I’m not overly familiar with ITC or the tournament scene, but I guess more eyes, opinions and hands on the balance pumps isn’t an inherently bad thing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m not overly familiar with ITC or the tournament scene, but I guess more eyes, opinions and hands on the balance pumps isn’t an inherently bad thing.
9th is already heavily influenced by ITC. The Secondary system originated in ITC
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Tournament Organisers will have the chance to join a TO Advisory Group to make sure there’s a place to give feedback, learn from best practice and ask for further help and support.
While these are steps in the right direction, do causal players get a voice?
Not going to lie, my knee-jerk reaction wasn't a good one.
More considered reaction, still not great.
- it sounds like they're encouraging even minor events to go through the ITC folks
- with all the... stuff (prizes, draws, transportation, etc)... it sounds like a lot of personal player information is being passed around through multiple organizations and I'm never fond of that
- historically ITC's overall effect on the game has been poor (at least from my own POV). Now they're official? Not a fan of what comes down the road.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Woo. Crowd-sourced self interest. Always good results from that.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Tournament Organisers will have the chance to join a TO Advisory Group to make sure there’s a place to give feedback, learn from best practice and ask for further help and support.
While these are steps in the right direction, do causal players get a voice?
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Tournament Organisers will have the chance to join a TO Advisory Group to make sure there’s a place to give feedback, learn from best practice and ask for further help and support.
While these are steps in the right direction, do causal players get a voice?
As a filthy casual? Do we really need one?
Casual comes with house rules and tweaks and that, with only those part of that particular circle needing to agree?
So what I’m hearing is that whatever faction is winning the most tournaments will get the most seats on the counciltm, and will probably preserve that power. Prepare for 12 more years of drukhari .
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Balance your own damn game GW.
Maybe they got fed up for being told how much of a bad job they're doing so finally said "do it yourselves if you're so good"?
"Let's have people who are masters at discerning synergies rule writers never thought about, help write even more complex rules that they'll be able to abuse after each new dataslate".
This partnership is probably just for show, but i'm concerned even 10% of the ITC crowd suggestions might end up as actual rules.
Having said that: I was intrigued by the idea that there might be more TYPES of events. I'd participate in a narrative story weekender with small Crusade armies.
And if this partnership can help create LOCAL small events, that would be cool. I'm Canadian, and I don't live in the GTA, Vancouver or Montreal, so events have been largely irrelevant. But my city has a GW, a really strong FLGS with a great GW selection and player base, and a licensed play space.
It's all the infrastructure GW + ITC would need to Create a schedule of events.
But again, I think the caution is merited- the last thing we need is organized events further skewing the game so that it is not fun for home use- which, in the end, is ALWAYS going to be my preferred venue, even if I do dip my toes into this "community" and develop an appreciation for it.
I'd go to big event if they paid my travel and accommodations. Not sure I'm skilled enough to win it, or even if that would be possible at the types of events I'd be most likely to frequent.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Balance your own damn game GW.
Maybe they got fed up for being told how much of a bad job they're doing so finally said "do it yourselves if you're so good"?
But only if you publicly prove you can and will exploit them first?
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Tournament Organisers will have the chance to join a TO Advisory Group to make sure there’s a place to give feedback, learn from best practice and ask for further help and support.
While these are steps in the right direction, do causal players get a voice?
As a filthy casual? Do we really need one?
Yes.
Casual comes with house rules and tweaks and that, with only those part of that particular circle needing to agree?
Because this is why. House rules, tweaks, etc all are building off of the foundations of the games.
And frankly? ITC has shown itself time and time and time again to be a garbage organization and joke over the years.
Having said that: I was intrigued by the idea that there might be more TYPES of events. I'd participate in a narrative story weekender with small Crusade armies.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Tournament Organisers will have the chance to join a TO Advisory Group to make sure there’s a place to give feedback, learn from best practice and ask for further help and support.
While these are steps in the right direction, do causal players get a voice?
As a filthy casual? Do we really need one?
Yes.
Casual comes with house rules and tweaks and that, with only those part of that particular circle needing to agree?
Because this is why. House rules, tweaks, etc all are building off of the foundations of the games.
And frankly? ITC has shown itself time and time and time again to be a garbage organization and joke over the years.
How?
They grew from a tiny circuit to the official way GW plays and have influence several of the last couple editions, with their top players having say in how the game is balanced.
How is it a joke?
Since everything is being organized/centralized maybe they'll require the "council members" to have either played and won with X armies (where X is greater than 2) or require that they change armies for the next year to be eligible to be on the council that next year. That way at least there will be some self interest in seeing other armies prosper.
Yeah, and maybe the Sun will rise from the west tomorrow.
-Theres a clear conflict of interest in having people who stand to materially gain and benefit from winning competitions being the ones who playtest and attempt to balance the game. Not just in terms of the obvious "I want to put my finger on the scales to benefit my own faction and increase my chances of continuing to win", but the more sinister and less obvious results of "I've had 6 months longer playing this faction with the updated rules than most people on the competitive circuit, this gives me a huge advantage in terms of experience and knowing what the most effective strategies and list builds are".
-The ITC has issues in terms of how it scores, ranks, and measures success. The top players in the ITC are not the players with the best track record of success, they are the players who entered into and played in the most events. Only the scores from each players top x many events (broken down into several categories based on event size) are counted. This means that a player who entered 20 events, won every game with maximum points, etc. could be ranked identically to a person who entered 1000 events and lost more than half of them, provided that of the 500 events that player did manage to win there were 20 in which they to also managed to win every game with maximum points. Clearly one of these two players is superior to the other in terms of skill and ability in terms of something like scoring percentage or whatever advanced stat you would use to measure a "per capita" type rating, yet the scoring system doesn't account for this. Defenders of the system argue that it encourages players to continue playing as often as they would like instead of discouraging them from attending an event which may harm their score if they get a lower score placement than they did in their previous game. My counter is that while it encourages players to keep on playing, in the process it disadvantages those players who cannot dedicate as much time to attending events, as those players with more schedule and travel flexibility can more easily attend another event to compensate for a poor showing at a previous event, whereas those who can't dedicate as much time and money to the hobby might be locked into a lower placement as a result of not being able to make it to an event to cover up their score. The top 2 players in the rankings currently are good examples of individuals who benefited from this scoring system - the number 1 player (Mani Cheema) played in 17 events, most of them scored him between 168.29 and 265.99 points... but one of them only netted him 76.66 points (which was half as many points as the guy who placed first at that event), giving him an avg. score of 200.617 - this event doesn't count against him because he played in enough others to supercede it. Likewise, John Lennon has played in 18 events, most of which netted him between 132.99 and 255.99 points, but one only netted him 64.45 (about a third of what first place got) and landed him #20 out of 28, giving him an average score of 192.21. These players are ranked higher than #4s Sean Nayden, who has played 17 events that netted him between 156.65 pts and 245.8 pts, giving him an average score of 202.14. Seans lowest score was basically more than double the lowest scores of the other two, and his average score was in fact higher than either, but because he didn't have some higher placements in individual events nor for whatever reason didnt attend additional events to try to "level up" his score, he suffered a drop to 4th place.
-The ITC also notoriously easy to abuse and filled with all sorts of conflicts of interests in terms of event organizers and judges often playing in the events that they organize (sometimes very overtly, sometimes covertly/surreptitiously by having a friend organize the event at their behest), as well as organizers and judges often being affiliated in various ways with teams of players who will enter into and play in their events. Even when nothing obviously illicit is going on (i.e. event is being judged fairly, pairings being determined randomly/appropriately, organizers didn't share info on participant registrations or scenario packets, etc. with certain players early, etc.), many of these events are organized for the benefit of certain players, i.e. a last minute not widely advertised event that doesn't draw more competitive players in from other areas to give certain players a better chance of winning (assuming their opponents don't just concede or throw the game as was the case in one high profile incident a year or two ago), or simply to organize events as often as possible to ensure that local players have a constant flow of points coming their way so that they can get higher placement in the ITC rankings vs other players who might not play as often.
-Overall, I feel the ITC has had a negative impact on the game and the community and has formented the growth of a larger and even more aggressive competitive meta by connecting individuals in a way that previously independently organized and run tournaments did not. I weep for Europe and other regions if they are going to have this aggressive American style structure and format rolled out to their territories. Privateer Press and Warmachine cratered for focusing too heavily on the competitive community, and it looks like GW and the ITC is quickly moving that same direction.
How?
They grew from a tiny circuit to the official way GW plays and have influence several of the last couple editions, with their top players having say in how the game is balanced.
How is it a joke?
How often do we hear about these ridiculous ITC "events" that are nothing but small groups of the same people continually padding their scores? Or the "accused" cheaters who continually are involved?
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Tournament Organisers will have the chance to join a TO Advisory Group to make sure there’s a place to give feedback, learn from best practice and ask for further help and support.
While these are steps in the right direction, do causal players get a voice?
A better balanced game to begin with means your house tweeks don't kill the semblance of a somewhat fair game with whatever random scenarios you come up with.
So no, casual players really shouldn't have much vote in what happens, because said casual players were probably fine with 40 point Terminators in 6th.
Not to say GW is doing a good job of course. Only so much you can do in the IGOUGO system going on now.
Like with the Youtube animations, best way to destroy something is from the inside.
I've never been involved with 40K tournaments, but I expect this partnership will be very short-lived, I doubt it'll last through an edition change, actually.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Tournament Organisers will have the chance to join a TO Advisory Group to make sure there’s a place to give feedback, learn from best practice and ask for further help and support.
While these are steps in the right direction, do causal players get a voice?
A better balanced game to begin with means your house tweeks don't kill the semblance of a somewhat fair game with whatever random scenarios you come up with.
So no, casual players really shouldn't have much vote in what happens, because said casual players were probably fine with 40 point Terminators in 6th.
Not to say GW is doing a good job of course. Only so much you can do in the IGOUGO system going on now.
I'm fine with competitive players playtesting and making balancing recommendations, theres good reason to do so because as you suggested they are the closest thing to a group of players that regularly engage in "standard" 40k where the variables are largely controlled and the methodology of play is consistent, etc... but they should be *retired* competitive players who cannot stand to benefit from continuing to participate in the competitive circuit.
GW would arguably be better served by establishing a parallel semi/non-independent closed playtester circuit of these top players who are then barred from competing outside of the playtest circuit (for as long as they are in it and at least like 2-3 years after they leave it) and who are not rewarded for competitive success. GW can give them a stipend/per diem and pick up tabs for airfare and lodgings for these guys to travel to these events regionally, nationally, and internationally and have all of the participants playing using the latest revision of upcoming playtest rules, to ensure all the variables are in-control and that they can get quality data and feedback out of the system without concern for a player unfairly benefiting from it.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Tournament Organisers will have the chance to join a TO Advisory Group to make sure there’s a place to give feedback, learn from best practice and ask for further help and support.
While these are steps in the right direction, do causal players get a voice?
A better balanced game to begin with means your house tweeks don't kill the semblance of a somewhat fair game with whatever random scenarios you come up with. So no, casual players really shouldn't have much vote in what happens, because said casual players were probably fine with 40 point Terminators in 6th.
Funny, because it was the "better balanced game" crew you're lauding that wouldn't shut the hell up about War Convocations in 7th whilst abusing the Skitarii+Flesh Tearer Taxi Service lists. That wouldn't shut up about how strong Guard were while running illegal lists in 8th.
Oh, and who I know for a bloody fact are responsible for the 20 model unit size for Skitarii now....which they're now naturally crying about as being "TOO STRONG!1!!" when having to play against it.
Not to say GW is doing a good job of course. Only so much you can do in the IGOUGO system going on now.
They're doing a better job than the people who consistently okayed illegal lists. Who consistently let cheaters have "one more chance". Who couldn't bloody figure out how to play "practice games for tournaments" with Power instead of Points.
I'm fine with competitive players playtesting and making balancing recommendations, theres good reason to do so because as you suggested they are the closest thing to a group of players that regularly engage in "standard" 40k where the variables are largely controlled and the methodology of play is consistent, etc... but they should be *retired* competitive players who cannot stand to benefit from continuing to participate in the competitive circuit.
GW would arguably be better served by establishing a parallel semi/non-independent closed playtester circuit of these top players who are then barred from competing outside of the playtest circuit (for as long as they are in it and at least like 2-3 years after they leave it) and who are not rewarded for competitive success. GW can give them a stipend/per diem and pick up tabs for airfare and lodgings for these guys to travel to these events regionally, nationally, and internationally and have all of the participants playing using the latest revision of upcoming playtest rules, to ensure all the variables are in-control and that they can get quality data and feedback out of the system without concern for a player unfairly benefiting from it.
Frankly, I think GW would be better served by outing who they're using as playtesters. No longer just that list of "The Mournival" and "The Infinity Circuit".
I just want to see this evolve into a bigger circuit.
I know crusade has some issues but I’d like to see a yearly ITC narrative/crusade organized events… where players can have thier armies grow over the season… for instance orks can use thier crusade rules to loot a vehicle. And then the next ITC narrative event they can include that looted vehicle in thier army list. There is a lot of emphasis on the championship series but a supported narrative event with armies that grow can be so awesome if done well without as much of the hyper competitive issues. Narrative isn’t about balance as not all crusade rules are balanced and eventually characters who survive can grow.
