Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't really understand the point of this thread. The ITC scoring system DOES NOT require you to use the ITC champs missions. I have heard of a couple of RTT ITC tournaments that use chapter approved and a few more that use their own homebrew missions.

I think this threads anti ITC slant should be directed more to tournament organisers rather than the ITC.

Edit: the new ITC secondaries are up on the website now and the mission tweaks are due soon. They also spoke about maelstrom style missions as well.

So there's new ITC missions.

The plural is a bit generous.

Still kill/kill more in every game, the “mission” is still worth 14.3% of the possible victory points in each game, 28.6% are about tailoring your own mission and 57.1% are the same every game.

 Ishagu wrote:
So there's new ITC missions.

The plural is a bit generous.

Still kill/kill more in every game, the “mission” is still worth 14.3% of the possible victory points in each game, 28.6% are about tailoring your own mission and 57.1% are the same every game.

wait a minute, I thought ITC was gonna fix this....yeah right!

You say that like the Eternal War missions in CA19 don't all have the same three secondary VC and score VP by holding objectives. Yet, they are all different in how many objectives, when you score those held objectives, and how many points you get for each objective you hold.

The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.

 Ishagu wrote:
The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.

BINGO!

 Ishagu wrote:
So there's new ITC missions.

The plural is a bit generous.

Still kill/kill more in every game, the “mission” is still worth 14.3% of the possible victory points in each game, 28.6% are about tailoring your own mission and 57.1% are the same every game.

As opposed to Ewars 100% the same every game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.

BINGO!

Except they're really not. The mission is always 'stand on more objectives than you opponent' with a miniscule, usually irrelevant, twist and objective placement, when they're deliberately set to be mirrored, or deployed by two players who are at least minimally competent, is largely irrelevant.

Ewar missions may not be actually identical, but they're functionally identical in terms of how you go about winning them.

I don't know what missions you have been playing. They certainly aren't the ones in the latest Chapter Approved.
They are far more varied and dynamic than the ITC mission pack.

If you feel the official GW missions are lacking variety, by comparison you must feel that the ITC missions have none whatsoever.

ERJAK wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
So there's new ITC missions.

The plural is a bit generous.

Still kill/kill more in every game, the “mission” is still worth 14.3% of the possible victory points in each game, 28.6% are about tailoring your own mission and 57.1% are the same every game.

As opposed to Ewars 100% the same every game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.

BINGO!

Except they're really not. The mission is always 'stand on more objectives than you opponent' with a miniscule, usually irrelevant, twist and objective placement, when they're deliberately set to be mirrored, or deployed by two players who are at least minimally competent, is largely irrelevant.

Ewar missions may not be actually identical, but they're functionally identical in terms of how you go about winning them.

Playing "stand on more objectives with the correct thing" is more fun to many people then "Shoot harder while standing on 1 objective" that ITC often comes down to.

But hey, you can make everything sound stupid if you condense it in the wrong way.

It's already a big step forward to simply not deny VP through pre-planned list design, ie. "giving up secondaries".

 Ishagu wrote:

If you feel the official GW missions are lacking variety, by comparison you must feel that the ITC missions have none whatsoever.

I dont think ITC claims to have variety, just a style of competition which is now more optional than ever if the community chooses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Magic boxes are pretty terribly implemented with the "infantry move through ruins" rules. A unit can stand right outside a building, charge through the wall like the kool-aid man, and murder units inside without any fear of overwatch. It further rewards non-LOS shooting/abilities even more. Seems a little silly that a flamethrower or shotgun camping a doorway cannot overwatch, but a mortar can overwatch against something directly on the opposite side of the wall. Especially when you consider "there are holes etc that infantry can climb through" but those same "holes" aren't big enough to shoot out of? It was a decent stopgap before people starting using better terrain, but it's time to rip the band aid off.

This is a real odd complaint. Do gun armies need more incentive? You are already hiding from enemy fire and now want to be able to shoot at things charging you and making it harder for assault armies. Just stand in the open if you wanted to overwatch!

