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.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

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?

My base GK army takes units with Gate and Interceptors. Both can move there and then try a 9" charge. First to the Fray Libby can see to it they make said 9" charge [or just make 4 rolls and hope the right ones come up in your favor, which I did in the game that ended turn 2 but played more carefully with a less ambitious but much more assured turn 3 win in mind the other time]. 5 Interceptors [or Strikes, Infiltrators, Incursors, Dominions, and anything else vanguarded or redeployed] create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around. It doesn't matter if they die, your assault phase and shooting phase are after the phase where you get a chance to get to the objectives. More just prevent the enemy from moving forward at all across like the entire front line. This mission is won by being in the middle of the board on turns 1 and 2. After that it's irrelevant, because the loss of available points means that if you can't contest the middle points early [and even worse, the ones you can get are the ones that vanish] you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

And it's not just Grey Knights. Your bog-standard Space Marine list at least around here [and for my space wolves] comes with multiple units of infiltrators/incursors, eliminators, invictors, and ways to redeploy units on turn 1 and deep strike backup for them on turn 2 to maintain the containment. My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.\

[Edits for spelling, since my spellchecker apparently likes to convert effectively into effective.]

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

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?

My base GK army takes units with Gate and Interceptors. Both can move there and then try a 9" charge. First to the Fray Libby can see to it they make said 9" charge [or just make 4 rolls and hope the right ones come up in your favor, which I did in the game that ended turn 2 but played more carefully with a less ambitious but much more assured turn 3 win in mind the other time]. 5 Interceptors [or Strikes, Infiltrators, Incursors, Dominions, and anything else vanguarded or redeployed] create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around. It doesn't matter if they die, your assault phase and shooting phase are after the phase where you get a chance to get to the objectives. More just prevent the enemy from moving forward at all across like the entire front line. This mission is won by being in the middle of the board on turns 1 and 2. After that it's irrelevant, because the loss of available points means that if you can't contest the middle points early [and even worse, the ones you can get are the ones that vanish] you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

And it's not just Grey Knights. Your bog-standard Space Marine list at least around here [and for my space wolves] comes with multiple units of infiltrators/incursors, eliminators, invictors, and ways to redeploy units on turn 1 and deep strike backup for them on turn 2 to maintain the containment. My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.\

[Edits for spelling, since my spellchecker apparently likes to convert effectively into effective.]

Any chance you can do a battle report of some kind next time please? I'm curious to see this in action in some capacity because it just doesn't sound likely/feasible to be reproducible.

Dudeface wrote:
Any chance you can do a battle report of some kind next time please? I'm curious to see this in action in some capacity because it just doesn't sound likely/feasible to be reproducible.

I brought up the idea of a DA list that uses scouts/infiltrators to take the middle and a screen of black knights to hold the line and protect them.

Something like:



It's certainly far from an optimized list but the Librarians ensure that 2 of your midfield scoring units won't be shot at, your black knights get into the enemy's face and keep them off objectives, the dark shroud goes where it's needed and keeps important things alive. The other HQs pick off enemy units and the DW Knights and Ancient provide a backfield distraction that demands attention or drops right into the opponents face and kills something you'd rather not deal with.

Dudeface wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

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?

My base GK army takes units with Gate and Interceptors. Both can move there and then try a 9" charge. First to the Fray Libby can see to it they make said 9" charge [or just make 4 rolls and hope the right ones come up in your favor, which I did in the game that ended turn 2 but played more carefully with a less ambitious but much more assured turn 3 win in mind the other time]. 5 Interceptors [or Strikes, Infiltrators, Incursors, Dominions, and anything else vanguarded or redeployed] create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around. It doesn't matter if they die, your assault phase and shooting phase are after the phase where you get a chance to get to the objectives. More just prevent the enemy from moving forward at all across like the entire front line. This mission is won by being in the middle of the board on turns 1 and 2. After that it's irrelevant, because the loss of available points means that if you can't contest the middle points early [and even worse, the ones you can get are the ones that vanish] you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

And it's not just Grey Knights. Your bog-standard Space Marine list at least around here [and for my space wolves] comes with multiple units of infiltrators/incursors, eliminators, invictors, and ways to redeploy units on turn 1 and deep strike backup for them on turn 2 to maintain the containment. My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.\

[Edits for spelling, since my spellchecker apparently likes to convert effectively into effective.]