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
It will be, they've been having ITC float stuff for them for a while now (like army must be painted as-faction) this seems to be typical GW cost reduction "why do we need play testers when we can just have people do it for free?"
The interesting part will be if they get sued by the people doing work for them withotu pay like WOTC did a while back
Ahh, Dakka. How did I know this thread would be filled with complaints about the ITC?
And I didn't realize that all tournament players were self-serving jerks who don't want the current broken things fixed. It's not like they won't just move on to the next broken thing they can find. I think it will be nice to have some white hats in there pointing out the problems to GW so that they can fix them.
Beyond that, it should be interesting to see if the alliance between GW and ITC can lead to a better ITC. The idea of more types of tournaments certainly sounds like an improvement.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Tournament Organisers will have the chance to join a TO Advisory Group to make sure there’s a place to give feedback, learn from best practice and ask for further help and support.
While these are steps in the right direction, do causal players get a voice?
A better balanced game to begin with means your house tweeks don't kill the semblance of a somewhat fair game with whatever random scenarios you come up with.
So no, casual players really shouldn't have much vote in what happens, because said casual players were probably fine with 40 point Terminators in 6th.
Not to say GW is doing a good job of course. Only so much you can do in the IGOUGO system going on now.
I remember when pre measuring was the boogeyman. Then random charges. Now it's igougo.
Wish someone would just make the mythical AA version of 40k that works better.
Hard to see this as anything but another blow in the continuing ‘tournamentification’ of 40K. They have managed to all but crush any fluff or fun out of 40K already. This will only make it worse. GW is just as guilty, as they have been pushing this for several years now, trying to put competitive 40K on the same playing field as esports, thinking their broken, nearly unplayable game is viable as a competitive cash cow game. When it never has been…but people keep trying to put the square peg in the round hole, and the ‘fixes’ to keep the tournament crowd ‘happy’ just make 40K overall worse and worse…
I started playing in in 99/2000. The game has been “official” this or that and tournament centered since at least that point. If it wasn’t even points and following how tourneys played, it most likely wasn’t going to be touched especially if you relied on pick up games. This is just officially making that approach official instead of the forge the narrative stuff that pick up gamers can’t believe exists outside HQ Nottingham.
Apparently, I know people that are on the new event team(if you were at any of the official GW US events in 2021 a lot of the judges are now part of the team and I've known a bunch of them since back when the Outrider program existed) for this and Narrative Events ARE included as plans according to them.
Anytime GW proper tries to interact with the competitive scene in any way (rules changes, points changes, mission updates, tournament formatting, etc) they've created more problems than they've solved.
While it's yet to be seen, I would bet the ITC would have been much better off distancing itself from GW, rather than partnering.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
totalfailure wrote: Hard to see this as anything but another blow in the continuing ‘tournamentification’ of 40K. They have managed to all but crush any fluff or fun out of 40K already. This will only make it worse. GW is just as guilty, as they have been pushing this for several years now, trying to put competitive 40K on the same playing field as esports, thinking their broken, nearly unplayable game is viable as a competitive cash cow game. When it never has been…but people keep trying to put the square peg in the round hole, and the ‘fixes’ to keep the tournament crowd ‘happy’ just make 40K overall worse and worse…
The "fixes" aren't to keep the tournament crowd happy. The 'fixes' are for casual players whining about getting their arses handed to them by competitive players when they show up to events or pickup games with an army of footslogging assault marines backed up by a tech marine and a single naked predator tank.
In general tournament players care about stability and interfactional balance. GW has given us upheaval and attempts at intRAfactional balance that make intERfactional balance worse. You think comp players wanted DG Deathshrouds to go up? You think comp players wanted Gladiators to drop a useless ten points? You think comp player cared about subfaction soup? You think THAT'S why that got changed? If you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Tournament Organisers will have the chance to join a TO Advisory Group to make sure there’s a place to give feedback, learn from best practice and ask for further help and support.
While these are steps in the right direction, do causal players get a voice?
A better balanced game to begin with means your house tweeks don't kill the semblance of a somewhat fair game with whatever random scenarios you come up with. So no, casual players really shouldn't have much vote in what happens, because said casual players were probably fine with 40 point Terminators in 6th.
Not to say GW is doing a good job of course. Only so much you can do in the IGOUGO system going on now.
I remember when pre measuring was the boogeyman. Then random charges. Now it's igougo.
Wish someone would just make the mythical AA version of 40k that works better.
As if AA wouldn't just result in a bunch of weird activation number abuse anyway. (Knights activate 2000pts in 4 activations. MSU guard activate 2000pts in 40 activations. Both of these things create very strange edge cases.)
I hated ITC missions in 8th as much as some people claimed they were the end and all of warhammer mission design.
9th missions are basically ITC missons and they are the most boring way of playing 40k ever. With the exception of the worst eternal war missions of old, and even those add some more variety.
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
To be fair, Brandt has been all over Reddit repeatedly saying this will not be the case. And I'm sure he's not lying re: the current situation.
But will that still be the case a year from now? Two years from now? It's anybody's guess, not even Brandt can tell you "no" because it's a decision that will ultimately be made above his head. If the GW higher-ups get a bee in their bonnet and decide now is the time to squeeze the ITC on third-party bits, they'll do it, and there's nothing anyone will be able to do short of starting up another rival "true ITC" organization, because at this point the ITC have given the keys to GW and it's going to be very hard for them to get the keys back themselves if they don't like GW's driving.
He hasn't said anything about the other major concern, that the top players will end up reinforcing their own dominance through knowing what's going to happen before everyone else (this already happens, but the change is going to make it institutionalized) and being able to manipulate it. But I appreciate that's a more difficult issue to address in a short post. He did seem to acknowledge in one post that it's a genuine, relevant concern that they will be addressing, so hopefully we see something in print spelling this out in more detail than the war-com article.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Tournament Organisers will have the chance to join a TO Advisory Group to make sure there’s a place to give feedback, learn from best practice and ask for further help and support.
While these are steps in the right direction, do causal players get a voice?
A better balanced game to begin with means your house tweeks don't kill the semblance of a somewhat fair game with whatever random scenarios you come up with.
So no, casual players really shouldn't have much vote in what happens, because said casual players were probably fine with 40 point Terminators in 6th.
Funny, because it was the "better balanced game" crew you're lauding that wouldn't shut the hell up about War Convocations in 7th whilst abusing the Skitarii+Flesh Tearer Taxi Service lists.
That wouldn't shut up about how strong Guard were while running illegal lists in 8th.
Oh, and who I know for a bloody fact are responsible for the 20 model unit size for Skitarii now....which they're now naturally crying about as being "TOO STRONG!1!!" when having to play against it.
Not to say GW is doing a good job of course. Only so much you can do in the IGOUGO system going on now.
They're doing a better job than the people who consistently okayed illegal lists. Who consistently let cheaters have "one more chance". Who couldn't bloody figure out how to play "practice games for tournaments" with Power instead of Points.
I'm fine with competitive players playtesting and making balancing recommendations, theres good reason to do so because as you suggested they are the closest thing to a group of players that regularly engage in "standard" 40k where the variables are largely controlled and the methodology of play is consistent, etc... but they should be *retired* competitive players who cannot stand to benefit from continuing to participate in the competitive circuit.
GW would arguably be better served by establishing a parallel semi/non-independent closed playtester circuit of these top players who are then barred from competing outside of the playtest circuit (for as long as they are in it and at least like 2-3 years after they leave it) and who are not rewarded for competitive success. GW can give them a stipend/per diem and pick up tabs for airfare and lodgings for these guys to travel to these events regionally, nationally, and internationally and have all of the participants playing using the latest revision of upcoming playtest rules, to ensure all the variables are in-control and that they can get quality data and feedback out of the system without concern for a player unfairly benefiting from it.
Frankly, I think GW would be better served by outing who they're using as playtesters. No longer just that list of "The Mournival" and "The Infinity Circuit".
Specifically call them out. Name and shame, baby!
You're not serious are you? The Skitarii weapon options follows the same logic as other troops like Plague Marines and Wyches, and other random units that are newer like Blightlords and Sword Brethren.
They're keeping it to the contents of the kit. Blaming ITC is utterly hilarious to the point of delusion.
One thing about this partnership that will amuse me would be if GW force a "Must bring a first-party copy of all rules needed for your army" element into the ITC.
Not saying it will happen, but watching the collective meltdown by the people relying on BS alone (or that Russian site) would be both hilarious and delicious...
I would think this is good. These are the people that arguably know the game better than the people who make it. They're going to find the broken things much quicker and bring attention to it. So logic dictates that they're going to actually balance the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
Togusa wrote: I would think this is good. These are the people that arguably know the game better than the people who make it. They're going to find the broken things much quicker and bring attention to it. So logic dictates that they're going to actually balance the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
And there is nothing wrong with that.
The counter argument is GW just told these people they will profit from winning, so those who win get to make sure they keep winning.
Also calling it now, the biggest positive will be flg mats available outside the US for reasonable prices, likely via GW.
Togusa wrote: I would think this is good. These are the people that arguably know the game better than the people who make it. They're going to find the broken things much quicker and bring attention to it. So logic dictates that they're going to actually balance the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
And there is nothing wrong with that.
The counter argument is GW just told these people they will profit from winning, so those who win get to make sure they keep winning.
Also calling it now, the biggest positive will be flg mats available outside the US for reasonable prices, likely via GW.
I'm not so sure, my guess is GW rules team will still have the final say on things.
Winners participating in how the game will then go? Not for me, this is the problem with a lot of elite sports where certain organisations gross too much power and can manipulate how the game will be ran.
Specifically, and this is a huge issue I used to have with ITC when they had their own balancing shenanigans... Was army bias. You are going to think favourably in terms of balance if you have a couple of thousand pounds/dollars worth of models on your shelf.
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
Mike Brandt has confirmed on reddit that this won't be the case.
In general I don't think this partnership is a good thing. Not because they are trying to get competitive people on board for game design, but because the ITC guys have repeatedly shown not know their gak properly either and because they have almost as many issues as GW themselves have.
Paranoia time! I do wonder with the increasing tournament partnerships whether we’ll see GW do some sort of move to establish something like the old magic DCI number and rankings. Do ITC collect player data or have some rankings or membership registration system?
Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised that when GW has enough fingers in tournament pies, they’ll start requiring GW tournament goers to have a Warhammer+ account in order to play…
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Okay I'll bite. Why?
"This is our product in our sponsored and/or licensed events, so we request you use our products" isn't an unfair stance, in a practical sense it means fewer weird LoS issues or unclear wysiwyg.
alextroy wrote: And I didn't realize that all tournament players were self-serving jerks who don't want the current broken things fixed
The thing is, what tournament and casual players think is broken is often two very different things. I could give one example from very popular multiplayer game, Quick Fix - quite weak, but very pleasant weapon helping your team in casual setting. Pro wannabes, however, constantly whined QF is ""broken"" because not only they played in very different meta of their choosing (6 players vs 12 casual uses), they refused to adapt and screeched QF uber (basically big bonus) is ""OP"" because you get it 1.2 seconds faster than you would from other weapons (for context, you got that bonus slightly slower, but it was vastly stronger, like massively upped damage or complete invincibility vs better healing QF provided). They just refused to adapt, or fall back for said 1.2 seconds to then sweep QF user with their own uber without effort. Apparently thinking is too hard and having tiny window giving the opponent advantage you needed to counter with actual tactics instead of rushing forward was too much.
End result? QF was repeatedly nerfed thanks to their crying making it garbage weapon in both casual and ""pro"" wannabe meta, the playstyle it provided (helping team instead of trying to tryhard yourself) disappeared, and the game became more boring, predictable and stale as Medic now has 2 playstyles instead of 3. How is that a good thing, again?
ERJAK wrote: You think comp player cared about subfaction soup?
Seeing it's the comp, WAAAC types who created idiotic, fluff smashing "3 SM captains, 32 IG mooks, and a Knight" army type ruining any fun you can have in the game (and before that 3 Riptides allied to wraith/aspectwing, or Ynnari doubleturn soup, or rainbow chapter rodeo, or insert any number of similar cherrypicked OP gak) and the change was introduced to fix mess they made, pretty much yeah?
We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
I enjoy that you believe the current proposal/change will result in anything else.
zedmeister wrote: Paranoia time! I do wonder with the increasing tournament partnerships whether we’ll see GW do some sort of move to establish something like the old magic DCI number and rankings. Do ITC collect player data or have some rankings or membership registration system?
ITC already has this and keeps a "points total" each season for every player.
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
In either way useless. Sales numbers is only statistic GW looks at when changing what to mess with balance next. Shifting imbalance. Balance is very, very, very bad for GW as it eats into profits. Imbalance meanwhile increases profits.
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
In either way useless. Sales numbers is only statistic GW looks at when changing what to mess with balance next. Shifting imbalance. Balance is very, very, very bad for GW as it eats into profits. Imbalance meanwhile increases profits.
