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

[Cpt_Reaper]

So if we're to ween people off of ITC so we can put it to rest there are a few steps.

 

1) Only allow CA missions in the main ITC pack. ITC no longer provides nor supports custom missions.

2) Drop secondary objectives.

3) Have a check box for tournament organisers to select if they ran alternative missions and objectives or not. This will affect the value of a tournament in tracking player stats.

4) once GW fixes terrain ITC no longer provides any rules and simply tracks player stats.

 

Personally I'm more of the mind that we could go straight to step 3 right now.

[Overwhelming Odds]

 

 

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.  

 

Jaxom,

 

You really got me thinking about this.  I think I can offer a solution, provided someone is interested in said solution.

 

In the military, they have "exercises" that test out a base or unit's competency, training, and execution at accomplishing a mission set.

 

There is a section that is created from subject matter experts (SMEs) that come from multiple aspects of the base or unit.  They are the knowledge pool for creating the background and setting for the upcoming exercise.  The term the Air Force uses is "white cell".  They compile information, graphics, data, and much, much more prior to the exercise and then adjust it as the exercise is ongoing.

 

What does this have to do with narrative events?  I could create a packet of missions and objectives that mimic real-life with actual objectives that military forces care about.  I could generate the backstory and current events information to set the stage.  I would include "bits and pieces" of the battlefield environment and the event organizer would be the only one who would know the actual battlefield layouts, deployment zones, and missions before the event.

 

The players would have information to go off of and work with.  They would have to glean details though.  Nothing will be black and white.  That is the whole point.  You try and tailor a force that can accomplish what you think you will encounter on a battlefield you expect to fight upon.  

 

This is exactly how the military tests capability and competency.  They give you an idea of what is to come, but there will be curve-balls.  You will have to adapt, but the missions are always within your "lane".  

 

If anyone is interested in this, let me know.  This can be applied very easily to Warhammer 40K.  They are parallel in form and function.

 

V/r,

 

Dan

Edited February 13, 2020 by Overwhelming Odds

[Snazzy]

Because the ITC is so predictable and variation between missions is near non-existent, certain units become overly powerful as a result, whist others end up as completely ineffective.

 

That is sort of the point.  Crush the influence of risk in order to maximize emphasis on choices.  I don't have a problem with that idea of competitive play.  My gripe is more of how prestigious ITC has become.  It creates a perception that this is how the game is meant to be played at the highest level, even GW didn't design the game to be played in that format.  GW monitors ITC scene, so as time goes on 40K's internal balance may very well reflect ITC's meta, simply by the prestige and sheer number of participants.  That has much more to do with GW vacating the official tournament scene, leaving a vacuum for ITC to fill.

 

CA missions are solid and inject an element of surprise in the objectives.  I just don't know how popular that will become at the highest levels, because competitive players tend to hate not having control over outcomes.

[Ishagu]

CA missions aren't random.

 

Are you a better player if you control every variable, or are you better if you adapt to difficult conditions and go on to win?

 

The latter.

 

The ITC is too focused on the list building. In effect you win or lose your game a month before you play. Is this REALLY what 40k is intended to be? I'm not convinced.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Ishagu

[Focslain]

 

Jaxom,

 

You really got me thinking about this.  I think I can offer a solution, provided someone is interested in said solution.

 

In the military, they have "exercises" that test out a base or unit's competency, training, and execution at accomplishing a mission set.

 

There is a section that is created from subject matter experts (SMEs) that come from multiple aspects of the base or unit.  They are the knowledge pool for creating the background and setting for the upcoming exercise.  The term the Air Force uses is "white cell".  They compile information, graphics, data, and much, much more prior to the exercise and then adjust it as the exercise is ongoing.

 

What does this have to do with narrative events?  I could create a packet of missions and objectives that mimic real-life with actual objectives that military forces care about.  I could generate the backstory and current events information to set the stage.  I would include "bits and pieces" of the battlefield environment and the event organizer would be the only one who would know the actual battlefield layouts, deployment zones, and missions before the event.

 

The players would have information to go off of and work with.  They would have to glean details though.  Nothing will be black and white.  That is the whole point.  You try and tailor a force that can accomplish what you think you will encounter on a battlefield you expect to fight upon.  

 

This is exactly how the military tests capability and competency.  They give you an idea of what is to come, but there will be curve-balls.  You will have to adapt, but the missions are always within your "lane".  

 

If anyone is interested in this, let me know.  This can be applied very easily to Warhammer 40K.  They are parallel in form and function.

 

V/r,

 

Dan

 

This got my attention, please PM me more. Will add it to my lore database.

[toaae]

New ITC packet out. Secondaries changed to maelstrom style cards, kill more changed to a secondary. Each mission has the objectives placed according to deployment.

 

I may have been played. Shouldn't go around believing the internet, folks.

Edited February 13, 2020 by toaae

[jaxom]

 

 

 

Jaxom,

 

You really got me thinking about this. I think I can offer a solution, provided someone is interested in said solution.

