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

[jaxom]

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. 

 

Before C:SM2.0 came out I did an analysis of the codices similar to this. The aspects I had were Board Control, Monster Killing, Chaff Clearing, and Assassination. I then broke down those objectives into methods. For example, Board Control can be achieved surgically in specific turns with fast/mobile elite units or slowly via an expanding spread of large body-count units.

 

 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.

 

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 [.....]

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.

 

I think any form of mission involves counter-play around objectives. Other than that, I think you've described the ITC format and the skills it tests very well. The follow up is that the decision making is part of a larger process in maximizing one's army strengths/minimizing its weaknesses in the current play space (armies, players, terrain, etc). Rather than adjusting how an army is used against the opponent within a mission, one can partially adjust the mission. As you note, one area of counter-play in ITC is the skill of making that adjustment. I think the larger question is: would the absence of that option lead to more or less varied lists within competition play? 

 

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. 

 

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.

 

I honestly think this is the next great paradigm shift waiting in the wings for competition play. Better, standardized terrain which is designed specifically around existing base sizes and movement speeds; along with tournament packet instructions with how different unit types interact with it. You want a bunker with doors on both sides, but the enemy-facing one starts closed to deny line of sight while letting you not have to back track from the rear? Great, but it takes 3" of movement to open the door, the door is in a specific place, and can only fit two models at a time. No charging through solid walls.

[chapter master 454]

I would comment that ITC's biggest issue is how terrain is always set-up in the same fashion, ensuring aspect of the table being present which actually detracts from tactical building, leveraging and adapting as you go.

 

Having 2 massive LoS blocking terrain pieces always in the centre, always covering an amount of space you can count on means you aren't planning for anything other than that map. Would be like playing Starcraft on scrap station only. (heck, throw in the good ol' "Fox only, no items, Final Destination" meme here for good measure). After all, there are some armies that LOVE LoS blocking, some hate it. In this case, you build an army to the map, not the opponents you expect.

 

If there were 3-4 map variants with their own decisions to be made about them then it could be excused but as far as I am aware ITC says "gotta have them L-pieces like tetris".

 

The objectives aren't an issue imo. I would argue ITC lacks more non-combat based objectives but that is about it. Kill, Hold, Kill more and Hold More all promote their own facets of the game. Kill and Kill More promotes active lists that don't just soak firepower for days without returning it while Hold and Hold More promotes active thought processes about movement, positioning and all 4 feed into each other and into following turns (Maybe you give up kill more for hold more because you value holding the ace in the sleeve while maybe sometimes going for the throat might be the better play).

Choosing your objectives also helps lists not get blocked from doing anything. As I remind people, when your world eaters and draw hold the line, defend objectives in your deployment and overwhelming firepower...how good does that feel? What about the Tau player you are facing who just drew what would of been your dream hand? Might be a turn of shooting for the tau but neither player feels good about what they need to do.

 

Spam is something of another sticking point people stand on and keep it so firmly under their boot it is beginning to form some disturbing thoughts that only Slannesh approves! When we talk spam...I mean...how else would you build a list? -looks at card games- "huh...he's spamming his good cards. He is too. He's Spamming tokens because their good". If you have a good unit, why not take 2-3 of it? Not like we are playing 40k Highlander here.

I assume we all remember the classes on why units can suck in single takes but will rock when doubled or tripled? I assure you, if you only had to face 1 plaguebearer squad of 30, you would laugh it out of the table. If you had only 1 riptide to contend with, you would chuckle. If Iron Hands only brought 1 flyer you wouldn't bat an eye. We take things in groups because it is effective and by all accounts we should be thankful to the rule of X for keeping things in line. Otherwise there would be TRUE spam (want 5 Riptides?).

 

There are multiple points I agree with, enjoy and find the angle correct but I am throwing my hat in the ring that the problem isn't even the missions:

 

It's the Map!

