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

[Ishagu]

The problem is that the ITC missions are being pushed by large parts of the community, particularly online.

 

There are entire communities where ITC is the main way to play and people don't have a choice.

 

And lastly there are Hobby Influencers who have a notable voice in the community who haven't even tried the CA missions to any great extent. It's why they aren't being talked about. I'm happy that more and more people are slowly noticing the CA missions.

A case can certainly be made for custom terrain rules, but I'm not sure the ITC format missions are at all necessary in competitive play.

[jaxom]

The problem is that the ITC missions are being pushed by large parts of the community, particularly online.

 

There are entire communities where ITC is the main way to play and people don't have a choice.

 

And lastly there are Hobby Influencers who have a notable voice in the community who haven't even tried the CA missions to any great extent. It's why they aren't being talked about. I'm happy that more and more people are slowly noticing the CA missions.

A case can certainly be made for custom terrain rules, but I'm not sure the ITC format missions are at all necessary in competitive play.

 

I agree with this - yet, I don't think it has to be an issue of one or the other. Consider my next few sentence an ideal - one that may not be feasible - or something to works towards for the 40k community as a whole. The tournament/ITC scene subculture has a large degree of representation and the other portions of the community have an onus to increase their communication and representation to those who want something other than ITC rather than pressuring for change in pre-existing areas.

 

I acknowledge that it may be wishful thinking.  Tournaments are the big communal events (and it would near guarantee an audience if they switched formats rather than trying to establish a new event with a different format). Even those "hobby influencers" that are more narrative-based, like The Battlehosts or Independent Characters, will have episodes on "So you want to prepare for a tournament." Yet, the tournament scene didn't start as the beast it is now. The current tournament scene is the result of people wanting something and taking a risk to see "if you build it will they come" to paraphrase. Other subcultures of the community would need to take a similar leap of faith. However, looked at from a market share perspective, the established "hobby influencer" websites skew towards the tournament/ITC scene. An attempt to promote a greater variety of subculture events would greatly benefit from the explicit backing and promotion by such websites, podcasts, Youtube channels, etc.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I was listening to a podcast run by one of the top ITC players in the world. He did not even maelstrom exists.

[Indefragable]

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.

 

Perhaps for the first time in my entire life, I agree with Ishagu. 

 

Don't get used to it

 

 

I think ITC is not bad in and of itself. I think the work that went into it was thought out and its own evolution is pretty good. There is a lot of passion behind it. But there is a single glaring factor that makes it, in this New Age of GW, counter-productive to the game as a whole.

 

ITC is house rules. 

 

It is a customized variation of the game of 40k that is essentially no different than basement beer hammer sessions...it's only difference is that xx,000 people around the world play that "beer hammer" rule system the same way. 

 

Even that is not a bad thing in and of itself, except for another jarring effect this has:

 

GW balances the game based off what happens in ITC games. 

 

This is a major problem because it therefore means that every 40k player in every part of the world is essentially dealing with the effects of some people's "beer hammer" custom rules. Imagine if people showing up to LVO had to deal with 1000pt Leman Russes because that's in my basement I say they only cost 10pts, and GW decides that based on their performance in my basement they are going to nerf them in the next Chapter Approved. Yes, there is more to it than that, but that is, essentially what the ITC rule set is: custom rules. 

 

Back in 7th when GW didn't give a flying , ITC was arguably the "right" way to play since it stepped in to provide a more balanced way of enabling players to play as the game was intended to be played. Like a kind uncle stepping in for absent parents. Now, with GW being more involved than ever before (take it or leave it), the kids are torn between the uncle and the parents. Who's right? 

 

I think one of two things should happen:

 

A. GW creates its' own stamped, branded, and TM'd OFFICIAL TOURNAMENT RULES which then become the basis for all competitive FAQ's, Errata's, points adjustments, etc...

This would likely open up its own can of worms for a variety of reasons, but then GW would be directly responsible for its own competitive product instead of essentially unofficially-officially outsourcing to the ITC creators. 

 

B. GW officially endorses the ITC ruleset.

This too has its flaws since it means that GW is admitting it outsources its "Tournament Product" to others. What happens when ITC wants X and GW wants Y for that ruleset? Does this mean that for the "core" game things like all 1st floor buildings are now Line-Of-Sight blocking? Etc...

