So as the question asks is ITC a real way to play 40k?
As for my own opinion I lie in between option 2 and 3. ITC is the main format for the U.S. which is the country that runs the biggest tournaments. That said I understand that many European players don’t even play the format at all, and thus ITC isn’t the end all be all.
ITC is A way to play. The fact that the birthplace of GW and its surrounding countries hardly play the format (regardless of player numbers) does tell you that it is not the intended way to play.
Voted "ITC is a valid mission set to play, but it doesn’t fully represent 40k as a whole."
Those who voted for "No ITC is a homebrew format which shouldn’t be counted as real 40k," feel pretty silly in my opinion, given that I doubt anyone (BCB excepting) play fully RAW.
The third option feels more valid, but not accurate as number two. As far as I know, it IS the main 40k competitive scene, but that doesn't mean it represents every meta-far from it.
ITC is a valid way to play in the same way that beyond the gates of 40k is a real way to play. Everyone can play however they feel like. No. It shouldn't count for anything for GW.
Lance845 wrote: ITC is a valid way to play in the same way that beyond the gates of 40k is a real way to play. Everyone can play however they feel like. No. It shouldn't count for anything for GW.
Not having played ITC or knowing a ton about it, what houserules are there? I know of one-the "magic boxes" of first floors always blocking LoS.
Lance845 wrote: ITC is a valid way to play in the same way that beyond the gates of 40k is a real way to play. Everyone can play however they feel like. No. It shouldn't count for anything for GW.
Not having played ITC or knowing a ton about it, what houserules are there? I know of one-the "magic boxes" of first floors always blocking LoS.
But what else is actually houseruled?
Aside from what you just mentioned, the main difference ITC has vs “regular” 40k is that ITC’s secondaries are often times achieved based on killing certain types of units. This means that top players will adjust their lists with these secondaries in mind thereby changing how top lists are constructed. Beyond this? Not much is changed in ITC.
Lance845 wrote: ITC is a valid way to play in the same way that beyond the gates of 40k is a real way to play. Everyone can play however they feel like. No. It shouldn't count for anything for GW.
Not having played ITC or knowing a ton about it, what houserules are there? I know of one-the "magic boxes" of first floors always blocking LoS.
ITC is real 40K for those dedicated to playing tournaments using their rulesets. It is an option for those who play around those dedicated to those tournaments. It is nothing to those who are not around ITC enthusiasts.
It's little different from how FIFA, Olympic, NCAA, or your local league rulesets are considered. They only matter if you are involved in those games.
Lance845 wrote: ITC is a valid way to play in the same way that beyond the gates of 40k is a real way to play. Everyone can play however they feel like. No. It shouldn't count for anything for GW.
Not having played ITC or knowing a ton about it, what houserules are there? I know of one-the "magic boxes" of first floors always blocking LoS.
But what else is actually houseruled?
Aside from what you just mentioned, the main difference ITC has vs “regular” 40k is that ITC’s secondaries are often times achieved based on killing certain types of units. This means that top players will adjust their lists with these secondaries in mind thereby changing how top lists are constructed. Beyond this? Not much is changed in ITC.
There are a few other minor ruling too about how things work.
I think the division needs to be better defined. Do you mean ITC as a culture? If so then yes, because it's essential just a league system and they produce missions for playing in their league. As with any league people get invested in the competition and become attached.
If you mean the ITC missions (which is what I think was meant) then no, those are house rules for people who want to be in that league.
I think that for the hobby would be good to develop or agree with some sort of international tournament championship rule set that put together all the major actors in the hobby scene and GW.
At the end of the day, GW is the one who develops and maintain the core rules, miniatures and datasheet, and the tournament organizations are the one who is closer to the competitive scene and knows better the needs of the competitive scene.
What we got till recently is both actors working independently of each other wasting time and resources that would have been far better spent if they worked together. No wonder why ITC appeared and has become that popular but at the same time has bring unbalance to the game.
If it's true that the ITC team has been collaborating in the CA 2019 mission pack, then this is good and the way to go. Just put together more actors in the hobby scene plus a set a formal communication channel that allows any individual hobbyist to give his or her opinion and cast his / her vote and then you will have a solid base to build an international format for tournaments.
psipso wrote: I think that for the hobby would be good to develop or agree with some sort of international tournament championship rule set that put together all the major actors in the hobby scene and GW.
At the end of the day, GW is the one who develops and maintain the core rules, miniatures and datasheet, and the tournament organizations are the one who is closer to the competitive scene and knows better the needs of the competitive scene.
What we got till recently is both actors working independently of each other wasting time and resources that would have been far better spent if they worked together. No wonder why ITC appeared and has become that popular but at the same time has bring unbalance to the game.
If it's true that the ITC team has been collaborating in the CA 2019 mission pack, then this is good and the way to go. Just put together more actors in the hobby scene plus a set a formal communication channel that allows any individual hobbyist to give his or her opinion and cast his / her vote and then you will have a solid base to build an international format for tournaments.
The ITC team have been play testers for GW since the conception of 8th ed. They play tested all the rulebook missions and all the CA missions so far in theory.
I see it as a way of playing 40k but not THE way of playing it.
Being in the UK, it’s rare to even hear people talk about ITC rules.
You tend to hear it far more often in bigger organised events or around the US.
I dabble with ITC rules and missions with friends as we find it clears some of the rubbish.
Problem is, not many others do, so trying to find a pickup game using ITC rules isn’t all that easy.
Ironically though, staff at my local GW are all followers of the tournament circuit so they are more than happy to play by ITC rules which is pretty nice.
As a whole, I see it like triple triad from final fantasy 8.
It has its stand alone rules but then differing rules are added by region.
So what are we actualy checking here, how many people on this forum play in the US and UK? because that is more or less what the data will show. For US people ITC rule set is valid and real, because it is used both in tournaments and outside of them. While people from the UK will say it is home brew, because they have not only zero attachment to it, but in fact negative conotations with ITC, as they try to put the way they play as the real way to play w40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: I think the division needs to be better defined. Do you mean ITC as a culture? If so then yes, because it's essential just a league system and they produce missions for playing in their league. As with any league people get invested in the competition and become attached.
If you mean the ITC missions (which is what I think was meant) then no, those are house rules for people who want to be in that league.
Well the thing is not even GW plays their games without house rules, and am not just talking here about stuff like them not knowing their own rules, but litteral rule changes that aren't in any of the core rule books,
It's a common set of house rules. So, if someone were to ask me to explain the rules of 40k to them, I would not be talking about ITC - I would talk about the actual printed rules GW use.
ITC is a way to play 40K. It is extremely popular in Northern America but it is not popular in the UK (the birthplace of 40K) neither in the rest of Europe on top of using several homebrew missions etc.
It should NOT be considered "real 40k".
This poll is so stupid I'm wondering if it's a troll.
ITC is a way to play 40K. It is extremely popular in Northern America but it is not popular in the UK (the birthplace of 40K) neither in the rest of Europe on top of using several homebrew missions etc.
It should NOT be considered "real 40k".
This poll is so stupid I'm wondering if it's a troll.
I think given the high levels of discussion over the topic alongside the US scene being so vocal and ITC-centric, it's not that abstract they'd want some form of validation.
Lot of questions about that, I think it has nothing to do with 40k.
It's like play chess with poker rules .
But I don't think gw rules will change the meta hardly, just by a bit
40K, and wargaming in general, has always been about tweaking the rules to your needs, coming up with your own custom scenarios and doing your own thing with the tools included in the game.
ITC is still "real 40K" just like the homebrew missions in my narrative league are.
40K, and wargaming in general, has always been about tweaking the rules to your needs, coming up with your own custom scenarios and doing your own thing with the tools included in the game.
ITC is still "real 40K" just like the homebrew missions in my narrative league are.
Have you not been paying attention to the broader discussion? Theres like 3 threads about why the ITC format is bad/not bad for the balance of the game.
None seem to match my exact thoughts of that ITC is a valid way to play. Just as narrative missions are a valid way to play, or custom campaign games down the flgs are.
However, as a set of house rules it it really can't be used in determining what is or isn't competitive (/balance) in 40k as a whole.
ITC like any house rules can heavily affect what is or isn't good. The data available suggests that whilst some armies perform similarly well (or not well) in vanilla and ITC, it also suggest some armies performance can be quite different between the two.
40K, and wargaming in general, has always been about tweaking the rules to your needs, coming up with your own custom scenarios and doing your own thing with the tools included in the game.
ITC is still "real 40K" just like the homebrew missions in my narrative league are.
Yeah - they're not offical 40k though.
Gatekeeping would be saying "you can ONLY play official 40k rules, everything else is wrong!"
This is "ITC isn't official 40k rules, but that's okay. Do what you like."
JNAProductions wrote: Voted "ITC is a valid mission set to play, but it doesn’t fully represent 40k as a whole."
Those who voted for "No ITC is a homebrew format which shouldn’t be counted as real 40k," feel pretty silly in my opinion, given that I doubt anyone (BCB excepting) play fully RAW.
The third option feels more valid, but not accurate as number two. As far as I know, it IS the main 40k competitive scene, but that doesn't mean it represents every meta-far from it.
EDIT: I want to change what i said.
When talking about MATCH PLAY, ITC is 100% not Real 40k at all.
ITC is 100% real GW when you are talking about NARRATIVE PLAY, as for narrative you can do what you want.
40K, and wargaming in general, has always been about tweaking the rules to your needs, coming up with your own custom scenarios and doing your own thing with the tools included in the game.
ITC is still "real 40K" just like the homebrew missions in my narrative league are.
Have you not been paying attention to the broader discussion? Theres like 3 threads about why the ITC format is bad/not bad for the balance of the game.
It sounds more like he is calling out the ridiculousness on asking "is ITC real 40k?" It doesn't matter if people consider it to be real or not. As long as ITC continues to be the dominate tournament standard in the US, it is going to be a relevant part of the discussion. You can get into all kinds of bolter measuring contests with each other, but the hard fact is that ITC exists whether the European scene wants to acknowledge it or not.
That being said, "Is ITC more harm than good for 40k?" is a much more interesting topic.
ITC missions are a homebrew set up, there are no ifs ands or buts on this. That does not mean its an invalid way to play the game though.
It does, however, massively change the way the game is played and that can be a real problem when determining balance. I blame GW for this though, it has taken them far too long to come up with a decent set of missions so somebody had to fill the void. The problem now is that ITC mission use is so wide spread, particularly in the states, that it'll be difficult to get people to change back.
Imateria wrote: ITC missions are a homebrew set up, there are no ifs ands or buts on this. That does not mean its an invalid way to play the game though.
It does, however, massively change the way the game is played and that can be a real problem when determining balance. I blame GW for this though, it has taken them far too long to come up with a decent set of missions so somebody had to fill the void. The problem now is that ITC mission use is so wide spread, particularly in the states, that it'll be difficult to get people to change back.
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.
Have you not been paying attention to the broader discussion? Theres like 3 threads about why the ITC format is bad/not bad for the balance of the game.
It's entirely possible to despise the effect that the ITC ruleset has on outcomes without denigrating the people who play it as somehow "less than pure" practitioners of the game.
It's a valid way to play 40k, but technically there is no "real" 40k other than the base rules. ITC is a houseruled set of 40k to make it more balanced for big competitions (or so the claim is), nothing more, nothing less.
40K, and wargaming in general, has always been about tweaking the rules to your needs, coming up with your own custom scenarios and doing your own thing with the tools included in the game.
ITC is still "real 40K" just like the homebrew missions in my narrative league are.
Have you not been paying attention to the broader discussion? Theres like 3 threads about why the ITC format is bad/not bad for the balance of the game.
This thread isn't about those threads though.
I would put the bar at what constitutes "real 40K" pretty low. Real 40K includes Open, Narrative, Matched and Tournament Play. It includes house rules, custom missions, and Legends.
If someone wants to limit 40K to just the words written by staff GW writers, I'd qualify that as "by the books 40K' or something, not "real".
Karol wrote: True it is like saying MMA isn't a real sport, because it doesn't follow just wrestling or just ju jitsu rules.
The point is that MMA isn't wrestling or jiu jitsu, it's MMA. No-one's saying ITC isn't a valid way to play the game, but that it's its own thing. MMA is a valid sport, but it's its own thing.
Same as ITC isn't the 40k rules, it's ITC.
It's real, it's valid, and it's certainly popular, but it's not "official" 40k any more so than any homebrew game - which, personally I don't class as "official" 40k (not that there's anything wrong, bad, or incorrect about playing a homebrew game! Find what you like, and play that way!). Is that a problem?
Karol wrote: True it is like saying MMA isn't a real sport, because it doesn't follow just wrestling or just ju jitsu rules.
The point is that MMA isn't wrestling or jiu jitsu, it's MMA. No-one's saying ITC isn't a valid way to play the game, but that it's its own thing. MMA is a valid sport, but it's its own thing.
Same as ITC isn't the 40k rules, it's ITC.
It's real, it's valid, and it's certainly popular, but it's not "official" 40k any more so than any homebrew game - which, personally I don't class as "official" 40k (not that there's anything wrong, bad, or incorrect about playing a homebrew game! Find what you like, and play that way!). Is that a problem?
"Official" =/= "Real". Especially in the context of a baseline ruleset that literally tells you to make stuff up if you want.
As a person playing in the US in a meta including a lot of competitive players locally now including the LVO champ I will say ITC is pretty relivant to me. I can see where a person in other countries might not care about it, but with my area its not always possible to go to one of the several FLGS and find a person wanting to play a non ITC mission outside of our local quarterly narrative events where the big guns get put away to share a few brews and have some fun.
I think saying it is silly and not real 40k is ... stupid. it uses the 40k basic rules and then add a few customizations to that.
I drive a Nissan Armada. I replaced the suspension with a better off roading setup with a lift, larger all terrain tires, supercharged the engine, reprogramed the ECU and added an exhaust... am I still driving a Nissan Armada? of course I am (though in the EU and worldwide you would call it a Nissan Patrol) It has just been tweeked to fit what I the user want from it. Are these mods useful for everybody .. hell no, does it make my enjoyment and abilities in overlanding and camping better? yup so to me the mods work. Same with ITC its added rules and elements/missions for the group of players who want them and benefit from them.
This poll is so stupid I'm wondering if it's a troll.
The only thing more stupid is that people are actually giving answers other than "No" IMO, but then again the response options are extremely poor and don't actually align with the question being posed.
Pure and simple, ITC rules are house rules. They are one way that you can choose to play, but they aren't the rules published in the book, nor are they official, and they absolutely should not be the standard that GW looks to in order to determine whether or not their rules are balancing or functioning.
If I were GW, personally, I would be actively discouraging the use of ITC or similar rulesets in high level competitive play and absolutely trying to identify and shore up the perceived weaknesses in the core ruleset that these formats are trying to address (because ultimately that is why they became popular in the first place). The sad reality is that ITC and ETC and the other formats that are being used elsewhere are poisoning GW's ability to accurately collect and assess the data being generated and adjust and rebalance the game in response. Even minor tweaks to the rules made by these formats can have an outsize impact on the data and results generated, which in turn gives false impressions as to the games overall health. If 1/3rd of the data generated is ITC format, 1/3rd is ETC format, and the remaining 3rd is split between Warzone, NOVA, Renegade Open, Adepticon, etc. if you're GW you can't look at those results and say that all the data collected is consistent with itself and you're comparing apples to apples, etc. and then derive any sort of meaningful conclusion as to what adjustments need to be made to the game from it. If game balance was a scientific process, then GWs attempts at it would never survive peer review due on its data collection failures alone, other potential issues notwithstanding. I'm not necessarily saying that game balance needs to be held to the same rigorous standards of scientific experimentation, etc. but I think most of us hope - if not outright want - GW to make balancing decisions based on rigorous analysis and assessment of factual information, something that simply isn't possible currently as a result of these various formats.
In very basic terms, we all need to be playing the same game for discussions of balance to mean anything at all, and that simply is not the case right now, which is why I regular see posts of people claiming xyz is overpowered or underpowered or needs a buff or needs to be nerfed, etc. and say to myself "what the hell is this dude talking about?". 9 times out of 10 it seems those situations occur when someone is discussing balance in the context of ITC tournament results (sometimes other formats, but it seems its generally ITC that makes me scratch my head most, likely because its the most popular format in the area I live and with the people I interact with) - which are an entirely different set of experiences from what I've had as an American who basically only plays by the book rules.
I think the point is that the way the topic is phrased is inherently loaded. The moment you start qualifying things as 'real' or 'not genuine' it's a fairly common perception to view that as inherently denigrating.
This poll is so stupid I'm wondering if it's a troll.
The only thing more stupid is that people are actually giving answers other than "No" IMO, but then again the response options are extremely poor and don't actually align with the question being posed.
Pure and simple, ITC rules are house rules. They are one way that you can choose to play, but they aren't the rules published in the book, nor are they official, and they absolutely should not be the standard that GW looks to in order to determine whether or not their rules are balancing or functioning.
If I were GW, personally, I would be actively discouraging the use of ITC or similar rulesets in high level competitive play and absolutely trying to identify and shore up the perceived weaknesses in the core ruleset that these formats are trying to address (because ultimately that is why they became popular in the first place). The sad reality is that ITC and ETC and the other formats that are being used elsewhere are poisoning GW's ability to accurately collect and assess the data being generated and adjust and rebalance the game in response. Even minor tweaks to the rules made by these formats can have an outsize impact on the data and results generated, which in turn gives false impressions as to the games overall health. If 1/3rd of the data generated is ITC format, 1/3rd is ETC format, and the remaining 3rd is split between Warzone, NOVA, Renegade Open, Adepticon, etc. if you're GW you can't look at those results and say that all the data collected is consistent with itself and you're comparing apples to apples, etc. and then derive any sort of meaningful conclusion as to what adjustments need to be made to the game from it. If game balance was a scientific process, then GWs attempts at it would never survive peer review due on its data collection failures alone, other potential issues notwithstanding. I'm not necessarily saying that game balance needs to be held to the same rigorous standards of scientific experimentation, etc. but I think most of us hope - if not outright want - GW to make balancing decisions based on rigorous analysis and assessment of factual information, something that simply isn't possible currently as a result of these various formats.
In very basic terms, we all need to be playing the same game for discussions of balance to mean anything at all, and that simply is not the case right now, which is why I regular see posts of people claiming xyz is overpowered or underpowered or needs a buff or needs to be nerfed, etc. and say to myself "what the hell is this dude talking about?". 9 times out of 10 it seems those situations occur when someone is discussing balance in the context of ITC tournament results (sometimes other formats, but it seems its generally ITC that makes me scratch my head most, likely because its the most popular format in the area I live and with the people I interact with) - which are an entirely different set of experiences from what I've had as an American who basically only plays by the book rules.
I agree that it is difficult to quantify between all formats out there, but a lot of balancing that probably should be done in buffing units or fixing points costs happen at all level, only the lists really change. No matter the format the new ork buggies for example are still overcosted. The necrons army despite getting points fixes is still pretty weak because their core rules are lacking. Custodes lost their special sausce with the new marines book makign them T4 custodes at 1/3 the price per model with better strategies and faction rules (hyperbole but not far off). The whole reaon ITC and others came to be was GW dropping out of the tournament scene and declaring 40k a beer and pretzels game as a cop out to having to balance or do much play testing. they are now righting the ship but we are not there yet imo to turn over the reighs completely to trust in GW going forward.
Ishagu wrote: Unit Fixing and point costs should not be adjusted at all in response to anything from the ITC.
Homebrew rules that impact the balance of the game are null and void when it comes to unit balance complaints.
You're right, BUT the people clamoring for balance fixes most are the people that play these events, and are using their experience in these events to justify it.
Sad and true. GW should literally ignore them completely.
If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it. Times have changed so much, GW has evolved their mission pack and the ignorance on the matter is pretty depressing.
Karol wrote: So what are we actualy checking here, how many people on this forum play in the US and UK? because that is more or less what the data will show. For US people ITC rule set is valid and real, because it is used both in tournaments and outside of them. While people from the UK will say it is home brew, because they have not only zero attachment to it, but in fact negative conotations with ITC, as they try to put the way they play as the real way to play w40k.
Yeah, no. This assumes there isn't a large portion of US players that have issues with ITC, which there definitely IS.
The book missions up until CA 2019 were not viable for any sort of competitive game. I came back to 8th from having last played in 5th and tried the book missions and almost quit playing then and there.
Got introduced to the ITC missions at my FLGS and didn't play another type of mission until the marine supplements came out and drove me from competitive 40k. Tried the CA 2019 missions and realized that there are ways outside of ITC to play the game. Took a look at the most recent adepticon mission pack and really like those as well.