ERJAK wrote:
Except they're really not. The mission is always 'stand on more objectives than you opponent' with a miniscule, usually irrelevant, twist and objective placement, when they're deliberately set to be mirrored, or deployed by two players who are at least minimally competent, is largely irrelevant.

Ewar missions may not be actually identical, but they're functionally identical in terms of how you go about winning them.

Look who obviously never even played every EW mission more than once.

ERJAK wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.

BINGO!

Except they're really not. The mission is always 'stand on more objectives than you opponent' with a miniscule, usually irrelevant, twist and objective placement, when they're deliberately set to be mirrored, or deployed by two players who are at least minimally competent, is largely irrelevant.

Ewar missions may not be actually identical, but they're functionally identical in terms of how you go about winning them.

That's just completely wrong, even ignoring the absurdly reductive side of the argument. ITC primary missions are all the same barring a largely irrelevant bonus (which hopefully is a little more impactful with the new pack) with play patterns not really varying much due to the primary missions. The secondaries have more impact than the primaries do. I don't think this is a controversial statement and I've seen plenty of ITC supporters say the same thing. In the EW missions from CA19 the variety is actually very noticeable and each plays out very differently. You have missions where objectives disappear as the game goes on, or ones with progressive scoring but only with characters and these massively change how the game flows and how each army plays. It changes the individual value of different units depending on the mission as well, which instantly makes the game more engaging. Having characters go from lynchpin buffing units to the only realistic way to win the game leads to some truly dynamic play and difficult decisions about when and where to risk your key characters, for example.

Been lurking this thread ever since Ishagu pulled the trigger on it. I am rather surprised how many believe ITC to be the better form of play.

You can correct me, if I am wrong, but doesn't ITC rulepack actually encourage throwing the game early on, if your start goes down badly? By not bringing the last units from reserve, you deny the opponent points as now those units can't be scored? I have seen this call often, even in some Youtube videos. One example I remember is that Vanguard Tactics guy.

I don't blame players for doing that, since this way the point differential isn't as big as it could have been. But this is by design. Design by ITC. Frankly, bad design. Imagine, if in ice hockey you would deny opponent some goals just by standing idle and not doing a thing. It goes against every bit of logic, if you ask me... Not only that but it is also an awfully boring game to watch. I rarely find ITC games exciting, and that is only because of how it is played out, and how terrain rules make people go about their deployment.

I personally lean towards Chapter Approved missions. I value what ITC group has done, and created, but right now I think it has to be evaluated again. I read recent changes to it, and I don't see the huge gameplay impact they claimed on that post.

Denying your opponents points when you could have earned some yourself is a douch move. You dont gain anything from him scoring less if you are gonna lose anyway. If you deploy that unit from reserve and get a kill and score 1 point and your opponent kill it and get kill, kill more and maybe a seconday and gets up to 6pts for that unit it is still better for you to get that 1 point than him 6.

If it is to deny points so another friend has a better placing it isnt exclusive to ITC. It might perhaps be easier to deny in ITC but you can still try to deny points for your opponent over scoring yourself in any system. At least a win is much important than what the actual score is in ITC events. Doesnt matter if you won by with a 1-0 score if you won all 5 games for example while another player got 43-0, 43-0. 43-0, 43-0 and then 42-43. So you could in theory win an event with 5 points in a 5 round tournament against someone with over 210pts.

Ilgoth wrote:
Been lurking this thread ever since Ishagu pulled the trigger on it. I am rather surprised how many believe ITC to be the better form of play.

You can correct me, if I am wrong, but doesn't ITC rulepack actually encourage throwing the game early on, if your start goes down badly? By not bringing the last units from reserve, you deny the opponent points as now those units can't be scored? I have seen this call often, even in some Youtube videos. One example I remember is that Vanguard Tactics guy.

I don't blame players for doing that, since this way the point differential isn't as big as it could have been. But this is by design. Design by ITC. Frankly, bad design. Imagine, if in ice hockey you would deny opponent some goals just by standing idle and not doing a thing. It goes against every bit of logic, if you ask me... Not only that but it is also an awfully boring game to watch. I rarely find ITC games exciting, and that is only because of how it is played out, and how terrain rules make people go about their deployment.