Any chance you can do a battle report of some kind next time please? I'm curious to see this in action in some capacity because it just doesn't sound likely/feasible to be reproducible.

I reported the 2-turn one a week ago in this thread. I can probably record whatever I do next when I do it.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It is too random.

What exactly is too random about the CA missions?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It is too random.

What exactly is too random about the CA missions?

The fact that there is forced adaptation beyond the players controll in a match.

Which i asserted was a skill that should be valued because it is more on the board then list building, which got refused as beeing random and not skillfull.

Basically it is the question on what should be measured in a competition of 40k which leads to the diverge of those that believe a changing battlefield and the mastery of those circumstances should be rewarded or others who deem it necessary to decide the game via building to their strength before the match started, e.g. a controlled environment, in which pre battle planning and listbuilding is the more valuable skill.


having been part of wargames and excercises myself, i value the former katherine the later.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

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?

My base GK army takes units with Gate and Interceptors. Both can move there and then try a 9" charge. First to the Fray Libby can see to it they make said 9" charge [or just make 4 rolls and hope the right ones come up in your favor, which I did in the game that ended turn 2 but played more carefully with a less ambitious but much more assured turn 3 win in mind the other time]. 5 Interceptors [or Strikes, Infiltrators, Incursors, Dominions, and anything else vanguarded or redeployed] create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around. It doesn't matter if they die, your assault phase and shooting phase are after the phase where you get a chance to get to the objectives. More just prevent the enemy from moving forward at all across like the entire front line. This mission is won by being in the middle of the board on turns 1 and 2. After that it's irrelevant, because the loss of available points means that if you can't contest the middle points early [and even worse, the ones you can get are the ones that vanish] you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

And it's not just Grey Knights. Your bog-standard Space Marine list at least around here [and for my space wolves] comes with multiple units of infiltrators/incursors, eliminators, invictors, and ways to redeploy units on turn 1 and deep strike backup for them on turn 2 to maintain the containment. My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.\

[Edits for spelling, since my spellchecker apparently likes to convert effectively into effective.]

Any chance you can do a battle report of some kind next time please? I'm curious to see this in action in some capacity because it just doesn't sound likely/feasible to be reproducible.

I reported the 2-turn one a week ago in this thread. I can probably record whatever I do next when I do it.

That would be useful because I simply haven't experienced anything like what you're describing. I've certainly seen armies attempt it but in practice it's too high risk to be consistent because swarming midfield tends to lead to dead units very quickly with the amount of firepower a typical 40k army has nowadays. In my Lockdown games it's definitely been encouraged to push units forward more than in some other missions but a kamikaze rush at the enemy rarely works because of the aforementioned firepower but also because an equally mobile enemy army simply can't be pinned back in the way you describe. It'll have Flying units, bikes, transports or infiltrating units of its own that can threaten objectives just as well as the first player's army.

Granted, a static gunline will struggle, but I don't have a problem with that as that seems to be one of the design goals of the CA missions. Just this weekend I won a Maelstrom game against a ridiculously immobile DA army with my BA simply by playing to the objectives and not being scared to sacrifice units where needed while my opponent was too conservative and barely made it out of his deployment zone all game. I ended up being pretty much tabled but it didn't matter due to the lead in points I had.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around.

So... why didn't your opponent bring units with fly or fast units or scouting units? Have units with bombs to blow holes in your barrier? Or use stratagems or warlord traits that allow redeployment like da jump? Or fight twice stratagems to not only punish you for setting yourself up for first turn charges, but also to consolidate onto the objectives? Or stratagems that allow you to shoot stuff that's coming too close like punishing volley or auspex scan? Why didn't he put his three markers in positions where he can defend them easily during turn 1 and 2 instead of putting them midfield? Why didn't he just just charge a friggin daemon primarch/melee knight/lord of skulls into half your army?

you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

If you manage to hold onto two objectives, that will be a 6:15 lead by the end of turn 3. If you table your opponent by then, there are 5 VP in T4, 4 in T5 and potentially another 3 in T6, plus first kill, line breaker and slay the warlord.
If you can't manage to hold onto at least two objectives (#6 plus one other), I guess you deserved the loss.