I'm not entirely sure, the only big difference is driving the direction of profits. If you make faction A distinctly better or even just units Y & Z, you'll expect a better return on those. If everything were made equal, they you'd expect a better spread of profits, since anyone can buy whatever they like, in fact they may even buy multiple armies for different play styles or options.
I understand the idea of intentional buff/nerf churn is to keep that top 5% of the playerbase chasing the dragon, but they're a tiny number of people.
... who likely spend a disproportionate amount of money on 40k compared to other customers.
If 1 person spends £1000 a month buying new armies, it only takes 50 "normal" people buying 1 below average box to balance that out, I'm not convinced they're enough of a target.
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
I enjoy that you believe the current proposal/change will result in anything else.
I think it will be a net positive for the game. It makes sense to consider feedback from the competitive/tournament side of the 40K community when considering "balance." Current winners will have a much better appreciation for power on the tabletop than sequestered game designers or random angry people on an internet discussion board who have strong opinions but perhaps not a real game record to match. My impression is that they are not turning over the balance slate to the ITC winners but rather inviting their feedback. What's the harm?
It is much better than ignoring the ITC tourney-winning side of the community when making decisions about balance, which was the GW method before. With ITC having different missions it was possible to ignore their data, even if it was still relevant. I think that GW underwent a change in outlook on the organized competitive circuit mid-way through 8th Ed. I think it was an early 2019 White Dwarf that featured a battle report between two "top lists" instead of the usual fluff. 9th Edition clearly incorporates the tourney circuit in its design - bringing the missions together was a huge step. The Mournavel group of play-testers is also an innovation to get the "competitive" view on playtesting. This is balanced by a more narrative-focused group as well.
I don't see the risk to hard-core narrative players. If you are in control of your games then keep on keeping on what you do. I also fail to see how efforts at better balance can hurt the so-called Casual players who do not go to tournaments. Those efforts at balance will not be a complete success, but incorporating the feedback of top players will help. I play in tournaments every two months, but our local scene does not participate in ITC rankings. We use the GT mission packs, but prizes are a random draw. All are welcome to participate, but the lack of ITC points discourages sharks coming through to some extent. Still, we benefit from improved balance and are generally happy to see changes. Anyhoo.
I welcome this new approach. Sometimes the best game warden is a former poacher...
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I think it will be a net positive for the game. It makes sense to consider feedback from the competitive/tournament side of the 40K community when considering "balance." Current winners will have a much better appreciation for power on the tabletop than sequestered game designers or random angry people on an internet discussion board who have strong opinions but perhaps not a real game record to match. My impression is that they are not turning over the balance slate to the ITC winners but rather inviting their feedback. What's the harm?
Self-perpetuating biases? The game currently favors lethality and gotcha moments, and the winners will be the ones who can exploit those best, and recommend more of the same, regardless of the over all health of the game. That's the harm.
I welcome this new approach. Sometimes the best game warden is a former poacher...
And that's exactly the problem. A former poacher is fine (to go with your metaphor). Inviting active and current ones in, to open more gates and recommend more flaws is just... stupid.
And of course they get a leg up by being shown future rules coming down the pike, so they can prepare in advance for any changes while their opposition is left scrambling to adapt in the wake of any changes.
From a sociology perspective, its interesting to watch someone create an 'old boy's club' complete with secret handshakes and favors for favors, but don't be under any illusions that this will somehow be good for game.
Honestly, between this and this latest CAGT mission pack and points changes, I'm reconsidering my stance on points vs power level. I just don't want to chase down a new dragon every six months, and fight through the extra layers of... bovine residuum... created by yet another organization making a mess of things for their own interests (which historically can be generously described as 'bad'). Just want to have some games on a semi-regular basis.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I think it will be a net positive for the game. It makes sense to consider feedback from the competitive/tournament side of the 40K community when considering "balance." Current winners will have a much better appreciation for power on the tabletop than sequestered game designers or random angry people on an internet discussion board who have strong opinions but perhaps not a real game record to match. My impression is that they are not turning over the balance slate to the ITC winners but rather inviting their feedback. What's the harm?
Self-perpetuating biases? The game currently favors lethality and gotcha moments, and the winners will be the ones who can exploit those best, and recommend more of the same, regardless of the over all health of the game. That's the harm.
I welcome this new approach. Sometimes the best game warden is a former poacher...
And that's exactly the problem. A former poacher is fine (to go with your metaphor). Inviting active and current ones in, to open more gates and recommend more flaws is just... stupid.
And of course they get a leg up by being shown future rules coming down the pike, so they can prepare in advance for any changes while their opposition is left scrambling to adapt in the wake of any changes.
From a sociology perspective, its interesting to watch someone create an 'old boy's club' complete with secret handshakes and favors for favors, but don't be under any illusions that this will somehow be good for game.
Honestly, between this and this latest CAGT mission pack and points changes, I'm reconsidering my stance on points vs power level. I just don't want to chase down a new dragon every six months, and fight through the extra layers of... bovine residuum... created by yet another organization making a mess of things for their own interests (which historically can be generously described as 'bad'). Just want to have some games on a semi-regular basis.
Voss,
I don't see this a stupid at all. They are not handing over the writing duties and decision-making to ITC winners. They are obtaining their feedback. Who should they consult instead of these folks who clearly understand how the game functions at the competitive level? DakkaDakka General Discussion? They will get much more useful feedback from certified ITC winners than they will from random folks who complain about balance. The ITC winners have some credibility with recent real results to back them up. Random angry folks on the internet? Not so much.
Is it an inner circle? Sure. But at least you have to earn your way into the circle, and could presumably find yourself out of the circle. I note that the article also mentions Tournament Organizers also being consulted, so there is a counter-balancing mechanism.
I do not worry about these ITC winners gaining some sort of advantage within their circuit. They are already successful players. Still, it is something that the GW folks will have to consider. Trust is required in these sorts of dealings.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I think it will be a net positive for the game. It makes sense to consider feedback from the competitive/tournament side of the 40K community when considering "balance." Current winners will have a much better appreciation for power on the tabletop than sequestered game designers or random angry people on an internet discussion board who have strong opinions but perhaps not a real game record to match. My impression is that they are not turning over the balance slate to the ITC winners but rather inviting their feedback. What's the harm?
Self-perpetuating biases? The game currently favors lethality and gotcha moments, and the winners will be the ones who can exploit those best, and recommend more of the same, regardless of the over all health of the game. That's the harm.
I welcome this new approach. Sometimes the best game warden is a former poacher...
And that's exactly the problem. A former poacher is fine (to go with your metaphor). Inviting active and current ones in, to open more gates and recommend more flaws is just... stupid.
And of course they get a leg up by being shown future rules coming down the pike, so they can prepare in advance for any changes while their opposition is left scrambling to adapt in the wake of any changes.
From a sociology perspective, its interesting to watch someone create an 'old boy's club' complete with secret handshakes and favors for favors, but don't be under any illusions that this will somehow be good for game.
Honestly, between this and this latest CAGT mission pack and points changes, I'm reconsidering my stance on points vs power level. I just don't want to chase down a new dragon every six months, and fight through the extra layers of... bovine residuum... created by yet another organization making a mess of things for their own interests (which historically can be generously described as 'bad'). Just want to have some games on a semi-regular basis.
Voss,
I don't see this a stupid at all. They are not handing over the writing duties and decision-making to ITC winners. They are obtaining their feedback. Who should they consult instead of these folks who clearly understand how the game functions at the competitive level?
No one. GW needs to pony up for worthwhile wages and positions to do the work. QA is a job, full stop. It isn't a gift, a prize or an 'early access' bonus.
Crowdsourcing feedback is _incredibly_ problematic in a lot of different ways. Blatantly setting up advantages for the people giving the feedback sets an opportunity to game the system, with no corresponding advantage towards balancing the game.
Is it an inner circle? Sure. But at least you have to earn your way into the circle, and could presumably find yourself out of the circle.
I don't give two rotting figs about 'earned' in this sense- winning games isn't the same as making games, and it predisposes people toward a motive to win more, which influences their feedback. I care about the people in the 'circle' actually knowing what they're doing when it comes to balance feedback and not being in it for themselves. The system as described doesn't provide _any_ reassurances in that regard.
I note that the article also mentions Tournament Organizers also being consulted, so there is a counter-balancing mechanism.
Why would TOs being a counter-balancing mechanism in any way? How?
I do not worry about these ITC winners gaining some sort of advantage within their circuit. They are already successful players. Still, it is something that the GW folks will have to consider. Trust is required in these sorts of dealings.
And if you go through the tournament subforum, you'll find a lot of reasons not to trust ITC as an organization, nor players who place in their events.
Gaining an advantage is clearly something you should worry about, as are the knock on effects on the game.
Trust is required, but at the moment there's zero reason to extend it.
... who likely spend a disproportionate amount of money on 40k compared to other customers.
Probably not. The real money makers are Dakka Casual Gamer Mafia like me and HBMC willing to drop $1000+ a month to grow a collection that gets assembled, painted, displayed, and most of the models don't ever see a table outside of the occasional Apocalypse style game with their close friends.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I think it will be a net positive for the game. It makes sense to consider feedback from the competitive/tournament side of the 40K community when considering "balance." Current winners will have a much better appreciation for power on the tabletop than sequestered game designers or random angry people on an internet discussion board who have strong opinions but perhaps not a real game record to match. My impression is that they are not turning over the balance slate to the ITC winners but rather inviting their feedback. What's the harm?
Self-perpetuating biases? The game currently favors lethality and gotcha moments, and the winners will be the ones who can exploit those best, and recommend more of the same, regardless of the over all health of the game. That's the harm.
I welcome this new approach. Sometimes the best game warden is a former poacher...
And that's exactly the problem. A former poacher is fine (to go with your metaphor). Inviting active and current ones in, to open more gates and recommend more flaws is just... stupid.
And of course they get a leg up by being shown future rules coming down the pike, so they can prepare in advance for any changes while their opposition is left scrambling to adapt in the wake of any changes.
From a sociology perspective, its interesting to watch someone create an 'old boy's club' complete with secret handshakes and favors for favors, but don't be under any illusions that this will somehow be good for game.
Honestly, between this and this latest CAGT mission pack and points changes, I'm reconsidering my stance on points vs power level. I just don't want to chase down a new dragon every six months, and fight through the extra layers of... bovine residuum... created by yet another organization making a mess of things for their own interests (which historically can be generously described as 'bad'). Just want to have some games on a semi-regular basis.
Voss,
I don't see this a stupid at all. They are not handing over the writing duties and decision-making to ITC winners. They are obtaining their feedback. Who should they consult instead of these folks who clearly understand how the game functions at the competitive level?
No one. GW needs to pony up for worthwhile wages and positions to do the work. Crowdsourcing feedback is _incredibly_ problematic in a lot of different ways. Blatantly setting up advantages for the people giving the feedback sets an opportunity to game the system, with no corresponding advantage towards balancing the game.
Is it an inner circle? Sure. But at least you have to earn your way into the circle, and could presumably find yourself out of the circle.
I don't give two rotting figs about 'earned' in this sense- winning games isn't the same as making games, and it predisposes people toward a motive to win more, which influences their feedback. I care about the people in the 'circle' actually knowing what they're doing when it comes to balance feedback and not being in it for themselves. The system as described doesn't provide _any_ reassurances in that regard.
I note that the article also mentions Tournament Organizers also being consulted, so there is a counter-balancing mechanism.
Why would TOs being a counter-balancing mechanism in any way? How?
I do not worry about these ITC winners gaining some sort of advantage within their circuit. They are already successful players. Still, it is something that the GW folks will have to consider. Trust is required in these sorts of dealings.
And if you go through the tournament subforum, you'll find a lot of reasons not to trust ITC as an organization, nor players who place in their events.
Gaining an advantage is clearly something you should worry about, as are the knock on effects on the game.
Trust is required, but at the moment there's zero reason to extend it.
To back this up, the ITC top placed player is the same one who abused the forfeit rules to score fewer points for easier pairings not too far back.
Likewise iirc the player in 2nd place attended a closed invite iron-man style event a year or so back with some dodgy placements and pairings that looked like it was designed purely to farm points.
These are the people who would be "advising the balanced team in a none biased manner" and people think they'll make the game healthier when they themselves are often scrutinised for odd behaviour?
If we want GW to be concerned about balance then part of that analysis must include how games are won. It makes sense to incorporate the feedback of those who do win at a high level into that analysis. Their point of view does not have be unthinkingly and completely accepted, but it should be considered. Having TOs provide feedback on the game system provides a counter-balance because their aim is to have successful tournaments. They are not trying to push a given faction or play style. They will see trends and won't have a "dog in the fight" so to speak.
You can stamp your feet and demand that GW figure it out by themselves, but I don't think that will contribute to better balance. Consulting people who play at a high level, though, can contribute to better balance. I would be more worried about the warping effect of a single "hired gun" ITC winning consultant on the design team than having a group of qualified outsiders providing feedback.