 

Of course there's always a chance that this happens:

 

C. Combo of A + B where GW creates its own official rules and uses them at abc events while ITC continues to be used at def events. 

I could see this happening, but IMHO it is not ideal since it can continue to divide the community*. 

 

 

The Pro's of ITC are that it streamlines things at all stages of the game: you have much more control over your own win conditions (compared to the incredibly fickle maelstrom cards) and it also incredibly easy to look back and analyze what went right and wrong about a game. There is also something to be said about the "laboratory" element of ITC games: the fact that board setups and the rule system is nearly identical game to game means that players spend more time on the tactics angle rather than having to absorb different mission conditions and terrain scenarios. That is good for some and bad for others, but at the end of the day what all can agree upon is that it speeds things up. 

 

The Con's of ITC are that it is arguably overly streamlined. There aren't as many nuances and variations. There is very little "fog of war" aspects that make people have to think on their toes and adapt to situations. Since there is so much control over how you play out a match, this allows people to hyper-optimize their lists and tactics to the point of (arguably) taking the fun out of it. This in turn makes "net lists" the boogeymen that they are. 

 

I've played both ITC and "normal" GW games of all flavors and there are aspects to both I like. GW has definitely evolved its 8th edition game and is getting better and better with the conditions that ITC aims to "fix." I.e. picking x # of objective cards out of a mealstrom deck.

 

The very difference brings up the philosophical question of what makes a "better" player? The one that can adapt to any situation among a game with a thousand variables? Or the one that is able to remove as many variables as possible and execute the most finely tuned strategy possible with the mathematically minimal margins of error possible? 

 

Who is a better runner? The person who runs 100m sprints 26.2 times a day or the person who runs a single marathon? 

 

 

*if you don't think there is a divide throughout the community between those who want to play ITC all the time and those who want to play "the book" missions, you're in a bubble. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Indefragable

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Epic post !!!!!

[MegaVolt87]

Privateer Press does tournament mission packs every year for warmahordes and they are just about perfect for tournaments. I can't understand how a bigger, established entity like GW can't manage the same. 

[Ishagu]

Privateer Press does tournament mission packs every year for warmahordes and they are just about perfect for tournaments. I can't understand how a bigger, established entity like GW can't manage the same.

You mean like the annually updated Eternal War missions in Chapter Approved?

[Panzer]

 

Privateer Press does tournament mission packs every year for warmahordes and they are just about perfect for tournaments. I can't understand how a bigger, established entity like GW can't manage the same.

You mean like the annually updated Eternal War missions in Chapter Approved?

 

 

Not to mention the tournament suggestions like rule of 3 etc. ^^

[Closet Skeleton]

ITC isn't designed for purely player experience, its also designed to add consistent score granualirity across rounds. The Chapter approved missions don't do that. This is why GW tournaments just give you flat points for a win or draw while ITC and ETC give different grades of wins. ETC used to be my least favourite system because the random crap like two missions at once and extra kill points to make the scores more granular just felt like a pain while ITC was simple to work out.

 

GW events aren't 'fair' because you have best game and best army votes added to your base score as tie breakers (independent events that add painting and sports that way do so only as effective deductions from an easy to achieve base level). I don't have a problem with that but I see why it doesn't appeal to some people.

 

I was listening to a podcast run by one of the top ITC players in the world. He did not even maelstrom exists.

 

Why would a tournament player mention Maelstrom? Until the most recent Chapter Approved and the White Dwarf prototype it just hasn't been designed as a 'fair' system.

 

 

 

 

GW balances the game based off what happens in ITC games. 

 

This is a major problem because it therefore means that every 40k player in every part of the world is essentially dealing with the effects of some people's "beer hammer" custom rules. Imagine if people showing up to LVO had to deal with 1000pt Leman Russes because that's in my basement I say they only cost 10pts, and GW decides that based on their performance in my basement they are going to nerf them in the next Chapter Approved. Yes, there is more to it than that, but that is, essentially what the ITC rule set is: custom rules.

That's really irrelevant.

 

GW also stated that their nerfs to Guiliman were more based off feedback from casual players than tournament ones. The 'first turn deepstrike only in your own deployment zone' beta rule was also ditched because despite tournament players thinking it was fair fluff players kept demanding to know the justification and the balance writers couldn't think of one.