 

In the military, they have "exercises" that test out a base or unit's competency, training, and execution at accomplishing a mission set.

 

There is a section that is created from subject matter experts (SMEs) that come from multiple aspects of the base or unit. They are the knowledge pool for creating the background and setting for the upcoming exercise. The term the Air Force uses is "white cell". They compile information, graphics, data, and much, much more prior to the exercise and then adjust it as the exercise is ongoing.

 

What does this have to do with narrative events? I could create a packet of missions and objectives that mimic real-life with actual objectives that military forces care about. I could generate the backstory and current events information to set the stage. I would include "bits and pieces" of the battlefield environment and the event organizer would be the only one who would know the actual battlefield layouts, deployment zones, and missions before the event.

 

The players would have information to go off of and work with. They would have to glean details though. Nothing will be black and white. That is the whole point. You try and tailor a force that can accomplish what you think you will encounter on a battlefield you expect to fight upon.

 

This is exactly how the military tests capability and competency. They give you an idea of what is to come, but there will be curve-balls. You will have to adapt, but the missions are always within your "lane".

 

If anyone is interested in this, let me know. This can be applied very easily to Warhammer 40K. They are parallel in form and function.

 

V/r,

 

Dan

This got my attention, please PM me more. Will add it to my lore database.

Right? I can roughly see how it could be applied to create a cool narrative event.

 

EDIT: Regarding list building; is that skill truly being assessed when board feedback, netlisting, and clubs taking a single list a thing?

Edited February 14, 2020 by jaxom

[Snazzy]

CA missions aren't random.

 

Are you a better player if you control every variable, or are you better if you adapt to difficult conditions and go on to win?

 

The latter.

 

The ITC is too focused on the list building. In effect you win or lose your game a month before you play. Is this REALLY what 40k is intended to be? I'm not convinced.

 

The Devil's Advocate in me would say that the fewer the variables, the fewer influences in evaluating who is "the best".  But, what 40k is intended to be is exactly the point.  Whatever GW intended 40k competitive play to look like didn't win.  ITC won because on some level people like the predictability.  

[Ishagu]

Did it? Or is it popular because the most prominent organisers in the US use it?

 

Refer back to my original post. If you rewind back a few years it was a better way to play a competitive game. This isn't the case now, and the true crime is the fact that a lot of competitive players are literally oblivious to this, often by their own admission.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I do think one factor that hasn't been discussed yet is that alot of people don't buy chapter approved and/or their fractions tactical objective deck. It's fairly easy to get the points online from sources but not the missions. ITC mission packs are free and easy to access, and don't require you to thin out a deck that you may not own.

 

Personally I like the new CA missions more but I've invested in the cards and I can look at them whenever I want.

[Kain Mor]

You don’t need the cards for the Eternal War missions which is mostly what has been suggested as the new competitive mission set, just chapter approved. Plus if LVO/Adepticon and such fully embraced the CA missions I’m sure they could work it out with GW to release free copies of just those, still leaving some motivation to buy CA.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

People were mentioning GW events and the next throne of skulls is using maelstrom, and alot of their past events have. That and most of the posts are based on what's wrong with ITC, and people defending it rather than what's right with CA missions.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I do think one factor that hasn't been discussed yet is that alot of people don't buy chapter approved and/or their fractions tactical objective deck. It's fairly easy to get the points online from sources but not the missions. ITC mission packs are free and easy to access, and don't require you to thin out a deck that you may not own.

 

Personally I like the new CA missions more but I've invested in the cards and I can look at them whenever I want.

In my experience, hardcore ITC supporters that I've met don't buy anything GW. They buy recast and download rules online. I was belittled for buying CA19 which is what was the final nail for me.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

 

I do think one factor that hasn't been discussed yet is that alot of people don't buy chapter approved and/or their fractions tactical objective deck. It's fairly easy to get the points online from sources but not the missions. ITC mission packs are free and easy to access, and don't require you to thin out a deck that you may not own.

 

Personally I like the new CA missions more but I've invested in the cards and I can look at them whenever I want.

In my experience, hardcore ITC supporters that I've met don't buy anything GW. They buy recast and download rules online. I was belittled for buying CA19 which is what was the final nail for me.

 

 

Yeah, I'll bet that's how all these stores that run and support the ITC stay in business...by NOT having their products be purchased.

[tychobi]

Chapter approved is a fine publication that should never have contained rules errata. Points changes are not something they should be charging money for in my opinion. Most ITC players in my area buy much GW and forge world and keep up to date as best they can with purchasing publications. Buyer fatigue is real. The sheer weight of paper involved with some army set ups rules is daunting. I am sad that there is no living rules set and that some updates have a paywall.

 

I think that ITC has shown an inclusive quality that GW as a public company is unwilling and unable to support. While CA missions have advantages I am unmoved from my support of ITC as a system. To me its a bit like the separation of Church and State. Uncomfortable for some but extremely neccisary.

[Ishagu]

So there's new ITC missions.

