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.
If you can score VP for each objective like "Defend" and "Manifest a Power" and use your CP to recycle them, while the other player dumped all their CP into a jacked-up unkillable castle that can't cross the board to get you...
Well that's probably an easier path to victory than board control or ITC secondaries against a list like this year's champ, right?
Genestealer Cult having a still-decent 46% win rate in ITC vs. an abysmal 30% or so in ETC/book missions is a good example.
But Marines are dominating all formats. The Warhammer World GT finals were won by Marines (and the first time in 3 years not by Tau (who were severely underperforming in ITC 2017 through early 2019 while crushing ETC)) just two weeks prior to LVO.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/27 07:56:39
Did Siegler win? He looked to be leading last I checked.
I don't get the negativity around ITC format. For years 40k could not be played competitively without it. It just didn't work. It's not enforced anywhere, an event can still be in the ITC without following any of the ITC matched play rules. Finally it offers an alternative way to play. Some people prefer the ITC, others prefer the CA missions. Different strokes for different folks.
I've played both a fair bit and we've now transitioned onto Maelstrom missions because we found that ITC led to very similar gameplay experiences. We ended up knowing which secondaries to pick before the game and to have a general play style before we rolled any dice. In comparison Maelstrom offers much more random variety but at the cost of consistency.
I don't get the negativity around ITC format. For years 40k could not be played competitively without it. It just didn't work. It's not enforced anywhere, an event can still be in the ITC without following any of the ITC matched play rules. Finally it offers an alternative way to play. Some people prefer the ITC, others prefer the CA missions. Different strokes for different folks.
I've played both a fair bit and we've now transitioned onto Maelstrom missions because we found that ITC led to very similar gameplay experiences. We ended up knowing which secondaries to pick before the game and to have a general play style before we rolled any dice. In comparison Maelstrom offers much more random variety but at the cost of consistency.
The issue stems from the fact, that the playtesters there get to give input to a game that is essentially not the same game as they are giving balancing input?
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.
I don't get the negativity around ITC format. For years 40k could not be played competitively without it. It just didn't work. It's not enforced anywhere, an event can still be in the ITC without following any of the ITC matched play rules. Finally it offers an alternative way to play. Some people prefer the ITC, others prefer the CA missions. Different strokes for different folks.
I've played both a fair bit and we've now transitioned onto Maelstrom missions because we found that ITC led to very similar gameplay experiences. We ended up knowing which secondaries to pick before the game and to have a general play style before we rolled any dice. In comparison Maelstrom offers much more random variety but at the cost of consistency.
Your third paragraph answers the second. Putting aside the extent to which the ITC missions skew balance, the main negativity I'm seeing right now around ITC missions is how they're all basically the same and far too much of a solved problem at this point. The lack of any form of randomness in the missions and the relative lack of impact of the so-called primary mission objectives are the biggest issues most people have, and I can understand why. In general I think the game would benefit from being played the same way everywhere, with the same mission types used across all tournaments and with the state of the ITC missions now I think shifting to the CA2019 missions would be hte best way to go.
I don't get the negativity around ITC format. For years 40k could not be played competitively without it. It just didn't work. It's not enforced anywhere, an event can still be in the ITC without following any of the ITC matched play rules. Finally it offers an alternative way to play. Some people prefer the ITC, others prefer the CA missions. Different strokes for different folks.
I've played both a fair bit and we've now transitioned onto Maelstrom missions because we found that ITC led to very similar gameplay experiences. We ended up knowing which secondaries to pick before the game and to have a general play style before we rolled any dice. In comparison Maelstrom offers much more random variety but at the cost of consistency.
Your third paragraph answers the second. Putting aside the extent to which the ITC missions skew balance, the main negativity I'm seeing right now around ITC missions is how they're all basically the same and far too much of a solved problem at this point. The lack of any form of randomness in the missions and the relative lack of impact of the so-called primary mission objectives are the biggest issues most people have, and I can understand why. In general I think the game would benefit from being played the same way everywhere, with the same mission types used across all tournaments and with the state of the ITC missions now I think shifting to the CA2019 missions would be hte best way to go.
You maybe correct in terms of "the best way to go" but it is somewhat irrelevant.
