It's time to ditch the ITC missions. Trust in CA.

[Ishagu]

During the craziness of 7th edition, and the relatively rough start that encapsulated the early days of 8th, a very strong case could be made for a custom mission pack that created a sense of order in the chaos that was 40k.

There is no doubt that the ITC missions were a good addition and a positive force in the game when 8th edition dropped.

 

This is no longer the case, I'm afraid to say. Frankly I am surprised that huge parts of the community are woefully ignorant of the fact that the Chapter Approved Eternal War missions in the 2018 and now 2019 books are not only well balanced and designed to reward list variety, but are also far more varied and fun than what the ITC mission pack offers.

 

Let's not beat about the bush. The ITC mission pack is effectively one single missions with tiny variations - there are utterly minimal changes. In addition to this, it promotes spam lists and static gun-lines. When you have a system of play where players can CHOSE what to score, it creates an environment where you spam units that make it easy to achieve the objectives you want. In ITC you can literally win most of your games without moving. Kill More, Hold More - a classic staple of gun line lists. Or how about you spam flyers and chose to focus on table quarters and behind enemy lines?

No matter how you swing it, it does create a negative play experience and it's a reason why so many abusive lists exist. Things will die in games of 40k anyway, don't make it a focus of mission objectives in every mission on top of that.

 

Look at the recent tournament at GW. The lists and faction variety was far greater, and looking at the top 30 the meta looks far, far healthier than what ITC events create the impression of. To put it bluntly, if you have a list that doesn't move you will typically lose 5/6 Chapter Approved missions.

They reward variety of lists - you need to bring a healthy amount of troops, fast moving units, objective scorers, characters, etc, etc in order to score the varied mission objectives.

 

Lack of data means we cannot categorically prove that the CA mission pack is strictly more balanced. It certainly does not promote spam/gunlines as much as the ITC missions do, that is a fact. It's also far more fun and varied than the single ITC mission with minor variations from game to game that has become the staple of so many people's gaming experience.

My eyes were opened after getting involved in some ETC style events a while back, and following on from them it was a case of experimentation and experience at smaller events that used the CA mission pack. As I have played more and more using the CA format, by comparison the ITC missions have looked more and more dull.

 

Let's no understate how much good work the ITC guys have done. Things like leader-boards, hobby track, promoting the game, etc. The mission pack has now become restrictive and is no longer the most positive way to play the game.

 

I also expect many competitive ITC players to refute what I say. They'll have limited experience with CA missions, they might refuse to believe that GW has done a good job with the pack, and they might simply be too set in they ways.

There is no question, no disputation, that the ITC mission pack is less varied. There is no question that it promotes spam lists and gun-lines due to players choosing what to score. There is no need to use it any more.

 

We've accepted the rules that GW put out without having to modify them. Let's accept their mission packs too.

[MrZakalwe]

Not to often I agree with Ishagu but the 2018 CA missions were excellent (found them more fun to play) and the 2019 set appear a little better. 

 

The faction and list diversity in the CA GTs was a breath of fresh air.

[Ishagu]

It's true. A lot more ITC events are tracked, but the consensus is clear that the CA missions encourage list and faction variety.

[PiñaColada]

Same, I prefer the new CA missions. I understand ITC was needed when game balance was all out of whack with GW missions but that's no longer the case and ITC has always felt a bit soulless to me. But I suspect the America-ITC and Europe-ETC rift will continue. 

Now, if only 1750 points could be the agreed upon standard instead of 2k (considering 1750 points today is probably pretty close to 2k at the beginning of 8th)

[Subtleknife]

I got the chapter approved 17 and then have recently got chapter approved 19. The difference is night and day. Really enjoying the new missions.

[Closet Skeleton]

The game drives spam, top Tyranid list at the ETC event I was at last weekend was 2 winged hive tyrants, 3 units of hive guard and 3 exocrines. Winning list was 3 TS daemon princes + belakor, ahriman and 3 other sorcerers alongside a unit of 8 flamers and minimal horror units. Best BA list spammed scouts and sanguinary guard. Best Craftworld Eldar spammed support platforms and nightspinners. Best Ork army mostly just took boys with two big smasha gun units.

