ITC 2020 40k Missions Update

Hey everyone, Reecius here with an update to the ITC 2020 40k Champion’s Missions!

So, we’ve been hard at work as a community getting these missions updated for the 2020 40k season! Thanks so much to everyone for the input, play-testing and feedback, we really appreciate it.

We’ve got one more weekend of play testing left before we lock the missions down for the season and so have done our second round of revisions based on feedback. This is what changed:

  • We cleaned up some grammar and clarified some issues with the wording on some of the missions.
  • We combined Big Game Hunter and Titan Slayer into a single new mission (called Big Game Hunter) which awards 1pt for every 10 wounds cumulatively dealt to units with the Monster, Titanic or Vehicles keywords. This makes it far easier to track the mission and avoids fiddly, arbitrary break points where one unit counts for BGH and another doesn’t, and makes it a little less punishing for Knights which according to the data, give up a ton of secondary points.
  • We altered the Maneuver secondaries to only be able to score 2pts starting turn 2 as we found it was too easy to max them early game.
  • We altered King of the Hill to be scorable by Titanic units as Knight armies have a tough time picking up those points.
  • We altered mission #2 as such: instead of placing an objective in your own deployment zone, you place one in your opponent’s deployment zone, 9″ from a table edge. To get the bonus you have to hold the middle objective and the objective you placed. We did this as this mission was giving up the bonus point too easily. This makes it more challenging but not as difficult as it was previously when players placed their objective in their own deployment zones.

Also, while the vast majority of responses on the new deployment style so far have been overwhelmingly positive, we have had some feedback from some that IGO/UGO deployment with no seize makes infiltrating armies or Marines too strong. However, we have data that shows the exact opposite and wanted to share it.

Thanks to the Falcon from over at 40K Stats Center for putting this together. This is the data from LVO where many, many thousands of games were played and show the win % of the listed armies in IGO/UGO vs. alternating deployment. As you can see, every single Marine army is better in alternating deployment with the notable and rather extreme example of White Scars. The most compelling part though is Raven Guard, whom many thought to be the most powerful in IGO/UGO deployment when in fact they are dramatically better in alternating deployment.

So counter to what many thought, Raven Guard go from the highest performing army in alternating deployment to very manageable in IGO/UGO. Every single Marine faction (besides White Scars) performs worse in IGO/UGO deployment. Melee armies interestingly, perform better in IGO/UGO but we think the re-roll on deployment map will help to mitigate this advantage quite a bit to hopefully prevent it from becoming problematic. Now, we should note the above includes seize but realistically the impact that has on the stats is going to be minor.

The other meaningful data point we have to inform our decision is from the LGT which ran IGO/UGO no seize deployment with ITC missions and on the exit poll had a nearly 98% approval rating on the deployment style when coming in to the event it was closer to a 50/50 on people thinking they’d prefer no seize or not. That is overwhelmingly in favor of the new system for people that tried it for 5 games in a tournament environment. As someone who played at the event I can confirm it was much more enjoyable, but of course, that is my opinion on the topic.

Thanks again for all the feedback! We have one more weekend to really nail them down and then we will lock it up.

And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!



About Reecius

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

92 Responses to “ITC 2020 40k Missions Update”

  1. Gabe February 19, 2020 3:08 pm #

    Thanks for the updates Reece. Loving the new mission changes (especially playing a knight based chaos soup list). Question: beyond officially endorsing CA 19 missions in the missions packet, is it likely we’ll see the release of the maelstrom-like secondaries you mentioned at the end of your last article? Or the additional three missions? Just curious if those are on the menu for this season. Keep up the great work!

    • Reecius February 19, 2020 3:10 pm #


      And yes, the guys I think are done with the Maelstrom missions, I will check in. And the 3 sort of alternate/fun missions I haven’t been focused on as much while trying to get this all sorted. Just been low on time but they will for sure get done.

      • Gabe February 19, 2020 3:15 pm #

        Awesome! Thanks for the update!