My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.

I do have to ask - why are all your objectives in midfield? Each player deploys three of them and they can be deployed anywhere. Against highly mobile armies or very assault-oriented armies you can drop all your objectives in corners to make the easier hold independently from which deployment you roll - there will always be one deployment zone with two objectives near the table edge to pick and the third one requires your opponent to spread his army, creating space for deep strikers.
Just reactivate all those 5th edition objective marker placement skills

To me all this is just evidence that these missions require more skill than ITC does. You are winning this mission because you are bringing all the tools to do so, while your opponent doesn't,

ITC players feel threatened by missions that would push the armies into taking a variety of units, as opposed to min maxing a few particular choices around identical objectives from mission to mission.

And yet, insulting them isn't exactly going to convince them.

It feels like a good portion of this thread is people just opposing CA rules because you are the one advocating to use them.

 Jidmah wrote:
And yet, insulting them isn't exactly going to convince them.

It feels like a good portion of this thread is people just opposing CA rules because you are the one advocating to use them.

Agreed. It's no coincidence that out of the generally pro-CA posters Ishagu is both the most intractable and least persuasive. If they really wanted to persuade people of their point of view they'd be much better off engaging in meaningful discussion than flinging accusations around.

I didn't write that comment as an insult.

People feel apprehension when they leave their comfort zone. This isn't a controversial opinion. They are threatened because the format isn't as focused on min/maxing units they might have focused on in the ITC.

Is perplexing to see that we are still discussing this. Reece himself said to use CA 19 missions if they rock your boat, the only thing ITC does, ATM is having a competitive , international community where you can feel part of the world league. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?!

We're discussing it because there is no longer a requirement for 3rd party homebrew missions when the official mission pack has improved in terms of quality and balance.

Rather than uniting the 40k community, the ITC now divides it. ITC lists and rules are not compatible with the official missions, and they create an unofficial meta which elevates certain units whilst taking others out of contention due to the secondaries, and not the actual rules as written by GW.

In this very topic people are declaring their apprehension at playing the official 40k missions because the lists they have designed around homebrew rules won't perform as well.

I don't like lockdown either. The problem I have with it is that I have found the game is decided by who goes first. Scoring at the end of the turn not only gives an advantage to the player who goes first but also leads to less counter play. With crusade for example, scoring happens at the beginning of your turn starting with round two. This leads to some interesting counter play in my experience. In lockdown if your opponent has infiltrators and/or fast moving units he can grab 4-5 objectives easy turn one and be up on points in addition to the normal advantages of going first. You can box in some armies like Katherine described but the larger problem is the scoring at the end of the turn.

Ascension also has that problem but at least in that mission the amount of points you can score per turn increases in later turns. In lockdown it is the opposite. So if the attacker gets a early lead, the game is basically over. I am fine with the disappearing objectives.

The bonus VP for holding more objectives is scored at the end of the battle round though, plus both players can score the same objective in one round, which is basically the same as having a contested objective scored by neither player.

 Ishagu wrote:
We're discussing it because there is no longer a requirement for 3rd party homebrew missions when the official mission pack has improved in terms of quality and balance.

Rather than uniting the 40k community, the ITC now divides it. ITC lists and rules are not compatible with the official missions, and they create an unofficial meta which elevates certain units whilst taking others out of contention due to the secondaries, and not the actual rules as written by GW.

In this very topic people are declaring their apprehension at playing the official 40k missions because the lists they have designed around homebrew rules won't perform as well.

You still haven't answered the question about how many CA19 missions you've played and your experiences thus far. Please do so as you've been rather forceful about asking others about their experience level.

I don't mind changing my list. I dont like giving up secondaries.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
We're discussing it because there is no longer a requirement for 3rd party homebrew missions when the official mission pack has improved in terms of quality and balance.

Rather than uniting the 40k community, the ITC now divides it. ITC lists and rules are not compatible with the official missions, and they create an unofficial meta which elevates certain units whilst taking others out of contention due to the secondaries, and not the actual rules as written by GW.

In this very topic people are declaring their apprehension at playing the official 40k missions because the lists they have designed around homebrew rules won't perform as well.

You still haven't answered the question about how many CA19 missions you've played and your experiences thus far. Please do so as you've been rather forceful about asking others about their experience level.