I do wish ITC would push more varied mission packs but until GW wants to pony up the cash to actually play test and balance their own game this is where we are. GW created this mess and they are going to have a tough time fixing it (they also broke 8th edition so I don't think they are really invested in fixing any of their messes unless it equates to bottom line gains). They release such a half-arsed unfinished product and rely on the community to test it for them. That community has to put modifications in place because no one wants to use their product as is because it is broken as feth.
I like playing in a couple GTs and seeing where I stand among my peers. I want to go to BAO, SoCAL and LVO in 2020/21 and the ITC mission pack will be used at those events so I need as much practice with it as I can get so it's not easy to "just use the GW missions".
It is funny to see a lot of people who have a lot to say about the competitive balance of 40k on here as never having played an ITC mission (or hate them so much). Where are you playing competitive games of 40k that don't use ITC missions? The ETC is just as homebrew as ITC and I don't know of any large competitive tournaments that use the GW missions.
True ITC is house ruled but it was necessary in order to fix the RNG mess that were GW missions. Now I think ITC pushes list construction too much to avoid giving up secondaries.
Using ITC missions to balance the game could lead to some skew but if GW wants to beta test their rules (because it is obvious they don't test them in house, see 2++ rubrics or IH or GK or marines before 2.0 or marines after 2.0 or possessed bombs, or CA 2019, or space wolves, or....) we need some where to draw data from and ITC is the only group that has their stuff together enough to provide a big enough data set.
ITC is 'real' 40K in that it is a completely legitimate way to play the game.
ITC is not 'real' 40K in that it does not represent the competitive balance of the vanilla Matched Play rules. It's a form of widely-accepted house rules.
House rules are fine and encouraged. I play with house rules all the time for adjusting the systems I don't like.
Experience based on playing with house rules is inherently tainted and should not be taken into account when balancing the core, actual rules. Hence where the debate actually lies.
Because this isn't a question about semantics, it's about whether ITC should be considered representative of the game as a whole and used for balance adjustments.
bananathug wrote: Tried the CA 2019 missions and realized that there are ways outside of ITC to play the game. Took a look at the most recent adepticon mission pack and really like those as well.
CA2019 actually having good missions is probably why this has come up now. Last January there wasn't a bunch of topics about how ITC missions should be ditched in favor of CA2018 because most people recognised that they weren't the best. But when GW has started putting out good missions while IH/Marines 2.0 has started to emphasise the cracks in the ITC system it means stuff needs to be talked about and looked at.
One is the balancing issue and the other that "commonly played type of game".
A) The first is what are GW rules writers basing their info on when they receive feedback from external playtesters and/or observe events as info for future balance adjustments and rules.
B) The second one is more the perceived "default" or "normal" game people would generally expect when they hit their local club or store to "play 40K".
For the first one, there's some valid points on why GW playtesters taking balancing-inspiration from events using ITC missions (or external playtesters invested/accustomed to ITC missions much more than book missions) might cause some problems. Ultimately, the entire point of ITC (or any modification of the game as presented in the rulebook) is to change and tweak the balance (i.e. what wins the game). If the win/lose outcome for all armies/units/combinations/list was always 100% identical, whether you'd use ITC missions or book missions, there'd be no point. The entire reason to go through the effort of making a variant set of win/lose conditions is because you aren't happy with the win/lose results the game produces with the win/lose conditions presented in the rule book (chapter approved, etc..). If, in turn, you base your future balancing-efforts on the tweaked variant ruleset, you'll never actually get around to address the likely problematic rules/units/rules-interactions that motivated authors of a variant rule set to make that rule set in the first place.
For the second one, it's questionable that there is or even should be a single answer. A lot of people, when they go to "play 40k" obviously have (probably mostly 2000 points) matched play ITC in their mind. Others have "by default" (probably 1750 points) matched play book mission in their mind. And again a lot of people don't even think of matched-play initially.
Balancing is more difficult than people give it credit for, and the ITC missions do obfuscate things. The mission and terrain do impact how effective units are.
A classic example:
How much are 5 Heavy Bolters worth against an Ork army on an open table?
How much are they worth against an Imperial Knight hidden behind lots of cover?
How much is a scoring focused unit with teleportation worth in a mission where every objective is far away from your deployment?
Is it worth the same when all the objectives are in your deployment? Of course not.
Because the ITC is so predictable and variation between missions is near non-existent, certain units are funnelled into being effective whist others end up as ineffective.
How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k. End of discussion.
The Salt Mine wrote: How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k. End of discussion.
Anything not using the official rules can be interpreted as not being the real 40k.
The Salt Mine wrote: How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k. End of discussion.
Please show me where GW directly supports ITC missions and rules alterations. The fact they balance off missions they don't formally endorse or supply is exactly the issue.
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.
Who is going to tell them that the events are switching over and why should the events switch over to begin with if they feel more comfortable using ITC rulesets? This isn't really as easy as just saying "tell them to switch over". There are players/events invested in the format and thinking that they will switch just because is a bit presumptuous.
What makes this even harder is that the largest and most popular events in 40k are States-side and they have shown so far that they are invested in the ITC league.
Ishagu wrote: Unit Fixing and point costs should not be adjusted at all in response to anything from the ITC.
Homebrew rules that impact the balance of the game are null and void when it comes to unit balance complaints.
I was referring on points and rules to balance units that are universally bad in all formats... if i had to pick one model to put a point on this i would ask... show me a format where a Stompa works as written for the points. GW should balance it and models like it for the core rules and let ITC worry about balance on top of that sure, I agree with that.
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.
Who is going to tell them that the events are switching over and why should the events switch over to begin with if they feel more comfortable using ITC rulesets? This isn't really as easy as just saying "tell them to switch over". There are players/events invested in the format and thinking that they will switch just because is a bit presumptuous.
What makes this even harder is that the largest and most popular events in 40k are States-side and they have shown so far that they are invested in the ITC league.
Why is it in these conversations do people assume that the groups involved have no agency and are totally isolated from any form of communication?
Ishagu wrote: Anything not using the official rules can be interpreted as not being the real 40k.
A homebrew ruleset is not the real ruleset.
End of discussion
I know you desperately want this to be a binary argument but it's not. GW has officially endorsed events using both ITC and ETC rules, consequently, they're as 'official' as anything else.
Continue constructing your biased little world though.
Ishagu wrote: ITC league is great and should remain. The missions should be dropped for the health and enjoyment of the game.
If people REALLY want to control all variables, the board, etc there is a little game called Chess they can try. 40k is not Starcraft.
The problem still remains that I haven't seen anyone explain "how" this turnaround will happen except for what is no more than a "Build it and they will come" a la Wayne's World or a "because I am saying so".
At this point our last best hope for the switch would be altruism from the major events. I hope they will be benevolent organizers as I would love to see CA missions prosper, but I won't be holding my breath for it.
They support a gathering of players with prize money. They don't endorse the ITC mission rules and if they did they would be publishing them.
GW support isn't binary either.
The question is about whether the ITC is real 40k. Unofficial rules are not real rules, hence it's not real 40k.
Ishagu wrote: They support a gathering of players with prize money. They don't endorse the ITC mission rules if they did they would be publishing them.
GW support isn't binary either.
The question is about whether the ITC is real 40k. Unofficial rules are not real rules, hence it's not real 40k.
Ahh, semantics, how logical, if you call an apple and orange enough it sadly doesn't become one.
Considering that GW has integrated a number of ITC rules in their own tournament format, features the major ITC events on their official pages, seems pretty real.
I'll even bet, if you were to ask official GW representatives, they would *gasp*, disagree with you.
But you live in a fascinating little constructed reality, keep telling yourself it's not real.
Ishagu wrote: Anything not using the official rules can be interpreted as not being the real 40k.
A homebrew ruleset is not the real ruleset.
End of discussion
I know you desperately want this to be a binary argument but it's not. GW has officially endorsed events using both ITC and ETC rules, consequently, they're as 'official' as anything else.
Continue constructing your biased little world though.
I have no real horse in this race but, GW can endorse an official tournament while still considering ITC rules as a home brew.
Personally i see it as warcraft and original dota. it uses the same frame work but one was a popular fan made game mode that eventually became stupid big. but you wouldn't balance warcraft from the results of a dota event.
Is ITC real.. yes is ITS Official? no. should there be cross balancing of official 40k and ITC event rules no.
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.
Who is going to tell them that the events are switching over and why should the events switch over to begin with if they feel more comfortable using ITC rulesets? This isn't really as easy as just saying "tell them to switch over". There are players/events invested in the format and thinking that they will switch just because is a bit presumptuous.
What makes this even harder is that the largest and most popular events in 40k are States-side and they have shown so far that they are invested in the ITC league.
Why is it in these conversations do people assume that the groups involved have no agency and are totally isolated from any form of communication?
Please actually read my message. People get invested in things and they might be reluctant to switch over or not want to switch over at all. That "is" their agency. If anything I feel like people asking others to switch "just because" are ignoring individual agency if anything.
Here is agency for you: Because of the growing popularity of ITC missions and events ITC missions have taken over the tournaments in my LGS "despite" the new CA missions. Because tourney people want their things to be standardized and the only entity that is attempting to main a standard is the ITC format. ITC is spreading, not going away, and no amount of "you just should switch" is going to change that. At this point we can only hope that the people behind ITC mission events will be our benevolent overlords. Who knows, maybe they will change, maybe they won't. Nothing in these threads has given a quantifiable reason why they should go one way or another.
Hell, ITC missions is the reason I am playing more AoS these days so I would love for that "just because" switch in 40k.
Personally i see it as warcraft and original dota. it uses the same frame work but one was a popular fan made game mode that eventually became stupid big. but you wouldn't balance warcraft from the results of a dota event.
A bit different as Warcraft 3 and DOTA were very different types of games with different gameplays only sharing the same camera mode and graphics engine. The people behind DOTA could change their units completely and therefore were able to balance DOTA irrespective of Warcraft 3 and vice-versa. We really don't have that in the GW v. ITC mission format.
Ishagu wrote: They support a gathering of players with prize money. They don't endorse the ITC mission rules if they did they would be publishing them.
GW support isn't binary either.
The question is about whether the ITC is real 40k. Unofficial rules are not real rules, hence it's not real 40k.
Ahh, semantics, how logical, if you call an apple and orange enough it sadly doesn't become one.
Considering that GW has integrated a number of ITC rules in their own tournament format, features the major ITC events on their official pages, seems pretty real.
I'll even bet, if you were to ask official GW representatives, they would *gasp*, disagree with you.
But you live in a fascinating little constructed reality, keep telling yourself it's not real.
In what world is an unofficial product the real product? lol
You can keep telling yourself whatever you want. I'm not the one in denial.
The only real way to play 50k is with the original indexes, no FW and only playing the Only War mission, this is what was originally released and as such it is the most pure and official way to play. Using GW beta and CA house rules is silly, what does GW know now that GW didn't know when they released the best edition of 40k ever? Since then they have released Codex SM, clearly indicating that any talent or brilliance they had when they created the best and most official mission has since left them.
THE MISSION Before you can wage war in a game of Warhammer 40,000, you must select a mission. The core rules include a single mission – Only War – which is ideal to get the action started quickly. Others can be found elsewhere in this book, in other books, or you could play a mission of your own creation. If you and your opponent can’t agree on which mission to play, both players should roll a dice, re- rolling ties, and whoever rolls the highest decides on the mission
I of course never agree to anything other than Only War, which means I play real 50k half the time, I often share how my games go, when I do this it is of course only about the relevant REAL and PURE games of Only War. Can you say the same?
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.
Who is going to tell them that the events are switching over and why should the events switch over to begin with if they feel more comfortable using ITC rulesets? This isn't really as easy as just saying "tell them to switch over". There are players/events invested in the format and thinking that they will switch just because is a bit presumptuous.
What makes this even harder is that the largest and most popular events in 40k are States-side and they have shown so far that they are invested in the ITC league.
Why is it in these conversations do people assume that the groups involved have no agency and are totally isolated from any form of communication?
Please actually read my message. People get invested in things and they might be reluctant to switch over or not want to switch over at all. That "is" their agency. If anything I feel like people asking others to switch "just because" are ignoring individual agency if anything.
Here is agency for you: Because of the growing popularity of ITC missions and events ITC missions have taken over the tournaments in my LGS "despite" the new CA missions. Because tourney people want their things to be standardized and the only entity that is attempting to main a standard is the ITC format. ITC is spreading, not going away, and no amount of "you just should switch" is going to change that. At this point we can only hope that the people behind ITC mission events will be our benevolent overlords. Who knows, maybe they will change, maybe they won't. Nothing in these threads has given a quantifiable reason why they should go one way or another.
Hell, ITC missions is the reason I am playing more AoS these days so I would love for that "just because" switch in 40k.
Personally i see it as warcraft and original dota. it uses the same frame work but one was a popular fan made game mode that eventually became stupid big. but you wouldn't balance warcraft from the results of a dota event.
A bit different as Warcraft 3 and DOTA were very different types of games with different gameplays only sharing the same camera mode and graphics engine. The people behind DOTA could change their units completely and therefore were able to balance DOTA irrespective of Warcraft 3 and vice-versa. We really don't have that in the GW v. ITC mission format.
It it the events that people are coming to or are they playing for the rules? You'll find a lot of casual players attending events regardless of rules just to play with new people, there IS a distinction between playing for the event and playing for the rule set.
Personally i see it as warcraft and original dota. it uses the same frame work but one was a popular fan made game mode that eventually became stupid big. but you wouldn't balance warcraft from the results of a dota event.
A bit different as Warcraft 3 and DOTA were very different types of games with different gameplays only sharing the same camera mode and graphics engine. The people behind DOTA could change their units completely and therefore were able to balance DOTA irrespective of Warcraft 3 and vice-versa. We really don't have that in the GW v. ITC mission format.
I mean fundamentally its the same controls, same angles, same models. its a bit extreme yes but the point is that you can get a very popular game model from the same base engine. but you wouldn't balance it between the two. you would make an entirely separate entity so that people that enjoy one mode doesn't have to subjugate the other.
Karol wrote: So what are we actualy checking here, how many people on this forum play in the US and UK? because that is more or less what the data will show. For US people ITC rule set is valid and real, because it is used both in tournaments and outside of them. While people from the UK will say it is home brew, because they have not only zero attachment to it, but in fact negative conotations with ITC, as they try to put the way they play as the real way to play w40k.
Yeah, no. This assumes there isn't a large portion of US players that have issues with ITC, which there definitely IS.
Unfortunately I haven't seen any evidence to support that a large anti-ITC presence exists in the US, just a very vocal minoirty (of which I am a member). Personally, I don't really have an issue with the missions, to me missions always seemed like the one area where some amount of homebrew and DIY was not only accepted but also expected (though again, GW and the community as a whole should not be using data collected from these events if they are not using a common mission format), my issue with ITC and other formats is really with modifications to core rules, like terrain rules, etc.
I'll even bet, if you were to ask official GW representatives, they would *gasp*, disagree with you.
Considering I know actual members of the design studio, I'm comfortable saying that you're wrong TwinPoleTheory. They very much do consider ITC to be house rules and they don't see their support of major gaming events that use ITC (or any other competitive format) as an endorsement of that format or any other. This is in keeping with their philosophy that there is no right or wrong way to play the game and that house rules are always encouraged. There is an argument to be made that this is proof as to the "realness" of ITC (depending on what your subjective definition of realness might be), BUT they are also very clear that house rules are not official - and thats true as a function of necessity, as GW do not want to encourage the perception that one form of house rule is superior or inferior to any other.
Sterling191 wrote:"Official" =/= "Real". Especially in the context of a baseline ruleset that literally tells you to make stuff up if you want.
I mean, now we're getting to the point of what OP is trying to get at.
Obviously, ITC is *real*. It obviously exists. And, just to clarify, there is nothing wrong that it's an unofficial ruleset. The point is how *relevant* is it? Should GW pay attention to it?
If I may, how does the ITC compare in relevancy to:
- Officially printed GW rules (Rulebook, campaign books, and Chapter Approved)
- GW's own tournament rules (Throne of Skulls, Double Tournaments, etc)
- Widely played homebrew rulesets (things like HH Centurion, or Heralds of Ruin Kill Team)
- More obscure/localised homebrew rulesets (aka, ones shared between a pair of players or a small local group)
Are all of the above equally relevant for GW's balancing?
catbarf wrote:ITC is 'real' 40K in that it is a completely legitimate way to play the game.
ITC is not 'real' 40K in that it does not represent the competitive balance of the vanilla Matched Play rules. It's a form of widely-accepted house rules.
House rules are fine and encouraged. I play with house rules all the time for adjusting the systems I don't like.
Experience based on playing with house rules is inherently tainted and should not be taken into account when balancing the core, actual rules. Hence where the debate actually lies.
Because this isn't a question about semantics, it's about whether ITC should be considered representative of the game as a whole and used for balance adjustments.
Yes, exactly.
It's 100% fine to homebrew, to houserule, to play the game however you want to! But do GW need to take that into consideration for their own official rules? What's wrong with just accepting "yes, ITC is a houseruled rule set, so it's not GW's problem to balance around it specifically"?
Ishagu wrote:They probably use the tournament as an advertisement of the 40k brand more than endorsement of the missions.
More than likely, yes.
LVO is most likely supported by GW because it's a large collection of players, rather than explicit support of those particular missions. If different missions were being played at LVO, GW would support it all the same. It's not the ITC they're supporting, it's people getting together and having a good time.
Cities of Death games are real 40K Spearhead games are real 40K ITC mission games are real 40K
If you are playing 40K the way you like it with perhaps a few rules added on and some mission twists why would that not be real 40K.
Of course there is another way in which people talk about real 40K - when they talk about unit value, game balance etc. None of the above are very good indicators of unit or faction value/balance in terms of that conversation. It is OK to say "Vespid are great in Cities of Death" and "Iron Hands are busted in ITC" and so long as you understand that your comment only applies to that variant of the game all is fine - it gets messy and causes contention when people think that what applies in their preferred variant is universally true.
happy_inquisitor wrote: Cities of Death games are real 40K Spearhead games are real 40K ITC mission games are real 40K
If you are playing 40K the way you like it with perhaps a few rules added on and some mission twists why would that not be real 40K.
Of course there is another way in which people talk about real 40K - when they talk about unit value, game balance etc. None of the above are very good indicators of unit or faction value/balance in terms of that conversation. It is OK to say "Vespid are great in Cities of Death" and "Iron Hands are busted in ITC" and so long as you understand that your comment only applies to that variant of the game all is fine - it gets messy and causes contention when people think that what applies in their preferred variant is universally true.
Iron Hands are pretty busted in just about EVERY format.
happy_inquisitor wrote: Cities of Death games are real 40K Spearhead games are real 40K ITC mission games are real 40K
If you are playing 40K the way you like it with perhaps a few rules added on and some mission twists why would that not be real 40K.
Of course there is another way in which people talk about real 40K - when they talk about unit value, game balance etc. None of the above are very good indicators of unit or faction value/balance in terms of that conversation. It is OK to say "Vespid are great in Cities of Death" and "Iron Hands are busted in ITC" and so long as you understand that your comment only applies to that variant of the game all is fine - it gets messy and causes contention when people think that what applies in their preferred variant is universally true.
Not quite in agreement that they're "real" 40k (I'd have just said they're variants of 40k), but as for your sentiment at the end (aka, make sure if you're talking about a specific version of 40k, make sure you mention what that variant is, and only that it applies to that variant!), I completely agree.
He asks if GW should consider ITC to be the "real and proper" way to play 40K and therefore, if GW should balance the game around it.
The answer is also crystal-clear :
ITC doesn't use the official missions or rules made by GW. Does ITC use a large amount of rules made by GW ? Yes. All the rules ? No.
1) That doesn't mean ITC is crap and should not be played.
2) That doesn't mean ITC "doesn't exist" (of course it does exist ...).
3) That doesn't mean GW is perfect and nothing should change (ITC missions exist because when 8th was released, the missions made by GW were bad, for example).
It just means GW should not balance the game around ITC because ITC is not using the full, 100% official ruleset.
It's not because LVO is the "biggest" tournament and because the US population/playerbase is "bigger" compared to each tiny european country that it means it is the "real" (= only) way to play 40K. This is americentrism at its finest.
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.
Who is going to tell them that the events are switching over and why should the events switch over to begin with if they feel more comfortable using ITC rulesets? This isn't really as easy as just saying "tell them to switch over". There are players/events invested in the format and thinking that they will switch just because is a bit presumptuous.
What makes this even harder is that the largest and most popular events in 40k are States-side and they have shown so far that they are invested in the ITC league.
