Kdash wrote:The LVO has the highest participation levels of any events in the world for one reason – it is the final event of the ITC season and has the potential to massively change your standing and get you in the running for a prize. It also has the benefit of being well established over multiple years, and it being held in a country with a very strong competitive scene.
If the LVO had decided to run CA19 missions this year, it would still have been the biggest event in the world.
it is the Crown Jewel event of the year and the big finale to a year of hard work. That isn’t going to change just because the missions they use might change.
The ITC is a scene. It is a year long race for points. A mentality and a strive to be the best Warhammer player over the course of the year. The ITC is not a mission set.
I feel like this is something that people have truly lost focus on, and instead only see the ITC as a ruleset.
Yeah, can't argue with that. I guess it's not actually the ITC rules themselves that the selling point, it's that it's the Big Competitive Tournament, and they've built their image around that. If the core rules changed, I think that the people playing in the event would just change too, to follow the 'prestige' of the LVO/ITC.
Of course, as it's later mentioned, it's not really as big here in the UK, but that's besides the point.
Jidmah wrote: IMO Soft scores done right are a very good thing - before one of the GWs here closed, they used to give separate prices for best general, best painter and best sportsman.
Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying. Just make it different tournaments.
The ITC gives people a reason to hold, and attend, competitive events around the world.
I would argue this point. I think prize support is what brings people to events. The bigger the pot, the bigger the attendance. ITC and rankings in and of themselves don't mean much to many. If there was an ITC tournament going on across town with no prize support and a non-ITC tournament going on at the same time with prize support, I'd argue the non-ITC tournament would be more well-attended.
Jidmah wrote: IMO Soft scores done right are a very good thing - before one of the GWs here closed, they used to give separate prices for best general, best painter and best sportsman.
Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying. Just make it different tournaments.
Yes, one of my FLGS used to give out these prizes. Best Sports, Best Painted and Best General. They were all awarded on a single tournament, but even if you got your face bashed in, you may still win Prize Support because your army looked amazing. It was good for the tournament scene, imo.
Dudeface wrote: If you don't care , don't engage to avoid the hostile situations, although I understand why you're trying to show your reasoning for you thinking GW should want to balance around ITC, however you don't know what they're reasoning is and hence all this is subjective at best. The LVO is so big partly due to years of invested effort creating a community, partly because they can actually host that many when many organisers can't, but most importantly the American scene is so ingrained into ITC and this is the big soap box drama showdown for the whole season.
Adepticon looks to not be ITC missions this year and has 310 player capacity, which will hopefully provide some interesting results.
Hostile situations don't worry me man, especially not online lol. To be honest I don't understand why the conversation has turned hostile. I'm just trying to apply a rationale to GW's actions - it's certainly all subjective guesswork. I don't really think one way of playing is better than another - they're just different. I think I know why GW are choosing to balance around the mission set, I could be wrong of course.
An Actual Englishman wrote:What I have said is that ITC is the most popular way to play 40k COMPETITIVELY.
Yes, and that's what I'm disagreeing with.
OK, well as none of us have the data to prove one way or another I guess it's a moot point? I'm not really trying to push that ITC is the most popular way to play, you've got it backwards. I think that GW are balancing around ITC because they believe (or it is) the most popular way to play.
Make a Painting Tournament and the Gaming Tournament. Then give sportmanship points that don't influence the Gaming Tournament rankings. Have a winner for both tournaments and then a "Man of the century" or something like that for the guy with the highest points in every category of the tournaments you are running + Spormantship points.
I think sportsmanship is appropriate and a worthwhile measure of skill. One that keeps their head and still wins is a better general.
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No, they're not - depending on how they're implemented.
Galas wrote: Make a Painting Tournament and the Gaming Tournament. Then give sportmanship points that don't influence the Gaming Tournament rankings. Have a winner for both tournaments and then a "Man of the century" or something like that for the guy with the highest points in every category of the tournaments you are running + Spormantship points.
Or, as Wayniac was suggesting, "Best Painted", "Best Sportsman" and "Best General", with a "Best Overall" award for the person who, well, does the best overall.
Ishagu wrote: To add, this topic isn't about scrapping the ITC.
Their stat tracking, league tables, hobby track, etc etc are all fantastic. It's just the missions themselves we're discussing.
I think we're in agreement for the most part. The hobby needs something like the ITC, but it also needs to be able to be critical of itself. Anytime I've heard from anyone closely related to the ITC folks, it seems pretty defensive.
Ishagu wrote: To add, this topic isn't about scrapping the ITC.
Their stat tracking, league tables, hobby track, etc etc are all fantastic. It's just the missions themselves we're discussing.
I think we're in agreement for the most part. The hobby needs something like the ITC, but it also needs to be able to be critical of itself. Anytime I've heard from anyone closely related to the ITC folks, it seems pretty defensive.
If we seem defensive its because we're pretty exacting about what we'd accept for evidence or rational arguments.
I doubt you'd have any such success replacing ITC with CA17/18 missions. CA19? Maybe, but ITC will be updating missions now, too. On the other side the #8 Ork beat Iron Hands - the big bad - in rounds 5 and 6. Those are the rounds when opponents are pretty solid.
Certainly he didn't win by list building out of it. So was it the missions that permitted it?
Ishagu wrote: To add, this topic isn't about scrapping the ITC.
Their stat tracking, league tables, hobby track, etc etc are all fantastic. It's just the missions themselves we're discussing.
I think we're in agreement for the most part. The hobby needs something like the ITC, but it also needs to be able to be critical of itself. Anytime I've heard from anyone closely related to the ITC folks, it seems pretty defensive.
Something something tendency for institutions to perpetuate themselves.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
Ishagu wrote: To add, this topic isn't about scrapping the ITC.
Their stat tracking, league tables, hobby track, etc etc are all fantastic. It's just the missions themselves we're discussing.
I think we're in agreement for the most part. The hobby needs something like the ITC, but it also needs to be able to be critical of itself. Anytime I've heard from anyone closely related to the ITC folks, it seems pretty defensive.
If we seem defensive its because we're pretty exacting about what we'd accept for evidence or rational arguments.
I doubt you'd have any such success replacing ITC with CA17/18 missions. CA19? Maybe, but ITC will be updating missions now, too. On the other side the #8 Ork beat Iron Hands - the big bad - in rounds 5 and 6. Those are the rounds when opponents are pretty solid.
Certainly he didn't win by list building out of it. So was it the missions that permitted it?
I suspect Cities of Death/Urban Conquest style scenario would've thrown a spanner in the ITC IH lists I've seen and CoD was one of the more interesting core book scenarios to play, but UC's popularity didn't seem to translate to any ITC wise.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
On the other side the #8 Ork beat Iron Hands - the big bad - in rounds 5 and 6. Those are the rounds when opponents are pretty solid.
Certainly he didn't win by list building out of it. So was it the missions that permitted it?
I can only he assume he won by practicing against the ITC meta lists with static missions and limiting terrain guidelines. I doubt it was playing Maelstrom or Eternal War missions or playing terrains that could be interpreted a variety of ways from LOS perspectives. But that would be a quick assumption without reviewing the games themselves.
If we seem defensive its because we're pretty exacting about what we'd accept for evidence or rational arguments.
Then this is exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of a critically-evaluated format, it is arbitrated over and determined if something is rational or not. From whose perpsective? How does the ITC gather its critical data? How does it know that something is working for 25% of the tournament playerbase, but not for the other 75% of tournament goers? These are not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely curious. Are there polls taken, not of the people who places only in Round 5+, but also people who lost all of their games? Are there opinions of first-time tournament-goers evaluated? There are ways to collect opinions of thousands and thousands of people and filter them out to make a system head and shoulders better than it might be if it had, say 10% of that feeding data into it and deciding who is valid and who isn't. A metaphor, if you will:
A company that you work for implements a new rule that you completely disagree with. Every time you go to work, you have to deal with this new rule and it affects your enjoyment of the job. You press on and overlook the rule, but any time it creeps up, it puts you off. However, everyone on the 5th floor told you that it was agreed upon -- that they love it -- and that it was a rule that was great for the company. How does that make you feel? Disenfranchised? Like you have no stake in the system?
Maybe that is what you're going for; that you are the playtesters, you are the rules arbitrators and you know what's best for everyone. That you don't need the opinion of Average Joe who doesn't go to all the tournaments because his opinion is deemed "irrational". It may be rational to a LOT of people, but who determines if it is or not? You do.
In contrast of the hypothetical company above, the real company I work for is amazing. The C-Suite Executives will freely tell you that they don't know what is always best for everyone and that without the feedback from everyone -- from the CFO to the person who has only been employed two weeks -- that we would not be as successful as we are. They don't always put every opinion into practice - that would be impossible. But they do ask every single person in the company on a quarterly basis, "What are we doing well? What are we not?" And if there are a majority of responses pointing to a problem, they tend to address it. Occasionally, the issue is something that everyone on the 5th floor agreed upon and loves - something they believed was great for the company. But it was not great for the majority of the people who make up their workforce, so, even though it seemed great, it actually was not. Even though we have a CEO, a CFO, a Board of Directors, etc., etc. - data is collected from a variety of sources and all angles are evaluated. It is a great place to work, but it is that way because I know that they have the interest of the company's longevity as their driving force. It is apparent in the workforce and throughout the country in the 90+ locations that we have.
I know for a fact that there are people that do not go to events if the rules are ITC. These are not forum lurkers, but real life Warhammer 40k fans. The answer they often get is "okay, just don't go if you don't like it." Is that the message that should be sent to foster a healthy tournament climate? Or should they feel like they can reach out to Frontline Gaming and that their opinion will be heard?
When those in charge take on a defensive posture when it comes to criticism, they tend to draw further inward, to seek out less opinions. But when they do that, they are often missing out on the perspective of the new employee or the person who is quitting because of the new rule. I just hope the ITC is considering all angles, talking to players from all over the tournament spectrum and taking as many opinions into account as they can, not just the opinions of the Top 20 in the World or of their close inner circle.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
right, I'll bet they dont even shake their opponents hand after the game.
It's like sportsmanship is the boogeyman and they're the scared 4yo hiding under the covers...except HE'S REAL AND STANDING RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
right, I'll bet they dont even shake their opponents hand after the game.
It's like sportsmanship is the boogeyman and they're the scared 4yo hiding under the covers...except HE'S REAL AND STANDING RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just assume anyone afraid of sportsmanship is TFG.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!
(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!
(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)
Then this is exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of a critically-evaluated format, it is arbitrated over and determined if something is rational or not. From whose perpsective? How does the ITC gather its critical data? How does it know that something is working for 25% of the tournament playerbase, but not for the other 75% of tournament goers? These are not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely curious. Are there polls taken, not of the people who places only in Round 5+, but also people who lost all of their games? Are there opinions of first-time tournament-goers evaluated? There are ways to collect opinions of thousands and thousands of people and filter them out to make a system head and shoulders better than it might be if it had, say 10% of that feeding data into it and deciding who is valid and who isn't. A metaphor, if you will:
A company that you work for implements a new rule that you completely disagree with. Every time you go to work, you have to deal with this new rule and it affects your enjoyment of the job. You press on and overlook the rule, but any time it creeps up, it puts you off. However, everyone on the 5th floor told you that it was agreed upon -- that they love it -- and that it was a rule that was great for the company. How does that make you feel? Disenfranchised? Like you have no stake in the system?
Maybe that is what you're going for; that you are the playtesters, you are the rules arbitrators and you know what's best for everyone. That you don't need the opinion of Average Joe who doesn't go to all the tournaments because his opinion is deemed "irrational". It may be rational to a LOT of people, but who determines if it is or not? You do.
In contrast of the hypothetical company above, the real company I work for is amazing. The C-Suite Executives will freely tell you that they don't know what is always best for everyone and that without the feedback from everyone -- from the CFO to the person who has only been employed two weeks -- that we would not be as successful as we are. They don't always put every opinion into practice - that would be impossible. But they do ask every single person in the company on a quarterly basis, "What are we doing well? What are we not?" And if there are a majority of responses pointing to a problem, they tend to address it. Occasionally, the issue is something that everyone on the 5th floor agreed upon and loves - something they believed was great for the company. But it was not great for the majority of the people who make up their workforce, so, even though it seemed great, it actually was not. Even though we have a CEO, a CFO, a Board of Directors, etc., etc. - data is collected from a variety of sources and all angles are evaluated. It is a great place to work, but it is that way because I know that they have the interest of the company's longevity as their driving force. It is apparent in the workforce and throughout the country in the 90+ locations that we have.
I know for a fact that there are people that do not go to events if the rules are ITC. These are not forum lurkers, but real life Warhammer 40k fans. The answer they often get is "okay, just don't go if you don't like it." Is that the message that should be sent to foster a healthy tournament climate? Or should they feel like they can reach out to Frontline Gaming and that their opinion will be heard?
When those in charge take on a defensive posture when it comes to criticism, they tend to draw further inward, to seek out less opinions. But when they do that, they are often missing out on the perspective of the new employee or the person who is quitting because of the new rule. I just hope the ITC is considering all angles, talking to players from all over the tournament spectrum and taking as many opinions into account as they can, not just the opinions of the Top 20 in the World or of their close inner circle.
Well, to be clear, I'm not in the business of knowing what is best for everyone. I'm also not a hardline ITC person even if I argue its side most often.
From a personal level my position comes from being frustrated by GW missions often and then coming across ITC, playing it, and developing a strong appreciation for what it offered. I likewise expect someone willing to criticize something to have spent time in it and understanding it -- this is probably my biggest peeve where people come out against it and it seems they have not used the system. If they just don't like that structure, fine, but don't use it as a place to attack balance.
On the flip side of this I am not willing to criticize CA19, because I have not spent sufficient time in it. I am working to change that. If I get the sense that CA19 is better for the health of the game I will be the strongest advocate and I will help people organize and collect the information necessary to prove it.
Now a really fair criticism is that ITC has a large learning curve. It isn't simple to get into and requires a lot of thought. People also talk about "secondary avoidance lists", but they fail to recognize the secondaries that don't require interaction with the other army. That Ork list above offers up several avenues to score against it and clearly that was not an issue to his success.
ITC does take feedback. Some people did not like that they did not take the feedback they wanted to give last time, because they gave a form with a limited set of answers. But this time we also need to step a little carefully, because people's feelings on how ITC missions work gets warped by how stupid Iron Hands are right now. And as far as I'm concerned LVO is a null set for the state of the game, because everything is so screwed up right now (even if there are interesting questions to ask within it).
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!
(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Well, I'd sooner the guy with the fake smile who bought me a beer wins than the guy who wins based on painting.
Afterall, how do you know wether the player painted their own stuff or it's a commission job?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!
(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)
Completely great way to miss the point.
I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!
(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)
Completely great way to miss the point.
I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
Then the guy who shook your hand saying "good game" instead of the one just saying it. Take your pick. It has nothing to do with the game though so it's asinine to have it affect your overall score.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!
(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)
Completely great way to miss the point.
I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
Then the guy who shook your hand saying "good game" instead of the one just saying it. Take your pick. It has nothing to do with the game though so it's asinine to have it affect your overall score.
It has a lot to do with the game; plenty of people play or don't play games based on the quality of the community and there are places where 40k is the worst real life gaming experience(beating out even M:tG). The difference between the player that shakes hands and says GG isn't going to be different from the player that just says it but it will discouraged sloppy play etiquette and plain rudeness.
Example: I played another game online with a few different people. One was a self aware person with characteristics that sounded quite sociopathic when I reread them and another was a relatively self aware person that after reflection sounded like a narcissist to me.
One of them I love and would play with all the time and occasionally have little thoughts about that make me smile and the other has caused me to reflexively defend another player I don't have the time of day for because of 'stuff' they did. Can you guess which is which?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!
(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)
Completely great way to miss the point.
I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
Then the guy who shook your hand saying "good game" instead of the one just saying it. Take your pick. It has nothing to do with the game though so it's asinine to have it affect your overall score.
Let's look at this another way, complete a-hole wins the tourney and leaves everyone annoyed and they think "what a douche I won't come to this event again because of TFG's like that", vs "Oh Jimmy won overall, he wasn't best general but he's a decent dude and made sure everyone had a good time, this is a welcoming community and one that's worth sticking around in". which event grows and which community has the better atmosphere?
Dudeface wrote: I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.
So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.
Dudeface wrote: I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.
So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.
That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
Dudeface wrote: I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.
So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.
Any system with a score can be gamed, that's just the way it is and I agree it needs to be scored independently. Maybe "best overall" needs to vanish and just have best painted, sportsman, general etc?
Dudeface wrote: I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.
So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.
That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
Nope that's a personal thing I'm afraid, I have no emotional attachment to someone based on their model or scheme choice.
Let's look at this another way, complete a-hole wins the tourney and leaves everyone annoyed and they think "what a douche I won't come to this event again because of TFG's like that", vs "Oh Jimmy won overall, he wasn't best general but he's a decent dude and made sure everyone had a good time, this is a welcoming community and one that's worth sticking around in". which event grows and which community has the better atmosphere?
what do you mean by everyone? The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot. now usual GW tournament stories aside,
I don't know much more about tournaments the stories people tell around the store or what I can read on forums. I do know something about sports. And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nope that's a personal thing I'm afraid, I have no emotional attachment to someone based on their model or scheme choice.
it is a question of example, and not of emotions. People have their own likes and dislikes. . If someone comes with a shirt with X on it, and you hate X, your not going to like them much. And I say this as a person who generaly gets confused by feeling and human interactions. WWII german stuff is one of those things, I have no confusion about. But again this is just me
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
Do you have to paint your own army to get that score - I get most of mine painted (because I can, I have better things to do with my time and I am rubbish at it) - does that matter in this context? Is it just bringing a well painted army?
Painting awards were more of a thing before commission painting became more common. I don't think it has a place anymore due to this. Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
As much as I would enjoy CA missions to get more popular in the tournament circuit I believe GW has already dropped the ball on all of this. ITC currently provides ranking, best in factions, and what not. They already have infrastructure for competitive play in place that encourages participation and tracks scoring. GW needs to do the same if they want to counter ITC.
Eldarsif wrote: As much as I would enjoy CA missions to get more popular in the tournament circuit I believe GW has already dropped the ball on all of this. ITC currently provides ranking, best in factions, and what not. They already have infrastructure for competitive play in place that encourages participation and tracks scoring. GW needs to do the same if they want to counter ITC.
Its not about GW competing with the ITC, its about the ITC warping the meta and the balance of the game due to how vocal its players are about perceived imbalances.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
Dudeface wrote: Any system with a score can be gamed, that's just the way it is and I agree it needs to be scored independently. Maybe "best overall" needs to vanish and just have best painted, sportsman, general etc?
That's how it was at the store here - top general got a box of models or two (often traded away/sold by the winner), worst general got some metal model blister(shows how long ago this was), top painter got some brushes and paints and top sportsman got a t-shirt, some dice and a poster. You can't exactly transfer those prices to a modern GT, but I think the idea of awarding different things for different parts of the hobby works fine.
Eldarsif wrote: As much as I would enjoy CA missions to get more popular in the tournament circuit I believe GW has already dropped the ball on all of this. ITC currently provides ranking, best in factions, and what not. They already have infrastructure for competitive play in place that encourages participation and tracks scoring. GW needs to do the same if they want to counter ITC.
Those are all great things and not what the discussion is about. The ITC can continue to exist and should do so, their tracking in particular is great.
It's the ITC missions specifically we are discussing, and they aren't required for the tournament circuit to exist. The AoS ITC uses the GW missions for play.
Eldarsif wrote: As much as I would enjoy CA missions to get more popular in the tournament circuit I believe GW has already dropped the ball on all of this. ITC currently provides ranking, best in factions, and what not. They already have infrastructure for competitive play in place that encourages participation and tracks scoring. GW needs to do the same if they want to counter ITC.
Those are all great things and not what the discussion is about. The ITC can continue to exist and should do so, their tracking in particular is great.
It's the ITC missions specifically we are discussing, and they aren't required for the tournament circuit to exist. The AoS ITC uses the GW missions for play.
My point is that the ITC guys are probably vested in their own system and I honestly doubt they would switch considering how long they've worked on it. AoS missions managed to come in a decent form before a large entity like ITC came to fill in the gaps like they did originally with 40k. Maybe that is pessimism on my part, but I can't help but be a little cynical regarding this
The AoS tracking on ITC is also woefully low and uninteresting. AOS is not exactly ITC's strong suit currently. I see more and more people move towards 40k ITC, but AoS seems less centred around a single third party like in 40k.
Eldarsif wrote: As much as I would enjoy CA missions to get more popular in the tournament circuit I believe GW has already dropped the ball on all of this. ITC currently provides ranking, best in factions, and what not. They already have infrastructure for competitive play in place that encourages participation and tracks scoring. GW needs to do the same if they want to counter ITC.
Those are all great things and not what the discussion is about. The ITC can continue to exist and should do so, their tracking in particular is great.
It's the ITC missions specifically we are discussing, and they aren't required for the tournament circuit to exist. The AoS ITC uses the GW missions for play.
My point is that the ITC guys are probably vested in their own system and I honestly doubt they would switch considering how long they've worked on it. AoS missions managed to come in a decent form before a large entity like ITC came to fill in the gaps like they did originally with 40k. Maybe that is pessimism on my part, but I can't help but be a little cynical regarding this
The AoS tracking on ITC is also woefully low and uninteresting. AOS is not exactly ITC's strong suit currently. I see more and more people move towards 40k ITC, but AoS seems less centred around a single third party like in 40k.
By rights the ITC committee or whatever should do what the community wants. Plenty of people have expressed displeasure with what magic box terrain has done to ITC events and now people are thinking secondaries need a rework. Now would really be the best time to say "look, we'll try CA2019 over the next few events and see how it goes". Then they can rework their own missions and such while they get data from running CA2019. They lose nothing from trying CA2019 and if it doesn't work out they can say "we tried, it didn't work, quit asking."
But then that would expect a ruling power to do whats best for its community and that basically never happens.
The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.
Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?
No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.
There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!
(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)
Completely great way to miss the point.
I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
Then the guy who shook your hand saying "good game" instead of the one just saying it. Take your pick. It has nothing to do with the game though so it's asinine to have it affect your overall score.
Let's look at this another way, complete a-hole wins the tourney and leaves everyone annoyed and they think "what a douche I won't come to this event again because of TFG's like that", vs "Oh Jimmy won overall, he wasn't best general but he's a decent dude and made sure everyone had a good time, this is a welcoming community and one that's worth sticking around in". which event grows and which community has the better atmosphere?
Which is just "pick your favorite person", especially the won you beat instead of the one that beat you to be petty!
No, that's also bad for the community. People who are more chummy with each other are going to pick each other. Nobody will be objective about that, sorry.
Just make the different categories ACT like different categories, no? isnt that the simplest fix?
Best General - strongest player, this is actually based on the tournament results
Best Hobbyist - paint and modeling and stuff
Best Sportsmanship - chillest dude to play with
That way a good painter could get in the actual tournament for fun while he knows he's actualyl competing for the best hobbyist part, his results in the tourney wouldnt affect him, and his painting skill wouldnt affect his result in the tournament.
that way you still reward good palyers without "stealing" points from them because they aren't the artistic type
that way you still reward players with good attitude and that are enjoyable to play with. This then tells onlookers that 40k rewards good sportsmanship and not just skills.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
Ishagu wrote: The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,
What are your thoughts on the Schemes of War missions? The ITC used to play with a modified Maelstrom format not all that long ago.
Goonhammer review linked in the spoiler for those who not familiar with them.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
Ishagu wrote: The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,
What are your thoughts on the Schemes of War missions? The ITC used to play with a modified Maelstrom format not all that long ago.
Goonhammer review linked in the spoiler for those who not familiar with them.
I think the new CA Maelstrom missions are similar in regards to Deck Building. I actually love Maelstrom missions, but I think they are a tad too swingy and random at times. In a casual setting where winning isn't important they are simply brilliant, but I can imagine some feel bad moments in a tournament environment.
Case in point, not long ago I played in a tournament using ETC rules, and the objectives I drew in the initial turns lost me the game. This is less likely now due to the 18 card deck, but could still happen with some particularly bad luck.
The problem that people have brought up with the CA2019 missions is there is simply not enough points to differentiate between players.
Even at a local RTT a couple players going 2-1 could be tied with the limited points you can score in a CA 2019 mission.
