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.
2020/03/02 08:42:44
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Rugby even chooses a ball the shape it is to ensure that the way it bounces will be somewhat random. Injuries etc are often purely random in most sports.
You're right to say that sports do try to limit any random events that aren't deliberately built into the way the game plays.
2020/03/02 08:55:12
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
This "because Sports don't have it" argument is really entertaining
Picking out Sports Events as a reason why 40k should not have certain things that are in the rules is silly at best.
Because going down that road would mean, a fixed army list for a tournament season (going from CA release to CA release), no changes to the rules for the season no matter what GW releases (new Codex release or FAQ are ignored until the next CA hit).
And than we can talk about using fixed missions, tables, objectives for each game
People want to pick one advantage (from sports) without also taking the disadvantages. Call it cherry picking or just "easier to win games"
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2020/03/02 09:08:19
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Obviously, no major sport would allow anything random to affect an event.
That's why all football games are held indoors, where inclement weather couldn't possibly affect the game. And if they were actually held outside, all games would obviously be postponed if anything but perfect weather conditions were present.
The same can be said for professional racing. The perfectly regulated domes in which these events are held prevents such things as extreme heat and humidity affecting how engines run, or tires wear. Lucky they block out all precipitation, as it could possibly affect track conditions.
How about hockey then? Aside from a few events (read: gimmicks) each season it's a sport played in a temperature-controlled arena where each rink is of a standardized size.
Of course this talk of sports is silly, 40k is a wargame, and we all know that wars are fought only in conditions far more heavily regulated than any sport. No two combatants would ever commit their forces unless they knew the battlefield and all it's conditions perfectly suited their goals and the forces they brought to achieve them. There is absolutely no instance in the historical record of a commander being caught with a force not perfectly suited to the environment he's been assigned to fight in. Never has an army been forced to fight with unsuitable, old, or insufficient resources. No force has ever been defeated, or achieved victory due to any kind of unforeseen circumstances.
Obviously.
IRL armies aren't balanced by points either, should we just allow players to bring their entire collections and let the player with the better economy (read: bank account) walk away as the winner as they do in real warfare?
Honestly, it sounds like you get a lot more out of narrative play than matched tournament play so why not just go off and do that and leave the tournament crowd alone to play as they like?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: But random elements do exist, and make events more interesting. A football game played in the snow is more interesting than one played in perfect conditions, partly due to how the teams are forced to adapt to the different conditions. They don't merely turn around and not play just because the conditions aren't perfect. They adapt. A quarterback or coach who can't adapt won't have a job for very long. A good 40k player should be able to adapt just the same, not expect to win the game through list building.
Football played in the snow can lead to miserable matches that are terrible to watch, the same goes for games played in heavy rain or where the wind is gusting badly. Football games also can be called off due to weather if it gets bad enough. In a similar fashion, we've already had reports of CA missions leading to very one-sided matches due to the specific mission favouring one list heavily over the other, which doesn't sound ideal for either player. Beyond that teams are mostly built in the offseason and then brought out to play the season, in the cases where there have been major changes to the rules you see the types of players that teams value change.
Football teams, both types again, also don't just field one unit the entire game, they get bench players they can call in as circumstances change. So if we wanted to keep with the analogy we'd have to allow tournament players to bring additional models (say 500 points) so they can change their army based on the mission type. If this change was made I might actually support using chapter approved missions with full knowledge that this increases the cost of entry to new players.
Believe me I'd love to ignore all the meta chasers. But as long as gw uses data from ITC then that means they balance everything based on ITC, which affects everyone. If gw would balance based on ca missions I'd gladly let you min/max in peace.
2020/03/02 09:17:19
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.
IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2020/03/02 10:30:18
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Jidmah wrote: I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.
IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.
Agreed and I want to give an utterly ridiculous abstraction to show why the ITC balancing is weird:
There are 3 animals competing (armies), a horse, monkey and kangaroo.
The UK event organisers (GW) have 6 tracks that have combinations of trampolines, flat open areas and a climbing frame (objective types).
All animals have areas they excel at but have to be able to tackle their weaknesses in unpredictable manners, all 3 score roughly equally because of it.
The US event organisers (ITC) lets the animals choose which obstacles they have. Kangaroo takes 100% trampolines, horse 100% flat open, monkey 100% climbing frame.
