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

[tychobi]

I feel like ITC is a necessary evil.

GW has shown in the past they are not interested in supporting competitive play (I was tournament fantasy 8th player RIP). In said dark past the rules as written made very random games. Malestrom always seemed to be won by who drew objectives they could actually do. It seemed random. Book missions had similar issues of many combos being a forgone conclusion. I often had no way to outplay, my skill meant nothing.

 

ITC is a way to remove the random. It is always a competition. For better or for worse it attracts power gamers in droves and splits the gamers and hobbyists into separate camps. It does get samey and hard counters still exist. 40k is not a fair game but ITC attempts at making it more so for competition sake.

 

As for the internet hype/derision I dont feel like there is a real problem. More folks are coming to the game and forums and are taking up all aspects of our great hobby. ITC excludes no one. Us neckbearded vets, fluff police, hobby snobs, edition collectors, are going to have to learn from the young guns tearing up the tournament circuit. And teach em how to paint :cuss. Scratch that I need an airbrush coach myself. I say keep it positive. Lead and participate in the type of events you want to play in.

 

I love ITC. Saved warhammer as an IP for me. I like tough fair games. ITC is far from perfect and needs to evolve but it is a better competative standard than its competition and deserves evey ounce of success it receives.

 

Asking ITC to go away without presenting an alternative for a growing competative scene feels like sour grapes. Pretending GW balances things for anyone feels foolish. ITC is providing the cleanest data GW has ever had on the mechanics and balance of their game for free. ITC has not changed warhammer. It has made students of the game infinitely more dangerous on the table top.

 

I support ITC 100%

[killersquid]

I have no qualms with the ITC, I just don't enjoy their mission format. Every itc format game I play feels exactly the same, it's pretty boring.

 

I have huge respect for the organization, I just think it'd be good for the game for them to abandon the itc mission format, and adopt the offical chapter approved missions.

[MrZakalwe]

GW has shown in the past they are not interested in supporting competitive play (I was tournament fantasy 8th player RIP). In said dark past the rules as written made very random games. Malestrom always seemed to be won by who drew objectives they could actually do. It seemed random. Book missions had similar issues of many combos being a forgone conclusion. I often had no way to outplay, my skill meant nothing.

 

 

 

Check the 2019 Eternal War missions rather than the 'just for fun random mode' Maelstrom. You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

The EW missions are excellent and don't have the odd set of rewards ITC does. 

 

Using a unit of 7 Bullgryns in ITC is greatly preferable to a unit of 9 because a unit of 9 allows full scoring of the gangbuster secondary while 7 denies it.

Edited January 30, 2020 by MrZakalwe

[Irbis]

Meanwhile, top spots from the Warhammer 40k GT at Warhammer World:
 


Top 100 available here.

No SM in top 4 (with the overall SM win % being actually one of the worst)? Pretty good spread of books in top 30, seeing SM were over-represented (even though GW needs to boost others a bit still)? Orks, IG, and Necrons in top 10, something you never see in ITC? Much less of a netlist spam? Yeah, looks like ITC as it is is pretty much obsolete and warps the game to much greater level than standard rules/mission mix...

[ShinyRhino]

My FLGS only started with ITC formats in the last year or two. At first, I was dead set against it, because of the whole ITC Points ranking system. We already had the "competitive versus casual" clash at the shop, and I figured rankings would only make it worse.

 

In the end, I just went with it. After one monthly tourney, I liked the format. I play the units I like, power be damned. The ITC secondary format gave me the ability to stay relevant on the table, as opposed to just trying to enjoy having my head stove in.

 

Then we started adopting the ITC terrain rules and things started to sour. Magic boxes became a thing (that's where you take an otherwise inaccessible terrain piece, like a closed building, and turn it into a thing your infantry can go inside and be 100% protected from shooting). Everyone started playing melee Deathstar units that hopped into magic boxes on the way to your lines.

We also started with the first floor of ruins blocking LOS, so we had to pretend all the nice terrain at the shop wasn't so nice. Indirect weaponry started becoming the norm. Mortars and allied Basilisks as far as the eye could see.

 

Then came the symmetrical placement of terrain pieces. I used to get to the shop early to set up nice tables that told a little story. Ork town built around a blown up train line, the bunker beachhead with the field of ruined tanks leading up to the line, etc. But after watching people remove and rearrange tables because there was too much terrain, too many firing lanes, not enough firing lanes, no magic boxes, etc, I gave up. Now we all play on identical tables every round.