Why is it in these conversations do people assume that the groups involved have no agency and are totally isolated from any form of communication?
I don't know about you guys, but I do all my tourney planning using the tried and true 'message in a bottle' method. That might have something to do with my problems with participating player punctuality.
It's homebrew.
There's nothing wrong with that. If I had to define "Real 40k" I'd have to go with GW Rules As Written... All the rules, including whichever version of whichever FAQ they're up to this week, favouring whichever new kits they want to sell most of soonest.
But can you have fun playing 2nd edition with all its gangly minutiae, or a stripped down version of the game where everyone just rolls a die to hit, and if the enemy doesn't save they're dead and everyone has the same stats? Maybe? Maybe the Real 40k is the million psykers you sacrificed along the way?
This poll is so stupid I'm wondering if it's a troll.
The only thing more stupid is that people are actually giving answers other than "No" IMO, but then again the response options are extremely poor and don't actually align with the question being posed.
Pure and simple, ITC rules are house rules. They are one way that you can choose to play, but they aren't the rules published in the book, nor are they official, and they absolutely should not be the standard that GW looks to in order to determine whether or not their rules are balancing or functioning.
If I were GW, personally, I would be actively discouraging the use of ITC or similar rulesets in high level competitive play and absolutely trying to identify and shore up the perceived weaknesses in the core ruleset that these formats are trying to address (because ultimately that is why they became popular in the first place). The sad reality is that ITC and ETC and the other formats that are being used elsewhere are poisoning GW's ability to accurately collect and assess the data being generated and adjust and rebalance the game in response. Even minor tweaks to the rules made by these formats can have an outsize impact on the data and results generated, which in turn gives false impressions as to the games overall health. If 1/3rd of the data generated is ITC format, 1/3rd is ETC format, and the remaining 3rd is split between Warzone, NOVA, Renegade Open, Adepticon, etc. if you're GW you can't look at those results and say that all the data collected is consistent with itself and you're comparing apples to apples, etc. and then derive any sort of meaningful conclusion as to what adjustments need to be made to the game from it. If game balance was a scientific process, then GWs attempts at it would never survive peer review due on its data collection failures alone, other potential issues notwithstanding. I'm not necessarily saying that game balance needs to be held to the same rigorous standards of scientific experimentation, etc. but I think most of us hope - if not outright want - GW to make balancing decisions based on rigorous analysis and assessment of factual information, something that simply isn't possible currently as a result of these various formats.
In very basic terms, we all need to be playing the same game for discussions of balance to mean anything at all, and that simply is not the case right now, which is why I regular see posts of people claiming xyz is overpowered or underpowered or needs a buff or needs to be nerfed, etc. and say to myself "what the hell is this dude talking about?". 9 times out of 10 it seems those situations occur when someone is discussing balance in the context of ITC tournament results (sometimes other formats, but it seems its generally ITC that makes me scratch my head most, likely because its the most popular format in the area I live and with the people I interact with) - which are an entirely different set of experiences from what I've had as an American who basically only plays by the book rules.
GW Official Tourney Rules would solve this problem quickly.
As an American, I hate the virus that is "feth you" gaming (i.e. ITC). There is sooooo much more to 40k than how badly you can pulverize your opponent.
Is FIFA official because they use Adidas soccer balls? Does Adidas make and control the rules for FIFA?
How about for the Olympics, does using Adidas soccer balls make the Olympic soccer games official? What if the Olympics Committee makes rules Adidas doesn't like, does that make Olympics games unofficial?
Which are the real soccer rules, FIFA or Olympic?
What about for hockey? What makes a hockey game official? The NHL? What about all those Olympic games then, are they not real games or official?
What makes a game real or official is the group you play with and the goals you seek to work for. If your goal is Adepticon, then whatever format the Adepticon tournament is using is official and real.
However, that means little if you see Gamescon as your ultimate goal, so whatever setup they use will be your real and official ruleset.
Moving on from there, if you and your group have zero interest in any convention and set up your own tournament protocols, then what Adepticon or Gamescon have are as useful to you as what the Olympic Committee decides for their soccer games mean for your local kids' leagues.
What makes a ruleset official and real is the group backing them up and the support they receive in running them. Nothing more, nothing less. Adepticon's tournament rules are not official for Gamescon, and vice versa, and neither is truly devalued because of them. To consider ITC "not real" to their players is to ignore reality and how the concept of "official" works.
I found this post by MVBrandt (who I believe is involved in NOVA, correct?) interesting - definitively stating that the CA19 missions are bad but, at time of posting, not elaborating on why or how much he'd played them.
I know NOVA has its own set-up, as do some of th eother big US cons, but if the high-ups on that circuit are displaying that sot of mindset, it explains a lot...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Then maybe Gw should do a better job. Don't blame ITC for a problem GW creates.
A lot of the current discussion is about the other bit of that. Is GW doing a better job already? Maybe. No one really plays it to find out.
And FWIW, why would anyone try the new GW missions? Knowing their history, I wouldn't have bothered to look at them. Someone lending me their CA19 led me to read them though and realize they're...okay.
If you get rid of Ascension and Pillars the CA 2019 missions seem acceptable for competitive play (IMHO).
I'd like to include some of the adepticon terrain deployment rules (although 4" doesn't seem like far enough from a board edge) and maybe a couple of the scenarios to make a solid 6 pack.
Not sure how they would work in tourney play as the point differentials may not be high enough but someone somewhere pointed some way to do it that they think might work (something about subtracting scores from 40 but I haven't thought about it enough to get it).
The only "real" 40K is the one that comes out the rule books. Anything added beyond that is house-rules, pure and simple, no matter how widespread they may be.
Ishagu wrote: Unit Fixing and point costs should not be adjusted at all in response to anything from the ITC.
Couldn't agree more.
A small group of players shouldn't determine the balance outcome changes for all players given that that small group of players are explicitly playing within a house-rule environment that adds rules to the base game, rules that most people will never use.
solkan wrote: Obviously Real 40K Players play narrative games using power level.
It's a set of homebrew. I mean, homebrew is fine. My 13 year old nephew loves homebrewing things for 40k games, though I do try to keep his head grounded in the default rules for when he goes to the store and probably won't find someone who likes to do crazy homebrews at random.
Melissia wrote: It's a set of homebrew. I mean, homebrew is fine. My 13 year old nephew loves homebrewing things for 40k games, though I do try to keep his head grounded in the default rules for when he goes to the store and probably won't find someone who likes to do crazy homebrews at random.
Could you have a chat with these ITC folks as well?
What is "real 40K"? Anything that follows the rules for 40K.
The rules for 40K provide a number of scenarios, but also encourage you to make your own. Therefore ITC custom scenarios are "real 40K".
The rules for 40K tell you to discuss with your opponents what type of terrain each piece of terrain on the board is. ITC dictates what type of terrain the terrain on the board is according to the rules of Warhammer 40K. "Magic Boxes" are literally terrain that uses the rules for ruins. "First Floor blocks LOS" is just a way for the tournament organizer to not spend time and money boarding the doors and windows of terrain to get them to block LOS.
So does ITC follow the rules for 40K? Yes. Therefore ITC is "real 40K"
Ishagu wrote: If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.
I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.
Ishagu wrote: If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.
I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.
Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: if you slap down your hard earned money and put in the effort to build your models, no one gets to tell you how to play toy soldiers....
Sure. I'll build a custom hero model with a special ability that automatically wins me the game on turn 2 unless you defeat him by the end of turn 1. And you can't shoot him or charge him on turn 1.
You can't tell me not to use him against you, by your own rule. This is “real 40k" right?
Ishagu wrote: If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.
I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.
Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?
Honest question-is there a better source of info?
When people start using the CA rules in ITC events, the data will become available for all to see.
The ITC didn't always have the data either.
solkan wrote:Obviously Real 40K Players play narrative games using power level.
Is this a sarcastic point? Considering that's a published way of playing in official GW rules, it's more "real" than ITC*. And besides, GW themselves offer several equally valid ways to play the game, as well as the infinite varieties of homebrew games - there's no single "True" way to play 40k. Only what's official, and what isn't - not that that should matter for your own enjoyment.
*Now, that's not to say ITC isn't "real".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: if you slap down your hard earned money and put in the effort to build your models, no one gets to tell you how to play toy soldiers....
Agreed. But if people choose to play them in their own certain way, why does GW need to be involved in that?
If people like the ITC, they're welcome to it, but GW has no responsibility to get involved.
Ishagu wrote: If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.
I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.
Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?
From people who don't play with tons of house rules that change the balance of the game completely outside of the hands of Games Workshop.
That's actually part of why I wish GW would hold more official GW tournaments.
If GW makes balance decisions based off of houseruled tournaments, they'll throw the game off kilter for people who don't use those exact house rules. GW should make changes to the game based on the default rules, then the house rules should afterwards modify the default rules.
Ishagu wrote: If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.
I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.
Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?
From people who don't play with tons of house rules that change the balance of the game completely outside of the hands of Games Workshop.
That's actually part of why I wish GW would hold more official GW tournaments.
If GW makes balance decisions based off of houseruled tournaments, they'll throw the game off kilter for people who don't use those exact house rules. GW should make changes to the game based on the default rules, then the house rules should afterwards modify the default rules.
It certainly seems like GW are perfectly capable of destroying the balance of their game by themselves. Unless someone wants to argue that Iron Hands was somehow ITC's fault.
Ishagu wrote: If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.
I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.
Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?
From people who don't play with tons of house rules that change the balance of the game completely outside of the hands of Games Workshop.
That's actually part of why I wish GW would hold more official GW tournaments.
If GW makes balance decisions based off of houseruled tournaments, they'll throw the game off kilter for people who don't use those exact house rules. GW should make changes to the game based on the default rules, then the house rules should afterwards modify the default rules.
Agreed. If ITC wants to be more balanced, why can't they modify their rules even further?
Imateria wrote: ITC missions are a homebrew set up, there are no ifs ands or buts on this. That does not mean its an invalid way to play the game though.
It does, however, massively change the way the game is played and that can be a real problem when determining balance. I blame GW for this though, it has taken them far too long to come up with a decent set of missions so somebody had to fill the void. The problem now is that ITC mission use is so wide spread, particularly in the states, that it'll be difficult to get people to change back.
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.
Static gunlines are BETTER in CA missions because there's no reason not to just nearly wipe out your opponent turn one and two and then just meander over to the objectives.
The only good CA missions are maelstrom because the progressive scoring in Ewar is a joke.
Imateria wrote: ITC missions are a homebrew set up, there are no ifs ands or buts on this. That does not mean its an invalid way to play the game though.
It does, however, massively change the way the game is played and that can be a real problem when determining balance. I blame GW for this though, it has taken them far too long to come up with a decent set of missions so somebody had to fill the void. The problem now is that ITC mission use is so wide spread, particularly in the states, that it'll be difficult to get people to change back.
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.
Static gunlines are BETTER in CA missions because there's no reason not to just nearly wipe out your opponent turn one and two and then just meander over to the objectives.
The only good CA missions are maelstrom because the progressive scoring in Ewar is a joke.
I’m outside the argument. I enjoy the CA missions but lack experience with ITC.
Don’t rebutt because of him-rebutt because of other people reading this thread. Otherwise, it seems like he’s correct and you’ve got nothing to make it otherwise.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: if you slap down your hard earned money and put in the effort to build your models, no one gets to tell you how to play toy soldiers....
Sure. I'll build a custom hero model with a special ability that automatically wins me the game on turn 2 unless you defeat him by the end of turn 1. And you can't shoot him or charge him on turn 1.
You can't tell me not to use him against you, by your own rule. This is “real 40k" right?
Ishagu wrote: If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.
I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.
Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?
Honest question-is there a better source of info?
When people start using the CA rules in ITC events, the data will become available for all to see.
The ITC didn't always have the data either.
There's no such thing as 'REAL' 40k. The entire concept is idiotic.
I think eventually you're going to have to accept that Marines are stupidly OP entirely independent of the ITC and that playing chapter approved missions (who heavily favor 'kill more' alphastrike lists and freaking LOVE invincible Leviathan and SUDDENLY ASSCENTS lists) are not going to suddenly make them in line with other books.
I don't know if your problem is that your army is definitely getting nerfed or that you're not winning with an army you should easily be winning with or if you're sad that winning with marines isn't 'impressive' or w/e anymore but whatever it is, stop blaming ITC for it.
Sidebar, adepticon and Nova are the #2 and #3 warhammer event world wide and neither of them use ITC. ...though technically ITC missions are just slightly modified Nova missions but w/e. Almost the entire midwest doesn't use ITC at all. Marines are gonna win that too.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Ishagu's point is pretty clear. Starkly so, really. It's a simple premise/conclusion:
Premise 1: "Real" 40K would be 40K that does not modify the rules. Premise 2: ITC modifies the rules of 40K. Conclusion: ITC is not "real" 40K as it is a subset modified by the people to created it (NB: That's not a judgement call on ITC or the people who play/enjoy it, just on the notion that it could be considered the "real" 40K). Supplemental: As it is its own subset of 40K and used by a (significantly small) minority of players, it should not be used to make tangible changes to the overall 40K rules that everyone uses across the entire damned world.
Luke_Prowler wrote: It certainly seems like GW are perfectly capable of destroying the balance of their game by themselves.
*eyes the entirety of 7th edition*
I mean, you're not wrong...
Regardless of GWs total incompetence when balancing the game, looking to sources that are not actually playing their game for information to balance their game is doubly stupid. First, ITC has no basis for balancing 40k. Second, if you think GW is incapable of balancing 40k to begin with then hoping ITC will suddenly give them the ability to do it is insane.
Melissia wrote: Was making a joke, I did nothing but agree that we shouldn't use houseruled tournaments as the judge on how gw should balance the base game.
I know, I was agreeing with you and carrying your point forward. You had good points.
Ishagu wrote: If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.
I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.
Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?
Honest question-is there a better source of info?
Yes?
GW have events, other tournaments happen. They don't have the coverage of ITC in the USA but they do give GW feedback.
And while IH have made the top 10 lists in these events, it's one or 2 players as opposed to 6-8 players.
JNAProductions wrote: I’m outside the argument. I enjoy the CA missions but lack experience with ITC.
Don’t rebutt because of him-rebutt because of other people reading this thread. Otherwise, it seems like he’s correct and you’ve got nothing to make it otherwise.
Yeeeeeeah...but ERJACK jumps to personal attacks really quickly so I'm not getting into that. We have to share a Sororitas tactics thread.
Ishagu wrote: If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.
I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.
Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?
Honest question-is there a better source of info?
Yes?
GW have events, other tournaments happen. They don't have the coverage of ITC in the USA but they do give GW feedback.
And while IH have made the top 10 lists in these events, it's one or 2 players as opposed to 6-8 players.
They also did that event with everyone fighting over those planets and reporting their game results. Not that those missions where particularly good or fair but just saying GW has ways to gather data from the over all community.
Also, they could just hire actual testers like an actual god damn company.
Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.
I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.
Sim-Life wrote: Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.
I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.
It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.
Sim-Life wrote: Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.
I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.
It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.
Even if you eliminate many of the options from the game and have clear direction you will still have balance issues. Chess is balanced for instance because the board and pieces are the same for each player. The moment a game deviates from that model in any significant way balance issues are inevitable. The moment options are different in any significant way then some options will be better in certain instances. So if you want balance you have to sacrifice each factions unique flavor or theme because they have to be made more similar to each other.
Take relics for instance. You could easily make the relics balanced across the factions, just make each factions relics the same. The moment you try to then give each faction just one unique relic balance issues will arise.
Sim-Life wrote: Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.
I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.
It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.
Even if you eliminate many of the options from the game and have clear direction you will still have balance issues. Chess is balanced for instance because the board and pieces are the same for each player. The moment a game deviates from that model in any significant way balance issues are inevitable. The moment options are different in any significant way then some options will be better in certain instances. So if you want balance you have to sacrifice each factions unique flavor or theme because they have to be made more similar to each other.
Take relics for instance. You could easily make the relics balanced across the factions, just make each factions relics the same. The moment you try to then give each faction just one unique relic balance issues will arise.
Chess isn't totally balanced. White has a slightly higher win rate. I'm not making that up.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Ishagu's point is pretty clear. Starkly so, really. It's a simple premise/conclusion:
Premise 1: "Real" 40K would be 40K that does not modify the rules.
Premise 2: ITC modifies the rules of 40K.
Conclusion: ITC is not "real" 40K as it is a subset modified by the people to created it (NB: That's not a judgement call on ITC or the people who play/enjoy it, just on the notion that it could be considered the "real" 40K).
Supplemental: As it is its own subset of 40K and used by a (significantly small) minority of players, it should not be used to make tangible changes to the overall 40K rules that everyone uses across the entire damned world.
Simple stuff.
Ishagu's point is clear and simple, but it runs in to the equally clear issue of what is "real", which is under contestation. Organizations and groups decide what is real to them. They decide what matters in this regard. There is no global authority on this because Games Workshop has no authority and abrogated the authority as well aside from what they explicitly run. Even if there were a global authority, no one is under obligation to play in to it with their own events any more than those kids playing soccer in the park have to play in to FIFA's rules.
Lance845 wrote:First, ITC has no basis for balancing 40k.
Oh, they have a basis. It may not be a good one, or one you agree with, but they have a basis. That basis? To get tournament goers to show up and play in a game they believe will be more balanced than what GW provides. It is up to you, the player, to decide if that is what you want to play.
Charistoph wrote: Ishagu's point is clear and simple, but it runs in to the equally clear issue of what is "real", which is under contestation. Organizations and groups decide what is real to them. They decide what matters in this regard. There is no global authority on this because Games Workshop has no authority and abrogated the authority as well aside from what they explicitly run. Even if there were a global authority, no one is under obligation to play in to it with their own events any more than those kids playing soccer in the park have to play in to FIFA's rules.
I'd actually argue that what's "real" and "not real" 40k is largely irrelevant.
1. ITC is not the "real" 40k and should not be considered in such a manner. What actually constitutes the "real" 40k is immaterial to that statement.
2. You're right that no one is under any obligation to play it, or what version of 40K should be played. The actual issues lies in the fact that ITC can, does and has influenced 40k for everyone.
To draw the simplest non-chess/sport comparison that I can think of, it'd be like it one group of players had their own "Free Parking" house rules for Monopoly suddenly added to every edition of Monopoly world wide. Why do they get to decide that when they represent such a small group in comparison to the whole? Again, it's not a judgement of ITC itself or the people who enjoy it, just that those people should not be able to influence/dictate how 40k is played through balance/points revisions any more than you or I.
I have said it before and I say it again: If GW charges me real money for their points and they charge me real money for their missions, I bloody well expect those points to be balanced based on those missions, and not based on some third party houserules from other side of the globe!
Sim-Life wrote: Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.
I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.
It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.
Even if you eliminate many of the options from the game and have clear direction you will still have balance issues. Chess is balanced for instance because the board and pieces are the same for each player. The moment a game deviates from that model in any significant way balance issues are inevitable. The moment options are different in any significant way then some options will be better in certain instances. So if you want balance you have to sacrifice each factions unique flavor or theme because they have to be made more similar to each other.
Take relics for instance. You could easily make the relics balanced across the factions, just make each factions relics the same. The moment you try to then give each faction just one unique relic balance issues will arise.
And honestly? Some options just need to be eliminated (no, we don't need separate Warlord traits and Psyker powers for fething Vanguard Primaris). Some units need to be eliminated (is there a need for Incursors or Storm Guardians or a bunch of separate Carnifexes and Dreads? Absolutely not). Hell, I'm for entire codices to be eliminated (the Angels, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Chaos Knights) for better streamlining and easier updates.
Charistoph wrote: Ishagu's point is clear and simple, but it runs in to the equally clear issue of what is "real", which is under contestation. Organizations and groups decide what is real to them. They decide what matters in this regard. There is no global authority on this because Games Workshop has no authority and abrogated the authority as well aside from what they explicitly run. Even if there were a global authority, no one is under obligation to play in to it with their own events any more than those kids playing soccer in the park have to play in to FIFA's rules.
I'd actually argue that what's "real" and "not real" 40k is largely irrelevant.
1. ITC is not the "real" 40k and should not be considered in such a manner. What actually constitutes the "real" 40k is immaterial to that statement.
2. You're right that no one is under any obligation to play it, or what version of 40K should be played. The actual issues lies in the fact that ITC can, does and has influenced 40k for everyone.
To draw the simplest non-chess/sport comparison that I can think of, it'd be like it one group of players had their own "Free Parking" house rules for Monopoly suddenly added to every edition of Monopoly world wide. Why do they get to decide that when they represent such a small group in comparison to the whole? Again, it's not a judgement of ITC itself or the people who enjoy it, just that those people should not be able to influence/dictate how 40k is played through balance/points revisions any more than you or I.
