ITC Mission Pack draft for 2020 Season

[dreadmad]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hg0jkeh7fJtcDItZ_3E9uSpTfS_7nTefuaDPMmxUcQc/edit?fbclid=IwAR2Bw_dbXSP630ilSz9seLpPqzLnSSqTduAHAHc0Pz2q8DI2vXNzrXB7cH0

 

Beta until the 28th, but some interesting changes in here. Big winner is the pre-game.

 

Defender gets 2 shots at rolling a deployment that suits, every mission is full deploy ala CA18/19 and Seize the Initiative is dead.

 

Marked for death going by points and not PL now is huge for actually having secondaries to pick against marines.

 

Not sure I'm sold on buffing Recon, but buffing King of the Hill is nice and it might be a solid pick now for some armies

 

----------------------------------------

 

Article that goes into the changes here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/02/14/40k-itc-champions-missions-are-updated/

Edited February 14, 2020 by dreadmad

[Lemondish]

Sticking with ITC secondaries was always going to be the piece I would never agree is worth doing, and few of these alterations change my mind here. Big Game Hunter, Gang Busters, and Reaper remaining entirely reliant on the number of wounds a unit has will continue ITC's meta bending trend of rendering entire units unviable simply because of the value of a single one of the 9 attributes found on a unit's data sheet. How could we expect the competitive side of this game to ever be balanced if a single one of those attributes is deemed so valuable that you gain points for eliminating units that exceed some arbitrary limit, ignoring the ease or difficulty of doing so? 

 

Having said that, I'm willing to see how things play out. Secondaries were always meant as a way to create differentiation in close games, so maybe they'll actually achieve their goal without being as restrictive on the viability of entire armies across the game. I can't be certain how things will shake out, but the change to Marked for Death is welcome. King of the Hill might actually be a viable option now (it was notoriously difficult to score before). Postman looks absolutely hilarious and I can't wait to see what absurd combinations players come up with to try and score this one (even though it won't be easy enough compared to literally everything else). Unless I am mistaken, I don't see Old School, which is also a welcome change because that thing was pretty stupid to begin with. It was a secondary that said "win the game". The strength of choosing secondaries was that you did so knowing you had to achieve yours while denying the enemy theirs, and that always comes from the unique combinations of these objectives. As much as I dislike ITC missions and their stranglehold on competitive discourse, I still want 40k to be a great, fun game that succeeds at all levels. 

 

Cautiously optimistic that the death of seize and the pre-game changes are fantastic.

[Lord_Ikka]

Old School is still there, its right before the Seek and Destroy Secondaries. I believe it is the only "neutral", ie- not Seek and Destroy or Maneuver, secondary.

[Cpt_Reaper]

Why in all that is good and holy is Seize the Initiative removed by ITC?

[Aspecti]

Because it's random, unpredictable and it can decide the game's outcome before the game even begins. Plus it makes deployment slower as you have to keep in mind your opponent might seize.

[Cpt_Reaper]

The game is never decided before the first to wound roll is made.

[Dark Shepherd]

Why in all that is good and holy is Seize the Initiative removed by ITC?

Because its counter to fully deploy rather than alternating deployment.

IMO very unfair for you to set up knowing youre going first 83.333% of the time to then have it yoinked away especially with your opponent being able to deploy at leasure to counter you.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Really glad to see no more Seize.

[Schlitzaf]

New itc rules, are great. I for one am quite happy with them. How secondaries worked in past major turn off for me (because quite complicated/poorly worded).

 

Mostly everything seems more comprehensible now.

[RandomMarine]

Tbh I don't see the issue with seizing especially when we all play a game with randomness built into every dice roll. Not being able to seize will cause auto losses in some match ups which is a major feels bad

[MARK0SIAN]

Tbh I don't see the issue with seizing especially when we all play a game with randomness built into every dice roll. Not being able to seize will cause auto losses in some match ups which is a major feels bad

To be fair, if your army’s only chance to win a game is a 1/6 seize the initiative roll then there’s much bigger issues with the game/mission/list than whether seize the initiative exists or not. I’m not a tournament player but I find it hard to imagine many people go to tournaments with their game plan relying on winning a seize roll.

 

For my 2 cents, I think seize is fine for alternate deployments but it shouldn’t exist when one side full deploys followed by the other.

[RandomMarine]

Don't get me wrong my main list is built around going me second most of the time so it doesn't really effect me too much but what happens to a alpha strike list that ends up going second most of the time they lose (locally) so the ability to seize is a must.

Really what needs to happen is for GW to release official tournament play rules then ITC can go away, in my local meta we use the Warhammer World packs for our tournaments and its going well, I feel that ITC is getting to the point that you can just compare lists the decide who would win and you'd be right 90% of the time which is why I like the randomness in the WHW packs and maelstrom cards

 

Randomness is part of the game and shouldn't be removed IMO but I get why people don't like it

[MARK0SIAN]

Don't get me wrong my main list is built around going me second most of the time so it doesn't really effect me too much but what happens to a alpha strike list that ends up going second most of the time they lose (locally) so the ability to seize is a must.

Really what needs to happen is for GW to release official tournament play rules then ITC can go away, in my local meta we use the Warhammer World packs for our tournaments and its going well, I feel that ITC is getting to the point that you can just compare lists the decide who would win and you'd be right 90% of the time which is why I like the randomness in the WHW packs and maelstrom cards

 

Randomness is part of the game and shouldn't be removed IMO but I get why people don't like it

I’m all for randomness. I just think seizing is too much of an advantage if you’ve deployed second. One of the reasons I’m not a huge fan of ITC games is because they seem to reduce a lot of the randomness and I agree about the list comparison deciding the winner, but removing seizing is a positive move, especially as the massive advantage it offers has a 1/6 chance of happening. The odds of such a great advantage happening would need to be much greater for me to be on board with it.

 

As for Alpha strike armies I would just say that, if an army can only be viably built as an alpha strike force then that’s a problem with army design. If, however, it’s the player who has just built an alpha strike list then that’s the gamble they take, that they may not be able to go first. In either case, a lack of the chance to seize would not be the thing that made the army lose.

[The Unseen]

Yeah, I'm happy to see seize gone.

If your going first, you have to deploy your whole army before you see any or your opponents stuff on the table, then would have a ~17% to just get super punished by an army that got to pick deployment type, their deployment zone, AND counter deploy.

Ouch.

 

Planning to go first and then having the rug pulled from under you feels bad in a competitive format, because you cant really play around it.

If you deploy conservatively on the off chance they seize, your losing lost of the advantage of going first the other 5/6 games.

So you dont, and then curse yourself.

 

And if your list can't survive going 2nd, build a better list.

Not the games fault if your relying on a 1/6 chance of going "gotcha" to the opponent.

 

Also, removing randomness from 40k, or any game really, is a focus of competitive play.

Flipping a coin for who wins and loses is perfectly fair, but it also isn't a competition.

Randomness directly impacts how much player skill matters.

Especially when that randomness is focussed on a handful of super important AND small rolls.

Rolling 20 bolter shots, even bad RNG probably wont cost you the game.

But if the next 10 charge rolls you make are all really bad, that has a much greater impact on games.

[tychobi]

While random seize being gone feels good on paper games being decided by who gets first turn is still an issue. If I know I am going first i can deploy super aggressive and enforce map control and do grievous harm to my foe. Not needing to respect a possible seize roll is a big boon to initiative. Scouts are super powerful if deployed first. Map is mine. No counter play. I have found the first turn more polarizing without a seize roll in the games I have played.