  2. Montfrenk February 19, 2020 3:28 pm #

    Neat. Thanks the the data especially, which is helpful whichever side of that you’re on.

    Sad for my vibrocannons though.

    • Reecius February 19, 2020 3:44 pm #

      Yeah, people start debating the right or wrong way to do it and it’s like, let’s just look at the data we have and let that inform our opinions.

  3. James Kelling February 19, 2020 5:12 pm #

    The data is misleading at best though, it doesnt really prove anything…

    Specifically theres three problems:
    1. At a glance, very few if any of these categories would have any statistical significant difference.
    2. You’re comparing one completely different system to justify another completley different system. The LVO system includes a +1 to the go-first roll in the control set that does not exist in the new system. Further the scoring factors, importantantly including the bonuses, are different.
    3. LGT results are problematic because they exist in a pre-Marine supplement meta (excepting UM/WS)

    • Reecius February 19, 2020 5:33 pm #

      It proves plenty, actually. We split the data into the +1 to go first, and alternating missions.

      The missions do change but not an enormous amount. I assume the stats will change with that but not an enormous amount. They’re not completely different systems though by any means, they differ only in degrees.

      LGT is a measuring stick for if people like the system or not as I noted, nothing to do with Marines really, nor did I assert that.

      And, most importantly, it’s the only data we have =) Discounting it would be far less useful than using it to help make decisions.

      • abusepuppy February 20, 2020 2:26 am #

        I mean, data is only useful insomuch as it is actually a good predictor of what you want to know. _Having_ data doesn’t guarantee its usefulness. I’m all for information-driven decision making, but overinterpreting your data is just as dangerous as ignoring it.

        • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:39 am #

          Sheesh, everyone’s a critic and a stats expert, apparently, lol.

          You use the tools and resources you have, that’s what we’re doing and I think any reasonable person can see this is the best approximation to what will be that we have and is close enough to the same thing to be a good indicator. The rest of this debate is largely just semantics.

          • abusepuppy February 20, 2020 5:57 pm

            Putting up the missions for comment and then getting defensive when people comment on them seems like a pretty pointless thing to do.

          • Michael Corr February 21, 2020 12:27 am

            Yeah Reece! Why didn’t you get a degree in statistical analysis during all that abundant free time you had with the move to Vegas!
            You’re just making excuses at this point.

          • Reecius February 21, 2020 7:29 am

            Lol, guilty as charged =P

  4. Caleb February 19, 2020 5:45 pm #

    As far as the data is concerned, it is misleading to think that this data is representative of the new missions (even if it is the best we have). For a few reasons:

    1) LVO still has seize, the new missions have zero opportunity cost for aggressive deployments now.

    2) looking purely at winrates does not mean the mission is not skewing the results. Let’s take an extreme example of assuming that a given army auto wins when it goes first with I go you go vs auto loses with I go you go when going second. The game is decided by the roll off which is a 50/50. And the win rate should be around 50% depending on variance.

    A better data set would look at win rates when going first vs going second with no sieze roll. I know(or assume) this data is not available.

    Point is a 50% win rate does not imply a more interactive and balanced mission.

    Overall I really like the new missions as I think you created a more interactive mission set, but the the jury is still out for me if the new deployment rules. Maybe picking your secondaries and the adjustment to recon will be enough.

    • Reecius February 19, 2020 6:11 pm #

      As stated, I understand and as you note, we don’t have data on a new system as it’s untested. We have to analyse what we have and then give it our best guess from there. That’s what we’re doing here.

      I wasn’t asserting that a 50% win ratio was the goal (although it does indicate relative balance) and your example while illustrating the point is obviously hyperbolic. What I was driving at was that the perception that certain army types win more in the all or nothing environment isn’t supported by what we can see here, in fact, it is the opposite.

      We’ll see soon enough how the new system plays out in reality. It may be wildly different but I don’t think it will be.

      Glad to hear you’re enjoying them!