The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.
Sim-Life wrote: Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.
I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.
It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.
Even if you eliminate many of the options from the game and have clear direction you will still have balance issues. Chess is balanced for instance because the board and pieces are the same for each player. The moment a game deviates from that model in any significant way balance issues are inevitable. The moment options are different in any significant way then some options will be better in certain instances. So if you want balance you have to sacrifice each factions unique flavor or theme because they have to be made more similar to each other.
Take relics for instance. You could easily make the relics balanced across the factions, just make each factions relics the same. The moment you try to then give each faction just one unique relic balance issues will arise.
Chess isn't totally balanced. White has a slightly higher win rate. I'm not making that up.
It is pretty dam close though and someone does have to go first.
Sim-Life wrote: Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.
I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.
It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.
Even if you eliminate many of the options from the game and have clear direction you will still have balance issues. Chess is balanced for instance because the board and pieces are the same for each player. The moment a game deviates from that model in any significant way balance issues are inevitable. The moment options are different in any significant way then some options will be better in certain instances. So if you want balance you have to sacrifice each factions unique flavor or theme because they have to be made more similar to each other.
Take relics for instance. You could easily make the relics balanced across the factions, just make each factions relics the same. The moment you try to then give each faction just one unique relic balance issues will arise.
And honestly? Some options just need to be eliminated (no, we don't need separate Warlord traits and Psyker powers for fething Vanguard Primaris). Some units need to be eliminated (is there a need for Incursors or Storm Guardians or a bunch of separate Carnifexes and Dreads? Absolutely not). Hell, I'm for entire codices to be eliminated (the Angels, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Chaos Knights) for better streamlining and easier updates.
I doubt GW would ever go for that though. I wouldn't mind if a lot of the redundant entries went away. We don't need three types of terminators in Codex Space Marines for instance.
Luke_Prowler wrote: It certainly seems like GW are perfectly capable of destroying the balance of their game by themselves.
*eyes the entirety of 7th edition*
I mean, you're not wrong...
6/7th edition is arguably a lot of the reason ITC is the way it is. GW absolutely crapped the bed when it came to 7th's rules and how it handled tournaments. There's plenty of people talking about "if you know what's coming, the outcome is obvious" (which is a pretty dim view on the depth of the game already, but whatever) in the other threads about ITC, and it makes me think of the random psychic power/warlord traits and mystery terrain (mysterrain). And a lot of people hated that, I'd argue for good reason. So you get these people who'd want to reduce those kinds of randomness. Is randomness a way to balance things? Yes, actually, but it's sloppy and lazy and poor way to do it.
Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem with the community when house rules are so encouraged otherwise (certain folk notwithstanding). Even ignoring tournaments. I doubt most people who've played the game for a while haven't at least thought about alterations to the base game to make it work better.
It feels like the dislike towards ITC is in the same vain as the one towards Forge World: The idea that they're 'diluting" the core of 40k and breaking the chance for GW to improve, despite the fact that GW considers them a part of the hobby.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.
Well Monopoly is a poorly balanced game. Perhaps there should be an ITC version that dictates the rules worldwide.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I doubt most people who've played the game for a while haven't at least thought about alterations to the base game to make it work better.
But those people weren't expecting their house rules to become enshrined in the 40k rules and influence points values the world over. ITC does that, and this problem some us see as being quite significant.
I doubt many people have problems with house rules. House rules from a small select and exceptionally non-representative group that go on to change the game for everyone is a huge issue.
Luke_Prowler wrote: It feels like the dislike towards ITC is in the same vain as the one towards Forge World: The idea that they're 'diluting" the core of 40k and breaking the chance for GW to improve, despite the fact that GW considers them a part of the hobby.
I don't buy the comparison sorry, as Forge World isGW. ITC isn't. That's a massive difference.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.
Well Monopoly is a poorly balanced game. Perhaps there should be an ITC version that dictates the rules worldwide.
damnit,
DONT GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!! That's the last thing this grimdark world needs to complete the ritual to damn us all.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.
Well Monopoly is a poorly balanced game. Perhaps there should be an ITC version that dictates the rules worldwide.
The ITC equivalent of Monopoly would be a rearrangement of the property locations and rent doesn't have to payable at all once but instead progressive over several dice rolls - because balance.
NurglesR0T wrote: The ITC equivalent of Monopoly would be a rearrangement of the property locations and rent doesn't have to payable at all once but instead progressive over several dice rolls - because balance.
The Salt Mine wrote: How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k. End of discussion.
Anything not using the official rules can be interpreted as not being the real 40k.
A homebrew ruleset is not the real ruleset.
End of discussion
Every time a TO makes a judgment call on rules interactions which has happened at every event Ive ever been to you are playing by house rules. So is there no true 40k then!?!?
The Monopoly equivalent of ITC is the Free Parking Pool. It's widely accepted as a rule despite being unofficial, and it only serves to create further balance issues.
Sim-Life wrote: Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.
I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.
Perfect balance across all units will be impossible. Making the game balanced so thst every faction has close to an even chance of winning is doable. At this point though it would take a major overhaul of the game. And lest face it some factions like SM have so many options that some of there options just need to be removed from the game. I think gw knows this and thats why they introduced legends. People will be able to still play casual games with their old stuff. But it will make competative formats ewsier to balance with less models creating rules interactions.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.
Well Monopoly is a poorly balanced game. Perhaps there should be an ITC version that dictates the rules worldwide.
The ITC equivalent of Monopoly would be a rearrangement of the property locations and rent doesn't have to payable at all once but instead progressive over several dice rolls - because balance.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.
Well Monopoly is a poorly balanced game. Perhaps there should be an ITC version that dictates the rules worldwide.
The ITC equivalent of Monopoly would be a rearrangement of the property locations and rent doesn't have to payable at all once but instead progressive over several dice rolls - because balance.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Ishagu's point is pretty clear. Starkly so, really. It's a simple premise/conclusion:
Premise 1: "Real" 40K would be 40K that does not modify the rules.
Premise 2: ITC modifies the rules of 40K.
Conclusion: ITC is not "real" 40K as it is a subset modified by the people to created it (NB: That's not a judgement call on ITC or the people who play/enjoy it, just on the notion that it could be considered the "real" 40K).
Supplemental: As it is its own subset of 40K and used by a (significantly small) minority of players, it should not be used to make tangible changes to the overall 40K rules that everyone uses across the entire damned world.
Simple stuff.
Ishagu's point is clear and simple, but it runs in to the equally clear issue of what is "real", which is under contestation. Organizations and groups decide what is real to them. They decide what matters in this regard. There is no global authority on this because Games Workshop has no authority and abrogated the authority as well aside from what they explicitly run. Even if there were a global authority, no one is under obligation to play in to it with their own events any more than those kids playing soccer in the park have to play in to FIFA's rules.
Lance845 wrote:First, ITC has no basis for balancing 40k.
Oh, they have a basis. It may not be a good one, or one you agree with, but they have a basis. That basis? To get tournament goers to show up and play in a game they believe will be more balanced than what GW provides. It is up to you, the player, to decide if that is what you want to play.
Last i checked, if someone disagrees massively with my parameters for f.e scientific work, and i still demand changes upon my parameters even though they are foreign parameters at this point, i'd get hsot down and laughed at.
GW has, is, and will continue to use data from ITC events to make decisions about the direction of the game, consequently making it significantly more 'real' than what a bunch of internet randos think it should be.
So you can call it real, or not real, or homebrew, or toilet wine, doesn't really matter at the end of the day does it?
Ishagu wrote: It's still not the real 40k, by the definition of the word.
Doesn't matter what you say lol
Yet GW thinks it's real enough to make decisions about the direction of the game from that data.
So you can play your masturbatory semantics game all day long rando, GG.
I think they make specific nerfs based on ITC results...however they don't do anything else with it.
They view the ITC as "those pesky Americans finding ways to break our perfect ruleset".
For example - the ability to make an entire army unforgettable in the shooting phase using ITC 1st floor blocking and character protection rules is not something that was ever considered at the rules making stage because they never even considered anything like that. GW still uses their own WHGT and local opinions of players to make most of their balancing decisions.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
Honestly - these things were so busted on paper I am not sure how they got through that stage UNLESS the people writing the rules don't actually play the game.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
While all those armies perform above average(with a skill curve in the case of Ynnari), there are also lists and board setups that deal with them. The problem is ITCs terrain is generally insufficient(a problem all tournaments need to manage) and the fact that a lot of armies that can deal with IH bleed too many secondaries to compete.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
While all those armies perform above average(with a skill curve in the case of Ynnari), there are also lists and board setups that deal with them. The problem is ITCs terrain is generally insufficient(a problem all tournaments need to manage) and the fact that a lot of armies that can deal with IH bleed too many secondaries to compete.
I forgot there was a skill curve to having Dark Reapers shoot twice, thanks for the reminder. Also, that doesn't stop my post from being correct. Problem units are always going to prevail regardless unless GW designs half the missions that specifically hurt those units. They don't.
Also, ITC is not a mission "set". It is one, singular mission. Just one; the same one played every round of the tournament like a broken fething record.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
While all those armies perform above average(with a skill curve in the case of Ynnari), there are also lists and board setups that deal with them. The problem is ITCs terrain is generally insufficient(a problem all tournaments need to manage) and the fact that a lot of armies that can deal with IH bleed too many secondaries to compete.
I forgot there was a skill curve to having Dark Reapers shoot twice, thanks for the reminder. Also, that doesn't stop my post from being correct. Problem units are always going to prevail regardless unless GW designs half the missions that specifically hurt those units. They don't.
I mean, they do...
There are enough different mission sets out there that you can find something that a single list will struggle with. The two problems are tournaments don't use them and competitive players don't play them.
Although I will concede there are significant challenges to make a few of them work on a very large scale.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
Honestly - these things were so busted on paper I am not sure how they got through that stage UNLESS the people writing the rules don't actually play the game.
New game mode: ProposedHammer.
At any given time, take the 5 top posts in Proposed Rules, and implement them as suggested.
Do you honestly believe ProposedHammer would be anything less than a massive dumpsterfire that would make GW-40k look godly?
Identifying problems and throwing out solutions is always easy when you never realize why they're bad solutions.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
Honestly - these things were so busted on paper I am not sure how they got through that stage UNLESS the people writing the rules don't actually play the game.
New game mode: ProposedHammer.
At any given time, take the 5 top posts in Proposed Rules, and implement them as suggested.
Do you honestly believe ProposedHammer would be anything less than a massive dumpsterfire that would make GW-40k look godly?
Identifying problems and throwing out solutions is always easy when you never realize why they're bad solutions.
Honestly most of the ideas have been better than what GW has been trying to do so what's your point?
I don;t understand how this thread is still going on. It's quite a simple response really.
Yes ITC is a real format of 40K. It's a competitive home brew format, but a format nonetheless.
GW do acknowledge this format but do not encourage it's play style. This is evidence by their own verison of the ground floor LoS blocking adjustment to the rule. Also evidence by the CA19 "matched play" missions being massively different to the ITC missions.
So is it real?...yes. Is it a valid format for certain environments?... yes. Is ITC an official format that GW would recommend playing?...No. They would recommend you playing with CA19 missions and if you want to use the ground floor blocking Line of Sight they would recommend the one they suggest not the magic box ITS has.
As a business it's smart to allow ITC and be involved as it massively pushes their brand. For the most part is free advertisement. Endorsement means that GW give money for the people at ITC to host the event. That would suggest that ITC cannot be held without a cheque from GW going into the prize pool. (Which they don't, they only pay for space while there to push their previews and releases they have no involvement in the tourni itself).
A result of all this means that ITC should not be considered for balancing formats as it is a home brew format. A popular one yes but home brew all the same.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
Honestly - these things were so busted on paper I am not sure how they got through that stage UNLESS the people writing the rules don't actually play the game.
New game mode: ProposedHammer.
At any given time, take the 5 top posts in Proposed Rules, and implement them as suggested.
Do you honestly believe ProposedHammer would be anything less than a massive dumpsterfire that would make GW-40k look godly?
Identifying problems and throwing out solutions is always easy when you never realize why they're bad solutions.
Honestly most of the ideas have been better than what GW has been trying to do so what's your point?
My point is that no, oh god, no they are not.
Today's ProposedHammer:
Spoiler:
1. Modifiers Never Stack.
Not sure it's terrible, but not perfect. It does some good, but some damage.
-Alaitoc Rangers would be DOA. Fieldcraft/stealth would be ideal for units that aren't stealthy/can't use fieldcraft, but worthless for many units that do.
-A model with +1S wielding any weapon that hits harder than a sword simply doesn't have that +1S. So you use some sort of power/stratagem/etc to be as strong as a Marine. But then you don't hit as strong as one unless you're a swordsman.
-Many rules become either trash or actually worthless
Overall, there should be caps to stacking, and many stacking effects are bad. 6s should always succeed, 1s should always fail, etc.
It compares reasonably to GWs worse rules, but not the average GW rule. It's basically the same quality of rule as GW forgetting to make 6s always succeed in proper cases.
2. One Stratagem Per Phase.
A good direction, but half-baked currently, at best.
Does seem to fix a number of "bombs" that are silly.
But it guts GSC. Both their competitiveness and the intended way to play them.
You're also heavily nerfing some armies (Marines, fortunately, but also GSC, Choas, CSM, and more), while not really denting others (CWE Deathstars aren't hit as hard as most lists). A very uneven change.
I think it could be a great rule - but only if the game were rebalanced to take it into account.
As written, with no other changes, much worse than the average GW change.
3. Necron Weapons: MW on 6 *to hit*
Wow. Sure, Necron Warriors aren't *currently* scary. But suddenly in addition to the 20 shots they get base, you're also getting an average of over 3 Mortal Wounds per 10man. That's unsupported. Anywhere within 12". No stratagems/powers/etc. For roughly 100 points. Three *free* MW *on top of* their normal weapon damage. Consider the average sniper- roughly the same points for a single shot (albeit at 48"), that gets 1 MW on a 6 to *wound*. Each Necron Warrior would cost roughly the same, but get twice the shots at close range, get 33% more mortal wounds, and have AP-1 on all their hits. And be much harder to kill.
Silver Tide would walk across the table every game and laugh at any resistance.
An interesting idea to iterate on, but a clearly OP change as-is. Compares terribly to even many of the most-lamented GW rules.
4. Redemptionists - I'm going to exclude due to my lack of Sisters knowledge. Haven't read, so it's not a biased exclusion.
5. Covering Fire
Opt to only hit on a 6, but give the target -1 to-hit.
First, don't we already have enough to-hit modifiers?
Second, a single IG squad can now make a Stompa hit only on 6s (if that). Sounds fair...
1 of 4 rules reviewed: Basically what we expect from GW on a bad day.
3 of 4 rules reviewed: Makes GW look good.
0 of 4 rules reviewed: At least equal to what we should expect from GW.
GW does a lot of boneheaded stuff. We call them out on it. And should. But we really shouldn't pretend any one of us can get drunk and rewrite 40k better on a weekend bender.
There's a world of difference between "GW made some bad rules"
Most of these ideas have been markedly *worse* than what GW has been doing. Here's 5 "Proposed Rules" from GW:
Spoiler:
1. Bolter Discipline: Doubletap for pre-SM 2.0 Marines
At a time when Marines were dead competitively, this helped make them much less-trash. It breathed more life into Marines of all stripes, without making them OP.
I'd call this a bloaty and generally bad rule conceptually, but it clearly was a win balance wise.
Overall, a decent to good rule.
2. Prepared Positions: P2 can stratagem cover for army
Player 2 has to eat a lot of fire. Being able to claim cover helps mitigate the T1 shooting gallery. Not a huge rule change. Soft touch, evenhanded, measured, and small.
A nice little rule
3. Tactical Restraint: No more CP regen spam
A great rule. Not perfect (not even-handed, artifical limit on unintended scaling, etc), but certainly a massive improvement to the game.
4. Tactical Reserves: No more null deploy.
Null Deploy was a skew-heavy tactic that broke some of the central concepts of the game. No deployment zone, no battle line. While there should be exceptions in particular cases for significant costs (think Steel Rain or Warp Storm), it removed a lot of cheese and silliness. And did so in a fair way.
Again, a great improvement.
5. Tactical Reserves: Reserves show up T2
Reserving units was a no-brainer. Can't be shot until they show up. Most could be placed anywhere (outside 9") of the opponent - a clear win over placing in your Deployment Zone. It was too powerful for too little cost. Now those WWP'ing Eldar, materialing Demons, or other such shenanigans have a real cost for their flexibility.
They wiffed a bit, though, on infiltrators. Scouts, Rangers, Kommandos, and such. Now they "infiltrate" by not showing up until T2, which is silly. I miss the tradeoff between deepstriking ASM who could drop anywhere anytime but missed the first turn with infiltrating Scorpions who showed up first turn but were very limited in movement later.
The wiff was much less crappy than the gain, though. So a good rule.
5 of 5 of these GW rules are better than even the best of the reviewed Proposed Rules. By a wide margin.
So comparing the top 5 Proposed Rules to the 5 rules in the September Errata shows us that, clearly, GW rules look to be substantially better than Proposed Rules on average.
Can you really argue the first set are really better than the second set? Not even one of those rules comes close to any of the second set.
They are paid. They are professionals. They have more experience, resources, and time to make better rules. We should (and do) expect better than they do. We can (and should) hold them accountable for their screwups.
By calling them out accurately. By saying where they screwed up.
But you're not doing that. You're just screaming about how they always screw up. About how they are worse than the half-baked dreams of randos. About how easy it would be to do better.
All that screaming and chest-pounding doesn't help anyone. All it does is drown out valid criticisms. It's hard to discuss what they did wrong and what might be better when every other post is screaming for blood and taking things way out of proportion.
If we want to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion of what's wrong and what can be better, we shouldn't be shouting down intelligent and reasonable scoping and clarification of the problems, their scope, or their solutions.
It's like Godwinning an argument; extremism leaves no place for measured, nuanced understandings.
They are paid. They are professionals. They have more experience, resources, and time to make better rules. We should (and do) expect better than they do. We can (and should) hold them accountable for their screwups.
By calling them out accurately. By saying where they screwed up.
But you're not doing that. You're just screaming about how they always screw up. About how they are worse than the half-baked dreams of randos. About how easy it would be to do better.
All that screaming and chest-pounding doesn't help anyone. All it does is drown out valid criticisms. It's hard to discuss what they did wrong and what might be better when every other post is screaming for blood and taking things way out of proportion.
If we want to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion of what's wrong and what can be better, we shouldn't be shouting down intelligent and reasonable scoping and clarification of the problems, their scope, or their solutions.
It's like Godwinning an argument; extremism leaves no place for measured, nuanced understandings.
Stated better than I could, again.
(Also, I "proposed" the one stratagem per phase thing. It wasn't intended to be a proposed rule, but rather a discussion of ideas, but it got moved there anyway.)
Bharring wrote: They are paid. They are professionals. They have more experience, resources, and time to make better rules. We should (and do) expect better than they do. We can (and should) hold them accountable for their screwups.
By calling them out accurately. By saying where they screwed up.
But you're not doing that. You're just screaming about how they always screw up. About how they are worse than the half-baked dreams of randos. About how easy it would be to do better.
All that screaming and chest-pounding doesn't help anyone. All it does is drown out valid criticisms. It's hard to discuss what they did wrong and what might be better when every other post is screaming for blood and taking things way out of proportion.
If we want to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion of what's wrong and what can be better, we shouldn't be shouting down intelligent and reasonable scoping and clarification of the problems, their scope, or their solutions.
It's like Godwinning an argument; extremism leaves no place for measured, nuanced understandings.
To be fair, this entire thread is idiotic, and I'm as guilty of getting dragged into it as anyone.
I believe Monty Python sums it up best:
'Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination, and Marx is claiming it was offside.'
(Also, I "proposed" the one stratagem per phase thing. It wasn't intended to be a proposed rule, but rather a discussion of ideas, but it got moved there anyway.)
(Please don't be offended by my criticism of the proposition. Constructive criticism should be celebrated. Most ideas are turds when they're first discussed.)
(Also, I "proposed" the one stratagem per phase thing. It wasn't intended to be a proposed rule, but rather a discussion of ideas, but it got moved there anyway.)
(Please don't be offended by my criticism of the proposition. Constructive criticism should be celebrated. Most ideas are turds when they're first discussed.)
Oh I'm not! You're totally correct. It was a half baked idea that I tossed out there. Some good discussion came of it though. (Nothing that would make me entirely comfortable implementing it though)
If the random internet ramblings I've heard are true. With the current team captains pulling out of the ETC to start their own thing. The ETC will be implementing ITC events in their place. Love it or hate it I don't think ITC is going the way of the Dodo anytime soon.
