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.

 Argive wrote:
wouldn't ITC work better if the secondaries were randomised or cycled per battle?

An RTT was just played in the LVO judge's backyard; they used the d20 generator document that's floating around. One guy, mind you, just one, PM'd me that *he* liked the format. He said others liked it, too.

I looked at it and it looks fun to me. We'll see.

 Brothererekose wrote:

Um, this almost reads like, "Having a high score does *not* determine who wins a tourney." Am I reading that wrong?

Yes, you're reading it wrong. I'm not saying don't use VPs to determine who wins individual games and I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote. What I'm saying is the difference in VP score at the end of a 5-game tournament is not necessarily indicative of the difference in ability between two opponents who have not played against each other because there are variables such as the quality of the opposition they played against, particularly in the earlier rounds, that you just can't control for. Therefore the idea that you need this bigger potential spread of VPs isn't necessarily the case. It can be helpful for sorting players, yes, but not to the extent that you need to keep such a system if there is something wrong with the core of that system.

As for systems that use a straight W/L/D approach at tournaments, X-Wing springs to mind. They've just has a 500+ player tournament in the UK using that scoring system and it worked out just fine. It's the same system they've been using for years.

 Argive wrote:
wouldn't ITC work better if the secondaries were randomised or cycled per battle?

The idea is that it always gives you something to play towards regardless of the enemy's army configuration. I don't really like them as a mission style, but making them random would undo their purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
What I'm saying is the difference in VP score at the end of a 5-game tournament is not necessarily indicative of the difference in ability between two opponents who have not played against each other because there are variables such as the quality of the opposition they played against, particularly in the earlier rounds, that you just can't control for.

There's really no perfect solution for tiebreakers, though personally differential scoring is my least favorite. Whenever I've TO'd a differential tourney, the results always read like "Frieza had a much easier time killing Krillen than Gohan did killing Cell. Therefore, Frieza is obviously stronger than Gohan." No matter what system you use though, it always sucks to rank one player over another that had equal records but never actually fought one another.

Very politely answered, Slipspace. Nicer than my first response to you.

So, cheers.

Slipspace wrote:
What I'm saying is the difference in VP score at the end of a 5-game tournament is not necessarily indicative of the difference in ability between two opponents ...

But why would we want to know this? Outside Multiple-Mirror-match games, "Who is better" really hard to measure.

Slipspace wrote:
Therefore the idea that you need this bigger potential spread of VPs isn't necessarily the case. It can be helpful for sorting players, yes, but not to the extent that you need to keep such a system if there is something wrong with the core of that system.

It's purpose is exactly for helping sort pairings, and given dozens of RTTs a weekend, and ... 3 to 6 GTs a week? 8 a month? The 'core system', is that ITC missions? Or the secondaries (I'm not being obtuse on purpose, but trying to help you, help me, be clear).

Well, I'd point to how many tourneys ran last year, and so many more than the year before, I conclude the system, broken it might be, seems to moving along really well, for 14,000 ITC members, up 4k from the year before.

That is, it's not broken**.

Slipspace wrote:
As for systems that use a straight W/L/D approach at tournaments, X-Wing springs to mind. They've just has a 500+ player tournament in the UK using that scoring system and it worked out just fine. It's the same system they've been using for years.

I have no answer to this as I have no idea X-wing is scored.

- - - - - - - - - --
**If the current ITC secondaries are broken, then I dunno as change will help:

Moving forward:
I just looked at a d20 secondary objective generator document ... some guy developed, Steve something? Sorry, not enough memory to recall his name.

Anyway, it looks fun. I'd be perfectly happy to drop the present ITC misson set for this one. Or play EW missions 1-3 & 5-6. I'm not married to the ITC missions, or EW or any in particular. I'll play even if there's a Ro-Sham-Bo dreadsock between rounds 4 and 5. I have the 3e missions saved paper. "This is Heavy!" being a memorable one.

If the d20 one were to be adapted (unlikely) I'd alter my present aeldari builds. So would everyone else, and the Bitch&Complain cycle would start anew: "D20 secondaries have skewed the meta! D20ers have ruined the game!" You know it'd happen:

"Oh, no, there's h2h objectives! Charging and Fight phase objectives. I play Tau!"
"I play guard and I dun wanna buy Bullgryn!""

Same if we all (ITC) went with CA19 EW missions. List builds would alter, and the B&C cycle would be about *that*. I've been watching Dakka poster "Twighlight Pathways" batreps. Except for the last two, they're all mission cards. This, not the slightest, made watching his videos any less enjoyable. Good battles and humorous, too. Check 'em out!

Anyway, after all is said, and very little done ...
*shrug*
It seems to have been this way since I started in 4e, and the older Rogue Trader 1e guys I know say the same thing. Factions of players are always going to find something 'broken' in the game. And I'm going to continue to come back to the same silver bullet: git gud. I need to get a T-shirt with that.

And rumors of 9e are getting stronger. Damnit. I'd like to *not* buy replacement codices for another 2 years.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Argive wrote:
wouldn't ITC work better if the secondaries were randomised or cycled per battle?

