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

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

I love everything about the ITC and what they have done for our game...... Other then their missions, which I HATE.

 

I got engaged at the LVO. I had a good time over all at the event, playing. The missions left a bad taste though.

 

I can appreciate why they were created but feel they ended up causing harm. Maybe they did better overall then bad though. I can see that the competitive folks needed this. I do think that they are a important subsector of the overall hobby. One who was left to rot on the vine. The problem is that when a non competitive player wants to dip their toe in the waters like I did, we get slammed with unreasonable game play mechanics. I get that they go out of their way to tell you to study the game pack and you should practice. Its just a bridge too far for someone like me to play more games then I do just to get up to speed. I think that the game as is should be enough. It's hard enough to remember what my army can do let alone the extra nuance that comes with ITC.

 

I could understand if there was one event special mission. I could accept that. Six missions is a full time job. A complete change.

 

I also feel that their should be more effort to incorporate the maelstrom cards. Deck building. Other play modes like the one where the Word Bearors can summon deamons. Just focusing on the hardcore play style is soul draining for a casual player like me.

 

I won't go back to a ITC event until there is some serious change to the missions. That sucks for me. It feels like the ITC has my beloved game hostage.

 

/chants

 

FREE 40K! FREE 40K! FREE 40K!

[Atrus]

Been an interesting topic.

Myself, I've only been in one ITC tournament and frankly, it was once too much for me. A local club hosted it with the intent to garner more attendance at the club. Introducing ITC was a new t thing to the area and initially it was met with excitement at jumping in on this talked about format. While the tournament was run very well, all but about 3 of the participants (who turned out to be frequent tournie attendees across multiple states) ended up despising ITC, from the terrain rules that caused a lot of debate and extensive pre game talking over, to the boring mission (pre ITC update lets face it it's one mission wearing a different hat) and sheer killing power requirement. Now I know ITC has updated their secondaries, but from what I hear, ITC is still predominantly kill kill kill which to me is a bad regression to the 5th edition missions where everything was heavily about killing.

This club tried to do further ITC tournaments after this but no one attended again and unfortunately it did end up folding. To this day, ITC is not played in the area- there are tournaments still, but no one wants anything to do with ITC.

 

I can't really bring anything more to the topic methinks as I can only echo the arguments of the ITC mission boredom, over emphasis on killing in secondaries and the false idea of ITC terrain being the great fix to 40k and EW missions being a great step up- I mean the6 were good in CA18. Haven't had a chance to play any from CA19 yet but I've head really good things.

 

In regards to terrain, I feel like a lot of people ignore or at least forget about the existence of Cities of Death terrain which expands on 40k core terrain rules. Those pesky ILOS weapons and units still do their job but take -1 to hit if they can't see their target or at least half (something that should really be in those weapons base rules anyway), generals are rewarded for maneuvering their units to take advantage of high ground and harder cover; wanna shoot through a building? That's cool but highly likely you're getting -1 to hit for obscurity. Same goes if you want the 1mm corner of your Repulsor poking out from that corner to shoot my vehicles antenna.

Why Cities of Death terrain rules (Not even talking stratagems) aren't universally accepted as core terrain rules is beyond me. It is something I've found and I've found others to find to be enriching to the core 40k.

[Panzer]

Why Cities of Death terrain rules (Not even talking stratagems) aren't universally accepted as core terrain rules is beyond me. It is something I've found and I've found others to find to be enriching to the core 40k.

 

Honestly, because it's an optional add-on so in the mind of people it's one thing more they have to talk over with the opponent before the game begins which is annoying, especially if you have to explain to your opponent what it is, and easily forgotten if you want just a quick pick up game. It really should be part of the core rules and I hope GW does so for the next edition.

[Atrus]

Well one could argue that Ro3 is an optional add on for tournament only play, yet many treat it as gospel- but that's off topic.

[Gederas]

Well one could argue that Ro3 is an optional add on for tournament only play, yet many treat it as gospel- but that's off topic.

It's not an argument if that's exactly what it is though. Like.... It's flat-out stated, by the creators of the game, to be a recommendation and just that.

 

[chapter master 454]

For any game like 40k, things that limit taking a certain unit more than a prescribed amount is a good idea. While I get why others may not like it for their own reasons (though personally being in favour of the rule, I am unable to see their reasons with full clarity).

 

The big part of the RoX is that people seem to be forgetting it does change as points change. 1k and under it is Ro2, 1001 - 2k it is Ro3 and so on. Basically the amount of a unit you can take is "thousands unit" + 1. So in a 3k game you can take 4 of the same unit.

 

However that is another topic and has been talked about before I believe.