H.B.M.C. wrote:I'd actually argue that what's "real" and "not real" 40k is largely irrelevant.
Except that is the point of this thread and what Ishagu's statement was regarding, and one you supported.
H.B.M.C. wrote:1. ITC is not the "real" 40k and should not be considered in such a manner. What actually constitutes the "real" 40k is immaterial to that statement.
Considering when you put parameters on something that other people disagree with, that doesn't make it any less "real". As I said in my first statement, ITC is real 40K those those who solely pursue those tournaments as their end goal. It is real 40K for those who wish to play with them. It is real because that is their focus. It is their focus because that is what is real.
H.B.M.C. wrote:2. You're right that no one is under any obligation to play it, or what version of 40K should be played. The actual issues lies in the fact that ITC can, does and has influenced 40k for everyone.
It is a group that has influence because it guides a large player base of purchasers. Some businesses ignore these types of groups, and slowly go down. Others embrace them and find success. The ITC format has found considerable success. It seems to be rather "real" when considering in how a company would seek to profit from their product.
H.B.M.C. wrote:To draw the simplest non-chess/sport comparison that I can think of, it'd be like it one group of players had their own "Free Parking" house rules for Monopoly suddenly added to every edition of Monopoly world wide. Why do they get to decide that when they represent such a small group in comparison to the whole? Again, it's not a judgement of ITC itself or the people who enjoy it, just that those people should not be able to influence/dictate how 40k is played through balance/points revisions any more than you or I.
No, it is more like having the goal posts at a certain width in NCAA and a narrower width in NFL.
Not Online!!! wrote:Last i checked, if someone disagrees massively with my parameters for f.e scientific work, and i still demand changes upon my parameters even though they are foreign parameters at this point, i'd get hsot down and laughed at.
There is a difference between scientific work which will (usually) change how we view the world, and a hobby game that people play for fun. Especially a hobby game that is being adjusted for local preferences.
Well this post blew up more than I thought. Thanks all for your responses and votes!
Originally I made this in order to get a better gauge of dakka’s mindset when it came to the ITC missions. Answers in the poll where intentional kept vague, because I was very concerned with coloring people’s opinions with what choices where given. Obviously, what defines “real 40k”
is extremely subjective, but that was kinda of the point. If I had said “Is ITC a good representation of competitive 40k as a whole?” the responses would differ a great deal from what we got. In other words, I wanted people to tell me what they personally define “real 40k” as, and why. To that end I got exactly what I wanted.
In the end I think it just comes down to what people are frequently playing with in their local meta. By in large U.S. players tended to vote more towards options 2-3, whereas non-US players where a lot more skeptical about ITC. Being a US player myself it was hard for me to ever believe option one as being correct, as i don’t see much of difference between how games of ITC play out vs “regular” 40k. I can see why European don’t often times don’t like ITC, “oh look another discussion over a format I don’t play. Great!” But I think this mindset has caused too many people to be overly hostile towards ITC than is reasonable. Just my 2 cents anyway.
Uh, no. That is one of the issues with 40k for awhile now. There is no such things as real 40k. If there was to be such a thing GW would need to really put some effort into making one tuned good rule set. Then they could let tournaments do what they want but say " This is 40k and all the other off shoots are great too, but this is what we balance things on " That would also mean they need to actually balance things and well..that's a story for another time.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Uh, no. That is one of the issues with 40k for awhile now. There is no such things as real 40k. If there was to be such a thing GW would need to really put some effort into making one tuned good rule set. Then they could let tournaments do what they want but say " This is 40k and all the other off shoots are great too, but this is what we balance things on " That would also mean they need to actually balance things and well..that's a story for another time.
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, Man!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wanted to also ask one last question as well, To those saying that ITC isn’t “real 40k” what exactly stops it from being so? Is it because It was created by an entity that isn’t GW? Is it because it of the mission structure being radically different from enteral war/ malestorm missions? Is because of bottom floors of ruins blocking LOS? Is there another rules change I’m missing? Is it a combination of all this?
You already technically have to houserule for Assault Weapons with their advance + shoot ability in the first place as written (BCB might be over the top but they make great points). GW relies a lot on us to do RAI instead of cleaning up their own act. Not really an opinion.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Uh, no. That is one of the issues with 40k for awhile now. There is no such things as real 40k. If there was to be such a thing GW would need to really put some effort into making one tuned good rule set. Then they could let tournaments do what they want but say " This is 40k and all the other off shoots are great too, but this is what we balance things on " That would also mean they need to actually balance things and well..that's a story for another time.
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, Man!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wanted to also ask one last question as well, To those saying that ITC isn’t “real 40k” what exactly stops it from being so? Is it because It was created by an entity that isn’t GW? Is it because it of the mission structure being radically different from enteral war/ malestorm missions? Is because of bottom floors of ruins blocking LOS? Is there another rules change I’m missing? Is it a combination of all this?
Just curious to your thoughts.
Houserules, seperate missions which are not balanced around the designer of the game itself, seperate terrain rulings.
Yeah for a tournament format, that is used for data generation for balance it certainly is the wrong set of parameters to go from, beyond the fact that it also is a seperate entity.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Uh, no. That is one of the issues with 40k for awhile now. There is no such things as real 40k. If there was to be such a thing GW would need to really put some effort into making one tuned good rule set. Then they could let tournaments do what they want but say " This is 40k and all the other off shoots are great too, but this is what we balance things on " That would also mean they need to actually balance things and well..that's a story for another time.
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, Man!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wanted to also ask one last question as well, To those saying that ITC isn’t “real 40k” what exactly stops it from being so? Is it because It was created by an entity that isn’t GW? Is it because it of the mission structure being radically different from enteral war/ malestorm missions? Is because of bottom floors of ruins blocking LOS? Is there another rules change I’m missing? Is it a combination of all this?
Just curious to your thoughts.
It's all of this in a part but the biggest issue is it's a single third party mission that's going a way to defining the static Meta. There's a lot of different missions and the living nature of the modern 40k ruleset mean that things constantly change or need to be reconsidered.
It's also played with a set terrain that many of us regard as insufficient to play the game as intended. The 1st floor rule was, frankly a lazy fix. But this is an understandable challenge for large scale tournaments.
I wanted to also ask one last question as well, To those saying that ITC isn’t “real 40k” what exactly stops it from being so? Is it because It was created by an entity that isn’t GW? Is it because it of the mission structure being radically different from enteral war/ malestorm missions? Is because of bottom floors of ruins blocking LOS? Is there another rules change I’m missing? Is it a combination of all this?
Just curious to your thoughts.
Why a heavily houseruled version of the game is not 'real 40K' isn't a difficult question. Houserules are houserules, not 'real' rules. I really can't understand why so many people do not seem to understand this very elementary definition.
Salt donkey wrote:I wanted to also ask one last question as well, To those saying that ITC isn’t “real 40k” what exactly stops it from being so? Is it because It was created by an entity that isn’t GW? Is it because it of the mission structure being radically different from enteral war/ malestorm missions? Is because of bottom floors of ruins blocking LOS? Is there another rules change I’m missing? Is it a combination of all this?
Just curious to your thoughts.
They're house rules. It's as simple as that - if GW were the ones to make ITC and have published the same ruleset, I'd be regarding it as official. Probably still wouldn't play it, but I'd at least recognise it as part of the intended way to play 40k, and that GW have a responsibility to balance to it.
As it is, it's a popular third party house rule set, which somehow inexplicably means GW are responsible for rebalancing their game because of an unofficial ruleset?
However, I do want to make it clear - it being a set of unofficial house rules, no matter how popular or not, doesn't make it an invalid way to play 40k. I don't believe a definition of "real", as described in the title, as been properly given, and as a result I think people have not been working from the same understanding of what "real" means.
For me, it being "real" would just mean that it's official, something that GW have a responsibility to develop themselves, and balanced to that degree.
Real =/= Valid though, it doesn't matter how you play with your models, as long as you and your opponent enjoy it.
Crimson wrote:Why a heavily houseruled version of the game is not 'real 40K' isn't a difficult question. Houserules are houserules, not 'real' rules. I really can't understand why so many people do not seem to understand this very elementary definition.
Agreed, with the addendum that houserules are still a valid way to play, even if they're not "real".
Well the wording of the question ist terrible what's real? 40k.
So no answer to that.
Itc is a House ruled playstyle if 40k.
No problem with it. It's not the rules set that gw build to play the game, there can't be a discussion about that.
But hell itc is by far far far not the most way how 40k is played. Dunno wy people still think that.
Itc is a freaking minor part of 40k.
It's a house ruled tournament style mostly played in US.
The big part of players playing narrativ, gw rules, other house rules. I can't get in my mind wy people think itc is anything important. For something outside these format
But hell itc is by far far far not the most way how 40k is played. Dunno wy people still think that.
Mostly because many Americans have a hard time grasping that the world outside USA exists.
I think its more because the tournament crowd are more vocal about rules imbalances than most. Stuff like Rule of 3 make no difference to Garagehammer players because it rarely happens that someone is that much of an ass amongst friends and if it does its not usually with particularly broken units.
Wy people think that garage hammer can't be same as competetiv as tournament?
I know a lot people at my player base the only play hard style competetiv garage hammer.
The fault is that some people think a tournemnt is the only competetiv way to play.
It's just the only public way to play competetiv nothing else.
There are more players out there who play competetiv than players that play tournament I bet!
I mean there are million players out there around the world how naiv can someone be to think that something like lvo with less than 0,1% of all players is representing anything? That's a self made illusion
I remember GW coming out and stating that ANY tournament rules were house rules, so calling ITC house rules would be redundant.
However, keep in mind that when you play in their house, i.e. their tournaments, that is the real 40K in those environs. Outside of those environs, then it loses its veracity and "realness".
And it comes up a lot because a lot of American players frequent this board and a lot of American players are within the ITC competitive spheres. LVO matters to my meta since a lot of the guys go up their to compete (it's only a 5-6 hour drive depending on how close to the speed limit you drive), so bringing up ideas to work within that would make sense.
I don't think that anyone bringing them up are trying to force you to play in that sphere, yet, a lot of those treating it with derision are almost acting as if they are, and I tend to see more European "old world" mentalities associated with it.
Charistoph wrote: I remember GW coming out and stating that ANY tournament rules were house rules, so calling ITC house rules would be redundant.
However, keep in mind that when you play in their house, i.e. their tournaments, that is the real 40K in those environs. Outside of those environs, then it loses its veracity and "realness".
And it comes up a lot because a lot of American players frequent this board and a lot of American players are within the ITC competitive spheres. LVO matters to my meta since a lot of the guys go up their to compete (it's only a 5-6 hour drive depending on how close to the speed limit you drive), so bringing up ideas to work within that would make sense.
I don't think that anyone bringing them up are trying to force you to play in that sphere, yet, a lot of those treating it with derision are almost acting as if they are, and I tend to see more European "old world" mentalities associated with it.
It's a typical case of projection. The people who are trying to 'abolish' the ITC are unhappy with some aspect of the game or their local community, or even just their own lives and have projected that unhappiness onto the ITC format.
T1nk4bell wrote: Wy people think that garage hammer can't be same as competetiv as tournament? I know a lot people at my player base the only play hard style competetiv garage hammer. The fault is that some people think a tournemnt is the only competetiv way to play. It's just the only public way to play competetiv nothing else. There are more players out there who play competetiv than players that play tournament I bet!
I mean there are million players out there around the world how naiv can someone be to think that something like lvo with less than 0,1% of all players is representing anything? That's a self made illusion
No, tournament's are the only way to play competitively that MATTERS. And it doesn't even matter all that much, just for the prize money and the pride that comes with knowing you went up against 500 people dedicated enough to spend the time, money, and effort necessary to make it to the LVO and won. Oh and the miniscule, tiny amount of celebrity that comes with being known as an LVO, Adepticon, Nova winning player.
People claim they play 'competitively' in their garage's all the time but A. No one cares because it's impossible to verify and even if it wasn't you'd be playing against 10 people total, ever. and B. Whenever people start talking about their competitive garage hammer they inevitably follow it up with things like 'my triple outrider assault marine list is 75-0 and would totally win LVO every year but I don't play netlisters!'
Finally, yeah, of course there's more people who play competitively than people who play competitively in tournaments. You included the entire subset in your new data set. There are more people swimming on earth than their are people swimming in Florida too.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But the people swimming in Florida don't get to then influence how people swim across the rest of the world.
What if they are the ones who keep winning the Olympics? An American changed how the high jump was run for everybody from the Olympics to high school methods, because it was effective.
And if GW chooses to make changes to their rulesets based on a (relatively) large tournament set, that is THEIR decision, and one I don't hold them to be making one way or the other, honestly.
It is not the first time a set of house rules is more popular than the main rules and/or people refer to that set of house rules as the real game
and this also affects how people remember those times and also how they see the rules of the next edition.
Lore of Akito was the main set of house rules in central Europe for Warhammer 7th, no one played anything else (and 8th edition solved problems that did not exists with those rules) and taking anything from those games to adjust the main rules would be flawed.
there was a different set of missions and tournament point calculation together with some house rules in Austria during 5th edition, that is why a lot of problems others had were not a thing there
7th, with GW refusing to do Errata/FAQ's, there was the Grundmann FAQ heavily used in German speaking countries so that everyone could play by the same rules.
All those things were born out of the need to solve the flaws of the main game as GW refused to do anything about it (the famous "we don't make mistakes so there is no need for Errata/FAQ's" quote)
Now GW releases Errata/FAQ's on time, also releases adjustments and new rules/missions for matched play once a year and technically there is no need to make country wide accepted house rules so the game is playable.
But still, I don't see a lot of tournaments playing the original game, most are using different missions, nearly all of them using different terrain rules, and a lot of them using different victory conditions for tournaments (there is this small problem in some countries that people winning 3 out of 5 games still can win the tournament over players who won 5 out of 5 games because of how victory points are calculated)
all those things make any adjustment that GW is doing pointless anyway, because either it is ignored because it does not fit the local house rules (like a new set of missions) or it solves problems that did not exists in the local meta while ignoring others.
and the players just taking those rules they like anyway while ignoring everything that does not fit "their" game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Exactly. People can pretend it affects balance, but the truth of the matter is GW handles balance so terribly the inherently bad armies will stay bad.
The number of 'Inherently bad' is significantly less than 'everything other than IH' yet anyone using only ITC results from the past few months wouldn't know that's the case. That's the biggest symptom of the problems people have with ITC
Lance845 wrote: Itc isn't the olympics. Its just a format amongst many.
It is when you consider this: The Olympics is just one format among many, not the only format. The rules for the Olympics do not apply to professional clubs like FIFA, NHL, or NBA, or the school organizations like the NCAA or state/province organizations that handle primary competitions. They even keep Olympic records separate from World Records set in competitions that are held in between Olympic events. That is the point that you are trying to ignore in this that I keep pointing out.
Lance845 wrote: Itc isn't the olympics. Its just a format amongst many.
It is when you consider this: The Olympics is just one format among many, not the only format. The rules for the Olympics do not apply to professional clubs like FIFA, NHL, or NBA, or the school organizations like the NCAA or state/province organizations that handle primary competitions. They even keep Olympic records separate from World Records set in competitions that are held in between Olympic events. That is the point that you are trying to ignore in this that I keep pointing out.
No it isn't. The Olympics is meant to be a gold standard (whether it is or isn't you can debate if you want). The Olympics has world wide agreement and participation. It has money, resources, and sponsorship. ITC isn't globally recognized or sponsored. There is no money behind it. The company that makes the game doesn't recognize it and shouldn't. ITC is like if me and the local community decided to run our own league for football separate from the state or schools or country and the format we used people liked so other groups of people decided to do the same by downloading a 3 page "packet" pdf off the internet. And so, across 1 country (primarily) a format took off as a way for individuals to organize and play football.
Equating that crap to the Olympics takes a massive inflation of self importance.
Lance845 wrote: Itc isn't the olympics. Its just a format amongst many.
It is when you consider this: The Olympics is just one format among many, not the only format. The rules for the Olympics do not apply to professional clubs like FIFA, NHL, or NBA, or the school organizations like the NCAA or state/province organizations that handle primary competitions. They even keep Olympic records separate from World Records set in competitions that are held in between Olympic events. That is the point that you are trying to ignore in this that I keep pointing out.
No it isn't. The Olympics is meant to be a gold standard (whether it is or isn't you can debate if you want). The Olympics has world wide agreement and participation. It has money, resources, and sponsorship. ITC isn't globally recognized or sponsored. There is no money behind it. The company that makes the game doesn't recognize it and shouldn't. ITC is like if me and the local community decided to run our own league for football separate from the state or schools or country and the format we used people liked so other groups of people decided to do the same by downloading a 3 page "packet" pdf off the internet. And so, across 1 country (primarily) a format took off as a way for individuals to organize and play football.
Equating that crap to the Olympics takes a massive inflation of self importance.
Again, missing the forest because of a bush. It isn't the level of recognition that matters in this comparison (as I have stated), it matters that it is one standard of many. More importantly, if that standard is theoretically being used as a standard of rule setting for other formats. Since that is actually one of the complaints (GW using ITC to balance their basic ruleset), it is a rather poignant comparison.
There is money behind it since the ITC group have and do run their own tournaments.
Since we have numerous people here from almost all over the world who know what it is without explanation, then it has reached global recognition (if not yet reaching global approval at this point). Even then, the Olympics does not have worldwide agreement and participation. Some deliberately leave themselves out because of venue (see 1980 Winter and 1984 Summer as two examples) or because they were rejected because of certain actions of their government.
Any way, the fact that it is still one format of many AND has people discussing its balance points does make it a valid comparison in that field. Now, if you want to consider them more NCAA than Olympics level of approval, I can't disagree, but when people change their habits in a game because of what happens in one format or rules get changed in another format to counter them, then you can't really say that it doesn't have global influence.
I know about the AFL in Australia but I have never seen a game and soccer (what we call everyone elses football) doesn't mean gak in America. Just because people in the rest of the world know what ITC is doesn't mean anything.
The question this thread asks is "Should ITC be considered "real" 40k". And if the argument in support of it being considered "real" is equating it to the Olympics then my argument is that that comparison is ridiculous.
GW should not, on any level, look to ITC for statistics to balance and change it's game. As mentioned a lot, ITC is a set of house rules not even equivalent to the NCAA, but instead equal to the YMCA running a dodgeball league.
It doesn't and shouldn't count for anything other than what it is. A way some people like to play the game. What GW SHOULD be doing is hiring actual game designers and testers to balance their game off actual design and testing. Fire Robin Cruddace for his years of bad work and hire real game developers to do a good job. Switch their focus from an ever changing balance to sell models to a solid foundation for steady sales of all product.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Exactly. People can pretend it affects balance, but the truth of the matter is GW handles balance so terribly the inherently bad armies will stay bad.
Well, if it doesn't affect the balance, then it certainly is completely unnecessary.
Lance845 wrote: I know about the AFL in Australia but I have never seen a game and soccer (what we call everyone elses football) doesn't mean gak in America. Just because people in the rest of the world know what ITC is doesn't mean anything.
The question this thread asks is "Should ITC be considered "real" 40k". And if the argument in support of it being considered "real" is equating it to the Olympics then my argument is that that comparison is ridiculous.
GW should not, on any level, look to ITC for statistics to balance and change it's game. As mentioned a lot, ITC is a set of house rules not even equivalent to the NCAA, but instead equal to the YMCA running a dodgeball league.
While I don't disagree in some sense, at the same time it should also be noted that said YMCA dodgeball league is, in this instance, the most popularly played and followed and discussed event format around, even if all else holds true, and that gives it a measure of relevance above and beyond others.
I'm not the biggest fan of ITC, and I consider it absolutely to be a house rule set, but at the same time to just ignore it flat out (and the reasons for its creation) would be a mistake, because it does have a wide reach among the playerbase.
Ultimately however I think people are dancing around the same ultimate point, and few think ITC should be the primary standard by which the game is judged and viewed.
Lance845 wrote: I know about the AFL in Australia but I have never seen a game and soccer (what we call everyone elses football) doesn't mean gak in America. Just because people in the rest of the world know what ITC is doesn't mean anything.
The question this thread asks is "Should ITC be considered "real" 40k". And if the argument in support of it being considered "real" is equating it to the Olympics then my argument is that that comparison is ridiculous.
GW should not, on any level, look to ITC for statistics to balance and change it's game. As mentioned a lot, ITC is a set of house rules not even equivalent to the NCAA, but instead equal to the YMCA running a dodgeball league.