 

The final straw was the "NOVA L" terrain pieces, and I use the term terrain lightly there. Those are big, 12x12x12 LOS blocking pieces placed dead center in the middle of the table. Done so the poor, powerless Imperial Knights could have some cover on their march into your army. I might have been on board if those weren't literally just three sheets of blank MDF glued into a half box shape, but they weren't and I'm not. These things are the flipping BANE of interesting play.

I complained about them and was told they were just temporary so some of the players could practice for NOVA Open and other big travel events. But they're still there, used every month.

 

That's been my journey through ITC format. It started out great, despite my trepidation. Then it degraded into misery.

But the big thing to realize is that it wasn't the ITC format that caused the problems, it was the ITC terrain rules, symmetrical terrain, and the NOVA L that ruined things.

You can run a great ITC event without their terrain rules. I've seen it done (and participated in it).

You can also run a garbage event using CA missions and ITC terrain rules.

 

Junk the ITC terrain. Keep the format.

Edited February 4, 2020 by ShinyRhino

[Cpt_Reaper]

With CA missions being far and away superior to ITC in every regard, now CA needs to update terrain and we'll be golden.

 

I myself have started no longer referring to ITC as META. it's not. The meta is supported by official rules., therefore those results are official. I saw a comment on Reddit where someone claimed the results of the 40k GT at Warhammer World do not represent the meta. I mean...what? The official GW tournament at their home base isn't representative of the meta?

 

Yeah, that seals it. ITC is becoming too toxic for me.

[Panzer]

With CA missions being far and away superior to ITC in every regard, now CA needs to update terrain and we'll be golden.

 

I myself have started no longer referring to ITC as META. it's not. The meta is supported by official rules., therefore those results are official. I saw a comment on Reddit where someone claimed the results of the 40k GT at Warhammer World do not represent the meta. I mean...what? The official GW tournament at their home base isn't representative of the meta?

 

Yeah, that seals it. ITC is becoming too toxic for me.

 

Meta has absolutely nothing to do with official or not. Meta is what you and the people around you expect to face. Local metas vary a lot, tournament meta varies a little less and if everyone around you plays ITC then ITC is your meta.

So yeah if all that person on reddit faces are ITC lists and missions then the 40k GT isn't meta to him at all.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Panzer

[Cpt_Reaper]

I ask you this then...why is there a meta for rules that aren't penned by GW? Moreso why is there a push to keep said rules now that GW is updating their ruleset yearly?

[Panzer]

I ask you this then...why is there a meta for rules that aren't penned by GW? Moreso why is there a push to keep said rules now that GW is updating their ruleset yearly?

 

Do I really need to explain that? It's not rocket science.

Because GW rules used to suck a lot for much too long so the competetive part of the community started to implement a set of houserules which worked well enough to become popular and spread all over the world. Once something like that is established it's difficult to get rid of it again.

[Cpt_Reaper]

If it worked for ITC, it'll work for Chapter Approved.

[Ishagu]

 

 

I ask you this then...why is there a meta for rules that aren't penned by GW? Moreso why is there a push to keep said rules now that GW is updating their ruleset yearly?

Do I really need to explain that? It's not rocket science.

Because GW rules used to suck a lot for much too long so the competetive part of the community started to implement a set of houserules which worked well enough to become popular and spread all over the world. Once something like that is established it's difficult to get rid of it again.

Just because something has been done a certain way for a while is not an excuse for things to never change, but you're right - people are stubborn, and in this case they are to the detriment of the game and hobby.

 

Another issue is that they don't have a right to complain about GW balance in a meta that uses 3rd party mission and terrain rules, which have a significant impact on said balance.

[Panzer]

 

 

I ask you this then...why is there a meta for rules that aren't penned by GW? Moreso why is there a push to keep said rules now that GW is updating their ruleset yearly?

Do I really need to explain that? It's not rocket science.

Because GW rules used to suck a lot for much too long so the competetive part of the community started to implement a set of houserules which worked well enough to become popular and spread all over the world. Once something like that is established it's difficult to get rid of it again.

Just because something has been done a certain way for a while is not an excuse for things to never change, but you're right - people are stubborn, and in this case they are to the detriment of the game and hobby.

 

Another issue is that they don't have a right to complain about GW balance in a meta that uses 3rd party mission and terrain rules, which have a significant impact on said balance.