I personally lean towards Chapter Approved missions. I value what ITC group has done, and created, but right now I think it has to be evaluated again. I read recent changes to it, and I don't see the huge gameplay impact they claimed on that post.

I think you're wrong. Units left in reserve count as destroyed at the end of the third battleround, so your opponent would still get points for them at that stage.

See the Tactical Reserves rule in CA '19 (though it's been around awhile): "Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed."

So if you don't bring in the units from reserve, in ITC or any other format, they count as being destroyed and your opponent gets their points.

 Asmodai wrote:

Ilgoth wrote:
Been lurking this thread ever since Ishagu pulled the trigger on it. I am rather surprised how many believe ITC to be the better form of play.

You can correct me, if I am wrong, but doesn't ITC rulepack actually encourage throwing the game early on, if your start goes down badly? By not bringing the last units from reserve, you deny the opponent points as now those units can't be scored? I have seen this call often, even in some Youtube videos. One example I remember is that Vanguard Tactics guy.

I don't blame players for doing that, since this way the point differential isn't as big as it could have been. But this is by design. Design by ITC. Frankly, bad design. Imagine, if in ice hockey you would deny opponent some goals just by standing idle and not doing a thing. It goes against every bit of logic, if you ask me... Not only that but it is also an awfully boring game to watch. I rarely find ITC games exciting, and that is only because of how it is played out, and how terrain rules make people go about their deployment.

I personally lean towards Chapter Approved missions. I value what ITC group has done, and created, but right now I think it has to be evaluated again. I read recent changes to it, and I don't see the huge gameplay impact they claimed on that post.

I think you're wrong. Units left in reserve count as destroyed at the end of the third battleround, so your opponent would still get points for them at that stage.

See the Tactical Reserves rule in CA '19 (though it's been around awhile): "Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed."

So if you don't bring in the units from reserve, in ITC or any other format, they count as being destroyed and your opponent gets their points.

It still denies some points, throw it tail of 3 and you're not getting any more objective of kill points since you're probably already on kill more already so the wiped units don't add to that in any capacity, but the rules don't really cover this circumstance that well, it says to count them as destroyed but depending on wording as neither player has "killed" or "destroyed" the units, does anything get awarded? (obviously common sense says yes but it'd be open to interpretation)

Slipspace wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The difference is that the objective placements, scoring focus and mission criteria are all substantially different in each CA mission.

BINGO!

Except they're really not. The mission is always 'stand on more objectives than you opponent' with a miniscule, usually irrelevant, twist and objective placement, when they're deliberately set to be mirrored, or deployed by two players who are at least minimally competent, is largely irrelevant.

Ewar missions may not be actually identical, but they're functionally identical in terms of how you go about winning them.

That's just completely wrong, even ignoring the absurdly reductive side of the argument. ITC primary missions are all the same barring a largely irrelevant bonus (which hopefully is a little more impactful with the new pack) with play patterns not really varying much due to the primary missions. The secondaries have more impact than the primaries do. I don't think this is a controversial statement and I've seen plenty of ITC supporters say the same thing. In the EW missions from CA19 the variety is actually very noticeable and each plays out very differently. You have missions where objectives disappear as the game goes on, or ones with progressive scoring but only with characters and these massively change how the game flows and how each army plays. It changes the individual value of different units depending on the mission as well, which instantly makes the game more engaging. Having characters go from lynchpin buffing units to the only realistic way to win the game leads to some truly dynamic play and difficult decisions about when and where to risk your key characters, for example.

True. Lots of differences between missions in CA. Numbers of objectives change. What can capture the objectives changes. Value of the objectives changes. Nothing but the objectives matter. Oh you hid all turn and killed a guardsmen with a TFC...I suppose that is a great way to determine a victor. LOL.

So, I've been playing the CA2019 missions a bit, and I would say the shiny has definitely worn off.