In any case, GW are obtaining their feedback, not handing over control.
chaos0xomega wrote: We ehould form an anti-competitive ITC team, try to get as many people into high placements as possible to stack the balance and playtest teams with non-,competitive types, and then use our weight of numbers to dismantle competotive play from the inside out.
Yes because we want the game to be even messier and less balanced. Brilliant thinking.
... who likely spend a disproportionate amount of money on 40k compared to other customers.
Probably not. The real money makers are Dakka Casual Gamer Mafia like me and HBMC willing to drop $1000+ a month to grow a collection that gets assembled, painted, displayed, and most of the models don't ever see a table outside of the occasional Apocalypse style game with their close friends.
If we want GW to be concerned about balance then part of that analysis must include how games are won. It makes sense to incorporate the feedback of those who do win at a high level into that analysis. Their point of view does not have be unthinkingly and completely accepted, but it should be considered.
I don't agree. It has two outcomes: either GW accepts more degenerative and meta-warping builds as part of the normal game, or they unthinkingly try to limit them in overreactions (like the ork buggies and flyers).
GW needs to decide what kind of game it wants to make, and actually design the game around that. The 'we didn't think you'd use the rules we wrote this way' excuse that they've pulled since the Iron Hands supplement shows the level of disconnect between the game they're trying to design and what the 'high level winners' do with it. They can't keep the game pointed in anything resembling that direction while incorporating the feedback of people who want to break it. [except possibly writing 'No, you can't do that' over and over again in the months after a codex release] Every tournament season ending in a ban list sounds like soooo much fun.
Having TOs provide feedback on the game system provides a counter-balance because their aim is to have successful tournaments. They are not trying to push a given faction or play style. They will see trends and won't have a "dog in the fight" so to speak.
That, historically, has never been true. When the various TO 'comp systems' dominated the field, a lot of it was all about the TO's dogs in the fight- which factions they favored and which they tried to limit or kick to the curb.
You can stamp your feet and demand that GW figure it out by themselves, but I don't think that will contribute to better balance. Consulting people who play at a high level, though, can contribute to better balance.
At this point, you're going to have to illustrate how, rather than simply insisting (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that it will just magically turn out to be the case.
You said it yourself. You mentioned that GW did not expect competitive players to use Iron Hands in the way that they did two years ago with the new supplement. Now the designers can obtain and potentially incorporate such feedback from competitive players. Like I said, using poachers to advise them how to be better game wardens. Without a mechanism for such feedback it is observation along with trial and error. This could allow them to act with more precision when applying fixes. I sense that you are upset about the changes to buggies and flyers - that was done by GW. Additionally, if there are things that competitive players can exploit then they are going to do so regardless. At least with this feedback loop GWmight be able to avoid something like the early Admech craziness along with the Drukhari problem. I can't see it making anything worse.
Do you think that GW should not attempt to make balance fixes? Really? Ok.
Balance in 9th is not perfect, but I do think its better than 8th. I credit some of this to a greater awareness of what goes on in competitive 40K, along with the use of the Mournival playtesters. For all its faults, we also have more unified mission structure in the wider community, allowing greater comparisons to be made.
There is indeed risk of a "bad actor", but having more voices is better.
Partnering with ITC does not mean they are abandoning anyone. Taking advantage of the competitive system is good for business. People are buying and selling products based on their performance at tournaments. I do not understand how that will impact the consumer who buys models and paint or play a game every once in a while with a friend while drinking a beer. They are simply saying they are going to make an attempt to keep a group of customers happy.
CKO wrote: Partnering with ITC does not mean they are abandoning anyone.
lol... "Partnering with ITC" apparently means "giving a reward of actually taking someone into the playtesting environment based off make-believe numbers"?
Because that's what is happening.
Taking advantage of the competitive system is good for business. People are buying and selling products based on their performance at tournaments.
No, they're not. They're "buying and selling products" based on the lists that get vomited all over the internet after events.
I do not understand how that will impact the consumer who buys models and paint or play a game every once in a while with a friend while drinking a beer.
Then you don't actually understand what the knock-on effect is from competitive play becoming the de facto "standard".
They are simply saying they are going to make an attempt to keep a group of customers happy.
They did that with Chapter Approved. They did that with General's Handbook. They did that with Matched Play.
Comp players are catered to nonstop. It's utter tripe to pretend there needs to be some kind of "attempt to keep a group of customers happy". They'll never be happy.
CKO wrote: Partnering with ITC does not mean they are abandoning anyone.
lol...
"Partnering with ITC" apparently means "giving a reward of actually taking someone into the playtesting environment based off make-believe numbers"?
Because that's what is happening.
Taking advantage of the competitive system is good for business. People are buying and selling products based on their performance at tournaments.
No, they're not. They're "buying and selling products" based on the lists that get vomited all over the internet after events.
I do not understand how that will impact the consumer who buys models and paint or play a game every once in a while with a friend while drinking a beer.
Then you don't actually understand what the knock-on effect is from competitive play becoming the de facto "standard".
They are simply saying they are going to make an attempt to keep a group of customers happy.
They did that with Chapter Approved.
They did that with General's Handbook.
They did that with Matched Play.
Comp players are catered to nonstop. It's utter tripe to pretend there needs to be some kind of "attempt to keep a group of customers happy". They'll never be happy.
Good news! You don't need to play with any of those! Points are completely optional!
They want to maximize their advantage over their opponent, in order to do that they skew, gotcha etc...
Literally on the LVO twitch stream they were talking to some douche who is apparently the hot gak. He was going on and on and on about how skew armys are fun and blah blah blah. It made me wanna puke. The "partnership" announcement makes the direction 40k is going absolutely nothin good for anyone(let alone the casual players)
They want to suck on the tourney teat sooo fething bad they want to continue and perpetuate this type of "balance". It basically falls into an echo chamber, where if the "cool kids" says it's great for "balance" it's taken as sacrosanct. Irrespective of the impact/advantage it gives the kabal.
CKO wrote: Partnering with ITC does not mean they are abandoning anyone.
lol...
"Partnering with ITC" apparently means "giving a reward of actually taking someone into the playtesting environment based off make-believe numbers"?
Because that's what is happening.
Taking advantage of the competitive system is good for business. People are buying and selling products based on their performance at tournaments.
No, they're not. They're "buying and selling products" based on the lists that get vomited all over the internet after events.
I do not understand how that will impact the consumer who buys models and paint or play a game every once in a while with a friend while drinking a beer.
Then you don't actually understand what the knock-on effect is from competitive play becoming the de facto "standard".
They are simply saying they are going to make an attempt to keep a group of customers happy.
They did that with Chapter Approved.
They did that with General's Handbook.
They did that with Matched Play.
Comp players are catered to nonstop. It's utter tripe to pretend there needs to be some kind of "attempt to keep a group of customers happy". They'll never be happy.
What would the non-competitive player like from GW? I know what the competitive player wants but I don't know what a non-competitive player want.
Good news! You don't need to play with any of those! Points are completely optional!
Not really, unless you're playing in a group of people that went out of their way to form an 'invite only' club...which basically defeats the whole purpose of having a community oriented game.
This is one of the few places I'm on the same page with HBMC for. "Winning is for losers!" might be the best tagline ever.
Speaking bluntly? There is zero issue with people playing to win. There is an issue with people who want to pretend that winning somehow makes you more knowledgeable about the game than everyone else.
Kanluwen wrote: This is one of the few places I'm on the same page with HBMC for. "Winning is for losers!" might be the best tagline ever.
Speaking bluntly?
There is zero issue with people playing to win. There is an issue with people who want to pretend that winning somehow makes you more knowledgeable about the game than everyone else.
oni wrote: I hope GW can survive off those 1,000 players because that’s all they’ll have left.
Competitive play pushes out existing players who cannot keep up with the competition.
Whats worse… Competitive play is a higher barrier to entry than money. The game cannot, will not survive without a continuous flow of new players.
Yes, BUT I think GW has a sufficient moat of hobbyists that will be wholly unaffected and uncaring regardless of what the competitive scene does or causes to the rest of the game. If you follow enough instagram and twitter accounts, and are in enough facebook groups, you quickly find that theres a lot of people who don't really actually play the game buying GWs minis.
Speaking bluntly?
There is zero issue with people playing to win. There is an issue with people who want to pretend that winning somehow makes you more knowledgeable about the game than everyone else.
Speaking bluntly, I'm wholly willing to admit that players that win a lot know more about playing the game than those who don't. What I take issue with is the idea that those who win a lot are presumed to understand game design and balance, as opposed to simply knowing how to play. These are two separate skillsets entirely (and game designers will often tell you that they usually aren't the best players of their own games). Likewise I take issue with the idea that players who win a lot should be afforded any sort of respect or importance for doing so - I think they shouldn't, because that is harmful to the community at large. It reinforces the importance of the competitive gaming scene within the community and indirectly suggests to players that in order to be "full participants" and "first-class" citizens of the hobby they need to participate in it (the competitive gaming scene) as well. Really love the game, hobby, setting, IP and obsess over it constantly? Want to be able to provide feedback and help improve the thing you love? Great, just attend 15-20 competitive events a year and hope your scores are high enough to get you an invite into the playtest group! You're not the best player? Become a judge instead! You aren't interested in judging events and you don't have the time or budget to be able to afford to attend all the events needed to get a top placing? Well, sounds like you're not really a true fan, we don't want you - git gud nub.
Speaking bluntly, what the ITC has inculcated at its top end is people who are able to play the advantages of a system, either intended or not, *fair* or not. Which has its uses in destructive testing. It also passively encourages cheats to keep on keeping on (Harrison, Lannigan et al.) With only the lightest enforcement and obfuscating the record. There's a wave of controversy, then they're right back at it. I don't trust them to police themselves, and I certainly don't trust GW to police them either.
One day, their new partner Reece might apologise for the Nazi Knight commission. But I doubt it.
We live in a society where we listen to winners. I think anyone who complains about that is delusional. Winning requires work, or in this case studying, playtesting, and experience. People win because they work for it. I admit there are people who win because of $$$ and they copy and paste someone's list, however, do you think Richard Siegler won all 3 of GW's events because of $$$. He won because of studying, playtesting, and experience do you think his opinion on certain units is more valid than mine? Of course, he and people like him who are dedicating hours to winning will know more than the guy that picked up the box because it looked good. No matter how you slice it casual players are not putting in the same amount of hours into the gaming aspect of the hobby, thus knowledge of the game is vastly different. Do not get jealous of the pro-player who knows more because he dedicates more time than you and a company wants to gain access to this source of knowledge that tournament organizers and players like Richard can provide.
Having GW listen to tournament organizers and pro players will be good for the game.
Kanluwen wrote: This is one of the few places I'm on the same page with HBMC for. "Winning is for losers!" might be the best tagline ever.
Speaking bluntly?
There is zero issue with people playing to win. There is an issue with people who want to pretend that winning somehow makes you more knowledgeable about the game than everyone else.
What does winning mean?
It means you won a game and the person on the opposite side of the table didn't. Good for you.
Next time you line up your little dudes it might go the other way. And indeed, if you want the game to be balanced, you should want it to. Now, if you can somehow convince me that 'tournament winners' are going to put in the balancing work and make recommendations to GW that ensure they lose half the time, I'll totally support this.
Catulle wrote: Speaking bluntly, what the ITC has inculcated at its top end is people who are able to play the advantages of a system, either intended or not, *fair* or not. Which has its uses in destructive testing.
Several of the top players (Nayden, Lannigan, etc.) are local to me and I occasionally see them playing in local shops, and while I haven't played them myself, I've watched others play them and also have discussed with friends who have played them, etc. and the impression I have is that in terms of "skill" or however you want to think about it, they are only slightly "above average" (mind you the impression of what average looks like is subjective and you and I may have slightly different ideas as to what that means). Would they probably beat me in a game? Absolutely yes. Is there a big gulf in skill between one of these guys and a player that nobody has ever heard of but still manages to regularly score top 3 finishes at his local stores tournaments? Probably not. The thing that strikes me as being exceptional about Nayden, Lannigan, etc. is not their skill on their tabletop, but their willingness and ability to travel extensively - and not just anywhere, but to the key events with the largest attendance levels in each of the ITCs three scoring brackets/categories.
Personally, I think if we're going to have some big scoring system which ranks players globally, its important that we actually interrogate what that scoring system is actually measuring - and how - before we hand the beneficiaries of that system the keys to the kingdom.
Kanluwen wrote: This is one of the few places I'm on the same page with HBMC for. "Winning is for losers!" might be the best tagline ever.
We're not. The Dakka Gaming Casual Mafia is a parody of FAAC players. 'Winning is for Losers' is an contradictory/ironic line that I created as their motto as a joke.
chaos0xomega wrote: Several of the top players (Nayden, Lannigan, etc.) are local to me and I occasionally see them playing in local shops, and while I haven't played them myself, I've watched others play them and also have discussed with friends who have played them, etc. and the impression I have is that in terms of "skill" or however you want to think about it, they are only slightly "above average" (mind you the impression of what average looks like is subjective and you and I may have slightly different ideas as to what that means)
In Lannigan's case its also the capacity to cheat on dice rolls, eh?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Which is to say, that guy (and others with a track record of abuse - dice rolls, gaming matches, submarining, iron man mates' tourneys, etc.) has no business anywhere near a system involving as much honesty as playtesting. And the ITC protects that class of player as much as they do seek excellence in clean gameplay.