 

 

I never claimed it's an excuse or anything remotely similar though?

[PeteySödes]

Another issue is that they don't have a right to complain about GW balance in a meta that uses 3rd party mission and terrain rules, which have a significant impact on said balance.

Again though, a lot of the playtesters (at least those we hear about) either are involved with ITC or FLG heavily. To their credit, usually any glaring balance issues are brought up quite quickly. The IH situation for example you could feel their “told you so” frustration.

 

For a follow up, as far as balance, my main issue is ITC missions make certain units weaker, not stronger in my experience. If something is broken is seems broken regardless of the rule set. Irbis shared those GT stats and while a better spread to be sure, the top 10 was still incredibly IH heavy.

 

A lot of interesting units go in the bin because they die too fast or are secondary fodder. It’s also true melee gets a frankly welcome boost by the magic box (the box itself which I’m not a fan of to be clear).

 

Aside from those though, I don’t see ITC as a balance the hurdle people are making it out to be I guess. There’s still loads of internal balance issues that really don’t need the ITC to be shown.

[Ishagu]

Frequent, timely FAQs, annual mission updates, annual rule revisions, interaction with the community etc - none of this happened 3 years ago.

 

This has all taken place, and yet when a new set of missions is released that have a positive impact on the game from a balance and game-play perspective, people refuse to give it a try or even believe it. Ironically most complaints about game balance occur in relations to ITC experiences, and those don't accurately reflect the game or the intent behind it.

 

It shows the cynicism of certain elements in the community. Always complaining, never willing to acknowledge that things are getting better, which they categorically are.

 

This is what we have to overcome.

 

Edit:

Don't assume that GW are entirely to blame for the IH dominance. That's all I'll say on that matter.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Ishagu

[Zuvassin]

I will go to my grave with the belief that if someone really wanted to test the battlefield abilities of players, they'd run a tournament with a pre-set list (that is, every participant fields the exact same list), the exact same terrain on every table, and the exact same mission every round.

 

IE just like chess.

[Panzer]

I will go to my grave with the belief that if someone really wanted to test the battlefield abilities of players, they'd run a tournament with a pre-set list (that is, every participant fields the exact same list), the exact same terrain on every table, and the exact same mission every round.

 

IE just like chess.

 

Even if you do all that it wouldn't be "just like chess" because in chess you don't get to move all of your pieces before the opponent can move his and you don't get to obliterate half of their army before they can act. Such a tournament would be boring as hell and wouldn't help showing who's the better player at all either. Big nope.

[Overwhelming Odds]

If you truly want to "judge" the command ability of players, you just need to capture the right metrics.  Imagine being "scored" on:

 

How often, and to what level of effect, did you deny your opponent strategies? (Measures command)

How often, and to what level of effect, did you execute your strategies? (Measures command/force management)

How often, and to what level of effect, did you disrupt your opponent tactics? (Measures execution)

How often, and to what level of effect, did you execute your tactics? (Measures execution/synergy)

What are your army's and unit's "Kills to Death" ratio? (Measures unit performance)

What are your individual unit's points "Destroyed vs Lost" ratio (Measures unit performance)

Who created and capitalized on, or prevented, pivotal moments/turning points (Measures ability to react and capitalize/prevent)

How effective was the list for each mission (Measures versatility/composition)

Deployment (Measures planning/preparation)

 

These would be "scored" by a matrix.  Clear and concise qualitative requirements attributed to point values.  Easy.  I would love to see something like this done even in a secondary capacity on top of normal scoring.  It would really separate the wheat from the chaff.   You would easily see who is net-listing and being carried by the list, and who is squeezing every last ounce of performance out of their list.

 

My 2 cents anyways.

 

V/r,

 

Dan

Edited February 7, 2020 by Overwhelming Odds

[TrawlingCleaner]

"We’re rolling into the new ITC season, let’s chat a bit about some of the changes and methodologies behind the decisions we make.

• Added in Super Major officially.
• Decided on the new deployment type.
• Adding in 3 new missions to the existing 6, these will deviate from the main 6 to provide some variety.
• Officially recognizing Chapter Approved missions as ITC missions for those that want to use them.
• Refining the bonus point for ITC missions and secondaries.
• Almost done! Hope to have them ready to rock by Friday the 14th, so events this weekend can use them, baring that, for sure by Sunday the 16th."

