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.

Slipspace wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I was just very hopeful they'd get us back to at least 5th ed levels. No such luck. Despite a truckload of rules.

And just like in other threads where you bring this up you still haven't told us what your list is. Blood Angels have shown themselves to be good enough to get near the top tables at some fairly big GTs recently so the army obviously has some power to it. It's not on the level of most of the Codex Space Marines chapters but they're not a bad army at all.

It does. I feel really competitive against Xenos. But many have jumped to vanilla marines now. I agree they are not BAD. But, I feel like the CA 2019 mission really dictate my movement and make me very predictable as to where my assault elements are going to be. That's a downside for BA no one had mentioned but I experienced. ITC matches vs vanilla marines present other problems. I need to just accept that BA trying to do stuff at range 0 vs other armies doing stuff at ranges greater than 0 is just not going to be a good time in 8th edition.

Since it won't drop here is the list I was massacred with against IF:

Stupid smash captain that has to be in every list because GW gonna GW
Storm shield
Thunder hammer

Intercessors X 5
Boltrifles
Aux grenade
Power Sword

Intercessors X 5
Boltrifles
Aux grenade
Power Sword

Intercessors X 10
Auto bolters
Thunder hammer

Sanguinary Guard X 10
Angelus Boltgun X 10
Encarmine Axe X 5
Encarmine Sword X 5

Sanguinary Ancient
Angelus Boltgun
Encarmine Sword

Inceptor Squad X 6
Assault Bolter X 12

Suppressor Squad
Grave chute X 3
Accelerator Cannon

Suppressor Squad
Grave chute X 3
Accelerator Cannon

Suppressor Squad
Grave chute X 3
Accelerator Cannon

LT with jump pack
Master boltgun
Relic blade

Eliminators
Camo cloak X 3
Las Fusil X 3

Eliminators
Camo cloak X 3
Las Fusil X 3

Jump Captain
Relic blade
Storm shield


Whirlwind
Storm bolter
Vengeance launcher

Whirlwind
Storm bolter
Vengeance launcher

Unfortunately most people are too ignorant to know how to direct complaints.

Iron Hands indeed cause problems, yet people call for general units to be punished that are perfectly fine when used by other chapters or factions.

Yet in CA missions the Iron Hands aren't as dominant, so more should focus their attention on those.

I don't think you know that. I can't find any real data to support that.

 Ishagu wrote:
Unfortunately most people are too ignorant to know how to direct complaints.

Iron Hands indeed cause problems, yet people call for general units to be punished that are perfectly fine when used by other chapters or factions.

Yet in CA missions the Iron Hands aren't as dominant, so more should focus their attention on those.

While I agree with you on the superiority of the ca missions and that the primary problem is ih, I don't think that the ca missions alone will bring ih in line with other factions, and unfortunately some of the fixes may have to affect the other chapters as well. Duty Eternal working on things like leviathans being an example.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think you know that. I can't find any real data to support that.

I guess you should go out and get more people to play rather than dismiss everything about the CA missions.
The ITC are the ones collecting the data on their events. Look at the results from GW tournaments in the meantime.

There isn't as much data as what exists for ITC events. I pointed this out at the start of this topic.

I didn't dismiss it. I said you don't KNOW that. You BELIEVE that. You might be right. You might be wrong. In this matchup, I desperately needed ITC terrain and for the opponent to NOT know where I HAD to move. He prevented me from scoring by killing me, which would work in either format.

And in what ITC mission is the opponent's movement not predictable?

H.B.M.C. wrote:I've been seeing a bit of the Prague Open this across this weekend. It's just depressing to see such great looking terrain sectioned off into dull repetitive ICT layouts.

The whole thing seems counter-intuitive. It's not 40K. It's some weird hybrid that seeks to suck the fun out of it.

DING DING DING, and we have a winner!

Whomever sets up the stupid boards for ITC is quite lame. It's like they dont understand the different types of terrain that you use to create; choke points, fatal funnels, & impassable areas. Sadly, this is due to the unimaginative ITC layouts more than anything GW has done. Cities of Death really changes how one interacts with terrain. We have played several games where there is no shooting phase in the first turn due to TLOS, cuz nothing is visible.

Hell, terrain should be the 3rd adversary on the table.

 Ishagu wrote:
And in what ITC mission is the opponent's movement not predictable?

I don't have to go hug a diminishing set of objectives to score. I can work the secondaries and keep out of LOS.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And in what ITC mission is the opponent's movement not predictable?

I don't have to go hug a diminishing set of objectives to score. I can work the secondaries and keep out of LOS.

In other words you just want to score points for killing things and hiding.