 

There's a lot of considerations with the 'balance' changes, ITC isn't necessarily the most dominant one just because it dominates the online meta discussion. The actual GW staff aren't spending all their time on line.

 

If a unit is too good for its points and gets spammed its probably too good in every format.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Closet Skeleton

[Dark Shepherd]

Theres also the issue of points and rules are written and playtested on GW missions not ITC (most likely). This impacts on ITC.

 

Then changes are made based on ITC implications/feedback

 

That said the GW playtesting being too polite has been an issue for a while. ITC/GW could also help things by waiting for FAQs

Edited January 18, 2020 by Dark Shepherd

[Happy-inquisitor]

In theory there is no reason to use the ITC missions in an ITC event. In practice I think a lot of TOs assume that this is what their players want.  I am curious to know whether this is really the case. Certainly there is the risk of a self-selecting sample where a TO is also a player and asks fellow players at other ITC events what missions they like to play. 

 

There seems to be little problem with ITC events using other mission sets selling out - e.g. Caledonian Uprising recently. So while TOs seem to assume they need to offer the ITC missions I am not sure that is really the case, they can run successful events using other mission packs.

 

I would love to see a lot more variety in the mission packs that ITC events use and if we had that I think there would be a lot more data to support the increasingly popular hypothesis that the ITC missions are creating a narrower meta than other mission sets. As things stand we have some data which supports that hypothesis (including Caledonian Uprising) but more would be nice. Also i think it would open up the competitive scene to more players, the ITC missions are very much a matter of taste and there are clearly a number of players out there who do not find them to their taste.

[Biscuittzz]

If GW were really bothered, I guess all they would have to do is tell whoever owns/runs/writes the ITC rules (FLG?) that if they want support from them in tournaments and other ventures that they need to only endorse the GW ruleset and missions.

 

But they don't so I guess they don't really mind ITC as it is.

 

Plenty of companies that have a competitive game allow others to run the competitive side of it. E.g. Blizzard have just given the reigns of comp SC2 and others to ESL.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I've just played to game in as many days of CA 19 missions. Crusade and Lockdown. I spent the entirety of those two have CA being derided from across the room by ITC players (who also claimed the Rule of 3 applies to pick up games and not just Organised Events as per the FAQ).

 

My opponent loved both games. Crusade you score VPs at the start of your turn, Lockdown at the end of your turn. And Acceptable Casualties is amazing. Being able to win after being tabled is huge. (I still lost after being tabled in both games)

 

I expressed my disdain for ITC. I was told by said 3rd party that I'll find it hard to attend tournaments in Australia if I don't like ITC. I just won't play in tournaments anymore.

[Overwhelming Odds]

I guess it is time for me to do a full blown analysis and commentary on the Chapter Approved 2019 mission sets.  Seeing as I have now played them all, I can attest to how good they are "real world".  But I can also do a breakdown of what makes them so great.  I already did this with Maelstrom of War missions.  Check it out if you haven't. Time to do the rest I guess.

 

V/r,

 

Dan

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I can’t wait to read your thoughts Dan !

[CaptainMarsh]

 

I was listening to a podcast run by one of the top ITC players in the world. He did not even maelstrom exists.

 

Why would a tournament player mention Maelstrom? Until the most recent Chapter Approved and the White Dwarf prototype it just hasn't been designed as a 'fair' system.

 

 

I don't think the point is that it is surprising an ITC player doesn't play Maelstorm. I think he is saying that the top ITC player wasn't even aware of a play format's existence with the implication that this is a shocking thing. Not sure I agree- I'm sure there are Maelstorm players, and indeed many casual players, who don't know of the ITC format. 