  5. James Kelling February 19, 2020 5:58 pm #

    I think these are all great changes and all and I’m excited to play them, but that’s just not how data and statistics works and I hate to see it. The conclusions you’re drawing from the data are not supported statistically – at least not as presented.

    Bad data leads to bad decisions- truth is we wont really know what the impact is until we get a retrospective. Everyone is speculating based on their past experiences.

    • Reecius February 19, 2020 6:08 pm #

      Glad you are liking them!

      And, as I said, I wish we had the exact missions to test in a setting like LVO but we don’t. I understand and agree with you but we use what we’ve got, you know? And again, it’s not bad data, it’s just not 100% accurate to the situation we are going into but it’s the closest thing we have.

  6. Michael Dickerson February 19, 2020 7:50 pm #

    Updated maneuver secondaries say “turn” 2 implying player going second can start. Should maybe be “round”?

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:35 am #

      It means starting on the 2nd turn of the game, not player turn.

  7. Michael Dickerson February 19, 2020 7:56 pm #

    Also for mission 2 should objectives be able to be placed toeing the deployment line or the board edge? As written allows this.

  8. Keith Berry February 19, 2020 8:33 pm #

    Man, the change to BGH just shat all over typical Drukhari lists. Bummer.

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:37 am #

      Ah, not really. Drukhari lists that had vehicles, IME, already gave up BGH easily. 3 Ravagers and some flyers typically triggered it. And prior, Venoms which are quite good, gave up no points in pretty much any scenario which wasn’t exactly fair, either. I think the net change will be minimal: DE still give up BGH pretty frequently just as they did.

  9. Casey H February 19, 2020 9:45 pm #

    Still no goddamn beer round … WTF?!

    End of 3, before Turn 4. Chug beer, not whiskey, shot nor wine. Bonus point for finishing first.

    First one done uses it like a Drop Pod/Orbital Strike, only it’s a S8, AP-3, d3 Mortal wounds per model, under the base of the bottle/can. Any that survive, shove out to less than 1″. Then, it’s a permanent Impassable Terrain piece.

    These rules already exist, so why re-invent the wheel? Criminy! How are you still in charge, Reece?!

    Freaking amateur.


    Casey H.
    Team BeerHammer

    • George February 20, 2020 4:05 am #

      underrated post right here. +1

      • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:37 am #

        Going in the pack! lol

  10. Splat February 19, 2020 10:12 pm #

    9 GSC Ridgerunners give up both Gang busters and BGH. So a unit that costs 530+/- gives 8 secondary points. Changing Gang Busters to not be scored on vehicles could be a way to solve this

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:38 am #

      Secondaries don’t stack so that isn’t an issue.

      • Xenomorph February 20, 2020 12:07 pm #

        You are not understanding corretcly Reece, people are not stacking. 9 ridgerunners are three units of three. One unit is enough for 4 gangbusters points… The remaining two is enough for 4 points of big game hunters.

        • Reecius February 20, 2020 12:22 pm #

          Ah, got it. It wasn’t specified people were using multiple units.

          Well, we’d debated excluding vehicles and monsters from Gang Busters to avoid things like kill a kans, ridge runners, etc. But that was before we changed big game hunter which now it may make sense to do.

          • Splat February 20, 2020 1:35 pm

            The issue is if you run 3 units you give up both BGH and Gang Busters. 1 unit gives up all Gang busters and then kill 5 others. Then your opponent gets 8 points for only killing a quarter of your army.

  11. Robert Nathan February 19, 2020 10:46 pm #

    Are these changes being uploaded into the ITC app soon? 😁

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:38 am #

      I don’t know, that app is independent of the ITC, we actually have no control over it.

  12. Saieden February 19, 2020 11:03 pm #

    Looking good I think. The only change I would make is to include non-infantry (ie T5 or more) battlesuits into BGH and drones into reaper.

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:41 am #

      Yeah, some of them don’t have the infantry keyword, I always forget that. We will look at that, that would be fair.

