40K Book Play vs ITC Play

[Romans832]

These are merely observations enlightened by this podcast that I feel helps me understand why I can't have a "normal" theory hammer conversation these days...

 

Wow

https://podcasts.google.com?feed=aHR0cDovL3NwbGludGVybWluZC5saWJzeW4uY29tL3Jzcw&episode=Yzg2ZTE0YWZjNzRmNGZlOWFiZWM1MmJiODdhYmUyNmI

Hit the nail on the head... Book playing vs ITC play

No wonder nothing makes sense

 

#67
Mind blown
Book play vs ITC play
Brian, you have completely blown my mind. This explains everything.
You and Jody explained my exact problem planning for OFCC.
I do not play the same game.
In my haydays we played funny missions, but nothing that rewrote the book.
Back in the day OFCC was purely book play with fun missions that fit within the book. In recent years they've moved to ITC format.
No wonder I can't take what I want, it doesn't fit ITC's format...
Funk them, I'm doing it anyways.

 

Crass?

Probably, but I have no way to explain how far out there this game feels and now that someone has explained we're talking to different games: no wonder I'm so lost

[Munkie]

I liked that episode too, and their insights of the difference in quality of units between ITC and non-ITC play were helpful.

I'm not sure how that applies to the OFCC. OFCC is definitely not ITC. The scoring is completely different, the missions are completely different, and there are no chess clocks.

I'd say the OFCC pretty clearly describes the conversation they were having. Considering what makes a good unit and list for the OFCC is completely different than that process for ITC.

For instance, I think my Ynnari Brigade will be a pretty good list at the OFCC. It's very bad at ITC because ITC actively punishes MSU lists. 

[Romans832]

Oh, so OFCC doesn't follow ITC rules/structure?

I thought it did 😕

[Munkie]

The biggest departure from standard match play to ITC is the scoring in missions. The secondaries really push you towards certain list archetypes as they discussed in the latest Splintermind. Things that are normally good at being 40k units like wraith guard are not as good in ITC because they're too easy to get secondary points off of, and have a hard time scoring points themselves.

The OFCC won't have that kind of issue at all, because the missions don't have the kind of secondary scoring designed to incentivize/penalize certain lists.

[Romans832]

Awesome thank you!!!

[CaptainA]

The funny thing is the ITC is The Book. The rules are the same, with only one minor terrain rule to help the damage output of armies in 40k. The missions are different and that is where you get the different feel of what is good and bad. Its the same as any comp system, in any comp system certain builds rise to the top as to what is the best in that comp system. There is a lot of talk about what is best and maximized, but people are always surprising the meta with armies that go agains the grain such as Thomas Oakey's Blood Angels that went 5-0 at Boise CUp. There is a big misnomer that ITC is still changing the rules, but since Frontline got closer to GW and GW got closer the the tournament system, they haven't needed to change rules for quite some time.

[VonVilkee]

So the above! It is the missions and the idea of fairly consistent competition around the mission structure that makes it feel different not the game rules themselves.

[Dark Trainer]

Just realized this is a necro'd thread from well before this year's OFCC.

 

OFCC's missions are meant to have a FUN flavor to them, without being broken. We've had some years ago that were crazy shenanigans (Vortex grenades, etc)! But those were also some of the most memorable.

[VonVilkee]

I really liked this years missions TBH. The secondary points tho could have been a little different, they were kinda just win better for the most part.

I do really like when there is a legitimate way to win by denial of primary and getting a few secondary but that requires allot of play testing. OFCC isn't super balanced missions it is some crazy fun with just a little bit of score keeping!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, CaptainA said:

The funny thing is the ITC is The Book. The rules are the same, with only one minor terrain rule to help the damage output of armies in 40k. The missions are different and that is where you get the different feel of what is good and bad. Its the same as any comp system, in any comp system certain builds rise to the top as to what is the best in that comp system. There is a lot of talk about what is best and maximized, but people are always surprising the meta with armies that go agains the grain such as Thomas Oakey's Blood Angels that went 5-0 at Boise CUp. There is a big misnomer that ITC is still changing the rules, but since Frontline got closer to GW and GW got closer the the tournament system, they haven't needed to change rules for quite some time.

 

12 page rulebook this time around. There's not a whole lot the ITC can change.

Missions is the main thing. Change the victory conditions and the game is forever changed. But ITC doesn't really do a rules change. They just change how the game is won.