Because the animals have evolved differently, a kangaroo will excel on the trampolines but can climb and is reasonably quick, so will pick trampolines but lose the race.
The horse is by far the faster over the distance on the flat opens and literally cannot handle a climbing frame and is iffy on a trampoline but wins the race.
Horse continues to win the race. Every. Time.
I now realise my head is a messed up place.
2020/03/02 10:31:01
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Jidmah wrote: I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.
IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.
People who haven't played CA missions claiming that they're too random. There's like one mission with an element of randomness because objectives disappear. Which again was a scenario Warmachine's Steamroller packet had when it was at its peak. So if WMH can have a random element in a scenario and be considered THE wargame for competitive/tournament play why is it so bad when 40k does it?
2020/03/02 10:35:35
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Jidmah wrote: I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.
IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.
Agreed and I want to give an utterly ridiculous abstraction to show why the ITC balancing is weird:
There are 3 animals competing (armies), a horse, monkey and kangaroo.
The UK event organisers (GW) have 6 tracks that have combinations of trampolines, flat open areas and a climbing frame (objective types).
All animals have areas they excel at but have to be able to tackle their weaknesses in unpredictable manners, all 3 score roughly equally because of it.
The US event organisers (ITC) lets the animals choose which obstacles they have. Kangaroo takes 100% trampolines, horse 100% flat open, monkey 100% climbing frame.
Because the animals have evolved differently, a kangaroo will excel on the trampolines but can climb and is reasonably quick, so will pick trampolines but lose the race.
The horse is by far the faster over the distance on the flat opens and literally cannot handle a climbing frame and is iffy on a trampoline but wins the race.
Horse continues to win the race. Every. Time.
I now realise my head is a messed up place.
Makes sense to me.
2020/03/02 12:37:10
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
dhallnet wrote: F1 don't either compete with F3000 nor do they race in the RWC. That's the kind of stuff the "competitive" 40K lacks because it is expected everyones knows what they re coming for.
If some dude was trying to run a bicycle in RWC because the rules don't specify which vehicle you're supposed to use since everyone is supposed to understand you need to come with your best game to win, you would read a lot of whining on the internet.
If anybody showed up to any of these events without doing a bare minimum of research they deserve to be laughed out of the venue as does anybody showing up at an ITC even with a fluffy for the lulz style of list.
I dunno, the game is supposed to be about having fun first, it's not professional football and I'm also sure it isn't the most competitive players that are constantly whining about balance. I also understood that "ITC event" didn't mean anything as even the saturday shop tournaments could be one. Are you supposed to play "professionally" in "play 3 games" shop events ?
It's supposed to be a feature rather than an issue. If you know what you may play but not what you will, you have to prepare for multiple scenarios and can't optimize for a specific one (you will optimise for the whole set rather than one mission). Which some people find more interesting than selecting what you'll have to do before hand. It's as much random as which side you're going to deploy. But since I guess ITC or other "competitive" format, normalise even the terrain you're going to play on, you might not get why this isn't an issue but rather a feature.
So would, for example, hockey be improved if we added random obstacles to the ice or moved the faceoff circles between periods because of a roll of the dice? Should we decrease the first-down distance in the NFL because it's boring that teams have optimized around the current 10-yard distance? There's a reason why no sport IRL uses any random mechanic at all, even in the MLB where there can be differences between stadiums these differences are well known and don't change mid-game or even mid-season.
Coaches can't build their team to the extent we do. They are also stuck with their team for a whole season usually. So yeah, they build their team around imposed objectives and how that team is built is often heavily regulated too (can't have 7 goalies in your soccer team for exemple). Should everyone play 40k with an army whose composition is 75% written in the rules ? Like "you can have 2 chaff units, 1 cc character, 3 units of anti infantry shooting, 2 cc units, 2 anti tank vehicles, etc" ? If you answered "yes", I would suggest trying another kind of game as on the opposite, we can build our armies a million ways, we can change it between events AND in ITC we can also choose how we would like to score.