The tournament organisers set their own mission packs, some are ITC, some are CA, some are Maelstrom and many/most have their own mix of a couple of systems.
I think those of you who believe one system is "better" than the other really overplay the negativity. Events that run both pure ITC missions and CA missions are growing in popularity and have an unprecedented number of players. Some people (based in the US and Canada for example) prefer the ITC format, others (Europe for example) prefer alternative formats. There is not right or wrong here, it's a matter of preference.
In terms of the legitimacy of ITC players feeding into balance discussions for 40k at the playtester level, I think the more varied experience the 40k playtesters have the better. ITC players' feedback into balance should be welcomed because ITC is a very popular way to play.
I don't get the negativity around ITC format. For years 40k could not be played competitively without it. It just didn't work. It's not enforced anywhere, an event can still be in the ITC without following any of the ITC matched play rules. Finally it offers an alternative way to play. Some people prefer the ITC, others prefer the CA missions. Different strokes for different folks..
There is no negativity. But neither should it be ignored that it is a different format, and frequently armies/units are stronger/weaker in ITC vs. 40K played RAW. That's just a fact.
Unless GW adopts ITC rules and win-conditions into the actual game, any "balance" and "meta" information regarding the state of the game gained from ITC must necessarily come with the caveat that it might not reflect the actual game as published by GW.
That isn't even ITC-specific. That applies equally to all homemade formats or 40K-variants played anywhere (and the "meta" that develops in variant formats).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/27 09:27:31
AAE, you got it all wrong. People are not criticizing ITC ans an organisation or for creating their own tournament pack.
People are criticizing the current rule-set for rewarding killing stuff too much and therefore favoring gun-lines over any other tactic, which they try to compensate by changing terrain rules which create even more balance issues like magic box tacics or making TF cannons and whirlwinds ridiculously powerful tools.
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.
I don't get the negativity around ITC format. For years 40k could not be played competitively without it. It just didn't work. It's not enforced anywhere, an event can still be in the ITC without following any of the ITC matched play rules. Finally it offers an alternative way to play. Some people prefer the ITC, others prefer the CA missions. Different strokes for different folks..
There is no negativity. But neither should it be ignored that it is a different format, and frequently armies/units are stronger/weaker in ITC vs. 40K played RAW. That's just a fact.
Unless GW adopts ITC rules and win-conditions into the actual game, any "balance" and "meta" information regarding the state of the game gained from ITC must necessarily come with the caveat that it might not reflect the actual game as published by GW.
That isn't even ITC-specific. That applies equally to all homemade formats or 40K-variants played anywhere (and the "meta" that develops in variant formats).
This is a concern I've also started to share recently. When new rules (or rumours) surface there's always lots of discussion about what factions & units will be the big winners and how it will affect the metagame. The most common reason I see for people arguing for/against use of certain units is "that is vulnerable to ITC secondaries". For example, people have argued for taking 7 Tyranid Warriors in a brood (rather than the max of 9) to avoid giving up Gangbusters. That's not a concern for anyone playing without ITC rules, yet it distorts the decisions of those that do. People on different sides of the Atlantic can effectively be playing two different game systems. Normally that wouldn't be an issue in itself, but when GW use the results of distorted events to make Chapter Approved adjustments or even emergency FAQ nerfs that feeds back into the main game and affects everyone.
Again this isn't a criticism of anything ITC does, just an observation that it could be having an unintended effect on the main game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/27 10:03:02
puma713 wrote: Great games all. Good job Reece and Frankie. Those Leviathan dreads and Chaplain dreads are no joke. We'll probably see a shake up when GW reworks IA in the near future.
Those units weren't a problem before the new rules marines got in the new codex and supplements, and if they nerf leviathans they'll hit the hellforged version just as hard and it isn't a problem. The issue is the new loyalist marines rules. That's what needs to be addressed.
in fairness before the new codex mairine players took those units simply to "hold the line" as it where. ther levi dread has always been one of the best options marines have avaliable, thus it stands to reason anything that buffs all marine units up, without being changed runs the risk of being too good.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
My main gripe with ITC is just that the secondaries feel very very gamey; particularly as people actively build to avoid them. Not that every objective system doesn't alter build requirements; just that the ITC ones do it in a way that feels very heavy handed.
