Thread: ITC: Now that we have used their system what do you think.

Originally Posted by RealGenius

Darkwynn, as an internet-famous competitive player, why do you like the Maelstrom aspect of ITC missions? Seems like most competitive types I talk to don't like random elements.

Cause he tables his opponent turn 1 so the random part is irrelevant? :P

That's what happens when you give nick some seals to beat up for 4 rounds :P Ask PJ pants, he'll tell you!

Originally Posted by Caldera02

That's what happens when you give nick some seals to beat up for 4 rounds :P Ask PJ pants, he'll tell you!

F you Chris! I played Nick rd 2. He just got lucky. He has the most cowardly Space Marines in the world. 3 failed morale checks in one turn.

e

Originally Posted by ccrraazzyyman

I voted that I wouldn't participate in ITC events. Their FAQ isn't a compilation of frequently asked questions with answers, but rather another rulebook we need to read that changes every book that GW has published. While some things it address' actually clear up rules, most of the FAQ just makes my head hurt.

Another problem I have is the list building. List building in 7th is already difficult because of the sheer amount of stuff you can put in a list. I don't like ITC's extra restrictions they place on list building, even though I don't personally use more than 1 detachment when possible.

what matt and morella have said is exactly why i sat out WGC for the first time since its inception (I might have had to miss one other before) and i was obviously butthurt. maybe for a free tourney i might tolerate this horror show of a faq/ruleset but definitely not for 75$. why does noone get bent about their horrible rules? who cares about a centralized faq? do you guys know and have enough pull with the writers to get them to ditch the wrong stuff ? you want to wait a few months or forever every time a codex is updated? personally i think theres few enough rules grey areas that each event can easily have or copy paste their own faq without linking back to this plague hulk.

why is this even a ****ing thing, we didn't need it.

and another thing. calling it "the championship" tournament may appeal to some but not all or even most. when wgc had the two-tier system that was awesome. just sounds like 'ard Boyz to me and that sucks

Originally Posted by CRP

F you Chris! I played Nick rd 2. He just got lucky. He has the most cowardly Space Marines in the world. 3 failed morale checks in one turn.

HAHAHAHA, sorry John, I was just thinking back to the conversation where PJ pants scolded Nick for "playing no one hard for 4 rounds" and forgot you did play him . Nick had nick luck vs you! :P

Originally Posted by RealGenius

Darkwynn, as an internet-famous competitive player, why do you like the Maelstrom aspect of ITC missions? Seems like most competitive types I talk to don't like random elements.

Because it forces action and movement. It puts people into positions that they don't want to go in, then it forces people to make decisions that are built around a win condition. That is why I enjoy the concept of maelstrom.

Now it shouldn't be done the way adepticon did it because that Is to extreme. I think ITC does a better job but limits it too much, options sohuld be open up more to maybe a 2d6 timeline along with score in your turn but you will need to adjust the main part.

my thoughts, don't know if it matters though.

So, far everyone either hates Maelstrom or believes that scoring on the player turn is a better system.