Lockdown and Crusade are new, and I'm going to talk about Lockdown first.
I've played it a few times now, and I definitely think that it's worth pretending there are 5 missions in the mission pack and ignoring this one. It's so bad. I won one game on turn 2 by porting up Interceptors and Strikes with Gates to score 6-1, and by dropping in my deepstrikers and porting up more strikes to do it again turn 2 for another 6-0, and from that point onward it was actually just impossible for my opponent to recover the deficit in victory points before the end of the game. I wasn't even putting my guys in favorable engagements, just rushing the points, and took massive casualties compared to him but scored all the victory points, and with diminishing numbers of objectives he had no chance to come back. The other games I played with this mission were less ridiculously one-sided, but the games were still decided very early by just rushing points. I imagine that this mission is probably free in the bag for Space Marines, though I never played as or faced marines while playing it. Armies without infiltrate/vanguard or some other way to cheat a unit up the board turn 1 basically didn't have a chance.

Crusade though is okay. I wouldn't be unhappy with it being standardized as the singular competitive mission. I like start-of-turn scoring for progressive objectives, which is neat. All in all, it might be a little better than the ITC missions, but the rest of the pack isn't that great. I was disappointed to see only two new missions.

For the returning missions, Scorched Earth and Front-Line Warfare also have limited comeback potential, but aren't as bad as Lockdown. I just plain don't like Ascension. Four Pillars is okay too.


There are lots of things I don't like about ITC missions, mostly because the reward for destruction is too high and the secondaries aren't fair to all factions, but all in all, they're consistent, can be planned around, so I'll probably be sticking with them going forward.


I'm increasingly a fan of old-fashioned style missions where it's just end of game scoring for holding the objectives. Comeback potential with progressive scoring isn't high enough, which ends games early, and most of my games end when a player concedes when they count up the points on board and conclude that it's impossible for a comeback.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I've played it a few times now, and I definitely think that it's worth pretending there are 5 missions in the mission pack and ignoring this one. It's so bad. I won one game on turn 2 by porting up Interceptors and Strikes with Gates to score 6-1, and by dropping in my deepstrikers and porting up more strikes to do it again turn 2 for another 6-0, and from that point onward it was actually just impossible for my opponent to recover the deficit in victory points before the end of the game. I wasn't even putting my guys in favorable engagements, just rushing the points, and took massive casualties compared to him but scored all the victory points, and with diminishing numbers of objectives he had no chance to come back. The other games I played with this mission were less ridiculously one-sided, but the games were still decided very early by just rushing points. I imagine that this mission is probably free in the bag for Space Marines, though I never played as or faced marines while playing it. Armies without infiltrate/vanguard or some other way to cheat a unit up the board turn 1 basically didn't have a chance.

I'm kinda curious, considering each player places 3 objectives on the board, how did your opponent allowed you to be able to deepstrike/infiltrate (gate is once per turn right ?) into most of them ?
Anyway, rushing objectives kinda is the point of this mission and is one of those that force you to make balanced lists because you'll need fast units to tackle it. But I would agree that it might be a bit imbalanced since you score at the end of your own turn.

It's obvious the opponent didn't have a list that was capable of board control or fast movement/redeployment.

This is exactly the point of the CA missions - to test your list in different ways.
You should build a list suited to the missions, not change the mission to suit your list.

Some armies do that way better than others. You could make a whole marine army with 0 models in reserve or deployed in your own deployment zone. Every single model up the board before the game even begins. Quite the unfair advantage for marines to have that option while other armies dont.

Klickor wrote:
Some armies do that way better than others. You could make a whole marine army with 0 models in reserve or deployed in your own deployment zone. Every single model up the board before the game even begins. Quite the unfair advantage for marines to have that option while other armies dont.

It is one of the points of playing something like 40K rather than checkers though, different armies are supposed to be good at different things (unless it's marines).
You're not supposed to chose your list after knowing the mission you're going to play. So maybe you're going to play lockdown and your phobos list or whatever will be awesome, but maybe you'll play a mission where you score at the start of your turn or at the end of the battle round and your opponent will just have to put more bodies than you around the objectives...