CKO wrote: however, do you think Richard Siegler won all 3 of GW's events because of $$$.
Yes. In order to attend those events required you to be able to afford to travel to those events in the first place. If you can't attend them, you can't win them. In general, if you can't afford to travel you aren't going to be successful as a competitive 40k player - not just because the ITCs scoring system will essentially disqualify you from ranking, let alone being able to get recognized for your success, but because very few people live in areas with large and dynamic metas that will adequately cover a full cross-section of factions and playstyles that they need in order to gain necessary experience. Competitive 40k is a rich mans game.
chaos0xomega wrote: Several of the top players (Nayden, Lannigan, etc.) are local to me and I occasionally see them playing in local shops, and while I haven't played them myself, I've watched others play them and also have discussed with friends who have played them, etc. and the impression I have is that in terms of "skill" or however you want to think about it, they are only slightly "above average" (mind you the impression of what average looks like is subjective and you and I may have slightly different ideas as to what that means)
In Lannigan's case its also the capacity to cheat on dice rolls, eh?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Which is to say, that guy (and others with a track record of abuse - dice rolls, gaming matches, submarining, iron man mates' tourneys, etc.) has no business anywhere near a system involving as much honesty as playtesting. And the ITC protects that class of player as much as they do seek excellence in clean gameplay.
I won't comment on that because I don't really know him well and don't follow him very closely (ok, fine I will comment on it - a few of the local guys who know him well have straight up told me that all the rumors and stories about him cheating and dishonest play, etc are 100% true), I do know the guy wheres a GoPro when he plays (at least sometimes, not sure if its every time). Dunno if thats so he can prove that hes not cheating if someone accuses him or if he goes home and watches replays so he can review his play and try to improve or if he uploads it on youtube or something (or some combination of all three).
chaos0xomega wrote: I won't comment on that because I don't really know him well and don't follow him very closely (ok, fine I will comment on it - a few of the local guys who know him well have straight up told me that all the rumors and stories about him cheating and dishonest play, etc are 100% true), I do know the guy wheres a GoPro when he plays (at least sometimes, not sure if its every time). Dunno if thats so he can prove that hes not cheating if someone accuses him or if he goes home and watches replays so he can review his play and try to improve or if he uploads it on youtube or something (or some combination of all three).
CKO wrote: Partnering with ITC does not mean they are abandoning anyone. Taking advantage of the competitive system is good for business. People are buying and selling products based on their performance at tournaments. I do not understand how that will impact the consumer who buys models and paint or play a game every once in a while with a friend while drinking a beer. They are simply saying they are going to make an attempt to keep a group of customers happy.
This strategy worked brilliantly for Privateer Press didn’t it?!?!
Had a conversation with my GW manager about this today. They got updated on this stuff so that it wasn't a surprise to shop managers.
There will apparently be ways to earn ITC points by going into a GW shop and building, painting, and playing non-competitive events.
The major concern for GW store staff is obviously "I don't want WAAC players coming in and stinking up the place with all the seals they're clubbing that I'm trying to recruit into the game" and apparently there is going to be a lot of touch-and-go with this.
I only see it as a negative. Listening to so much to the competitive scene is why 9th edition got so bloated and complicated so quickly. Not all competitive players are bad people, of course, but there are some stinkers, and the last thing that I want to see is them coming into GW stores trying to somehow game the system of points they can earn in the stores.
CKO wrote: however, do you think Richard Siegler won all 3 of GW's events because of $$$.
Yes. In order to attend those events required you to be able to afford to travel to those events in the first place. If you can't attend them, you can't win them. In general, if you can't afford to travel you aren't going to be successful as a competitive 40k player - not just because the ITCs scoring system will essentially disqualify you from ranking, let alone being able to get recognized for your success, but because very few people live in areas with large and dynamic metas that will adequately cover a full cross-section of factions and playstyles that they need in order to gain necessary experience. Competitive 40k is a rich mans game.
Way to dodge the questions. Just because Richard Siegler has the money to attend all three of the GW events doesn't magically mean he gets the top spot at all three of them. I'm sure there are plenty of mediocre 40K players who could afford to attend all three events if they wanted to. Doesn't mean they will win.
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Okay I'll bite. Why?
I just don't think it's wrong to expect people to use your product in your events. It would be like taking food from one restaurant into another, or going to your LGS and never buying anything, always using their tables and terrain, and getting all your models online or from your 3D printer.
Siegler is one of the guys I actually wouldn't mind being involved in balance discussions...but he's also said in the past that he isn't interested in GW's playtesting program because it uses unpaid labor and he (absolutely rightly) rejects that business model on moral grounds. So unless he's changed his mind, I don't see that throwing his name around here is useful one way or the other.
And even putting aside the fact that Siegler seems like a good guy himself, he and a large percentage of the rest of the "top players" make money from coaching people. There is such an obvious conflict of interest there that GW would be beyond stupid to allow their participation in something like this.
BuFFo wrote: Forum Warrior, "GW doesn't do enough for the Tourney Scene. The game rules are too lose and need some tightening!"
GW does more in the tourney scene
Same Forum Warrior, "GW does a crap job in the tourney scene. Stop with this WAAC attitude! They need to focus on making the game fun!"
GW leaves the tourney scene
Forum Warrior, "GW doesn't do enough for the Tourney Scene. The game rules are too lose and need some tightening!"
GW does more in the tourney scene
Same Forum Warrior, "GW does a crap job in the tourney scene. Stop with this WAAC attitude! They need to focus on making the game fun!"
GW leaves the tourney scene
Common mistake, balanced game =/= tournament scene.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Siegler is one of the guys I actually wouldn't mind being involved in balance discussions...but he's also said in the past that he isn't interested in GW's playtesting program because it uses unpaid labor and he (absolutely rightly) rejects that business model on moral grounds. So unless he's changed his mind, I don't see that throwing his name around here is useful one way or the other.
And even putting aside the fact that Siegler seems like a good guy himself, he and a large percentage of the rest of the "top players" make money from coaching people. There is such an obvious conflict of interest there that GW would be beyond stupid to allow their participation in something like this.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.
Balance your own damn game GW.
Maybe they got fed up for being told how much of a bad job they're doing so finally said "do it yourselves if you're so good"?
so GW finally realized that the best way to grow the US market is to invest into the tournament scene
with the Edition all people are telling me, is not the tournament edition but the narrative one, at that tournament play has never had any affect on the casual player in the US
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Okay I'll bite. Why?
I just don't think it's wrong to expect people to use your product in your events. It would be like taking food from one restaurant into another, or going to your LGS and never buying anything, always using their tables and terrain, and getting all your models online or from your 3D printer.
I think that's fair enough when attending an event at a GW store, or Warhammer World, or an official event hosted by GW.
The problem is that the ITC are not GW. They're getting a thumbs up from GW to run something for them, which isn't -that- different from existing tournaments beyond the veneer of "oh these ones are ITC which means they're officially endorsed by GW!" but it potentially still has the impact of ITC dancing to GW's tune, which I do not like the implications of. Now I'll admit the guy running it has said multiple times they won't be introducing a requirement that everything be 100% GW but I would put money on that changing at some point in the future.
drbored wrote: Had a conversation with my GW manager about this today. They got updated on this stuff so that it wasn't a surprise to shop managers.
There will apparently be ways to earn ITC points by going into a GW shop and building, painting, and playing non-competitive events.
The major concern for GW store staff is obviously "I don't want WAAC players coming in and stinking up the place with all the seals they're clubbing that I'm trying to recruit into the game" and apparently there is going to be a lot of touch-and-go with this.
I only see it as a negative. Listening to so much to the competitive scene is why 9th edition got so bloated and complicated so quickly. Not all competitive players are bad people, of course, but there are some stinkers, and the last thing that I want to see is them coming into GW stores trying to somehow game the system of points they can earn in the stores.
LMFAO!!!
Is this real?!?! Is this true?!?! So, GW knows this is a bad idea, but they’re doing it anyway?!?!
Holy fething hell. I don’t know how to even begin to unpack this.
drbored wrote: Had a conversation with my GW manager about this today. They got updated on this stuff so that it wasn't a surprise to shop managers.
There will apparently be ways to earn ITC points by going into a GW shop and building, painting, and playing non-competitive events.
The major concern for GW store staff is obviously "I don't want WAAC players coming in and stinking up the place with all the seals they're clubbing that I'm trying to recruit into the game" and apparently there is going to be a lot of touch-and-go with this.
I only see it as a negative. Listening to so much to the competitive scene is why 9th edition got so bloated and complicated so quickly. Not all competitive players are bad people, of course, but there are some stinkers, and the last thing that I want to see is them coming into GW stores trying to somehow game the system of points they can earn in the stores.
LMFAO!!!
Is this real?!?! Is this true?!?! So, GW knows this is a bad idea, but they’re doing it anyway?!?!
Holy fething hell. I don’t know how to even begin to unpack this.
Demanding online vocal minority meet niche company trying to leverage every angle.
If you can earn as many ITC points attending and winning a narrative event, I'd be surprised if you didn't see a lot of seal clubbing.
Most of those events are run so the overall winner doesn't necessarily have to win all their games, and fluff/painting/sportsmanship is more important as a whole but you still end up with plenty of power game lists sneaking through.
I would also worry that as time goes on, non-ITC events don't get viewed as 'legitimate' ones. Right now it doesn't matter because you can count the number of GW hosted events on two hands, but if they start offering positions to a lot more people then those who don't align themselves to it might be in some trouble when people want to commit to ITC ones for sake of their points track or even just the perception it's "not a real event if it's not got a ITC tag."
How are people complaining that casual isn't getting enough attention? There is a new crusade book like every 3 months. There is an entire version of the game for narrative casual play called Crusade. There is a alternative point system for casual play called power level.
9th if anything has had more focus on casual/narrative play than any edition since 2nd.
I am absolutely convinced most the people complaining here do not play the game, at all. And if they do, they are still mad about that Eldar player that beat them in 4th edition the one time they tried a tournament.
BrotherGecko wrote: How are people complaining that casual isn't getting enough attention? There is a new crusade book like every 3 months. There is an entire version of the game for narrative casual play called Crusade. There is a alternative point system for casual play called power level.
9th if anything has had more focus on casual/narrative play than any edition since 2nd.
I am absolutely convinced most the people complaining here do not play the game, at all. And if they do, they are still mad about that Eldar player that beat them in 4th edition the one time they tried a tournament.
It's not that they don't get enough attention, but all pick up games at a club will be de facto expected to be matched play. The casual players are then encouraged to keep up with the competitive churn and do their own thing on top.
Also, I really doubt that a top priority for this new inner council is a court of top ITC players saying "you know what, we need every marine list to be capable of winning with a land Raider, centurions and scouts". They're spending a lot of time focusing on the tip performing builds and units from the top end of the curve which may mean very little to casual timmy with his "what looks cool" list.
BrotherGecko wrote: How are people complaining that casual isn't getting enough attention? There is a new crusade book like every 3 months. There is an entire version of the game for narrative casual play called Crusade. There is a alternative point system for casual play called power level.
9th if anything has had more focus on casual/narrative play than any edition since 2nd.
I am absolutely convinced most the people complaining here do not play the game, at all. And if they do, they are still mad about that Eldar player that beat them in 4th edition the one time they tried a tournament.
It's not that they don't get enough attention, but all pick up games at a club will be de facto expected to be matched play. The casual players are then encouraged to keep up with the competitive churn and do their own thing on top.
Also, I really doubt that a top priority for this new inner council is a court of top ITC players saying "you know what, we need every marine list to be capable of winning with a land Raider, centurions and scouts". They're spending a lot of time focusing on the tip performing builds and units from the top end of the curve which may mean very little to casual timmy with his "what looks cool" list.
Definitely not. Competitive players enjoy model ranges just as much at the apparently bitter casual in 40k.
Many of them are capable of playing all the various styles of gameplay and do.
Pick up games are whatever you discuss with the other player. Been at this 20 years and some how the same arguement is still being made. The amounts to, I can not discuss with the other player what I am looking for in a game. And I definitely won't try to find people in my area who play what I play. I just want the other player to intuitively want what I want.
Is everyone really going to be so easily distracted by the real motive here?
GW doesn't like that the ITC has a say in what products get used.
Think about it, ITC allows 3rd party conversions during a time when 3D printing has exploded.
GW gambled on 3D printers and lost IMHO.
Worse yet they shot themselves in the foot early and made things way worse by shutting down 3rd party bits seller on Ebay stores and the like.
The FLG guys really really want to look legitamate via GW, and I get why as it boosts there sales and cements their market position.
But anyone that thinks GW won't start being incredibly manipulative in short order can by the Brooklin Bridge from me.
I love how they have Brandt doing the rounds on Reddit saying this won't be the case, as if he has any say in it lol, but you just know it will be. They will eventually force players to register their personal info on their AP to even attend.