      • Richard S. February 20, 2020 7:29 am #

        Keep in mind, tactical drone units with 10+ models give up Marked for Death now, and 3 Riptides can give up max BGH as well. Additionally, drones are already punished in the ITC format in regards to enclosed ruins which they cannot end their move inside of them.

        • Reecius February 20, 2020 7:57 am #

          True, but I think for T’au players they’ve gotten used to dodging so many of the secondaries for so long it feels weird now when in reality it’s just a fair application of the rules to include Battlesuits. And Drones giving up a M4D point is totally fine, IMO, as they are so frustratingly difficult to kill and so crazy good, too. You earn that point, lol. There are a lot of 100pt units in other armies that will give up that point vastly easier. Same with Riptides, they’re so resilient.

          • abusepuppy February 20, 2020 5:56 pm

            “Unit X is good so we should punish it with missions” isn’t really a very good plan. Tau armies already have plenty of missions that are easy to score against them (like Butcher’s Bill and Marked, not to mention Headhunter), it seems a bit preemptive to change the rules specifically to punish them.

            Yes, there are many units that are easier to kill than 100pts of Shield Drones. That’s because Shield Drones literally have nothing else going for them other than how tough they are to kill- and even that doesn’t mean much in the face of the current firepower we see.

          • Reecius February 21, 2020 7:26 am

            They were included in Reaper before, they should be now, too. I just forget they have so many unique keywords or they would have already been included.

          • Sebastian Magnusson February 20, 2020 11:19 pm

            Please do!

            I really miss Tau players frothing at the mouth about Reece’s master plan to ruin Tau and I’m sure you do too.

            It’s been far too long 🙂

          • Reecius February 21, 2020 7:30 am

            Haha, right?! lol

          • Michael Corr February 21, 2020 8:31 am

            Don’t let the silence fool you, he’s still out to get them!

            The most powerful army in the game is currently “Iron Hands”. If you rearrange the letters you get “I Hate T’au”. Coincidence?!? I think not!

            Plus, I know for a fact that he added the apostrophe to “T’au” just to piss people off.

  13. Saieden February 19, 2020 11:11 pm #

    Also I would like to know how vibrocannons, smasha guns, etc. interact with M4D, and I suppose combat squads as well. Do we look at the points of the unit on the board or the entire entry (obviously you’d have to kill each individual unit to score the point)?

    • abusepuppy February 20, 2020 2:24 am #

      Marked For Death is chosen before the game starts, so you count the combined unit.

  14. Ben February 19, 2020 11:28 pm #

    Really like all the changes so far and I always hated the seize. As you say people just risk it and then 1 in 6 times it just wildly swings the balance the other way.

    When it comes to IGO/UGO vs. alternating deployment, why not both?

    Infiltrators could all be made to deploy first in an alternating fashion, then the main force done with the IGO/UGO method.

    Even if as you say the IGO/UGO isn’t technically a problem, its not very fun if you go 2nd and cant infiltrate because you were fully zoned out.

    • Agent X February 20, 2020 6:39 am #

      This is an interesting idea and helps keep balance.

      Can we green light imited alternative deployment for infiltrator type units?

      • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:42 am #

        We used to do both but looking at the data we have saw that it swung some armies into ludicrous win %.

        Now, going the other way seems to do that for WS and to a limited degree CSM, but we feel the defender controlling the map a bit will help mitigate that.

  15. Xenomorph February 20, 2020 12:17 am #

    Can we also please fix gangbusters. Points comparison

    4 Points of Reaper, 40 intercessors 680 Points, will take the entire game to do, nearly impossible for 5++,5++ broken combo. 2 Wound models should really count as 3 models for reaper since they have much better saves in general compared to 1 wound models.

    4 Points of big hunter, 2 Imperial Knights roughly 800+ Points or 4 leman ruses 600+ Points. The most balanced kill secondary right now with kingslayer gone, which was perhaps the easiest kill.

    1 unit of Ridge Runners 177 Points, T5 4+ save, which also counts for big game hunter when your done with the easy first gang buster kill. I’d love a ridgerunner list, but the ITC secondaries absolutely murder that unit.