I don't see how you get around this without adding more ways to score and once you do that we are back into the "homebrew" problem that people have with the ITC.
Nothing wrong with more games ending in a Draw. It's a legitimate outcome to a game. Use tie breakers to decide who the winner is, highly unlikely that both players lost the same number of points.
bananathug wrote: The problem that people have brought up with the CA2019 missions is there is simply not enough points to differentiate between players.
Even at a local RTT a couple players going 2-1 could be tied with the limited points you can score in a CA 2019 mission.
I don't see how you get around this without adding more ways to score and once you do that we are back into the "homebrew" problem that people have with the ITC.
If you draw with CA 2019 and its a knock out not a league or table. Then you simply evaluate who did most damage. Done. If it;s a league or table then it carries over no need for secondary rules.
Ishagu wrote: The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,
What are your thoughts on the Schemes of War missions? The ITC used to play with a modified Maelstrom format not all that long ago.
Goonhammer review linked in the spoiler for those who not familiar with them.
I think the list building criticisms for ITC would also apply to Schemes.
As Thousand Sons I have "D3 for destroying a unit in the psychic phase", "destroy an enemy unit (D3 for IMPERIUM)", and 6 points for casting 12 powers.
If I pull these cards and have built my list to send as many smites as possible then I would score D3 + D3 + 6 for killing a single unit of 5 Intercessors in a single turn. Then I shuffle those back into my deck and that's literally all I spend CP on other than the occasional perils.
Obviously those don't all come up simultaneously, but when they do it would be devastating and it's a pretty easy set of objectives to accomplish.
But how do you determine who is the highest ranked player when you have 8 guys that went 1-1 with the same round scores in a 50 person tournament? Or 5th place between all the 4-1 players?
The big tournaments have max scores per round of 30-40 points so that there is such a small chance of 10 dudes winning their games with 14 out of 18 points.
I didn't get it at first and took a couple posters to explain it to me but without a wide range of scores the GW missions just are not practical to run a tournament and determine parings and in some cases a winner without a larger range of potential scores (which means secondaries which means homebrew).
Besides, I still find the CA 2019 missions pretty boring when compared to something like the newest adepticon mission pack
edit: you would have to remove all faction specific cards from deck building to have anything that resembled a "fair" game when using maelstrom decks.
Ishagu wrote: The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,
What are your thoughts on the Schemes of War missions? The ITC used to play with a modified Maelstrom format not all that long ago.
Goonhammer review linked in the spoiler for those who not familiar with them.
I think the list building criticisms for ITC would also apply to Schemes.
As Thousand Sons I have "D3 for destroying a unit in the psychic phase", "destroy an enemy unit (D3 for IMPERIUM)", and 6 points for casting 12 powers.
If I pull these cards and have built my list to send as many smites as possible then I would score D3 + D3 + 6 for killing a single unit of 5 Intercessors in a single turn. Then I shuffle those back into my deck and that's literally all I spend CP on other than the occasional perils.
Obviously those don't all come up simultaneously, but when they do it would be devastating and it's a pretty easy set of objectives to accomplish.
But those may be the last 3 you draw in the game when you've not got enough units to actually manage powers, or not face imperial players, or run into armies that are very heavy on psyker defense.
bananathug wrote: But how do you determine who is the highest ranked player when you have 8 guys that went 1-1 with the same round scores in a 50 person tournament? Or 5th place between all the 4-1 players?
The big tournaments have max scores per round of 30-40 points so that there is such a small chance of 10 dudes winning their games with 14 out of 18 points.
I didn't get it at first and took a couple posters to explain it to me but without a wide range of scores the GW missions just are not practical to run a tournament and determine parings and in some cases a winner without a larger range of potential scores (which means secondaries which means homebrew).
Besides, I still find the CA 2019 missions pretty boring when compared to something like the newest adepticon mission pack
edit: you would have to remove all faction specific cards from deck building to have anything that resembled a "fair" game when using maelstrom decks.
I really don't see as many people going unbeaten when using the CA rules.
Ishagu wrote: The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,
What are your thoughts on the Schemes of War missions? The ITC used to play with a modified Maelstrom format not all that long ago.
Goonhammer review linked in the spoiler for those who not familiar with them.
I think the list building criticisms for ITC would also apply to Schemes.
As Thousand Sons I have "D3 for destroying a unit in the psychic phase", "destroy an enemy unit (D3 for IMPERIUM)", and 6 points for casting 12 powers.
If I pull these cards and have built my list to send as many smites as possible then I would score D3 + D3 + 6 for killing a single unit of 5 Intercessors in a single turn. Then I shuffle those back into my deck and that's literally all I spend CP on other than the occasional perils.
Obviously those don't all come up simultaneously, but when they do it would be devastating and it's a pretty easy set of objectives to accomplish.
Most missions you get to remove X amount of cards from the deck before game begins. Remove as appropriate.
bananathug wrote: The problem that people have brought up with the CA2019 missions is there is simply not enough points to differentiate between players.
Even at a local RTT a couple players going 2-1 could be tied with the limited points you can score in a CA 2019 mission.
I don't see how you get around this without adding more ways to score and once you do that we are back into the "homebrew" problem that people have with the ITC.
Its almost as if there isn't decades of experience in this across the pond in Europe. Instead of scoring Win-Loss you gradient it by splitting 0-20 points between the players based on VP difference at the end.
You win by 5 points 17-3, you win by 10 15-5 ect
bananathug wrote: But how do you determine who is the highest ranked player when you have 8 guys that went 1-1 with the same round scores in a 50 person tournament? Or 5th place between all the 4-1 players?
The big tournaments have max scores per round of 30-40 points so that there is such a small chance of 10 dudes winning their games with 14 out of 18 points.
I didn't get it at first and took a couple posters to explain it to me but without a wide range of scores the GW missions just are not practical to run a tournament and determine parings and in some cases a winner without a larger range of potential scores (which means secondaries which means homebrew).
Uh, what exactly is preventing you from just using the VP scored as tiebreaker?
Besides, I still find the CA 2019 missions pretty boring when compared to something like the newest adepticon mission pack
Did you play any? Despite being quite simple, almost all create interesting and dynamic games.
edit: you would have to remove all faction specific cards from deck building to have anything that resembled a "fair" game when using maelstrom decks.
Up for discussion IMO. I was up against that legendary eldar psychic power combo on Sunday and I simply crushed and outscored him. When both players are stacking their deck in their favor, the faction objectives have a lot less impact.
Yep, played the CA 2019 missions a couple times each now and found that they don't quite produce the skew of results that ITC mission packs do (which is why the point spread seems like it could be an issue).
The missions Ascension and Pillars seem to provide the least competitive games and are too prone to becoming runaways and I would hate to have to use them in a tournament because some armies are just so much better at them than others.
Once we start using VPs to determine draws kill more because over important (IMHO) and while I think the new missions do help to get away from that I'm not sure if there is a perfect world where it is not the most important metric.
I'd love to see a tourney with the new CA 2019 missions (minus ascension and pillars) near me but GW has screwed the pooch so long with poorly designed missions it is going to take a lot of effort from them to push their mission pack back on the community. Maybe if they got more involved instead of letting independent tournament circuit organizers do their job for them we would see some traction but as long as the tournament scene is dominated by third parties I'm not sure if things are going to change.
The missions Ascension and Pillars seem to provide the least competitive games and are too prone to becoming runaways and I would hate to have to use them in a tournament because some armies are just so much better at them than others.
Ascension is a good example where Marines would dominate if they're carrying snipers. Marines would keep enemy characters off and their's would not shift. Especially the Dreadnought characters - can you imagine how brutal that would be?
Furthermore, if a player
controls the same objective marker with
the same CHARACTER for more than one
of their turns consecutively, the number
of victory points scored is increased; they
score 2 victory points at the end of their
turn for an objective marker that has been
controlled with the CHARACTER for two
of their turns consecutively, 3 victory
points if it has been controlled with the
CHARACTER for three of their turns
consecutively, and so on.
Pillars likewise favors killy Marines. As long as they kill you off objectives you won't be scoring all that much and the more they kill the better they score. It's basically having ITC Kill More without Kill or Hold or Hold More.
No Prisoners: At the end of each battle
round, a player scores 1 victory point if
more units from their opponent’s army
were destroyed during that battle round
than from their own army.
Siphon Power: At the end of each battle
round, if one player controls more
objective markers than their opponent,
they score 1 victory point. If they control
all four objective markers, they score 3
victory points instead. A player controls
an objective marker if they have more
models with the Troops Battlefield Role
within 3" of it than their opponent does
(other units cannot control objective
markers; ignore them when determining
who controls each objective marker in
this mission).
bananathug wrote: Yep, played the CA 2019 missions a couple times each now and found that they don't quite produce the skew of results that ITC mission packs do (which is why the point spread seems like it could be an issue).
The missions Ascension and Pillars seem to provide the least competitive games and are too prone to becoming runaways and I would hate to have to use them in a tournament because some armies are just so much better at them than others.
Once we start using VPs to determine draws kill more because over important (IMHO) and while I think the new missions do help to get away from that I'm not sure if there is a perfect world where it is not the most important metric.
I'd love to see a tourney with the new CA 2019 missions (minus ascension and pillars) near me but GW has screwed the pooch so long with poorly designed missions it is going to take a lot of effort from them to push their mission pack back on the community. Maybe if they got more involved instead of letting independent tournament circuit organizers do their job for them we would see some traction but as long as the tournament scene is dominated by third parties I'm not sure if things are going to change.
The last paragraph I think is really a big part of it, but I think one of the issues is that I wonder if the faction design even considers the rules and missions.
Some factions I feel are just left out in design that mission design is probably suffering.
It really does not matter how good a mission is, if some factions cannot even build to play it competitively.
bananathug wrote: Yep, played the CA 2019 missions a couple times each now and found that they don't quite produce the skew of results that ITC mission packs do (which is why the point spread seems like it could be an issue).
The missions Ascension and Pillars seem to provide the least competitive games and are too prone to becoming runaways and I would hate to have to use them in a tournament because some armies are just so much better at them than others.
Once we start using VPs to determine draws kill more because over important (IMHO) and while I think the new missions do help to get away from that I'm not sure if there is a perfect world where it is not the most important metric.
I'd love to see a tourney with the new CA 2019 missions (minus ascension and pillars) near me but GW has screwed the pooch so long with poorly designed missions it is going to take a lot of effort from them to push their mission pack back on the community. Maybe if they got more involved instead of letting independent tournament circuit organizers do their job for them we would see some traction but as long as the tournament scene is dominated by third parties I'm not sure if things are going to change.
The last paragraph I think is really a big part of it, but I think one of the issues is that I wonder if the faction design even considers the rules and missions.
Some factions I feel are just left out in design that mission design is probably suffering.
It really does not matter how good a mission is, if some factions cannot even build to play it competitively.
But the idea is to have varied enough missions you don't "build to the mission" as during the course of a tourney there will different objectives for each one.
bananathug wrote: Yep, played the CA 2019 missions a couple times each now and found that they don't quite produce the skew of results that ITC mission packs do (which is why the point spread seems like it could be an issue).
The missions Ascension and Pillars seem to provide the least competitive games and are too prone to becoming runaways and I would hate to have to use them in a tournament because some armies are just so much better at them than others.
Once we start using VPs to determine draws kill more because over important (IMHO) and while I think the new missions do help to get away from that I'm not sure if there is a perfect world where it is not the most important metric.
I'd love to see a tourney with the new CA 2019 missions (minus ascension and pillars) near me but GW has screwed the pooch so long with poorly designed missions it is going to take a lot of effort from them to push their mission pack back on the community. Maybe if they got more involved instead of letting independent tournament circuit organizers do their job for them we would see some traction but as long as the tournament scene is dominated by third parties I'm not sure if things are going to change.
GW ran a GT in the US last year. Hopefully they do more of them this year?
Dudeface wrote: But the idea is to have varied enough missions you don't "build to the mission" as during the course of a tourney there will different objectives for each one.
You always build for the mission, whether you play an abomination of Maelstrom and EW, a homebrew format, CA missions or one of the original missions in the rulebook. You also build for the tournament format, is it single elimination, % of scored VP during the game, VP scored or a format where you and your team gets to organize who plays against who on an enemy team. Sometimes that just means that you'll have to hope for getting the right matchups in the right missions to get not get clubbed, or you engineer your list to be good in certain matchups, at the end of the day you have to maximize the chances of getting whatever result you want and sometimes that means accepting a greater chance of losing in one mission or matchup to get much better chances in one or more other missions.
The alternative is the TO creating lists. I'd rather have a format that favours certain builds than a roulette format, you could create a perfectly balanced format where the ranking at the end of the tournament is decided by lottery, every army is balanced. SM are still busted in Maelstrom and EW even if ITC makes it worse not just because it minimizes people winning purely because of mission draw but because the format actually benefits SM.
The best general absolutely should be planning their army. What are they planning for, however?
Are they making a list that can adapt to varied mission conditions (Chapter Approved)?
Or are they planning a list which spams units that are effective at scoring points in objectives of their choosing (ITC missions)?
That doesn't tackle my point whatsoever. Whoever won all their games won all their games, period. You deciding they shouldn't be 1st place because the guy who lost by three points shook everyone's hands is a garbage attitude towards the actual better player, period. Why would someone want to attend a tournament where you might not actually win because someone's friends decided you don't deserve it or someone just doesn't like you beat them?
bananathug wrote: Yep, played the CA 2019 missions a couple times each now and found that they don't quite produce the skew of results that ITC mission packs do (which is why the point spread seems like it could be an issue).
The missions Ascension and Pillars seem to provide the least competitive games and are too prone to becoming runaways and I would hate to have to use them in a tournament because some armies are just so much better at them than others.
Once we start using VPs to determine draws kill more because over important (IMHO) and while I think the new missions do help to get away from that I'm not sure if there is a perfect world where it is not the most important metric.
I'd love to see a tourney with the new CA 2019 missions (minus ascension and pillars) near me but GW has screwed the pooch so long with poorly designed missions it is going to take a lot of effort from them to push their mission pack back on the community. Maybe if they got more involved instead of letting independent tournament circuit organizers do their job for them we would see some traction but as long as the tournament scene is dominated by third parties I'm not sure if things are going to change.
The last paragraph I think is really a big part of it, but I think one of the issues is that I wonder if the faction design even considers the rules and missions.
Some factions I feel are just left out in design that mission design is probably suffering.
It really does not matter how good a mission is, if some factions cannot even build to play it competitively.
But the idea is to have varied enough missions you don't "build to the mission" as during the course of a tourney there will different objectives for each one.
You build to the missions you may face, if you cannot build to one of the missions.(this can be oponants as well) then the other missions may not even matter.
Mission design is highly inspired by the rules, factions and how both can interact with them. Unless you completely and entirely hide all information on missions. Players will use that information to build there army.
The best general absolutely should be planning their army. What are they planning for, however?
Are they making a list that can adapt to varied mission conditions (Chapter Approved)?
Or are they planning a list which spams units that are effective at scoring points in objectives of their choosing (ITC missions)?
That doesn't tackle my point whatsoever. Whoever won all their games won all their games, period. You deciding they shouldn't be 1st place because the guy who lost by three points shook everyone's hands is a garbage attitude towards the actual better player, period. Why would someone want to attend a tournament where you might not actually win because someone's friends decided you don't deserve it or someone just doesn't like you beat them?
I actually don't think that sportsmanship should come into account because it's far too subjective.
We do need more strict hobby requirements, however. In my opinion. Far too many ugly, minimal effort armies out there.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
Eldarsif wrote: As much as I would enjoy CA missions to get more popular in the tournament circuit I believe GW has already dropped the ball on all of this. ITC currently provides ranking, best in factions, and what not. They already have infrastructure for competitive play in place that encourages participation and tracks scoring. GW needs to do the same if they want to counter ITC.
The ITC does all of that for AoS using the book-standard Generals Handbook missions. If the big FLG events stopped using the the ITC mission pack a lot of smaller events would quickly follow suit.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
The best general absolutely should be planning their army. What are they planning for, however?
Are they making a list that can adapt to varied mission conditions (Chapter Approved)?
Or are they planning a list which spams units that are effective at scoring points in objectives of their choosing (ITC missions)?
That doesn't tackle my point whatsoever. Whoever won all their games won all their games, period. You deciding they shouldn't be 1st place because the guy who lost by three points shook everyone's hands is a garbage attitude towards the actual better player, period. Why would someone want to attend a tournament where you might not actually win because someone's friends decided you don't deserve it or someone just doesn't like you beat them?
I actually don't think that sportsmanship should come into account because it's far too subjective.
We do need more strict hobby requirements, however. In my opinion. Far too many ugly, minimal effort armies out there.
Depends what you consider too minimal. I for example don't like bling on my HQ dudes whatsoever. However all my HQ dudes I made myself, as simplistic as they are (though once I get them painted and get dead bodies and gore on the bases they won't need to be flashy themselves).
I actually don't think that sportsmanship should come into account because it's far too subjective.
We do need more strict hobby requirements, however. In my opinion. Far too many ugly, minimal effort armies out there.
Interesting. I think the main prize support should be for Best Overall which would include sports and hobby elements. There can be side-prizes for best general/painting/sports in big enough events to also support that, just like there can also be best-in-faction awards for the really large events.
However that veers rather away from the topic, which would be switching mission packs.
A lot of what got me into competitive 40K was working with a local youth group towards them competing in the GW Schools League. As I was driving them to small tournaments to practice I thought I may as well join in - and got rather hooked. One of the things I like about the CA missions that I dislike about ITC missions is that each of them is fairly simple with minimal bookkeeping required, they are highly accessible to young players and also to inexperienced casual players. These missions are helpful in encouraging those young or new players into the competitive side of the game. Complex missions with a heavy bookkeeping element act as gatekeepers against those sorts of players - maybe that does not matter for flagship events like the LVO but if all the feeder/practice tournaments are also using the same over-complex missions it does matter.
The jump from playing with GW published missions to playing ITC is pretty painful. Not only do you need to deal with unfamiliar and far more complex missions but you quickly find that a lot of units within your faction which you thought were good are suddenly a liability and lose you games because they give up secondary points. Anything that inhibits those youngsters from progressing into competitive play is something I want to set aside - the top LVO players do not care if they have to buy a whole new army for the mission pack but your average teenager does not have that kind of money. This acts as yet another gatekeeper preventing youngsters from getting engaged with tournaments in this format - after all who wants to play with much loved models that are suddenly feel-bad hindrances because of the secondary missions?
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
Why do you need to "accomodate" your list to be a nice person? Boxers can be nice people, doesn't mean they pull punches.
That and I just realised your response had nothing to do with what sim-life insinuated.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
Why do you need to "accomodate" your list to be a nice person? Boxers can be nice people, doesn't mean they pull punches.
That and I just realised your response had nothing to do with what sim-life insinuated.
Yes it does, because they think it's unreasonable to expect a fair game like that. So I think the question deserves to be asked.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
Why do you need to "accomodate" your list to be a nice person? Boxers can be nice people, doesn't mean they pull punches.
That and I just realised your response had nothing to do with what sim-life insinuated.
Yes it does, because they think it's unreasonable to expect a fair game like that. So I think the question deserves to be asked.
You're projecting your own standards and superiority complex on to your opponent. I'm happy to lose with a fluffy list as long as we have a laugh at the same time, maybe get offered advice on how to improve etc.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?
New people can accidentally end up with significantly better armies, like someone starting Iron Hands or Custodes vs someone starting Tyranids or Dark Angels. Also I'm not made of money either. So why should anyone accommodate anyone because of GW's shoddy writing that you're defending?
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?
New people can accidentally end up with significantly better armies, like someone starting Iron Hands or Custodes vs someone starting Tyranids or Dark Angels. Also I'm not made of money either. So why should anyone accommodate anyone because of GW's shoddy writing that you're defending?
What's that got to do with sportsmanship at a tournament?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament?
I think a better general would be one who doesn't get to pick their objectives to suit their own plan, and is more capable of having a flexible, versatile strategy.
As I understand, ITC is about the player picking their objectives. GW missions are more about "here's your objectives, go complete them".
A general who can win a mission without knowing in advance what their objective is superior to one who's been given all the data in advance.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?
New people can accidentally end up with significantly better armies, like someone starting Iron Hands or Custodes vs someone starting Tyranids or Dark Angels. Also I'm not made of money either. So why should anyone accommodate anyone because of GW's shoddy writing that you're defending?
I never defended GW rules. That's not the topic. The topic is that it's unreasonable for you to approach a social interaction where the aim of the outcome is to enjoy yourself and decide that you won't compromise on anything in order for your opponent to also enjoy him/herself either.
I'll repost what I said on the third page of this thread for your benefit.
Sim-Life wrote: The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.
Dudeface wrote:You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Yup, agreed.
ITC is essentially a set of pre-existing conditions, which you are completely aware of, and can build to tailor to a specific one - is there generalship in that? Where's the initiative, the flexibility?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: The topic is that it's unreasonable for you to approach a social interaction where the aim of the outcome is to enjoy yourself and decide that you won't compromise on anything in order for your opponent to also enjoy him/herself either.
I'll repost what I said on the third page of this thread for your benefit.
Sim-Life wrote: The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.
happy_inquisitor wrote: The jump from playing with GW published missions to playing ITC is pretty painful. Not only do you need to deal with unfamiliar and far more complex missions but you quickly find that a lot of units within your faction which you thought were good are suddenly a liability and lose you games because they give up secondary points. Anything that inhibits those youngsters from progressing into competitive play is something I want to set aside - the top LVO players do not care if they have to buy a whole new army for the mission pack but your average teenager does not have that kind of money. This acts as yet another gatekeeper preventing youngsters from getting engaged with tournaments in this format - after all who wants to play with much loved models that are suddenly feel-bad hindrances because of the secondary missions?
These are really good points.
It's not just competitive balance that makes a good experience after all. Things like fun, flavour, accessibility, and player agency all really matter.
Dudeface wrote:You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Yup, agreed.
ITC is essentially a set of pre-existing conditions, which you are completely aware of, and can build to tailor to a specific one - is there generalship in that? Where's the initiative, the flexibility?
I think you guys are vastly over-simplifying. What is your experience with ITC?
bananathug wrote: But how do you determine who is the highest ranked player when you have 8 guys that went 1-1 with the same round scores in a 50 person tournament? Or 5th place between all the 4-1 players?
Strength of Schedule, like many other tournament systems use.
Dudeface wrote:You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Yup, agreed.
ITC is essentially a set of pre-existing conditions, which you are completely aware of, and can build to tailor to a specific one - is there generalship in that? Where's the initiative, the flexibility?
Lets not pretend that switching to CA2019 missions would stop people from knowing what the missions are. People would just build lists with them in mind anyway. A perfect solution to the problem you are pointing out would be unique missions in every events, that way no one would be able to know what the missions were and therefore would really need to build a TAC list instead of focusing on a specific mission.
Personally, i like the way infinity handles its tournamenst, it tells the players what the missions will be beforehand and the players build up to two list to bring to the event, using whichever they think best fits the current round's mission. Now this would translate poorly to 40k because of army size but i feel like knowing the missions beforehand and building a list with it in mind is actually a big part of being a good general. Adapting to the terrain layout/opponent/s strategy is also part of being a good general.
happy_inquisitor wrote: The jump from playing with GW published missions to playing ITC is pretty painful. Not only do you need to deal with unfamiliar and far more complex missions but you quickly find that a lot of units within your faction which you thought were good are suddenly a liability and lose you games because they give up secondary points. Anything that inhibits those youngsters from progressing into competitive play is something I want to set aside - the top LVO players do not care if they have to buy a whole new army for the mission pack but your average teenager does not have that kind of money. This acts as yet another gatekeeper preventing youngsters from getting engaged with tournaments in this format - after all who wants to play with much loved models that are suddenly feel-bad hindrances because of the secondary missions?
These are really good points.
It's not just competitive balance that makes a good experience after all. Things like fun, flavour, accessibility, and player agency all really matter.
Not just that, but generally someone unfamiliar with ITC gets presented with this huge list of secondary objectives, their opponent says "I'm taking Engineers and Gangbusters" - or whatever, pushing them in to making a decision fast about something that they don't really understand, and then they immediately get blindsided by a unit they can clearly draw LOS to standing behind a magic box and ruining one of their shooting attacks.