In terms of the ITC, it is one facet of the hobby. Sadly if it is something your play group prefers over all others, majority rules. Ultimately you need to raise your argument, not your voice with your group in regards as to why they should try different formats and if ultimately they chose to refuse (ether after properly reviewing evidence or just disregard it) then it is on you to make the decision. I am somewhat blessed to have a fairly open play group with most people I play ranging from wanting to do casual screw around (just had a game where mephiston had a hard time with shield drones. Comical) to people wanting to practice tournament lists under tournament conditions (with me acting as "that guy" best I can at their request...quite an unusual request but understandable).

 

I have played from casual (triple land raiders, random hodge podge units, Basic bare back water style rhino mechanised) to trying to find a competitive edge on things (Eldar, Centurion spam RG style) and I enjoy a variety of it. Personally I cannot see the point in "always casual" or "always competitive" because to me that ruins the game. A game is no fun when no-one is trying to win and no game is fun when the only thing anyone is doing is trying to win, you need the mixture of it. Its why I find it odd people get bent out of shape about such things as this but I suppose the issue risen is "ITC bleeding into Casual".

 

I mean, the Eternal War missions from the Chapter Approved books aren't all that different from ITC missions in a spiritual sense, they are all fairly similar with little changing and only a couple having unique mechanics (have to say, lockdown is quite a fun mission to play imo. Really puts the screws on objective planning). Maelstrom of War also only recently got fixed Chapter Approved 2019 but even then those missions are all the same with only a different "twist" which isn't even that "twist" like. The deck building is just ITC secondaries but in different clothes.

 

All three formats have their pros and cons. Certainly I would think the most amusing solution for tournaments would be to use all 18 missions with players having to randomly determine which of the missions they play on out of 18. Will you be on Eternal War or ITC...will you have secondaries to pick from or will you need to get your deck ready?

I do agree possibly on the idea that Chapter Approved should have a "core" section. The Missions and point changes should be considered "core" and freely published with the other bits and pieces being the allure, would certainly push GW to actually make those sections worth it!

[Ishagu]

Bringing this back to provide an update.

 

It looks as though GW have pulled their weight and the ITC format will no longer be in use in 9th edition.

 

A single GW mission format will unify all play across the board.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Ishagu

[NTaW]

I was very interested to hear that their goal is to have people worldwide playing the same game instead of having tournament packets that are the way of the land.

[MARK0SIAN]

That will only happen if these new rules deal with the issues that lead to the rise of tournament formats in the first place. I’m hopeful that they will because the latest missions were much better but some core rules also need changing. Principally, a balanced, competitive match will need to be at the heart of the design rather than an afterthought that it felt like for much of 8th. Edited May 24, 2020 by MARK0SIAN

[Ishagu]

I agree that the ITC was a product of GW's poor mission design in the first place, but once GW started making efforts to improve and tighten the rules and missions (we saw this in the 2018 CA) the ITC missions were no longer a benefit to the community as it took away players and feedback from the official rules.

 

How can GW make their missions and game better when the top players who should be producing feedback and data are off playing a 3rd party homebrew?

[tychobi]

I agree that the ITC was a product of GW's poor mission design in the first place, but once GW started making efforts to improve and tighten the rules and missions (we saw this in the 2018 CA) the ITC missions were no longer a benefit to the community as it took away players and feedback from the official rules.

 

How can GW make their missions and game better when the top players who should be producing feedback and data are off playing a 3rd party homebrew?

They could support ITC as content creators, modders if you will, and pay them for their efforts. You think you want GW running your tournaments but history has shown that ITC is necessary. Getting rid of ITC would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Tournaments do not make money. When GW realizes this and pulls support (again) ITC would be sorely missed. Do you really want the fox in charge of the hen house? Opposing ITC is an anti consumer move that will hurt warhammer in the long run.

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree that the ITC was a product of GW's poor mission design in the first place, but once GW started making efforts to improve and tighten the rules and missions (we saw this in the 2018 CA) the ITC missions were no longer a benefit to the community as it took away players and feedback from the official rules.

 

How can GW make their missions and game better when the top players who should be producing feedback and data are off playing a 3rd party homebrew?

Don’t get me wrong, I believe ITC has been allowed to have far too much influence over balance changes and the new GW missions are definitely better.

 

However, good things that tournaments introduced like line of sight blocking ground floor walls weren’t done in response to the missions but in response to deficiencies in GWs core rules (in that case rules around line of sight and terrain). If GW want separate tournament formats to be a thing of the past then they need to really tighten up core rules like that so homebrew rules aren’t required.

 

Now I know they’ve said they’re addressing that and I’m hopeful they will but I’m yet to be convinced that they’ve started looking at rule design with a “how can this be broken/exploited/manipulated to a players advantage” mindset. Until they do, I think there’ll always be space for a tournament format.