You are all looking at the championship series and rightfully worried it will engulf 40k…
I am hoping gw/itc develop a great narrative series instead.
I want to see narrative series incorporate each player and faction and support a crusade type system where players over the season/ year can play games, build, paint and grow armies earning thier armies crusade points and level up thier armies in an unbalanced crusade fashion.
In other words not hyper competitive. Instead maybe that ork player builds, plays and paints enough at thier local hobby shop to get to enough scrap points to include a looted vehicle in his army. Maybe he can hire/include one of those white dwarf non-tournament match play legal special characters no one uses like grukk facerippa.
Then at the end of each season/year there is a battle royal type end to each seasons narrative season with a major narrative game at LVO and warhammer world simultaneously. With a bunch of local game store narrative events leading up to it.
They could monetize it the beginning of each season by releasing a new chapter approved crusade book with the current seasons theme and missions and an update to several armies crusade rules, relics, special characters, etc
In other words where the championship series is focused more on hyper competitive balance and whining about which unit is broken. The narrative series is expected to have broken combos. People need to play and build and paint in order to make thier army stronger. Maybe your warlord gets several buffs and relics in this crusade narrative series. You can hobby and bits up a model to make that custon warlord for your tabletop and each year the narrative season resets and we go to a different part of the 40k universe for a campaign. You can still play a past years campaign with friends but the local shops move onto a new area where you can earn enough scrap points to add that looted vehicle you made last season.
Maybe instead of celebrating an individual win we celebrate the faction who wins each narrative series with a limited release resin model of a special character in the winning factions army.
BrotherGecko wrote: How are people complaining that casual isn't getting enough attention? There is a new crusade book like every 3 months. There is an entire version of the game for narrative casual play called Crusade. There is a alternative point system for casual play called power level.
9th if anything has had more focus on casual/narrative play than any edition since 2nd.
I am absolutely convinced most the people complaining here do not play the game, at all. And if they do, they are still mad about that Eldar player that beat them in 4th edition the one time they tried a tournament.
Are you talking about yourself not playing the game? Because Crusade isn't casual. Crusade is a lot of extra work, both in terms of book-keeping and keeping the group together.
It can be fun with the right group, but its not what most people mean when they say 'casual'
Casual just means wandering into to the shop/club/venue, having a game and hanging out, maybe having another game.
BrotherGecko wrote: How are people complaining that casual isn't getting enough attention? There is a new crusade book like every 3 months. There is an entire version of the game for narrative casual play called Crusade. There is a alternative point system for casual play called power level.
9th if anything has had more focus on casual/narrative play than any edition since 2nd.
I am absolutely convinced most the people complaining here do not play the game, at all. And if they do, they are still mad about that Eldar player that beat them in 4th edition the one time they tried a tournament.
Are you talking about yourself not playing the game? Because Crusade isn't casual. Crusade is a lot of extra work, both in terms of book-keeping and keeping the group together.
It can be fun with the right group, but its not what most people mean when they say 'casual'
Casual just means wandering into to the shop/club/venue, having a game and hanging out, maybe having another game.
This crusade is like being a Gm in an rpg on top of 40k. Crusade benefits greatly from someone running the campaign. There is so much tacked on rules, individual army crusade points, environmental effects or whatever it’s a lot to keep track of and you need to homebrew it all into a plan before you even play.
I am hoping the narrative series tries to somewhat organize this mess and take away some of the clutter of crusade so that it’s easier to just play crusade at a local store event where your itc crusade points are recorded. Where you can just get the event primer and familiarize yourself with that events handful of crusade rules. Such as preplaced terrain, defend mission, etc. I would love to see if they could incorporate this into home game garage hammer as well without it being horribly abused.
I wonder if someone at GW finally noticed Wizards of the Coast and their organized play and WPN system and thought, "hey, maybe we should try something like that".
BrotherGecko wrote: How are people complaining that casual isn't getting enough attention? There is a new crusade book like every 3 months. There is an entire version of the game for narrative casual play called Crusade. There is a alternative point system for casual play called power level.
9th if anything has had more focus on casual/narrative play than any edition since 2nd.
I am absolutely convinced most the people complaining here do not play the game, at all. And if they do, they are still mad about that Eldar player that beat them in 4th edition the one time they tried a tournament.
Are you talking about yourself not playing the game? Because Crusade isn't casual. Crusade is a lot of extra work, both in terms of book-keeping and keeping the group together.
It can be fun with the right group, but its not what most people mean when they say 'casual'
Casual just means wandering into to the shop/club/venue, having a game and hanging out, maybe having another game.
Generic crusade is pick up games. Its about as casual as you can get. Crusade campaigns are an extra layer to crusade that isn't about pick up games. And there is still power levels, non-matched play, narrative play, etc.
Problem casual players have is other casual players. Competitive players are out there playing competitive games not "clubbing baby seals" at the local shop, that is a casual player doing that. People not playing competitive games at tournaments are casual players no matter how WAAC their style or list is.
Public enemy number one of the casual 40k fan is other casual 40k fans who play casual differently. The dude taking top spot at the LVO isn't anyone but other competitive players problem, the dude taking the top spot's list and strolling up to LGS to play exclusively pick up games is the guy you have issues with. And that dude is a casual player.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I wonder if someone at GW finally noticed Wizards of the Coast and their organized play and WPN system and thought, "hey, maybe we should try something like that".
GW already DID that in 5th with the Grand Tournament system. In fact, the guy in charge of keeping track of everyone's record was on the Dakka boards and even directly called out Stelek(of Yes The Truth Hurts infamy) on his BS about winning events.
Generic crusade is pick up games. Its about as casual as you can get. Crusade campaigns are an extra layer to crusade that isn't about pick up games. And there is still power levels, non-matched play, narrative play, etc.
Which, as Voss pointed out, require additional organization to keep active.
Problem casual players have is other casual players. Competitive players are out there playing competitive games not "clubbing baby seals" at the local shop, that is a casual player doing that. People not playing competitive games at tournaments are casual players no matter how WAAC their style or list is.
When people are literally coming in to shops talking about how they're "playing to prepare for a tournament", they're "casual players"?
Public enemy number one of the casual 40k fan is other casual 40k fans who play casual differently. The dude taking top spot at the LVO isn't anyone but other competitive players problem, the dude taking the top spot's list and strolling up to LGS to play exclusively pick up games is the guy you have issues with. And that dude is a casual player.
It's astonishing how whenever the competitive playerbase's is called out for something how quickly they run to blame it on "casual players" or redefine their definition of "casual players" to match something wildly different.
Togusa wrote: I would think this is good. These are the people that arguably know the game better than the people who make it. They're going to find the broken things much quicker and bring attention to it. So logic dictates that they're going to actually balance the game.
They can also let GW know about things like community outrage over CA being in printed format and therefore costing $40 for points changes that were made for a meta 6-8 months old. I think a group of rational people that already have a working relationship can get that point across much better than thousands of disgruntled customers essentially shouting into the void online,
Generic crusade is pick up games. Its about as casual as you can get. Crusade campaigns are an extra layer to crusade that isn't about pick up games. And there is still power levels, non-matched play, narrative play, etc.
Which, as Voss pointed out, require additional organization to keep active.
Problem casual players have is other casual players. Competitive players are out there playing competitive games not "clubbing baby seals" at the local shop, that is a casual player doing that. People not playing competitive games at tournaments are casual players no matter how WAAC their style or list is.
When people are literally coming in to shops talking about how they're "playing to prepare for a tournament", they're "casual players"?
Public enemy number one of the casual 40k fan is other casual 40k fans who play casual differently. The dude taking top spot at the LVO isn't anyone but other competitive players problem, the dude taking the top spot's list and strolling up to LGS to play exclusively pick up games is the guy you have issues with. And that dude is a casual player.
It's astonishing how whenever the competitive playerbase's is called out for something how quickly they run to blame it on "casual players" or redefine their definition of "casual players" to match something wildly different.
If a competitive player strolls into a game store saying they are preparing for a tournament and a casual plays them...that is on the casual player. I in no way can conceive of how that is the competitive players fault. What an odd rebuttal. That proved my point that causal players are their own worst enemy lol.
For the record, casual players have never owned their behavior. In all my years playing either style of game, casual palyers have always assumed they are the default and everyone must do what they want or they are bad and wrong.
Here in 2022 its time for casual 40k players to admit their problem is other casaul 40k players doing something they don't like an blaming another community for it.
I can already see little Timmy Newtohobby getting judged by the local 45 year old, who exclusively plays tank company Guard, because he bought a hammerhead and they read on the internet its broken and only WAAC players take them.
I think I know what the problem is with this thread. We have casual players vs competitive players. GW is partnering up with ITC, that means tournament organizers and local store owners who have tournaments. Can we all agree that listening to store owners and tournament organizers is a good thing?
CKO wrote: I think I know what the problem is with this thread. We have casual players vs competitive players.
No actually, what we have is people who like to pretend that things mean one thing at some times and something else entirely at others.
People like to pretend that whenever "casual players" are talking about WAAC players coming in with their new hotness netlists, it somehow means "all competitive players".
But when the shoe is on the other foot?
"Casual players" means "anyone who doesn't play in tournaments" apparently.
GW is partnering up with ITC, that means tournament organizers and local store owners who have tournaments. Can we all agree that listening to store owners and tournament organizers is a good thing?
...do you really think that store owners didn't already have a way to talk to GW? That tournament organizers didn't have a way to talk to GW?
If a competitive player strolls into a game store saying they are preparing for a tournament and a casual plays them...that is on the casual player. I in no way can conceive of how that is the competitive players fault. What an odd rebuttal. That proved my point that causal players are their own worst enemy lol.
lol, yeah because they always say that they're preparing for a tournament...
For the record, casual players have never owned their behavior. In all my years playing either style of game, casual palyers have always assumed they are the default and everyone must do what they want or they are bad and wrong.
Yes, that's why we're all stuck playing points and ITC based missions. Those blasted casuals!
Here in 2022 its time for casual 40k players to admit their problem is other casaul 40k players doing something they don't like an blaming another community for it.
Here in 2022, it's time for competitive 40k players to stop pretending they're going to tournaments for every game night.
I can already see little Timmy Newtohobby getting judged by the local 45 year old, who exclusively plays tank company Guard, because he bought a hammerhead and they read on the internet its broken and only WAAC players take them.
So, basically you have nothing but strawmans. Got it.
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Okay I'll bite. Why?
Not OP but it makes it easier to tell which models have which weapons. I appreciate good conversions but it makes it more difficult to tell what's what at a glance
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Okay I'll bite. Why?
Not OP but it makes it easier to tell which models have which weapons. I appreciate good conversions but it makes it more difficult to tell what's what at a glance
100% GW models has nothing to do with conversions. You can have a confusing conversion that is 100% composed of GW parts.
CKO wrote: I think I know what the problem is with this thread. We have casual players vs competitive players. GW is partnering up with ITC, that means tournament organizers and local store owners who have tournaments. Can we all agree that listening to store owners and tournament organizers is a good thing?
Absolutely not.
Why would you even ask?
Store owners don't give a gak about balance, they want to sell kits. So if imbalance is driving people to new armies, that means more sales.
Tournament organizers want whatever drives people to their tournaments- like every other time you've brought them up, there's a whole subforum with lots of incident reports. They've absolutely got a stake in being part of the problem, not being a solution.
This still isn't a casual vs competitive thing, either. Both get affected by bad balance decisions, and there is a range of desires in both fictional 'camps.'
Here in 2022 its time for casual 40k players to admit their problem is other casaul 40k players doing something they don't like an blaming another community for it.
Meh, I'd say it's a 50/50 split. Both sides have their bad actors.
CKO wrote: I think I know what the problem is with this thread. We have casual players vs competitive players. GW is partnering up with ITC, that means tournament organizers and local store owners who have tournaments. Can we all agree that listening to store owners and tournament organizers is a good thing?
Absolutely not.
Why would you even ask?
Store owners don't give a gak about balance, they want to sell kits. So if imbalance is driving people to new armies, that means more sales.
Tournament organizers want whatever drives people to their tournaments- like every other time you've brought them up, there's a whole subforum with lots of incident reports. They've absolutely got a stake in being part of the problem, not being a solution.
This still isn't a casual vs competitive thing, either. Both get affected by bad balance decisions, and there is a range of desires in both fictional 'camps.'
Now, I am completely confused GW cannot win with you guys. Don't listen to store owners, tournament organizers, or competitive players all 3 are bad for the game. Who should they listen to? I am out of this thread just a bunch of people complaining about the competitive scene and its progression which has lead to actual recognition by the company. Now I know why GW has the attitude it has when it comes to satisfying some of its customers.
CKO wrote: I am out of this thread just a bunch of people complaining about the competitive scene and its progression
Yeah, how dare we not bow down before GW for embracing a Tournament system where practically every big event they hold has some sort of controversy, whether it be cheaters, people gaming the strength of schedule, or breaking the game so hard that GW is forced to issue an emergency FAQ that week.
CKO wrote: I think I know what the problem is with this thread. We have casual players vs competitive players. GW is partnering up with ITC, that means tournament organizers and local store owners who have tournaments. Can we all agree that listening to store owners and tournament organizers is a good thing?