 

Best Tau list spammed Kroot and Stormsurges (he doesn't know how either, he took it as a joke because SoB got barred due to release schedule nonsense).

 

Best Space Marine player (just 1 tournament point behind third place) had 5 IF flyers, 3 thunder fire cannons and 3 units of eliminators. 2nd best spammed raven guard assault centurions and IF thunder fires, tied with him was IH with 3 repulsor executioners and an Astraeus.

 

Further out in 3rd and sometimes 2nd best lists for factions you got non-spam lists (I was 2nd best pure tyranids with only duplicated troops slots) but taking the most of the good things is always an advantage. I got 2 wins against Tau thanks to being semi-tailored against them (despite not being able to kill a single riptide or broadside), 2 slight losses due to mistakes and got crushed once by a bad match up against Admech plasma servitor spam and triple drills (he ended up as best admech). Got an ITC event in a month where I'll bring a similar list and probably get my ass kicked.

 

ITC certainly helps gunlines and flier spam but I still see the latter just as much at ETC events as ITC ones. Ironically seems to be the change over to ITC inspired full progressive scoring in the 2019 CA that really stopped triple riptide Tau from doing well enough to beat the 3/5 win threshold.

[Ishagu]

ETC events don't use the CA missions, they use a modified Maelstrom and Eternal War combinations which actually downplays the unique mission hooks somewhat. It's still better than the ITC missions, mind.

 

And even if a case is made for the balance staying largely the same, which the multiple CA GT's actually disprove thanks to their increased variety of lists and factions, the CA missions are still ultimately far more varied and thus more interesting and fun.

[nanosquid]

I couldn't agree more. I played my first ITC event in months on Saturday, and I've been wrestling with the urge to drop the entire hobby since. I cannot imagine why the format is still so ubiquitous, as there were dozens of examples of things that should not work in 40k costing me the game. For example, beginning of turn 1 death company moved 18" before my turn began and stopped right in front of my Iron Warriors gunline, stopping a mere 10" away, but parked inside a building so I couldn't touch them. Lined up at the windows in front of massed bolters and butcher cannons, but lol, magic boxes, you can't see me. Then on his turn 1 they move again to tie up my entire army, and the rest of the game was a slapfight until I died.

 

I can't help but think that this was NOT part of the designers' intent.

Edited January 16, 2020 by nanosquid

[Archaeinox]

The issue for me is that ITC rules (1st floor etc) seep into casual play when people are attempting to test tournament lists. It turns otherwise casual fluff players into madmen who might otherwise not be concerned with tournament play. When stores run tournaments using ITC format, people want to test lists. It's just a side effect. Granted, folks should talk to their opponents but "what sort of game are we going to have?" means different things to different folks......

 

ITC rules have no place in Eternal War or Maelstom missions, Chapter Approved or otherwise. 

 

ITC rules are fine for ITC missions and should stay there. I enjoy the ruleset, if it's ITC mission chosen for the game specifically.

 

I have noticed that people who wildly benefit from the ITC building rules often tend to insert them into casual play.......... 

 

It is damaging for 40k pick up games.

 

In conclusion, I do agree with most of what Ishagu said and I believe this is a fantastic post. I'd love to copy/paste it to my gaming store's FB page and just watch the upset come out but I will refrain. :]

Edited January 16, 2020 by Archaeinox

[toaae]

The ITC missions exist to create opportunities for skilled and practiced players to showcase that ability, and with consistency. Choosing secondaries, and more importantly, playing around your opponent's choice of secondaries, is what top players excel at. When they go against each other, the resulting game is usually an intricate dance of baits and calculated risks, where each player attempts to wrestle an advantage that their opponent is fully aware of.