 

The plural is a bit generous.

 

Still kill/kill more in every game, the “mission” is still worth 14.3% of the possible victory points in each game, 28.6% are about tailoring your own mission and 57.1% are the same every game.

[Snazzy]

Well, someone ought to think of something, if the domination of ITC is not a desired outcome.  According to Frontline Gaming, last year saw a 40% rise in number of ITC event organizer registrations.

[ShinyRhino]

Well, someone ought to think of something, if the domination of ITC is not a desired outcome. According to Frontline Gaming, last year saw a 40% rise in number of ITC event organizer registrations.

I have to wonder at the source for that data. If it's purely pulled from the BCP app, you have to be wary of its actual value. A lot of people use the BCP app because it's an easy way to organize the event registrations and create pairings, deal with mid-event dropouts, etc

[toaae]

 

Well, someone ought to think of something, if the domination of ITC is not a desired outcome. According to Frontline Gaming, last year saw a 40% rise in number of ITC event organizer registrations.

I have to wonder at the source for that data. If it's purely pulled from the BCP app, you have to be wary of its actual value. A lot of people use the BCP app because it's an easy way to organize the event registrations and create pairings, deal with mid-event dropouts, etc

 

ITC requires opt-in reporting. If they saw a 40% increase, it's because they had a 40% increase.

[Ishagu]

The ITC does a lot of great things such as the tournament tracking and integration with the BCP app.

 

And those things have nothing to do with the missions. This topic is not an attack on the ITC itself, it's a critical view and question of why they continue to use 3rd party, homebrew mission rules when the official missions are now the superior way to play 40k.

[Indefragable]

 

<snip>

In my experience, hardcore ITC supporters that I've met don't buy anything GW. They buy recast and download rules online. I was belittled for buying CA19 which is what was the final nail for me.

 

 

I think there's bad apples on all sides, so while I get where you are coming from (and know the exact breed you speak of), I think it's unfair to say all ITC players do x and all non-ITC players do y.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I should have made the disclaimer that my views are shaped by anecdotal evidence. The ITC players I associate* with do not want CA to exist, let alone admit that the creators of the game could improve their rules to where ITC isn't needed.

 

*associate is a strong term. They are friends of friends, and I avoid dealing with them unless I cannot help it. One in particular calls me a bad player and tells other players to either do the opposite of anything I say or ignore me.

[MegaVolt87]

I should have made the disclaimer that my views are shaped by anecdotal evidence. The ITC players I associate* with do not want CA to exist, let alone admit that the creators of the game could improve their rules to where ITC isn't needed.

 

*associate is a strong term. They are friends of friends, and I avoid dealing with them unless I cannot help it. One in particular calls me a bad player and tells other players to either do the opposite of anything I say or ignore me.

 

When people react that way, you are likely an opinion leader in the group. Keep doing what you are doing.

 

If the missions, points revisions and updated unit entries were free, I don't know what else would make CA desirable as a product  honestly. 

[Indefragable]

I should have made the disclaimer that my views are shaped by anecdotal evidence. The ITC players I associate* with do not want CA to exist, let alone admit that the creators of the game could improve their rules to where ITC isn't needed.

 

*associate is a strong term. They are friends of friends, and I avoid dealing with them unless I cannot help it. One in particular calls me a bad player and tells other players to either do the opposite of anything I say or ignore me.

Sounds like they’re just plain :cuss and wouldn’t be fun at a ball game or a bbq let alone on the other side of the table.

[Orange Knight]

This is a very interesting topic, and the sentiment might not be as unique as some people believe.

 

There are some serious problems with the ITC - specifically it serves to divide the community. The tournament focus is perfectly fine, but the missions do cause issues for player who might not be familiar. It asks a lot of people to learn multiple mission formats, especially as the ITC missions have a large focus on objective selection. This is a particular skill that the core rules of 40k, and the extensions through Chapter Approved will not teach you.

 

I went back to listen to the Chapter Tactics podcast after it was mentioned on this forum, and I did pick up on the fact that the ITC meta indeed dictates how effective certain units are. I think the example with the Ork Trukks was particularly notable. Should we be defending a 3rd party mission format that punishes or rewards certain units in ways that are completely unrelated to the rules written by the game's creators? Perhaps even worse than this is the fact that it reduces unit variety in lists.

 

As for the example of the unpleasant people mentioned above, I think this is an unfortunate but also predictable consequence of any group who focuses too much on any one aspect of the hobby. Perhaps more than ever we are seeing more and more "Competitors" ahead of "Hobbyists" and whilst it's certainly not a problem if you focus on one aspect ahead of another, if that focus becomes too narrow these issues will start to arise. My biggest concern is that the ITC competitors are so focused on success within their narrow bubble that they become completely oblivious to the evolving state of the game that exists outside of it.

 

I feel my opinion might be too strong on this issue, but I believe that abandoning the ITC missions in favour of the official rules will be beneficial for bringing more parts of the community together, and for the health of the game.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Orange Knight