I've seen that happen several times at this point. It's pretty frustrating.
Dudeface wrote:You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Yup, agreed.
ITC is essentially a set of pre-existing conditions, which you are completely aware of, and can build to tailor to a specific one - is there generalship in that? Where's the initiative, the flexibility?
I think you guys are vastly over-simplifying. What is your experience with ITC?
I'll hold my hands up and say minimal, but the quotes you have there were in relation to a statement from Slayer stating that the best general was one who had pre-calculated and refined a list into a position where they get the win. Hence my response is that you shouldn't be able to machine to simply be mechanically superior 100% of the time due to a lack of variables.
Dudeface wrote:You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Yup, agreed.
ITC is essentially a set of pre-existing conditions, which you are completely aware of, and can build to tailor to a specific one - is there generalship in that? Where's the initiative, the flexibility?
I think you guys are vastly over-simplifying. What is your experience with ITC?
I'll hold my hands up and say minimal, but the quotes you have there were in relation to a statement from Slayer stating that the best general was one who had pre-calculated and refined a list into a position where they get the win. Hence my response is that you shouldn't be able to machine to simply be mechanically superior 100% of the time due to a lack of variables.
Seeing as one of the variables proposed here was letting who you like more determine the winner, why would I take those people seriously?
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?
New people can accidentally end up with significantly better armies, like someone starting Iron Hands or Custodes vs someone starting Tyranids or Dark Angels. Also I'm not made of money either. So why should anyone accommodate anyone because of GW's shoddy writing that you're defending?
What's that got to do with sportsmanship at a tournament?
You're gonna need to realize this is a different conversation with Yoyo.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament?
I think a better general would be one who doesn't get to pick their objectives to suit their own plan, and is more capable of having a flexible, versatile strategy.
As I understand, ITC is about the player picking their objectives. GW missions are more about "here's your objectives, go complete them".
A general who can win a mission without knowing in advance what their objective is superior to one who's been given all the data in advance.
And what does THAT have to do with you saying incorporating subjective things like Sportsmanship and Painting into the overall score?
Daedalus81 wrote:I think you guys are vastly over-simplifying. What is your experience with ITC?
Only what rules I've read, and the range of people's responses, I'll admit.
How much am I oversimplifying by?
Is it not true that ITC allows a player to pick and choose how they score?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think a better general would be one who doesn't get to pick their objectives to suit their own plan, and is more capable of having a flexible, versatile strategy.
As I understand, ITC is about the player picking their objectives. GW missions are more about "here's your objectives, go complete them".
A general who can win a mission without knowing in advance what their objective is superior to one who's been given all the data in advance.
And what does THAT have to do with you saying incorporating subjective things like Sportsmanship and Painting into the overall score?
I never mentioned painting. I mentioned sportsmanship because you're still playing against another human, and you should be rewarded for being a pleasant opponent.
If the game were to be played against an AI, or you were never supposed to interact or even know who you were playing against, a sportsmanship score wouldn't be needed. However, you're playing against another person, and thus entering a social covenant with them, and I don't see why being a good sport should be a cause for concern.
While there are people playing on the other side of the table, good behaviour should be rewarded.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?
You mean you weren't calling him on how the first visible quoted sentence is a blatant lie, based on how he's been posting? Shame.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?
You mean you weren't calling him on how the first visible quoted sentence is a blatant lie, based on how he's been posting? Shame.
You're talking about a different statement. He said it was unreasonable to expect two evenly pointed armies to compete against each other.
Dudeface wrote: I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.
So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.
Jidmah wrote:
Dudeface wrote: I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.
So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament?
I think a better general would be one who doesn't get to pick their objectives to suit their own plan, and is more capable of having a flexible, versatile strategy.
As I understand, ITC is about the player picking their objectives. GW missions are more about "here's your objectives, go complete them".
A general who can win a mission without knowing in advance what their objective is superior to one who's been given all the data in advance.
This is exactly the issue with ITC, why should you get to pick your objectives and then build your list for them. How does that translate into a "representation"(altho crudely) of a military engagement? The objectives you planned for often end up changing due to battlefield conditions, losses, gains, etc...
The "game is just a math equation" viewpoint is an incredibly unimaginative one and a symptom of a larger problem. People are being coddled and needto be expressly told what to do by "influencers". but that is a horse of an entirely different colour.
I never mentioned painting. I mentioned sportsmanship because you're still playing against another human, and you should be rewarded for being a pleasant opponent.
okey, and there is a problem because people are not nice or pleasant in general. If I play GK in 8th ed, and someone has a dislike for them, because in 5th ed they made him feel as if he wasted his time and money on the army he had, and now he keeps on ditching the points of every GK player, then there is no way to balance this by being what ever counts as nice and pleasant. Specially when one considers that any game is a competition, and soon we would get people score bombing opponents just so they don't get in to top 8 or don't win over all, and their real life friends do.
Rules should be the way they are in sports. In sports you are not obliged to be pleasant to your opponent, specially in contact sports. you just have to follow rules and not hurt your opponent real, but that is mostly because of sponsorships. And there still are sports where hurting the opposing players real bad, including career ending injuries are considered a norm.
no one should be rewarded for being pleasant, where different people considere different thing to be pleasant. I don't like when people talk, specially about stuff not related to the game, it makes me lose focus, plus I don't like to talk to people in general. Does that mean I am okey to score bomb anyone who tries to talk durning the game, about non related stuff? Is me getting a low score, assuming I would somehow go to a tournament, because I don't talk okey too? What if my opponent knows me and knows I don't talk, and does not score bomb me, but the next one doesn't and gives me 0 points for being a pleasant opponent? This gives people that are well known and who come from largest communities a bigger chance to get a better score. Because again, something bad in a person you don't know, can just be considered a strange quirk in someone you know real well.
It's 100% in the interest of a Tourney Organizer to get rid of people who don't bring a good vibe to a private event.
If their attendees have to deal with racists, sexists, jerks, etc. and don't have a good time? They won't come back. They don't owe you anything if you don't have the social skills to comport yourself respectably in public.
Anyway, maybe pin this conversation and go back to discussing the missions?
I never mentioned painting. I mentioned sportsmanship because you're still playing against another human, and you should be rewarded for being a pleasant opponent.
okey, and there is a problem because people are not nice or pleasant in general.
That's not an objective statement.
I'm sorry that your personal experiences have put you in a situation where that may be true for you, but in general, the vast, overwhelming majority of people, of complete strangers, has been positively pleasant at best, or indifferent to me at worst.
In any case, I don't think saying "people aren't nice" is a factual statement.
If I play GK in 8th ed, and someone has a dislike for them, because in 5th ed they made him feel as if he wasted his time and money on the army he had, and now he keeps on ditching the points of every GK player, then there is no way to balance this by being what ever counts as nice and pleasant. Specially when one considers that any game is a competition, and soon we would get people score bombing opponents just so they don't get in to top 8 or don't win over all, and their real life friends do.
And you seriously believe that MOST people would do that? That they'd have such a hatred of prior editions that they would deliberately torpedo the scores of other players simply for playing those armies?
Sounds like someone with a serious problem, and someone who realistically shouldn't be playing in public tournaments.
Rules should be the way they are in sports. In sports you are not obliged to be pleasant to your opponent
Categorically untrue. In football, you can be immediately sent off for unsportsmanlike behaviour, and makes explicit reference to having respect for the game. In fact, most British sports have these rules, and I believe most Olympic ones do too (however, more than likely more to set a good role model).
you just have to follow rules and not hurt your opponent real, but that is mostly because of sponsorships. And there still are sports where hurting the opposing players real bad, including career ending injuries are considered a norm.
Hurting someone as part of a match is part of that sport. That's represented by killing your enemies' models in 40k.
I'm talking about rude and disrespectful conduct, which in most sports (all, as far as I'm aware) is taboo.
no one should be rewarded for being pleasant, where different people considere different thing to be pleasant.
Obviously, there's a good degree of leeway, but it's not hard to know the difference between someone being kind towards you, and someone being an arse.
Are you genuinely of the opinion that people should be allowed to treat everyone else like dirt, and not be penalised?
I don't like when people talk, specially about stuff not related to the game, it makes me lose focus, plus I don't like to talk to people in general. Does that mean I am okey to score bomb anyone who tries to talk durning the game, about non related stuff? Is me getting a low score, assuming I would somehow go to a tournament, because I don't talk okey too? What if my opponent knows me and knows I don't talk, and does not score bomb me, but the next one doesn't and gives me 0 points for being a pleasant opponent?
If I were in that situation, I'd make my preferences clear to any opponent, sportsman scoring or not, because that would affect how you play. You have every right to discuss that initially with the TO, and also with every player you face, something like "hey, not to be a pain, but I really get put off by people talking during the game, it makes me uncomfortable and I'm not much of a talker anyway: can we play with as little talking as possible please? Thank you". Any half-decent opponent should respect that, and if not, you should make a TO aware of their inconsideration. If the TO fails to do that, then you know what tournament to avoid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: It's 100% in the interest of a Tourney Organizer to get rid of people who don't bring a good vibe to a private event.
If their attendees have to deal with racists, sexists, jerks, etc. and don't have a good time? They won't come back. They don't owe you anything if you don't have the social skills to comport yourself respectably in public.
Exactly. In my opinion, there needs to be way way harsher policies on people being actively dickish. If those people don't like those rules, they should make their own event.
Anyway, maybe pin this conversation and go back to discussing the missions?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Only what rules I've read, and the range of people's responses, I'll admit.
How much am I oversimplifying by?
Is it not true that ITC allows a player to pick and choose how they score?
Yes, but the practice is not as robotic as implied.
When I come to a table I don't know my opponent's list. I need to look at it, assess my strengths against their list, and determine what objectives to choose. Doing this quickly during a tournament is an acquired skill.
Some lists are hard to score against. That's why it is important for armies that are not killy to be flexible about scoring on non-combat related objectives.
Now you know yours and your opponent's objectives. You don't just throw your hands up and let the units they want to kill float into the wind. You do your best to foil their plans. Holding back, circling around, staying in deepstrike, etc.
Dudeface wrote: I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.
So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.
Jidmah wrote:
Dudeface wrote: I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.
So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament?
I think a better general would be one who doesn't get to pick their objectives to suit their own plan, and is more capable of having a flexible, versatile strategy.
As I understand, ITC is about the player picking their objectives. GW missions are more about "here's your objectives, go complete them".
A general who can win a mission without knowing in advance what their objective is superior to one who's been given all the data in advance.
This is exactly the issue with ITC, why should you get to pick your objectives and then build your list for them. How does that translate into a "representation"(altho crudely) of a military engagement? The objectives you planned for often end up changing due to battlefield conditions, losses, gains, etc...
The "game is just a math equation" viewpoint is an incredibly unimaginative one and a symptom of a larger problem. People are being coddled and needto be expressly told what to do by "influencers". but that is a horse of an entirely different colour.
This was not a well designed paragraph, however I will try to parse it.
To your actual point, do you believe that the military doesn't pick their objectives? Do you honestly believe that the Allied forces showed up on D-Day having no clue what they were looking for and just jumped off the boat like 'feth, I'm sure we'll hit somethin' important!' Seems like something the military would spend literally trillions of dollars to avoid doing.
The BEST general knows better than to run screaming wang first into enemy lines without things like proper intelligence gathering, scouting the location, knowing why the hell they're there in the first place. That sort of thing.
Also, for the record you guys are talking about Maelstrom. Ewar is 'given all the data in advance' on steroids. The objective is 'stand here more than they stand here' in every mission. That's why they favor gunlines and alphastrike so heavily.
Your last sentence just turned into 'get these durn kids offa my lawn!'
I was one the first ones in this board to raise the alert that ITC was warping the meta 2 years ago, when CA 17 came out and we started noticing a huge improvement in matched mission quality.
Yeah, CA 17 was still not perfect, but the ITC of the time had also many idiotic rules (4 victory points for killing an 80 point non character unit, really??), so the gap wasn't that big.
At the time you were told that ITC format didn't influence list making and unit selection in the slightest, and a top ITC list would surely crash a CA17 tournament. The fact that big GW official events were not won by ITC lists was because only noobs played there. No, I'm not kidding, this was really the attitude of this board ITC players 2 years ago.
I'm glad that after all this time at least the concept that CA players are not B series competitors has passed, so we can have a discussion.
Now onto the actual discussion. The aim of the ITC is to provide rules for a standardized and large scale applicable ranking system of the players. This is only the official aim though, because unfortunately in many player's mind, it became an house rule packet to "correct the incompetence of GW".
Let's be honest here, after the last results, if the ITC mission package was the GW official one, we would be at her throath for being so bad at it. If the ITC ever had a role as a balance element, it failed spectacularly (for 2 years straight). Community is no better than GW at making rules, but this is something widely known on this board ( just take a stroll in the proposed rule section).
It is now obvious to everyone that ITC missions are not more balanced than GW missions, there are even opinions that they are LESS balanced, so if in people mind that was the reason of their existence, we can drop them and nothing will be lost.
I am no ITC player though, so there could be perceived benefits of that package beyond the "balancing", which I'm not taking into account.
Clearly, having a single tournament rule pack would surely be a positive thing for the community, and the official mission package seems like the obvious choice.
Dudeface wrote: I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.
So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.
Jidmah wrote:
Dudeface wrote: I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.
So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament?
I think a better general would be one who doesn't get to pick their objectives to suit their own plan, and is more capable of having a flexible, versatile strategy.
As I understand, ITC is about the player picking their objectives. GW missions are more about "here's your objectives, go complete them".
A general who can win a mission without knowing in advance what their objective is superior to one who's been given all the data in advance.
This is exactly the issue with ITC, why should you get to pick your objectives and then build your list for them. How does that translate into a "representation"(altho crudely) of a military engagement? The objectives you planned for often end up changing due to battlefield conditions, losses, gains, etc...
The "game is just a math equation" viewpoint is an incredibly unimaginative one and a symptom of a larger problem. People are being coddled and needto be expressly told what to do by "influencers". but that is a horse of an entirely different colour.
This was not a well designed paragraph, however I will try to parse it.
To your actual point, do you believe that the military doesn't pick their objectives? Do you honestly believe that the Allied forces showed up on D-Day having no clue what they were looking for and just jumped off the boat like 'feth, I'm sure we'll hit somethin' important!' Seems like something the military would spend literally trillions of dollars to avoid doing.
The BEST general knows better than to run screaming wang first into enemy lines without things like proper intelligence gathering, scouting the location, knowing why the hell they're there in the first place. That sort of thing.
Also, for the record you guys are talking about Maelstrom. Ewar is 'given all the data in advance' on steroids. The objective is 'stand here more than they stand here' in every mission. That's why they favor gunlines and alphastrike so heavily.
Your last sentence just turned into 'get these durn kids offa my lawn!'
[/spoiler]
I have zero problem with tourneys and how they are played. The problem arises when there are those advocating that problems with the game(that generally only come up in tournaments) and are reliant on a 3rd party ruleset, for that 3rd party ruleset to change how those that do not use it(ITC) play the game.
If GW came out with a tournament pack that includes changes to the base game/unit/whatever that only effected itself, I would be more than happy for those that find the GW rules wanting(for their purposes).
A ton of stuff went wrong on d-day, i.e. paratroopers landing in wrong LZ, fog, fighting thru bocage, unknown artillery emplacements. The Allies were able to adapt and overcome, there is such a thing as Murphys law, no plan survives contact, wrong Intel, etc...
Yes, the military spends a ton of money to mitigate chance, but the the ones doing the fighting are trained to adapt and overcome those random occurrences. No one ever trained to be a MOH recipient, they were trained to do their job, it was their own ability/gumption/balls/whatever to adapt to the situation and overcome, irrespective of danger to life & limb.
The key is adapting to non-ideal situations, complications, battlefield losses. Planning on everything going right is the first step on the road to defeat.
bananathug wrote: The problem that people have brought up with the CA2019 missions is there is simply not enough points to differentiate between players.
Even at a local RTT a couple players going 2-1 could be tied with the limited points you can score in a CA 2019 mission.
I don't see how you get around this without adding more ways to score and once you do that we are back into the "homebrew" problem that people have with the ITC.
A couple of pages ago now, but I've seen things like this mentioned a few times as if it's some deal breaker over using non-ITC missions. I've played in many other systems that have a simple W/L/D (or oven just W/L) scoring system and they all work absolutely fine. In many cases the tournaments declare anyone with a certain record progresses to single-elimination with the top performers getting a bye in order to create a regular top 16 or top 8 set of players. It's hardly an insurmountable obstacle.
Also, it pre-supposes the VP difference is in any way indicative of the actual closeness of the game, which isn't necessarily the case as it's very possible for scoring to spiral out of control over a few lucky events, or for supposedly close games to be nothing of the sort in reality. It also greatly benefits players who get a lucky easy draw early in the tournament so they can crush their opponents for those sweet, sweet VPs. In short, it's not clear that VP difference is enough of an absolute indicator of performance to use it as the main determinant of success. As a tie-breaker it's probably fine, but a simple W/L record is sufficient in most other competitive games and 40k doesn't need to be any different in that regard.
Going to tackle a few points from the last couple of pages –
The easiest fix for people worried about separating the players at a GW event is tiebreakers.
Result points (10 for win, 5 for draw etc etc) > Total secondaries points > Points destroyed > Total points scored > Least list points lost over the evert > Most max wins etc etc etc. Alternatively you add in a “win scale” as well, so a major win scores more points than a close, minor win which gives points to both players in addition to the tiebreakers.
For me, Sportsmanship should be a separate award, with maybe an overall “Event Shining Star” heading, or something. I would refrain from calling it the “Tournament Champion” though to ensure it is recognised as the “above and beyond” category, and not mixed up with Champion being the best General. All events that I’ve been to that have had painting and sportsmanship awards have handled them as individual awards with the exception of GW events, and it has worked fantastically.
What I will add however, is that sportsmanship votes SHOULD have an impact on the event whilst it is “in play”. Each round should have a sportsmanship vote submitted with the score, with follow up for reported bad sportsmanship. If it happens more than once, a Judge should keep an eye on their next game just in case, but, also to ensure those reporting the “bad” games aren’t doing so out of joint spite. (Yes, there is a chance it will happen, and it also requires the TOs to be 100% impartial – which is another challenge).
As for oversimplifying ITC, I think people do, and have been, but, I feel like some people have also been also been overly compensating for the ITC in their attempts to defend it and provide a balanced argument.
There is no denying that your list building skills have more of an impact on ITC games, than EW or MoW missions, especially in a non “shark tank” event, where you understand ITC and a good chunk of the other attendees do not. The main issue people have is that you can build a list that is really difficult to score secondaries against, whilst also going into the event with a clear idea of which secondaries you are going to pick 9 times out of 10. For example, I can build a list with a playstyle in mind, knowing that, I could easily score recon, behind enemy lines and butchers bill every turn, whilst also having a list that forces my opponent to pick secondaries they either won’t max out, or to switch and throw them off their game. Being able to react here is a skill, but, it has far too big of an impact on the game. More so than the actual mission you are meant to be playing. Playing the actual mission should be the focus, not playing to deny your opponent secondary points whilst killing at least 1 unit and sitting on at least 1 objective.
This also applies to the GW missions; however, I have found that the way you subsequently play makes more of a difference in the GW missions than it does in the ITC missions. You can certainly tailor your list in the GW missions to cover a lot of the bases, but, at the end of the day, both you and your opponent are fighting for the same mission objectives, so, you are a lot more susceptible to mistakes, good counter plays and bad matchups.
Bad matchups should be allowed to happen – it shouldn’t mean that you cannot win though, and I feel like GW missions allow enough of a swing to allow the underdog to win, more so than ITC does.
List building is a skill any player than wants to “rise to the top” requires to learn, and it should stay that way, however, imo and in others opinions, ITC is weighted far too much towards list building, rather than “in game” decisions. I personally think the best example of how this should work is Sean Nayden. His lists are always completely different to the rest of the ITC meta, yet he always does extremely well. This is mainly down to his ability to make decisions in game and strategize. Even in bad matchups there is a way to potentially win. I think a lot of people will see that happening more and more if GW missions became the norm.
Using the example of the military pre-planning is a bit touch-and-go imo. Yes, they plan everything to the best of their abilities, but, you can’t plan for what your opponent is always going to do when on a particular mission. Before the actual start, they know their mission objectives and setup plans to achieve them in the best possible ways. To me, that is exactly the same as preparing for a GW Eternal War mission. You know the mission objective which you -NEED- to achieve, you then build your list to achieve it. (as often as possible over the course of an event). ITC however does not prioritise the actual mission, instead, it gives the players the ability to just do whatever mission they want to, usually, without consequence.
Maybe the solution to this is to cap each secondary at 2 or 3 points, remove the “hold and kill more” bits and add a massive weight to the actual mission “bonus” score. (the fact that the mission is just a “bonus point” adds weight to the argument that it is basically worthless)
I never mentioned painting. I mentioned sportsmanship because you're still playing against another human, and you should be rewarded for being a pleasant opponent.
okey, and there is a problem because people are not nice or pleasant in general. If I play GK in 8th ed, and someone has a dislike for them, because in 5th ed they made him feel as if he wasted his time and money on the army he had, and now he keeps on ditching the points of every GK player, then there is no way to balance this by being what ever counts as nice and pleasant. Specially when one considers that any game is a competition, and soon we would get people score bombing opponents just so they don't get in to top 8 or don't win over all, and their real life friends do.
Rules should be the way they are in sports. In sports you are not obliged to be pleasant to your opponent, specially in contact sports. you just have to follow rules and not hurt your opponent real, but that is mostly because of sponsorships. And there still are sports where hurting the opposing players real bad, including career ending injuries are considered a norm.
no one should be rewarded for being pleasant, where different people considere different thing to be pleasant. I don't like when people talk, specially about stuff not related to the game, it makes me lose focus, plus I don't like to talk to people in general. Does that mean I am okey to score bomb anyone who tries to talk durning the game, about non related stuff? Is me getting a low score, assuming I would somehow go to a tournament, because I don't talk okey too? What if my opponent knows me and knows I don't talk, and does not score bomb me, but the next one doesn't and gives me 0 points for being a pleasant opponent? This gives people that are well known and who come from largest communities a bigger chance to get a better score. Because again, something bad in a person you don't know, can just be considered a strange quirk in someone you know real well.
C'mon Karol you can very much get DQ'd or penalised in many sports for not observing pre/post game niceties or unsportsmanlike behaviour. It's a strange thing to say on a wargame forum but you seem to be developing a toxic view toward humanity, which whilst sometimes is justified in existing due to circumstance, will only hurt you long term man.
Our group started playing ITC style games in the middle of the last year and we found it pretty refreshing.
I like the secondary mechanics and I think it's a nice variation compared to the ca mission pack.
For homegrown or pick-up games (both of these options implicate for me: "I want to have a good time. Laugh, troll and play with - not against - my opponent") I always build a list that I personally like, not one, that's the most effective list regarding the mission.
So far so good, but in a competitive environment, other stakes are set (afaik, don't hunt me down, if my oppinion doesn't match yours...). Everybody tries to get the most out of his ruleset (aka codex). I don't think one can build a mission set that's completely balanced and doesn't favour some kind of army builds... Neither ITC, nor CA missions are (or in any case can be) completely neutral. Sometimes the mission favours boardcontrol and second turn (just an example, stop sweating) and sometimes the killiest army has a littel heads up. I honestly don't see, how this could or should be adressed.
Whilst I’m tentatively inclined to agree that people shouldn’t be overly awarded for being pleasant, when it should be an expectation rather than a hope, I feel that having an award recognise the reasonable request is good and positively reinforces the expectation of a friendly and engaging atmosphere.
However, bad sportsmanship should 100% be penalised as often as possible, but, in a reasonable and proportional way. It is a difficult balance to find, one which I don’t think we are there yet with, but, hopefully will be eventually.
As for sporting events, they always penalise bad instances of unsportsmanship. Make a really bad tackle in football and you’ll get a red card and likely miss up to 5 games for it. Make a slightly racist post on twitter (joke or not) and you’ll get a hefty fine from the governing body and probably face disciplinary action from your own club for being a dumbass and bring the clubs name into disrepute. Hell, football games can now be paused and cancelled by the Ref, in the instance of racism from fans in the crowds.