It's like you could be able to decide in soccer that if nobody scores, you win, and block the goals with your team's bodies. Team who's made of NFL lineman playing against marathon runners btw. There is a reason why we add randomness into our games and don't play in regulated and fixed scenarios. That way, maybe the scenario will be "the one running with the ball the most, wins" or "today the goals are wider" and then marathons runners will have a chance. Instead of "you should play this comp or this one otherwise you don't stand a chance". It's just 2 ways of looking at the same issue.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/03/02 12:54:39
2020/03/02 13:00:51
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Sim-Life wrote: People who haven't played CA missions claiming that they're too random. There's like one mission with an element of randomness because objectives disappear. Which again was a scenario Warmachine's Steamroller packet had when it was at its peak. So if WMH can have a random element in a scenario and be considered THE wargame for competitive/tournament play why is it so bad when 40k does it?
That element isn't really random though. Objectives 1 and 6 never disappear and for the other four you know when each objective is going to disappear by the time the game starts. The "gimmick" of that mission is that you deploy without knowing how long your units will be sitting on two of the objectives. but once you start moving there is absolutely nothing random about it anymore.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2020/03/02 13:10:19
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
If you want to get rid of chance in 40k you'd have to get rid of die rolls too.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2020/03/02 18:41:33
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Jidmah wrote: I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.
IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.
People who haven't played CA missions claiming that they're too random. There's like one mission with an element of randomness because objectives disappear. Which again was a scenario Warmachine's Steamroller packet had when it was at its peak. So if WMH can have a random element in a scenario and be considered THE wargame for competitive/tournament play why is it so bad when 40k does it?
It is too random. But that one mission is also just bad. Progressive scoring + a continuously reducing number of available points basically ends the game really short and makes it noncompetitive.
As far as sports teams go, they're not locked in for the game. They have a very large sideboard, up to having multiple teams worth of players. It's more like locking your faction for the duration of league... which we (or at least both of those I participate in) do at minimum (one locks lists, one locks just faction)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/02 18:54:06
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2020/03/02 19:52:28
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Jidmah wrote: I don't get how this random discussion is related to the CA missions? It's really no different from racing event being held on different tracks or golf being played on different courses.
IMO being forced build an army to cope with multiple missions in which the worth of single units may vary between expendable to crucial requires much more skill than playing a single mission where all untis fulfill the same role every game.
People who haven't played CA missions claiming that they're too random. There's like one mission with an element of randomness because objectives disappear. Which again was a scenario Warmachine's Steamroller packet had when it was at its peak. So if WMH can have a random element in a scenario and be considered THE wargame for competitive/tournament play why is it so bad when 40k does it?
It is too random. But that one mission is also just bad. Progressive scoring + a continuously reducing number of available points basically ends the game really short and makes it noncompetitive.
As far as sports teams go, they're not locked in for the game. They have a very large sideboard, up to having multiple teams worth of players. It's more like locking your faction for the duration of league... which we (or at least both of those I participate in) do at minimum (one locks lists, one locks just faction)
At the End of the Day it's wargame , if you can't balance a force and use it in differing scenarios and adapt then that is a fault of you,not the scenarios.
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.
2020/03/02 20:56:22
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
At the End of the Day it's wargame , if you can't balance a force and use it in differing scenarios and adapt then that is a fault of you,not the scenarios.
Except, at the end of the day, that's not even a generalizable trait of wargames. In fact, it's not really a trait of wargames at all.
I can crack out scenario books from 5 different classic wargames [and twilight struggle, which is a wargame-lite], and not a single one of them has a player compose a fixed force to be used across a half dozen different missions. Each mission has it's own unique force.
And really this isn't about not being adaptive, it's about being equal and competitive. If you don't agree with my assertions about the shalls and shoulds of a quality mission for tournament play, then we will never come to an agreement because we have fundamentally different functional requirements.
It is my belief that:
Gameplay exists to test one player's strategic and tactical decision-making ability against another players. It does not exist to test a player's adaptability to an arbitrary environment or scoring availability. Even in f***ing Tetris, when players compete against each other they actually race for high scores on the same seed in order to make it equal between the players.
Flowing down from there, we get the requirements that the mission shall be stable and plannable. Lack of plannability inhibits the development of advanced and game-duration strategies [beyond "do what it says, improvise as things happen"], and stability ensures that conditions will always be equal for both players to ensure that they're actually competing against each other and not being decided by random scoring.
It's also a hobby, which requires the game to be fun. If your hobby becomes work, it's not a hobby and has failed a fundamental requirement of a leisure activity.
Flowing down from there, we get that the mission should also be sane and competitive. If the mission isn't competitive, because the number of points available consistently drops to the point where it's impossible to surmount an early points advantage gained in the first two turns just because there are no more points available on the field, that's not fun. If the mission doesn't encourage sane play and requires you to make what would conventionally be considered "bad plays" to score points, that's confusing and also not conducive to fun.
