would actually be LESS random than playing the same ITC mission multiple times, since the roll for going first matters less.

Spoletta wrote:

Karol wrote:
how is more varied fun? a structure and repentivness are what is good. If two identical armies played in identical ways don't give the same result, just because of random rolls one has no influence on it is the definition of unfun.

It is like losing a match,that went to time twice, to a referee coin toss.

CA19 isn't more random than ITC, it is more varied, which is different.

If you were to play the same CA19 EW missions multiple times it would actually be LESS random than playing the same ITC mission multiple times, since the roll for going first matters less.

Well yes. That's why you don't play the same mission over and over. Then it would be like ITC.

Spoletta wrote:

Karol wrote:
how is more varied fun? a structure and repentivness are what is good. If two identical armies played in identical ways don't give the same result, just because of random rolls one has no influence on it is the definition of unfun.

It is like losing a match,that went to time twice, to a referee coin toss.

CA19 isn't more random than ITC, it is more varied, which is different.

If you were to play the same CA19 EW missions multiple times it would actually be LESS random than playing the same ITC mission multiple times, since the roll for going first matters less.

Completely ignoring that you won't play the same mission over and over again against the same person. You will play against a randomly selected opponent in a randomly selected mission. So unless you cheat and get the organizer to get the right missions against the right opponents, you will get hurt by the variance and benefit from the variance in other games.

At an event the CA missions don't have to be random. Play them in order.

 Ishagu wrote:
Do you think that playing the same mission over and over again is more fun than playing a set of varied missions with significant differences in terms of play and objectives?

Isn't that the definition of insanity?

The CA19 missions are great. Lockdown is awesome fun.

 vict0988 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Karol wrote:
how is more varied fun? a structure and repentivness are what is good. If two identical armies played in identical ways don't give the same result, just because of random rolls one has no influence on it is the definition of unfun.

It is like losing a match,that went to time twice, to a referee coin toss.

CA19 isn't more random than ITC, it is more varied, which is different.

If you were to play the same CA19 EW missions multiple times it would actually be LESS random than playing the same ITC mission multiple times, since the roll for going first matters less.

Completely ignoring that you won't play the same mission over and over again against the same person. You will play against a randomly selected opponent in a randomly selected mission. So unless you cheat and get the organizer to get the right missions against the right opponents, you will get hurt by the variance and benefit from the variance in other games.

That wasn't the point of the discussion. I know fully well how to play my CA19. I was just answering to the wrong concept that those missions are "Random" and that, as in the quote, if two identical armies are played in identical ways inside the same EW missions, you get less random results than identical armies played in identical ways in an ITC mission.

Let's stop with this talks about CA19 missions being random and so being bad for competitive matches. They are not. They are less random than ITC.

They are more varied, which is a good thing, not random.

 Ishagu wrote:
At an event the CA missions don't have to be random. Play them in order.

Against a predetermined opponent with a predetermined list? Yes. But that is not how tournaments work. Let's say you've determined the players will play CA19 EW1, 3 and 6 in your tournament. Now I arrive, my army might be strong in 1 and 6 and weak in 3, now if I meet up with someone who has a bad matchup into my army in EW1 game 1 I might be favoured, but if I instead meet that same person playing that same army in game 2 playing EW3, then the mission could decide the outcome of that match. This is the logical result of increased variance between missions, more matches will be determined by that variance compared to a system where the variance is non-existent or as is the case of ITC, close to non-existent. You cannot increase the variance from mission to mission without also increasing how random match-making will impact tournament results. That's not to say that every ITC game is the same, it just depends on the player's choices instead of the random match-making assigning you a good mission for your match-up, you have to decide the missions that are right for your match-up.

It doesn't seem like it is the variance that makes Marines weaker in CA19, if that were the case you'd at most expect them to do as good or better than every other faction, rarely worse. That gives me hope ITC reviews their secondaries and either make them harder against non-Marines or find ones that hurt Marines more. It is probably best for the long-term health of the game if they switch over to CA19 missions, but I would be sad to see such an interesting mission set go. Maybe if I can get some competitive EW games I will change my mind, but they are dreadfully boring compared to Maelstrom and my community treats Champions missions as the only thing in town as far as competition goes.

In ITC going second is often stronger, exceptions exist, but both broadly and at the highest level AFAIK going second is the right choice in ITC. I know a lot of people whine about going second every time it happens and wouldn't dream in a thousand years to personally choose going second, I think they are bad at ITC. A lot of people brush off their victories due to going first, I think they are better at the game than they give themselves credit for.