ITC Combined Arms Mission Pack

The ITC Combined Arms Missions are now available!

Huge thanks to the LVO judging staff for helping play-test, edit and format these missions to get them geared up for 8th ed. Also, Chris Morgan did the formatting for these docs, if you’re looking for a pro to help you make any documentation look good, give him a shout.

These missions are fairly simple, fun and what you are used to from the ITC last year. They also provide a good mix of progressive and end of game objectives, with checks and balances for MSU, LoW and horde armies.

Enjoy!

ITC Combined Arms Missions

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

63 Responses to “ITC Combined Arms Mission Pack”

  1. Garrett Mulroney July 13, 2017 9:43 am #

    For the relic, the mission in the book lists a minor and major victory condition. How does this work in the Combined Arms Mission for the relic?

    • Alex Yuen July 13, 2017 9:54 am #

      Because a win is a win. Minor or Major matter little. assumption is that Major over Minor.

      • Threllen July 13, 2017 9:58 am #

        A win is not a win in a lot of tournaments, but that’s handled by points rather than by what the book defines as “major/minor.” Depending on how well you do in each aspect of a particular mission you could end up with different amounts of points so some wins are stronger than others.

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 13, 2017 10:09 am #

      We’ll add clarifying verbiage.

  2. Threllen July 13, 2017 9:57 am #

    When the missions say “Re-roll doubles until all are unique.” does that mean you roll both dice or just one?

    Example – I roll three dice and get a 6, 5, 5. Do I have to re-roll both the 5s or do I just pick one of them up and leave the other?

  3. Garrett Mulroney July 13, 2017 9:59 am #

    Was it intentional to change how measuring from objectives worked compared to the book? Rulebook says to measure from center of objectives, this packet says to measure from edge of objectives

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 13, 2017 10:10 am #

      Yes, determining the exact center of an objective is impossible and if the game comes down to millimeters we don’t want people arguing over it.

      • Robert Flynn July 14, 2017 7:31 pm #

        It’s not impossible. If you use a 25mm base (1 inch) or a 50mm base (2 inches), then you are within 3 inches of the center if you are within 2.5 inches of the edge of a 25mm base or 2 inches of the edge of a 50mm base. If you argue the .8 mm that you are short, that is like splitting hairs. You are talking about less than the width of a penny.

        I say just go to 25mm and 50mm bases as the standard for tournaments. Then just measure the 2.5 inches or the 2 inches from the edge respectively.

        I.E. this means that we can use the fancy rubber tool that GW came out with!!!

        • Reecius
          Reecius July 15, 2017 9:51 am #

          Lol, sure, but why not just measure form the edge, lol? So, so, so much easier than what you just described as very few people will remember it and in the system you propose you are still measuring from the edge of the base =P

          • Kartr_Kana July 21, 2017 10:19 pm
            #

            I understand the reasoning Reece, but I think it’s measure from the center because not all objective markers players will encounter will be the same size.

            Measuring from the center means that no matter how large or small, the number of models that can be in controlling range is always the same pi*3″^2. But if tournament uses say, poker chips (1.5″ diameter) and measures from the edge, then the controlling area becomes pi*3.75″^2.

            So measuring from the center ensures that no matter the shape and size of objective markers, the area of control remains the consistent from marker to marker, game to game and tournament to tournament.

  4. pleasantnoodles July 13, 2017 10:22 am #

    If these missions are balanced for LoW we won’t have to ban PL31+ models, right?

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 13, 2017 10:25 am #

      Haha, nice try =)

      It has checks and balances for those types of models. They don’t resolve some of the issues they present.

      And again, this limitation is only for the BAO, we will revisit a lot of this information for general ITC policy.

      • Sanchezsam2 July 13, 2017 12:31 pm #

        I think the 31+ should be moved to 33+.
        The only things that are PL 31-32 are hellhammer, wraithknight, scorpion, harridan a and greater brass scorpion. Most of which are killable and not super dominant.
        Beyond that things get into the realm of really strong.

        • Reecius
          Reecius July 13, 2017 12:39 pm #

          Yeah, the PL choice was a targeted but also prior to the FAQ toning down the Scorpion which was a big concern when played RAW. We are open to reexamining it after BAO.

          • Turok117 July 13, 2017 5:48 pm
            #

            What FAQ are you referring to?

          • Turok117 July 13, 2017 6:25 pm
            #

            Oh the Brass Scorpion. Thought you were talking about the Eldar one.

    • Cephalobeard July 13, 2017 10:25 am #

      Whoa now, don’t get too hasty. People think those are problematic.