This is a balancing factor of the mission. Some armies SHOULD be better at certain things.

Over an event spanning all the different missions, different armies will have an easier or tougher time from round to round.

Klickor wrote:
Some armies do that way better than others. You could make a whole marine army with 0 models in reserve or deployed in your own deployment zone. Every single model up the board before the game even begins. Quite the unfair advantage for marines to have that option while other armies dont.

The marine book is like twice the size of every other codex not including supplements. Of course Marines are always going to be at an advantage in terms of choices because they get way more attention than other armies (and at this point are effectivly two armies in one codex). Not to derail the thread but it's not that other armies have NO options in said category but its more that some armies have no GOOD options in that category. I almost never take any Fast Attack options in my Nid army because even playing casually their FA options suck.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Klickor wrote:
Some armies do that way better than others. You could make a whole marine army with 0 models in reserve or deployed in your own deployment zone. Every single model up the board before the game even begins. Quite the unfair advantage for marines to have that option while other armies dont.

The marine book is like twice the size of every other codex not including supplements. Of course Marines are always going to be at an advantage in terms of choices because they get way more attention than other armies (and at this point are effectivly two armies in one codex). Not to derail the thread but it's not that other armies have NO options in said category but its more that some armies have no GOOD options in that category. I almost never take any Fast Attack options in my Nid army because even playing casually their FA options suck.

I know and that is part of the problem right now. I dont think the CA missions is that much better than ITC that marines are now balanced with everyone else. It will just shift the problems around a bit since the core of the problem is the lackluster core rules and the imbalance between all the extra special rules tacked on to armies after. Especially marines benefit since they have the largest roster by far.

Missions don't need to be balanced for every single faction in the game, there just needs to be a way for players to avoid obviously one-sided matchups.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Missions don't need to be balanced for every single faction in the game, there just needs to be a way for players to avoid obviously one-sided matchups.

I disagree. While not every army should be equally good at winning all the missions, every faction should have a way to win any of the missions - that way doesn't need to be the same one, but they need a way.

For example, a faction which has trouble keeping characters on objectives should have better access to assassination mechanisms.

Yoyoyo wrote:Missions don't need to be balanced for every single faction in the game, there just needs to be a way for players to avoid obviously one-sided matchups.

I would say they should be balanced for every faction, or at least almost all the factions and every major faction. Especially for competitive play.

That's my one real complaint with ITC, the missions favor certain armies and disadvantage others pretty severely, mostly though the killmore and secondaries. Otherwise, I like ITC because it's static & plannable, which are important for competitive play.

dhallnet wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I've played it a few times now, and I definitely think that it's worth pretending there are 5 missions in the mission pack and ignoring this one. It's so bad. I won one game on turn 2 by porting up Interceptors and Strikes with Gates to score 6-1, and by dropping in my deepstrikers and porting up more strikes to do it again turn 2 for another 6-0, and from that point onward it was actually just impossible for my opponent to recover the deficit in victory points before the end of the game. I wasn't even putting my guys in favorable engagements, just rushing the points, and took massive casualties compared to him but scored all the victory points, and with diminishing numbers of objectives he had no chance to come back. The other games I played with this mission were less ridiculously one-sided, but the games were still decided very early by just rushing points. I imagine that this mission is probably free in the bag for Space Marines, though I never played as or faced marines while playing it. Armies without infiltrate/vanguard or some other way to cheat a unit up the board turn 1 basically didn't have a chance.

I'm kinda curious, considering each player places 3 objectives on the board, how did your opponent allowed you to be able to deepstrike/infiltrate (gate is once per turn right ?) into most of them ?
Anyway, rushing objectives kinda is the point of this mission and is one of those that force you to make balanced lists because you'll need fast units to tackle it. But I would agree that it might be a bit imbalanced since you score at the end of your own turn.