[Claws and Effect]

ITC rules have a place: ITC tournaments.

 

And I understand why it was done. So that a tournament in Georgia and a tournament in Oregon are operating on the same basic rules. It's so a ranking system has any sort of validity at all. Can't have an overall ranking system if the rules are different at every single tournament.

 

That said, it really needs to STAY in the tournament scene. I'm good with people doing ITC practice games and such, but my local meta is home to one of the top 5 US tournament teams...so ITC is all I can find if I step outside of my immediate group of gaming friends.

 

That actually suits me just fine. My gaming group likes narrative stuff so I get that. And if I feel like ITC on the rare occasion I know where to go to get it.

[jaxom]

 

If you have a good unit, why not take 2-3 of it? Not like we are playing 40k Highlander here.

I assume we all remember the classes on why units can suck in single takes but will rock when doubled or tripled? I assure you, if you only had to face 1 plaguebearer squad of 30, you would laugh it out of the table. If you had only 1 riptide to contend with, you would chuckle. If Iron Hands only brought 1 flyer you wouldn't bat an eye. We take things in groups because it is effective and by all accounts we should be thankful to the rule of X for keeping things in line. Otherwise there would be TRUE spam (want 5 Riptides?).

 

To follow up on this, spam is the logical conclusion to solving redundancy problems when working with a lop-sided codex or a codex with drastic point dichotomies. For example, Codex: Adeptus Custodes doesn't have a lot of ranged anti-tank fire and there's a big difference in the efficacy of jetbikes with salvo launchers versus the Land Raider with lascannons. Imperial Guard are, in my opinion, one of the best armies out there because their plethora of options for redundancy means a wider array of units to look at for any individual task.

 

For the other side of it, 5 Hellblasters rapid firing do about the same damage as a 5 man Devastator squad with plasma cannons. There's a difference of 46 points (Devastators are cheaper). Are those extra wounds and melee attacks on the Hellblasters worth 46 points along with losing range and long-range rate of fire? Or are those points better spent elsewhere? If they're better spent elsewhere is there a reason to have one squad of Hellblasters and one squad of Devastators or should I double up on Devastators and have 92 points to play with (like for a Lieutenant I can park next to those two Devastator squads)?

 

This is where tactical role and mission objectives come in. If I need a unit that can hit hard and be mobile, now there's an additional reason to go for the Hellblasters. If that's the case, is there another unit I could look at with a similar application, like Inceptors with plasma exterminators, etc? If I know my list is likely to eventually end up knee deep in close combat how does that impact the choice?

[GrinNfool]

 

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.

 

Fair enough then the problem was you set up terrain for ITC games, w/o understanding ITC terrain rules very well.  ITC has several problems... I have commented on my feelings on it in the past... the 1st floor being LoS blocking though is not one of them to me, it makes GW's terrain usable without having to spend time modifying.  Its great you enjoy making and modifying terrain, but for most/a lot of people spending time on terrain is out of necessity not enjoyment.  First floor LoS blocking is the only thing my group has adopted from ITC and is pretty universally agreed thats its much better than being able to shoot through everything on the table sans a concrete wall, and having solid concrete walls through the center of the table is kinda boring aesthetics.

 

It seems to me you set up the tables with an over abundance of large terrain features not understanding the first floor blocking.  With the ruins blocking LoS you can instead have other smaller terrain features dotted around, using the ruins as both height, and large LoS blocking things.  General rules for terrain set up we use is no magic boxes, first floor blocks LoS,and making sure there are reasonable sight lines in several places for your less mobile armies.  If you set up terrain around the first floor blocking LoS it works great, if you tried to set up ruins along with other large LoS blocking obstacles the table would probably be a mess and almost unplayable for castle armies.

 

I've no love lost for ITC, it creates a myriad of balance problems, but the first floor terrain thing is something they got right IMO, as it makes GW terrain usable w/o having to spend additional time on it.