      :^)

  5. RabbitMaster July 13, 2017 10:32 am #

    There is an issue with mission #6:

    Maelstrom objectives 1 and 2 ask you to hold the objective 1/2 located in the enemy’s deployment zone. However there is no guarantee there will effectively be any objective 1/2 in the enemy’s deployment zone since they can be placed anywhere that is more than 18″ from your deployment edge.

    So for example, we could place all objectives 1/2 in the no man’s land between the deployment zones, making it impossible to score those 2 maelstrom objectives.

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 13, 2017 10:47 am #

      Thanks and yeah, we caught that, too. Somehow we all missed it in editing but fixing it now.

  6. Dbiesto July 13, 2017 10:59 am #

    I’ve been out of the loop for a few years. Just to confirm maelstrom it’s just trying to beat your opponent for a total of 8 points or tie them otherwise you get 0 points? (It says up to 3 maelstrom points per round can be achieved.). So its possible someone can beat the mission and their opponent beats them in maelstrom so they each would end up with 8 points before adding up bonus objectives at the end of the game?

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 13, 2017 11:14 am #

      So, layered missions take getting used to but are preferred by the community due to increased interaction. You are trying to win 2 missions at the same time and get bonus points. You add up all the total points and whomever got more, wins.

  7. Kevin Lantz July 13, 2017 11:02 am #

    Why are we using seize the initiative still? Who goes first is after deploy so there are no tactical changes, it’s a die roll immediately after who has gone first was rolled off for….

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 13, 2017 11:13 am #

      Yes, it feels awkward but there are already units in the game that modify the seize roll. Assuming that more come in to the game, we need to future proof the system.

      • Kevin Lantz July 13, 2017 11:50 am #

        Yeah I understand that but it’s literally roll to go first, now roll again. Feels stupid

        • Reecius
          Reecius July 13, 2017 12:03 pm #

          Yes, totally get it. However, if we eliminated the roll to seize, some units would lose their special ability and any rules in the future that impact seize would not be valid.

          • RabbitMaster July 13, 2017 12:10 pm
            #

            You could transform those into a +1, a reroll, or something like that on the “who goes first” roll.
            Or even something simpler like “your opponent cannot get the +1 on the go first roll even if he finished deployed first”.

            I actually prefer that last one as it represent the fact you are slightly better versus prepared enemy without actually screwing your opponent since it becomes a flat roll off to go first.

          • Sanchezsam2 July 13, 2017 12:36 pm
            #

            Probably more intuitive to change those units to effect the roll off instead of seize roll. So +1 to seize is +1 to go first, reroll to seize gives you the ability to reroll to go first (especially since CP can’t be used for this).

  8. RabbitMaster July 13, 2017 12:10 pm #

    Out of curiosity, which units alters the seize roll nowadays ?

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 13, 2017 12:16 pm #

      At present it is only Toholk the Blinded IIRC. Grants a re-roll to seize.

      • Cephalobeard July 13, 2017 12:54 pm #

        Well, you guys already changed the go first mechanic. Changing those rules to simply alter that thing that is now a roll, instead of now existing, seems like not too difficult of a stretch.

        • Reecius
          Reecius July 13, 2017 1:20 pm #

          I don’t understand the second sentence?

          • Ujayim July 13, 2017 1:23 pm
            #

            Reroll sieze becomes reroll who goes first. There is no rule, RAW, that states who rolls to go first. This is created. Altering rules that state: reroll sieze, or provided bonuses to that affect, can be easily applied to the created roll of who goes first.

            It seems easy to Port over, as it’s basically just replacing the words “reroll sieze” with “reroll first turn”

          • Reecius
            Reecius July 13, 2017 1:28 pm
            #

            But then everyone will ask what hapenned to the seize the initiative roll =)

            We’re debating a complex change to something that is admittedly a bit clunky but very simple and intuitive and requires no additional explanation.

  9. Kevin Lantz July 13, 2017 12:50 pm #

    I think the above options of having them affect going first so it’s not two rolls would be best as is for streamlining

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 13, 2017 1:19 pm #

      I understand the point but again, we do not know what will come out from GW that impacts the seize roll. This future proofs it. And, rolling 1 extra dice takes all of 2 seconds.

      • Sanchezsam2 July 13, 2017 5:09 pm #

        It’s not the time i care about it’s how strong of a bonus is giving MSU spam lists 2x the chance to roll to go first?
        The entire point of the first deployed first to go seems to be to hinder msu and acknowledging the benefit msu has in deploying after most of your opponent list is already on the table.

        However the current implementation is gamed to easily and very predictable for certain builds.

        If you bring it down to 1 roll to go first with the person who finished first getting a +1 bonus it’s a lot less predictable and doesn’t reward msu with 2 rolls to go first.