I have played them all more than once, and some a lot more frequently. I actually haven't played a game in the last 9 days due to some other commitments getting in the way.

Jidmah wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It is too random.

What exactly is too random about the CA missions?

That several of the missions are of exceptionally low quality. There are about 3 decent ones and 3 bad ones. A mission pack being 1 pretty good one is far better.

I've expressed that I'd prefer crusade or 4 pillars to ITC. Crusade is really good, and 4 pillars is just ITC without the secondaries, which is an improvement. I'd also prefer to not see Lockdown, especially in competitive play because while I've won it both times I've played it, I don't think it produces good games and I don't think I could do so consistently, with the game basically just coming down to taking the first turn and having earlier infiltrators/vanguards/etc.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It is too random.

What exactly is too random about the CA missions?

The fact that there is forced adaptation beyond the players controll in a match.

Which i asserted was a skill that should be valued because it is more on the board then list building, which got refused as beeing random and not skillfull.

Basically it is the question on what should be measured in a competition of 40k which leads to the diverge of those that believe a changing battlefield and the mastery of those circumstances should be rewarded or others who deem it necessary to decide the game via building to their strength before the match started, e.g. a controlled environment, in which pre battle planning and listbuilding is the more valuable skill.


having been part of wargames and excercises myself, i value the former katherine the later.

I'm obviously not a soldier, but I've also been part of hex and counter wargaming since grade three and RTS games since I've had a computer [some time after the third grade], and I think that your assertions aren't really congruent with my experience with trad. wargaming, or really with the theory of reality.

The confusion and changing battlefield in real life conflicts are because the actors involves are generally acting with incomplete information about enemy force disposition and works. The whole thing about "navigating the changing battlefield" is about responding to the incomplete information about your enemy, your forces, weather and other conditions on the battlefield to complete your own objectives and prevent the enemy from completing theirs.

Most everybody agrees that maelstrom is too much random since only like one store I've been to plays it, which is informing my belief that this whole thing about "needs to be random to force adaptation". Pretty much everybody agrees that how you win shouldn't be random, so few people play maelstrom.

Slipspace wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

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?

My base GK army takes units with Gate and Interceptors. Both can move there and then try a 9" charge. First to the Fray Libby can see to it they make said 9" charge [or just make 4 rolls and hope the right ones come up in your favor, which I did in the game that ended turn 2 but played more carefully with a less ambitious but much more assured turn 3 win in mind the other time]. 5 Interceptors [or Strikes, Infiltrators, Incursors, Dominions, and anything else vanguarded or redeployed] create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around. It doesn't matter if they die, your assault phase and shooting phase are after the phase where you get a chance to get to the objectives. More just prevent the enemy from moving forward at all across like the entire front line. This mission is won by being in the middle of the board on turns 1 and 2. After that it's irrelevant, because the loss of available points means that if you can't contest the middle points early [and even worse, the ones you can get are the ones that vanish] you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

And it's not just Grey Knights. Your bog-standard Space Marine list at least around here [and for my space wolves] comes with multiple units of infiltrators/incursors, eliminators, invictors, and ways to redeploy units on turn 1 and deep strike backup for them on turn 2 to maintain the containment. My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.\

[Edits for spelling, since my spellchecker apparently likes to convert effectively into effective.]

Any chance you can do a battle report of some kind next time please? I'm curious to see this in action in some capacity because it just doesn't sound likely/feasible to be reproducible.

I reported the 2-turn one a week ago in this thread. I can probably record whatever I do next when I do it.

That would be useful because I simply haven't experienced anything like what you're describing. I've certainly seen armies attempt it but in practice it's too high risk to be consistent because swarming midfield tends to lead to dead units very quickly with the amount of firepower a typical 40k army has nowadays. In my Lockdown games it's definitely been encouraged to push units forward more than in some other missions but a kamikaze rush at the enemy rarely works because of the aforementioned firepower but also because an equally mobile enemy army simply can't be pinned back in the way you describe. It'll have Flying units, bikes, transports or infiltrating units of its own that can threaten objectives just as well as the first player's army.