    • rvd1ofakind February 20, 2020 1:02 am #

      yuuup, gangbusters invalidates so many units..

      • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:51 am #

        Not really guys, re read the rules, the example you site isn’t accurate.

        And 2 wound models should count for 3, lol? An Ork Nob should count as 3? That’s silly and will instantly produce a ton of examples of unfair “baby and the bathwater” scenarios as with the above. You’re just thinking about Marines, which is the real issue at the moment, not the missions.

        • rvd1ofakind February 20, 2020 8:00 am #

          While what he said about BGH after Gang Busters is wrong, it’s not far off the mark. If your opponent takes 8+ ridgerunners, you can get 4 Gangbusters for killing one unit (8*3/6=4) and 4 BGH for killing another 5(5*8/10=4). Which is 8VP for 472 pts of dead models. Which is where you can compare to the 4VP for 600+pts of units.

          It targets light vehicles, who already struggle in a lot of cases, since they can’t be hidden and give away easy kills/kill mores.

          • Reecius February 20, 2020 8:12 am

            I guess it just boils down to how you write your lists. IME you see GSC give up Reaper/H.Hunter/Butcher’s Bill in almost every list regardless of the BGH/GB secondaries triggering more often with them. Astra Militarum lists give up Reaper/H.Hunter/BGH in pretty much every list I have seen as well. Some armies are just more vulnerable to certain secondaries. And, in general, they are all easier to get now regardless of list with the notable exception of Knight armies which got quite a boost compared to where they were in regards to secondaries but they really needed it.

            And, with the change to only 2 kill something secondary choices I think they’re better off than than they were. Whereas before you could pretty easily get 12pts with kill stuff, now you can only get 8. It’s probably a net gain in that regard for armies that were susceptible to the kill stuff secondaries.

        • Xenomorph February 20, 2020 12:52 pm #

          Having Nobs counts as three would change nothing for Orcs, since they give up full reaper regardless. Ofc a more optimal way would be say only 2W models with armor save 3+ count as three models. You say this is too complicated but the current maneuver secondaries are far more complicated in text.

          The problem with a unit like Ridgerunners is they give very easy 8 points if you take three units of them which i tried to explain.
          I know they dont stack that wasn’t my point . This creates more problems than you think, first of all it creates incentive of taking zero and just go reaper. Since butchers bill and reaper dont stack anymore this is just better. Second, if your opponent has already fulfilled his kill secondaries by turn 2 by killing fragile vehicle units he can play more cagey and defensive and dont have to take much risk.

          But mostly what i have a problem with is the logic of 20/6/10 , why is it only 6 wounds for the middle category which are in general t4-t6 some notable T7 exceptions like talos/robots and 10 wounds for the t7-8 class. this makes zero sense to me.. A more elegant solution could be base them off toughness instead, gang buster being for 3+wound units of t4-6 and big hunter for T7+ units. This has the added perk of not having these units qualify for both secondaries.

          • Reecius February 20, 2020 1:25 pm

            The point is to have GB apply to commonly seen, very tough units that are hard to kill. Bullgryn are a perfect example, or Centurions is another. We dialed back the wound count on them as frequently to get the full score on it you’d have to take out the entire unit or nearly the entire unit, such as with Bullgryn to max you have to get 8 of them. Centurions you need 6, etc. otherwise the appeal diminishes. These units are often very tough to take out so the wound count is lower. Same with BGH and Reaper. Reaper it is often very easy to take them off the table, therefore the wound count needs to be higher to make it nontrivial, etc.

            To your second point I already addressed that in another post.

            And yes, it is getting too fiddly to say: for every 2 wound model with a 3+ or better save, that counts for 3 wounds, etc. That’s unnecessarily complex for minimal to no actual gain.

          • Paul Winters February 23, 2020 8:28 pm

            What about Chaos units like Chaos Spawn, Bloodcrushers, or Fiends, that are 4W and comparatively easy to kill compared to a Bullgryn/Grotesque/Centurion?