 

I refute your understanding of how ITC missions play out. In fact, I find it incredibly ignorant. Fundamentally, saying "hold more" is a staple of gun line lists is hilarious, when everyone knows mobile or horde lists that overwhelmingly score that point. Furthermore, the ITC missions only advantage static, shooting-focused armies when the terrain is inadequate or the opponent doesn't take advantage of adequate terrain. If a player selects a bunch of kill secondaries on a table with quality cover, and their opponent opts for board control objectives and denying kills, the gun line player is going to lose 9 times out of 10.

 

This is supported by the myriad of top-level resources available. From podcasts like The Art of War, to twitch-broadcasted finals, to in-depth articles posted on websites all over the internet, the analysis of how to competently play ITC missions paints a picture of a format that excels at creating opportunities for counter play. A great example was last year's LVO finals between Brandon Grant's Guard-and-Castellan list and Alex Harrison's Aledari flyers. Brandon focused on board control objectives, using his firepower to eliminate enemy units that could threaten his infantry, while Alex focused on knocking out the Castellan and kill objectives. Despite being behind the whole game, Brandon pulled out a win on the last roll of the game because he used secondaries that he was able to set up for. It was as captivating and exciting a game of 40k as one can imagine, driven by the opportunities the ITC mission provides.

 

The fact is, at the top level, you can't just go into a game with your secondaries pre-picked. It's incredibly dependent on your opponent, and the exact mission, terrain, and deployment can influence it. Get a mission where no objectives are near LoS blocking terrain? Engineers might not be a good choice. When listening to top players discuss their lists, they usually focus on what secondaries they give up, as opposed to which they can score.

 

This is the crux of why the ITC missions, and the secondary-selection style, is so preferable for top level play: it focuses on counter play. The new CA missions adopted this, with objective scoring at the beginning of your turn meaning you have to hold it through your opponent's turn, giving them a chance to deny the score. But the ITC has more depth. Like comparing Stacraft to Clash of Clans. Both have a skill requirement that allows a better player to show their ability, but one has a much higher ceiling than the other.

 

For the vast majority of players, the ITC missions are probably unnecessary. We aren't taking advantage of the opportunities I've covered. For us, the ceiling is much lower, and the missions may actually trip us up with their depth and complexity. The CA missions are more than adequate at letting 85% of players showcase their skill and ability.

 

Finally, I just want to say that I know I defend Frontline Gaming and the ITC format a lot on these boards, but I am not a competitive player or an ITC sycophant. I've previously stated I'm no better than a .500 player, and I take fun lists to events. I wish we had a greater variety in tournament formats, like a 1500pt 1-detachment, a highlander style, or whatever. But that's a community problem, not an ITC one.

[Archaeinox]

 lol, magic boxes, you can't see me. 

 

ITC 1st floor rules lead to vast advantages for armies that are already superior in this game.

 

Example:

 

1. Ahriman attempts to hide behind a building. He can't see through the windows- the first floor wall blocks line of sight completely, so no Smite or other mortal wound powers going out to Primaris.

 

2. Raven Guard stuff out of LOS slaughters Ahriman turn 1. 

 

The explanation I received after mentioning this to another regular ITC player was that I should have added plague bearers etc and brought Thousand Sons as soup.

 

What? 

 

That is a clear example of how regular ITC play harms a community. It creates filthy lists.

the resulting game is usually an intricate dance of baits and calculated risks

 

Against the regular ITC players, using optimized lists, sure. Give those players any other list that is not getting into high rankings and skill doesn't matter. 

 

I won't argue your statements are incorrect at all, no sir, I just feel like I would write something similar up if I watched Top Table play in an ITC event...

 

What about games like 32 vs 6? If the one player with the fluffy list even got more than 2 turns in.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Archaeinox

[Ishagu]

@toaee

 

And by what measure would I be deemed to be woefully ignorant of what the ITC is about?

You believe my extensive experience in the ITC, and multiple games against top performing UK, US and Canadian players wouldn't amount to anything?