As for sports where aiming to genuinely hurt your opponent to end their career is the “norm”, I’d love to know what “sport” that is and what they consider that image has on their reputation and chances of becoming “main stream”.
What does 40k want to be seen as? A friendly and engaging, yet competitive environment open to everyone who wants to give it a shot, or, a toxic, vile and aggressive environment?
I know which one GW and FLG and all independent operators would like to choose. Not to mention 99.99999% of the players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nibbler wrote: Our group started playing ITC style games in the middle of the last year and we found it pretty refreshing.
I like the secondary mechanics and I think it's a nice variation compared to the ca mission pack.
For homegrown or pick-up games (both of these options implicate for me: "I want to have a good time. Laugh, troll and play with - not against - my opponent") I always build a list that I personally like, not one, that's the most effective list regarding the mission.
So far so good, but in a competitive environment, other stakes are set (afaik, don't hunt me down, if my oppinion doesn't match yours...). Everybody tries to get the most out of his ruleset (aka codex). I don't think one can build a mission set that's completely balanced and doesn't favour some kind of army builds... Neither ITC, nor CA missions are (or in any case can be) completely neutral. Sometimes the mission favours boardcontrol and second turn (just an example, stop sweating) and sometimes the killiest army has a littel heads up. I honestly don't see, how this could or should be adressed.
I think the way to address this is to have a balance between killy, holding and manoeuvring missions in the event pack.
I agree that certain missions in CA help certain types of army build more than others, but, at the same time, other missions do the opposite to that same list. So, in theory over the course of the event, if you skew your army list towards 1 or 2 missions, you’ll also have 1 or 2 missions you’ll struggle (at least a little) with, and 1 where you’ll get by ok without any gain or loss.
The issue with ITC, is that because the missions themselves mean so little, you can build a list that does 1 or 2 things well and expect to do reasonably well in all of the missions, because there is never a mission that will force you to engage in a way that negatively impacts your army.
True, but that's why multiple missions with a high degree of differentiation are a good thing.
You could even "thumbs up, thumbs down" those missions which you enjoy or find unfavorable (like 4 Pillars as an example) and perhaps that affords factions a way to influence the matchups they want to avoid
I will say I am starting to warm up to the ITC missions, but I still think overall they are bad for the game. Mainly because they divide the player base into even smaller groups than you normally find (e.g. casual, competitive, narrative). Instead you also further subdivide that into ITC/Non-ITC.
There really should be a standardized thing, as much as we can get in 40k, especially for events. Now whether that is ITC or not is debatable, but there needs to be something agreed upon and used. So the way I see it either ITC starts using CA missions and changes them yearly with CA, or GW adopts more of the ITC format for CA missions and eventually the become almost indistuinguishable.
Not Online!!! wrote: The crux of the thing is, regardless if you like it or not as a system, that GW forced the playerbases hands more or less.
In an optimal world, they would sit down, and be open about planned releases, allow betatesting by the public, etc.
AS to avoid the gakshow that was 7th and any similar veins.
they are not and i feel like it has partially to do with their way to make money. F.e. GW is preety intransparant about release cycle and content.
Public beta testing is something that always comes up and I'm curious. How do you think GW should implement it without it being a giant clusterfeth and a logistical nightmare?
Not Online!!! wrote: The crux of the thing is, regardless if you like it or not as a system, that GW forced the playerbases hands more or less.
In an optimal world, they would sit down, and be open about planned releases, allow betatesting by the public, etc.
AS to avoid the gakshow that was 7th and any similar veins.
they are not and i feel like it has partially to do with their way to make money. F.e. GW is preety intransparant about release cycle and content.
Public beta testing is something that always comes up and I'm curious. How do you think GW should implement it without it being a giant clusterfeth and a logistical nightmare?
Ishagu wrote: Or they look at faction performance at their events.
I think that they already do that. Most of the past nerfs have been aimed at models which overpeformed in some big event. Problem is that some of those big events were ITC, hence this discussion, since many consider it inappropriate that ITC is somehow taken in consideration when balancing this game.
Racerguy180 wrote: To your actual point, do you believe that the military doesn't pick their objectives? Do you honestly believe that the Allied forces showed up on D-Day having no clue what they were looking for and just jumped off the boat like 'feth, I'm sure we'll hit somethin' important!' Seems like something the military would spend literally trillions of dollars to avoid doing.
Uh... yes, I do in fact believe the Allies did not get to pick their objectives. They had to break through into Normandy, they didn't get to arbitrarily decide that taking out tanks or holding the beach would be 'good enough'. Not getting to pick your objective doesn't mean 'having no clue what they were looking for', it just means not being able to dictate what you need to do to win the engagement.
ITC would have the Germans win via Butcher's Bill despite the Allies successfully breaking through into Normandy. Or the Allies winning via King of the Hill, Engineers, or Recon despite not actually breaking through.
Being able to choose your objective is complete antithesis to military wargaming. You may spend years and lots of money in planning and prep to ensure that the conflict is as winnable as it can be, but once you have boots in the AO and a political need to secure Kabul, you don't get to say 'well that looks tough, let's choose to knock out their T-72s instead and award ourselves points for doing so'.
When you can choose your secondary objectives, and then score enough points with secondaries to win the game, it undercuts the idea of having to apply your generalship to solve the problem that you have been given. And that's not even touching on how it skews the meta by rendering some units artificially weak or powerful on account of how vulnerable they are to secondary objectives.
catbarf wrote: ITC would have the Germans win via Butcher's Bill despite the Allies successfully breaking through into Normandy. Or the Allies winning via King of the Hill, Engineers, or Recon despite not actually breaking through.
Your opponent's army composition typically dictates your secondary ojectives, so saying you get to just choose them is not accurate. Even in real world military conflicts forces choose the manner in which they will engage a given force based upon where they perceive the greatest advantage.
I'm not going to choose Big Game Hunter against someone with no vehicles or monstrous creatures for example, there's a bit more give and take to the process.
catbarf wrote: ITC would have the Germans win via Butcher's Bill despite the Allies successfully breaking through into Normandy. Or the Allies winning via King of the Hill, Engineers, or Recon despite not actually breaking through.
Your opponent's army composition typically dictates your secondary ojectives, so saying you get to just choose them is not accurate. Even in real world military conflicts forces choose the manner in which they will engage a given force based upon where they perceive the greatest advantage.
I'm not going to choose Big Game Hunter against someone with no vehicles or monstrous creatures for example, there's a bit more give and take to the process.
Whilst your opponents army will offer up options for you when deciding secondaries (or take them away) you can still realistically pick 2 out of your 3 secondaries at list building. There is a reason why recon is usually so popular etc. Likewise, flyer spam was usually an easy Behind Enemy Lines and Recon setup.
Granted it can only really be done with the non “kill based” secondaries, but, you can build around this and reliably run with it at an event. You might not win the event, but, it does offer you reliability and being able to play to your own game, rather than your opponents.
catbarf wrote: ITC would have the Germans win via Butcher's Bill despite the Allies successfully breaking through into Normandy. Or the Allies winning via King of the Hill, Engineers, or Recon despite not actually breaking through.
Your opponent's army composition typically dictates your secondary ojectives, so saying you get to just choose them is not accurate. Even in real world military conflicts forces choose the manner in which they will engage a given force based upon where they perceive the greatest advantage.
I'm not going to choose Big Game Hunter against someone with no vehicles or monstrous creatures for example, there's a bit more give and take to the process.
In a way that is true but it's the wrong way of looking at it. Typically you have an overall objective and taking secondary objectives is supposed to help you achieve that goal. In the end if you could achieve that goal without your secondary objectives you would still win the battle and the war. Because those secondary objectives are literally...secondary. In ITC you can lose the battle having won your primary objective every turn while your opponent beats you on secondaries and kill more. Also. You could destroy your entire opponents army and still lose because you lost by points...(completely unrealistic to lose a battle when you destroyed the enemy). In the end in military history your ultimate objective is preservation of your army and destruction of the enemies. There are situations in war where you can have a strategic victory in a defeat...Like at Dunkirk when the English escaped across the channel. Ultimately though that is a German victory - they cleared mainland Europe of any opposition in around a week. Seriously though can you imagine a situation where the British forces could have scored a victory if their army got annihilated there? Heck no.
I don't think matched play is very conducive to setting up anything resembling the logic of an actual military operation. You need to scratch-build custom scenarios with more specific win conditions and force compositions for that.
Yoyoyo wrote: Beyond secondaries, what about the whole "hold one, hold more" and "kill one, kill more" concept?
It must penalize intentionally disposable units like Rhinos, while rewarding units like 20x Possessed with layered defense right?
I honestly don't like any of them.
Hold, Hold more I feel is a bad way of dealing with the objectives on the table. If there are 6 objectives and I have 5 of them and you have 1 I would score 2 points. The same as when I control 2 objectives vs your 1. Why have it like this and not simply 1 point per objective? Because then board control actually matters and the invisible boogyman of Horde armies comes up? Yet in CA/ETC missions you tend to simply score per objective and Hordes do not dominate.
Kill, Kill more again seem to exist to punish Hordes when going up against Elite armies, despite that fear not realising since the index days. Plus I am strongly of the opinion that killing should not be the goal. Killing is something you do to make it easier to complete your goal or stop your opponent, it should not be the goal itself.
I, once again, point to the recent example of the LVO finals where one army sat in a corner for 3 turns, didn't touch a second objective until turn 6 and won because board control was meaningless. The 4 objectives Brad controlled had no real value, because standing on them give his opponent Kill and Kill More while at most it would give him 1 point in Hold More.
Completely remove the primaries and simply giving 1 point per objective means that Siegler can't sit in a corner for 3 turns because he scores 1 point per turn while Brad scores between 1 and 4 every turn. Its probably even worth it then to sacrifice units by standing in the open on objectives because your scoring points your opponent is not.
The loss of value of objectives (worth 1-2 instead of 1-6) plus the added worth from Kill primaries + secondaries means that an army sitting in a castle shooting can win, which doesn't make for a fun game.
ps.
As for tabling, if tabling = win you again move towards leafblowers and stuff like that horrible artillery list at the LVO where the objective simply becomes to table the opponent and ignore the mission because that is enough.
The ability to win while 'losing' exists to make sure the game is actually a game where people play around objectives on the table.
Plus I mean seriously, its 40k. We have people in armor thicker then a tank with a rocket propelled grenade launcher as a sidearm fly across the battlefield on jetpacks to hit someone with a big hammer.
This is the wrong game to try and bring up battlefield realism.
Yoyoyo wrote: Beyond secondaries, what about the whole "hold one, hold more" and "kill one, kill more" concept?
It must penalize intentionally disposable units like Rhinos, while rewarding units like 20x Possessed with layered defense right?
I personally don't like them just as much as secondaries, it kill more Hurts MSU style of army and favorites elite ones.
As for hold more? Well if we are doing objective missions then its pointless. If you are doing more kill oriented mission then it could work to force a little build diversity.
Really it comes down to, do you want a more kill objective oriented game, or objective control game. In a perfect world of 40k it would a bit of both.
PS: some missions like Recon could be a objective missions, we can have holding objectives that are not physical objectives.
Xenomancers wrote: Seriously though can you imagine a situation where the British forces could have scored a victory if their army got annihilated there? Heck no.
Of course not, at the same time, I can point to German military strategy with regards to Great Britain as an example of choosing your strategy, right or wrong. Germany more than likely could have assaulted Great Britain and crushed them, but it would have cost them a lot and they felt they could break British morale and ultimately wanted them to join the Axis. It was obviously a flawed strategy that involved bombing London instead of going after more traditional military targets, but it was the strategy they chose, right or wrong.
Ishagu wrote: Seeing as the Germans could not achieve air or naval superiority over the British at any point during WW2, they could not have invaded.
That's debatable, and doesn't change the fact that they chose their own strategy. They also chose to attack Russia in winter, which historically has only really worked for the Mongols, so right, wrong, doesn't matter, they made a choice.
It's not debatable. After the battle of Britain the Germans could not invade, and the Royal navy was far larger and well equipped. They could have tried and suffered catastrophic casualties. They did at one point make plans on invading, but could not action them.
Back to 40k:
Choosing a strategy is NOT the same as choosing an objective.
You've confused the point. In CA missions you are given an objective, and it's up to you how you achieve it. In ITC missions you choose your objective based on the units in your list and how easy it would be for them to achieve it, or deny it for your opponent.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: and doesn't change the fact that they chose their own strategy.
Yes, they chose their strategy, not the objective, which was eliminating the UK from the war. That's the overall goal that they had to accomplish, but had the freedom to choose how to try to meet that goal.
On a tactical level, your strategy is what force you bring to an engagement and how you pursue that engagement on the field. The objective is what's handed to you to accomplish and is the metric that determines success or failure.
Ishagu wrote: In ITC missions you choose your objective based on the units in your list and how easy it would be for them to achieve it, or deny it for your opponent.
You choose secondaries not primaries, primaries are dictated by the mission.
I don't think matched play is very conducive to setting up anything resembling the logic of an actual military operation. You need to scratch-build custom scenarios with more specific win conditions and force compositions for that.
Which I am entirely down for. Please give us something like that.
How cool would it be if we had missions that were set up drastically different. Like for example a Dunkirk type mission. Where the defender in this mission their only objective is to preserve their force and keep the enemy out of their deployment zone.
An ambush type mission where one army has to set up basically in the open and go second but the attacking army has to come in piece meal and only starts with a few units.
A pitched battle type mission with 2 armies meeting on an open field and fight to the death.
I mean there are lots of ideas you could throw out there...there needs to be some variety. The idea of objectives as poker chips...is just boring to me. Objectives should be less about standing in a arbitrary position. More about doing something that could actaully be seen as being an important military objective.
Which I am entirely down for. Please give us something like that.
How cool would it be if we had missions that were set up drastically different. Like for example a Dunkirk type mission. Where the defender in this mission their only objective is to preserve their force and keep the enemy out of their deployment zone.
An ambush type mission where one army has to set up basically in the open and go second but the attacking army has to come in piece meal and only starts with a few units.
A pitched battle type mission with 2 armies meeting on an open field and fight to the death.
I mean there are lots of ideas you could throw out there...there needs to be some variety. The idea of objectives as poker chips...is just boring to me. Objectives should be less about standing in a arbitrary position. More about doing something that could actaully be seen as being an important military objective.
catbarf wrote: ITC would have the Germans win via Butcher's Bill despite the Allies successfully breaking through into Normandy. Or the Allies winning via King of the Hill, Engineers, or Recon despite not actually breaking through.
Your opponent's army composition typically dictates your secondary ojectives, so saying you get to just choose them is not accurate. Even in real world military conflicts forces choose the manner in which they will engage a given force based upon where they perceive the greatest advantage.
I'm not going to choose Big Game Hunter against someone with no vehicles or monstrous creatures for example, there's a bit more give and take to the process.
In a way that is true but it's the wrong way of looking at it. Typically you have an overall objective and taking secondary objectives is supposed to help you achieve that goal. In the end if you could achieve that goal without your secondary objectives you would still win the battle and the war. Because those secondary objectives are literally...secondary.
I think there's confusion about what secondary objectives are.
Primary objectives are things like "Take that hill", "Destroy that thing", or "Hold for an hour". They're what (you think) truly matter. They're why you're here.
Secondary objectives are *not* parts of the Primary. You're thinking milestones or deliverables. Secondaries are other objectives. If you're taking a hill, a secondary is generally to not lose too much doing it. Or to take it before documents are destroyed. Or to also hold that bridge. They are things that help you with concerns that are *secondary* to the objective of the mission.
In real life, people have lost a battle having acheived their primary objective. It's literally a Pyrrhic Victory. It's uncommon, but is a very real thing. The "winning" side lost.
In ITC you can lose the battle having won your primary objective every turn while your opponent beats you on secondaries and kill more.
In real life, you would "lose"/fail an engagement if you lost a pair of cruisers interdicting a speedboat. The interdiction was the primary, and you accomplished it, but at too high a cost.
You could destroy your entire opponents army and still lose because you lost by points...(completely unrealistic to lose a battle when you destroyed the enemy)
So you're saying if a Genestealer Cult disables all the defense systems of a planet just before a Hive Fleet shows up, it's entirely unrealistic that they won because they got wiped out? Why does getting wiped out matter? They were about to be anyways.
If a Guardsman detatchment dies to the man, but holds the ridge for a half hour - long enough for fleet or other resources to get into position, preventing the enemy from spilling into the city/valley/whatever unchecked - how is that not a victory?
If demons of Khorne are all defeated, but the victors now belong to Khorne, did they fail?
If demons of Tzeench are all defeated, but they completed whatever scheme they intended, did they fail?
"Did I survive" is not the only victory condition for many, if not most, of the 40k factions.
In the end in military history your ultimate objective is preservation of your army [...]
In military history, we have military nation states lead by rational actors. And sane situations. Even truly existential fights (for the individuals themselves) are incredibly rare in history.
In 40k, we don't.
Yet even in history, we have examples of victories in death.
[...] and destruction of the enemies
A secondary, not ultimate, objective. Destruction has almost never mattered as much as apparent supremacy.
Like at Dunkirk when the English escaped across the channel. Ultimately though that is a German victory - they cleared mainland Europe of any opposition in around a week. Seriously though can you imagine a situation where the British forces could have scored a victory if their army got annihilated there? Heck no.
A good example of why secondaries are important. The primary was control. Germans focused on holding the encirclement over the defeat/destruction of the encircled forces. Because they focused the primary (control the territory) over the secondary (destroy enemy forces). While the Germans certainly won at Dunkirk, their victory was much less impactful because of how much deference they gave to their primary objective. While it's not a case of the British winning on secondaries, it does show the value of secondaries in the case of a lost primary.
Ishagu wrote: And the Primaries have little variety from mission to mission, hence going back to the original post in this topic.
Ultiamtely - CA missions have more variety so I would support a move to CA missions over ITC missions. ITC missions have basically no variety. It is the same missions over and over the poker chips just move around a bit and the terrain gets moved around a little bit. In CA the # of objective changes a lot - The objectives have special conditions - ect. More variety is what I am for.
Which I am entirely down for. Please give us something like that.
How cool would it be if we had missions that were set up drastically different. Like for example a Dunkirk type mission. Where the defender in this mission their only objective is to preserve their force and keep the enemy out of their deployment zone.
An ambush type mission where one army has to set up basically in the open and go second but the attacking army has to come in piece meal and only starts with a few units.
A pitched battle type mission with 2 armies meeting on an open field and fight to the death.
I mean there are lots of ideas you could throw out there...there needs to be some variety. The idea of objectives as poker chips...is just boring to me. Objectives should be less about standing in a arbitrary position. More about doing something that could actaully be seen as being an important military objective.
Ishagu wrote: It's not debatable. After the battle of Britain the Germans could not invade, and the Royal navy was far larger and well equipped. They could have tried and suffered catastrophic casualties. They did at one point make plans on invading, but could not action them.
Besides, Germany simply didn't have the numbers to win the war. If the British had lost their forces at Dunkirk, they likely would have had to depend on American forces - but Germany (and the Axis) simply didn't have the forces to win against any two of US/Russia/Britain. It would have changed loads, but WWII wasn't this close could-go-either-way war we like to imagine.
Back to 40k:
Choosing a strategy is NOT the same as choosing an objective.
You've confused the point. In CA missions you are given an objective, and it's up to you how you achieve it. In ITC missions you choose your objective based on the units in your list and how easy it would be for them to achieve it, or deny it for your opponent.
Choosing strategy and choosing objectives are different. But forces do both in war.
You don't decide to take that hill over there simply because it's there. You take it because you have the resources to do so, and the cost to do so is less than the advantage doing so conveys. Forces *really do* pick different *primary* objectives for an operation based on conditions on the ground. In more desperate situations, though, there are fewer options.
Which I am entirely down for. Please give us something like that.
How cool would it be if we had missions that were set up drastically different. Like for example a Dunkirk type mission. Where the defender in this mission their only objective is to preserve their force and keep the enemy out of their deployment zone.
An ambush type mission where one army has to set up basically in the open and go second but the attacking army has to come in piece meal and only starts with a few units.
A pitched battle type mission with 2 armies meeting on an open field and fight to the death.
I mean there are lots of ideas you could throw out there...there needs to be some variety. The idea of objectives as poker chips...is just boring to me. Objectives should be less about standing in a arbitrary position. More about doing something that could actaully be seen as being an important military objective.
They're called narrative missions typically.
What keeps them from being played competitively?
Liberties taken for narrative reasons have a lot more flexibility for awesomeness when they're not constrained by competitive balance and strictness standards.
"esides, Germany simply didn't have the numbers to win the war. If the British had lost their forces at Dunkirk, they likely would have had to depend on American forces - but Germany (and the Axis) simply didn't have the forces to win against any two of US/Russia/Britain. It would have changed loads, but WWII wasn't this close could-go-either-way war we like to imagine."
Which is why many games create ahistorical mechanics for the Axis. In a historically accurate model, everyone wants to play early war Axis, but no one wants to be late war Axis.
Exactly. There is an ideal of standardization in tournaments. You don't play one scenario of open-field tank warfare, another of building-to-building urban clearance, and another of a small patrol doing secret squirrel stuff beyond their own lines.
To do so you would need different terrain, different points levels, different lists and of course models for that. Which is great, honestly. But it's more immersive, psuedo-historical, narrative or role-play than competitive. Your priority is the fidelity of the scenario, so it determines force-building rather than concerns like competitiveness.
Yoyoyo wrote: Exactly. There is an ideal of standardization in tournaments. You don't play one scenario of open-field tank warfare, another of building-to-building urban clearance, and another of a small patrol doing secret squirrel stuff beyond their own lines.
To do so you would need different terrain, different points levels, different lists and of course models for that. Which is great, honestly. But it's more immersive, psuedo-historical, narrative or role-play than competitive. Your priority is the fidelity of the scenario, so it determines force-building rather than concerns like competitiveness.
In fairness, many games allow players to bring more than one list to account for variance in scenario. It also lets them play smaller point games that get through tournament rounds faster.
Narrowing focus and going back to implementing Chapter Approved missions.
There are six available EW missions in CA. Maybe at the start of each tournament round, each player gives a thumbs-up to two missions, thumbs-down to two missions. Missions while receive a thumbs-down aren’t played. Missions which receive two thumbs-up are played preferentially (roll a D6 to decide if there’s two). If there’s no mutual agreement, roll a D6 and choose from what remains.
In practice it would look like this. Maybe Player A has a ton of characters but is fairly light on durable troops. So they thumbs-up Ascension and Lockdown, and thumbs down Pillars and Scorched Earth. Player B can see they have a huge advantage in the troops slot, and can guess that Pillars will get a thumbs down. So they might thumbs up Scorched Earth and Crusade hoping for an accord, and thumbs-down Ascension and Lockdown. With no clear preference, that leaves Crusade and Frontline Warfare as possible missions. So they would roll a D6 to decide between those two. Neither player gets the mission that favours them the most, but they won’t deal with their most unfavourable mission either.
From the point of a tourney organization, it would also generate data on which missions were the most or least selected competitively. And that could be useful to help rotate missions in and out of your core selections as you get info on popularity, as well as provide feedback to GW for mission development.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?
You mean you weren't calling him on how the first visible quoted sentence is a blatant lie, based on how he's been posting? Shame.
You're talking about a different statement. He said it was unreasonable to expect two evenly pointed armies to compete against each other.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?
You mean you weren't calling him on how the first visible quoted sentence is a blatant lie, based on how he's been posting? Shame.
You're talking about a different statement. He said it was unreasonable to expect two evenly pointed armies to compete against each other.
Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.
Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).
People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.
Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.
While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).
But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.
Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.
Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.
And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.
I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.
Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!
And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.
Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.
Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.
Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.
And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.
I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".
Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.
That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.
But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.
Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.
Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.
I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?
You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.
Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.
I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.
It really isn't.
What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?
No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?
You mean you weren't calling him on how the first visible quoted sentence is a blatant lie, based on how he's been posting? Shame.
You're talking about a different statement. He said it was unreasonable to expect two evenly pointed armies to compete against each other.
To spell it out for you, Dysartes is saying you missed the point completely with an irrelevant statement when people were basically saying you aren't polite or cordial and that's not who you are.
Edit: I understand that reads harshly, just laying out the post in plain text so the confusion is removed.
Yoyoyo wrote: Narrowing focus and going back to implementing Chapter Approved missions.