Absolutely not.
Why would you even ask?
Store owners don't give a gak about balance, they want to sell kits. So if imbalance is driving people to new armies, that means more sales.
Tournament organizers want whatever drives people to their tournaments- like every other time you've brought them up, there's a whole subforum with lots of incident reports. They've absolutely got a stake in being part of the problem, not being a solution.
This still isn't a casual vs competitive thing, either. Both get affected by bad balance decisions, and there is a range of desires in both fictional 'camps.'
Now, I am completely confused GW cannot win with you guys. Don't listen to store owners, tournament organizers, or competitive players all 3 are bad for the game. Who should they listen to?
I mean, I told you no one the first time. That doesn't seem confusing at all.
I am out of this thread just a bunch of people complaining about the competitive scene and its progression which has lead to actual recognition by the company.
What... progression?
Now I know why GW has the attitude it has when it comes to satisfying some of its customers.
Many of them want different things. GW's attitude has been, traditionally, to ignore all of them and do what it wants. Announcing that they will take feedback, but only from specific people who prosper most by exploiting their poorly written rules, is obviously not going to be received well.
Arbitrator wrote: Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Okay I'll bite. Why?
Not OP but it makes it easier to tell which models have which weapons. I appreciate good conversions but it makes it more difficult to tell what's what at a glance
100% GW models has nothing to do with conversions. You can have a confusing conversion that is 100% composed of GW parts.
It's possible but that's an edge case compared to the amount of 3D printed alternate weapons that don't look exactly like the GW equivalent
If you're recruiting play testers or people to get game feedback from, you can at least prove that the tournament players are playing the game, and not just painting models. What metric would there be to look at a non-tournament player and say "We should give this person a chance to make changes to the game"? There isn't one, because if there's some casual gaming sage hermit in the world whose feedback would absolutely make a significant improvement to the game, they probably already have a game development job already (or are spending their time working on finding one).
And that's beside the point that whatever impact the tournament winners have is going to be competing with the rest of the changes made in the six month point shakeups, and codex turn overs.
If a competitive player strolls into a game store saying they are preparing for a tournament and a casual plays them...that is on the casual player. I in no way can conceive of how that is the competitive players fault. What an odd rebuttal. That proved my point that causal players are their own worst enemy lol.
lol, yeah because they always say that they're preparing for a tournament...
For the record, casual players have never owned their behavior. In all my years playing either style of game, casual palyers have always assumed they are the default and everyone must do what they want or they are bad and wrong.
Yes, that's why we're all stuck playing points and ITC based missions. Those blasted casuals!
If you are not preparing for and playing in tournaments to be a part of the competitive game scene you are a casual, full stop. Competitive isn't "wants to win" otherwise all the salty casual players that cry on here after every L would be competitive players too. The WAAC guy who shows up to the corner store with a netlist on game night and never shows up to a tournament is a casual. The guy who plays whatever they headcannoned as "fluffy" is a casual. The guy playing ITC/Matched Play only and is zeroing in on a list for the next tournament is a competitive player.
And as someone who doesn't play competitively anymore, what ITC or is in matched play doesn't change anything for me. You are describing a personal issue. And maybe you should stop forcing yourself on a competitive play group because that sounds like it might be the actual problem if that is all people around you are playing.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So when do they start banning 3rd party bases?
Luckily they specifically allow 3rd party basing material even in the tournaments run by GW and held at GW venues. I just wish we could play 3rd party heads there because of things like venatari and new dark reapers where a fantastic mini is held back by an awful head and non-GW alternatives seem to fit best.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So when do they start banning 3rd party bases?
Luckily they specifically allow 3rd party basing material even in the tournaments run by GW and held at GW venues. I just wish we could play 3rd party heads there because of things like venatari and new dark reapers where a fantastic mini is held back by an awful head and non-GW alternatives seem to fit best.
From my understanding, there is absolutely a matter of 'control' that GW is trying to express with this partnership.
GW + ITC = most tournaments. You want GW support? You want a GW shop at your tournament and the exclusive GW con/event-exclusive models to be sold at your event? You gotta follow our rules. Not just for gaming, but for modeling and other things.
Tbf, it's a lot like Magic the Gathering and the banning of cards being printed out from your home printer. They want to support their own product while creating as fun of an experience for con/event/tournament-goers as possible, and making the club feel worthwhile. Nothing feels worse than spending 2000 dollars on your army to be trounced by someone that got theirs recast or 3D printed for 1/4th of the cost.
But more than that, tournaments and events that don't want to play ball, to play by GW's rules, will slowly become ostracized. They won't get the GW support that fans want, and will be relegated to small, minor events that wont get GW advertising/marketing on their side.
It's a gamble, because if it doesn't work out and some 3rd party tournament ends up growing because they do things in a way that the fans actually enjoy, then this whole plan will likely fall apart, but there is something to be said for having ITC+GW support for an event. GW may be partnering even more closely with ITC events too, getting more terrain on boards and more prize support and things like that, like they did in the past.
So, we'll see how it all goes.
Does GW give too much attention to the tournament players? Yeah, I think so, but here's the thing: the people that are organizing tournaments and supporting them are a whole other team of people. It's not like GW supporting tournament play is taking away from rules/writing/modeling time from the other teams.
On top of that, every campaign book that comes out has a slew of narrative missions. Every White Dwarf, every Chapter Approved, new missions, many narrative, coming out constantly. You don't hear about them because the narrative players are happy playing with them (and happy customers tend to not come to forums to complain). That's all content that didn't need to be written.
Now, to be fair, we got the Crusade system, which is neat, but one thing that a lot of open/narrative play players want is a return of the Maelstrom of War missions, with their random cards and such. I'd be happy to see that make a return, but we'll see what happens.
Kanluwen wrote: Yes, that's why we're all stuck playing points and ITC based missions. Those blasted casuals!
Yep, definitely the casuals fault. The fact that the primary outlets for game and mechanics discussions online is almost completely run by competitive players who essentially tell anyone tuning in that ITC/GT mission packets are the only correct way to play 40k definitely has nothing to do with it.
For various reasons, the competitive side of the community has much greater influence over how the game is played than the casual side does, probably because a hallmark of being a competitive player is to obsess over the game to a higher degree than casuals would, which would naturally extend to starting youtube channels, podcasts, blogs, social media pages, etc. to discuss the game as part of that. For sake of discussion, the ITC has about 10k players. 73% of the players have played 1 or 2 events, the other 27% have played 3+ events (which is a close approximation of the 80/20 rule). In other words, of those 10k players, 7300 or so are probably borderline casuals who probably only attend the occasional local tournament or convention for fun and not because they truly consider themselves "competitive". The remaining 2700 or so on the other hand are much more active in terms of regularly attending tournaments and playing to improve scorings/rankings (and you could probably cut that number down even further by only looking at the percentage who have attended 6+ events to be "fully scored" in the ITC, but unfortunately the rankings are currently down for LVO so I can't pull data). If looking at BCP (important to note that all ITC players are in BPC but not all BPC players are in ITC), there are about 20k individuals registered in the system, of which (since 2019) only about 20% (about 4000 players) have played 4+ events total over the past 3 seasons. So, basically the true global "competitive community" numbers probably no more than about 5000 players (including Aussies who mostly use a different competitive registry than the rest of the world).
So, how big is the 40k community total? We don't know, but its big... the Warhammer 40k Subreddits has almost 460k subs, the majority of whom I'm guess are what could be considered casual players or casual fans if they don't play at all, etc.
So 5000 players, about 1.1% of the games total playerbase (I'm guessing that theres probably another 500k+ individuals who aren't counted in the reddit subs who just don't use social media or reddit, etc. so that number might really be more like 0.5%) is essentially dictating the terms of the game to the remaining 98.9% (or 99.5%).
Even if we're more generous with the definition of what constitutes "competitive" players and count it at approximately 25k comp players based on BCP + I'm guessing another 5k or so players in Australia, we're still saying that 5% of the games playerbase partakes in competitive play at best (potentially as little as 2.5% based on the assumption that only about half the games playerbase is subbed on reddit), and that 5% is dictating the terms to the remaining 95% (or 97.5% as the case might be).
Thats kinda screwy. fethed even. Casual players are literally, mathematically, the default, so why is the game being catered to competitive players??
(Just so its clear, yes Kanluwen I recognized your sarcasm, I am agreeing with you).
Here in 2022, it's time for competitive 40k players to stop pretending they're going to tournaments for every game night.
Amen. AMEN! Shout it from the rooftops. You can't say that casual players are at fault for playing pickup games against competitive gamers, sometimes theres no other option for the casual player. Sometimes the casual player doesn't know that the person they are playing is competitive, just because a competitive player is prepping for a tourney - even if they at some point mention it out loud while chatting with a group - doesn't necessarily mean the casual in question heard it or was aware of it. Sometimes the casual is actually a baby seal, bright eyed and new to the game, and has no idea what the disparity in skill and playstyle is between a casual and a comp meta player, and they walk into the game not knowing what they should be expecting and get wrecked. Competitive players don't need to play like every game matters, yet they do.
Yes, that's why we're all stuck playing points and ITC based missions. Those blasted casuals!
Have you considered not doing that?
Dunno about Kan, but in my case I have. Nobody wants to play anything but the comp standard, even the other casual players I've approached locally. In most cases if you ask them to play using open war/eternal war/crusade mission pack they'll usually say something to the effect of "nah, those missions suck, lets play with the GT mission pack, they're much better balanced and more fun". Heres the thing though, overwhelmingly they haven't played any of those missions, of the dozens of people I've asked I've only found a literal handful who have ever tried any of those missions, ever - yet they all seem to know that the missions suck, are unbalanced, unfun, etc. Why? Because the discourse surrounding the game is dominated by around 1% of the community, for whom those missions do not fulfill their definition of what good/fun gameplay is like, etc. and they are the ones who go out and critique and criticize those missions, etc. and generally messge to the community not to bother with them.
Kanluwen wrote: Yes, that's why we're all stuck playing points and ITC based missions. Those blasted casuals!
Yep, definitely the casuals fault. The fact that the primary outlets for game and mechanics discussions online is almost completely run by competitive players who essentially tell anyone tuning in that ITC/GT mission packets are the only correct way to play 40k definitely has nothing to do with it.
For various reasons, the competitive side of the community has much greater influence over how the game is played than the casual side does, probably because a hallmark of being a competitive player is to obsess over the game to a higher degree than casuals would, which would naturally extend to starting youtube channels, podcasts, blogs, social media pages, etc. to discuss the game as part of that. For sake of discussion, the ITC has about 10k players. 73% of the players have played 1 or 2 events, the other 27% have played 3+ events (which is a close approximation of the 80/20 rule). In other words, of those 10k players, 7300 or so are probably borderline casuals who probably only attend the occasional local tournament or convention for fun and not because they truly consider themselves "competitive". The remaining 2700 or so on the other hand are much more active in terms of regularly attending tournaments and playing to improve scorings/rankings (and you could probably cut that number down even further by only looking at the percentage who have attended 6+ events to be "fully scored" in the ITC, but unfortunately the rankings are currently down for LVO so I can't pull data). If looking at BCP (important to note that all ITC players are in BPC but not all BPC players are in ITC), there are about 20k individuals registered in the system, of which (since 2019) only about 20% (about 4000 players) have played 4+ events total over the past 3 seasons. So, basically the true global "competitive community" numbers probably no more than about 5000 players (including Aussies who mostly use a different competitive registry than the rest of the world).
So, how big is the 40k community total? We don't know, but its big... the Warhammer 40k Subreddits has almost 460k subs, the majority of whom I'm guess are what could be considered casual players or casual fans if they don't play at all, etc.
So 5000 players, about 1.1% of the games total playerbase (I'm guessing that theres probably another 500k+ individuals who aren't counted in the reddit subs who just don't use social media or reddit, etc. so that number might really be more like 0.5%) is essentially dictating the terms of the game to the remaining 98.9% (or 99.5%).
Even if we're more generous with the definition of what constitutes "competitive" players and count it at approximately 25k comp players based on BCP + I'm guessing another 5k or so players in Australia, we're still saying that 5% of the games playerbase partakes in competitive play at best (potentially as little as 2.5% based on the assumption that only about half the games playerbase is subbed on reddit), and that 5% is dictating the terms to the remaining 95% (or 97.5% as the case might be).
Thats kinda screwy. fethed even. Casual players are literally, mathematically, the default, so why is the game being catered to competitive players??
(Just so its clear, yes Kanluwen I recognized your sarcasm, I am agreeing with you).
Here in 2022, it's time for competitive 40k players to stop pretending they're going to tournaments for every game night.
Amen. AMEN! Shout it from the rooftops. You can't say that casual players are at fault for playing pickup games against competitive gamers, sometimes theres no other option for the casual player. Sometimes the casual player doesn't know that the person they are playing is competitive, just because a competitive player is prepping for a tourney - even if they at some point mention it out loud while chatting with a group - doesn't necessarily mean the casual in question heard it or was aware of it. Sometimes the casual is actually a baby seal, bright eyed and new to the game, and has no idea what the disparity in skill and playstyle is between a casual and a comp meta player, and they walk into the game not knowing what they should be expecting and get wrecked. Competitive players don't need to play like every game matters, yet they do.