Granted, a static gunline will struggle, but I don't have a problem with that as that seems to be one of the design goals of the CA missions. Just this weekend I won a Maelstrom game against a ridiculously immobile DA army with my BA simply by playing to the objectives and not being scared to sacrifice units where needed while my opponent was too conservative and barely made it out of his deployment zone all game. I ended up being pretty much tabled but it didn't matter due to the lead in points I had.

Enemy had transports in that game. Neither bikes nor transports can move through buildings or other models. It's not having a high speed, it's being able to be there before the enemy gets there. If I have infiltrators, and you have infiltrators, if I have first set up then only I get to use my infiltrators, basically [at least, if I have like 3 or 4, which is pretty standard for a SM list. My Space Wolves run 2 infiltrators plus eliminators plus phobos wolf lord, which is 4 placements and enough to pretty much deny forward placement to the enemy if I go first. Other SM lists from my friends have more, with invictors and incursors and etc]. If I have infiltrators and you have vanguarders, I get to use my infiltrators but you don't get to use your vanguarders.


I also didn't try to go for the full all out-aggression in the other lockdown game I played, since the first one went well but had a lot of opportunity to go wrong since I was relying on 9" charges without fixing, and it's just turned out that the one I needed most happened. The second time I played I played the same basic strategy but more conservative and controlled for a turn 3 win that I felt more assured of getting.

Jidmah wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
create a barrier line [32/2.54+2]*5=16.29" long that can only be passed by FLY or driven around.

So... why didn't your opponent bring units with fly or fast units or scouting units? Have units with bombs to blow holes in your barrier? Or use stratagems or warlord traits that allow redeployment like da jump? Or fight twice stratagems to not only punish you for setting yourself up for first turn charges, but also to consolidate onto the objectives? Or stratagems that allow you to shoot stuff that's coming too close like punishing volley or auspex scan? Why didn't he put his three markers in positions where he can defend them easily during turn 1 and 2 instead of putting them midfield? Why didn't he just just charge a friggin daemon primarch/melee knight/lord of skulls into half your army?

you just can't win after turn 2 or 3, because even if you table the enemy there aren't enough points left for you to reasonably score to win.

If you manage to hold onto two objectives, that will be a 6:15 lead by the end of turn 3. If you table your opponent by then, there are 5 VP in T4, 4 in T5 and potentially another 3 in T6, plus first kill, line breaker and slay the warlord.
If you can't manage to hold onto at least two objectives (#6 plus one other), I guess you deserved the loss.

6:13 [5-2, then 4-2, then 2-2], only if the other one in your deploy doesn't go away. If the 25% chance that the second one in your deploy is #2, it's 4:14 [5-2, then 5-1, then 4-1] [and 5:13 if it's #3], if you're starting your turn 4 in your deployment zone, you can't reasonably expect to actually score 4 [3 objectives are in play on t4, and 2 on t5+], 3, and 3 points for the rest of the game with normal or transported movement. And if you can't take #1 immediately, then you're looking at scoring 9 more points to their 1 more, which going into that at 4:14 isn't enough to win remotely.

Jidmah wrote:

My basic vision of this mission's play that I've gathered from playing it twice is that it basically comes down to having units that can be in the middle of the board earlier than the enemy [infiltrate>vanguard>gate/jump/interceptor shunt] and is effectively over on turn 3 because of disappearing objectives. I've not faced a SM opponent yet in that mission to prove that assertion, but I imagine with 2 squads of infiltrators [pretty standard for my SW list, and a bunch of other SM lists I face often] there'd be nowhere to interceptor shunt too, and the infiltrators could just walk/advance up to form their 16.29" lines of do-not-pass [they're also troops, so it'd be even easier to obsec away objectives near to the enemy deploy edge]. There's only one recourse: have units that FLY, can score, and can kill troops in assault, and not have them get focused by an army T1 because I know that they're your only chance of winning the game.

I do have to ask - why are all your objectives in midfield? Each player deploys three of them and they can be deployed anywhere. Against highly mobile armies or very assault-oriented armies you can drop all your objectives in corners to make the easier hold independently from which deployment you roll - there will always be one deployment zone with two objectives near the table edge to pick and the third one requires your opponent to spread his army, creating space for deep strikers.
Just reactivate all those 5th edition objective marker placement skills

To me all this is just evidence that these missions require more skill than ITC does. You are winning this mission because you are bringing all the tools to do so, while your opponent doesn't,

Objectives are placed by alternating order 6" in and 12" from each other before determining deploy pattern. We usually approach this making our #1 or #2 placement such that it inconveniences people trying to take them and prevents them from being positioned into well-defended and sheltered locations.