Seems like a better plan than feeding into a vanilla marine gunline. Engineer is a thing, too. Of course TFCs mean that they don't have to move, ever.

Ever consider that maybe the tfcs are the problem and not your ba or the missions?

Of course. I just see gunlines being very empowered in CA missions.

My Night Lords don't have that much of a problem with them. And most of their strategems are based around jump troops and charges, just like ba.

So how do you not instantly lose everything as soon as you get into LoS? Even with FNP and 3W, marines chew up the inceptors really fast.

Martel732 wrote:
So how do you not instantly lose everything as soon as you get into LoS?

Honestly? Using things you don't have. You don't have vox scream to shut down rerolls. Or warp talons to charge in without overwatch and tie things up with "we have come for you ". Or terminators that can drop in and overcharge plasma safely, hitting on 2s, thanks to "prey on the weak " and then do it again in the same turn.

But other ba players seem to have ways to deal with gun lines. You'll have to see what they use. Judging by your list I'd add some firepower to clear the way. Dreadnoughts, repulsors and the like. If nothing else a big, scary model may soak up some fire.

As I said, at least in ITC I can hide from all but the TFCs. Of course, so can the Tau and the IH. It really pisses me off that GW just couldn't control themselves with marines.

Well, we are probably about two months out from the Spring FAQ. Let's all pray it brings down the Space Marine madness, especially Iron Hands.

 alextroy wrote:
Well, we are probably about two months out from the Spring FAQ. Let's all pray it brings down the Space Marine madness, especially Iron Hands.

I recon new wave of primarus marines will be out around that time if rumours are to be believed (bikes land, speeders).
So probably not. Dem marines sales need to churn out after all...

I had a 3 round tournie this weekend with new ITC. It seems fine. Easier to score bonus and the secondaries feel more balanced. No seize was ok as people felt more settled with their deployment decisions. Overall consensus was positive and the common themes was refinement.

As for people complaining about ITC being boring, for competitive tournaments its not meant to be super interesting. If you are like me and you only play ITC at tournaments say once a month, its fine. Obviously people like to practice for tournies so it only makes sense that you have the repetition outside of tournies makes it feel boring over time. Isnt it the whole point of practicing for ITC tournies?

There are plenty of other times to play casual hammer and CA missions. Over time I am sure some TOs will want to run CA based tournies if the demand is there for it. People should just speak to their local TO rather than complain on the internet.

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, at least in ITC I can hide from all but the TFCs. Of course, so can the Tau and the IH. It really pisses me off that GW just couldn't control themselves with marines.

"Dude I had this amazing game at the store last night, we both hid behind some buildings so we didn't get shot, I got loads of points for standing still and so did my opponents, it was awesome just doing nothing while we racked up points" *high fives*

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think you know that. I can't find any real data to support that.

We have six or seven GT running CA with vastly better spreads across factions than the ITC GTs, depite many of the ranking people participating in both. While it's not rock-solid evidence yet, there is enough data to support his opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smirrors wrote:
I had a 3 round tournie this weekend with new ITC. It seems fine. Easier to score bonus and the secondaries feel more balanced. No seize was ok as people felt more settled with their deployment decisions. Overall consensus was positive and the common themes was refinement.

As for people complaining about ITC being boring, for competitive tournaments its not meant to be super interesting. If you are like me and you only play ITC at tournaments say once a month, its fine. Obviously people like to practice for tournies so it only makes sense that you have the repetition outside of tournies makes it feel boring over time. Isnt it the whole point of practicing for ITC tournies?

There are plenty of other times to play casual hammer and CA missions. Over time I am sure some TOs will want to run CA based tournies if the demand is there for it. People should just speak to their local TO rather than complain on the internet.

In reality, most gaming groups either go 100% ITC or 100% CA missions.

Dudeface wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, at least in ITC I can hide from all but the TFCs. Of course, so can the Tau and the IH. It really pisses me off that GW just couldn't control themselves with marines.

"Dude I had this amazing game at the store last night, we both hid behind some buildings so we didn't get shot, I got loads of points for standing still and so did my opponents, it was awesome just doing nothing while we racked up points" *high fives*

That's better than having a game that lasted under an hour that only one person actually played while the other was boxed up by being unable to move past a line of guys at the front edge of their deploy.
Standing and shooting is still at least 4-6 relevant turns of play with both players actually having a theoretically decisive effect, if not the best play.

I said my piece already, and while I think there are some really good missions, some are really bad and the high variance between missions make it unsuitable for competitive play IMO.
OTOH, itc stops working right under 2k, and with a bunch of new players/graduates from KT we just took into our subgroup, we've been "playing down" and CA is at good for breaking into things when they can only muster 1-1.5k or less.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, at least in ITC I can hide from all but the TFCs. Of course, so can the Tau and the IH. It really pisses me off that GW just couldn't control themselves with marines.