This was posted on the FLG website. Seems like even they are starting to move away from their own missions and allow CA missions. Hopefully by refining  the secondaries, units that were gimped by it before come back into prevailence

[Ishagu]

As longs as the BAO, LVO and SoCal use ITC homebrew missions the general ITC scene will not shift at all.

[Closet Skeleton]

Ironically most complaints about game balance occur in relations to ITC experiences, and those don't accurately reflect the game or the intent behind it.

The intent behind the game isn't tied to any mission set. The very concept of wargaming* is against the idea of limited mission sets and while there's nothing to stop a game being designed otherwise the 8th edition rulebook is pretty clear that its written with players adapting mission rules in mind.

 

There's no such thing a 'homebrew mission' in the same way that a codex or special character might have homebrew rules.

 

Tournament play isn't and should never be the standard for the hobby.

 

*tournament play is nothing new but neither are the problems that come from trying to shoe horn a narrative game into an organised play setting, people tried running D&D tournaments back in that game's original version

Edited February 13, 2020 by Closet Skeleton

[Ishagu]

But there are official rules, and then there are 3rd party, home-brew rules.

 

There is nothing wrong with playing a home-brew, but when the people playing it demand balance fixes based on said home-brew it becomes a big problem. Some issues were painfully illustrated in the latest Chapter Tactics podcast - Ork players can't take Trukks because they give up gangbusters too easily, hence Orks are severely handicapped and their list variety diminished. And yet the ITC is supposed to be a source for Meta Data?

 

No it's not. The data it generates is ultimately meaningless beyond some vague indications of faction strength that can be argued or disputed. How can you talk about game balance when your home-brew missions remove units from being viable, and not because of rule shortcomings from GW's designers?

Edited February 13, 2020 by Ishagu

[toaae]

 

Seems like even they are starting to move away from their own missions and allow CA missions. Hopefully by refining  the secondaries, units that were gimped by it before come back into prevailence

 

 

They've always allowed any TO to use any set of missions for their events. In addition, they used to have a "Combined Arms" mission pack, that was just slightly altered BRB missions. This is just codifying the CA missions into a packet and reminding TOs that they can use them for their events.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I listened to a podcast and the head TO said he is okay with both fixed and variable secondaries, both players being able to choose which they want... LOL that’s no solution at all. Reecius is so self enamored now I dont see any real changes coming.

 

What is interesting is they will eventually hit an invisible ceiling because not everyone wants to play competitive tournaments and they aren’t really doing anything to address the greater market.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Black Blow Fly

[Ishagu]

Another issue that no one really talks about is the division of the player-base. Yes, the ITC is popular in the America but these are not official rules that players access in the books they buy. There's a whole new set of missions and variable objectives to learn and master and most players outside of the tournament scene will not do so.

[jaxom]

I listened to a podcast and the head TO said he is okay with both fixed and variable secondaries, both players being able to choose which they want... LOL that’s no solution at all. Reecius is so self enamored now I dont see any real changes coming.

 

What is interesting is they will eventually hit an invisible ceiling because not everyone wants to play competitive tournaments and they aren’t really doing anything to address the greater market.

 

Similarly, in a recent interview on Forge the Narrative about an upcoming event, a TO spent almost thirty minutes talking about and hyping up the ITC-based tournament and about 15 seconds to say there was also a narrative event at the site. No details, just that there was one. This is a poor example, because Forge the Narrative is 85% (rough guess) about the competition tournament scene so that split in hype makes sense. However, it got me thinking (listening in the car, so it stayed a car thought until I saw your post) who does hype up the narrative events? Where are the websites and podcasts that spend time on them? I could only think of Horus Heresy ones. 

 

Another issue that no one really talks about is the division of the player-base. Yes, the ITC is popular in the America but these are not official rules that players access in the books they buy. There's a whole new set of missions and variable objectives to learn and master and most players outside of the tournament scene will not do so.

 

Word. I like listening to 40k podcasts and most are heavy into analyzing units and options in terms of the ITC format. Despite that, and hearing it many times over the past three years (including on the WHTV and 40kStatCenter LVO streams) I have no idea what "Engineers" is or "Gangbusters" yet I know they're used to analyze units. "Well, you can't take this many in the squad because Gangbusters." "Those guys are unkillable when stationary and in cover - guaranteed maximum points for Engineers!" Unit analysis goes into list design and reported lists are the best place to get two very important pieces of information for game design: what does everyone use and what does no one use?

 

Edit: got rid of duplicate quotation.

Edited February 13, 2020 by jaxom