While I don't disagree in some sense, at the same time it should also be noted that said YMCA dodgeball league is, in this instance, the most popularly played and followed and discussed event format around, even if all else holds true, and that gives it a measure of relevance above and beyond others.
In America, for the tournament going population who do not make up the majority of players. It is NOT the most popularly played, and followed and discussed format in the world. Tournament going players don't make up a majority of anything and it's only a single country where this format is all those things while the rest of the world mostly doesn't give a gak. I would argue that the most popularly played, followed and discussed format in the world is probably the missions out of the BRB and the codexes since thats what the vast majority of the people playing the game are actually playing.
I'm not the biggest fan of ITC, and I consider it absolutely to be a house rule set, but at the same time to just ignore it flat out (and the reasons for its creation) would be a mistake, because it does have a wide reach among the playerbase.
Ultimately however I think people are dancing around the same ultimate point, and few think ITC should be the primary standard by which the game is judged and viewed.
I think it's very important to pop the self importance bubble that tournament players have. You (Not YOU Vaktathi. Tourny players.) are a minority. And you are a minority who are good at finding flaws and developing strategies that capitalize on those flaws but you are a minority none the less. Your data point is important but it is a data point that is equally important to the same scale of any other data points. With the caveat that once you start diverging from the actual game into house rules you become LESS valuable of a data point. Not more. Take the data point. Use it. Value it correctly.
Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
Exactly. Tournament Data is good data. But it isn't the BEST data and it isn't even the majority of data points. It's just some data. And ITC inherently devalues it's data by playing something other than strictly 40k. Made worse by being highly regional.
So why should it be the defining factor in anything?
Lance845 wrote:I know about the AFL in Australia but I have never seen a game and soccer (what we call everyone elses football) doesn't mean gak in America. Just because people in the rest of the world know what ITC is doesn't mean anything.
The question this thread asks is "Should ITC be considered "real" 40k". And if the argument in support of it being considered "real" is equating it to the Olympics then my argument is that that comparison is ridiculous.
GW should not, on any level, look to ITC for statistics to balance and change it's game. As mentioned a lot, ITC is a set of house rules not even equivalent to the NCAA, but instead equal to the YMCA running a dodgeball league.
It doesn't and shouldn't count for anything other than what it is. A way some people like to play the game. What GW SHOULD be doing is hiring actual game designers and testers to balance their game off actual design and testing. Fire Robin Cruddace for his years of bad work and hire real game developers to do a good job. Switch their focus from an ever changing balance to sell models to a solid foundation for steady sales of all product.
So do you often talk to people about the AFL rules when you're discussing FIFA? Yet, ITC is the only tournament format that is easily recognized and commonly brought up here. So saying it isn't real is just blinding yourself to the reality that it has a significant following and influences how many people play. Even this thread here is an example of its level of influence.
Note, I am not arguing whether GW should or should not look to ITC results in balancing their games, as that is THEIR decision. ITC will restructure their ruleset around whatever GW chooses to do regardless of using their data or no. People will or will not play ITC formats depending on where they choose to go.
I have zero dog in this fight, as I am not a competitive player in any form, but I have had people be very specific about using ITC rules in their 40K games because training for the next tournament was all that mattered to them. I find ITC to be real in that it exists and is important to certain groups of people just like I find the NBA and Olympics to be real because they both exist and are important to certain groups of people. I am not going to dismiss their views just because I don't play that format, especially when such views are part of abstract concepts regarding formats and organizations.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Lance845 wrote:I know about the AFL in Australia but I have never seen a game and soccer (what we call everyone elses football) doesn't mean gak in America. Just because people in the rest of the world know what ITC is doesn't mean anything.
The question this thread asks is "Should ITC be considered "real" 40k". And if the argument in support of it being considered "real" is equating it to the Olympics then my argument is that that comparison is ridiculous.
GW should not, on any level, look to ITC for statistics to balance and change it's game. As mentioned a lot, ITC is a set of house rules not even equivalent to the NCAA, but instead equal to the YMCA running a dodgeball league.
It doesn't and shouldn't count for anything other than what it is. A way some people like to play the game. What GW SHOULD be doing is hiring actual game designers and testers to balance their game off actual design and testing. Fire Robin Cruddace for his years of bad work and hire real game developers to do a good job. Switch their focus from an ever changing balance to sell models to a solid foundation for steady sales of all product.
So do you often talk to people about the AFL rules when you're discussing FIFA?
No. Because I, like most 40k players, don't give a gak about Footy (read: tournaments).
Yet, ITC is the only tournament format that is easily recognized and commonly brought up here. So saying it isn't real is just blinding yourself to the reality that it has a significant following and influences how many people play. Even this thread here is an example of its level of influence.
I didn't say ITC doesn't exist. I said it's not as wide spread as you make it out to be and isn't as important as you are making it out to be. (or they. Whom so ever is making the argument)
Note, I am not arguing whether GW should or should not look to ITC results in balancing their games, as that is THEIR decision. ITC will restructure their ruleset around whatever GW chooses to do regardless of using their data or no. People will or will not play ITC formats depending on where they choose to go.
I have zero dog in this fight, as I am not a competitive player in any form, but I have had people be very specific about using ITC rules in their 40K games because training for the next tournament was all that mattered to them. I find ITC to be real in that it exists and is important to certain groups of people just like I find the NBA and Olympics to be real because they both exist and are important to certain groups of people. I am not going to dismiss their views just because I don't play that format, especially when such views are part of abstract concepts regarding formats and organizations.
Agreed. It's real. It's exists. People play it. Their data matters, but the importance of their data is mostly important only to them. There is some value to it for GW (if GW gave enough of a gak to mine it for useful information) but it's value is being greatly overstated by the people in support of it.
In America, for the tournament going population who do not make up the majority of players. It is NOT the most popularly played, and followed and discussed format in the world. Tournament going players don't make up a majority of anything and it's only a single country where this format is all those things while the rest of the world mostly doesn't give a gak.
The caveat there is that said single country however is the largest single player/consumerbase with the widest reach and audience. I totally agree that tournament players make up a small portion of the total playerbase, but, as an American, every 40k event I come across has some level of ITC involvement these days.
I would argue that the most popularly played, followed and discussed format in the world is probably the missions out of the BRB and the codexes since thats what the vast majority of the people playing the game are actually playing.
If we're talking just pickup normal games and the like, I 100% agree, but that's why I said "event format". I have been to exactly one 40k event in 8E in the last two years that didn't use at least some ITC rules (even my last FLGS tournament using CA missions, used ITC terrain rules, even if it didn't use anything else), and the biggest events in town/regionally all use ITC rules and missions (which is also part of why I don't attend them as regularly). I haven't seen any event recently anywhere within several hundred miles that wasn't doing ITC in whole or in part.
I think it's very important to pop the self importance bubble that tournament players have. You (Not YOU Vaktathi. Tourny players.) are a minority. And you are a minority who are good at finding flaws and developing strategies that capitalize on those flaws but you are a minority none the less. Your data point is important but it is a data point that is equally important to the same scale of any other data points. With the caveat that once you start diverging from the actual game into house rules you become LESS valuable of a data point. Not more. Take the data point. Use it. Value it correctly.
I totally agree with that ultimate point, though the other issue is that due to the nature of events and the current scene, most of the data we have happens to be ITC related (at least that I've seen), which is why it plays the role it does.
As far as I'm concerned, CA updates have largely removed most of the need for ITC rules, so if it went away I wouldn't be terribly bothered, but tournaments have always also been something of a "house rule" environment, the core game for example has no rule concerning time limits (and stuff like 7E where terrain setup was part of the missions rules but events did this all beforehand instead of allowing players to set up terrain per the mission rules).
@Vaktathi Which is why I said GW needs to hire real game developers and real testers. They need people who will systematically build lists and test units under controlled conditions that will gather data on every unit and a variety of strategies. Not just which units the tournies are deciding to spam because they found an exploit
No event data is telling GW anything about pyrovores or tyrannocytes for example. So again, value the data correctly.
Event data gives you a very specific set of data, based on a small % of the units, as utilized by a small minority of players, using a non standard format and missions, with the express goal of victory, not critical testing.
Yet, ITC is the only tournament format that is easily recognized and commonly brought up here. So saying it isn't real is just blinding yourself to the reality that it has a significant following and influences how many people play. Even this thread here is an example of its level of influence.
I didn't say ITC doesn't exist. I said it's not as wide spread as you make it out to be and isn't as important as you are making it out to be. (or they. Whom so ever is making the argument)
Note, I am not arguing whether GW should or should not look to ITC results in balancing their games, as that is THEIR decision. ITC will restructure their ruleset around whatever GW chooses to do regardless of using their data or no. People will or will not play ITC formats depending on where they choose to go.
I have zero dog in this fight, as I am not a competitive player in any form, but I have had people be very specific about using ITC rules in their 40K games because training for the next tournament was all that mattered to them. I find ITC to be real in that it exists and is important to certain groups of people just like I find the NBA and Olympics to be real because they both exist and are important to certain groups of people. I am not going to dismiss their views just because I don't play that format, especially when such views are part of abstract concepts regarding formats and organizations.
Agreed. It's real. It's exists. People play it. Their data matters, but the importance of their data is mostly important only to them. There is some value to it for GW (if GW gave enough of a gak to mine it for useful information) but it's value is being greatly overstated by the people in support of it.
So, in short, you're making arguments against me about things I am not saying, but what you want me to be saying. All I have stated in this thread is regarding the reality of ITC in regards to 40K. That is it, but others are contending that it isn't a reality, and it is to them that I have addressed my statements. Look about how your arguments are addressing things I have not stated in what you quoted.
Yet, ITC is the only tournament format that is easily recognized and commonly brought up here. So saying it isn't real is just blinding yourself to the reality that it has a significant following and influences how many people play. Even this thread here is an example of its level of influence.
I didn't say ITC doesn't exist. I said it's not as wide spread as you make it out to be and isn't as important as you are making it out to be. (or they. Whom so ever is making the argument)
Note, I am not arguing whether GW should or should not look to ITC results in balancing their games, as that is THEIR decision. ITC will restructure their ruleset around whatever GW chooses to do regardless of using their data or no. People will or will not play ITC formats depending on where they choose to go.
I have zero dog in this fight, as I am not a competitive player in any form, but I have had people be very specific about using ITC rules in their 40K games because training for the next tournament was all that mattered to them. I find ITC to be real in that it exists and is important to certain groups of people just like I find the NBA and Olympics to be real because they both exist and are important to certain groups of people. I am not going to dismiss their views just because I don't play that format, especially when such views are part of abstract concepts regarding formats and organizations.
Agreed. It's real. It's exists. People play it. Their data matters, but the importance of their data is mostly important only to them. There is some value to it for GW (if GW gave enough of a gak to mine it for useful information) but it's value is being greatly overstated by the people in support of it.
So, in short, you're making arguments against me about things I am not saying, but what you want me to be saying. All I have stated in this thread is regarding the reality of ITC in regards to 40K. That is it, but others are contending that it isn't a reality, and it is to them that I have addressed my statements. Look about how your arguments are addressing things I have not stated in what you quoted.
I started quoting you when you started quoting me. I answered a statement you made with what I had to say about it. I don't care enough about you to want you to be saying anything. If you don't agree with what I am saying then say that and present counter points. If you do agree say that. I agreed ITC exists. I disagree that it matters like you say it does.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
80 person non ITC GT enough? 'Cause Genestealer Varieties and Various Chaos soups kept up with and beat out IF and IH. As well as Admech + Smash Captain and other trash ITC armies.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
80 person non ITC GT enough? 'Cause Genestealer Varieties and Various Chaos soups kept up with and beat out IF and IH. As well as Admech + Smash Captain and other trash ITC armies.
Chaos variants have already been not losing terribly so you're not presenting new information. However if your evidence is really just one tournament then you have nothing.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
80 person non ITC GT enough? 'Cause Genestealer Varieties and Various Chaos soups kept up with and beat out IF and IH. As well as Admech + Smash Captain and other trash ITC armies.
Chaos variants have already been not losing terribly so you're not presenting new information. However if your evidence is really just one tournament then you have nothing.
I mean, how far back do you want to go to still be relevant? There's evidence going back, but that's the only recent non ITC result available.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
80 person non ITC GT enough? 'Cause Genestealer Varieties and Various Chaos soups kept up with and beat out IF and IH. As well as Admech + Smash Captain and other trash ITC armies.
Chaos variants have already been not losing terribly so you're not presenting new information. However if your evidence is really just one tournament then you have nothing.
I mean, how far back do you want to go to still be relevant? There's evidence going back, but that's the only recent non ITC result available.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
It really does though. Plenty of event winning lists have been unplayable in ITC and other above curve armies have had ITC results above their adverage.
Where's this "plenty" you speak of? I don't care about some random store's 10 person tournament if that's what you're implying.
80 person non ITC GT enough? 'Cause Genestealer Varieties and Various Chaos soups kept up with and beat out IF and IH. As well as Admech + Smash Captain and other trash ITC armies.
Chaos variants have already been not losing terribly so you're not presenting new information. However if your evidence is really just one tournament then you have nothing.
I mean, how far back do you want to go to still be relevant? There's evidence going back, but that's the only recent non ITC result available.
Only recent are your keywords there
Well then, you aren't going to get a satisfying answer anyway
Lance845 wrote: I started quoting you when you started quoting me. I answered a statement you made with what I had to say about it. I don't care enough about you to want you to be saying anything. If you don't agree with what I am saying then say that and present counter points. If you do agree say that. I agreed ITC exists. I disagree that it matters like you say it does.
Then maybe address what you quote instead of going off on your own tangent as if I said something else. What have I said how much it matters? Oh, yeah, that's right, to the people who actually play it, that's it. The Olympics comparison was not ever meant to classify its importance (though, to me, it may as well be since I pay as much attention to the Olympics as I do ITC results), which I have repeatedly stated, yet that's what you went off on.
Then maybe address what you quote instead of going off on your own tangent as if I said something else. What have I said how much it matters? Oh, yeah, that's right, to the people who actually play it, that's it.
Cool. We agree. The people who play ITC care about ITC results and maybe want the game balanced around the ITC format. Great. And?
But hell itc is by far far far not the most way how 40k is played. Dunno wy people still think that.
Mostly because many Americans have a hard time grasping that the world outside USA exists.
ITC might be the way a small minority of players play but even here in the US but even here in the US most people play GWCA missions on their day to day 40k. Also - I think most people in the US are well aware they are playing an English game - everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that.
Lance845 wrote: @Vaktathi Which is why I said GW needs to hire real game developers and real testers. They need people who will systematically build lists and test units under controlled conditions that will gather data on every unit and a variety of strategies. Not just which units the tournies are deciding to spam because they found an exploit
No event data is telling GW anything about pyrovores or tyrannocytes for example. So again, value the data correctly.
Event data gives you a very specific set of data, based on a small % of the units, as utilized by a small minority of players, using a non standard format and missions, with the express goal of victory, not critical testing.
How useful is that really?
The kind of play testing you are suggesting would take a literal army of people a very long time to do. 40k is not some video game that you can instantly set up a game and test stuff out over and over in a timely fashion. The average 2k point game takes 2-3 hours. Thats a decent chunck of a work day. It would take a full work day to get just 4 games in and thats 2 peoples time. Thats 20 games a week if they do nothing but play games. They still have make reports and comunicate with designers. There are literally billions if not trillions of possible unit interactions in this game. If you wanted 100 play testers even being payed minimum wage thats 2 million EUR a year in wages. I don't even think 100 people would be nearly enough to get all this testing done in a timely fashion you are likely looking at thousands of people required.
There is a reason GW uses outside data to make balancing changes. The kind of resources it takes to properly play test something like 40k is pretty stagering. Most online games continually take data from players and make balance changes as well.
All this isn't to say GW couldn't do a better job. I think there is always room for improvement.
kodos wrote: no need to make up something to fit the narritive
there are not even a 1000 possible unit interactions in the game, with every faction just can come up with one or two viable builds not even that much
Are you sure you understand playtesting?
I'm not sure how you're defining "unit interaction" here, kodos, Let's take Death Guard as an example, as they're the page of the MFM that opened when I grabbed it. You've got thirty-four different units in there, even before you look at upgrades or soup options. Even before looking at how the army interacts with an OpFor, you've got a lot of potential interactions there to consider, just looking at how the units in the book interact with each other, especially when you're considering buff auras, etc. And then you have to look at how psychic powers, stratagems and potential Warlord traits/relics affect those interactions - again, even before you've put them on the table to face another army.
I'm not even going to try to count the number of units in the core Space Marine codex, and look at how many potential interactions there are there.
kodos wrote: 10 play testers and 2-3 months work would be enough to make it a balanced game
but therefore they would need to have access to all the rules
saying that it is not achievable just to defend GW who does not want to do it
No, pointing out that it'd be a huge resource sink to do thoroughly - even without allowing for the fact that you may need to do multiple cycles as variables change - is not unreasonable. And given the player base seems willing to buy books without significant additional testing being required...
kodos wrote: most online games that take data from players are already better balanced by default and use it for fine tuning the game
Online games generally have a much tighter control of how their games behave, and, as you note, gather a huge amount of data about how their games are played automatically. Just capturing accurate basic win % figures for different characters on different maps in a MOBA, for example, would help you to understand basic strengths and weaknesses, and possibly where you might want to start looking to tweak things.
The number of extra variables in a tabletop game - from house rules, to terrain set-ups, to army size, to even people actually attempting to play RAW instead of allowing for RAI - would make such things impossible to do.
kodos wrote: no need to make up something to fit the narritive
there are not even a 1000 possible unit interactions in the game, with every faction just can come up with one or two viable builds not even that much
Are you sure you understand playtesting?
I'm not sure how you're defining "unit interaction" here, kodos, Let's take Death Guard as an example, as they're the page of the MFM that opened when I grabbed it. You've got thirty-four different units in there, even before you look at upgrades or soup options. Even before looking at how the army interacts with an OpFor, you've got a lot of potential interactions there to consider, just looking at how the units in the book interact with each other, especially when you're considering buff auras, etc. And then you have to look at how psychic powers, stratagems and potential Warlord traits/relics affect those interactions - again, even before you've put them on the table to face another army.
I'm not even going to try to count the number of units in the core Space Marine codex, and look at how many potential interactions there are there.
ok, lets get into details
there is external balance, faction vs faction, and internal balance
the amount of units within a faction is per set by the available models and their possible equipment, so nothing the testers can do anything about
this leads to one of the big problems of 40k for players, as the different roles on the battlefield are covered by several nearly identical units
So unit A with option X is doing the same job as unit B with option Y and as both need to have different profiles in game, one will always be better than the other, no points can change this (eg if you just need a meat shield the cheapest option will the best, if you need long range snipers those that do more damage on higher range are better, no matter if the other costs the same but get better armour while having shorter range)
In the best case those are all equal options with minor differences that make one not obvious better than the other but for the job the play want the to do one will be better (a player who prefers better survivability over longer range will chose the other unit while the player who does not care if the unit survive the first engagement chose the other)
this is something you can adjust (up to a point) by math alone for the specific role on the battlefield.
For external balance those options are not important and kind of don't exists, as if one unit is overpowered all other units doing the same job within the same point range are also overpowered and just nerfing one and it will be replaced with the next best option.
if there is only one unit with one option that causes the problem, the internal balance is off in the first place like it was with the Horros at the beginning of 8th.
This was something obvious as the meat shield with the best defence per point is the best, and as long as the important defensive stats stayed the same, (health points and ward save) the cheapest unit was the way to go.
could have been that the designers, because of the new core rules, did not understand what are the important defensive stats until later into the game (were now it is pretty clear that the number of wounds is the main thing and not armour or toughness).
Next point is that no matter how many different units are available, the buffs available to an army define how it is played and this reduce the options available for a specific build that need to be tested.
With Unit A buffing unit B, going with a combination of unit A + C if this breaks the external balance is not that important except unit C is so powerful that it is always better than a buffed unit B (which is again a problem of internal balance)
Overall, you just need to test the best/strongest build of Faction A against the strongest build of Faction B, if this works out well, you can work on internal balance to make all units that have similar roles options for that build (this is also something you can do later with player data available as it is more a fine tuning of balance) and/or add another build and test it again
If the strongest build has no chance to win against one Faction you can stop as there is a problem and you need to set the level you want to have (buff the losing one, nerf the winning one of both) and adjust it in the first place before you go into details and start testing all available options.
This is a long process, but already the initial test run (playing the strongest build of the new Codex against the strongest build of each other faction) would avoid things we have seen during this edition.
kodos wrote: no need to make up something to fit the narritive
there are not even a 1000 possible unit interactions in the game, with every faction just can come up with one or two viable builds not even that much
Are you sure you understand playtesting?