There are six available EW missions in CA. Maybe at the start of each tournament round, each player gives a thumbs-up to two missions, thumbs-down to two missions. Missions while receive a thumbs-down aren’t played. Missions which receive two thumbs-up are played preferentially (roll a D6 to decide if there’s two). If there’s no mutual agreement, roll a D6 and choose from what remains.
In practice it would look like this. Maybe Player A has a ton of characters but is fairly light on durable troops. So they thumbs-up Ascension and Lockdown, and thumbs down Pillars and Scorched Earth. Player B can see they have a huge advantage in the troops slot, and can guess that Pillars will get a thumbs down. So they might thumbs up Scorched Earth and Crusade hoping for an accord, and thumbs-down Ascension and Lockdown. With no clear preference, that leaves Crusade and Frontline Warfare as possible missions. So they would roll a D6 to decide between those two. Neither player gets the mission that favours them the most, but they won’t deal with their most unfavourable mission either.
From the point of a tourney organization, it would also generate data on which missions were the most or least selected competitively. And that could be useful to help rotate missions in and out of your core selections as you get info on popularity, as well as provide feedback to GW for mission development.
Thoughts?
You fall again in the same problem generated by the ITC missions, where you can specialize your list do one and just one thing.
The CA format is made to force your list to focus on 6 different scenarios.
You need durable troops or loads of them.
You need stuff that can reach an objective in the middle of the scenario and survive there for a full turn.
You need a way to bring characters in the middle of it and protect them.
You need a resilient backfield force.
You need assault elements that can threaten the opponent backfield.
You need a lot of stuff at the same time, so obviusly you cannot just take more firepower and be happy, it will not work against a good player. Especially because tabling an opponent doesn't guarantee that you win.
I have been to CA tournaments were the winner was tabled in more than half his games, i tabled him too, and yet he won all his games.
Spoletta wrote: You need a lot of stuff at the same time, so obviusly you cannot just take more firepower and be happy, it will not work against a good player. Especially because tabling an opponent doesn't guarantee that you win.
I have been to CA tournaments were the winner was tabled in more than half his games, i tabled him too, and yet he won all his games.
Same experience here - I played multiple games against numarines by just pinning them in the corner and taking objectives. By the end of the game, I rarely hat more than 200 points on the board, while the marines hat 1k or more left - yet I won all of them.
Yoyoyo wrote: Narrowing focus and going back to implementing Chapter Approved missions.
There are six available EW missions in CA. Maybe at the start of each tournament round, each player gives a thumbs-up to two missions, thumbs-down to two missions. Missions while receive a thumbs-down aren’t played. Missions which receive two thumbs-up are played preferentially (roll a D6 to decide if there’s two). If there’s no mutual agreement, roll a D6 and choose from what remains.
In practice it would look like this. Maybe Player A has a ton of characters but is fairly light on durable troops. So they thumbs-up Ascension and Lockdown, and thumbs down Pillars and Scorched Earth. Player B can see they have a huge advantage in the troops slot, and can guess that Pillars will get a thumbs down. So they might thumbs up Scorched Earth and Crusade hoping for an accord, and thumbs-down Ascension and Lockdown. With no clear preference, that leaves Crusade and Frontline Warfare as possible missions. So they would roll a D6 to decide between those two. Neither player gets the mission that favours them the most, but they won’t deal with their most unfavourable mission either.
From the point of a tourney organization, it would also generate data on which missions were the most or least selected competitively. And that could be useful to help rotate missions in and out of your core selections as you get info on popularity, as well as provide feedback to GW for mission development.
Thoughts?
You fall again in the same problem generated by the ITC missions, where you can specialize your list do one and just one thing.
The CA format is made to force your list to focus on 6 different scenarios.
You need durable troops or loads of them.
You need stuff that can reach an objective in the middle of the scenario and survive there for a full turn.
You need a way to bring characters in the middle of it and protect them.
You need a resilient backfield force.
You need assault elements that can threaten the opponent backfield.
You need a lot of stuff at the same time, so obviusly you cannot just take more firepower and be happy, it will not work against a good player. Especially because tabling an opponent doesn't guarantee that you win.
I have been to CA tournaments were the winner was tabled in more than half his games, i tabled him too, and yet he won all his games.
But if you do that then your opponent will immediately thumbs down the mission that you favor (unless they're a novice). Leaning into skew will make sure you play a more difficult mission. I'm sure people could craft tricky lists that convince people to thumbs down the wrong thing, but good players will handle that usually.
The marines then came in strong with mixed Adeptus Astartes 5th, then Iron Hands 6th and 7th. then an AM list coming in 8th.
Well done Simon Priddis on the win, that man is some kind of winning machine in Nottingham!
That top 8 is so strikingly different from the LVO results that it would be hard to comprehend if we had not just had a very long discussion on why these results do tend to be different.
The marines then came in strong with mixed Adeptus Astartes 5th, then Iron Hands 6th and 7th. then an AM list coming in 8th.
Well done Simon Priddis on the win, that man is some kind of winning machine in Nottingham!
That top 8 is so strikingly different from the LVO results that it would be hard to comprehend if we had not just had a very long discussion on why these results do tend to be different.
The marines then came in strong with mixed Adeptus Astartes 5th, then Iron Hands 6th and 7th. then an AM list coming in 8th.
Well done Simon Priddis on the win, that man is some kind of winning machine in Nottingham!
That top 8 is so strikingly different from the LVO results that it would be hard to comprehend if we had not just had a very long discussion on why these results do tend to be different.
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
Nah, you're the one insinuating that the GT events are just outliers. Go on, burden of proof and all that jazz.
Also, since when were local games any less valid? Does 40k need to be played in a massive tournament venue to be "proper" and anything other than that's just pathetic people pushing plastic peons?
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
So the 40k grand tournament held at warhammer world is a "local shop tournament nobody cares about"? Good to see you keeping up your polite mannerisms and civil nature.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
So the 40k grand tournament held at warhammer world is a "local shop tournament nobody cares about"? Good to see you keeping up your polite mannerisms and civil nature.
Spoletta wrote: 40k stats had no CA data last time I checked.
Nor will it - at least for GW events.
I do not know exactly how they get the pairings up on the big screens at WHW but we can be sure - for a whole number of reasons - it's not by using BCP.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
So the 40k grand tournament held at warhammer world is a "local shop tournament nobody cares about"? Good to see you keeping up your polite mannerisms and civil nature.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
So the 40k grand tournament held at warhammer world is a "local shop tournament nobody cares about"? Good to see you keeping up your polite mannerisms and civil nature.
And as I already said it was a one off data point trying to be used as proof, so I have every right to say you need more than that.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
Nah, you're the one insinuating that the GT events are just outliers. Go on, burden of proof and all that jazz.
Also, since when were local games any less valid? Does 40k need to be played in a massive tournament venue to be "proper" and anything other than that's just pathetic people pushing plastic peons?
In a manner yes. The data doesn't matter because the game isn't being pushed. Recording local people that just threw together a bunch of models for gaks and giggles isn't data worth reviewing whatsoever.
Also most GT events will have an outlier or two. Remember that time in 6th when someone got 8th with a Ahriman + Rubric Marine list and people somehow used that as proof that the unit entry was okay?
Oh wait they didn't, they saw it as an oddity and it never popped up again, shocker I know.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
So the 40k grand tournament held at warhammer world is a "local shop tournament nobody cares about"? Good to see you keeping up your polite mannerisms and civil nature.
And as I already said it was a one off data point trying to be used as proof, so I have every right to say you need more than that.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
Nah, you're the one insinuating that the GT events are just outliers. Go on, burden of proof and all that jazz.
Also, since when were local games any less valid? Does 40k need to be played in a massive tournament venue to be "proper" and anything other than that's just pathetic people pushing plastic peons?
In a manner yes. The data doesn't matter because the game isn't being pushed. Recording local people that just threw together a bunch of models for gaks and giggles isn't data worth reviewing whatsoever.
Also most GT events will have an outlier or two. Remember that time in 6th when someone got 8th with a Ahriman + Rubric Marine list and people somehow used that as proof that the unit entry was okay?
Oh wait they didn't, they saw it as an oddity and it never popped up again, shocker I know.
Ok. LVO is a one off data point, it is perfectly fine for me to ask you to prove chaplain dreads are a problem.
Ok, since people have already forgotten that we had already the results from a previous big CA event, i will also repost them:
- 3 list 5-0. Tzeentch, Iron Hands, Chaos
- 15 lists 4-1. 2 Chaos, 1 Tau, 2 Blood Angels, 3 Iron hand, 1 Tyranid, 1 Hive mind, 2 Imperial Fist, 1 Mixed marine (IF and RG), 1 Genestealer, Imperium (BA and Admech),
Are the marines still winning a lot? Yes with 7 lists in this top 18 and 19/81 lists total.
Can we say from this 2 data points that ITC is more balanced than CA? No, on the contrary as supposed by many, it looks like that there indeed is a problem with marines, but ITC is actively making it worse.
Also, none of those lists was a fearless blob pushed on objectives, so we can let that meme to rest.
All of the lists were quite different from what you would see at an ITC event (no leviathan dreads in any of the IH lists, just to name a difference).
So, this is the 3rd event (2nd GW one this year) to run the new CA missions and give us drastically different results to the LVO and standard ITC.
One of the biggest things for me to see on the GW results, is that it looks like they removed "best painted" scores from the total GT score. They still include favourite game votes, but i feel like i can understand and accept that, though i'd prefer it to be more of a tiebreaker, but, whatever.
As for 40k stats, they won't include the GW events because they aren't on BCP and because they are 1750 points, opposed to the 2k ITC standard.
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
"Several"
Then post these several results.
At this point why bother? We can safely assume however many results are posted that will always not be enough for you and certain other people. What we can see, from 3 separate events using the CA19 missions, is that there seems to be a trend of more varied factions winning and placing highly. Even the latest results from the WHW GT had just over half of the top 30 as SM of some sort but there was much more variety even within those SM armies than we're seeing right now in ITC.
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
"Several"
Then post these several results.
At this point why bother? We can safely assume however many results are posted that will always not be enough for you and certain other people. What we can see, from 3 separate events using the CA19 missions, is that there seems to be a trend of more varied factions winning and placing highly. Even the latest results from the WHW GT had just over half of the top 30 as SM of some sort but there was much more variety even within those SM armies than we're seeing right now in ITC.
If you think it’s worth changing then you will keep collecting data and posting it’s in places of discussion. If you and others simply give up posting data, it’s honestly just looks like a bit of hot air to push against ITC.
GW has quite the history against them, but if you can put this together it’s good data to push for a change.
T1nk4bell wrote: Wy try to push against itc?
More games and tournaments are playing non itc.
The only prob is no good data collection about it.
The whole topic is more or less blah, cause itc is the minor part not the big one.
The question should be y should more people play itc instead of chapter aprroved rules
Mostly for continuity.
There was an era, where the game was actually saved by the existence of ITC. It was 100% unplayable without some form of house ruling, so many areas gathered around the ITC flag.
No question about that house rules where made because of only way to play competetiv. But how the hell you think itc was it? mayb in America I would totaly agree. But in the rest of the world other systems done the same because of the same problem.
Now the ca rules are totaly fine for competetiv play and alot of people play them + alot other systems ( non itc) t3, ttm, etc, ab just to word some bigger ones + CA ruling tournaments.
Just stop to think that itc is something that was cared on other places.
It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
Unfortunately there will be a set of players set in their ways who will refuse to even consider that something may have changed, that CA might br better, and that it might be worth giving it a try instead of perpetuating the ITC mission set.
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
"Several"
Then post these several results.
At this point why bother? We can safely assume however many results are posted that will always not be enough for you and certain other people. What we can see, from 3 separate events using the CA19 missions, is that there seems to be a trend of more varied factions winning and placing highly. Even the latest results from the WHW GT had just over half of the top 30 as SM of some sort but there was much more variety even within those SM armies than we're seeing right now in ITC.
If you think it’s worth changing then you will keep collecting data and posting it’s in places of discussion. If you and others simply give up posting data, it’s honestly just looks like a bit of hot air to push against ITC.
GW has quite the history against them, but if you can put this together it’s good data to push for a change.
My point was more related to that specific poster rather than the thread as a whole. I agree more data would be better for making any determination for most people but in this specific case it seems like it wouldn't change anything because Slayer-Fan has already made up their mind.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:In a manner yes. The data doesn't matter because the game isn't being pushed. Recording local people that just threw together a bunch of models for gaks and giggles isn't data worth reviewing whatsoever.
But we're talking about comp games in local stores - that's no more "threw together a bunch of models" than ITC is.
Not to mention how utterly narrow-minded the idea that a game is only valid if it's "being pushed".
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
"Several"
Then post these several results.
At this point why bother? We can safely assume however many results are posted that will always not be enough for you and certain other people. What we can see, from 3 separate events using the CA19 missions, is that there seems to be a trend of more varied factions winning and placing highly. Even the latest results from the WHW GT had just over half of the top 30 as SM of some sort but there was much more variety even within those SM armies than we're seeing right now in ITC.
If you think it’s worth changing then you will keep collecting data and posting it’s in places of discussion. If you and others simply give up posting data, it’s honestly just looks like a bit of hot air to push against ITC.
GW has quite the history against them, but if you can put this together it’s good data to push for a change.
My point was more related to that specific poster rather than the thread as a whole. I agree more data would be better for making any determination for most people but in this specific case it seems like it wouldn't change anything because Slayer-Fan has already made up their mind.
It’s not always any matter if you change the mind of who you engage with, it’s about changing the minds of others that may read it.
For me, I only looked at the new missions since this thread started.
I do not play ITC, but i do not used the GW missions ether due to history.
So i do think it’s of value here to engage with them to a point, but I also understand where you are getting at.
Kdash wrote: It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
GW events have their own problems well outside of the mission rules they use. Like doggak TOs and rules packets that massively overemphasize painting. It's like the michigan GT, Slaanesh won that against pre-nerf ironhands...despite being down nearly 100 battle points because 50% of their championship score was painting (which created an entirely new set of shady BS I won't get into here.)
Tournaments that have painting as more than about 15% of your score are fluff events and any results from them come with a BIG asterisk.
Kdash wrote: It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
GW events have their own problems well outside of the mission rules they use. Like doggak TOs and rules packets that massively overemphasize painting. It's like the michigan GT, Slaanesh won that against pre-nerf ironhands...despite being down nearly 100 battle points because 50% of their championship score was painting (which created an entirely new set of shady BS I won't get into here.)
Tournaments that have painting as more than about 15% of your score are fluff events and any results from them come with a BIG asterisk.
As a TRUE Scotsman I feel like I should say something but I'm not sure what.
Kdash wrote: It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
GW events have their own problems well outside of the mission rules they use. Like doggak TOs and rules packets that massively overemphasize painting. It's like the michigan GT, Slaanesh won that against pre-nerf ironhands...despite being down nearly 100 battle points because 50% of their championship score was painting (which created an entirely new set of shady BS I won't get into here.)
Tournaments that have painting as more than about 15% of your score are fluff events and any results from them come with a BIG asterisk.
What is so difficult about extracting the battle points from the total?
If Frontline gaming doesn't move their big tournaments (BAO, SoCAL, LVO) away from the ITC mission packs I think there will be a tough time getting more CA 2019 mission data.
Out here in California if you want to go to a GT you have to be ready to use the ITC champions mission and most TOs and players understand that so it is very hard to move away from that. If GW would hold more events on the west coast state-side (Texas is so far away, they really need to start running regional majors) that players interested in CA 2019 could attend I think we would see the popularity increase.
With each CA 2019 data point we see the meta at the top is much more varied. We need a lot more data for that and comparing anything against the LVO is a bad idea (just the player base there is so "professional" it's easy to dismiss other tournaments as "amateur") but it is hard to look at the last GWGTs and not see a pattern.
I'm curious what the fronline guys are going to do.
Kdash wrote: It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
GW events have their own problems well outside of the mission rules they use. Like doggak TOs and rules packets that massively overemphasize painting. It's like the michigan GT, Slaanesh won that against pre-nerf ironhands...despite being down nearly 100 battle points because 50% of their championship score was painting (which created an entirely new set of shady BS I won't get into here.)
Tournaments that have painting as more than about 15% of your score are fluff events and any results from them come with a BIG asterisk.
What is so difficult about extracting the battle points from the total?
because clearly people will be choosing their army / models for gaming the painting score system which will throw off the process of discovering the winningest list.
I have changed my mind after seeing the results at the recent GWGT, Champions missions are to a significant degree to blame for SM competitive dominance. 43/91 play Adeptus Astartes (including a good chunk of BA and a surprising amount of GK), 3/10 got top 10 with Adeptus Astartes (two IH and one mixed). We have previously seen that Adeptus Astartes had balanced results at two previous GWGTs and now they've suffered a major loss in terms of performance with no top 3s, the rational conclusion is that this is more than a couple of outliers given that ITC with all their tournaments have as far as I know only had balanced Astartes results in two grand tournaments in a row, not 3. On top of that, this isn't just Marines having an ok result so it's the final nail in the coffin. So maybe Iron Hands need another little tap in general (they still did relatively well for their number of entrants) and FLG needs to revamp their Champions missions to favour Marines less somehow or favour other factions more. I still think Champions is fun, I like picking secondaries and after playing a few more Eternal War missions I still don't love EW format as much as I do Champions (for competitive) or Maelstrom (for casual). I really hope it doesn't just come down to SM having a huge amount of choices available and being able to build too well for missions that are similar because I still don't want my competitive games to be heavily influenced by which specific mission is being played against which faction. Champions was a largely balanced format before Marines and I hope it will be again when they amend the rules for the new season.
I don't think matched play is very conducive to setting up anything resembling the logic of an actual military operation. You need to scratch-build custom scenarios with more specific win conditions and force compositions for that.
Which I am entirely down for. Please give us something like that.
How cool would it be if we had missions that were set up drastically different. Like for example a Dunkirk type mission. Where the defender in this mission their only objective is to preserve their force and keep the enemy out of their deployment zone. An ambush type mission where one army has to set up basically in the open and go second but the attacking army has to come in piece meal and only starts with a few units. A pitched battle type mission with 2 armies meeting on an open field and fight to the death.
I mean there are lots of ideas you could throw out there...there needs to be some variety. The idea of objectives as poker chips...is just boring to me. Objectives should be less about standing in a arbitrary position. More about doing something that could actaully be seen as being an important military objective.
Why do you play matched play? There are tonnes of narrative missions available and you could always create your own. For me what you describe does not sound cool.
What is so difficult about extracting the battle points from the total?
because clearly people will be choosing their army / models for gaming the painting score system which will throw off the process of discovering the winningest list.
Should be trivial with the 2020 series as they do not have paint scores included at all. They do have sports scores but the max of those is only 10% of your max gaming score so it is a real edge case for it to alter the overall standings except as a tiebreaker.
Kdash wrote: It's also worth noting that i made a mistake in my post about the last GW Event.
They are now running 2000 point events, rather than the 1750 previously used. There is now even less reason for most stats sites to not use the data coming out of the events IF they can get hold of the lists.
GW events have their own problems well outside of the mission rules they use. Like doggak TOs and rules packets that massively overemphasize painting. It's like the michigan GT, Slaanesh won that against pre-nerf ironhands...despite being down nearly 100 battle points because 50% of their championship score was painting (which created an entirely new set of shady BS I won't get into here.)
Tournaments that have painting as more than about 15% of your score are fluff events and any results from them come with a BIG asterisk.
I would have agreed with you, if the latest event was the same as the previous ones. As it is, it was substantially different.
For example, painting scores look like they had ZERO impact on the overall score (they weren't even included on the final score sheet).
As for the mission pack, it is basically.... "2000 points, 3 detachments max, rule of 3, CA19 missions". Can't get more simple than that really, unless they pre-determined the deployment zones for each mission, which they do not.
In regards to TOs at the event, it is a tricky one where they pretty much always lean towards RAW unless it has been FAQd and are more inclined to make the players read the rules and potentially roll off if it is super unclear than to make individual judgements. However, bad and/or inconsistent TOing is not limited to GW, and was even highlighted as something that "unfortunately just happens" even at the LVO.
The next GW heat is in April, i fully expect it to follow the same format as the last one, which, is a cause for celebration imo.
vict0988 wrote: The last GWGT listed pts destroyed and the top players roughly destroyed most.
They use that as a tiebreaker of last resort. If you tie on GT score it would matter. That did not affect the rankings at the top, I did not look all the way down to see if it ever mattered for anyone. It probably did once you get into the 4-1 and 3-2 players where there will be a lot of tied battle point scores and quite likely a tie on favourite game scores too. Usually those positions are no big deal but in this case it is a qualifying event for the GT final so it is quite possible someone made the qualification bracket on pts destroyed.
I’ve given some thought, and I’m not sure if Simon’s GT winning ork horde is an argument specifically for CA2019.
I believe I’ve seen his list and it looked very familiar... indeed so familiar I’m fairly sure he also won a previous GT with basically the same list.
The list is 3 units of 30 boyz (each with a 2:1 mix of choppa:shoota), 2 units of 30 stormboyz. Unit leaders have killsaw and choppa. A waaagh! banner, painboy, kff megamek, biker boss with killing klaw, fw bikerboss. All evil sunz in a battalion. Another battalion all evil sunz except a thinking cap jump weirdboy, also including: warpath weirdboy, 2x20 grots and 12 grots.
Obviously the player is a common element here, and CA 2019 isn’t. I suppose one could argue ITC is less ork friendly than either iteration of CA?
nareik wrote: I’ve given some thought, and I’m not sure if Simon’s GT winning ork horde is an argument specifically for CA2019.
I believe I’ve seen his list and it looked very familiar... indeed so familiar I’m fairly sure he also won a previous GT with basically the same list.
The list is 3 units of 30 boyz (each with a 2:1 mix of choppa:shoota), 2 units of 30 stormboyz. Unit leaders have killsaw and choppa. A waaagh! banner, painboy, kff megamek, biker boss with killing klaw, fw bikerboss. All evil sunz in a battalion. Another battalion all evil sunz except a thinking cap jump weirdboy, also including: warpath weirdboy, 2x20 grots and 12 grots.
Obviously the player is a common element here, and CA 2019 isn’t. I suppose one could argue ITC is less ork friendly than either iteration of CA?
Eh CA2018, CA2019, both still differ from ITC "line up and shoot'em'up without worrying about objectives" scenarios.
If CA2018 was more like ITC you would have point but here we simply see non-marines doing better in non-ITC which is hardly a new trend. ITC has been long favouring gunline game buffing marines while on europe marine domination has been less even before CA2019. CA2019 is fine tuning already existing concept. Not complete rework causing major balance shift between armies like ITC did with it's inception
nareik wrote: I’ve given some thought, and I’m not sure if Simon’s GT winning ork horde is an argument specifically for CA2019.
I believe I’ve seen his list and it looked very familiar... indeed so familiar I’m fairly sure he also won a previous GT with basically the same list.
The list is 3 units of 30 boyz (each with a 2:1 mix of choppa:shoota), 2 units of 30 stormboyz. Unit leaders have killsaw and choppa. A waaagh! banner, painboy, kff megamek, biker boss with killing klaw, fw bikerboss. All evil sunz in a battalion. Another battalion all evil sunz except a thinking cap jump weirdboy, also including: warpath weirdboy, 2x20 grots and 12 grots.
Obviously the player is a common element here, and CA 2019 isn’t. I suppose one could argue ITC is less ork friendly than either iteration of CA?
Obviously the player is a common element - even the greatest of Remembrancers cannot tell the tale of when Simon Priddis last lost a game in a 40KGT
However it is the contrast between the top lists at the GT and at LVO - especially when we look at the GT final from last month as well. Yes, marines make a strong showing in the GTs but it is not oppressive or dominating like marines were at LVO and have been at pretty much every ITC major recently that uses their missions.
It is the difference between building your list knowing what the current top faction is and throwing your list onto ebay and just buying the current top faction because you see no other way to win.
Two top players in GT and ITC formats both playing T'au coming into this year. The top GT player switched to a different Xenos faction to go on to win the next GT event. The top ITC player abandoned his Xenos faction to play Iron Hands to win the next event. See the difference in the way that impacts the variety in the meta?
nareik wrote: Obviously the player is a common element here, and CA 2019 isn’t. I suppose one could argue ITC is less ork friendly than either iteration of CA?