 

The examples I provided are not a blanket that can be applied to every single situation, there is no such thing.

The ITC missions do indeed create a game within a game situation in the case of chosing objectives. However once again the effect is that you chose those you are able to score or deny, in effect you bend the mission around your list and not the other way around.

 

Nothing you mentioned contradicts the fact that the ITC mission objectives and variety cannot compare to what the new CA offers, nor can an argument be made about the ITC missions creating a more balanced play experience. Are you opposed to greater mission, list and faction varieties? That's ultimately what it comes down to.

 

As for custom terrain rules, that's actually a seperate discussion to be had there. I would agree that GW have not created the best terrain rules, but I also think that players rarely invest in terrain as much as they do their armies.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Ishagu

[nanosquid]

The ITC missions exist to create opportunities for skilled and practiced players to showcase that ability, and with consistency.

Skilled and practiced --at ITC--, you mean.

 

As the game continues to evolve, and at a faster rate now with PA, it is becoming more and more clear that the ITC format is a different game altogether than Warhammer 40,000.

Edited January 16, 2020 by nanosquid

[PeteySödes]

 

The ITC missions exist to create opportunities for skilled and practiced players to showcase that ability, and with consistency.

Skilled and practiced --at ITC--, you mean.

 

As the game continues to evolve, and at a faster rate now with PA, it is becoming more and more clear that the ITC format is a different game altogether than Warhammer 40,000.

 

 

For better or worse, I would almost argue the opposite with where the playtesters and data comes from.

[Ishagu]

I do actually understand why select ITC players would be apprehensive about playing using the CA missions.

 

Each of the CA missions looks to test certain aspects of what a list might be capable of doing. Those aspects could be: Offensive Power, Staying Power, Board Control, Speed, Deployment, etc

 

It's very hard to create a list that is highly capable in all those things. In fact no one list can truly tick all those boxed and be competent in them equally. As a result you may well find your list isn't equally capable of winning a certain mission as another. You can't simply chose to change what your scoring and denial criteria are to mitigate the shortcomings. This is why the CA focused lists are ultimately more balanced and well rounded - because they have to try and achieve different objectives rather than choosing those they were always good at.

 

Also, I must add that a single CA mission may well be inferior to a single ITC mission, but all of them being cycled thought an event does create a varied and balanced playing experience. It's no longer a case of being weak or strong against a certain army, but also how well suited the list is to achieving objectives that might involve them having to move across the board, or hold the centre with specific units because others can no longer score, etc etc

[nanosquid]

For better or worse, I would almost argue the opposite with where the playtesters and data comes from.

Sadly you're right. I think Ishagu is right, though, and I didn't think that hard about it until I saw this thread and now I'm slightly upset. I went back in my head and realized that in the previous months of my burnout, 100% of the games I came away from miserable were ITC format, and 100% of the games I enjoyed were NOT. Someone needs to get GW's design team in on this - ITC is slowly eating 40k, and I don't like it.

[Ishagu]

I know full well that this topic might not be popular with some people, and there is potential for a push back. I had a very similar experience over the last year or so that began with my dabbling into the ETC which ultimately steered me into trying out different mission types, ending in my realisations about Chapter Approved being a better way to play in terms of fun, whilst not sacrificing balance between factions.

 

It must be repeated, the ITC and the guys behind it have done great things for the hobby and community. That doesn't erase the fact that GW really stepped up their mission deign over the last two years, and what they have put out can be enjoyed fully without needing community alterations.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Ishagu

[PeteySödes]

 

For better or worse, I would almost argue the opposite with where the playtesters and data comes from.

Sadly you're right. I think Ishagu is right, though, and I didn't think that hard about it until I saw this thread and now I'm slightly upset. I went back in my head and realized that in the previous months of my burnout, 100% of the games I came away from miserable were ITC format, and 100% of the games I enjoyed were NOT. Someone needs to get GW's design team in on this - ITC is slowly eating 40k, and I don't like it.