    • Synesios February 20, 2020 1:55 am #

      “Once any wounds from a unit are counted towards your Gang Busters Secondary Objective, that unit may not score points for another Seek and Destroy Secondary Objective.” So no BGH after Gang Busters.

      However you are fundamentally right, the wounds characteristic should not be used solely to determine a big game in my opinion as it once again restricts design space. There is a gigantic difference in “big gameness” between a ridgerunner T5 W8 Sv4+ 59 points and the leviathan, T8 W13 Sv2+ for 300+ points, even though the leviathan only yields less then twice the glory.

      Under what definition is a dune buggy a “Big Game” but Tor Garadon is not? It should not be physical size but worthyness of the foe. It is tough to come up with any metric that does not restrict design space for the basis of 1 point. 150 points of single model units? That is also flawed.

      • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:48 am #

        Sure, but how do you determine worthiness of a fore, lol? Do we have a council to vote on every single unit? That doesn’t work. And any arbitrary points cut off, be it 100, 150, 79, whatever, will create situations where units fall under or over it that people will feel they shouldn’t. It’s impossible to design a general system that treats all of these units the same without getting hyper specific and unwieldy.

    • Xenos Player February 20, 2020 6:29 am #

      Reaper against termagants 4pts for 320pts of models achievable in a couple of turns by a squad of aggressors or centurions or admech robots.

      If you use a squad of ridge runners for gang busters they then can’t be counted for big game hunter. So yes you get 4pts for the first squad of 177 for Gang buster but to get the next 4 PTS for big game hunter you have to kill 5 ridgerunners. Previously you only had to kill 4. If they select those two secondaries they also don’t get any kill point secondaries for the other 1500 points of your army.

      • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:47 am #

        Yes, high model count armies, or high wound infantry armies, will give up Reaper. You just have to work around it. I am plying my Nids right now with a super high model count and they’re doing very well in the missions. I assume I give up Reaper, but so what? If you have a vehicle heavy army you are going to give up BGH, etc. Almost every army in the game will be easy prey for one of these secondaries.

        • Xenos Player February 20, 2020 2:00 pm #

          Yes, I was just replying to the 680 points for intercessors. It doesn’t matter what you do somethings are going to fall through the cracks and some armies are going to give up some secondaries easier than others. the new pack looks like there are less units getting through the cracks so that’s good

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:45 am #

      You need to read the rules for the secondaries again, they don’t stack.

  16. The Suave Lion February 20, 2020 12:38 am #

    Very interesting and welcome changes but I do have a concern with infiltrating units and being able to deploy aggressively without recourse.
    It looks like the data doesn’t support it but I tested against a raven guard / blood angels mix and it certainly was not a fun play experience having 9 assault cents, 2 warsuits, 10 death company, 2 smash captains and 2 stormtalons in my lines t1 whilst eliminators and TFC’s ruined my day lol. Tried to stick to boxes, cover and out of charge ranges as much as possible but still very difficult and felt really NPE. This was after rolling pointy dawn of war to re rolling to normal dawn of war

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:54 am #

      Yeah, from what we have, infiltrating armies aren’t as good in IGO/UGO deployment, dramatically so.

      I believe that the re-roll on the map will help a ton in this scenario, too. Go for a deep deployment zone, see where they put their units then counter deploy away from them.

      And again, the issue is the crazy power of Marines right now. People aren’t complaining about infiltrating units in other armies.

  17. Richard morgan February 20, 2020 1:22 am #

    I went to LGT and yeah the format worked well. I wasn’t enamoured before going with idea of no seize but it didn’t adversely affect any games. The merge of big game hunter and titanic looks good. Also the way you pick secondaries now is better having to have at least one from each style will give a better level of interaction between armies

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:55 am #

      Yeah, LGT was a great test of the system and I too found it was just better to know who was going first or second, made it much easier.

  18. George February 20, 2020 4:09 am #

    Maybe a question for the Falcon, but what was the sample size like for White Scars? Do they look that extreme because it’s only based on a handful of armies?