"Dude I had this amazing game at the store last night, we both hid behind some buildings so we didn't get shot, I got loads of points for standing still and so did my opponents, it was awesome just doing nothing while we racked up points" *high fives*

That's better than having a game that lasted under an hour that only one person actually played while the other was boxed up by being unable to move past a line of guys at the front edge of their deploy.
Standing and shooting is still at least 4-6 relevant turns of play with both players actually having a theoretically decisive effect, if not the best play.

So not interacting with your opponent and ticking boxes for 6 turns is a more fun and engaging game? Edit to elaborate: Martel was complaining that he didn't have ITC terrain he could literally hide behind to prevent his opponent interacting with him, not that he wanted to stand and shoot for 6 turns, he literally wanted to hide and not interact.

Its more like he didn't want to get tabled by turn 2 than not interact all game.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Its more like he didn't want to get tabled by turn 2 than not interact all game.

TBH, you can get tabled in both mission types easily. depending on the army though, but still.

The core issue for that is imo, that the game just has gotten completely out of whack in regards to lethality due to a combination of sizecreep and the "casual" inclusion of superheavies requireing small arms to be overly effective due to flattened wounding charts.
Assume for a moment that someone brings 200 pts in guardsmen, in earlier editions that would've been 40, now there are 50.
In earlier editions also, a Lasgun would wound t4 on 5 and t5 on 6's only. PLague marines were virtually imune to lasgun fire, now it is one of the best ways to get rid of them.

Even funnier it is when we consider Tacs or worse CSM's. They were once 15 pts, then dropped to 13, then to 11 pts.
300 pts in CSM once netted you 20, now you get 27. Sizecreep is an issue.

It also doesn't help that alot of the bigger tournaments went up in pts whilest GW inflated the size also to accomondate superheavies and flyers , etc.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Its more like he didn't want to get tabled by turn 2 than not interact all game.

You can blame ITC putting too much emphasis on the "alpha strike" to rack up points and get an auto win for tabling an opponent than actually playing objectives.

Because how fair is it that even though your opponent has three times your VP you still won because your list was able to kill everything?

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Its more like he didn't want to get tabled by turn 2 than not interact all game.

I refuse to believe someone can reliably be tabled turn 2 constantly with no counter play. The issue isn't "I want the objectives to be scored how I want to score them" it's being able to adapt to a mission. In this case it seems neither player did overly.

Likewise needing ITC to make up terrain layouts and exemptions is rubbish, if you're getting shot off because all buildings have windows, swap them out for some terrain that doesn't?

 Dr. Mills wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Its more like he didn't want to get tabled by turn 2 than not interact all game.

You can blame ITC putting too much emphasis on the "alpha strike" to rack up points and get an auto win for tabling an opponent than actually playing objectives.

Because how fair is it that even though your opponent has three times your VP you still won because your list was able to kill everything?

Where is that rule in the ITC Mission pack?

Here's what it says under tabling:

If one player chooses to concede before the game has come to a natural conclusion or is “Tabled” (meaning all of their units have been destroyed), they retain the score they had up until that point and count all of their units as destroyed for scoring purposes for each of the remaining turns of the game meaning their opponent will earn all of their Kill, Kill More primary points for every turn thereafter. The player that didn’t concede or get tabled may play out the remainder of the game to score any additional objectives to increase their final score. In the case of a concession, the conceding player automatically loses the game regardless of comparative scores.

Conceding is an automatic loss (and it should be). Getting tabled is not unless the TO adds their own rules.

This sunday I played a small store tournament playing pure CA missions. The final was ironhand vs ironhand with the list with the leviatan winning. The other player was a playef playing his first games in 5 years. His army was actually ironhands, painted as such, he just reentered the hobby and found his army being extremely op.
Nobody gave them a hard time, we are all friends and laugh at it. At this point in time, ironhands and maybe even Ravenguard and IF should be removed when talking about the competitive viability of something. They are so out of touch, specially IH, that we all know the solution is nerfs, not buffin everything to those levels.

And about lethality, how is people deploying? I played agaisnt the winner ironhand with my GK+Custodes list, pure infantry, one dreadnought abd one bike, and he tabled me on turn 5. I played and won a game vs space wolves and ended up atturn 7without anybody tabled. I only hd 3 saggitarum left, but won handly on points.

In the viability of BA, Black templars are worse BA and they are perfectly viable by virtue of being marines. Just not agaisnt the meta marines.