As for whether he could have played better we've already had this discussion, since we discussed this scenario like 5 pages ago when it was closer to having happened. He could have played better if he had known what was going to happen, and he was newish and I not nearly so, so I was much more likely to win than him. But I don't think that he really had the opportunity to make mistakes etc. that game. The decisions he did make were decently well informed and logical, but there just wasn't an opportunity for him to make a different.

Ishagu wrote:ITC players feel threatened by missions that would push the armies into taking a variety of units, as opposed to min maxing a few particular choices around identical objectives from mission to mission.

Do you actually have responses, or just these worthless claims? You said I didn't have enough experience playing the CA missions with 8 games, which is about 1 game per week on average since it dropped which is what I expect to be the average level of experience with them. I refrained to challenging you back until now, since multiple people asked you how much you have?

My impression from you and most of the people upset about ITC as "homebrew in 40k" is that this push is basically from CAAC people who are upset that competitive play standard is an acceptable norm for playing pick-up games and think that trying to get the "competitive player's mission pack" out of the game will also get the competitive spirit out of the game. It won't, because this is a competitive versus wargame. I've played open war cards, BRB, CA Eternal from every CA, ITC, and even a small handful of maelstrom this edition. I can say that I believed that as a mission pack ITC is definitely the best of them.

If, like you said in a different threat, you should just discuss with your opponent what you want to play before playing so that they don't bring anything that might threaten you or make the game difficult, then do you really need to be concerned about the tightness of the mission pack's balance?

Martel732 wrote:
I don't mind changing my list. I dont like giving up secondaries.

Well, then you should be happy with GW's missions!
Secondaries are a blight.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Maelstrom is random, unplannable, and not-sane.

Fair enough if you don't like Maelstrom, I'm not trying to convince anyone to play something they won't enjoy, but would you at least acknowledge that it requires a different type of strategic planning and tactical thinking to what you prefer rather than none at all?

 Blndmage wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't mind changing my list. I dont like giving up secondaries.

Well, then you should be happy with GW's missions!
Secondaries are a blight.

No, i like secondaries. I dont like them not being in the game.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't mind changing my list. I dont like giving up secondaries.

Well, then you should be happy with GW's missions!
Secondaries are a blight.

No, i like secondaries. I dont like them not being in the game.

Now I like this, what about opponents who build around secondaries that don't requite them to "give up" anything? Recon etc. where they actually don't care what you put in your list?

 Jidmah wrote:
The bonus VP for holding more objectives is scored at the end of the battle round though, plus both players can score the same objective in one round, which is basically the same as having a contested objective scored by neither player.

Most of the points come from holding at the end of the turn. End of turn scoring reminds me of the capture cards from the maelstrom deck. Probably the least interesting cards in there other than maybe master of the warp.

Personally I think the other missions are better like crusade.

Dudeface wrote:
Now I like this, what about opponents who build around secondaries that don't requite them to "give up" anything? Recon etc. where they actually don't care what you put in your list?

Given that you can do the same why does that change anything? It's a rare ITC game that only involves one player camping until the last turn. For those rare cases, I can point to military victories where the winners were hunkered in their bunkers and hides until they knew reinforcements were close.

I'm obviously not a soldier, but I've also been part of hex and counter wargaming since grade three and RTS games since I've had a computer [some time after the third grade], and I think that your assertions aren't really congruent with my experience with trad. wargaming, or really with the theory of reality.

The confusion and changing battlefield in real life conflicts are because the actors involves are generally acting with incomplete information about enemy force disposition and works. The whole thing about "navigating the changing battlefield" is about responding to the incomplete information about your enemy, your forces, weather and other conditions on the battlefield to complete your own objectives and prevent the enemy from completing theirs.

Most everybody agrees that maelstrom is too much random since only like one store I've been to plays it, which is informing my belief that this whole thing about "needs to be random to force adaptation". Pretty much everybody agrees that how you win shouldn't be random, so few people play maelstrom.