    Although not quite apples to apples because of the chance for seize in the old missions, it would be really interesting if we could acquire some win rates for armies during this beta time frame to see how they stack up against the LVO numbers.

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:55 am #

      It was one of the smaller sample sizes. Not many players played WS at the LVO and those that did tended to be good players so I am sure that has some influence on it.

    • steven pampreen February 21, 2020 9:50 am #

      It was near 30 players which surprised me cause that’s what I asked him as well.

  19. George February 20, 2020 4:19 am #

    With regards to the document itself, is it possible to put any additional/modified wording in a different color? Like how GW does it for the FAQs. Just makes it easier to go through the document after changes have been rolled out so I don’t have to read every single word again looking for changes.

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:56 am #

      Yeah, I could do that.

      • George February 20, 2020 11:31 am #

        you da man!!!!

  20. imafrog February 20, 2020 5:20 am #

    Do we have any numbers within this data to indicate who actually went firs? So for example on that RG stat. That’s a huge difference, but it seems like with the previous format going first in the IG/YU missions would provide a big advantage to a army like RG?

    With alternating deployment RG always has the ability to get units forward to they shouldn’t every be completely zoned out.

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:58 am #

      We do not, unfortunately. Well, I don’t think they caught that. But you have to assume it was roughly equal games going first and second for obvious reasons. With that in mind you then also can easily see that they were winning games regardless to have that insane win ratio. But what the difference is I can’t say at this time.

    • steven pampreen February 21, 2020 9:52 am #

      As a ravenguard player who did moderately well at LVO, I found I did better in alternating deployment as my opponent almost always made more mistakes which I could take advantage of. When they deployed their whole army at once they did a better job of preventing me from alpha striking them.

      It’s more like a universal lane bumpers guiding people to do a better job.

  21. Larks February 20, 2020 5:46 am #

    Things I like- Nonconstructive criticism
    Things I hate – Every change made on the document

    All non sequitur aside Reece, I hope you know we all appreciate what your doing. I’ll be hitting up the local ITC event this weekend to try these out and I am super excited. If you have a second though I do have a rules interaction question for the scoring of ” Behind Enemy Lines”, that you might have an interest in.

    Tallarn strat a unit of russes ( russ? russi ? Russeses?) in enemy deployment zone turn 2, they split into 3 separate units. Auto get 2 points?

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 6:59 am #

      Lol, yeah, you just have to roll with it some times.

      And in your instance, yes, that would be 2pts. It’s pretty easy to snag 2 with that one now, IME.

      • Michael Corr February 20, 2020 7:14 am #

        Damn, there goes my plan of running my Scouts into the enemy deployment zone on turn 1 to score Behind Enemy Lines for 2 pts. Might have to keep the little guys alive past turn 1 now! 🙂

  22. onecrazymojo February 20, 2020 8:26 am #

    Question regarding the Postman secondary: what is the thought process on not allowing vehicles, monsters, titanic units? Allowing a sub 10w character already feels like the best plan, since they’re essentially untargetable most of the time. Any other option is risking your unit getting shot off and denying you those points, which seems a fair balance for selecting a big model. It would also gives Knight armies an extra maneuver option, which would be nice.

    • Reecius February 20, 2020 9:07 am #

      Hmm, I could see giving it to Knights possibly as they really do struggle with movement. But, in a soup army it would be perhaps too easy. The idea was to give it to a sub 10 wound model. That way you can have a quick or tough character running around the table securing you points. Alternatively it could be a model in a big unit of say, orks or something if you thought they had the gas in the tank to cover the ground.

      • onecrazymojo February 20, 2020 9:20 am #

        What do you feel would make it too easy in a soup situation?

        I feel like anyone with access to a character on a bike or other high mobility platform will likely guarantee maxing, and unless I’m missing something, no vehicles/monsters/titans will be able to secure those points as easily (due to being targetable, harder to hide, and frequently not as fast).

