Hey everyone, Reecius here to answered some of the questions we’ve gotten regarding the updated ITC missions.
ITC Champion’s Missions
-
- How do you handle models that can come back via some means with The Reaper secondary?
- You count every model destroyed, when it is destroyed. If a model comes back on to the table via some special rule such as Reaminmation Protocols, it can be destroyed again and counted for The Reaper again.
- In situations where a player does not have the ability to regenerate models we find it is easiest to get an exact tally of models destroyed at the end of the game by subtracting the number of models still on the table from the total number of models in the army. If a player does have the ability to bring models back to the table, keeping a running tally is the best way to keep an accurate count.
- How do you count units that have been Marked for Death if they either split into multiple units or join up with other units during the course of the game?
- With the Marked for Death secondary, if a unit splits up you must destroy all component parts of the unit to get the point.
- Example: a unit of Space Marines splits into two units via Combat Squads. To get the point you must destroy both units. If a unit combines with another unit, you must destroy the entire unit to earn the point. Example: a unit of Ork Boyz uses the Mob Up stratagem to join with another mob of Boyz. You must destroy the entire combined unit to earn that point.
- How does Titan Slayers interact with non-stacking Secondaries?
- If you count any wounds dealt on a Titanic model towards Titan Slayers, it cannot yield points for any other non-stacking secondary. As this will always occur before you destroy a model, there will be no overlap.
- Example: You deal 10 wounds on one Imperial Knight, earning you 1 Titan Slayers point, and 4 on a second Imperial Knight in turn 1. As you decided to count the wounds dealt on the first Imperial Knight you earn the Titan Slayers point but that Knight may no longer yield any other points for non-stacking secondaries you may have selected. You choose not to count the 4 wounds dealt on the second Imperial Knight until turn 2, when you deal 2 more wounds to it, hitting the 16 wound threshold between the two and earning a second Titan Slayers point. Neither of these Imperial Knights will now be eligible for yielding points from any other non-stacking secondary you may have selected.
- How does Celestine interact with the Kingslayer secondary?
- Treat Celestine and her Geminae Superia as a single model for the purpose of this mission. Wounds dealt to any of the models in the unit count towards Kingslayer, but destroying Celestine or the Geminae Superia do not count towards any other non-stacking secondaries.
- How do you handle models that can come back via some means with The Reaper secondary?
If there are any other pressing questions, please let me know and we will get them answered ASAP! Thanks again for all the positive feedback and helping find the parts of the missions we missed.
And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!
can you earn butchers bill on your opponent’s player turn?
if yes, can you earn both of those in the same battle round?
It is player turn as it says on the secondary =)
ok just double checking
when my space wolves run wild with 6″ heroic interventions it will be fun scoring this
How do Kingslayer which is non stacking interact with something like old School, If i am facing a knight army and he has made the knight his warlord, i take kingslayer on the knight, am i then just out the points for slay the warlord?
Old School does stack. The non-stacking secondaries only prohibit you from scoring other non-stacking secondaries.
Honestly, I’m a bit sad there is no really easy kill allies secondary. Because right now if you have a single Imperium or Chaos army (unless it is astra militarum) – you do not have a competitive top table army. If GW doesn’t punish that – at least ITC should, IMO.
Seriously, when is the last time you saw a fully space marine/admech/thousand sons/daemons/etc. army on a top table?
If ITC wanted to stop people from running ally armies, there are myriad ways they could do so- prohibit players from scoring points towards Best In Faction unless they were composed purely of that faction, prohibit the use of allies altogether, etc, etc. There are lots of easier ways to do it than a convoluted secondary.
But I don’t think they are going to, because I don’t think there is a strong pressure towards it and it leaves a lot of armies even more out in the cold than they are currently. Eldar, Dark Eldar, and IG will be doing just fine with no allies, but I don’t think you can say the same about a lot of the other Imperial/Chaos factions- and, unsurprisingly, that would mean a lot more unhappy people and a lot less list diversity in tournaments. So I don’t think eliminating allies _is_ a goal of ITC as it stands, nor of the player base of a whole.
Seriously, we should strive to have the best game possible, always. Stop comparing the current to terrible decisions in the past.
If stuff isn’t seeing play or people notice that it is mathematically inferior – just reduce points ASAP. I understand waiting 3-6 months with nerfs – people bought the models and if they become useless there will be backlash. But who in the green hell is ever mad if an unused model (which in this case is about 70% of the model range) gets a buff. It would only make people happy.
^ this comment comes after the comment bellow
As far as Best In Faction is concerned – honestly, I don’t get it. For me it’s either you go to top tables or you fail. The “oh you failed but out of these guys, you failed the least” is a really weird mindset to me.
As far as allies are conserned – allies are FINE. But ONLY allied armies on top tables is not fine.