LunarSol wrote: My main gripe with ITC is just that the secondaries feel very very gamey; particularly as people actively build to avoid them. Not that every objective system doesn't alter build requirements; just that the ITC ones do it in a way that feels very heavy handed.
Isn't the new ITC season around the corner? Maybe they'll make a dramatic shift in how its played.
WH40K Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
LunarSol wrote: My main gripe with ITC is just that the secondaries feel very very gamey; particularly as people actively build to avoid them. Not that every objective system doesn't alter build requirements; just that the ITC ones do it in a way that feels very heavy handed.
Isn't the new ITC season around the corner? Maybe they'll make a dramatic shift in how its played.
It has already started. The Sunday RTT events at LVO are for the new season. Tournament packs are out for events over the next month already. If the mission pack was going to be dramatically changed they are now going to do it partway through the season. I am genuinely curious to see what the FLG crew do going forward, I think the real big deal will be exactly what missions they put in the pack for their own next big event - that seems to be the real trendsetter for North American tournaments.
happy_inquisitor wrote: It has already started. The Sunday RTT events at LVO are for the new season. Tournament packs are out for events over the next month already. If the mission pack was going to be dramatically changed they are now going to do it partway through the season. I am genuinely curious to see what the FLG crew do going forward, I think the real big deal will be exactly what missions they put in the pack for their own next big event - that seems to be the real trendsetter for North American tournaments.
ITC is not GW. I'm fairly sure that they noticed the criticism of their rules getting louder and louder on all channels, I have no doubt that they'll react to it. Keep in mind that creating a new tournament pack takes thought and work, so it might take some time.
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.
LunarSol wrote: My main gripe with ITC is just that the secondaries feel very very gamey; particularly as people actively build to avoid them. Not that every objective system doesn't alter build requirements; just that the ITC ones do it in a way that feels very heavy handed.
Isn't the new ITC season around the corner? Maybe they'll make a dramatic shift in how its played.
Well missions are same so not sure how dramatic shift it can be. Next shift will be april faq's and how much that affects itc is another thing
puma713 wrote: Great games all. Good job Reece and Frankie. Those Leviathan dreads and Chaplain dreads are no joke. We'll probably see a shake up when GW reworks IA in the near future.
Those units weren't a problem before the new rules marines got in the new codex and supplements, and if they nerf leviathans they'll hit the hellforged version just as hard and it isn't a problem. The issue is the new loyalist marines rules. That's what needs to be addressed.
in fairness before the new codex mairine players took those units simply to "hold the line" as it where. ther levi dread has always been one of the best options marines have avaliable, thus it stands to reason anything that buffs all marine units up, without being changed runs the risk of being too good.
...which is exactly why it was beyond silly to be slathering marines with army-wide buffs in the first place, let alone army-wide buffs that increase their offense to absurd levels, blatantly buff gunline-style play far more than the far worse assault options, and grant marines 8x the options that other factions have for no reason other than to cash in on book sales.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Marines desperately needed a buff. That was the single worst possible way to buff them, and now that pandora's box has been opened there is basically no way to close it again.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
LunarSol wrote: My main gripe with ITC is just that the secondaries feel very very gamey; particularly as people actively build to avoid them. Not that every objective system doesn't alter build requirements; just that the ITC ones do it in a way that feels very heavy handed.
It's because players should have to respond to simulated fog of war. Table top games already have a problem with this since we share lists pre game and can see all of each others units so you need there to be limited information concerning the missions up until your at the table IMHO. The ITC mission format is just a shopping list of objectives that you get to self select based on the tables terrain deployment, the faction and even the enemies list. It's just too much control go even tot he players before the game even starts for my taste. I much prefer difficult problem solving under limited information and time as it makes the game much more dynamic and rewards the player that can think on their feet during the game.
That's my taste though, and it's pretty obvious a lot of players want to boil the game down to a series of flow chart decisions. I get that players want to mitigate the random element, but at what point does it stop being the same game? Why not eliminate dice and just use the expected average outcomes for every unit on a calculator, it would certainly speed the game up for these time sensitive events. You would be eliminating more of the random chance as well.