        I’m also curious how gaining models back to a unit interacts with this (say with necrons): if the selected Postman model dies, does it count as the same model if added back to the unit? Allows for some gamey tricks of intentionally letting the Postman die so it can be added back to grab a new objective more easily.

        • Reecius February 20, 2020 12:19 pm #

          I was just speculating that it may be too easy with soup. I’m not certain if it would be or not.

          • onecrazymojo February 20, 2020 2:49 pm

            Ah, got it.

            And thanks for being willing to engage with everyone about this. It would be super easy to just say “This is our choice; love it or leave it.’

          • Reecius February 20, 2020 4:39 pm

            Of course, I get loads of good ideas from these interactions even if some of it is a bit negative but that’s the job, you know? I appreciate all of you sharing your thoughts.

      • Charioteer February 20, 2020 1:38 pm #

        Giving it to Knights would be welcome. I’ve played Chaos Knights for the last little while, and I still struggle with the movement secondaries. The change to King of the Hill is a welcome one; I’d definitely be on-board with allowing Knights to get Postman to provide a little more flexibility in maneuver secondaries for this army.

        • Reecius February 20, 2020 4:38 pm #

          Yeah, I think that is quite reasonable, honestly.

  23. Adam Kinmont February 20, 2020 10:22 am #

    Hi all, I had a question about marked for death regarding killing a whole unit that splits up during the course of the game. My friend thought that this meant if I did marked for death on his broadside unit with 6 drones attached I would have to kill the broadsides and the 6 drones. I thought because when they are set up they are set up as separate units I would just have to kill the broadsides. How does this work exactly?

    • abusepuppy February 20, 2020 5:52 pm #

      Marked For Death targets are chosen before the game starts, at which point the drones and battlesuits are a single unit. You will need to kill both of them.

  24. Paul Winters February 20, 2020 8:22 pm #

    Some of the maneuver secondaries call out “Flyer battlefield role” units. Keeping with the new keyword in Spring FAQ 2019, shouldn’t this also mention “aircraft”? So those outlier units like the Marauder Bomber or Heldrake, are both excluded as intended? Currently, a Marauder Bomber or a Tau Orca, can still score Behind Enemy Lines.

    • Reecius February 21, 2020 7:29 am #

      Yeah, good point, will check and change if that is accurate.

  25. Kdash February 21, 2020 1:49 am #

    Interesting data, and thanks for doing this update and continue to work on the missions and rules!

    In regards to the LVO data though, i know it is impossible to fully explore, but the Raven Guard info intrigues me. My biggest point of contention for it is, we do not know who went first in the games. What percentage of games were won by heavy infiltrator lists when going first, compared to going second in the IGO/UGO missions.Is it simply skewed against expectation because the majority of games had the RG lists going 2nd?

    The next 2-4 weeks will be telling either way.

    • Reecius February 21, 2020 7:29 am #

      We don’t have that data unfortunately but one would have to assume it was pretty dang close to 50/50 for obvious reasons.

  26. winterman February 22, 2020 10:23 am #

    Looking for some clarification on the definition of tabling and Sudden Death in the new missions.

    The 2019 packet defined tabling around not having models on the table in any given player turn (and subsequently played as a more restrictive version of Sudden Death where even first turn was counted as a Sudden Death condition).

    The new missions just say “meaning all of their units have been destroyed”. Does that mean the specifics of Sudden Death are ignored regarding units on the table, etc? I know the CA missions have this as a general rule now, but wasn’t entirely sure that was the intent here or not.

  27. Paul Winters February 23, 2020 8:22 pm #

    I don’t have any data on this, but I have a concern with attacker/defender deployments and the standard deployment maps.

    With the complete information of who is going first and second, smart defenders can deploy as far back as possible—forcing foot-slogging melee armies to move up for two or three turns, depending on the deployment map. Do the old deployment maps still make sense in this iteration of the game with such high model counts and shooting lethality?

    Reece brought up this anecdote on Signals last week, with his White Scars at LGT experience.

Leave a Reply