Will this leave a lot of armies out in the cold? Good! Then GW (and honestly FLG) can admit that the balance and variety is really really bad.
About 70% of every codex in unuseable on top tables (to anyone who says “uhh but in 7th ed 85% was unuseable” – just be quiet, seriously. Why are we comparing to trash?).
Right now there are so many people who blindly think the game has variety because every imperium/chaos faction is seeing play on top tables however if you take a damn minute to look at the lists you notice that it’s the same crap mixed together in allied armies. Imperium being the biggest offender:
take battery from militarum(substitutes: admech)
take scouts + strong characters from blood angels(substitutes: space marines, custodes)
add main force from knights(substitutes: more custodes)
Just look at the Nova invitational if you want proof. The only guy who didn’t bring a soup is Reece, who wants to prove a point (and he’s wrong). If he wins or does well at all it’ll be because of: player skill(and reece coaster) and hot dice, because his lists in inferior to all other imperium lists.
I want to see a pure imperium army on the top tables. Currently that is not possible without insane luck (be it in game or being paired with much worse players) because why take weaker units that fill roles your army needs, if you can take stronger units from another faction to fill those same roles.
Okay, but here’s the thing: there will always be a top percentage. You can buff and nerf units all you want, and fiddle with or adjust point totals until the cows come home, but there will always, always, always be a set of units that are in that upper percentile that are marked as “the best.” And those will always be the ones that competitive players use, because that’s what they _do_.
Now, that isn’t to say that you can’t narrow the gap in places and try and bring up units that are further from that top point (hey there, Land Raider) or bring down units that sit too comfortably in it (s’up, Castellan.) That is the goal GW is striving towards, and while they are not always successful, I think you can point out some pretty reasonable achievements in that respect so far.
You say you want to see pure Imperium or Chaos armies at the top table? That’s a nice goal, but no amount of points-fiddling will ever achieve that (unless, say, you decide to completely nerf all units from Imperial/Chaos factions other than one, so that it is the only viable faction.) So long as the option exists to mix and match powerful units at essentially zero cost, armies with the ability to ally will continue to ally. Rebalancing the points won’t change that; an “anti-ally” ITC secondary mission won’t change that. Fiddling with CP for detachments won’t change that. Only a significant revamping of the allies system, or how the ITC allows players to use the allies system, will change that- and while you, personally, might want that (because apparently you are vehemently against allies, being that it’s the only thing you rage about more than Greater Daemons being useless [protip they aren’t]), many players out there like being able to include allies in their army for thematic or mechanical reasons, so they are unlikely to go away anytime soon.
I do agree with you on a certain level- I think that in many ways, allies aren’t good for the game- they allow some factions (but not all) to easily cover their weaknesses, they make a lot armies look a bit same-y, and they make building cookie-cutter armies rather easy, especially for players at the middle tables. But, on the other hand, they _do_ allow people to more easily compete while playing the factions they want to use (even if those armies are “impure”) and they’re very good for GW’s sales. If I were redesigning the game I would significantly change how they work, or maybe even ban their inclusion from Matched Play- but I’m not the game’s designer, and neither FLG nor GW seem inclined to do that, because they (and the player base as a whole) seem to feel that the benefits of allies outweigh their costs.
We should, indeed, strive for the best game possible… but not everyone’s interpretation of what that means is the same as yours. Different people want different things from the game. You want to be able to effectively compete with a “pure” faction army, and that’s fair; you’re certainly not the only one. But there are plenty of other people to whom that isn’t a concern at all, and demanding that FLG cave to your specific view of what the game should be isn’t in any way reasonable. If you want to play a specific army, _do it_. There are players out there doing just that and doing well enough to win GTs and take top 8s at larger events; while you can make a good argument that those aren’t the strongest possible lists, that certainly hasn’t held them back from performing well with them. You absolutely CAN do well with many single-faction armies if you are a good player, so if that’s what you want, go out and do it.
Again. I stress this. Allies are FINE as long as pure works fine too. If the CP batteries are removed, and you get a big PC penalty for mixing stuff – allies would definitelly become less efficient to take. Imagine – “If the only common army keyword is Imperium/Chaos/Aeldarii – you can only get 4 CP max because different faction leaders don’t agree as well as a single faction would”. Yeah, now that’s a damn penalty that’d make you re-think allying it up. Then you look at tournament results after the change:
a) Allies still doing better = lower the max CP even further
b) Allies completelly gone = raise the max CP.
c) even-ish = leave it as is
And everyone can do “well” with any pure armies. But the fact to the matter is – if you have an allied army – you will do better.
ps: Greater Daemons ARE terrible, 1 guy going 4:1 (or 5:1) in a year doesn’t change that they are very mathematically inferior to Primarchs, Knights, etc. Seriously compare Gallant to any Greater Daemon durability wise and damage wise. It’s insane.