It's like Tag vs Freeze Tag, they are very similar, but they are different games.

[evil_bryan]

2 hours ago, VonVilkee said:

I really liked this years missions TBH. The secondary points tho could have been a little different, they were kinda just win better for the most part.

I do really like when there is a legitimate way to win by denial of primary and getting a few secondary but that requires allot of play testing. OFCC isn't super balanced missions it is some crazy fun with just a little bit of score keeping!

Yeah, my secondary objectives need some help. 🙂 I have thought about going back and reworking last year's and this year's missions with regards to scoring.

[Torg]

10 hours ago, Dark Trainer said:

Just realized this is a necro'd thread from well before this year's OFCC.

 

OFCC's missions are meant to have a FUN flavor to them, without being broken. We've had some years ago that were crazy shenanigans (Vortex grenades, etc)! But those were also some of the most memorable.

I just listened to this the other day ... and I can see the difference in the ITC and the "book play".  I'm like the podcasters in that I like my games and armies a bit more "narrative" or as i like to think of it "fluffy".  I'm not the kinda player for ITC - I am well aware of my tastes.  Hence, I have avoided ITC events since it's conception.  Although, now that I have listened to the episode, I may at some point try some LGS event just to see how things go.  But so far my favorite "way to play" in this edition is with the open war cards lol.

-d

[DisruptiveConduct]

14 hours ago, CaptainA said:

 There is a big misnomer that ITC is still changing the rules, but since Frontline got closer to GW and GW got closer the the tournament system, they haven't needed to change rules for quite some time.

I have to call this part out and disagree with it. We get rule changes multiple times a year in the form of a new version of the FAQ for the BRB, a new version of an FAQ for specific codex, and then to top it all off, Chapter Approved comes out every year. Then there are the Beta rules that everyone insists on playing even though they are beta rules. The very definition of "beta rules" means that they are not thoroughly tested and are not the final rules, yet most people play them that way.

The constant changes to all of the rules is a big turn off for me.

[Lord Hanaur]

The meta is deeply affected by the missions.  Deeply.  It's why I sometimes throw a normal book mission into the tournaments.

It also affects the game play.  Frankly you find yourself doing things that you would not do.  An example was that I played a "regular" mission the other day with a guy, and I moved my Purple Squad from cover, to attack.  Obviously you want as much weight of fire as possible.

In an ITC game i never would have exposed them or fired them the entire game because they are one of my Engineers.  It seems entirely absurd to keep an entire unit hidden and never firing in a war game.  But that's what Purple squad normally does.

Another strange oddity:  In the ITC format, I threw my unit of Arco-Flagellents into an enemy unit that was essentially down to nothing simply because I needed "killed 1", knowing I would not survive the next round, but forced to do it by circumstance.  In a real game, and in a real fight for that matter, I would have bided my time for a better target or perhaps have simply planned ahead to get to those sweet sweet objectives.

Yet another strange thing is that Sisters of Battle have one good unit.  Everything else is esentially suspect or average but they have one reall;y good one:  Celestine.  Yet in the new "meta" she is considered suspect because of the fact that she gives up Kingslayer so easily and reliably.  So in ITC, people have not given up on her, but they definitely seem bothered by her and many have stopped taking her, relying on a Canoness and the indomitable Belief Warlord Trait.  Most have stopped taking the bodyguards.  In a REAL 40K game, no one would say a bad word about her, ever.  In ITC circles she's a liability.  Hard to argue that.  The conventional wisdom being that "if shes lucky she kills something and then gives up 4 points immediately."

The list goes on.  

I prefer normal 40K games.  They feel much more like a normal battle, and most war games play similarly to 40K in the sense that they are trying to ACCOMPLISH something with the attack.  

Progressive scoring is not very progressive.  It makes alpha strikes ridiculously important.  An end game is not a thing in progressive scoring.  It encourages the munchkinlike building of first turn brutality that made them institute the Tactical Reserves limitation in the first place.  Even WITH that rule, it has shifted the units we take to the types that can most easily affect casualties, in large numbers, turn one, even if it means losing a bunch of stuff.  Because we cannot ever make up ground with progressive scoring.  Not ever.  Once you've "missed out on some points" you are never going to be able to recover from that.  Sound "progressive" to you?  In a game where you can play the long game to win, you feel much more like a General.  In a game where you simply must throw every asset at the walls and hope to break them down quickly, not so much.