The idea is that it always gives you something to play towards regardless of the enemy's army configuration. I don't really like them as a mission style, but making them random would undo their purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
What I'm saying is the difference in VP score at the end of a 5-game tournament is not necessarily indicative of the difference in ability between two opponents who have not played against each other because there are variables such as the quality of the opposition they played against, particularly in the earlier rounds, that you just can't control for.

There's really no perfect solution for tiebreakers, though personally differential scoring is my least favorite. Whenever I've TO'd a differential tourney, the results always read like "Frieza had a much easier time killing Krillen than Gohan did killing Cell. Therefore, Frieza is obviously stronger than Gohan." No matter what system you use though, it always sucks to rank one player over another that had equal records but never actually fought one another.

My point was that you cant bui d alist to gurantee you get your secondary... Like flyer spam obviously getting recon every time.

So if a shooty castly army gets Recon then they will have to move or give up the points.
Likewaise a forward moving army might get engineers so they will have to leave dudes behind..

Also not fan of the magic boxes..

ITC 2020 Beta Missions are out. Go see if they fixed anything.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/02/14/40k-itc-champions-missions-are-updated/#comments

This will change nothing.

The issue is and always has been being able to choose from a fixed list of objects.

That's certainly something I don't like about the format that keeps me away from it.

Choosing secondaries definitely encourages extreme builds over more TAC lists. But it's also possible that choosing keeps a greater number of builds more competitive than they would be in a TAC environment. Seen this stuff cycle through for years, and GT formats almost always end up being a goalpost-moving exercise.

The healthiest thing would be for players and TOs to just accept that the game fundamentally isn't well-suited for competitive play...that it's always going to be square pegs and round holes, and therefore something that shouldn't be taken too seriously. But today's players and TOs sure want their esports pantomime. *shrug*

 bullyboy wrote:
This was a discussion on the General forum, but i figured I'd put it here to start a discussion where it belongs.

1. Do you think that ITC should adopt some of the new CA2019 missions in 50% of the games in 6 round tournaments (such as the LVO)?
2. With that in mind, do you think that would promote enough change in lists to change the meta in a positive way?
3. If #2 is not correct, then what would?

Cheers

1. No
2. It would change the meta, yes. I am too biased (because I play a single faction predominantly)to answer if it would change positively nor negatively.
3. I think that adopting a 50% NOVA-style and 50%-ITC style would change the meta the most and in a general positive direction. Again, I'm (we all are) biased,

Of the new secondaries, I think the change to reaper is likely the most positive in reigning in the power of the space marine factions

Seriously? Nova is even worse than the ITC.

Something to consider:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/02/19/itc-2020-40k-missions-update/#comment-621143

 Brothererekose wrote:
Something to consider:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/02/19/itc-2020-40k-missions-update/#comment-621143

...between round drinking being added to the pack? Huh?

I believe that's a joke.

its just a fail from linking to a comment rather then the top of the article which is about actual changes made and some justification.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/02/19/itc-2020-40k-missions-update/

Tho the use of those statistics to defend removing sieze is horsegak since the winrate doesn't account for going first or not. If RG had a hypothetical 100% winrate going first and 0% winrate in going second under IGUG they would look perfectly balanced at 50% in that graph.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
Something to consider:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/02/19/itc-2020-40k-missions-update/#comment-621143

...between round drinking being added to the pack? Huh?

Yes, that's a long running joke. I don't give Reece & crew grief, in person or online.

When I do, it's over-the-top, clearly sarcastic, usually beer related (I am Team BeerHammer after all), and usually just on those comment sections on their articles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:
I believe that's a joke.

You are correct, sir!

Nurglitch wrote:
I believe that's a joke.

Conclusion: Not a very good one.

 Dysartes wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
I believe that's a joke.

Conclusion: Not a very good one.

Oh! Wounded!
*staggers and falls down*

Which now makes us wonder, staggering and falling due to intoxication or Dysartes's opinion?

In either case, cheers, sir.

vive la difference!


- - - - - - - - - -
Aside from my craptastic, poor humor, I think its' worth noting that the beta missions were released last weekend, but then on Wednesday, there were already changes. Showing, that honest, good intentions are being applied to make things workable, playable, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
The healthiest thing would be for players and TOs to just accept that the game fundamentally isn't well-suited for competitive play...that it's always going to be square pegs and round holes, and therefore something that shouldn't be taken too seriously. But today's players and TOs sure want their esports pantomime. *shrug*

I don't think anyone would disagree with you, except for the wanting esports. Maybe a few out there?

Anyway, it comes back to the fundamental problem with GW missions and tournaments (are tourneys synonymous with your use of 'competitive'?) . They don't work real well together, so what's the fix?

Because there's an enormous tourney going community out there.

I actually think the game is well-suited for competitive play.

At ~1000 points.