[Ishagu]

Terrain was one of their main focuses for the changes coming to 9th, so I'm pretty hopeful. I believe that a unified format will ultimately be better for everyone in the end.

 

@Tychobi

 

GW are not going to give any significant control over their game to anyone outside of the company. If anything the ITC had far too much impact over the whole game even though they weren't even playing it.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Ishagu

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m really hoping the new system is a more fundamental change than just making ITC homebrew rules official.

[tychobi]

Reece from FLG said he was working on the packet with Brandt, and that anybody who has been to a tourney will recognize the ‘new’ system.

 

He’s under an NDA so take what you will from that.

So they are paying them!

 

@Isharu. I disagree with you regarding the quality of impact ITC and other community creators have had on warhammer. I hope your faith in GW is not misplaced.

[Ishagu]

We'll know soon enough, one way or another!

[Noserenda]

Well they kind of have to really, when they are using tourneys to stress test rules and points, and pulling in specific players from the tourney scene to do internal playtesting; they really need to make sure those players are playing/thinking of the actual rules and not homebrew or the whole edifice falls over.

[Ishagu]

It got to a point where certain units weren't being taken in ITC events not because they weren't competitive due to the official rules, but because they gave up certain points in ITC missions. When the homebrew impacts armies to an extent this big it's time to roll it back.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

One of the main problems with ITC is their arrogance and over stepping their place, I used to visit their shop and every time was reminded how Reecio saved 40k... such gakk.

[Indefragable]

I think the hiring of Mike Brandt as GW’s official events/playtesting “guy” is precisely the sort of smart business move that was needed; the big company “buying out” the smaller one that has a “better” product.

 

...the caveat of course is that Brandt has to be in a “you tell us” sort of role/authority position otherwise—I.e. GW telling Brandt what to do or just wanting him to rubber stamp things his own experience says is unlikely to work—the whole thing will be an embarrassing episode for everyone.

 

I’ve seen it happen way way way too many times in business, so fingers crossed.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I agree that the ITC was a product of GW's poor mission design in the first place, but once GW started making efforts to improve and tighten the rules and missions (we saw this in the 2018 CA) the ITC missions were no longer a benefit to the community as it took away players and feedback from the official rules.

 

How can GW make their missions and game better when the top players who should be producing feedback and data are off playing a 3rd party homebrew?

 

I've played GW games for a long time, so I while I agree that right now with GW taking a more hands on approach that ITC isn't providing as big a benefit as it did in the past. I'm wary of GW keeping it up, 6th and 7th edition tournaments were a mess without ITC. 

  

Also if I'm being brutally honest, I think that the top players were providing feedback by not pushing for these missions to be used. If you look at the missions in Chapter approved they're great for one off games, but the scoring isn't very uniform or granular for a big event IMO you need something more consistent.   

 

It got to a point where certain units weren't being taken in ITC events not because they weren't competitive due to the official rules, but because they gave up certain points in ITC missions. When the homebrew impacts armies to an extent this big it's time to roll it back.

 

Yes but the void created in someones army would likely lead to a different GW unit being used. This is more of a drawback to the consumer than for GW it probably lead to more sales for them. I bought deathwatch in 7th, without ITC I wouldn't have even considered it because of invisible Deathstars. 

[Kain Mor]

It sounds like the nail is in this coffin from today’s article. No mention of Maelstrom at all, and the missions feel heavily inspired by the static tailor your secondaries ITC filth. Not impressed at all, and Jusging from chats with other people in my play group we intend to keep using CA 2019 missions if we can get them to work in the new rules.

[sairence]

It sounds like the nail is in this coffin from today’s article. No mention of Maelstrom at all, and the missions feel heavily inspired by the static tailor your secondaries ITC filth. Not impressed at all, and Jusging from chats with other people in my play group we intend to keep using CA 2019 missions if we can get them to work in the new rules.

If the mere existence of a secondary objective in a game is enough to see this as GW adopting ITC I'm not really sure what to say to you. I don't really see the big issue with getting to pick ONE secondary that either fits the mission of your army. It doesn't sound a whole lot different from building an objective deck out of my faction specific objective cards.

[toaae]

It sounds like the nail is in this coffin from today’s article. No mention of Maelstrom at all, and the missions feel heavily inspired by the static tailor your secondaries ITC filth. Not impressed at all, and Jusging from chats with other people in my play group we intend to keep using CA 2019 missions if we can get them to work in the new rules.

These are just the tournament pack missions. They did say there would be Eternal War missions that I'll bet dont have secondaries.

 

Upon review, I realize the missions with secondaries are called Eternal War.

Edited June 3, 2020 by toaae

[Ishagu]

Lol the mission reveal was a significant slap in my face.