I agree and add that saying that allies covering weaknesses is a part of the game and you can not get rid of it does hurt the competitive scene… What about the armies that have NO allies? The math is showing that top competitive play is for armies with Allies only and if you are playing a mono army you are just there to give other people W’s…
I agree that the biggest problem with allies is that some subfactions (Imperium) have a huge amount of options, and some have literally none (Necrons, Orks).
The solution isn’t banning allies. GW needs to get off their ass and actually make more subfactions.
Some would be ridiculously easy. Make a Kroot Mercenaries codex and let Tau, Orks, and renagade Guard ally it in.
Give Necrons a “Brood Brothers” style rule (“Disciples of the Dragon”) that lets them ally in AdMech who worship the Void Dragon imprisoned on Mars.
Etc.
Erm. No offense or anything, but of the many issues in the game right now, “not enough minor subfactions” is really not a leading problem.
Abusepuppy what do you suggest to help the mono factions that are not blessed like Eldar now?(they seemed to have all the bases covered again) If you had GW’s ear what would you like them to do? Right now unless you have an army that has Allies to pick and choose all those good units you feel like you are playing an NPC and I know that feeling from being a DM for other games.
Do you think having Chapter Approved once a year only touching points can do it?
Hmm. It would really depend on what your goal was- if the goal is to balance the game as well as is possible, the easy solution would be to ban all allies and just balance the codices internally; that ensures each faction has unique strengths and weaknesses and prevents cross-army shenanigans. However, a lot of people would be understandably upset by that, since allies are very thematic and many players enjoy using them to represent their fluff on the tabletop. (Also they sell really well for GW.)
Some more plausible (and less drastic) solutions might be things like limiting detachments, preventing detachments beyond your “primary” for contributing CP, or only giving players access to stratagems from their primary faction. It’d take a lot more thought and testing to determine the balance point more exactly, but there needs to be _some_ downside to splashing in another army alongside your primary one, because as currently there essentially isn’t any penalty at all.
Alternatively, GW could backtrack towards something more akin to the 6E model for allies, where allying outside of the “traditional” matrix was a lot more doable. Let Orks and Tau work together, or Necrons and Grey Knights, or various other “weird” combinations that aren’t the standard “only work with your own race” allies that we are using currently. This essentially gets around the problem of the Imperial armies having vastly superior ally choices by giving _everyone_ more choices- it doesn’t completely erase the difference, but it closes the gap a lot.
(There are also ways the ITC can work to fix allies with its rules, policies and standard tournament formats, but that is a whole other way of going about the problem than approaching it from GW’s end of things.)
Chapter Approved being once per year is probably about right; since the book tends to make some fairly sweeping changes, I don’t think we would want it much more often than that, and the Sping/Fall Big FAQs cover the interim period quite nicely. The larger issue is that, at least so far, Chapter Approved doesn’t necessarily make the kinds of changes that can fix some of the problems out there. Grey Knights, for example, suffer from not having enough unit choices and from having bad stratagems/unit abilities- Chapter Approved can’t really fix that by changing the costs on units, unfortunately, so there is not a lot of hope for GK in the foreseeable future. (That said, some price fixes would _help_, even if it wouldn’t make them a top-tier army.)
Let’s be clear here the next CA can’t be worse than the first one. It’s almost impossible.
I think Butchers Bill is too much like kill more or kill one unit a game and is thus waaaay to easy to obtain. I think it should be, kill 4 or more units in a turn, kill 3 units in a turn, kill 2 units in a turn and kill a unit in a turn. Each instance is unique, does not have to be scored in order and each one can be scored only once. You do not have to declare or call which one you will score. You get 1 point each time you achieve one of the Butcher Bill objectives. Example, if you kill 3 units turn one you score a point but cannot get another point for killing 3 units. If you kill 1 unit next turn, then you get a point but cannot get a point for killing 1 unit or 3 units again. This means you have to kill 10 units through-out the game instead of 8 and the secondary is more difficulty to obtain all four.
*or kill one unit a turn and
So far it actually hasn’t been as easy to get as you may think. Against some armies it can be fairly easy to get if they’re serious MSU but generally we have found it is not a given.
Can the line “Secondaries marked with an asterisk may not earn points from more than one secondary mission for destroying any one unit” be changed if the intent is that asterisked missions can stack with ones that aren’t asterisked?
It’s confusing because mission’s like butcher’s bill do score for destroying units, but the line makes it sound like big game hunter shouldn’t stack with it since they both score for destroying a unit.
Maybe just say “Units destroyed may not count for multiple secondaries with an asterisk” if that’s the intent?
Can do.