I will also add that it is potentially very bad for the core game that GW uses results from these events to patch the game when they are essentially playing from house ruled sets. Some factions play like night and day between CA19 missions and the ITC format, GSC being a pretty obvious example.
happy_inquisitor wrote: It has already started. The Sunday RTT events at LVO are for the new season. Tournament packs are out for events over the next month already. If the mission pack was going to be dramatically changed they are now going to do it partway through the season. I am genuinely curious to see what the FLG crew do going forward, I think the real big deal will be exactly what missions they put in the pack for their own next big event - that seems to be the real trendsetter for North American tournaments.
ITC is not GW. I'm fairly sure that they noticed the criticism of their rules getting louder and louder on all channels, I have no doubt that they'll react to it. Keep in mind that creating a new tournament pack takes thought and work, so it might take some time.
They seem just as stubborn at times though. Look how long it has been since GW altered deployment for the better. Most players even in the ITC wanted them to switch it over a year ago and they still have yet to do it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/27 15:32:53
The don't need a half a year to write and print a book to change their rules though.
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.
LunarSol wrote: My main gripe with ITC is just that the secondaries feel very very gamey; particularly as people actively build to avoid them. Not that every objective system doesn't alter build requirements; just that the ITC ones do it in a way that feels very heavy handed.
Isn't the new ITC season around the corner? Maybe they'll make a dramatic shift in how its played.
It has already started. The Sunday RTT events at LVO are for the new season. Tournament packs are out for events over the next month already. If the mission pack was going to be dramatically changed they are now going to do it partway through the season. I am genuinely curious to see what the FLG crew do going forward, I think the real big deal will be exactly what missions they put in the pack for their own next big event - that seems to be the real trendsetter for North American tournaments.
Reece mentioned in passing they would look at if/what to change in the ITC pack after LVO. So yes, things might or might not change. Obviously tournaments will lag behind a little as rulepacks for some will have been finalised but that is always going to happen.
Jidmah wrote: The don't need a half a year to write and print a book to change their rules though.
I don't think the ITC has enough dedicated staff to really push out changes to their rule pack quickly though. GW has a reasonably sized staff of rules people to push out FAQs and such.
I don't get the negativity around ITC format. For years 40k could not be played competitively without it. It just didn't work. It's not enforced anywhere, an event can still be in the ITC without following any of the ITC matched play rules. Finally it offers an alternative way to play. Some people prefer the ITC, others prefer the CA missions. Different strokes for different folks.
I've played both a fair bit and we've now transitioned onto Maelstrom missions because we found that ITC led to very similar gameplay experiences. We ended up knowing which secondaries to pick before the game and to have a general play style before we rolled any dice. In comparison Maelstrom offers much more random variety but at the cost of consistency.
The issue stems from the fact, that the playtesters there get to give input to a game that is essentially not the same game as they are giving balancing input?
and this negatively impacts how those that do not use/play ITC in their regular games.
How can anyone expect to make the game better when most of the playtesting involves radically different rules/missions/etc???
Leaving aside the BCP disaster and resulting three hour delay, which made a lot of people forfeit round 3 and made rounds 3 and 4 hard to play well, this LVO was a dumpster fire event in terms of game balance. 100% GW’s fault. I thought it was telling that for Sunday, they had to follow Sean around for the first two rounds because otherwise they would have just been showing marines versus marines the entire day, which they eventually had to do in the finals.
Which is a shame, because as usual the player skill on display was fantastic. Too bad 1/3 of the players at the event, including most of the top players and 8 out of the eventual top 10, felt compelled to switch to marines because it’s so head and shoulders more powerful than everything else. And that’s after the summer and december updates to the game already boosted a lot of armies. Yikes.
Are marines less than a third of the playerbase at most large tournaments? Genuinely asking, I felt like they were always a huge percentage just because that's what people played (ignoring the top tier players who will play whatever is strongest).
Marines were a very small part of lists the past two years. Suddenly, after getting overpowered rules and points cuts, they are everywhere. Not a coincidence. Especially not with so many top players switching to space marines from what they had been playing most of the ITC season, including some switching just weeks before LVO.
RiTides wrote: Are marines less than a third of the playerbase at most large tournaments? Genuinely asking, I felt like they were always a huge percentage just because that's what people played (ignoring the top tier players who will play whatever is strongest).
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