 

I don't care for ITC. I understand the appeal and don't begrudge people for enjoying it. I do think it dominates the meta discussion a bit much and it filters down to the FLGS a little bit much for my tastes. I prefer CA 2019 missions to ITC from a play perspective.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

That’s right and what’s really funny is it was the person who beat him at the last major event. He even said maelstrom helps his overall tactical prowess. Edited January 19, 2020 by Black Blow Fly

[chapter master 454]

Again I feel ITC having set terrain placement is just far too much to give players. Ironically it aides gunline armies rather than hinder to have set LoS blocking terrain as now they know where things can hide and move to get cover meaning they can pick whichever gun they need for it. Heck, Tau being one of the top lists abusing it is kind of counter-logic to how we expect such an army to act, you would expect melee armies to abuse it and gunline to avoid it, after all why block your LoS for your guns (we all know it is to hide shield drones but think about if someone told you a gunline army was hiding units out of LoS was winning them games. You would be a bit puzzled).

[kombatwombat]

I expressed my disdain for ITC. I was told by said 3rd party that I'll find it hard to attend tournaments in Australia if I don't like ITC. I just won't play in tournaments anymore.

I can assure you this is definitively incorrect.

 

Take Perth as an example. We have something in the realm of two formal events per month over here. Last year there were... two? ITC format events here, this year there will likely be three. Neither of them saw big crowds. The two biggest events last year - the state Masters and Team Championships - both used ETC format, which was widely praised. The first event this year, First Blood, was bigger than either of those events and used missions straight out of CA19 Maelstrom, which also saw huge acclaim amongst participants.

 

ITC has crept insidiously over here, but it is mostly amongst the most hardcore of the hyper-competitive set. You can find ITC events if you want them, but you can find all formats easily.

Edited January 24, 2020 by kombatwombat

[McElMcNinja]

After attending the LVO, I have come to the conclusion that the whole ITC championship is a sham. Reece and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. They manipulated the pairings to avoid certain players from meeting each other day 1. Not only was this an insult to everyone else that attended (and paid good money to do so), but that's a huge advantage to have. On top of that, their "hand picking" of pairings took so long that round 2 and 3 were delayed hours, round 3 started when it was suppose to be ending. Reece was acting all upset with the delay, which I had to laugh at as it was his fault. Every other ITC event I have attended randomly pairs you round 1 and then goes off strength of schedule after that. But because he didn't want to follow that format, the system crashed.

I had a good time playing against some great players, but had I known ahead of time that 7/8 of the participants were going to be playing at a disadvantage, I would not have wasted my time nor money. I will still attend other ITC events where I know the pairings will be consistent for everyone. I would like to see tournaments using other formats, more specifically Maelstrom missions.

[Schlitzaf]

Then make your own team? The whole purpose of having a team, (which limits army list building in various fashions depending on event), is to some extent prevent you being matched against teammates, whom you have spent months practicing against.

 

Assume this pairing issue you are talking about is that.

[Gederas]

Then make your own team? The whole purpose of having a team, (which limits army list building in various fashions depending on event), is to some extent prevent you being matched against teammates, whom you have spent months practicing against.

 

Assume this pairing issue you are talking about is that.

I think McElMcNinja is saying that the dudes at LVO were basically making it so that certain people would go up against someone they'd very likely lose against? Because that's the way it seems from how it's worded

[jaxom]

I think the implication was a power-protect bracket. For example, one doesn't let the one and two seed competitors in the open pool go at each other in round one because a loss automatically knocks one of them out of the running for the elimination rounds.

[McElMcNinja]

Teams are only to prevent round 1 pairings, after that it goes off of win/loss then SoS (Strength of Schedule). Round 2 I was paired up against a teammate who had the same W/L as me but we had much different SoS. What they did is manipulated the pairings so the top players would not be paired against each other day 1. They did not want the #1 ranked player going up against the #2 ranked player in the second or third round. It helped people like Richard from getting knocked out day 1 (I mean nothing against him personally, I'm just using him as an example). They did not afford that luxury to everyone, thereby giving the higher ranked players an advantage.

Now it was Reece's choice to do that, which is fine, I mean he was the TO. What I disagree with is they didn't let everyone know ahead of time. People like me spent a lot of money to go there, not to mention the time away from family and work (not complaining I missed work, but that I used my vacation days). It's not till after the tournament starts that we find out we are all not playing by the same rules. That's deceitful and a scam. Why not just have a tournament for the top 100 ranked players? My guess is they wouldn't have had a $5,000 cash prize to give away if they did that.

Edited January 28, 2020 by McElMcNinja

[toaae]

The top players had different round 1 scores, and played players who scored the same number of points as they did in round 1. So, the same as it always is.