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective, and I haven't faced somebody who's been given an opportunity to do the same to me. Shooting at the enemy is almost superfluous, but can really make sure the enemy has no chance. Charging is only required to get the extra distance from the movement. I've literally done this twice. I don't think my opponent has had fun either time, and honestly, one of them was so one-sided that the game was literally unwinnable for my enemy on turn 2. [The other one ended on turn 3]. This isn't bad because of randomness [though it has that too], this is bad because it's not conducive to good, interactive, and fun gameplay.
Maelstrom is random, unplannable, and not-sane. Eternal War has a pool of 6 missions, 1 is really good, 2 are decent, 2 are sub-par, and 1 is atrociously bad. ITC basically has 1 mission that is decent. When it comes to competitive play, I'd definitely always take ITC than play lockdown in a tournament. As a said, though, I would be entirely willing to standardize Crusade as a single mission to use. 4 Pillars is also good, it's just ITC without secondaries, which is also a step up since the secondaries are generally considered the most unbalanced part of ITC.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/02 20:57:37
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2020/03/02 21:00:17
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
I am not a fan of lockdown either. I don't personally like Ascension but the other 4 are good IMO.
My favorites would be crusade and front line warfare personally.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: I think you need to play the CAEW missions more. Your experience is lacking if you believe they are too random. The objectives are fixed.
Your ITC list might not work across all CA missions, of course. That would be your failing.
I have played through all six and lockdown is by far the worst.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/02 21:31:57
2020/03/02 21:54:09
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Ishagu wrote: I think you need to play the CAEW missions more. Your experience is lacking if you believe they are too random. The objectives are fixed.
Your ITC list might not work across all CA missions, of course. That would be your failing.
I've played each at least once, and lockdown and ascension twice. [not including the fact that all but crusade and lockdown are repeats of last year or the year before]. I've won all but one, which I tied on 4 pillars on saturday. That's 7 wins, 1 draw, in 8 games with them covering all the missions. I would say that's fairly decent experience, since it amounts to about 1 game per week which is what I expect the average level of experience with them to be at this point.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2020/03/02 23:46:33
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Ishagu wrote: I think you need to play the CAEW missions more. Your experience is lacking if you believe they are too random. The objectives are fixed.
Your ITC list might not work across all CA missions, of course. That would be your failing.
Given that you're suggesting that other posters play more might I ask how many times you've played each of the missions in the current set? I'd also be interested in knowing the lists used and getting your general impressions as to how the games went.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dhallnet wrote: Are you supposed to play "professionally" in "play 3 games" shop events ?
At least, as much as you're supposed to follow the rules in a game of rec league hockey. Probably more so given that there are fewer judgement calls in 40k compared to hockey which is usually officiated by a neutral party.
They are also stuck with their team for a whole season usually.
Untrue, as an example, NHL teams have 50 man rosters but only dress 20 players each game and can carry a maximum of 23 players on the active roster. Thus at any given time, an NHL team is likely to have more than half of their contracted players playing in another league awaiting recall to the main club's roster. The same is true to NFL teams with regards to gameday rosters versus practice rosters and, unlike the NHL, they can cut players very easily if they need to cover a weakness.
Should everyone play 40k with an army whose composition is 75% written in the rules ? Like "you can have 2 chaff units, 1 cc character, 3 units of anti infantry shooting, 2 cc units, 2 anti tank vehicles, etc" ? If you answered "yes", I would suggest trying another kind of game as on the opposite, we can build our armies a million ways, we can change it between events AND in ITC we can also choose how we would like to score.
40k already has list building rules that all players participating in a given tournament must follow and we could tighten those up to the old force organization chart limits for balance reasons if we so wished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: That element isn't really random though. Objectives 1 and 6 never disappear and for the other four you know when each objective is going to disappear by the time the game starts. The "gimmick" of that mission is that you deploy without knowing how long your units will be sitting on two of the objectives. but once you start moving there is absolutely nothing random about it anymore.
Katherine has already covered why this is a poor way of doing things up thread. I suggest you read their comments on the matter as I agree with them.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/03/02 23:56:11
2020/03/03 00:12:59
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
So if you have played them all at least once why would you claim the missions are random? The objectives from one to the next are more divergent, but they aren't random.