I'm not sure how you're defining "unit interaction" here, kodos, Let's take Death Guard as an example, as they're the page of the MFM that opened when I grabbed it. You've got thirty-four different units in there, even before you look at upgrades or soup options. Even before looking at how the army interacts with an OpFor, you've got a lot of potential interactions there to consider, just looking at how the units in the book interact with each other, especially when you're considering buff auras, etc. And then you have to look at how psychic powers, stratagems and potential Warlord traits/relics affect those interactions - again, even before you've put them on the table to face another army.
I'm not even going to try to count the number of units in the core Space Marine codex, and look at how many potential interactions there are there.
ok, lets get into details
there is external balance, faction vs faction, and internal balance
the amount of units within a faction is per set by the available models and their possible equipment, so nothing the testers can do anything about
this leads to one of the big problems of 40k for players, as the different roles on the battlefield are covered by several nearly identical units
So unit A with option X is doing the same job as unit B with option Y and as both need to have different profiles in game, one will always be better than the other, no points can change this (eg if you just need a meat shield the cheapest option will the best, if you need long range snipers those that do more damage on higher range are better, no matter if the other costs the same but get better armour while having shorter range)
In the best case those are all equal options with minor differences that make one not obvious better than the other but for the job the play want the to do one will be better (a player who prefers better survivability over longer range will chose the other unit while the player who does not care if the unit survive the first engagement chose the other)
this is something you can adjust (up to a point) by math alone for the specific role on the battlefield.
For external balance those options are not important and kind of don't exists, as if one unit is overpowered all other units doing the same job within the same point range are also overpowered and just nerfing one and it will be replaced with the next best option.
if there is only one unit with one option that causes the problem, the internal balance is off in the first place like it was with the Horros at the beginning of 8th.
This was something obvious as the meat shield with the best defence per point is the best, and as long as the important defensive stats stayed the same, (health points and ward save) the cheapest unit was the way to go.
could have been that the designers, because of the new core rules, did not understand what are the important defensive stats until later into the game (were now it is pretty clear that the number of wounds is the main thing and not armour or toughness).
Next point is that no matter how many different units are available, the buffs available to an army define how it is played and this reduce the options available for a specific build that need to be tested.
With Unit A buffing unit B, going with a combination of unit A + C if this breaks the external balance is not that important except unit C is so powerful that it is always better than a buffed unit B (which is again a problem of internal balance)
Overall, you just need to test the best/strongest build of Faction A against the strongest build of Faction B, if this works out well, you can work on internal balance to make all units that have similar roles options for that build (this is also something you can do later with player data available as it is more a fine tuning of balance) and/or add another build and test it again
If the strongest build has no chance to win against one Faction you can stop as there is a problem and you need to set the level you want to have (buff the losing one, nerf the winning one of both) and adjust it in the first place before you go into details and start testing all available options.
This is a long process, but already the initial test run (playing the strongest build of the new Codex against the strongest build of each other faction) would avoid things we have seen during this edition.
strongest change depending on pilot, mission and board setup...
Lammia wrote: strongest change depending on pilot, mission and board setup...
Which is why people here saying that ITC is not the real 40k and by itself is a problem for balancing as if the factions are tested with the original missions, terrain rules and victory conditions changing any of those throws the balance out of the window.
on the other hand, if something changes from medicore to be completely over the top by just having different missions, the very core of the game already has a problem.
To get an acceptable playtesting of 40k you would need no less than 2 or 3 million games (and that is already assuming that you interpolate a lot and don't try everything).
At 3 hours each, you are looking at 9 million hours of work.
Assuming a team of 20 people dedicated to it, this translates in 242 years of testing.
Don't know you, but i'm not going to wait that long.
Spoletta wrote: To get an acceptable playtesting of 40k you would need no less than 2 or 3 million games (and that is already assuming that you interpolate a lot and don't try everything).
I am really interested how you calculated that
I have a basic idea how you might get that number, but I just want to know for sure
Lammia wrote: strongest change depending on pilot, mission and board setup...
Which is why people here saying that ITC is not the real 40k and by itself is a problem for balancing as if the factions are tested with the original missions, terrain rules and victory conditions changing any of those throws the balance out of the window.
on the other hand, if something changes from medicore to be completely over the top by just having different missions, the very core of the game already has a problem.
Well by that standard we have a really big problem.
Take for example my problem solver of the Urban Conquest campaign I played, the Eradicator Nova Cannon. Not a shining star of 8th edition by anyone's standard, yet with a few changes within the long established 'spirit' of how 40k it saw a significant increase in worth.
Spoletta wrote: To get an acceptable playtesting of 40k you would need no less than 2 or 3 million games (and that is already assuming that you interpolate a lot and don't try everything).
Lance845 wrote: @Vaktathi Which is why I said GW needs to hire real game developers and real testers. They need people who will systematically build lists and test units under controlled conditions that will gather data on every unit and a variety of strategies. Not just which units the tournies are deciding to spam because they found an exploit
No event data is telling GW anything about pyrovores or tyrannocytes for example. So again, value the data correctly.
Event data gives you a very specific set of data, based on a small % of the units, as utilized by a small minority of players, using a non standard format and missions, with the express goal of victory, not critical testing.
How useful is that really?
The kind of play testing you are suggesting would take a literal army of people a very long time to do. 40k is not some video game that you can instantly set up a game and test stuff out over and over in a timely fashion. The average 2k point game takes 2-3 hours. Thats a decent chunck of a work day. It would take a full work day to get just 4 games in and thats 2 peoples time. Thats 20 games a week if they do nothing but play games. They still have make reports and comunicate with designers. There are literally billions if not trillions of possible unit interactions in this game. If you wanted 100 play testers even being payed minimum wage thats 2 million EUR a year in wages. I don't even think 100 people would be nearly enough to get all this testing done in a timely fashion you are likely looking at thousands of people required.
There is a reason GW uses outside data to make balancing changes. The kind of resources it takes to properly play test something like 40k is pretty stagering. Most online games continually take data from players and make balance changes as well.
All this isn't to say GW couldn't do a better job. I think there is always room for improvement.
GW doesn't need a literal army. It needs 1-2 testers per army working 8 hour days 40 hours a week. with 1 lead tester/supervisor. 8th was up for pre order june 3rd 2017. Which means it went to the printers about now that year. Roughly that staff would have had 3 years or 6240 hours PER EMPLOYEE to perform testing on the game since 8th came out. When they were going to make a change like the new SM codex every tester would be directed to play as or against SM to see how those rules function and the sheer power creep would have been obvious after the first week. They don't need to play full 2k games for every test case. And they should probably be spending 6-7 hours a day running that days assigned test cases before spending the last hour filling out their paperwork (which should be a digital log) and submitting it to the supervisor. Supervisor is the one in the meetings with the developers (most likely weekly) and compiling the data gathered, and designing and assigning the test cases.
Hiring real testers doesn't take what it does for video games. And the biggest issues become obvious and get addressed first.
It's definitely a valid way to play the game insofar as any other house rule, but that's not to say i like ITC (I don't).
Crimson wrote: I have said it before and I say it again: If GW charges me real money for their points and they charge me real money for their missions, I bloody well expect those points to be balanced based on those missions, and not based on some third party houserules from other side of the globe!
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though.
Wrong, considering many lists are invalid in ITC where they are valid in the official rules.
I mean I'm not even saying ITC is bad. It's just another way to play 40k. But it's definitely a change in balance. That's the entire PURPOSE of ITC. Claiming ITC doesn't actually change anything means ITC is pointless and worthless and no one should follow it. It's a disingenuous argument that devalues every other argument you've made in this thread.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though.
Wrong, considering many lists are invalid in ITC where they are valid in the official rules.
I mean I'm not even saying ITC is bad. It's just another way to play 40k. But it's definitely a change in balance. That's the entire PURPOSE of ITC. Claiming ITC doesn't actually change anything means ITC is pointless and worthless and no one should follow it. It's a disingenuous argument that devalues every other argument you've made in this thread.
In terms of unit strength it doesn't change much. Maybe per codex, but stats showed codices were closer in win rate using ITC in the previous ITC thread. That doesn't stop the top from being the top though, ergo nerfing based on that data is perfectly reasonable.
Then as I said GW doesn't know how to do that. They'll look at a codex and throw darts at it.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though.
Wrong, considering many lists are invalid in ITC where they are valid in the official rules.
I mean I'm not even saying ITC is bad. It's just another way to play 40k. But it's definitely a change in balance. That's the entire PURPOSE of ITC. Claiming ITC doesn't actually change anything means ITC is pointless and worthless and no one should follow it. It's a disingenuous argument that devalues every other argument you've made in this thread.
In terms of unit strength it doesn't change much. Maybe per codex, but stats showed codices were closer in win rate using ITC in the previous ITC thread. That doesn't stop the top from being the top though, ergo nerfing based on that data is perfectly reasonable.
Then as I said GW doesn't know how to do that. They'll look at a codex and throw darts at it.
Nerfing isn't even the correct answer most of the time. If you use ITC data or even tourny data in general, then Nids would just get price hikes or other nerfs to the hive tyrant all the time. Again, what does the tourny scene tell anyone about Pyrovores and Tyrannocytes? It's bad data that just messes things up worse because the test it self is bad and only includes a small subsection of units under crap conditions.
Melissia wrote: Not all data points are of equal value. While still perfectly valid ways to play 40k, games that rely on house rules aren't as useful for balance decisions as games that don't rely on house rules.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though.
Wrong, considering many lists are invalid in ITC where they are valid in the official rules.
I mean I'm not even saying ITC is bad. It's just another way to play 40k. But it's definitely a change in balance. That's the entire PURPOSE of ITC. Claiming ITC doesn't actually change anything means ITC is pointless and worthless and no one should follow it. It's a disingenuous argument that devalues every other argument you've made in this thread.
In terms of unit strength it doesn't change much. Maybe per codex, but stats showed codices were closer in win rate using ITC in the previous ITC thread. That doesn't stop the top from being the top though, ergo nerfing based on that data is perfectly reasonable.
Then as I said GW doesn't know how to do that. They'll look at a codex and throw darts at it.
Nerfing isn't even the correct answer most of the time. If you use ITC data or even tourny data in general, then Nids would just get price hikes or other nerfs to the hive tyrant all the time. Again, what does the tourny scene tell anyone about Pyrovores and Tyrannocytes? It's bad data that just messes things up worse because the test it self is bad and only includes a small subsection of units under crap conditions.
This isn't true at all. Clearly if people aren't taking pyrovores and tyrannocites GW should just reduce them by 10pts every year until people DO start taking them at which point they're broken and need their rules nerfed to compensate for their now lower points values.
Did you read the rest of the sentence? That is not what I said at all I never even implied that video game testing was a quick process. I was implying that it is a quicker process than play testing 40k by virtue of them just being easier to set up and start playing. I can start up a game of League in 5-10 minutes. Setting up a game of 40k can take 30-40 minutes with list creation, setting up a table, etc.
Also you stated how that is not how play testing works. I am curious what your idea of play testing is. It sounds like you have some experience with it so enlighten us how you would perform 40k play testing.
For me, it's when two or more individuals play in-universe factions on the tabletop, using models to represent their armies.
I think what most may be thinking of when they say "Real 40k" is "Official 40k", which is rules, lore, and scenarios published by Games Workshop, in various in-house sources.
ITC is merely a useful tool; a series of house rules that helps make running tournaments smoother and with less hassle. Some people like using ITC outside of tournaments. Others do not. Neither group is wrong, since it's a legitimate way to run games and campaigns, as long as players remember that ITC isn't official nor is it the end-all, be-all answer to the various issues 40k has with the official rules set/scenarios.
Any debate over whether or not ITC is "Real 40k" or not is one that muddies the waters, and nonsensical to boot, in my honest opinion
Did you read the rest of the sentence? That is not what I said at all I never even implied that video game testing was a quick process. I was implying that it is a quicker process than play testing 40k by virtue of them just being easier to set up and start playing. I can start up a game of League in 5-10 minutes. Setting up a game of 40k can take 30-40 minutes with list creation, setting up a table, etc.
Also you stated how that is not how play testing works. I am curious what your idea of play testing is. It sounds like you have some experience with it so enlighten us how you would perform 40k play testing.
It doesnt take 30-40 minutes to set up a play test. The lists will be determined by the test case and the tables organized for use to gather data. Missions and set up will be determined in a controlled environment.
Lammia wrote: strongest change depending on pilot, mission and board setup...
Which is why people here saying that ITC is not the real 40k and by itself is a problem for balancing as if the factions are tested with the original missions, terrain rules and victory conditions changing any of those throws the balance out of the window.
on the other hand, if something changes from medicore to be completely over the top by just having different missions, the very core of the game already has a problem.
Laughable. Just saying. Competition requires just one thing: the rules of engagement and victory condition be known before engaging. Thats it.
Ok, let's put some data in here so that we understand effectively how much changing the missions will also change the balance of the game.
The results of the official February GT are in and we can see that:
- There are 2 undefeated lists, orks and CWE. Before anyone says that the ork just flooded the objectives with bodies, i would like to point out that he is also first in destruction points.
- We have one list with 4 wins and one draw. Necrons.
- We have 11 lists that went 4-1, and here we finally see the marines. 4 Iron hands, 1 Crimson fist, 1 Blood angel, 1 marine soup. We also have in there one astra militarum, 2 CWE and a custodes list.
A lot of iron hands and CWE sure, but we have 9 Factions in the first 14 lists. I have yet to see an ITC event achieve the same.
Lance845 wrote: @Vaktathi Which is why I said GW needs to hire real game developers and real testers. They need people who will systematically build lists and test units under controlled conditions that will gather data on every unit and a variety of strategies. Not just which units the tournies are deciding to spam because they found an exploit
No event data is telling GW anything about pyrovores or tyrannocytes for example. So again, value the data correctly.
Event data gives you a very specific set of data, based on a small % of the units, as utilized by a small minority of players, using a non standard format and missions, with the express goal of victory, not critical testing.
How useful is that really?
The kind of play testing you are suggesting would take a literal army of people a very long time to do. 40k is not some video game that you can instantly set up a game and test stuff out over and over in a timely fashion. The average 2k point game takes 2-3 hours. Thats a decent chunck of a work day. It would take a full work day to get just 4 games in and thats 2 peoples time. Thats 20 games a week if they do nothing but play games. They still have make reports and comunicate with designers. There are literally billions if not trillions of possible unit interactions in this game. If you wanted 100 play testers even being payed minimum wage thats 2 million EUR a year in wages. I don't even think 100 people would be nearly enough to get all this testing done in a timely fashion you are likely looking at thousands of people required.
There is a reason GW uses outside data to make balancing changes. The kind of resources it takes to properly play test something like 40k is pretty stagering. Most online games continually take data from players and make balance changes as well.
All this isn't to say GW couldn't do a better job. I think there is always room for improvement.
GW doesn't need a literal army. It needs 1-2 testers per army working 8 hour days 40 hours a week. with 1 lead tester/supervisor. 8th was up for pre order june 3rd 2017. Which means it went to the printers about now that year. Roughly that staff would have had 3 years or 6240 hours PER EMPLOYEE to perform testing on the game since 8th came out. When they were going to make a change like the new SM codex every tester would be directed to play as or against SM to see how those rules function and the sheer power creep would have been obvious after the first week. They don't need to play full 2k games for every test case. And they should probably be spending 6-7 hours a day running that days assigned test cases before spending the last hour filling out their paperwork (which should be a digital log) and submitting it to the supervisor. Supervisor is the one in the meetings with the developers (most likely weekly) and compiling the data gathered, and designing and assigning the test cases.
Hiring real testers doesn't take what it does for video games. And the biggest issues become obvious and get addressed first.
I think you are going a little overboard with what is needed here. They literally only need like 6 play testers. The group should be the ones writing the rules for the game and they play 2-3 games a day in different kinds of mission types with a specific mandate to try to deliberately find the combos and units that are too good and not good enough.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
So how come marines keep winning (and dominating) ITC events and keep not winning the events that GW runs with the Chapter Approved missions.
This weekend the 40KGT had over 1/3 of the entries codex marines - yet no marines made the top 4. When was the last ITC mission major event that had zero codex marines in the top 4? It's like the facts consistently don't fit this claim that it's always the same top factions regardless of tournament format - so people just keep repeating the same claim but louder. It's so Dakka.
If you really love ITC then good for you. Go and enjoy it and we expect to see no complaints about the format or its balance issues because you are enjoying it so much.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
So how come marines keep winning (and dominating) ITC events and keep not winning the events that GW runs with the Chapter Approved missions.
This weekend the 40KGT had over 1/3 of the entries codex marines - yet no marines made the top 4. When was the last ITC mission major event that had zero codex marines in the top 4? It's like the facts consistently don't fit this claim that it's always the same top factions regardless of tournament format - so people just keep repeating the same claim but louder. It's so Dakka.
If you really love ITC then good for you. Go and enjoy it and we expect to see no complaints about the format or its balance issues because you are enjoying it so much.
ITC is about hiding from your opponent most of the game with most of your units. What is a GWGT like?
Spoletta wrote: Ok, let's put some data in here so that we understand effectively how much changing the missions will also change the balance of the game.
The results of the official February GT are in and we can see that:
- There are 2 undefeated lists, orks and CWE. Before anyone says that the ork just flooded the objectives with bodies, i would like to point out that he is also first in destruction points.
- We have one list with 4 wins and one draw. Necrons.
- We have 11 lists that went 4-1, and here we finally see the marines. 4 Iron hands, 1 Crimson fist, 1 Blood angel, 1 marine soup. We also have in there one astra militarum, 2 CWE and a custodes list.
A lot of iron hands and CWE sure, but we have 9 Factions in the first 14 lists. I have yet to see an ITC event achieve the same.
You stated a topping that's no different than ITC outside of Necrons. Marines, Marines, Marines, Eldar, Imperial Guard (probably with a Knight at that), etc. If you're trying to kid yourself by saying one tournament proves your point, that's hilarious. Consistency is key, so if you're going to throw numbers around, do it enmasse. Otherwise that's the same as saying 6th Edition Rubric Marines were good because someone topped a tournament with them and Ahriman once. It happened too, yet people forget.
As discussed, ITC doesn't affect balance that much though. The top codices will still continue to be at the top. Therefore the data collected (army traits, maxed out units, strats) can be used for balancing decisions.
However the issue is that GW just kinda throws darts.
So how come marines keep winning (and dominating) ITC events and keep not winning the events that GW runs with the Chapter Approved missions.
This weekend the 40KGT had over 1/3 of the entries codex marines - yet no marines made the top 4. When was the last ITC mission major event that had zero codex marines in the top 4? It's like the facts consistently don't fit this claim that it's always the same top factions regardless of tournament format - so people just keep repeating the same claim but louder. It's so Dakka.
If you really love ITC then good for you. Go and enjoy it and we expect to see no complaints about the format or its balance issues because you are enjoying it so much.
Once again, you're not giving numbers or anything nor are you giving lists (because any narrative/casual event is not to be taken seriously for discussing balance issues that do clearly exist in the game).
Once again, you're not giving numbers or anything nor are you giving lists (because any narrative/casual event is not to be taken seriously for discussing balance issues that do clearly exist in the game).
It is a major GT event, not a narrative/casual event. You are just spewing trash here - you know absolutely nothing and are just full of ignorance.
Spoletta wrote: Ok, let's put some data in here so that we understand effectively how much changing the missions will also change the balance of the game.
The results of the official February GT are in and we can see that:
- There are 2 undefeated lists, orks and CWE. Before anyone says that the ork just flooded the objectives with bodies, i would like to point out that he is also first in destruction points.
- We have one list with 4 wins and one draw. Necrons.
- We have 11 lists that went 4-1, and here we finally see the marines. 4 Iron hands, 1 Crimson fist, 1 Blood angel, 1 marine soup. We also have in there one astra militarum, 2 CWE and a custodes list.
A lot of iron hands and CWE sure, but we have 9 Factions in the first 14 lists. I have yet to see an ITC event achieve the same.
You stated a topping that's no different than ITC outside of Necrons. Marines, Marines, Marines, Eldar, Imperial Guard (probably with a Knight at that), etc. If you're trying to kid yourself by saying one tournament proves your point, that's hilarious. Consistency is key, so if you're going to throw numbers around, do it enmasse. Otherwise that's the same as saying 6th Edition Rubric Marines were good because someone topped a tournament with them and Ahriman once. It happened too, yet people forget.