[NTaW]

I've seen several stores in my area rebuild terrain or adopt ITC-esque/specific rules for playing on their tables interchangeably. Not even the two GW stores I stop in at suggest playing without lots of LoS blocking terrain. I was under the impression "everyone" was on board with this notion for 8th.

 

I like the CA missions, they are effectively the only ones I use anymore. They're more interesting to me and the people I game with than ITC or other options. To be honest my eyes sorta glaze over when people start talking ITC at me but that's my own personal exhaustion on the topic than anything else I think.

Edited January 17, 2020 by NTaW

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I play at the most popular GW shop in the US and they have plenty of awesome terrain to plonk down. I consider myself very lucky to say the very least.

[Marshal Rohr]

There is no ‘most popular’ GW shop in the US. There’s no Warhammer World equivalent here. Trying to win an argument by saying you okay at some elite store is weak sauce. Edited January 17, 2020 by Marshal Rohr

[jaxom]

Back in track: is set terrain, bounded location terrain, or random terrain best suited to the skills one thinks should be tested in competition play?

[toaae]

@toaee

 

<snip>

 

I think you're woefully ignorant because your posting history paints you as a GW shill, and you have espoused many times, including in the OP of this very thread, that ITC missions favor gunline armies. I already responded to that line of thought, but you don't often read the content of posts that disagree with you, so I'm not surprised you missed it. I'll re-iterate it here: you calling "hold more" a favorable objective for gunline armies is proof positive that you don't understand how ITC missions affect gameplay. Calling it almost a different game, which you have done in other threads, shows you don't have the game knowledge to see how the fundamental mechanics of the game haven't changed, just what you score victory points on. And it's not like how those victory points are earned are anathema to the game's objectives; they are all from either killing/damaging an enemy unit or standing in a place on the table. Objectives present in both Eternal War and Maelstrom missions. They aren't a massive departure from the game's base rules, they are just a more complex and sophisticated version of it.

 

Am I opposed to greater variety? For real, sir, my last lines in the post were about how I wish we had a greater variety in event formats.

 

 

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.

 

 

As I said, the purpose of the missions is to create good top table games. For the rest of us, they're no better than any other balanced mission. But they aren't any worse, either, so it's no loss that everyone at a tournament plays the same missions.

 

As for times when a better player crushes a lesser one, well, that's got nothing to do with mission format. If someone gets tabled badly, the mission probably had no impact on the game.

 

 

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.

 

 

As I responded to Ishagu, that's simply not true. The game is fundamentally unchanged; the movement phase still works the same, the psychic phase is no different, the shooting phase is untouched, ect. The most a mission can do, any mission, is make a player make a different decision. If ground control was all that mattered, maybe you wouldn't have seen Jim Vesal move him psyker up behind his plaguebearers at last years BAO, opening up an opportunity for Geoff Robinson to make use of the fly rule on his Caladius and snipe out the important character.

 

Or maybe they still do all the same stuff. Cause the range of smite, the character targeting rule, the way fly interacts with ruins, and the lack of rules about how much of a base can hang off a perch were what created that play, and as basic game rules, are the same in ITC missions or book 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

 

 

The major tournament formats don't have a huge variety for a reason. Playing largely the same style game-to-game virtually eliminates the chances of drawing your worst mission against someone who excels at it. Because it used to be that way, with missions being wildly different. I recall an 'Ard Boyz qualifier round where you got extra victory points for killing dedicated transports. I played against a Tyranid player; I lost the mission before I even shook his hand in greeting. An extreme example, but it serves to magnify the issue: no army can be good at all those missions. They are going to have ones they are worse at. And if they have to fight an uphill battle against a particular opponent, not because of the match up of the players or the armies, but the mission drawn, that's going to suck, especially if it eliminates a real contender from a chance at the top spot.

