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.

The moment that an ITC supporter shows any amount of condescending attitude towards those who disagree, it confirms all the negative stereotypes that surround the competitive ITC crowd.

If they can't accept that the ITC mission and terrain rules are nothing more than a homebrew it shows quite the level of denial on their part too.

 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.

ITC is are homebrew rules, that were necessary in the time GW does not provided any kind of missions our even acknowledged that a competitive scene exists

but the point is, that now that GW supports tournaments and provide the necessary rules for competitive games, ITC homebrew missions, rukles, or FAQ, although it might have been the standard for a long time, are no longer needed.

And while I don't like the Mealstrom Missions or random drawn cards either and see them as the Card Deck winning the game but not the player, ITC Missions were "Kill all" is more important than anything else is not much better.

 Ishagu wrote:
The moment that an ITC supporter shows any amount of condescending attitude towards those who disagree, it confirms all the negative stereotypes that surround the competitive ITC crowd.

If they can't accept that the ITC mission and terrain rules are nothing more than a homebrew it shows quite the level of denial on their part too.

yet here you are, acting condescending to all the pro-ITC players, kinda ruining your own point.

People know ITC isnt GW's official tournament rules, they know its homebrew, you don't have to convince them.

But the annoying hard-on you have for spamming "ITC IZ HOMEBREW!!" is why this thread has gone on for so long.

I'm not the one dismissing opinions by claiming one method of play is more competitive than the other.

Why is it that when I listen to a podcast, or read an article about the ITC, no one refers to it as the homebrew that it is? There is certainly some denial in the community. What justifies it in an era of annual, tournament updates in the official rules? That same denial.

 Ishagu wrote:
The moment that an ITC supporter shows any amount of condescending attitude towards those who disagree, it confirms all the negative stereotypes that surround the competitive ITC crowd.

If they can't accept that the ITC mission and terrain rules are nothing more than a homebrew it shows quite the level of denial on their part too.

Good evening Pot, may I introduce you to my friend ITC Kettle?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
I'm not the one dismissing opinions by claiming one method of play is more competitive than the other.

Why is it that when I listen to a podcast, or read an article about the ITC, no one refers to it as the homebrew that it is? There is certainly some denial in the community. What justifies it in an era of annual, tournament updates in the official rules? That same denial.

Maybe nobody but you cares what definitions you apply to a rule set? Maybe they have enough faith in the intelligence of the community to know they don't have to repeat the ridiculously obvious fact it's not the official GW rules every time they mention them? The justification comes from the sheer number of people playing ITC.

 Ishagu wrote:
I'm not the one dismissing opinions by claiming one method of play is more competitive than the other.

Why is it that when I listen to a podcast, or read an article about the ITC, no one refers to it as the homebrew that it is? There is certainly some denial in the community. What justifies it in an era of annual, tournament updates in the official rules? That same denial.

Because it is a needlessly pedantic attempt at dismissing ITC whole cloth. CA gets dismissed, because it has no data to support it. And we've been over this problem, frequently.

I'm all for CA, but you're not doing it any favors with this hubris.

Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.

 Ishagu wrote:
Unwillingness to try is another effective example of the condescending attitude of the ITC community. They refuse to play it so data can't accumulate, and dismiss it because the data doesn't magically exist.

Unwillingness to try is another effective example of the condescending attitude of the ITC community. They refuse to play it so data can't accumulate, and dismiss it because the data doesn't magically exist.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.

You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.

The onus is not on ITC to solve that problem. ITC allows CA missions to be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
They refuse to play it so data can't accumulate, and dismiss it because the data doesn't magically exist.

This is an amusingly ridiculous statement.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.

You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.

None of the biggest ITC events are using anything other than ITC missions. The smaller ones generally follow suit as they serve as practice for the bigger ones to many players. A few exceptions exist, of course, but very few.

When the LVO switches to CA missions give me a call. This very topic is literally full of people who dismiss CA because of lacking data.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.

You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.

Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.

You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.

Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...

Apparently there's thousands of ITC events that use CA missions so no reason to complain. Oh wait

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...

If someone is working to advance the cause for CA I'm not sure they should care about ITC points one way or another. And you need majors so some schlub beating up the local scene doesn't get to the top of the pile.

The important part is logging tournament results to acquire data.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...

If someone is working to advance the cause for CA I'm not sure they should care about ITC points one way or another. And you need majors so some schlub beating up the local scene doesn't get to the top of the pile.

The important part is logging tournament results to acquire data.

By all means, point us to regular CA tournaments in the ITC so we can log that data.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.

The onus is not on ITC to solve that problem. ITC allows CA missions to be used.

Methinks the problem could most easily and expediently be solved by ITC not producing their own missions packet.

Of course, we could also split the playerbase by having two entirely distinct and largely unrelated ways of playing the game so that balancing it for one inherently imbalances it in the other. I suppose that's okay too. For some people.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.

The onus is not on ITC to solve that problem. ITC allows CA missions to be used.

Methinks the problem could most easily and expediently be solved by ITC not producing their own missions packet.

Of course, we could also split the playerbase by having two entirely distinct and largely unrelated ways of playing the game so that balancing it for one inherently imbalances it in the other. I suppose that's okay too. For some people.

There are many reasons CA doesn't gain mileage with the US scene, mostly due to inertia from the social status quo of people play ITC so they'll play ITC mentality. That's sadly just a very human thing to do, but it's down to players to want to play non-ITC missions which they're unfamiliar with and their lists and tactics aren't geared up for.