 

 

Yea I don't disagree overall. I do think there is a place for ITC though so I also agree with toaae in that regard. In a(my) perfect world there just would be a better separation and less apprehension to try non-ITC from "normies" since its all we hear about on the big podcasts etc.

[Overwhelming Odds]

I fully back this idea.  Having played numerous missions in the CA 2019 book, I can absolutely say their rule set enables and accommodates greater list diversity.  I played a Harridan Tyranid list against a pure 8 Imperial Knight list, and it could have been won by either player.  That is something I would never have expected in the past.  The consistency in your ability to execute your strategy is game changing.  You still play to the mission, but you have so much more control during the battle.  Randomness is all but eliminated in the ways that matter.

 

 

And one final note, ITC terrain and placement rules are garbage.  Battlefields should give inherent advantages.  Making things symmetrical and balanced only creates a lack of diversity in what you see, how you move, how you interact, and I have NEVER seen equal and impartial symmetry in warfare.  That is kind of the point in warfare, utilize the terrain for advantage.  

 

V/r,

 

Dan

Edited January 16, 2020 by Overwhelming Odds

[Panzer]

For example, beginning of turn 1 death company moved 18" before my turn began and stopped right in front of my Iron Warriors gunline, stopping a mere 10" away, but parked inside a building so I couldn't touch them. Lined up at the windows in front of massed bolters and butcher cannons, but lol, magic boxes, you can't see me. Then on his turn 1 they move again to tie up my entire army, and the rest of the game was a slapfight until I died.

 

I can't help but think that this was NOT part of the designers' intent.

To be completely fair, this is only partially on the ITC format. They could just as well physically barricade the windows of the 1st floor and call it a day. Having such a rule just removes the need to adjust dozens of terrain pieces for every tournament.

Also that's one of the reasons why you should take Thunderfire cannons. Especially as Iron Hands player.

[Gederas]

YES! Death to ITC and it's stupid missions producing the most toxic way to play the game!

:lol:

In all seriousness, yeah. The Chapter approved missions are WAAAAAAAAAAY better than the ITC ones. Especially the "lol magic boxes" :cuss

 

For example, beginning of turn 1 death company moved 18" before my turn began and stopped right in front of my Iron Warriors gunline, stopping a mere 10" away, but parked inside a building so I couldn't touch them. Lined up at the windows in front of massed bolters and butcher cannons, but lol, magic boxes, you can't see me. Then on his turn 1 they move again to tie up my entire army, and the rest of the game was a slapfight until I died.

I can't help but think that this was NOT part of the designers' intent.

To be completely fair, this is only partially on the ITC format. They could just as well physically barricade the windows of the 1st floor and call it a day. Having such a rule just removes the need to adjust dozens of terrain pieces for every tournament.

Also that's one of the reasons why you should take Thunderfire cannons. Especially as Iron Hands player.

He said Iron Warriors. Chaos Marines. Not able to take Thunferfire Cannons.

 

The "Magic Box" is only so that melee armies aren't gimped, but at the same time, it means things like Nanosquid said.

[Panzer]

YES! Death to ITC and it's stupid missions producing the most toxic way to play the game!

 

 

In all seriousness, yeah. The Chapter approved missions are WAAAAAAAAAAY better than the ITC ones. Especially the "lol magic boxes"

 

For example, beginning of turn 1 death company moved 18" before my turn began and stopped right in front of my Iron Warriors gunline, stopping a mere 10" away, but parked inside a building so I couldn't touch them. Lined up at the windows in front of massed bolters and butcher cannons, but lol, magic boxes, you can't see me. Then on his turn 1 they move again to tie up my entire army, and the rest of the game was a slapfight until I died.

 

I can't help but think that this was NOT part of the designers' intent.

To be completely fair, this is only partially on the ITC format. They could just as well physically barricade the windows of the 1st floor and call it a day. Having such a rule just removes the need to adjust dozens of terrain pieces for every tournament.