 

So major tournaments have moved away from that.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

You are literally the poster child here for ITC. You can’t even acknowledge one issue. Edited January 17, 2020 by Black Blow Fly

[toaae]

You are literally the poster child here for ITC. You can’t even acknowledge one issue.

There are a number of secondaries that are in need of a review. King of the hill is rarely scoreable, much less maxed. Gangbusters can be maxed by killing a single unit, which makes it far too easy of an objective, and punishes some units far too much, as well as making Custodes infantry a liability. Pick Your Poison is such a convoluted objective that was made to provide a counter to old Ynnari, and seems just out of place. Ground Control is super reliant on which mission is being played, more so than any other secondary, which sort of goes against a principle of the missions to be fairly stable in terms of what can be scored.

 

I find it weird that some missions have easier-to-score bonuses than others. I dont like that any mission can have any deployment type.

 

I wish there were more events running that didnt use the ITC format. I wish narrative events were more commonplace, outside of the big conventions.

 

I think enclosed ruins have too much of an impact on how the game is played, and they should go back to the drawing board on that one, though it's really GW's fault for not explaining how models fit on and in terrain.

 

I wish there was more exposure on the ITC hobby track, and a bigger push to make it a main thing. I wish Reece would stop saying every new thing is "soooooo good." I wish they had a muddy mat for sale.

 

I have my critiques and criticisms. But I enjoy the ITC events I attend, and I can appreciate that at the highest levels of competition, top players like the ITC missions for their ability to make for a strong match. And I like to defend things I like against what I feel is unfair criticism. On Da Waaagh! forums, I often defended GW, because i thought some posters were being overly harsh, unfair, and unrealistic in their expectations. If there was a thread that said "eternal war missions suck!", I'd be in there defending them. I've done it for maelstrom missions before. No, I'm just a poster who's tired of ignorant people taking a dump on how others enjoy the hobby.

Edited January 17, 2020 by toaae

[Chaplain Lucifer]

I can hear the humm of a meltagun warming up, let's play nicer here. It is a controversial topic but let's stay calm and objective. Agree to disagree and move on if necessary.

[Ishagu]

@toaae

 

Why are you making this personal? I specifically point out how GW's own shortcomings in mission design and balance made the ITC missions necessary a few years back for a more positive game experience.

 

I'm also pointing out that GW have improved, and the CA missions are now superior. They are more varied, arguably equally balanced or better, and the evidence from multiple GW events is that they are condusive to more faction and list variety.

[MegaVolt87]

So, if I understand correctly ITC vs CA missions- 

 

CA= random, random not good

ITC= not random, good

 

Then ITC terrain rules Vs standard, standard is not great. The terrain thing seems to be not just an issue with the rules but how much is used/ setup itself. Also I think there is a big difference to impassable LOS blocking terrain, and LOS blocking terrain that is passable/ can interact with. I can see why the tem "magic boxes" is a label. Is that about the gist of what's happening? 

[Cpt_Reaper]

It would be nice of the ITC rulemakers acknowledged CA17/18/19 in some way. Because with nothing said (that I am aware of) it does come across that ITC thinks they know the right way to 40k and everyone else does not.

 

40k does need the terrain rules to be fixed. Badly. The missions and objectives do not (although I would tweak some Maelstom cards to remove D3 VP and just make them a flat 1 for X, 2 for X and Y).

 

The issue is ITC has become a byword for fair and not competitive. It is competitive, but is it fair?  I cannot say for I obey certain list building rules (tactical squads must be 10 mean with special and heavy weapon, 1 Platoon commander per 6 infantry squads and always run a command squad etc) that I acknowledge put me at a disadvantage before the deployment is even rolled for.

 

In short, I agree it is time to question the need for ITC. The answer will not be an overnight conclusion. ITC may evolve, it may stay exactly as it is or it may be thanked for all it has done and laid to a well earned rest.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

ITC players are living a sheltered life. The CA missions are more of a true test of skill in my opinion and can force you to think outside of the box. I only play ITC with friends prepping for a tournament... there’s little if any immersion - I feel like a hamster on the proverbial treadmill slogging along.