Considering that there have been 0 top 4 placement for orks this year in ITC and three in non-ITC events, it at least seems that way. It's not surprising that an army whose signature feature is having dozens of easy to kill units suffers when missions reward killing stuff as much as ITC does.
It's up to the community to promote the CA missions. There was a local tournament last week that was listed as using the ITC missions, but pressure from players attending made the TO switch to using CA2019 missions. More players came as a result, and the ITC crowd still attended because the event still gave points.
And it wasn't won by Iron Hands.
The problem is that I really don't expect or trust the most dedicated ITC crowd to come to their senses and realise that the CA missions have become as good as they have. It's a combination of stubbornness, ignorance and lack of faith in GW that makes people close minded, if left alone. You can't use historic precedence to paint your opinions forever.
The problem is that I really don't expect or trust the most dedicated ITC crowd to come to their senses and realise that the CA missions have become as good as they have. It's a combination of stubbornness, ignorance and lack of faith in GW that makes people close minded, if left alone. You can't use historic precedence to paint your opinions forever.
Yes but they've quite clearly changed, that's not up for debate.
Frequent, timely FAQs, annual mission updates, annual rule revisions, interaction with the community etc - none of this happened 3 years ago.
This has all taken place, and yet when a new set of missions is released that has a positive impact on the game from a balance and game-play perspective is released, people refuse to give it a try or even believe it. Ironically most complaints about game balance occur in relations to ITC experiences, and those don't accurately reflect the game or the intent behind it.
It shows the cynicism of certain elements in the community. Always complaining, never willing to acknowledge that things are getting better.
There's really only two tournament organisers that set the trend, Frontline and ETC (now of course departed and called WTC for World Team Championship).
ITC rulespack is great, but of course doesn't really require dynamic armies that need to move around the board and adapt to changing scenarios. The strength of the pack is that you can win marginally and still get the win you need, and you can get that win by playing the scenario, while in an ETC/WTC based tournament setting with combined Eternal/Mael missions you won't get far by winning 11-9 -- You really need to rack up those 20-0 wins.
The current ETC proposal pack is terrible and most who have played it would agree (personally I've played nearly 100 games of 40K since the previous ETC), and the predecessors have been terrible as well. This is because of a number of reason that I won't go in here too deeply (for example, massive end game scoring). Maelstrom under Schemes of War is predictable and the old 'luck factor' is long gone, but at the top of the power level the matches are still 'just kill everything' based. The greatest problem to me is that even tight matches that are decided around turn 4 or 5 will still end up in 20-0 scores because of how endgame works. It's not beyond redemption though, if the people behind this rulespack want to adapt.
Hybrids are available too, for example, Swedish major tournaments have designed their own missions only slightly based on the ETC proposal pack. They for example cap the amount of Eternal War and Maelstrom of War and KP you can score in the game, making it more important to play the scenario straight from turn one, instead of just playing shoot em up and then grabbing end game and kill points for a 20-0 win. The Swedes have done a great job about this.
In Finland, ITC started replacing ETC based singles tournaments at the end of last year, and this year it looks like nearly all the singles events will use ITC. I welcome this change for variety's sake, because I will still play the 'other ruleset' in team tournaments like the upcoming BTC (Belgian Team Championships), Home Nations, and World Team Championships.
I'm curious to see where this all will go when 9th rolls around, but if I was a betting man I'd say nothing will change. The powers that are behind the team tournament scene will stick to their guns and will keep making mission packs based on whatever GW releases, and Frontline and generally speaking US/UK singles tournaments will play ITC. It's a pity that rules aren't harmonious but you can put a positive spin on it too and just enjoy the variety. Playing different types of tournaments makes you a better player.
Ishagu wrote: It's up to the community to promote the CA missions. There was a local tournament last week that was listed as using the ITC missions, but pressure from players attending made the TO switch to using CA2019 missions. More players came as a result, and the ITC crowd still attended because the event still gave points.
That is interesting. The downside is that I tend to just ignore a tournament once I see it has ITC missions so even if a TO did change I would not very likely know about it and consider going. Still nice to see that some TOs are responsive to player sentiment.
Therion wrote: There's really only two tournament organisers that set the trend, Frontline and ETC (now of course departed and called WTC for World Team Championship).
In the UK I think GW is still pretty influential. The fact that the GT tournaments exist keeps up a certain grassroots support for the format they use - Chapter Approved missions.
What is true is that when you look online at the YouTube/Podcast/Blog environment there is almost no sign of any of this. It tends to be grassroots tournaments at local clubs/stores and of course GW themselves.
That's my biggest issue. More stale meta and more stale gameplay.
This discussion has really helped my understand why I have developed a dislike of the ITC missions. If I were to summarise that would be
1. It is a big jump for beginners and especially youngsters. The mission structure is totally different from any GW mission and very often your existing army will just get stomped..
2. It is inherently rather repetitive and dull. The only variety comes from facing different opposition; but...
3. The missions inhibit variety in the meta. They severely limit what is viable within factions and somewhat limit faction variety. The ITC meta is clearly less diverse than CA missions.
As a mature and established (if occasional) tournament player my issue with them is boredom. At a wider level my concern is that they are a hurdle to entering the competitive scene for youngsters that is totally unnecessary - it almost seems like it is more complex and different just for the sake of being more complex and different.
Yeah. I understand the appeal of having everything under control for the more straight forward competitive crown. But as a casual tournament player I prefer the variety in ETC combined missions.
Honestly I am not sure anymore if FLG is pushing their own agenda with the ITC missions or what. It's hard to tell with how they behave sometimes, as sometimes it's like the GW Ministry of Propaganda and sometimes it's like they know better than GW.
In any event, I think unless FLG comes out and says they are dropping the missions, simply giving the option will keep the ITC missions around for people who either think GW can't get anything right or enjoy the predictable meta that ITC provides.
Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.
Ishagu wrote: I'm not particularly fond of the ETC format, as it messes with the game substantially as well. It's more varied than ITC at least.
I can see the reason for removing the faction specific objetives. Those were designed by a GW rules writer that was also drunk or something. But 3D objetives giving 2 points always is a great change. And I find that playing the combined Maelstrom/Eternal War mission gives you flexibility and even more objetives to play instead of killing the enemy.
Martel732 wrote: Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.
Try playing against a different army. Tau are rather dull in 8th. I say that as someone who has played them since 4th.
Galas wrote: Yeah. I understand the appeal of having everything under control for the more straight forward competitive crown. But as a casual tournament player I prefer the variety in ETC combined missions.
The funny thing is that ITC missions are less variable but MORE random than CA19, simply due to them using the old deployment rules.
When you deploy before knowing who will go first and who will go second, you have matches literally decided by going first or second, something that has been a complain to the ITC format for quite some time.
At least in CA19 when you go second, you already know this and can deploy with this in mind, not to mention that you will deploy after you have seen your opponent full deployment.
Add to this that the tables are not symmetric and the player going second chooses the side, not to mention the fact that many missions favor going second, and going first or second becomes an actual choice.
How many times have you heard someone say "I would have won if i went first" or "Against that list i have to go first"?
Martel732 wrote: Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.
I think you're stuck in an ITC mentality. You're expecting to earn some direct compensation for killing things when the whole point of most of the CA missions is that killing things is a means to an end, not the end itself. In my experience, players who mainly play CA missions simply don't have the problem you do because the mentality and expectations are different.
Martel732 wrote: Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.
I play Tau but after playing CA missions for a couple of years now the lists I run are hugely different from anything you would see in ITC. Maybe I would blow you off the table but it would not be by playing a static gunline that ignores damage due to spamming shield drones - it would be because I am moving fast and overwhelming parts of your army each turn while leaving other parts on the wrong side of the table doing not much.
I hope you and your group give it a bit more tiime and also do try it more competitively, it is only when you are playing for prizes and glory that some players really get out of their comfort zone and properly think about what list is good for the missions. You only really see the improved gameplay when people shift their lists around towards the missions - if you play an ITC list in a CA19 mission it is quite probably still a rather negative kill-denial list especially with a faction like Tau.
tl;dr give it time, it takes time for lists to adjust away from an ITC mentality
Martel732 wrote: Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.
I think you're stuck in an ITC mentality. You're expecting to earn some direct compensation for killing things when the whole point of most of the CA missions is that killing things is a means to an end, not the end itself. In my experience, players who mainly play CA missions simply don't have the problem you do because the mentality and expectations are different.
I play a lot of GHB(AOSCA) and the approach to scoring is so much different to ITC. In GHB/CA you can try to deny scoring objectives and tar pit other units to give you a head start, but in ITC you are easily punished for that because the unit you used for those tactical maneuvers most likely results in secondary objective points that in turn just make your entire tactic null and void. It is this unintended consequences that I am liking less and less in ITC. In ITC nobody cares how much you try to maneuver because the thing that is going to give you the most point is killing and not getting killed.
Which kinda makes me realize that ITC is basically the Deathmatch version whereas GHB/CA is more CTF/KOH.
Martel732 wrote: Played lockdown vs Tau using ITC terrain rules. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't as amazing as Ishagu claims. I really missed scoring for killing firewarriors, but I randomly had brought three whirlwinds which helped a lot vs the hidden drones. I won (I had to tripoint firewarriors 3 times), but Tau seem to be a miserable foe in every format. The stupidity of savior protocols and fall back were a bigger problem for me than the mission format. So there's that. Killing units still works real well in both formats, its just more indirect in lockdown.
also try playing without a tailored list. Any rule set may seem okeyish if your army can tailor the living hell out of the opponent. a tri whirlwind list wouldn't do very well against marines or eldar lists.
I don't know how you played the mission or what the full lists were. I've never said the CA missions transform 40k into the gamer's utopia instantly. I'm saying the missions are more varied, and thus ultimately more fun, and that the balance isn't sacrificed by moving away from 3rd party homebrew rules. With these factors in mind there isn't a justification to push unofficial, 3rd party rules in place of the official ones.
LoS blocking and ruins without vantage on the ground floor are possible under both rule-sets.
The terrain argument is a separate issue, and it's widely known that players don't put the same effort into building well functional terrain as they do their armies.
how is more varied fun? a structure and repentivness are what is good. If two identical armies played in identical ways don't give the same result, just because of random rolls one has no influence on it is the definition of unfun.
It is like losing a match,that went to time twice, to a referee coin toss.
Do you think that playing the same mission over and over again is more fun than playing a set of varied missions with significant differences in terms of play and objectives?
Is it not common opinion that variety is more fun than repetition?
So to throw my two cents in here.I'm going to talk about my game last night. Matched play, CA19 mission, used GW tourni terrain rules. And we used the Chaos world terrain rules from the Ritual of the Damned PA book.
All official GW rules, no home brew.
The Objectives were draw 5, play three at a time. You can only draw one more a time if you control more objectives at start of your turn. So get objective control to get more cards to get more points.
Attacker goes first and sets up first.
Defender goes second but get's to choose set up lay out, deployment zone and get's benefit of seeing opponents army.
The terrain rules also allowed for stratagems which gave any unit (one per movement phase) access to removing and re-setting up 9" away. Also brought in a table for random effect to board for it being a chaos world. And at the start of each battle round you can move unoccupied terrain (any terrain as long as un-occupied) up to 2d3", alternating.
What resulting was an unpredictable match that required advance thinking and planning. Adaptive strategies and one of the most single fun games ever.
I have played a few ITC and I whole heartily recommend CA19.
Karol wrote: how is more varied fun? a structure and repentivness are what is good. If two identical armies played in identical ways don't give the same result, just because of random rolls one has no influence on it is the definition of unfun.
It is like losing a match,that went to time twice, to a referee coin toss.
CA19 isn't more random than ITC, it is more varied, which is different.
If you were to play the same CA19EW missions multiple times it would actually be LESS random than playing the same ITC mission multiple times, since the roll for going first matters less.
Karol wrote: how is more varied fun? a structure and repentivness are what is good. If two identical armies played in identical ways don't give the same result, just because of random rolls one has no influence on it is the definition of unfun.
It is like losing a match,that went to time twice, to a referee coin toss.
CA19 isn't more random than ITC, it is more varied, which is different.
If you were to play the same CA19EW missions multiple times it would actually be LESS random than playing the same ITC mission multiple times, since the roll for going first matters less.
Well yes. That's why you don't play the same mission over and over. Then it would be like ITC.
Karol wrote: how is more varied fun? a structure and repentivness are what is good. If two identical armies played in identical ways don't give the same result, just because of random rolls one has no influence on it is the definition of unfun.
It is like losing a match,that went to time twice, to a referee coin toss.
CA19 isn't more random than ITC, it is more varied, which is different.
If you were to play the same CA19EW missions multiple times it would actually be LESS random than playing the same ITC mission multiple times, since the roll for going first matters less.
Completely ignoring that you won't play the same mission over and over again against the same person. You will play against a randomly selected opponent in a randomly selected mission. So unless you cheat and get the organizer to get the right missions against the right opponents, you will get hurt by the variance and benefit from the variance in other games.
Ishagu wrote: Do you think that playing the same mission over and over again is more fun than playing a set of varied missions with significant differences in terms of play and objectives?
Isn't that the definition of insanity?
The CA19 missions are great. Lockdown is awesome fun.
Karol wrote: how is more varied fun? a structure and repentivness are what is good. If two identical armies played in identical ways don't give the same result, just because of random rolls one has no influence on it is the definition of unfun.
It is like losing a match,that went to time twice, to a referee coin toss.
CA19 isn't more random than ITC, it is more varied, which is different.
If you were to play the same CA19EW missions multiple times it would actually be LESS random than playing the same ITC mission multiple times, since the roll for going first matters less.
Completely ignoring that you won't play the same mission over and over again against the same person. You will play against a randomly selected opponent in a randomly selected mission. So unless you cheat and get the organizer to get the right missions against the right opponents, you will get hurt by the variance and benefit from the variance in other games.
That wasn't the point of the discussion. I know fully well how to play my CA19. I was just answering to the wrong concept that those missions are "Random" and that, as in the quote, if two identical armies are played in identical ways inside the same EW missions, you get less random results than identical armies played in identical ways in an ITC mission.
Let's stop with this talks about CA19 missions being random and so being bad for competitive matches. They are not. They are less random than ITC.
They are more varied, which is a good thing, not random.
Ishagu wrote: At an event the CA missions don't have to be random. Play them in order.
Against a predetermined opponent with a predetermined list? Yes. But that is not how tournaments work. Let's say you've determined the players will play CA19 EW1, 3 and 6 in your tournament. Now I arrive, my army might be strong in 1 and 6 and weak in 3, now if I meet up with someone who has a bad matchup into my army in EW1 game 1 I might be favoured, but if I instead meet that same person playing that same army in game 2 playing EW3, then the mission could decide the outcome of that match. This is the logical result of increased variance between missions, more matches will be determined by that variance compared to a system where the variance is non-existent or as is the case of ITC, close to non-existent. You cannot increase the variance from mission to mission without also increasing how random match-making will impact tournament results. That's not to say that every ITC game is the same, it just depends on the player's choices instead of the random match-making assigning you a good mission for your match-up, you have to decide the missions that are right for your match-up.
It doesn't seem like it is the variance that makes Marines weaker in CA19, if that were the case you'd at most expect them to do as good or better than every other faction, rarely worse. That gives me hope ITC reviews their secondaries and either make them harder against non-Marines or find ones that hurt Marines more. It is probably best for the long-term health of the game if they switch over to CA19 missions, but I would be sad to see such an interesting mission set go. Maybe if I can get some competitive EW games I will change my mind, but they are dreadfully boring compared to Maelstrom and my community treats Champions missions as the only thing in town as far as competition goes.
In ITC going second is often stronger, exceptions exist, but both broadly and at the highest level AFAIK going second is the right choice in ITC. I know a lot of people whine about going second every time it happens and wouldn't dream in a thousand years to personally choose going second, I think they are bad at ITC. A lot of people brush off their victories due to going first, I think they are better at the game than they give themselves credit for.
Nobody does. It doesn't exist. The exact same list, with a different paintjob will do better in one mission than the same army with a different paintjob. Are IF players going to turn down their anti-vehicle to get more melee to get a rounded list? No that would be silly because on average they will have a better chance at winning games and winning tournaments playing to their strengths, rather than trying to fill out their weaknesses. So unless you force everyone to play the same Chapter, the same list then no. It's painful to read that some people think that mission variance will magically bring about TAC lists, that has not been the case in previous GWGTs.
vict0988 wrote: Against a predetermined opponent with a predetermined list? Yes. But that is not how tournaments work. Let's say you've determined the players will play CA19 EW1, 3 and 6 in your tournament. Now I arrive, my army might be strong in 1 and 6 and weak in 3, now if I meet up with someone who has a bad matchup into my army in EW1 game 1 I might be favoured, but if I instead meet that same person playing that same army in game 2 playing EW3, then the mission could decide the outcome of that match.
Holy gak dude... that almost sounds like playing the game, where you can't control every situation and expect your army to perform well in every circumstance.
And we can't have that now can we?
Your comments remind me of the type of players who will move their stuff, go around and check all of your LOS, then go back and adjust, come back and check your LOS, and keep doing this until everything is in the perfect position. Sometimes you have to just play the game, and if you make a mistake or something ends up slightly out of position, deal with it. Do what real armed forces do. Adapt.
I haven't had single game of CA2019 or CA2018 where the mission decided the game if both players brought a TAC list.
The only time the mission decides the game for you is when you bring a skew list with no or little troops, characters or mobile units. Which is perfectly fine IMO.
vict0988 wrote: Against a predetermined opponent with a predetermined list? Yes. But that is not how tournaments work. Let's say you've determined the players will play CA19 EW1, 3 and 6 in your tournament. Now I arrive, my army might be strong in 1 and 6 and weak in 3, now if I meet up with someone who has a bad matchup into my army in EW1 game 1 I might be favoured, but if I instead meet that same person playing that same army in game 2 playing EW3, then the mission could decide the outcome of that match.
Holy gak dude... that almost sounds like playing the game, where you can't control every situation and expect your army to perform well in every circumstance.
And we can't have that now can we?
Your comments remind me of the type of players who will move their stuff, go around and check all of your LOS, then go back and adjust, come back and check your LOS, and keep doing this until everything is in the perfect position. Sometimes you have to just play the game, and if you make a mistake or something ends up slightly out of position, deal with it. Do what real armed forces do. Adapt.
You sound like you should play narrative if you are not concerned with trying to play to the best of your abilities and getting as good at the game as possible. If you knew about my posting history you would know that my one of my favourite mission sets was CA18 Maelstrom because of its unpredictability and being able to just let stuff explode, great for a casual game. But I'm not a one-note anime-character, I like different things at different times. I believe having to react to my opponent's and the inherent randomness of the dice rolls in the game is enough for a competitive game, adding a large chunk of randomness on top with pre-game rolls is too much for me. I was also heavily on the fix going second train until I learned that it is largely balanced in ITC because I perceived it as being too great a deciding factor for games. I still think it's a problem if you don't have end of battle round objectives and you don't play with ITC ruins.
Jidmah wrote: I haven't had single game of CA2019 or CA2018 where the mission decided the game if both players brought a TAC list.
The only time the mission decides the game for you is when you bring a skew list with no or little troops, characters or mobile units. Which is perfectly fine IMO.
Considering I have been actively avoiding EW I find it strange that I had one of the few games I played decided by objectives floating in my direction and another game decided by having 15 units against a 5 unit list and in a mission about getting VP for each unit destroyed. Now, you can say Knights aren't TAC, Imperial Fists aren't TAC, BA aren't TAC and end up with such a narrow definition of TAC that you basically have to dictate lists to the players attending your tournament, that's not what I am interested in. I want list and faction diversity and fairly matched games. You can't craft a mission set that incentivises TAC enough that people will wholly ignore the game design GW has implemented which massively favours skew lists. That means more games decided by which mission you happen to be playing when against BA vs when against Orks vs when against Craftworlds.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Did someone just tell me to "Git Gud" at 40k?
No, I told you to do whatever you think is fun and it sounds like you want to be bad at the game and play against other people that want to be bad at the game. Checking LOS is kind of basic if you want most of your army to be able to shoot, although knowing you play SM you can get around that with Whirlwinds and TFCs. I don't feel like I am denigrating myself by stooping down and checking LOS if I am not 100% sure it has LOS. I'll often do the same for my opponents to see how many of their models can see and allow my opponent to get an extra shot or two.
Karol wrote: how is more varied fun? a structure and repentivness are what is good. If two identical armies played in identical ways don't give the same result, just because of random rolls one has no influence on it is the definition of unfun.
It is like losing a match,that went to time twice, to a referee coin toss.
You mean like the LVO semi-final match?
Because if you want to do the maths the chances of that one Intercessor Sargeant killing 4 Shining spears so that the unit could not be wrapped was less than 1%. Pure luck.
If you want repetitive games then go right ahead, why you are not playing chess is a slight mystery to me but you are free to try to make a goofy game of toy soldiers into something repetitive and lacking in surprising outcomes if you like. Count me out - sounds utterly dull to me.
vict0988 wrote: Considering I have been actively avoiding EW I find it strange that I had one of the few games I played decided by objectives floating in my direction
That mission has a roll-off for each of four objectives at the beginning of the battle round and the winning player can move the objectives by up to 3". The objectives are scored at the end of the battle round. You didn't win the mission because the objectives "floated in your direction" (you moved them there), they were decided by your opponent being unable to hold their objectives and you defending them properly. I have literally held those floating objectives with units of pox walkers against an army of eldar jetbikes. The only thing the floating does is forcing heavy weapons to move if they want to keep holding the objective. Oh, and it also has been replaced in CA2019.
and another game decided by having 15 units against a 5 unit list and in a mission about getting VP for each unit destroyed.
That mission would be "four pillars" which rewards 1VP per battle round for killing more units than your opponent and 1VP for holding more objectives than your opponent, with only troops being able to score. You get 3 VP if you hold all objectives. There is zero advantage for the 5 models list here - since you are most likely lacking troops, the mission will be decided by whether the knights will be able to wipe out the enemy troops fast enough without failing to kill the most units each turn. In my experience, four pillars is one of the most balanced missions to play, and it's also still around for CA2019.
Now, you can say Knights aren't TAC,
An army bringing with just 5 titanic models with identical strengths and weaknesses is a skew list, and you will lose if the mission that exposes your weaknesses. You literally can't take all comers. And even then, you have traits and stratagems to capture objectives despite more enemy models sitting on them, and you can prioritize killing objective holders to improve your odds.
Imperial Fists aren't TAC, BA aren't TAC and end up with such a narrow definition of TAC that you basically have to dictate lists to the players attending your tournament, that's not what I am interested in.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope The requirements for CA2019's missions are: - You need troops - You need units that can reach your opponent's deployment zone - You need some mobile units - You need 3-4 characters Neither Imperial Fists nor BA have any trouble building a TAC army. Both have access to literally the largest amount of options in the game, if you fail to build an army that can tackle all six CA missions, that's on you.
I want list and faction diversity and fairly matched games. You can't craft a mission set that incentivises TAC enough that people will wholly ignore the game design GW has implemented which massively favours skew lists.
So you're saying that by playing the missions designed by GW you are not playing the game as GW designed it?
That means more games decided by which mission you happen to be playing when against BA vs when against Orks vs when against Craftworlds.
BA, Orks and Eldar can all build armies which have an equal shot at winning all of those CA missions. Unlike ITC, where orks and BA can't do jack, while eldar rely in skew lists to win.
Nobody does. It doesn't exist. The exact same list, with a different paintjob will do better in one mission than the same army with a different paintjob. Are IF players going to turn down their anti-vehicle to get more melee to get a rounded list? No that would be silly because on average they will have a better chance at winning games and winning tournaments playing to their strengths, rather than trying to fill out their weaknesses. So unless you force everyone to play the same Chapter, the same list then no. It's painful to read that some people think that mission variance will magically bring about TAC lists, that has not been the case in previous GWGTs.
You are exactly precisely wrong. I am going to a CA19 tournament tomorrow with my Crimson Fists. Guess what - I am putting in a more diverse set of tools into my list even if that means I lose some of my anti-vehicle brutality. It's no good tabling 2/3 opponents if you do not have the tools to win the third game. So I modify my list to be more TAC because I want to win and because after playing at this store for a couple of years now I have learned how to list-build to win in this format.