-~Ishagu~-
2020/03/03 00:45:35
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Ishagu wrote: So if you have played them all at least once why would you claim the missions are random? The objectives from one to the next are more divergent, but they aren't random.
Are the disappearing objectives not effectively random from the point of view of a list builder crafting a list pre-tournament?
2020/03/03 01:47:39
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine 784721 wrote:
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective
Wait, what?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/03 01:47:53
2020/03/03 01:57:10
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine 784721 wrote:
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective
Wait, what?
It seems like an easy win for armies that can infiltrate onto mid-table objectives and then send a fast screen out in front of them to hold back the opponent's forces.
For example, a Dark Angels list that uses scouts, black knights, huntmasters, etc. and keeps a DW knight unit in reserve could take objectives on turn 0 and hold them into turn 2 which is basically an automatic loss for their opponent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Rugby even chooses a ball the shape it is to ensure that the way it bounces will be somewhat random. Injuries etc are often purely random in most sports.
You're right to say that sports do try to limit any random events that aren't deliberately built into the way the game plays.
I just saw this, do you have a source for that Rugby ball factoid? Everything I've ever seen says it's based on the bladder they used to make the first balls and evolved from there.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/03/03 01:59:35
2020/03/03 02:06:54
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine 784721 wrote:
Lockdown is just bad and has no redeeming value. I haven't lost it yet, because I know that it's easy to win by deploying infantry units into the mid field then marching up to the enemy deploy and just standing there to prevent them from moving past my models onto the objective
Wait, what?
It seems like an easy win for armies that can infiltrate onto mid-table objectives and then send a fast screen out in front of them to hold back the opponent's forces.
For example, a Dark Angels list that uses scouts, black knights, huntmasters, etc. and keeps a DW knight unit in reserve could take objectives on turn 0 and hold them into turn 2 which is basically an automatic loss for their opponent.
But that would require an army specifically written to do that for that one specific scenario right?
2020/03/03 02:09:47
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Sim-Life wrote: But that would require an army specifically written to do that for that one specific scenario right?
That's actually a fairly standard ITC style list. The more recent all fliers lists are likely gone now that the FAQ has nerfed our super doctrine into being 1st turn only.
2020/03/03 02:09:48
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Ishagu wrote: So if you have played them all at least once why would you claim the missions are random? The objectives from one to the next are more divergent, but they aren't random.
Are the disappearing objectives not effectively random from the point of view of a list builder crafting a list pre-tournament?
It puts the focus on scoring early. Also this is just one of the missions.
-~Ishagu~-
2020/03/03 02:17:12
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Ishagu wrote: It puts the focus on scoring early. Also this is just one of the missions.
That's still 100% more random than the current ITC line-up.
Also, are you going to answer my question with regards to how many of each CA mission you've played? You seem to care about how many other posters have played but aren't putting forth your own experiences so we can contrast against them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/03 02:17:25
2020/03/03 02:19:20
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Sim-Life wrote: But that would require an army specifically written to do that for that one specific scenario right?
That's actually a fairly standard ITC style list. The more recent all fliers lists are likely gone now that the FAQ has nerfed our super doctrine into being 1st turn only.
Sorry but I can't wrap my head around what set of circumstances would result in someone being able to basically trap the entire enemy army in their own deployment zone for two turns while also not dying.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/03 02:20:34
2020/03/03 02:31:39
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Sim-Life wrote: Sorry but I can't wrap my head around what set of circumstances would result in someone being able to basically trap the entire enemy army in their own deployment zone for two turns while also not dying.
All it takes is getting a unit between your objective holders and the enemy army. A large unit of black knights that advanced and uses transhuman physiology can tank a substantial amount of damage and provide a nasty counter punch.
Follow it up by dropping a threat behind them and suddenly you have an opponent in a real bind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/03 02:32:14
2020/03/03 04:18:33
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Ishagu wrote: I think you need to play the CAEW missions more. Your experience is lacking if you believe they are too random. The objectives are fixed.
Your ITC list might not work across all CA missions, of course. That would be your failing.
How much experience do you actually have with them? Surely it must be more than the 20 CA19 games I've played by now given that you're constantly claiming anyone with any negative opinions of any aspects of any CA missions is drawing hasty conclusions. Are you one of the playtesters?