I play ITC missions, competitively, and at a high level.  But that doesn't really require me to prefer it, and I basically don't.  As a TO and as a competitive player, there really isn't another pool to play in, so I splash around and do have fun.  I think it would be MORE fun if more TO's included normal book missions in their ITC events though.  I think some of them don't know they are free to do so, or something?  Could be.

 

 

[Torg]

Thanks for your points LH - I know that ITC play isn't something I do.  I typically look for the "ITC" when I see an event promoted... and avoid it without a second thought.  

[Lord Hanaur]

12 minutes ago, Torg said:

Thanks for your points LH - I know that ITC play isn't something I do.  I typically look for the "ITC" when I see an event promoted... and avoid it without a second thought.  

Imagine the participation levels if people didn't feel that way.

I think it's important for you to note though that an ITC event isn't actually required to use ITC missions.  The ITC genius is that they allow TO's the freedom to run events the way they want to.  Groupthinkers just never break out of that "gotta' do it the groupthink way" mentality.  As long as the rules are the same for everyone at an event however, the results are what they are and are legit.  

The Ambassadorial Grand Tournament is an example.  It uses all custom missions.  The participants receive the coveted ITC points they normally would get for going, but they get a more classic "40K-like" experience.  Throw a stone in any direction and you can hit someone who will bitch about something, and I'm sure there's people who avoid the Ambassadorial Grand Tournament because its NOT using the ITC missions, as surely as you would avoid it if they used them.  At the end of the day, though, as long as everyone had a good time, a lot of this is just academic philosophizing and choosing a hill to stand on.  I think variety is really fun though.  Obviously I do!

Oddly there was a lot less resistance to the ITC missions when they included elements of both Maelstrom and set objectives.  When they went to the alternative scoring they have now, it met more resistance from some people.  The Secondaries were the big change, but collectively it all changed so much about the lists and the game play.

[CaptainA]

6 hours ago, DisruptiveConduct said:

I have to call this part out and disagree with it. We get rule changes multiple times a year in the form of a new version of the FAQ for the BRB, a new version of an FAQ for specific codex, and then to top it all off, Chapter Approved comes out every year. Then there are the Beta rules that everyone insists on playing even though they are beta rules. The very definition of "beta rules" means that they are not thoroughly tested and are not the final rules, yet most people play them that way.

The constant changes to all of the rules is a big turn off for me.

What I was referring to was that it is the ITC that is changing the rules. That is not the case. It is GW that is changing the rules.

[Romans832]

22 hours ago, evil_bryan said:

Yeah, my secondary objectives need some help. 🙂 I have thought about going back and reworking last year's and this year's missions with regards to scoring.

Dude I loved your missions and secondaries. The only reason I had wins to my name was because of Objectives.

By all rights I lost game 1 because I wasn't in the room for "30 minutes"... but we both ended up with 1 char on an objective. *gulp* yay for "chance"

The rest was all Objectives and Secondaries, LOVED it!

[Lord Hanaur]

On 8/22/2019 at 11:10 PM, Romans832 said:

Dude I loved your missions and secondaries. The only reason I had wins to my name was because of Objectives.

By all rights I lost game 1 because I wasn't in the room for "30 minutes"... but we both ended up with 1 char on an objective. *gulp* yay for "chance"

The rest was all Objectives and Secondaries, LOVED it!

Objective missions = da' best.  Tis true.

[Munkie]

On 8/22/2019 at 11:10 PM, Romans832 said:

Dude I loved your missions and secondaries. The only reason I had wins to my name was because of Objectives.

By all rights I lost game 1 because I wasn't in the room for "30 minutes"... but we both ended up with 1 char on an objective. *gulp* yay for "chance"

The rest was all Objectives and Secondaries, LOVED it!

The missions were unique and a lot of fun, definitely. I enjoyed the hell out of them and appreciate @evil_bryan for his work (and putting up with my nitpicking!)

Echoing @VonVilkee far above, the only feedback I'd offer is the secondary scoring usually rewarded you for performing well at the primary scoring--particularly mission 5. That said, I loved the "embrace the randomness" theme throughout them, very OFCC!

The one thing ITC does offer in this regard is alternative paths to victory. Some armies are good at killing/more than their opponents, some armies are better than others at capturing/more. I'm not advocating cloning their mission structure, but that spirit is great for OFCC missions. Maybe the primary scoring isn't going your way, but at least you're accomplishing this other random task while your soldiers are being slaughtered.