Objectives are places in alternating sequence 6" in and 12" apart before determining deployment zones. It's not too difficult to force objectives in places that are bad for them. In that game, there were 2 in his zone, one further back but with no cover protecting it, and one at the front but sheltered behind a building [a pretty standard spread of objectives]. He chose #6 to be the one in cover and garrisoned it with cultists and some Havocks above it, and unfortunately for him the one in his back field came up #2. I took #6 with strikes charging the cultists and grabbed the midfield ones with interceptors and by walking to them. Another charge on the part of interceptors meant he wasn't able to push up into the midfield objectives on his turn, since I wasn't dead yet as of the movement phase, and he wasn't able to get anybody with obsec over to steal #6 back from the strikes. Turn 2 I brought in my deep strikers, basically repeating turn 1 except now with strikes and paladins [and re-rolls for the charge, so more successful charges]. Once again, he couldn't reach the objectives and couldn't move past my models. He wasn't able to leave his zone until turn 3. If on his turn 3 he took all the mid-fields and took back #6 [there was basically no chance for him to take away #1] he would be able to recover a total of 6 points to the 14 point lead I was already sitting on at the end of my/beginning of his turn 3. There just wasn't a chance for him to win, and no point in still playing.

That was the most egregiously one-sided game I played on Lockdown. I've played 3 total on this mission [which is 2 more times than I've played Crusade or any of the others], and all have been called short because there are not enough points available late in the game to make up a points deficit from early in the game.


And like, I'm in favor of objective based scoring that doesn't reward unit destruction, but Lockdown is just bad. Nobody likes playing a game that was decided on turn 2 without any real chance at a comeback and decided by actions that he didn't even get a chance to oppose or prevent. I can also see easily getting screwed by random objective rolls, if 2 and 3 are close to you and 4 and 5 are far away.



Crusade, on the other hand, is good. Beginning of turn scoring is a good feature, since you have to not only take it but expect to defend it, disincentivizing rushing suicidal units onto objectives every turn to score lots of points while getting decimated. Your opponent always gets a say before you score a point, which means that it's in a player's power to try to limit the growth of a points deficit in the first place. It's very plannable, and player-placed objective allow a layer of play and counterplay in objective placement that can have a significant effect if thought about carefully. It's very simply written and easy to understand how to score. And with regards to late game turns being irrelevant due to available points being less than an accumulated deficit, it still has that problem, but not any worse than ITC or any of the other mission options [short end-of-game scoring]. I would not be unhappy with just standardizing this mission as "The Mission".


A mission needs several things to be good:
Static: the mission will play the same no matter who plays it or when. If you can play the mission twice and it'll be different each time, that's a problem
Plannable: similar to the above, but you should be able to see and prepare a strategy towards victory from when you build your list to the end.
Counterplayable: players should be forced to engage with their opponent, rather than be an independent race to the top to see who gets highest. Being able to deny through play the enemy their points is as important a part of a game as scoring your own.
Competitive: any point in the game should have the potential to be decisive with good play.
Balanced: assuming players of equal skill, either should have a equal chance of winning independent of faction selection. Exactly what's in your army is important, but whether you're Space Marines or Imperial Guard should still give equal odds.
Sane: Winning the mission should not incentivize what would otherwise be considered bad play and poor decisions. Actions of desperation like sending troops squads on suicide missions to take a point for just the end of your turn and then die might be a valid choice on the back foot and trying to stay close to turn it around, but it shouldn't be the optimal play when you're winning.

This is why Maelstrom is bad, and this is why Lockdown is bad. They fail basically all of these. This is also why Crusade is good, since it passes most of these.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I would say they should be balanced for every faction, or at least almost all the factions and every major faction. Especially for competitive play.

In most RTS games, you have a map pool. Certain maps favor certain factions, due to how difficult it is to fast-expand (for example).

I really, really doubt you can get a set of missions -- or even a single mission -- to be an even playing field for most of the 40k factions. As soon as you have a static mission, people will choose the army and composition which favors it. For example, IH Leviathan with wound passing in the ITC format.

This is the downside of being static and plannable -- you're loading the challenge to list-building, rather than forcing a player to take a flexible force because they need to play potentially 4/6 missions.

The more unpredictable the mission, the less you can overspecialize. That's arguably a good thing within reason. Though I'm of course interested in the counter-argument.