 

That said ITC has done some good things for the game such as the ground floor of ruins counting as line of sight blocking. I prefer matched play for narrative games... multicasting spells and no limit on command point rerolls are things I don’t enjoy.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

ITC missions can be good as they allow disadvantaged armies to play to the mission and still win strategically. The first floor LoS blocking is also important because what's the flip side of all the complaints in this thread? Oh, you just shoot through all the windows and table my army turn 1 before I can even charge? Great. Real fun.

 

I do support giving CA a chance as the variety they bring is a welcome change to min/max spam with lists essentially being 3-6 top tier units and rest max cheap troops for objective scoring and CP generation, but let's not pretend ITC didn't implement all its unique rules changes for a reason, and that reason is often to stop garbage gameplay like zero LoS blocking terrain on the board or things like Repulsor Jenga.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Tyberos the Red Wake

[HeresyBeliever]

I have not played ITC in 8th edition. 

 

But I have played loads of CA mission from 2017, 2018 and 2019. 

 

When you look over the internet all the 'meta' talk is ITC. You take the 'meta' list into a touranment using CA missions and its good but not world stopping. Its beatable in most missions. 

 

Does ITC favour going first or second? There is a good balance of missions in CA where going first is a disadvantage. 

 

From reading lots online and playing CA touraments there is always a better mix of armies with a chance of doing well. 

[Closet Skeleton]

 

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

 

 

Hah, no. Melee armies suck in 40k, indirect fire shooting is a work around, regular gun lines would dominate way more on board where the cover doesn't actually block line of sight.

 

Raven Guard and Thunder fire cannons would be way weaker in marine internal balance without wide line of sight blocking terrain.

 

Being able to charge Tau from behind ruins evens out the massive difference between armies that can and can't block over-watch through special rules.

 

Does ITC favour going first or second? There is a good balance of missions in CA where going first is a disadvantage.

ITC favors going second unless you can shoot your opponent off the board or need to get a deepstrike off with only allowing one turn of enemy movement.

 

I can see why the tem "magic boxes" is a label. Is that about the gist of what's happening? 

 

Magic boxes applies to 'ruins' with four sides, these appeared at some big US tournaments but most UK events don't use them.

[chapter master 454]

Again I point that there really only seems to be 1-2 sticking points against ether format.

 

ITC gets railed based on terrain first and the secondary objectives second.

 

Maelstrom gets railed for Double Random nature it has from the cards (though 2019 alleviated this a little) and the cards awarding random amounts of VPs.

 

Almost feels like as a community we could you know...fix those a little bit.

 

Like...create our own format, with blackjack and daemonettes. Not like we are talking about a format that didn't already do that (and to a much greater degree).

[Ishagu]

Maelstrom isn't what I'm waving the flag for. It's the CA Eternal War missions.

The ITC terrain rules are also a seperate issue from the missions.

[sairence]

Just on the note of Maelstrom. CA 18 alleviated randomness a little by allowing you to drop 6 cards right away. CA 19 made it massively better, by allowing you to drop more as well as select active objectives from a hand, giving you even more control over what you put down.

 

I think ITC is okay, but the new CA missions, both EW and Maelstrom, are just really good.

[jaxom]

Again I point that there really only seems to be 1-2 sticking points against either format

Agreed. In either, or a new community developed format, a key question for TOs and TPs is: what player skills are part of the competition?

[Tyriks]

I am not a fan of ITC missions, and I haven't been for a while now. They change the game in ways I don't personally enjoy. That said, I'm not sure what value there is in telling people who do like it that CA is better than ITC.

 

I don't think it's time to ditch ITC missions because more variety is better. If someone thinks CA missions are entirely superior, they can play them exclusively. For people who love ITC, they can keep playing them. This isn't a bad thing.