If I'm not mistaken, this was the first GWGT since the release of CA2019, which marked an adjustment to the format with new scenarios - how do you expect Spoletta to report on multiple events as points of data if there's only been one GWGT in that period?
Spoletta wrote: Ok, let's put some data in here so that we understand effectively how much changing the missions will also change the balance of the game.
The results of the official February GT are in and we can see that:
- There are 2 undefeated lists, orks and CWE. Before anyone says that the ork just flooded the objectives with bodies, i would like to point out that he is also first in destruction points.
- We have one list with 4 wins and one draw. Necrons.
- We have 11 lists that went 4-1, and here we finally see the marines. 4 Iron hands, 1 Crimson fist, 1 Blood angel, 1 marine soup. We also have in there one astra militarum, 2 CWE and a custodes list.
A lot of iron hands and CWE sure, but we have 9 Factions in the first 14 lists. I have yet to see an ITC event achieve the same.
You stated a topping that's no different than ITC outside of Necrons. Marines, Marines, Marines, Eldar, Imperial Guard (probably with a Knight at that), etc. If you're trying to kid yourself by saying one tournament proves your point, that's hilarious. Consistency is key, so if you're going to throw numbers around, do it enmasse. Otherwise that's the same as saying 6th Edition Rubric Marines were good because someone topped a tournament with them and Ahriman once. It happened too, yet people forget.
If I'm not mistaken, this was the first GWGT since the release of CA2019, which marked an adjustment to the format with new scenarios - how do you expect Spoletta to report on multiple events as points of data if there's only been one GWGT in that period?
Keep up, old chap...
He's using it as THE point of data is the point I'm making.
Lance845 wrote: @Vaktathi Which is why I said GW needs to hire real game developers and real testers. They need people who will systematically build lists and test units under controlled conditions that will gather data on every unit and a variety of strategies. Not just which units the tournies are deciding to spam because they found an exploit
No event data is telling GW anything about pyrovores or tyrannocytes for example. So again, value the data correctly.
Event data gives you a very specific set of data, based on a small % of the units, as utilized by a small minority of players, using a non standard format and missions, with the express goal of victory, not critical testing.
How useful is that really?
The kind of play testing you are suggesting would take a literal army of people a very long time to do. 40k is not some video game that you can instantly set up a game and test stuff out over and over in a timely fashion. The average 2k point game takes 2-3 hours. Thats a decent chunck of a work day. It would take a full work day to get just 4 games in and thats 2 peoples time. Thats 20 games a week if they do nothing but play games. They still have make reports and comunicate with designers. There are literally billions if not trillions of possible unit interactions in this game. If you wanted 100 play testers even being payed minimum wage thats 2 million EUR a year in wages. I don't even think 100 people would be nearly enough to get all this testing done in a timely fashion you are likely looking at thousands of people required.
There is a reason GW uses outside data to make balancing changes. The kind of resources it takes to properly play test something like 40k is pretty stagering. Most online games continually take data from players and make balance changes as well.
All this isn't to say GW couldn't do a better job. I think there is always room for improvement.
GW doesn't need a literal army. It needs 1-2 testers per army working 8 hour days 40 hours a week. with 1 lead tester/supervisor. 8th was up for pre order june 3rd 2017. Which means it went to the printers about now that year. Roughly that staff would have had 3 years or 6240 hours PER EMPLOYEE to perform testing on the game since 8th came out. When they were going to make a change like the new SM codex every tester would be directed to play as or against SM to see how those rules function and the sheer power creep would have been obvious after the first week. They don't need to play full 2k games for every test case. And they should probably be spending 6-7 hours a day running that days assigned test cases before spending the last hour filling out their paperwork (which should be a digital log) and submitting it to the supervisor. Supervisor is the one in the meetings with the developers (most likely weekly) and compiling the data gathered, and designing and assigning the test cases.
Hiring real testers doesn't take what it does for video games. And the biggest issues become obvious and get addressed first.
I think you are going a little overboard with what is needed here. They literally only need like 6 play testers. The group should be the ones writing the rules for the game and they play 2-3 games a day in different kinds of mission types with a specific mandate to try to deliberately find the combos and units that are too good and not good enough.
No. When game developers are their own testers they are too close to the project to effectively test it. They know how things are "supposed" to work so they inherently run things that way even if that not how it actually works. The devs can run some tests, but they need dedicated testers to run it through the meat grinder.
If I'm not mistaken, this was the first GWGT since the release of CA2019, which marked an adjustment to the format with new scenarios - how do you expect Spoletta to report on multiple events as points of data if there's only been one GWGT in that period?
Keep up, old chap...
You are mistaken. The GWGT Final was in January and has previously been discussed on a couple of these threads on tournament format & balance.
Caledonian Uprising also used the CA19 missions in January - it used a combo of Eternal War and the new Maelstrom. Also recently discussed here on Dakka.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Once again, you're not giving numbers or anything nor are you giving lists (because any narrative/casual event is not to be taken seriously for discussing balance issues that do clearly exist in the game).
Um... the GT is no more casual or narrative based than the LVO/ITC.
I think you are going a little overboard with what is needed here. They literally only need like 6 play testers. The group should be the ones writing the rules for the game and they play 2-3 games a day in different kinds of mission types with a specific mandate to try to deliberately find the combos and units that are too good and not good enough.
1ksons have 5 unique HQ choices in their codex. Now lets take a supreme command detachment which can take up to 5 HQ units. There are 3,125 possible combinations to construct that detachment not counting wargear options, psychic powers, warlord traits, relics, and now cults. That is one detachment from one army using just HQ units.
Now lets look at how many ways units can be over the top. Are they over the top do to stratagem interactions such as IH levi dreads? Are they over the top when you can spam them such as Plague Burst Crawlers where before the rule of 3? Are they just they too good just because of their point costs? Are they over powered in specific mission situations? Are they over powered because they benefit from certain auras too much? Are they over powered because of abilities in a different codex that they can benefit from? These are just a few I could come up with off the top of my head I am sure there are more reasons for units to be over powered than this.
Now lets look at how many ways a unit can be under performing. Do they just cost to much? Do they require an inordinate amount of resources to make them remotely viable like the CSM daemon engines right now? Are they a good unit but the current meta just doesn't have a place for them? Do they just not have a place in certain mission sets but do in others? Again just some reasons I came up with off of the top of my head there are definitely much more than these listed here.
Now how many games would you want to play to test a particular small change to a model/interaction to get a solid grasp of how good or bad it is 1, 5, 10, or 100? Lets just assume you want to get 1 game in against every faction in the game there are 36 unique faction entries on the GW website (Granted a lot of those are space marines but with the supplements out now I think they play differently enough to count). Assuming a 2 hour game which is pretty generous if you ask me that 72 hours of game play time to just get 1 game against all armies with one list. That one game isn't even remotely going to cover all the possible interactions that can happen both internally from different units in the codex and externally from other codices.
Now lets take a look at what you want the over all design philosophy. Do they want to play test and design your game for a more beer and pretzels casual night? Are they trying to develop the game into a more competitive setting? Do they want the game to have numerous different rules sets to appeal to the largest possible amount of consumers? Do they want every army to be self sufficient? Do they want some armies to rely on allies to make up for inherent weaknesses of their codex? Do they design codices to intentionally have weaknesses?
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Not that this conversation even matters because GW does do internal and external play testing. Stuff still slips through the cracks either because of the massive amount of rules interactions that are possible and the testers just don't catch them. Or through deliberately just ignoring the play testers findings like in the case of Iron Hands.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, you're not giving numbers or anything nor are you giving lists (because any narrative/casual event is not to be taken seriously for discussing balance issues that do clearly exist in the game).
I am not surprised to see that your ignorance matches your arrogance.
Lance845 wrote: No. When game developers are their own testers they are too close to the project to effectively test it. They know how things are "supposed" to work so they inherently run things that way even if that not how it actually works. The devs can run some tests, but they need dedicated testers to run it through the meat grinder.
Very true. A good current example of this is Blizzard's latest releases, with many of World of Warcraft systems not being altered to match feedback (or being altered after feedback, but that was not properly tested), and then there is Warcraft 3: Reforged's release...
There are a lot of things that random player #463 will find that the devs would not even have thought of. Sometimes that turns in to announced features, sometimes it turns in to "exploits".
The Salt Mine wrote: 1ksons have 5 unique HQ choices in their codex. Now lets take a supreme command detachment which can take up to 5 HQ units. There are 3,125 possible combinations to construct that detachment not counting wargear options, psychic powers, warlord traits, relics, and now cults. That is one detachment from one army using just HQ units.
And you think that means they need to play 3125 games just to test those combinations?
Come on. That's not how play-testing works. They can test the 5 units across a series of games and see how they perform on average. They don't need to do hundreds (or thousands) of games.
The Salt Mine wrote: 1ksons have 5 unique HQ choices in their codex. Now lets take a supreme command detachment which can take up to 5 HQ units. There are 3,125 possible combinations to construct that detachment not counting wargear options, psychic powers, warlord traits, relics, and now cults. That is one detachment from one army using just HQ units.
And you think that means they need to play 3125 games just to test those combinations?
Come on. That's not how play-testing works. They can test the 5 units across a series of games and see how they perform on average. They don't need to do hundreds (or thousands) of games.
And there's no such thing as the "Rule of 3".
As much as most sane people apply the rule of 3 it is an optional rule for one of 3 ways to play in GWs eyes so they would still need to consider (lightly) 5x unit combos for open/narrative.
The Salt Mine wrote: 1ksons have 5 unique HQ choices in their codex. Now lets take a supreme command detachment which can take up to 5 HQ units. There are 3,125 possible combinations to construct that detachment not counting wargear options, psychic powers, warlord traits, relics, and now cults. That is one detachment from one army using just HQ units.
And you think that means they need to play 3125 games just to test those combinations?
Come on. That's not how play-testing works. They can test the 5 units across a series of games and see how they perform on average. They don't need to do hundreds (or thousands) of games.
And there's no such thing as the "Rule of 3".
That is not what I said I just gave an example of the large number of combinations you get in this game with just one set of units in a single detachment. And yes they do need hundreds of games to get any meaningful data out of anything. Definitely no hundreds of games for every interaction for sure there isn't enough time or manpower on the planet for that kind of undertaking. But they should be doing hundreds of test games for every major book update. However like most companies now a days its just not practical or cost effective to do anything like that when you have millions of consumers to do the beta testing for you. Slap the rules together give it a once over to make sure it at least works then let the consumers discover the bugs!
Dudeface wrote: As much as most sane people apply the rule of 3 it is an optional rule for one of 3 ways to play in GWs eyes so they would still need to consider (lightly) 5x unit combos for open/narrative.
Doesn't change the fact that there is no such thing as the "Rule of 3". There is a guidelines for matched play games at organised events that can limit unit selections based upon the points value. It is not "3", nor is it a "rule".
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
Not that this conversation even matters because GW does do internal and external play testing. Stuff still slips through the cracks either because of the massive amount of rules interactions that are possible and the testers just don't catch them. Or through deliberately just ignoring the play testers findings like in the case of Iron Hands.
If they do they do it bad enough that it might as well be random people doing it. There is no slipping through the cracks. GW sucks at all the stuff they are doing. Their testing criteria has the wrong goals. Or they set up bad tests. Or they just have people playing games and consider it tests. Either way, they need professional testers designing and performing actual tests.
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
You're going to be disappointed then. No tabletop company professional testers, it's just not cost effective in any way shape or form.
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
You're going to be disappointed then. No tabletop company professional testers, it's just not cost effective in any way shape or form.
I am not disappointed because I know GW sucks.
That being said, it is cost effective. GW has massive profit margins and a break neck release schedule. That release schedule would be more profitable in the long run if the products were all more reliable in the long run.
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
You're going to be disappointed then. No tabletop company professional testers, it's just not cost effective in any way shape or form.
I am not disappointed because I know GW sucks.
That being said, it is cost effective. GW has massive profit margins and a break neck release schedule. That release schedule would be more profitable in the long run if the products were all more reliable in the long run.
WotC, FFG, several other TT companies also have the release schedules to justify professional Beta testers, none of them do though. It's not financially sensible for them to do so, whatever their current profit margin is or isn't.
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
You're going to be disappointed then. No tabletop company professional testers, it's just not cost effective in any way shape or form.
I am not disappointed because I know GW sucks.
That being said, it is cost effective. GW has massive profit margins and a break neck release schedule. That release schedule would be more profitable in the long run if the products were all more reliable in the long run.
WotC, FFG, several other TT companies also have the release schedules to justify professional Beta testers, none of them do though. It's not financially sensible for them to do so, whatever their current profit margin is or isn't.
You say that but I doubt it. Yes, they run "open' and "closed" beta tests with volunteers because volunteers from their communities are plentiful. But I highly doubt FFG gets their games functioning at the level they do without any internal controlled testing. And their production quality says everything about the difference between them and GW.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Speaking from experience, the 40KRPG books were tested across multiple different external play groups as well as internal testing with the editors.
Were they ignored? Because I remember the balance of those, and quite a fair bit ends up broken..
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
You're going to be disappointed then. No tabletop company professional testers, it's just not cost effective in any way shape or form.
I am not disappointed because I know GW sucks.
That being said, it is cost effective. GW has massive profit margins and a break neck release schedule. That release schedule would be more profitable in the long run if the products were all more reliable in the long run.
WotC, FFG, several other TT companies also have the release schedules to justify professional Beta testers, none of them do though. It's not financially sensible for them to do so, whatever their current profit margin is or isn't.
You say that but I doubt it. Yes, they run "open' and "closed" beta tests with volunteers because volunteers from their communities are plentiful. But I highly doubt FFG gets their games functioning at the level they do without any internal controlled testing. And their production quality says everything about the difference between them and GW.
They have better technical writers, 3x the number of Alpha/Beta 1 tests, smaller pool of rules interaction and plenty of shonky rules make it to the the large scale beta tests.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Speaking from experience, the 40KRPG books were tested across multiple different external play groups as well as internal testing with the editors.
Of course, that's how it should be. What was the hourly pay for the external play groups though?
I would argue that it is infinite more alpha/beta tests since GW doesn't appear to do any.
smaller pool of rules interaction
Which doesn't matter. Because if they wrote their rules in a codified and structured way then the number of rules that were interacting would be interacting in simple and predictable ways that would be repeating over and over again. The problem is GW can't write rules for gak.
and plenty of shonky rules make it to the the large scale beta tests.
Which is in part what those beta tests are for. They get the game "good enough" for the testers to start working out some of the other kinks while behind the scenes internal testing continues to work out other issues. Public testing has value for certain kinds of things. Internal testing is needed for others. GW doesn't appear to do either in any capacity that matters.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, you're not giving numbers or anything nor are you giving lists (because any narrative/casual event is not to be taken seriously for discussing balance issues that do clearly exist in the game).
I am not surprised to see that your ignorance matches your arrogance.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Were they ignored? Because I remember the balance of those, and quite a fair bit ends up broken..
We were not. I know of a number of books that went through pretty detailed changes as a result of feedback, including one that changed in its structure altogether. And that's before we even get to the public betas.
Lammia wrote:Of course, that's how it should be. What was the hourly pay for the external play groups though?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, you're not giving numbers or anything nor are you giving lists (because any narrative/casual event is not to be taken seriously for discussing balance issues that do clearly exist in the game).
I am not surprised to see that your ignorance matches your arrogance.
Well then enlighten me. It's your job to prove ITC changes the core balance of the game. Statistics show closer win rates in ITC (which would be for the better don't you agree?), and the larger tournaments that aren't ITC don't have this infamous variety you speak of. So yeah, I'm gonna say trying to use that single tournament as a main data point is a giant load of rubbish. You need much more than that to make your point.
If you change the rules of chess, it's not chess anymore.
How about that?
Unless you can show me an official GW publication with the ITC missions and terrain rules then it is not the real 40k. It's a 3rd party homebrew, and that's that.
GW obviously uses ITC to some extent. Look at the triple whammy they laid down after their team's debacle vs Flyrants. How GW can't see abuses coming at this point blows my mind.
Ishagu wrote: If you change the rules of chess, it's not chess anymore.
How about that?
Unless you can show me an official GW publication with the ITC missions and terrain rules then it is not the real 40k. It's a 3rd party homebrew, and that's that.
Didn't the Warhammer World or some other GW Tournament use the first-floor blocks LoS rule?
Now who do you want even doing the play testing? Average John Doe who has a basic understanding of the rules or the top 40k players around that consistently win tournaments? That is going to have a huge impact on your findings as well.
Neither. Both are bad. I want people with jobs being testers to do testing.
You're going to be disappointed then. No tabletop company professional testers, it's just not cost effective in any way shape or form.
I am not disappointed because I know GW sucks.
That being said, it is cost effective. GW has massive profit margins and a break neck release schedule. That release schedule would be more profitable in the long run if the products were all more reliable in the long run.
WotC, FFG, several other TT companies also have the release schedules to justify professional Beta testers, none of them do though. It's not financially sensible for them to do so, whatever their current profit margin is or isn't.
You say that but I doubt it. Yes, they run "open' and "closed" beta tests with volunteers because volunteers from their communities are plentiful. But I highly doubt FFG gets their games functioning at the level they do without any internal controlled testing. And their production quality says everything about the difference between them and GW.
They have better technical writers, 3x the number of Alpha/Beta 1 tests, smaller pool of rules interaction and plenty of shonky rules make it to the the large scale beta tests.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Speaking from experience, the 40KRPG books were tested across multiple different external play groups as well as internal testing with the editors.
Of course, that's how it should be. What was the hourly pay for the external play groups though?
...wait what? Wizards (the publishers of Magic) do a massive amount of Alpha and Beta testing of all cards in a set before publishing. They test 200+ Individual cards and their interactions with other existing standard (1,200) and block (400) legal cards, all of which have anything from basic stats to complex rules available for interaction. Their design schedule runs 2 years in advance (which includes for Alpha testing) and is followed by a development cycle 1 year in advance (which includes for Beta testing). WotC is very nearly the practical gold standard for game publishing, which explains its dominance in the CCGs format since 1992 (28 years).
...and even they make outrageous, arguably foreseeable mistakes (Skullclamp, affinity, marvel, power9, etc.).
But their budget is probably an order of magnitude greater than GW, with lower capex costs, and a cheaper product capable of deployment at scale for a cheap RRP.
Ishagu wrote: If you change the rules of chess, it's not chess anymore.
How about that?
Sure it can. Chess' rules have changed many times over its existence. Last time I checked the chess rules that came in the box, there is no mention of a clock, yet those are used in chess competitions all the time.
Oh wait, we can't compare chess, because by you're all standards, there is no one company in charge of producing chess, so it's not a valid comparison. At least no more valid than comparing it to soccer, basketball, or hockey and all the organizations with different rulesets involved.
Ishagu wrote: Good point. You are right, GW do own 40k.
So yes, the ITC rules are not real 40k unless GW themselves publish them.
Going back to chess, this would be quite funny: imagine putting a building in the middle of a chess board that only pawns could go through
But GW does NOT own the rule set. Fair use of models after purchase and all that.
Then you can make your own point and BA rules too and stop whining. GW is not responsible for someones houserules and it is insane to think that they should.
Ishagu wrote: Good point. You are right, GW do own 40k.
So yes, the ITC rules are not real 40k unless GW themselves publish them.
Going back to chess, this would be quite funny: imagine putting a building in the middle of a chess board that only pawns could go through
But GW does NOT own the rule set. Fair use of models after purchase and all that.
GW owns everything 40k related, and when you buy the models you don't own the IP thus you can't legally make copies.
3rd party rules, created entirely outside of the GW creative studio that impact both the missions and terrain, and thus the whole system of model interaction and balance , are a significant diversion from the real set of rules. They cannot be used to make judgements about the game, the meta they showcase is not a reflection of what it would be under the real rules, and so on.
What a synonym for "Not real"? The ITC mission rules are 100% not real rules. That's a fact. If you make your own money those are fake money. If you make your own missions those are... Fake missions? Lol you guys get the point.
Ishagu wrote: GW owns everything 40k related, and when you buy the models you don't own the IP thus you can't legally make copies.
3rd party rules, created entirely outside of the GW creative studio that impact both the missions and terrain, and thus the whole system of model interaction and balance , are a significant diversion from the real set of rules.
False.
GW owns the Intellectual Property. This has commercial implications.
Tournament organizers own the events. They can be 40K related because they use Citadel models and the majority of the rules, but GW has zero say in how the Las Vegas Open runs their event.
The players own their games. GW has zero say on if you choose to use Tomb Kings and the Therians in your 40K game or not.
I dont want to use any of gws rules. But the community seems to want to use the points fairly universally, as well as the gwbrb. So im a bit stuck. Only the missions see variance.
.