The perfect CA19 list is one that can consistently win each game, even if by a narrow margin, by having the tools to play to each of the missions against any likely opponent. That is very much a TAC list. Skew lists are great if you just want to table a couple of opponents and maybe podium.
This may be my ignorance and that I tend to not use slang. But what is a TAC list and a skew list?
To myself You either have a list that it written specifically for the META i.e. ITC missions. Or you write a lists that is well rounded and balanced so it has a better chance of overcoming a varied amount of missions or possibilities (which some could argue thats the point of the game?) i.e. Chapter Approved missions.
Skew lists and TAC lists both seem to get referred to as being negative.
An Army that is balanced and can take and take on all unit types more or less.
Skew, is the inverse:
There are multiple version but in general Skew relies on spam.
An exemple for a Skew List, is R&H mass Assault, spamming cheap bodies with t3/4 and Morale immunity, attempting to box you in and deny your list targets for specific anti weaponry, in this case tanks.
Vice versa, Knights are on the opposite spectrum of skew, relying on their fully Amored vehicles to ignore all your infantry and anti infantry fire more or less.
Skew lists therefore rely one specific unit type to get the job done . Tac list rely on a balanced list building approach.
An Army that is balanced and can take and take on all unit types more or less.
Skew, is the inverse:
There are multiple version but in general Skew relies on spam.
An exemple for a Skew List, is R&H mass Assault, spamming cheap bodies with t3/4 and Morale immunity, attempting to box you in and deny your list targets for specific anti weaponry, in this case tanks.
Vice versa, Knights are on the opposite spectrum of skew, relying on their fully Amored vehicles to ignore all your infantry and anti infantry fire more or less.
Skew lists therefore rely one specific unit type to get the job done . Tac list rely on a balanced list building approach.
Thank you this helps me understand comments.
Why do I see some comments then that seem to be stating that TAC lists are bad and you shouldn't have to write TAC lists? In my head the game is designed to write balanced lists that can overcome a varied list of challenges.
TAC lists are often more liked due to making no army feel obsolete or hard countered. (they are more liked to play against )
Skew lists are either hard counters or hard countered often, makin for not particulary interesting or fun matches.
Skew is therefore in general a lot less liked in the community overall (atleast over here that beeing said dakka also has a rather high competitive streak, not something bad in itself but may taint the perception torwards tac lists, beeing jack off all trades and therefore underperfomring.)
Nobody does. It doesn't exist. The exact same list, with a different paintjob will do better in one mission than the same army with a different paintjob. Are IF players going to turn down their anti-vehicle to get more melee to get a rounded list? No that would be silly because on average they will have a better chance at winning games and winning tournaments playing to their strengths, rather than trying to fill out their weaknesses. So unless you force everyone to play the same Chapter, the same list then no. It's painful to read that some people think that mission variance will magically bring about TAC lists, that has not been the case in previous GWGTs.
You are exactly precisely wrong. I am going to a CA19 tournament tomorrow with my Crimson Fists. Guess what - I am putting in a more diverse set of tools into my list even if that means I lose some of my anti-vehicle brutality. It's no good tabling 2/3 opponents if you do not have the tools to win the third game. So I modify my list to be more TAC because I want to win and because after playing at this store for a couple of years now I have learned how to list-build to win in this format.
The perfect CA19 list is one that can consistently win each game, even if by a narrow margin, by having the tools to play to each of the missions against any likely opponent. That is very much a TAC list. Skew lists are great if you just want to table a couple of opponents and maybe podium.
Caledonian Uprising, everyone's favourite example of CA19 being better than Champions, but does it promote TAC lists? Edit: I cannot even keep my own definitions straight. I meant non-skew not TAC.
The skew vs TAC thing is kind of complicated because they aren't really opposites. TAC is a term of offensive output, you can build a Knight army that is good vs Knights, one that is good vs Marines or one that is good vs Orks by taking high S medium AP, high AP and high ROF weapons respectively. Those would be counter lists, which is the actual opposite of a TAC list, a TAC list would just be a Knight list that is equally good against Orks, Marines and Knights.
A skew list is mostly in terms of defensive profiles, as other posters have explained you can create a list that can ignore lascannons by not taking any good targets, that's a skew list. The opposite of that isn't exactly TAC, it's more like get destroyed by all comers list since skew is generally effective against TAC because the TAC list will have some weapons that are ineffective against your skew list.
vict0988 wrote: Imperial Fists aren't TAC, BA aren't TAC and end up with such a narrow definition of TAC that you basically have to dictate lists to the players attending your tournament, that's not what I am interested in.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope The requirements for CA2019's missions are: - You need troops - You need units that can reach your opponent's deployment zone - You need some mobile units - You need 3-4 characters Neither Imperial Fists nor BA have any trouble building a TAC army. Both have access to literally the largest amount of options in the game, if you fail to build an army that can tackle all six CA missions, that's on you.
It's not about being able to win, it's about the mission not creating an unfair advantage to any player in any specific game. Overall both EW and Champions advantages certain armies and lists, that is inevitable. The question is whether an Imperial Fist player would prefer fighting certain opponents in certain missions and what happens when they do vs when they don't. GW missions have in the past given massive advantages to one player over the other based on lists, minimizing the amount of impact the player choices have in the game due to huge impacts from an individual mission being in you or your opponent's favour.
I cut out a bunch of your comment because I didn't like the tone of my intended response and it was ultimately not worth arguing about for me, please bring it back up if you feel it was important to the discussion.
I want list and faction diversity and fairly matched games. You can't craft a mission set that incentivises TAC enough that people will wholly ignore the game design GW has implemented which massively favours skew lists.
So you're saying that by playing the missions designed by GW you are not playing the game as GW designed it?
No, I am saying GW wants skew lists with the rules set in the codexes and supplements, no mission set is going to remove that. I personally don't want what GW wants. I want rainbow or highlander-like lists which is why I think internal balance is important. Necrons are relatively close, Psychic Awakening will probably make Necrons OP and ruin any semblance of internal balance that has been achieved. Allow DDAs to shoot twice or something similarly silly.
That means more games decided by which mission you happen to be playing when against BA vs when against Orks vs when against Craftworlds.
BA, Orks and Eldar can all build armies which have an equal shot at winning all of those CA missions. Unlike ITC, where orks and BA can't do jack, while eldar rely in skew lists to win.
Do you have any stats to back up the fact that every faction and list has an equal chance of winning any of the CA missions, because from a theoretical standpoint it doesn't make sense. You don't have any missions you'd prefer to play vs BA jump spam and maybe another one you'd prefer against IF flyer spam? That seems incredible to me.
TAC lists are often more liked due to making no army feel obsolete or hard countered. (they are more liked to play against )
Skew lists are either hard counters or hard countered often, makin for not particulary interesting or fun matches.
Skew is therefore in general a lot less liked in the community overall (atleast over here that beeing said dakka also has a rather high competitive streak, not something bad in itself but may taint the perception towards tac lists, being jack off all trades and therefore underperfomring.)
So this seems to be a problem with the way people play then? If people know the standard fixed missions before hand then they will write those boring skew lists.
If they want to actually enjoy their games then the TAC lists seem to be the way to go. And to get the most enjoyment out of them play the matched play CA missions which would require same amount if not more skill to be reliably good at.
It seems to me skew lists are good for fixed mission sets and whoever has the biggest wallet to whomever can buy the best skew lists for said mission set. (which i don't know how that sounds enjoyable)
But TAC lists are good for varied mission sets like CA that require skill and on the go thinking and adaptation. And overall seem to get the most out of the hobby.
TAC = take all comers. In this context, a TAC list would one that can reasonably expect to win any of the missions and has tools to handle anything thrown at it - be it vehicles, hordes, elite infantry or planes.
A skew list is a list which overly focuses on one aspect in order to create a rock-paper-scissors scenario, where you aim to get easy wins through list building. Usually this is facilitated with the rock being too powerful or the paper not being viable in the current meta. Examples of this would be pure knights lists, ork green tides, eldar flyer spam or imperial tank companies.
TAC lists are often more liked due to making no army feel obsolete or hard countered. (they are more liked to play against )
Skew lists are either hard counters or hard countered often, makin for not particulary interesting or fun matches.
Skew is therefore in general a lot less liked in the community overall (atleast over here that beeing said dakka also has a rather high competitive streak, not something bad in itself but may taint the perception towards tac lists, being jack off all trades and therefore underperfomring.)
So this seems to be a problem with the way people play then? If people know the standard fixed missions before hand then they will write those boring skew lists.
If they want to actually enjoy their games then the TAC lists seem to be the way to go. And to get the most enjoyment out of them play the matched play CA missions which would require same amount if not more skill to be reliably good at.
It seems to me skew lists are good for fixed mission sets and whoever has the biggest wallet to whomever can buy the best skew lists for said mission set. (which i don't know how that sounds enjoyable)
But TAC lists are good for varied mission sets like CA that require skill and on the go thinking and adaptation. And overall seem to get the most out of the hobby.
Least that's how I am understanding it?
Preetty much, however, you need to regard this in context.
Gw most of the time sucks in the Mission department or rules department, this is why ITC garnered such a following and was in many ways necessary.
Both sides have decent arguments, but imo you should never be able to totally controll the missions and setups ,due to my understanding and Look at 40k beeing a wargame.
You are exactly precisely wrong. I am going to a CA19 tournament tomorrow with my Crimson Fists. Guess what - I am putting in a more diverse set of tools into my list even if that means I lose some of my anti-vehicle brutality. It's no good tabling 2/3 opponents if you do not have the tools to win the third game. So I modify my list to be more TAC because I want to win and because after playing at this store for a couple of years now I have learned how to list-build to win in this format.
The perfect CA19 list is one that can consistently win each game, even if by a narrow margin, by having the tools to play to each of the missions against any likely opponent. That is very much a TAC list. Skew lists are great if you just want to table a couple of opponents and maybe podium.
Caledonian Uprising, everyone's favourite example of CA19 being better than Champions, but does it promote TAC lists?
To me that tyranid list is a great example of a TAC list - it has a variety of units to handle shooting, combat and objective grabbing. Yet by not having certain keywords you think it is a skew list.
The winning list has a mix of Infantry and Monster units and you call that one out as a skew list as well. The 3rd place list is also a gimmick list leaning in heavily to one game mechanic, yet you do not think that is a skew list.
You think the 4th place is list is skewed for having a lot of heavy weapons. Another new definition of skew which I had not met before.
I think at this point your definition of TAC is so narrow that it is meaningful only to you.
You are exactly precisely wrong. I am going to a CA19 tournament tomorrow with my Crimson Fists. Guess what - I am putting in a more diverse set of tools into my list even if that means I lose some of my anti-vehicle brutality. It's no good tabling 2/3 opponents if you do not have the tools to win the third game. So I modify my list to be more TAC because I want to win and because after playing at this store for a couple of years now I have learned how to list-build to win in this format.
The perfect CA19 list is one that can consistently win each game, even if by a narrow margin, by having the tools to play to each of the missions against any likely opponent. That is very much a TAC list. Skew lists are great if you just want to table a couple of opponents and maybe podium.
Caledonian Uprising, everyone's favourite example of CA19 being better than Champions, but does it promote TAC lists?
To me that tyranid list is a great example of a TAC list - it has a variety of units to handle shooting, combat and objective grabbing. Yet by not having certain keywords you think it is a skew list.
The winning list has a mix of Infantry and Monster units and you call that one out as a skew list as well. The 3rd place list is also a gimmick list leaning in heavily to one game mechanic, yet you do not think that is a skew list.
You think the 4th place is list is skewed for having a lot of heavy weapons. Another new definition of skew which I had not met before.
I think at this point your definition of TAC is so narrow that it is meaningful only to you.
It is skewed towards infantry with 1 or 3 wounds, any weapons that are designed to kill anything different will be weak against the list. Haywire cannons, lascannons, meltaguns, all designed to take out vehicles, particularly heavily armoured ones and all relatively weak against Warriors. It might not be a counter list though, it might not be built to take out any specific list or build, but it you have to notice the lack of vehicles and monsters.
It's a skew list because the Monsters are all characters with less than 10 wounds if the list included Magnus or a Bloodthirster I would not call it a skew list. Again, haywire, lascannons and meltaguns are useless until you get rid of all the chaff.
Sorry but I have not played against the Possessed bomb so I am not familiar with how it operates, I also believe there are several ways to field the bomb depending on which mark they take. The Crawlers do present a target for a type of weapon that would be worse against Possessed, if the player had instead brought three units of Havocs his list would not have any vehicles to target with haywire weapons for example and the list would be more skewed.
The IF list is a skew list because of all the flyers, if you don't have effective anti-flyer units in your army they will be hard to take out. Had he taken 3 instead of 5 it would not be as skewed a list. On top of that IF are a counter list for vehicle-builds, which the player played into by bringing heavy weapons that get +1 damage. So the list is skewed towards flyers and it's a counter list against vehicles.
I'm no expert on GSC, but why do you think this is not a TAC list? Many different units, multiple kinds of troops, and even similar units are equipped differently. This is a perfectly fine example of a TAC list. As you pointed out below, TAC doesn't mean you need to bring a defensive profile to shoot for every enemy gun.
The skew vs TAC thing is kind of complicated because they aren't really opposites. TAC is a term of offensive output, you can build a Knight army that is good vs Knights, one that is good vs Marines or one that is good vs Orks by taking high S medium AP, high AP and high ROF weapons respectively. Those would be counter lists, which is the actual opposite of a TAC list, a TAC list would just be a Knight list that is equally good against Orks, Marines and Knights.
This is correct - Knights are quite limited in their choice of weapons, so they can't really build TAC lists. They heavily rely on people being unable to handle them properly while gunning down whatever is thrown at them with whatever they have.
A skew list is mostly in terms of defensive profiles, as other posters have explained you can create a list that can ignore lascannons by not taking any good targets, that's a skew list. The opposite of that isn't exactly TAC, it's more like get destroyed by all comers list since skew is generally effective against TAC because the TAC list will have some weapons that are ineffective against your skew list.
I agree, but skew lists aren't limited to defensive properties. When you look back to the early months of this edition, there were skew lists focused on spamming deep striking shooting units or massive amounts of smites. Skew is all about putting a lot of weight on a certain aspect of your army and trying to win the game during list building.
It's not about being able to win, it's about the mission not creating an unfair advantage to any player in any specific game. Overall both EW and Champions advantages certain armies and lists, that is inevitable. The question is whether an Imperial Fist player would prefer fighting certain opponents in certain missions and what happens when they do vs when they don't. GW missions have in the past given massive advantages to one player over the other based on lists, minimizing the amount of impact the player choices have in the game due to huge impacts from an individual mission being in you or your opponent's favour.
Right now, ITC is creating an unfair advantage for some players in every game. Having multiple missions who favor different aspects is by default superior to having one mission which favors the same aspects every game.
I'd also like to specify which *massive* advantage a player gains from any of the CA missions. To me it doesn't seem like you have played any of the CA2018/19 missions, because me and my group had the exact opposite impression. Even games again armies like knights or whatever the top dogs were in ITC, it always felt like you had a fair shot at winning.
No, I am saying GW wants skew lists with the rules set in the codexes and supplements, no mission set is going to remove that. I personally don't want what GW wants. I want rainbow or highlander-like lists which is why I think internal balance is important.
I want the same as you. In my experience those recent CA missions have worked towards that. Armies which sit in a corner an shoot across the board precisely according to mathhammer keep losing and losing, so people have started valuing mobility and utility much more and thus lists are changing.
You don't have any missions you'd prefer to play vs BA jump spam and maybe another one you'd prefer against IF flyer spam? That seems incredible to me.
So, since you seem genuinely interested in this, I went through all the missions and checked.
Flyer spam is a skew list though, which means it's actually supposed to be bad in some missions. I'm fairly confident that it would struggle in pillars, ascension and frontline warfare, as it's easy to ramp up VP there if your opponent can't contest the objectives. Even if they table me, I might still win or draw, as SM troops take too long to get across the board after it has been cleared. In the others it would depend on how fast they remove my stuff, so basically regular game.
BA jump spam? It really depends on what exactly you mean but that, but assuming you brought two battalions and something that can kill tanks, I don't think they have an advantage nor a disadvantage against either my DG or my Orks in any of the missions (assuming both built to handle any of the six missions).
DG would probably benefit most from ascension because they have lots of durable characters, and BA are kind of forced to not keep theirs sitting on objectives. In turn, BA would probably win scorched earth because DG suck at removing things quickly, so you might end up razing an objective or two.
As for orks, four pillars would be my choice, since drowning the pillars in gretchin and boyz works good enough against scouts. If I get the 3 VP once, I probably win the game. This could backfire on me though, depending on what you bring - intercessors are pain to remove for orks and infiltrators make jumping on a pillar impossible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: It is skewed towards infantry with 1 or 3 wounds, any weapons that are designed to kill anything different will be weak against the list. Haywire cannons, lascannons, meltaguns, all designed to take out vehicles, particularly heavily armoured ones and all relatively weak against Warriors.
How are lascannons and melta weak against warriors and hive guard?
It might not be a counter list though, it might not be built to take out any specific list or build, but it you have to notice the lack of vehicles and monsters.
It's a skew list because the Monsters are all characters with less than 10 wounds if the list included Magnus or a Bloodthirster I would not call it a skew list. Again, haywire, lascannons and meltaguns are useless until you get rid of all the chaff.
Sorry but I have not played against the Possessed bomb so I am not familiar with how it operates, I also believe there are several ways to field the bomb depending on which mark they take. The Crawlers do present a target for a type of weapon that would be worse against Possessed, if the player had instead brought three units of Havocs his list would not have any vehicles to target with haywire weapons for example and the list would be more skewed.
I think you are mistaking target saturation for skew.
Thank you for the response Jidmah, I will continue giving EW a shot. I played a lot at the start of 2019, just not feeling it lately so haven't played many CA19 games although I stopped keeping track of my games early 2019. I have played a fair amount of CA18 games but that was 95% casual Maelstrom games. I haven't given competitive non-ITC missions much thought prior to reading this thread and came in as a staunch Champions supporter.
I don't think there is any difference between skew and target saturation. I guess I could call them target saturation lists instead of skew lists. With ITC terrain rules you can easily hide 6 Hiveguard from your opponent's Predators (in 2020 ha). The Warriors are cheap enough that it isn't as bad as having your Carnifex getting shot by lascannons. Lists counter to some degree, but I don't think a lack of TAC lists is ever going to be a problem, target saturation lists are a problem though. It should be possible to have elite infantry, swarms, bikes and vehicles in the same list without tanking your chances of success. On the other hand I don't want to have any one mission favour one player in a competitive game. Maybe if all the missions were played at once I could be happy.
Spoletta wrote: The 4th list is clearly a skew. 5 flyers are too many.
The first one is the most TAC you can get in this game. I will just summon whatever i need, beatiful list to play.
The second one is clearly TAC.
The third one is already pushing it, but i would still define it as one.
You're totally right, they are TAC lists, they are also skew lists though. I'm certain they are able to compete with anything in the meta, otherwise, they would have gotten worse placements. What I meant to say was that the #1, 3 and 4 lists have one or two weaknesses in terms of defence and not much else. If the lists had more unit diversity in terms of monsters/vehicles (that are not characters with less than 10 wounds) then every list would have somewhere to point their lascannon equivalents, but because the lists are skewed they do not. None of the lists look to me to be obviously built to counter anything, IF are automatically a vehicle counter list.
ITC champions mission promote harder list building "tricks" IMHO than the CA 2019 missions.
Building a list that doesn't give up secondaries is just as important as building a list that can achieve primaries and secondaries where the GW missions take that whole second layer of "balancing" (not giving up secondaries) away.
Building a list that works for CA 2019 is less restrictive than building a list that works for ITC missions which should lead to greater variety at the codex level as well as the units level.
Going first matters a lot in ITC depending on the list you have. Flyer spam, mani cheemas "360 no-scope, Kobe!!" list straight dunk on you if they go first. They can work second as well but if they go first 9/10 games are effectively over.
My big issue with the ITC champions missions is they are actively trying to balance the game and are obviously (LVO results, marine meta) failing at it.
Being locked in for a whole season means they are unable to adapt to the meta (or we would have seen sweeping changes when the marine supplements were released). They are a lever of balance that GW doesn't have their hands on and as bad as GW has been at intentional balance changes they sure are changing the game a lot.
Maybe their approach worked better when GW wasn't breaking the meta every month (codex) or 4 (FAQ). Unless frontline is willing to change up their mission pack every FAQ/CA/Supplement it is just another layer that leads to imbalance.
It is skewed towards infantry with 1 or 3 wounds, any weapons that are designed to kill anything different will be weak against the list. Haywire cannons, lascannons, meltaguns, all designed to take out vehicles, particularly heavily armoured ones and all relatively weak against Warriors. It might not be a counter list though, it might not be built to take out any specific list or build, but it you have to notice the lack of vehicles and monsters.
Tyranid lists are hardly likely to be bringing vehicles against which you would want haywire rules - its really not their thing. You use your lascannons on the Warriors or Hive Guard if you have any sense, one of the intrinsic problems of units in that mid-range of wounds is that they are OK targets both for the anti-tank and anti-chaff weapons. Killing a termagant with a lascannon is inefficient, killing a Warrior or Hive Guard really is not.
Perhaps more to the point of the discussion look at a unit like Warriors which would give up suicidal amounts of Gang Busters points in ITC and revel in them being on the top tables of a major event.
vict0988 wrote: Against a predetermined opponent with a predetermined list? Yes. But that is not how tournaments work. Let's say you've determined the players will play CA19 EW1, 3 and 6 in your tournament. Now I arrive, my army might be strong in 1 and 6 and weak in 3, now if I meet up with someone who has a bad matchup into my army in EW1 game 1 I might be favoured, but if I instead meet that same person playing that same army in game 2 playing EW3, then the mission could decide the outcome of that match.
Holy gak dude... that almost sounds like playing the game, where you can't control every situation and expect your army to perform well in every circumstance.
And we can't have that now can we?
Your comments remind me of the type of players who will move their stuff, go around and check all of your LOS, then go back and adjust, come back and check your LOS, and keep doing this until everything is in the perfect position. Sometimes you have to just play the game, and if you make a mistake or something ends up slightly out of position, deal with it. Do what real armed forces do. Adapt.
Jidmah wrote:I haven't had single game of CA2019 or CA2018 where the mission decided the game if both players brought a TAC list.
The only time the mission decides the game for you is when you bring a skew list with no or little troops, characters or mobile units. Which is perfectly fine IMO.
It is nice to see that feth you lists are hindered in CA19, you should be punished for taking a skew list.
Its funny, because I find that CA missions heavily favor skew lists whereas ITC missions tend to punish them.
Particularly hordes - plaguebearers, ork boyz and termagant spam have dominated the few CA events I have seen because the strategy of "stand on point A until dead, by which time you have an unbeatable lead" turns out to be pretty damn good when that literally the only thing that needs doing.
On the other hand, ITC secondaries were *designed* to screw with skew lists. It's not doing so effectively at the moment due to rules changes outpacing the tournament format changes, but at least the possibility exists for that punishment to be brought in.
Trasvi wrote: Its funny, because I find that CA missions heavily favor skew lists whereas ITC missions tend to punish them.
Particularly hordes - plaguebearers, ork boyz and termagant spam have dominated the few CA events I have seen because the strategy of "stand on point A until dead, by which time you have an unbeatable lead" turns out to be pretty damn good when that literally the only thing that needs doing.
We had this discussion a while back and sorry, but unless you're doing something super wrong hordes just don't have the staying power against focussed fire to survive more than a turn or two, assuming you wrote a half decent TAC list and didn't just load up on Heavy X S8 Dd6 weapons.
Trasvi wrote: Its funny, because I find that CA missions heavily favor skew lists whereas ITC missions tend to punish them.
Particularly hordes - plaguebearers, ork boyz and termagant spam have dominated the few CA events I have seen because the strategy of "stand on point A until dead, by which time you have an unbeatable lead" turns out to be pretty damn good when that literally the only thing that needs doing.
We had this discussion a while back and sorry, but unless you're doing something super wrong hordes just don't have the staying power against focussed fire to survive more than a turn or two, assuming you wrote a half decent TAC list and didn't just load up on Heavy X S8 Dd6 weapons.
Pray tell, what focused fire takes out a -1 to-hit, 30 strong blob of Plaguebearers? And the one behind it? And the one behind that?