Competitive 40k doesn't have a design problem. It has a structural problem. A 2000 point game with six rounds takes over 3 hours. This is TOO LONG. It means you are capped at how many games you can do per day (usually 3), which means the tournaments cannot scale with attendance. This has knock-on effects with respect to the Modified Swiss format (as evidenced above by the discussion on VP tie-breaking), and it also excludes a large swath of the player base from attendance. I mean, seriously, we can't even fit tourneys inside of a weekend. Major tourneys should be two days. Six games each day; this supports up to 385 players in the regular Swiss format, and we can do 3-round elimination of the Top 8 thereafter, just like in MTG. And in smaller RTTs, you should be able to run a five or six game tourney in a day.

Furthermore, in terms of gameplay, 2000 points is ridiculously killy. There is massive first-turn advantage, which FLG and NOVA have mitigated with ridiculous LOS blocking contrivances. Sure, ~1000 point games can be awkward with some factions, but the goal is to get games down to 60-80 minutes.

And really, if it's a matter of selling models, modify the detachment structure. For example, say the detachment that their Warlord is in is capped at 800 points, and they may bring two smaller allied detachments capped at 400 points each. You can deploy the Warlord detachment and one of the two allied detachments. (This is basically sideboarding. You don't need to worry nearly as much about bringing dead points along.)

@Suzeto that's one of the things I'd like to see, is a side tournament series of 1000-1250 points, just like track & field has sprints and distance events let's add a "small-scale" 40K (NOT Kill Team). Personally I'd just scale down the ITC missions (2 detachments, only 3 points per secondary instead of 4) and see how it goes. Cause yeah, at this point you don't have to make many sacrifices in list design and it's just too big especially with points creep every codex and CA release.

 greyknight12 wrote:
@Suzeto that's one of the things I'd like to see, is a side tournament series of 1000-1250 points, just like track & field has sprints and distance events let's add a "small-scale" 40K (NOT Kill Team). Personally I'd just scale down the ITC missions (2 detachments, only 3 points per secondary instead of 4) and see how it goes. Cause yeah, at this point you don't have to make many sacrifices in list design and it's just too big especially with points creep every codex and CA release.

If run at 1,000 points, then the "Organised Event Guideline of 2/3/4" has you covered on at least one of the points you want...

I'd like to throw in on the "removing seize was a bad idea" crowd.

Here's the thing. Turn 1 is going to be even more ludicrously important now. With how lethal the game is at 2000 points, knowing that you can put everything into an alpha strike and not have to worry about losing the initiative is going to make it that much worse. That will be the move of a good player.

Previously, the deployment from a good player would be aggressive, but not staking everything on that 84% chance of going first.

Anyone who complained about being seized on IMO is likely a poor player who did not plan well with their uber alpha-strike army. Now, it's all going to be about who wins that first 50/50 first turn roll. So much for eliminating "luck" from the first turn.

Seize is just a weird game mechanic, IMO. It's almost always a feel-bad moment when you get seized on and its impact on the outcome can be huge. It's so luck-based that it doesn't feel like any of the effects of it are about rewarding good play, just bad luck. It's a consequence of the IGOUGO turn structure that it's even needed in the first place but it does have some merit in at least attempting to tone down the power of the alpha strike.

On the other hand, removing seize is yet another move towards removing any randomness from the game and one of my big problems with ITC is how much randomness they take out. I know the ITC advocates will say we're supposed to be testing skill, not luck, but I think adapting to semi-random events is part of the skill set we should be testing in tournaments. With some events now moving to fully set and standardised terrain, a set of secondaries you can often build an army around achieving and denying and a "primary" mission that often has less overall impact on the final score than those secondaries and is always fixed save for one single bonus point I think ITC pushes the game too far away from "good" randomness.

If you want to get rid of Sieze its better to go back to the rules before Sieze was 'needed' rather then pretend like Sieze itself wasn't introduced to deal with the problem of deploying knowing your going to go first.

Alternating deployment and rolling for who goes first after.

It's a table top turn based game, so the players already have too much knowledge as there is no fog of war. You not only get to know exactly what every model your facing has, but also spells and abilities. The random rolls are necessary to simulate the fog of war that isn't there. The more you remove the random elements and let players build around predetermined maps and scenarios the less dynamic problem solving is required. It's the reason I dislike ITC personally, while I will acknowledge ITC definitely has it's skill set required to be good at it. it doesn't reward skills I find interesting or impressive. It's basically all logistics and math determined pregame. I like more focus to be on dynamic decision making in the heat of the moment. That still exists a bit in the ITC, but it seems like with every update they remove a bit more. I honestly won't be shocked when they remove dice rolling to save time and cut randomness, may as well just math hammer it all out, with so many built in rerolls currently in the game the actual dice that are rolled are not even a risk themselves in most competitive lists anyway.

Agreed.

Even the core rules are leaning towards less randomness. 4D3? Why not just call it 8 and be done with it? Hitting on 2's with rerolls while out of LoS? Why bother? Sure there are occasional negatives, but really...

But, given that the subject is about ITC, those that play it really don't want to read "I don't like ITC" in a thread about ITC.

On a more positive note, I do like most of the changes they've made in this last iteration.