With wargame i meant a military excercise, the real traditional Version of it so to speak.

As for the later Part , everyone near you agrees with that, doesn't mean that all do.

It's just differing values, i don't care about the Mode but atm i
deem itc the system with more issues due to the secondaries.
In General though gw failed and Still does at providing an adequate Format for tournament play aswell.
Gw further applying data from itc for balance of the core game is a whole other issue of failed Application of parameters which too me is worse then itc or ca or maelstrom,because it shows a disconect to their product in a way that should not be and also is probably responsible for the constant failure of gw at rules regardless if competitve is kept in mind or not.


Edit: there will be a Day i eliminate all autocorects.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It is too random.

What exactly is too random about the CA missions?

That several of the missions are of exceptionally low quality. There are about 3 decent ones and 3 bad ones. A mission pack being 1 pretty good one is far better.

I've expressed that I'd prefer crusade or 4 pillars to ITC. Crusade is really good, and 4 pillars is just ITC without the secondaries, which is an improvement.

All that is just personal preference though. I don't like crusade because it rewards casteling up and shooting too much, with little to no reward for agressive plays. Not a single thing about that is random.

Most everybody agrees that maelstrom is too much random since only like one store I've been to plays it, which is informing my belief that this whole thing about "needs to be random to force adaptation". Pretty much everybody agrees that how you win shouldn't be random, so few people play maelstrom.

When you had a deck of 36 cards which might elevate you to 20+ VP one game while it kept you at 3-5 in another, I agree with this. I stopped playing maelstrom during CA2018 for this reason, despite loving the idea - the game was won by the deck, not by the players.
CA2019 though? Both players tend to burn through 15-16 out of 18 objectives (assuming no turn 6) of their choice and can spend CP to eliminate the unlikely chance of a dry spell all together. When one of the new maelstrom games is lost by a large margin, it's usually because one player is getting pasted on the battlefield.

Jidmah wrote:So... why didn't your opponent bring units with fly or fast units or scouting units? Have units with bombs to blow holes in your barrier? Or use stratagems or warlord traits that allow redeployment like da jump? Or fight twice stratagems to not only punish you for setting yourself up for first turn charges, but also to consolidate onto the objectives? Or stratagems that allow you to shoot stuff that's coming too close like punishing volley or auspex scan? Why didn't he put his three markers in positions where he can defend them easily during turn 1 and 2 instead of putting them midfield? Why didn't he just just charge a friggin daemon primarch/melee knight/lord of skulls into half your army?

*no answer*

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Enemy had transports in that game. Neither bikes nor transports can move through buildings or other models. It's not having a high speed, it's being able to be there before the enemy gets there. If I have infiltrators, and you have infiltrators, if I have first set up then only I get to use my infiltrators, basically [at least, if I have like 3 or 4, which is pretty standard for a SM list. My Space Wolves run 2 infiltrators plus eliminators plus phobos wolf lord, which is 4 placements and enough to pretty much deny forward placement to the enemy if I go first. Other SM lists from my friends have more, with invictors and incursors and etc]. If I have infiltrators and you have vanguarders, I get to use my infiltrators but you don't get to use your vanguarders.

I also didn't try to go for the full all out-aggression in the other lockdown game I played, since the first one went well but had a lot of opportunity to go wrong since I was relying on 9" charges without fixing, and it's just turned out that the one I needed most happened. The second time I played I played the same basic strategy but more conservative and controlled for a turn 3 win that I felt more assured of getting.

6:13 [5-2, then 4-2, then 2-2], only if the other one in your deploy doesn't go away. If the 25% chance that the second one in your deploy is #2, it's 4:14 [5-2, then 5-1, then 4-1] [and 5:13 if it's #3], if you're starting your turn 4 in your deployment zone, you can't reasonably expect to actually score 4 [3 objectives are in play on t4, and 2 on t5+], 3, and 3 points for the rest of the game with normal or transported movement. And if you can't take #1 immediately, then you're looking at scoring 9 more points to their 1 more, which going into that at 4:14 isn't enough to win remotely.

Objectives are placed by alternating order 6" in and 12" from each other before determining deploy pattern. We usually approach this making our #1 or #2 placement such that it inconveniences people trying to take them and prevents them from being positioned into well-defended and sheltered locations.