[Sugarlessllama]

Here is why I like ITC: is my opponent mentions wanting an ITC game, I pack my army back into the case and walk away. 

I hate competitive 40K. It never made sense to me, especially when there are wargames out that do it better (warmahordes and malifaux come to mind).  So if someone states their intention to play an ITC groin kicker franken-army then I can save myself the time. 

I'll stick with narrative play, thank you very much. 

 

 

 

 

[Romans832]

And that's why I loved returning to OFCC.

OCC Twins were amazingly helpful when I had off the wall questions.

Wizard did an amazing paint job bringing my center pieces to life.

Monkey was an awesome opponent.

I don't know what I'll do next year.

I think full Wraith would have been best this year simply because ignorance was the best answer for my return...

Now we have the Psychic Awakening coming which is going to make things psychic nutz... who knows... we'll see!

[Lord Hanaur]

22 minutes ago, Sugarlessllama said:

Here is why I like ITC: is my opponent mentions wanting an ITC game, I pack my army back into the case and walk away. 

I hate competitive 40K. It never made sense to me, especially when there are wargames out that do it better (warmahordes and malifaux come to mind).  So if someone states their intention to play an ITC groin kicker franken-army then I can save myself the time. 

I'll stick with narrative play, thank you very much. 

 

 

 

 

Wow.  Kinda' harsh.

[Sugarlessllama]

10 hours ago, Lord Hanaur said:

Wow.  Kinda' harsh.

No. It's not. 

We're all working adults with busy lives. Our hobby is awesome, but time consuming. So it has to take a back seat to work obligations, family commitments, community engagements, etc.. So when I do make time to play a game I have to respect my time and play in a way that I will enjoy. Because of I don't find fulfillment in the hobby then what's the point? 

And for me, being on the business end of a BS ITC soup army designed to put my opponent on a podium, and ruin my fun is not an example of respecting my time. That's a waste of my time; and I'm not interested in doing that anymore. 

I'm here for the beer and pretzels. For the lore and laughs. I spend hours painting my army because I LOVE telling fun, funny, stories on the table top with toy soldiers. 

Over the last year I've been able to make time for one full 40K match, and a handful of Kill Team matches. I had to cancel OFCC for work. So no, I don't have time to be someone's gaming punching bag. 

And no, it's not harsh to say, up front, "nope not interested". 

[Lord Hanaur]

20 minutes ago, Sugarlessllama said:

No. It's not. 

We're all working adults with busy lives. Our hobby is awesome, but time consuming. So it has to take a back seat to work obligations, family commitments, community engagements, etc.. So when I do make time to play a game I have to respect my time and play in a way that I will enjoy. Because of I don't find fulfillment in the hobby then what's the point? 

And for me, being on the business end of a BS ITC soup army designed to put my opponent on a podium, and ruin my fun is not an example of respecting my time. That's a waste of my time; and I'm not interested in doing that anymore. 

I'm here for the beer and pretzels. For the lore and laughs. I spend hours painting my army because I LOVE telling fun, funny, stories on the table top with toy soldiers. 

Over the last year I've been able to make time for one full 40K match, and a handful of Kill Team matches. I had to cancel OFCC for work. So no, I don't have time to be someone's gaming punching bag. 

And no, it's not harsh to say, up front, "nope not interested". 

"Not being interested" isn't the same as what you're openly implying.  Just saying.  Sounds harsh.

Informationally:  Soup armies have zero to do with ITC.  Zero.  That's a player thing.  ITC rewards you for playing a pure army now.  Pretty cool.

ITC now has basically almost zero FAQ'S.  Go look.

So all ITC is, when you get down to it, is the missions.  And the missions use objectives.  And so...

What you're railing against is basically, bottom line...what?  Other than the mission scoring, which you control.  Sounds like your ire should be directed at "Soup".  Not ITC or those who want to play an ITC mission.

I again prefer the book missions as I said.  I think TO's should include some book missions here and there and they are allowed to.  But the missions are basically normal 40K if you pick Old School, Ground Control and Kingslayer/Behind Enemy Lines as you secondaries.  Which you can do!

Soup seems to anger you.  I do sympathize since I play faction pure myself and even run The Ambassadorial Grand Tournament wherein you cannot soup.  I get it.  Faction pure is how I prefer 40K.  I hate Forge World stuff, but I don't refuse games against it or pack my bag.