But agreed, as long as a mission structure is used that punishes some units/unit types by virtue of existing (such as low save/toughness transports giving up easy secondaries etc), the balance of things will be out of whack for non-ITC games.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.

You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.

Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...

Yes they will. Tournaments that use CA or their custom missions (e.g. Adepticon) still award ITC points if they're set-up to submit the scores.

Dudeface wrote:

There are many reasons CA doesn't gain mileage with the US scene, mostly due to inertia from the social status quo of people play ITC so they'll play ITC mentality. That's sadly just a very human thing to do, but it's down to players to want to play non-ITC missions which they're unfamiliar with and their lists and tactics aren't geared up for.

But agreed, as long as a mission structure is used that punishes some units/unit types by virtue of existing (such as low save/toughness transports giving up easy secondaries etc), the balance of things will be out of whack for non-ITC games.

The sheer fact that entire groups of players are unfamiliar with the real, official mission rules of 40k is the pinnacle of the dismissive attitude prevalent in the ITC community.

GW is delivering what people have been asking for in regular balance and mission updates.

Ok, so if ITC now allows ca missions, are there any ITC tournaments playing ca missions? If so do we have any data from them to compare? Or is everyone having too much fun making the same arguements in circles?

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, so if ITC now allows ca missions, are there any ITC tournaments playing ca missions? If so do we have any data from them to compare? Or is everyone having too much fun making the same adjustments in circles?

I don't believe so because they only want to use the ITC champs missions which is the self-perpetuating issue. I'd quite like to see one of the FLG tourneys use only CA and see what happens, since I'd bet a lot of people just wouldn't turn up rather than try something different.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chapter Approved has no data, because it doesn't get used in competitive tournaments that track data, because ITC is used in the competitive tournaments that track data, because chapter approved has no data, because it doesn't used in competitive tournaments that track data....

Methinks the 'data problem' stems from ITC tournaments that track data not using Chapter Approved, which I think is exactly the problem people are trying to solve.

You're absolutely free to use CA missions in an ITC event and the data will be tracked in the same manner as one that uses the ITC missions.

Yes, but people won't get "ITC Points™" for their factions, plus the TOs in ITC unsurprisingly prefer ITC...

Yes they will. Tournaments that use CA or their custom missions (e.g. Adepticon) still award ITC points if they're set-up to submit the scores.

Then I was lied to by a friend, lol. Or perhaps he said something like "The ones that run CA also typically don't submit the scores" or something.

Either way, the point is that the #1 reason we don't have more data on the CA missions is because ITC produces its own mission packet. So to say we have to continue using the ITC-produced mission packet because there's no CA data is frankly...

... well, it's like a self-licking ice cream cone in terms of utility as an argument. Tautologies are the weakest form of truth.

 Ishagu wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

There are many reasons CA doesn't gain mileage with the US scene, mostly due to inertia from the social status quo of people play ITC so they'll play ITC mentality. That's sadly just a very human thing to do, but it's down to players to want to play non-ITC missions which they're unfamiliar with and their lists and tactics aren't geared up for.

But agreed, as long as a mission structure is used that punishes some units/unit types by virtue of existing (such as low save/toughness transports giving up easy secondaries etc), the balance of things will be out of whack for non-ITC games.

The sheer fact that entire groups of players are unfamiliar with the real, official mission rules of 40k is the pinnacle of the dismissive attitude prevalent in the ITC community.

GW is delivering what people have been asking for in regular balance and mission updates.

Dude, the original GW missions used to suck, hard. This means many people swapped to ITC because it offered a better mission pack/environment for a competitive approach to the game.
Its been 3 months since the latest CA, which is basically the first one to have decent missions in it. Theres some inertia going on where many people aren't aware that the missions got better because they are used to knowing that they suck. ITC recently said that CA missions can be used in their tournaments, the thing is that there hasnt been enough data in the couple of weeks since that announcement. People aren't dismissing CA out of spite, theyre dismissing it because the status quo used to be that they sucked. You coming in this thread acting all high and mighty isn't the proper way to make people want to try them out.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
CA gets dismissed, because it has no data to support it. And we've been over this problem, frequently.

"No data" is not true though. We have almost a dozen GT running CA2019, all showing the same trends of increased list and faction diversity compared to ITC tournaments held at the same time.

 Ishagu wrote:

The sheer fact that entire groups of players are unfamiliar with the real, official mission rules of 40k is the pinnacle of the dismissive attitude prevalent in the ITC community.

Assertion without evidence, which makes the latter part of your statement ironic.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

The sheer fact that entire groups of players are unfamiliar with the real, official mission rules of 40k is the pinnacle of the dismissive attitude prevalent in the ITC community.

Assertion without evidence, which makes the latter part of your statement ironic.

Like your assertion about lots of ITC tournaments that are running the CA missions?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
CA gets dismissed, because it has no data to support it. And we've been over this problem, frequently.

"No data" is not true though. We have almost a dozen GT running CA2019, all showing the same trends of increased list and faction diversity compared to ITC tournaments held at the same time.

I've seen a couple with in the last half year. Where would I find the rest?

Hey guys, if we could stick to the topic at hand that would be great.

ITC has always* allowed other missions but small tournaments follow what big tournaments do. That is simply how the world works and has always worked.
Same with ETC/WTC only being 1 tournament that a very small select group of people ever went to but a good number of tournaments that have nothing to do with it copy their approach.

So long as the big ITC tournaments do not run CA missions the small ones are unlikely to follow.

*as far as I am aware.

So the answer to the thread title is "Yes, unequivocally." then?

Based on what I see on this page at least.