Also that's one of the reasons why you should take Thunderfire cannons. Especially as Iron Hands player.

He said Iron Warriors. Chaos Marines. Not able to take Thunferfire Cannons.

 

The "Magic Box" is only so that melee armies aren't gimped, but at the same time, it means things like Nanosquid said.

 

Whoops misread that. Still though, the terrain thing is only partly on ITC. Everyone else could just adjust their terrain so that it blocks LoS on the first floor or buy LoS blocking terrain. It's basically only a means to have terrain matter without having to pay a ton.

[nanosquid]

. Everyone else could just adjust their terrain so that it blocks LoS on the first floor or buy LoS blocking terrain. It's basically only a means to have terrain matter without having to pay a ton.

This is at our FLGS with mountains of terrain. Terrain that I am actually kind of in charge of, in fact. I'm kinda the "terrain guy" for our store (I really am an Iron Warrior at heart, lol). I have made sure that we have ample supplies of ruins and buildings with windows balanced against solid blocks. This table was set up to block LoS across the table but allow for smaller "arenas" of crossfire. This is part of why the incident steamed me so badly - I set up the tables for this event to allow for interesting firefights and melee duels in crowded areas balanced with long shots over the tops with sniper perches and bridges over things to allow for fun interaction with jump packs, vehicles, and on-foot infantry.

 

Instead, I spent 2 and a half hours sitting stationary in ONE crappy little box in the corner while we rolled dice back and forth on s4 t4 3+, over and over and over.

 

ITC's terrain mess is worse than GW's terrain mess, but at least with GW's you can work around with some elbow grease and a passion for building.

 

Furthermore, yes, you CAN block off windows with boards and such - quite easily, in fact! But you also don't HAVE to, which ITC doesn't allow for at all.

Edited January 16, 2020 by nanosquid

[GrinNfool]

I couldn't agree more. I played my first ITC event in months on Saturday, and I've been wrestling with the urge to drop the entire hobby since. I cannot imagine why the format is still so ubiquitous, as there were dozens of examples of things that should not work in 40k costing me the game. For example, beginning of turn 1 death company moved 18" before my turn began and stopped right in front of my Iron Warriors gunline, stopping a mere 10" away, but parked inside a building so I couldn't touch them. Lined up at the windows in front of massed bolters and butcher cannons, but lol, magic boxes, you can't see me. Then on his turn 1 they move again to tie up my entire army, and the rest of the game was a slapfight until I died.

 

I can't help but think that this was NOT part of the designers' intent.

The first floor not being visible is a good thing quite honestly.  Magic boxes are something different though, shouldn't be any 360 LoS blocking, thats the fault of the person setting up the table.  First floor not being LoS blocking favors gunline more so than the game already does in ITC... which is A LOT.  Poor terrain setup by your TO is not reasonable grounds to make everyone either 1) make their own terrain or 2) make the game even easier for ranged armies.

 

Edit: I say this as some one who has a lot of ranged armies.  If first floor didn't block LoS I would cripple most enemies so bad in first turn they have no chance to come back in a lot of my lists.  First turn alpha has been shown time and time again to be bad for the health of the game.

Edited January 16, 2020 by GrinNfool

[nanosquid]

The first floor not being visible is a good thing quite honestly. Magic boxes are something different though, shouldn't be any 360 LoS blocking, thats the fault of the person setting up the table. First floor not being LoS blocking favors gunline more so than the game already does in ITC... which is A LOT. Poor terrain setup by your TO is not reasonable grounds to make everyone either 1) make their own terrain or 2) make the game even easier for ranged armies

Please see my above post. This is terrain that I set up myself with the express intent of allowing for varied and unique approaches to different areas that were somewhat separated for exactly this reason. Furthermore, terrain SHOULD be something people have. It's a massive part of this game and its neglect is a big part of the problem with the current scene. I really hope GW reworks their terrain rules soon, as it's kind of my main army in a way. Edited January 16, 2020 by nanosquid