        • Reecius
          Reecius July 14, 2017 12:50 pm #

          This system only hurts MSU, it doesn’t help them at all. You realize that, right?

          • Adam
            Adam (RUMBL) July 14, 2017 1:24 pm
            #

            I think he is saying that adding the roll to go first greatly benefits MSU as they are now much more likely to go first than RAW. They now get both a Seize attempt, and a roll for first turn. That is a huge deal for MSU.

          • Reecius
            Reecius July 14, 2017 1:56 pm
            #

            MSU is honestly not the bogey man it was. Everyone has split fire, you score objectives with # of models, etc. It’s not that big of a deal except when taken to the far extreme of buckets of units of 1 miniature, etc.

            And I get, but objectively this system punished high unit count armies.

          • Adam
            Adam (RUMBL) July 14, 2017 10:01 pm
            #

            Well MSU is great for damage mitigation, it increases the number of weapons you can get, mitigates morale, gets you more command points, and let’s you be in more places at once. If MSU wasn’t so incredibly better than not, then I wager you wouldn’t be playing so many MSU lists yourselves on the stream. 😉

            Ultimately with the change to KP and going first, I don’t really see why you wouldn’t go MSU. I know it’s still very early, but it does seem some significant changes were made that buffed MSU which didn’t need it. The KP change in particular seems to wipe out one of their major drawbacks. I totally agree that IK needed to be worth more KP, but I don’t think making MSU effectively less KP in the process was the best possible solution.

          • Reecius
            Reecius July 15, 2017 10:00 am
            #

            What MSU list have I played? Not a challenge, I just can’t think of one. I have some MSU units but my lists are not comprised of them.

            MSU is good, for sure, but my point is that it is not nearly what it was, not be a mile.

            The KP change was needed. With 3 and 4 unit armies, something had to be done or those games would have been a joke.

          • Adam
            Adam (RUMBL) July 15, 2017 11:11 am
            #

            Many of the lists on the stream are MSU, only takes a minute to find plenty of examples:

            https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/07/11/tuesday-night-fight-drukhari-vs-scions/

            https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/07/13/thursday-night-fight-space-wolves-vs-necrons/

            RE: Kill Points, I 100% agree that IK are problematic, but you could have easily made Titanic units worth 1KP per 10 wounds (rounded up) or something, instead of giving MSU another buff.

            Unfortunately I really see no reason to not MSU with the changes aside from obvious units which get some benefit from larger unit sizes (like Orks or Necrons). More command points, no KP penalty, two rolls to try and get first turn, can be in more places at once, more transports to spam, more special weaponry, damage and morale mitigation… what’s the downside again? Can you think of a reason to run a 10-man squad over two 5-man?

          • Reecius
            Reecius July 15, 2017 11:56 am
            #

            My Space Wolf list has–literally–not one minimum sized unit, lol. Not even 1.

            The Scion army sure, it is min/maxed. But that army always has and always will be run that way by it’s nature in every edition of the game. That is my only MSU army, though. My Raptors are like, 50/50 but all my other lists feature a wide mix of full sized and min sized units. Straight KP simply doesn’t function correctly when you have some armies with tons of units vs. some with very few. That is a core issue with the game, it has nothing to do with our format. And again, by giving a roughly equal number of KP per army, that is MORE fair, not less, lol. It lets big units be big and small units be small as best suits them. Bigger units are harder to destroy for their points, smaller are easier.

            You are free to see things as you choose, buddy. The core rules lend themselves towards MSU, mathematically it is simply superior and always has been. However, in 8th MSU is less effective than it has been. And again, who cares? MSU doesn’t hurt the game at all. You score objectives with number of models, not units. If you want lots of heavy weapons or special weapons, take command squads and devastators over min/maxed Tacticals for nearly perfect efficiency. Again, who cares? Everyone can split fire so MSU’s main defense of an overwhelming number of targets has been toned down dramatically. Unless you run boat loads of super min units, like single Spawn or something, it has little impact on the game. The only units that want to be big are those that gain benefits from doing so as you noted and as it has always been.

            Thinking straight KP will somehow make the game better is silly, IMO. It just means you build armies with fewer units which is what? More fun? I guess? All it does is take away freedom in list building, IMO and crate lopsided games. I don’t see the benefit.

  10. GeekmasterK July 13, 2017 2:10 pm #

    Is this what’s being used at the BAO? I’m not going to be at the BAO, but I’m wondering if these missions will also be in effect for the SoCal Open and LVO.

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 13, 2017 2:50 pm #

      That is the de facto ITC mission pack, yes. It may change but that is what we’re rocking at present.