Nobody does. It doesn't exist. The exact same list, with a different paintjob will do better in one mission than the same army with a different paintjob. Are IF players going to turn down their anti-vehicle to get more melee to get a rounded list? No that would be silly because on average they will have a better chance at winning games and winning tournaments playing to their strengths, rather than trying to fill out their weaknesses. So unless you force everyone to play the same Chapter, the same list then no. It's painful to read that some people think that mission variance will magically bring about TAC lists, that has not been the case in previous GWGTs.
You are exactly precisely wrong. I am going to a CA19 tournament tomorrow with my Crimson Fists. Guess what - I am putting in a more diverse set of tools into my list even if that means I lose some of my anti-vehicle brutality. It's no good tabling 2/3 opponents if you do not have the tools to win the third game. So I modify my list to be more TAC because I want to win and because after playing at this store for a couple of years now I have learned how to list-build to win in this format.
The perfect CA19 list is one that can consistently win each game, even if by a narrow margin, by having the tools to play to each of the missions against any likely opponent. That is very much a TAC list. Skew lists are great if you just want to table a couple of opponents and maybe podium.
Caledonian Uprising, everyone's favourite example of CA19 being better than Champions, but does it promote TAC lists? Edit: I cannot even keep my own definitions straight. I meant non-skew not TAC.
Both the #3 and #4 lists are lists which you could easily have seen rocking the top tables of any ITC event. Calling the possessed bomb a "balanced list" I think is a category error... it exists in its own category of "wombo combo" lists. The nids list I think gets punished too hard by ITC secondaries. ANd I have no idea how Anthony Chew won. I know what that list *attempts* to do, but I'm amazed it had the longevity to actually pull it off with the amount of thunderfire cannons and snipers in the game..
Trasvi wrote: Its funny, because I find that CA missions heavily favor skew lists whereas ITC missions tend to punish them. Particularly hordes - plaguebearers, ork boyz and termagant spam have dominated the few CA events I have seen because the strategy of "stand on point A until dead, by which time you have an unbeatable lead" turns out to be pretty damn good when that literally the only thing that needs doing.
We had this discussion a while back and sorry, but unless you're doing something super wrong hordes just don't have the staying power against focussed fire to survive more than a turn or two, assuming you wrote a half decent TAC list and didn't just load up on Heavy X S8 Dd6 weapons.
Pray tell, what focused fire takes out a -1 to-hit, 30 strong blob of Plaguebearers? And the one behind it? And the one behind that?
Exactly. Rocking a plaguebearer horde I was quite easily able to *table* many of my opponents and still control every objective on the board for 6 turns. . Hordes work because most armies can't afford to load up on the amount of firepower it takes to kill 150 plaguebearers or 200 boyz or 300 gretchen AND possibly have a chance at killing Marines. ... that is until nu marines came out at least which seem to have the tools to deal with nearly everything. I think the meta is swinging back to the high damage weapons enough though that hordes have a chance again.
Trasvi wrote: Its funny, because I find that CA missions heavily favor skew lists whereas ITC missions tend to punish them.
Particularly hordes - plaguebearers, ork boyz and termagant spam have dominated the few CA events I have seen because the strategy of "stand on point A until dead, by which time you have an unbeatable lead" turns out to be pretty damn good when that literally the only thing that needs doing.
We had this discussion a while back and sorry, but unless you're doing something super wrong hordes just don't have the staying power against focussed fire to survive more than a turn or two, assuming you wrote a half decent TAC list and didn't just load up on Heavy X S8 Dd6 weapons.
Pray tell, what focused fire takes out a -1 to-hit, 30 strong blob of Plaguebearers? And the one behind it? And the one behind that?
so uhh, why do we not keep hearing about how they are winning all non-ITC events then?
It is a simple fact that the game Warhammer 40,000 was not designed to support a type of terrain that totally blocks line of sight going in and out from all directions, enabling units that can shoot ignoring line of sight to be untargetable by shooting attacks except those that also ignore line of sight.
That is a completely undesigned-for mechanic that almost all ITC lists seem to be taking advantage of right now.
If you created any kind of rule like that - say, run a big tournament series where every army gets to take 1 unit that must be in-faction but costs no points, or a big tournament series where everyone gets to nominate 1 unit to deep strike 4" away from enemy units, you definitionally will skew what is good heavily towards armies that can take maximum advantage of this new mechanic you've introduced that the game designers definitely did not test for.
Sometimes, we are OK with these third parties playing kingmaker, because it makes the game more varied and fun. Because at the end of the day, playing a game made by an entity that makes money off there being units whose rules are good so you go and buy them for the rules means you will be playing a less balanced game.
Other times, it feels like the third party entitites are bringing their own biases to the table and worsening balance. Now is one of those times.
Ordana wrote: so uhh, why do we not keep hearing about how they are winning all non-ITC events then?
Honestly I don't hear anything much about events that aren't ETC or ITC. Once in a blue moon there is an event locally where hordes are vying for podium though.
Plaguebearer hordes *were* doing decently in both ETC and ITC events, but kind of fell out of favor to the 'Vesal soup' list which used 60 plaguebearers but was just able to win bigger.
Ork hordes are still doing great. Take 3 shokk attack guns, a squad of tank bustas then fill the remaining points with boyz and gretchin.
If by "great" you mean get occasional win or top-4 spot, have overall win rate somewhat under 50% and under 40% in ITC then sure.
It's hardly heavily favouring when you don't even get over 50% win rate
Also if they are so unkilable they should do just fine in ITC since ITC is kill point favouring system so you would be denying points to your opponent like no tomorrow.
Been playing ITC quite a bit recently and would echo what others have said in that its quite one dimensional.
I agree that it gives some level of "stability" to the games and "attempts" to balance horde VS gunline VS mech etc etc but I actually really miss some of the randomness of maelstrom.
Only some mind you, they really need to do away with the d3 points rolls.
Whilst I didn't make this topic originally to focus on the ITC terrain rules, the magic boxes will have a huge impact on list creation.
People will build to take advantage of them by creating units that hide for board control and protection, whilst others will focus more heavily on no LoS firepower. It's another reason why the ITC meta can't be used to gauge the factions under the real rules.
I actually think that 1st floor blocking is good, but I also think people need to invest in more terrain that naturally provides it.
Ishagu wrote: Whilst I didn't make this topic originally to focus on the ITC terrain rules, the magic boxes will have a huge impact on list creation.
People will build to take advantage of them by creating units that hide for board control and protection, whilst others will focus more heavily on no LoS firepower. It's another reason why the ITC meta can't be used to gauge the factions under the real rules.
I actually think that 1st floor blocking is good, but I also think people need to invest in more terrain that naturally provides it.
1st floor blocking is well and fine, but a building that units can get in that is completely impenetrable from all sides heavily skews the units that are good in the game towards units that don't care about ever attacking (eg drones) and units that can use it as a mario star while they keep shooting at full effectiveness (eg thunderfires).
Absolutely. I have not found the Thunderfire to be an essential unit addition in my games using the CA missions.
There is nothing wrong with playing a home-brew, but when the people playing it demand balance fixes based on said home-brew it becomes a big problem. Some issues were painfully illustrated in the latest Chapter Tactics podcast - Ork players can't take Trukks because they give up gangbusters too easily, hence Orks are severely handicapped and their list variety diminished. And yet the ITC is supposed to be a source for Meta Data?
No it's not. The data it generates is ultimately meaningless beyond some vague indications of faction strength that can be argued or disputed. How can you talk about game balance when your home-brew missions remove units from being viable, and not because of rule shortcomings from GW's designers?
Ishagu wrote: Absolutely. I have not found the Thunderfire to be an essential unit addition in my games using the CA missions.
There is nothing wrong with playing a home-brew, but when the people playing it demand balance fixes based on said home-brew it becomes a big problem. Some issues were painfully illustrated in the latest Chapter Tactics podcast - Ork players can't take Trukks because they give up gangbusters too easily, hence Orks are severely handicapped and their list variety diminished. And yet the ITC is supposed to be a source for Meta Data?
No it's not. The data it generates is ultimately meaningless beyond some vague indications of faction strength that can be argued or disputed. How can you talk about game balance when your home-brew missions remove units from being viable, and not because of rule shortcomings from GW's designers?
I mean....you have not found the ability to halve movement, advance and charge rolls for two units in the enemy army for a couple CP to be an essential element of your gameplan?
I think Thunderfires are pretty much necessary regardless in a SMtac list, but just 1 instead of the 3 you see in ITC lists routinely.
Ground floor blocking LoS was a great stop-gap measure for us when 8th dropped but we're now finding it to be more of a hindrance than a help. The problem is that most ruins are big enough to cram most of an army inside/behind, making hiding an entire army too easy. We're starting to transition back to TLoS with ruins that are built in a more varied way, so some completely block LoS, while others do have gaps that you can see through. This has improved game quite a lot and has the added bonus of encouraging people to build more terrain too.
Regardless of terrain, TFC are ridiculous though. ITC or not, those things are way undercosted, especially considering the stratagems available. I know Ishagu is on some kind of quest to prove the perfection of CA19 missions but comments about how TFC are fine outside of ITC are so wide of the mark I don't think anyone will take them seriously.
Ishagu wrote: Absolutely. I have not found the Thunderfire to be an essential unit addition in my games using the CA missions.
There is nothing wrong with playing a home-brew, but when the people playing it demand balance fixes based on said home-brew it becomes a big problem. Some issues were painfully illustrated in the latest Chapter Tactics podcast - Ork players can't take Trukks because they give up gangbusters too easily, hence Orks are severely handicapped and their list variety diminished. And yet the ITC is supposed to be a source for Meta Data?
No it's not. The data it generates is ultimately meaningless beyond some vague indications of faction strength that can be argued or disputed. How can you talk about game balance when your home-brew missions remove units from being viable, and not because of rule shortcomings from GW's designers?
Gemini are supposedly so bad in ITC due to headhunter aka characters gives up secondaries. In real 40k having cheap characters you don't care too much whether they live or die can be actually ASSET. For one you can use them as sacrificial lamb to prevent shooting for a while. Not bad to prevent shooting for 16 pts...(gemini got price drop in CA19). And once they die you get miracle dice. And if you play maelstrom there's also card that gives you d3 vp if character dies.
It's basically for 1 pts cheaper extra wound extra attack zephyr without reroll but instead have character rule, ability to guard celestian if need be and minimum cost for unit just 16 pts.
Not biggest things ever but in real 40k worse ways to spend 16 pts. But in ITC gives easy kill points.
Regardless of terrain, TFC are ridiculous though. ITC or not, those things are way undercosted, especially considering the stratagems available. I know Ishagu is on some kind of quest to prove the perfection of CA19 missions but comments about how TFC are fine outside of ITC are so wide of the mark I don't think anyone will take them seriously.
The TFC outperform a Wyvern that is 28pts more expensive against almost every target in the game there is. If we add in that it also outranges, have a smaller profile and can get IF doctrine, IF CT or MA added to that it makes the guard artillery laughable. Against units in cover or with - to hit penalties it gets even worse. And you dont even need a special detachment to get the good stratagems either. I thought guard artillery parks were boring and annoying to play against but then GW released marine 2.0 and took it to an entirely new level.
You could probably put a complete newbie in charge of an Imperial Fist artillery park with as much indirect fire as possible and only teach them how to measure range and roll shooting attacks. Dont even have to bother with the melee or psychic phase and just tell them to remove any units the enemy touches in melee. That newb wont win any tournaments but will still win some games in a tournament on pure auto pilot and make their opponent have a terrible time while doing it. It can easily kill a knight and bracket another with good rolls turn 1 from across the board with 0 line of sight required and there is nothing the knight player could even do to prevent that. 3 TFC, 3-6 whirlwinds, 3 eliminator squads and 3 rapier carriers or what ever they are called. A few cheap HQs for rerolls and a few troops to get double shooting CP.
Trasvi wrote: Rocking a plaguebearer horde[...]
.
Hordes work because most armies can't afford to load up on the amount of firepower it takes to kill 150 plaguebearers
Ever considered that plaguebearers might be the problem, and not hordes in general? I can't recall any other horde army tabling others regularly.
200 boyz or 300 gretchen AND possibly have a chance at killing Marines.
Considering that I play orks, I can tell you that most armies have no trouble deleting 60 boyz per turn, lists tailored towards killing hordes can do twice that.
Neither 200 boyz nor 300 gretchin are viable armies when there are chess clocks involved.
It's also the ITC mindset that's showing. You usually don't need to kill your enemy to win CA missions, I usually win my games close to getting tabled and have lost games ten times my opponent's points left on the table.
On top of that, most missions don't actually favor hordes.
Crusade has six objectives, so hordes actually do have an advantage here. However, points are scored at the start of each players turn (starting T2), so you can deny points by just clearing the stuff actually on objectives.
Scorched earth is difficult, but with some sacrificial units in their backfield, you could raze their objectives for a quick boost and to deny them VP in further turns. This one also has scoring at the start of turn, just make sure you don't get tabled. In general hordes don't like turning around to handle something like terminators in their deployment zone.
Assention is also decent for hordes unless you snipe their characters. If you do, it's a free win, if you don't you need to keep your characters alive and try to interrupt the enemy character's scoring ones - which by no means requires you to kill the entire enemy army. Shifting 60 boyz and a KFF mek off an objective is a piece of cake compared to killing Maenus Calgar with Vitrix Honor guard sitting in one.
Frontline Warfare massively benefits hordes, but has scoring at the end of a battleround. If you go second, you can clear objectives to deny or even steal them from the other player.
Four Pillars requires you to hold two objectives (score at end of battleround) and kill more units than your opponent. Against most horde armies, people have no trouble doing that as you can control how much a horde army kills per turn. If mek guns are involved, winning this should not be a problem.
Lockdown really depends on which markers disappear when. But then again, fighting for objectives will win the missions, rather than killing as much as possible. Sometime using lascannons to kill boyz is the right thing to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trasvi wrote: Ork hordes are still doing great. Take 3 shokk attack guns, a squad of tank bustas then fill the remaining points with boyz and gretchin.
the_scotsman wrote: It is a simple fact that the game Warhammer 40,000 was not designed to support a type of terrain that totally blocks line of sight going in and out from all directions, enabling units that can shoot ignoring line of sight to be untargetable by shooting attacks except those that also ignore line of sight.
That is a completely undesigned-for mechanic that almost all ITC lists seem to be taking advantage of right now.
If you created any kind of rule like that - say, run a big tournament series where every army gets to take 1 unit that must be in-faction but costs no points, or a big tournament series where everyone gets to nominate 1 unit to deep strike 4" away from enemy units, you definitionally will skew what is good heavily towards armies that can take maximum advantage of this new mechanic you've introduced that the game designers definitely did not test for.
Sometimes, we are OK with these third parties playing kingmaker, because it makes the game more varied and fun. Because at the end of the day, playing a game made by an entity that makes money off there being units whose rules are good so you go and buy them for the rules means you will be playing a less balanced game.
Other times, it feels like the third party entitites are bringing their own biases to the table and worsening balance. Now is one of those times.
People should note that magic boxes are not codified in ITC. It does show up in LVO a lot, but it is by no means standard.
the_scotsman wrote: It is a simple fact that the game Warhammer 40,000 was not designed to support a type of terrain that totally blocks line of sight going in and out from all directions, enabling units that can shoot ignoring line of sight to be untargetable by shooting attacks except those that also ignore line of sight.
That is a completely undesigned-for mechanic that almost all ITC lists seem to be taking advantage of right now.
If you created any kind of rule like that - say, run a big tournament series where every army gets to take 1 unit that must be in-faction but costs no points, or a big tournament series where everyone gets to nominate 1 unit to deep strike 4" away from enemy units, you definitionally will skew what is good heavily towards armies that can take maximum advantage of this new mechanic you've introduced that the game designers definitely did not test for.
Sometimes, we are OK with these third parties playing kingmaker, because it makes the game more varied and fun. Because at the end of the day, playing a game made by an entity that makes money off there being units whose rules are good so you go and buy them for the rules means you will be playing a less balanced game.
Other times, it feels like the third party entitites are bringing their own biases to the table and worsening balance. Now is one of those times.
People should note that magic boxes are not codified in ITC. It does show up in LVO a lot, but it is by no means standard.
How are they not codified? Don't they dictate the terrain setup at their events?
the_scotsman wrote: It is a simple fact that the game Warhammer 40,000 was not designed to support a type of terrain that totally blocks line of sight going in and out from all directions, enabling units that can shoot ignoring line of sight to be untargetable by shooting attacks except those that also ignore line of sight.
That is a completely undesigned-for mechanic that almost all ITC lists seem to be taking advantage of right now.
If you created any kind of rule like that - say, run a big tournament series where every army gets to take 1 unit that must be in-faction but costs no points, or a big tournament series where everyone gets to nominate 1 unit to deep strike 4" away from enemy units, you definitionally will skew what is good heavily towards armies that can take maximum advantage of this new mechanic you've introduced that the game designers definitely did not test for.
Sometimes, we are OK with these third parties playing kingmaker, because it makes the game more varied and fun. Because at the end of the day, playing a game made by an entity that makes money off there being units whose rules are good so you go and buy them for the rules means you will be playing a less balanced game.
Other times, it feels like the third party entitites are bringing their own biases to the table and worsening balance. Now is one of those times.
People should note that magic boxes are not codified in ITC. It does show up in LVO a lot, but it is by no means standard.
How are they not codified? Don't they dictate the terrain setup at their events?
the being more guidelines line applies. some go straight ITC standard some use a few house rules on top or don't apply others.
How are they not codified? Don't they dictate the terrain setup at their events?
They do but magic boxes were created out of a desire for the FLG guys to still use the terrain they invested in and to curb big models. If you go look at the hosted missions and guidelines they are nowhere to be found.
This is the section on terrain guidelines:
In ITC events using any missions, the following modification to Ruins type terrain should be used: Ruins: For this event, the bottom level walls of all ruins are considered to block LoS even if they do not actually do so. This means existing openings in them such as those created by windows, doors, bullet holes, etc. block LoS. This rule does not mean the players create walls where none existed. If in doubt as to where to define these barriers, clarify with your opponent before the game begins.
How are they not codified? Don't they dictate the terrain setup at their events?
They do but magic boxes were created out of a desire for the FLG guys to still use the terrain they invested in and to curb big models. If you go look at the hosted missions and guidelines they are nowhere to be found.
This is the section on terrain guidelines:
In ITC events using any missions, the following modification to Ruins type terrain should be used: Ruins: For this event, the bottom level walls of all ruins are considered to block LoS even if they do not actually do so. This means existing openings in them such as those created by windows, doors, bullet holes, etc. block LoS. This rule does not mean the players create walls where none existed. If in doubt as to where to define these barriers, clarify with your opponent before the game begins.
So, magic boxes aren't EXPLICITLY created, but you cannot follow this rule with a ruin building with 4 walls and not end up with a magic box.
contrary to GW's terrain series, I've seen a lot of building terrain with 4 walls. That tends to be a feature of most buildings.
contrary to GW's terrain series, I've seen a lot of building terrain with 4 walls. That tends to be a feature of most buildings.
Well, FLG owns a lot of 4 walled buildings with a roof and a door(s). Some are bunkerish types with shuttered windows and such.
So given the light rules of GW's design you either make these "impassable" terrain where you can sit on the roof or you let people go inside as ruins. And unless you create yet more rules for fire points and shooting in/out you're left with things like no LOS weapons shooting from inside without any downside.
It is just as easy for people to call them impassable and kill magic boxes for their tournament.
contrary to GW's terrain series, I've seen a lot of building terrain with 4 walls. That tends to be a feature of most buildings.
Well, FLG owns a lot of 4 walled buildings with a roof and a door(s). Some are bunkerish types with shuttered windows and such.
So given the light rules of GW's design you either make these "impassable" terrain where you can sit on the roof or you let people go inside as ruins. And unless you create yet more rules for fire points and shooting in/out you're left with things like no LOS weapons shooting from inside without any downside.
It is just as easy for people to call them impassable and kill magic boxes for their tournament.
By gws rules youd go "entirely on" the ruin, gain cover and still be in los.
Smirrors wrote: I think the name magic box infers that its something crazier than what it really is...a 4 sided building.
I think FLG rules on this is a pretty elegant solution.
Does it make sense that infantry can move through it? Yes. Does it make sense that a building should provide LOS cover. Yes.
I think the only update I could suggest is that actual ruins provide a -1 to hit, where as solid buildings provide blocking LOS.
Yeah everything you say makes sense. Does it make any sense that you can't destroy said building and everything inside with a demolisher cannon? No...not really. I think it is a very terrible solution. If you can't shoot through it/into it should be impassible. Then we would start to get somewhere.
Smirrors wrote: I think the name magic box infers that its something crazier than what it really is...a 4 sided building.
I think FLG rules on this is a pretty elegant solution.
Does it make sense that infantry can move through it? Yes. Does it make sense that a building should provide LOS cover. Yes.
I think the only update I could suggest is that actual ruins provide a -1 to hit, where as solid buildings provide blocking LOS.
Yeah everything you say makes sense. Does it make any sense that you can't destroy said building and everything inside with a demolisher cannon? No...not really. I think it is a very terrible solution. If you can't shoot through it it should be impassible. Then we would start to get somewhere.
But then do some buildings have more toughness/wounds? Which ones? What happens when they're "destroyed"? The terrain pieces are often not destructible themselves - do you remove an entire terrain piece? TOs likely won't be able to have rubble to replace them with as well - terrain is expensive. Especially for 450 tables.
Smirrors wrote: I think the name magic box infers that its something crazier than what it really is...a 4 sided building.
I think FLG rules on this is a pretty elegant solution.
Does it make sense that infantry can move through it? Yes. Does it make sense that a building should provide LOS cover. Yes.
I think the only update I could suggest is that actual ruins provide a -1 to hit, where as solid buildings provide blocking LOS.
Yeah everything you say makes sense. Does it make any sense that you can't destroy said building and everything inside with a demolisher cannon? No...not really. I think it is a very terrible solution. If you can't shoot through it it should be impassible. Then we would start to get somewhere.
But then do some buildings have more toughness/wounds? Which ones? What happens when they're "destroyed"? The terrain pieces are often not destructible themselves - do you remove an entire terrain piece? TOs likely won't be able to have rubble to replace them with as well - terrain is expensive. Especially for 450 tables.
Yeah I agree with that. I have toyed around with buildings/ruins having a toughness and wound total and treat it like a vehicle if it is destroyed - on a 1 anything inside is slain. A standard building having maybe like 10 wounds 4+ save and t6. Infantry can shoot out of it. If they are within 1 inch of a wall. That kind of stuff. The ITC solution though I think creates more problems than it fixes. I think it is clear that the game needs more dynamic terrain rules and still weapons need to hit less if fired indirect.
Karol wrote: Rules wise or actual how stuff is build wise?
Rules wise.
You want terrain with the same rules as ruins but that infantry cannot freely travers? You got it.
You want terrain that gives cover just because you are standing behind it without being on it? You got it,
You want terrain that doesn't give cover but is passable only by infantry? You got it.
You want terrain that slows down infantry but not tanks? You got it.
I would like to highlight especially the second one.
People like to say that terrain doesn't do anything in this game because you use TLoS and just seeing an antenna makes you fully vulnerable, but that is true only for ruins. You got no less than 4 terrain element rules which give cover just because you are near it and are partially obscured from the target. Sometimes you really think that players get a CA, see the points, see the missions (ITC players skip this step) and then drop it somewhere. Spoiler: Terrain rules have been updated!
Well Imperial Fists do extra damage to buildings and even have a psychic power based around it but the game currently doesnt really use buildings in the terrain sense.
Magic boxes are pretty terribly implemented with the "infantry move through ruins" rules. A unit can stand right outside a building, charge through the wall like the kool-aid man, and murder units inside without any fear of overwatch. It further rewards non-LOS shooting/abilities even more. Seems a little silly that a flamethrower or shotgun camping a doorway cannot overwatch, but a mortar can overwatch against something directly on the opposite side of the wall. Especially when you consider "there are holes etc that infantry can climb through" but those same "holes" aren't big enough to shoot out of? It was a decent stopgap before people starting using better terrain, but it's time to rip the band aid off.
Good gods ! What is that? The entire thread? My commendations sir. Exalted.