As for whether he could have played better we've already had this discussion, since we discussed this scenario like 5 pages ago when it was closer to having happened. He could have played better if he had known what was going to happen, and he was newish and I not nearly so, so I was much more likely to win than him. But I don't think that he really had the opportunity to make mistakes etc. that game. The decisions he did make were decently well informed and logical, but there just wasn't an opportunity for him to make a different.

So, to sum all that up:
- You are a player with years of experience, while the opponent was "newish". Considering your track record in other missions you are clearly the stronger player of you two.
- Your opponent's army was absolutely not equipped to handle the lockdown mission. If you bring 0 troops units to pillars, you are going to lose that as well.
- Your opponent is using units which are generally considered to not be working well in large numbers
- Your opponent dropped his objectives where they were convenient for you, but not for him
- Your opponent failed to clear objectives despite the units using to grab them not being particularly durable
- Your opponent failed to clear enough of your movement blockers to fit rhinos through
- You got lucky in crucial moments
So basically your opponent had a terrible list and made terrible decisions, while you had a perfect list and got lucky. And you blame the mission and its randomness?
Does one have a chance at winning in ITC when they bring lists which maximize their opponent's secondaries, are unable to clear and hold objectives and doesn't move out of their deployment zone?

Your tactic of blocking off the enemy's access to objectives works just as good or bad in crusade, he would have lost that mission for the same reason he lost lockdown.
From my experience from playing against invictors and phobos marines of any color, I know that getting that close to my orks or death guard is a death sentence for all those units, which then usually leads to a crushing victory for me due to the large amount of points they lose.

My impression from you and most of the people upset about ITC as "homebrew in 40k" is that this push is basically from CAAC people who are upset that competitive play standard is an acceptable norm for playing pick-up games and think that trying to get the "competitive player's mission pack" out of the game will also get the competitive spirit out of the game. It won't, because this is a competitive versus wargame. I've played open war cards, BRB, CA Eternal from every CA, ITC, and even a small handful of maelstrom this edition. I can say that I believed that as a mission pack ITC is definitely the best of them.

My experience with the ITC mission (a pack would require more than one) is that it highly favors stand&shoot builds, goes out of its way to punish you for losing models and reduces options because denying secondaries is crucial part of list building. That events running CA missions tend to have much more varied fields than ITC events is no coincidence - especially when the same players are attending both types of events.
When you have to plan for six missions instead of a single one, the worth of each unit varries and there is no one "solution" to an army. You need then need to pick units on different metrics besides how many primaris marines they can kill and how many points they might give to your opponent when they kill them.

Or, in your words: ITC is for WAAC players who just want to auto-win with their netlists because they are unable to think beyond what bloggers and streamers tell them how to pilot their lists. /sarcasm

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

My impression from you and most of the people upset about ITC as "homebrew in 40k" is that this push is basically from CAAC people who are upset that competitive play standard is an acceptable norm for playing pick-up games and think that trying to get the "competitive player's mission pack" out of the game will also get the competitive spirit out of the game. It won't, because this is a competitive versus wargame. I've played open war cards, BRB, CA Eternal from every CA, ITC, and even a small handful of maelstrom this edition. I can say that I believed that as a mission pack ITC is definitely the best of them.

No, we see people complain about problems with the game when they are more problems that stem from ITC and so talk about how CA missions will likely give you a better experience.

Even before Space Marines when the complaints were about Eldar Flyer Spam and Knights before that, CA tournaments were showing a wider diversity of armies at the top.

I'm a competitive player myself, I have no problem with a competitive ruleset and for a long time ITC was great for the tournament community when GW left it to languish but right now ITC is very much Meta warping in a bad way through the secondaries and trying to 'fix' problems that don't exist. Like the oft mentioned 'hordes dominate everything if they are not punished' despite that not having happened in CA/WTC tournaments since the days of Index books.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
My impression from you and most of the people upset about ITC as "homebrew in 40k"

Am not upset about it. I just wish people would acknowledge that's what it is. Certain posters have annoyed me by claiming that somehow ITC is the only "real" 40k and that anyone who doesn't play ITC is a wimpy-arse casual whose opinion is worthless.

Because you know, having an ego over playing someone else's houserules and being stuck up about it is pretty much par for the course for 40k players.