  11. Luke July 13, 2017 4:18 pm #

    Would be nice if you put things like the bonus big guns points somewhere on that same page for players to reference. I think this is a great handout for during the tournament but that being missing might catch some newer players off guard.

  12. Danden July 13, 2017 7:35 pm #

    For Ruins blocking LOS on the first floor, how does this work with terrain that only has three or less walls? Is it just the walla that block LoS or do we draw an imaginary line across that is also blocking?

    Also, for the tertiary points, do they stack with the eternal war mission ones? I.e. for the Retrieval mission, you list Slay the Warlord as a tertiary objective and the eternal mission also has it as an objective. If you kill the warlord, does the player get points for both or are the ITC mission ones overriding them?

    • Vega July 14, 2017 7:51 am #

      Or, rephrased: does slaying your opponent’s warlord count towards both primary and tertiary? e.g. in “the retrieval”, when determining VPs for primary: let’s say both opponents are holding 2 objectives, your opponent got “slay the warlord”, and neither got “linebreaker”…your opponent would win primary AND get an additional point in tertiary?

      • Reecius
        Reecius July 14, 2017 12:55 pm #

        Slay the Warlord, if it is listed as a tertiary objective, counts for a single point. It does not go to the primary or secondary.

        • Threllen July 14, 2017 1:16 pm #

          So, using the retrieval mission as an example, if both players controlled 1 retrieval objective marker at the end of the game but only one player had achieved slay the warlord then would it be a tie for the primary mission?

          It’s a bit confusing because the “modified eternal war missions” say to follow the book rules for determining who wins the primary mission except when the ITC mission specifically calls out any tweaks. And part of determining who wins the retrieval mission is Slay the Warlord. In a normal Retrieval mission using the example above, the player who killed the warlord would have won the mission. It would not be a tie.

          • Reecius
            Reecius July 14, 2017 1:57 pm
            #

            The bonus points are pulled out of the missions. You are only playing for the objectives for the primary mission. I see your point though.

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 14, 2017 12:51 pm #

      Just the walls.

      You only have the tertiary points listed in each mission.

      • Vega July 14, 2017 2:58 pm #

        That is what I originally thought, but there is a mismatch between some of the tertiary points listed in the ITC pack and the bonus points listed in the book.

        In the Retrieval, the book says that you get 3 VPs for each objective held, and then 1VP each for slay the warlord, linebreaker, and *first blood*.

        The ITC lists the tertiary points as slay the warlord, linebreaker, and *big game hunter*.

        Assuming we go with what is on the ITC packs for tertiary…Do we ignore all of the “non-objective-related” VP conditions in the book for determining primary? That rule wouldn’t work for big guns never tire mission, which has objectives worth 3 VPs, heavy support kills worth 1 VP, and then three additional possible bonus points.

        • Reecius
          Reecius July 14, 2017 4:26 pm #

          Yes.

          You only score the tertiary points listed in the manner described. 3 additional bonus points.

      • Tautastic July 14, 2017 7:39 pm #

        Which document talks about for ruins blocking LOS for the first floor? I can’t see it in the combined mission packet.

        • Reecius
          Reecius July 15, 2017 9:56 am #

          It’s not in there, it is a rule we’re implementing for the BAO but will probably implement for the entire ITC, we just want to use it in the wild, first.

  13. Tautastic July 14, 2017 9:02 am #

    Would it be considered modeling for advantage if I do not include the “rock” on the Shadow Spectres models? In the FW description it state it as a “scenic base”. Also, in the ITC document FAQ/Guideline’s “Modeling and Painting” it states that clear bases on skimmers are not required to count as finished. Both has the same effect of making the models shorter. How would ITC rule this?

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 14, 2017 12:58 pm #

      Well, that sounds like you are looking to model for advantage, lol. I would recommend putting them on the base they come on or something that keeps their profile similar.

      • Jural July 14, 2017 2:11 pm #

        I have modeled my hive Tyrant as “swooping”, i.e. a millimeter off the ground and parallel to it.

        The fact that you can’t see him behind many fences isn’t important, I’m putting him a dynamic pose!

  14. Joel Eddy August 1, 2017 12:50 pm #

    Wasn’t sure where else to ask this, but will you be putting out something similar for Age of Sigmar when the GHB 2017 drops? We played the Combined Arms in a tournament and it was great. Everyone seemed to enjoy it.

    I was curious how you would approach something like the initiative roll (in every round) in AoS, since you felt confident to tweak it for 40k after deployment.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 1, 2017 2:55 pm #

      Very glad you enjoyed it =)

      We will have an LVO player pack and the SoCal Open AoS pack is already out. For 40k we were in a rather unique position to make that move which we are not in to do for AoS. Plus, I actually enjoy random initiative in AoS, personally.

Leave a Reply