Yes, that's why we're all stuck playing points and ITC based missions. Those blasted casuals!
Have you considered not doing that?
Dunno about Kan, but in my case I have. Nobody wants to play anything but the comp standard, even the other casual players I've approached locally. In most cases if you ask them to play using open war/eternal war/crusade mission pack they'll usually say something to the effect of "nah, those missions suck, lets play with the GT mission pack, they're much better balanced and more fun". Heres the thing though, overwhelmingly they haven't played any of those missions, of the dozens of people I've asked I've only found a literal handful who have ever tried any of those missions, ever - yet they all seem to know that the missions suck, are unbalanced, unfun, etc. Why? Because the discourse surrounding the game is dominated by around 1% of the community, for whom those missions do not fulfill their definition of what good/fun gameplay is like, etc. and they are the ones who go out and critique and criticize those missions, etc. and generally messge to the community not to bother with them.
The fact that some comp players can not fathom taking anything less than the best combo is really at the crux of it. Their only drive is to "crush their enemies and hear the lamentations of their women". If they are not doing the aforementioned then it is impossible to have fun just for the sake of fun.
But definitely not all competitive players. Several of my friends went to LVO and last week they were actually doing tourney prep. Which makes sense, but funny thing is that each of them have zero issues with playing casually(i.e. Open war deck, PL, being able to exercise restraint in list building, etc.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: But, to be clear, this clearly is a heavily narrative focused edition of 40k because Crusade exists.
That's the 1 saving grace....I almost puked typing that.
So, the rest of us aren’t supposed to be concerned that a relatively tiny part of the player base that enjoys a dumbed down, colorless, bastardized version of 40K now has outsized influence on the future of the game with their direct line to GW?
Take templates as just one example. They were fun, and helped fuel the imagination while playing. It was always satisfying to whip out the flame template. But, it had to go, to support the tournamentification of 40K; too many whiny players spending all day at tourneys arguing over whether a single model was hit or not…Solution? Remove fun from the game, and replace it with even more buckets of dice rolling, so the game would be ‘competitive’…
There’s already a perfectly bland, completely balanced, utterly boring game out there for those of you that desire it - chess. Play that, and leave your phony tournament ‘balance’ out of 40K.
But definitely not all competitive players. Several of my friends went to LVO and last week they were actually doing tourney prep. Which makes sense, but funny thing is that each of them have zero issues with playing casually(i.e. Open war deck, PL, being able to exercise restraint in list building, etc.)
I find the ability of competitive players to "downtune" really varies depending on the degree to which they engage in competitive gaming. The most competitive among them really struggle to comprehend what a casual game looks like, for instance one friend in particular (currently at LVO) who basically plays in a tournament every weekend (travels around regionally often so that he can get games in when local stores aren't hosting something) will very deliberately make it a point when playing me to tear up his competitive list and take units which he would never include if he was going to a tournament in order to build a list that in his mind he would not manage to win a game with in an average tournament. Often, some of the less aggressively competitive players will comment that his list is extremely aggressive or take jabs at him that hes an donkey-cave for bringing a tournament list to a casual game/"I thought this was supposed to be a casual game", and he struggles to comprehend that his list isn't truly "casual" - because he spends so much time on tournaments and focusing on tournaments, he doesn't have a good sense of how the game is played casually and his impression of what it means to bring a casual list is heavily warped.
Take templates as just one example. They were fun, and helped fuel the imagination while playing. It was always satisfying to whip out the flame template. But, it had to go, to support the tournamentification of 40K; too many whiny players spending all day at tourneys arguing over whether a single model was hit or not…Solution? Remove fun from the game, and replace it with even more buckets of dice rolling, so the game would be ‘competitive’…
I prefer the dice rolling to the templates, personally. Glad they're gone, long may they stay dead.
Dunno about Kan, but in my case I have. Nobody wants to play anything but the comp standard, even the other casual players I've approached locally. In most cases if you ask them to play using open war/eternal war/crusade mission pack they'll usually say something to the effect of "nah, those missions suck, lets play with the GT mission pack, they're much better balanced and more fun". Heres the thing though, overwhelmingly they haven't played any of those missions, of the dozens of people I've asked I've only found a literal handful who have ever tried any of those missions, ever - yet they all seem to know that the missions suck, are unbalanced, unfun, etc. Why? Because the discourse surrounding the game is dominated by around 1% of the community, for whom those missions do not fulfill their definition of what good/fun gameplay is like, etc. and they are the ones who go out and critique and criticize those missions, etc. and generally messge to the community not to bother with them.
So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
I wouldn't call 40k bland, but I understand people like their templates, scatter dice, random tables, and all that stuff. I personally don't miss any of that, and I'm not a competitive player.
All of those things caused more arguments even in casual games than they helped.
I'm torn about blast markers. I liked them in 3rd. When they made everything scatter in latter editions it got really stupid (thanks Jervis! ). And I've played against people who spend every turn measuring out max coherency between ever model. I can't decide which I'd prefer: Arguments over scatter or anal retentive players?
Laughing Man wrote: So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
When people continually are fed misinformation about missions, power v points, etc...is that a surprise?
Whilst I don't think there's any "misinformation" being given out, and the "power vs points" thing is really just Kan's personal axe that he has ground down to a smooth and shiny pole devoid of an actual edge, ultimately he is right about this for reasons that many of us have been stating for quite some time now.
Tournaments become the norm. Large swathes of 40k players play pick-up games, and those are invariably matched play games, which in turn take up whatever the latest changes are from the tournament circuit. Again, calling it "misinformation" is certainly a stretch, but any attempts to weasel in things like "you're a minority so stop complaining no one wants to play like you" are simply shifting the conversation away from the real issue: Tournaments playing a larger and larger role in shaping the game as a whole, and an absolute minuscule amount of people (the top tournament types) having an influence on the game's direction (with no conflict of interest, naturally! ).
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm torn about blast markers. I liked them in 3rd. When they made everything scatter in latter editions it got really stupid (thanks Jervis! ). And I've played against people who spend every turn measuring out max coherency between ever model. I can't decide which I'd prefer: Arguments over scatter or anal retentive players?
Laughing Man wrote: So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
When people continually are fed misinformation about missions, power v points, etc...is that a surprise?
Whilst I don't think there's any "misinformation" being given out, and the "power vs points" thing is really just Kan's personal axe that he has ground down to a smooth and shiny pole devoid of an actual edge, ultimately he is right about this for reasons that many of us have been stating for quite some time now.
Tournaments become the norm. Large swathes of 40k players play pick-up games, and those are invariably matched play games, which in turn take up whatever the latest changes are from the tournament circuit. Again, calling it "misinformation" is certainly a stretch, but any attempts to weasel in things like "you're a minority so stop complaining no one wants to play like you" are simply shifting the conversation away from the real issue: Tournaments playing a larger and larger role in shaping the game as a whole, and an absolute minuscule amount of people (the top tournament types) having an influence on the game's direction (with no conflict of interest, naturally! ).
So you don't see any conflict between "There's a minority of players that drive the balance of 40K" and "I am in a minority of players who are upset we aren't allowed to drive the balance of 40K"?
Take templates as just one example. They were fun, and helped fuel the imagination while playing. It was always satisfying to whip out the flame template. But, it had to go, to support the tournamentification of 40K; too many whiny players spending all day at tourneys arguing over whether a single model was hit or not…Solution? Remove fun from the game, and replace it with even more buckets of dice rolling, so the game would be ‘competitive’…
It was happening in casual games as well. Lots of casual players are happy they're gone, or don't really care about it.
and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
just looking at Bolt Action, which is based on 40k, and removed templates with 1st Edi as an improvment over the original rules
and brought them back with 2nd edition
Might be that the removing was driven by the tournament crowed, but not because it is hard to use or open to arguments, but it was a hard counter to certain lists and competitive players want as less hard counters as possible in their game
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm torn about blast markers. I liked them in 3rd. When they made everything scatter in latter editions it got really stupid (thanks Jervis! ). And I've played against people who spend every turn measuring out max coherency between ever model. I can't decide which I'd prefer: Arguments over scatter or anal retentive players?
Laughing Man wrote: So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
When people continually are fed misinformation about missions, power v points, etc...is that a surprise?
Whilst I don't think there's any "misinformation" being given out, and the "power vs points" thing is really just Kan's personal axe that he has ground down to a smooth and shiny pole devoid of an actual edge, ultimately he is right about this for reasons that many of us have been stating for quite some time now.
Tournaments become the norm. Large swathes of 40k players play pick-up games, and those are invariably matched play games, which in turn take up whatever the latest changes are from the tournament circuit. Again, calling it "misinformation" is certainly a stretch, but any attempts to weasel in things like "you're a minority so stop complaining no one wants to play like you" are simply shifting the conversation away from the real issue: Tournaments playing a larger and larger role in shaping the game as a whole, and an absolute minuscule amount of people (the top tournament types) having an influence on the game's direction (with no conflict of interest, naturally! ).
So you don't see any conflict between "There's a minority of players that drive the balance of 40K" and "I am in a minority of players who are upset we aren't allowed to drive the balance of 40K"?
Look at it like this there's 1-2% driving/inputting change at the top end. There's maybe 75% in the middle who just follow the 1-2% to some degree because that's what they think they're supposed to do/is the norm. The remainder are the extreme casual/narrative/new players who either know no better ro insulate inside their narrative campaigns.
No matter which bracket you fit into, that 1-2% have more influence or power over the other 99-98% than any other sub group.
A lot of this stems from the constant want/need to Ash Ketchum and be the best, of their group, of their area, of an event. More than ever playing for the fun of it is a foreign concept for the bulk of discussion about this game.
kodos wrote: and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
Why are flamers and blast weapons supposed to hit multiple units and weapons that spray countless bullets aren't? A dakkajet firing 42 shots or a 9 man squad of warbikes firing 108 shots should definitely be appropriate examples of units that have the chance to hit multiple units, much more than a guy wielding a flamer or firing a missile.
Dunno about Kan, but in my case I have. Nobody wants to play anything but the comp standard, even the other casual players I've approached locally. In most cases if you ask them to play using open war/eternal war/crusade mission pack they'll usually say something to the effect of "nah, those missions suck, lets play with the GT mission pack, they're much better balanced and more fun". Heres the thing though, overwhelmingly they haven't played any of those missions, of the dozens of people I've asked I've only found a literal handful who have ever tried any of those missions, ever - yet they all seem to know that the missions suck, are unbalanced, unfun, etc. Why? Because the discourse surrounding the game is dominated by around 1% of the community, for whom those missions do not fulfill their definition of what good/fun gameplay is like, etc. and they are the ones who go out and critique and criticize those missions, etc. and generally messge to the community not to bother with them.
So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
No, what he's saying is that most players don't want to put in the effort to actually try something new because they've been told it's not worth it and most people want to travel the path of least resistance and just play "normal 40K", something which is being dictated by tournament players in most stores.
kodos wrote: and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
Why are flamers and blast weapons supposed to hit multiple units and weapons that spray countless bullets aren't? A dakkajet firing 42 shots or a 9 man squad of warbikes firing 108 shots should definitely be appropriate examples of units that have the chance to hit multiple units, much more than a guy wielding a flamer or firing a missile.
Machine gun style weapons clearly need arc of fire templates to represent their accurate method of usage. Don't just bring back templates, introduce MORE templates.
Templates disappearing coincided with less emphasis on the table, scale and placement of models, and generally a reduction in 'realism' imho to suit a mindset corrupted (again, imho) by CCG and video game mechanics. Sure, scatter was a problem and sure, some arses maxed their coherencies to minimise template effectiveness, in my relatively limited experience, but (again imho) the best strategy there was to just not hang out with those people anymore, if it was an option. Frankly, I am confused as to why technology hasn't been applied to solve these problems. I mean, Mansions of Madness uses an app - why not a photo of the table with scatter done on the phone? Or, why not blast markers like dice with little lasers inside that point in the direction of the scatter? GW could make them. I am sure that more clever people than I could manage a better solution, retaining the old table top realism and what was a superior mechanic barring low-intellects who abused it...
As for the iTC partnership, in this thread, one point got passed by quickly, and this was that ITC and GW store owners/managers would be brought into conversation, each with slightly different interests. Stores might like leagues and narrative army building events spread over months, as people collect new stuff and meet there on are nights, also maybe buying snacks and picking up comics and magazines and so on depending on the store. Tourney minded people might pull the hobby toward matched play comp list building (again, deck building CCG corruption, imho) and this might not only drive sales to some degree, but also inform GW of emerging demand. I mean, GW as we know it now, a purely for-profit global corporatocracy would not be doing this for any reason but to cut back on waste and to manage their consumer base so that they do not overproduce some things while missing out on what people want to buy to win. Maybe there is a sweet spot between WAAC and FAAC that is WARC or winning at a reasonable cost, and maybe in the tension between hobby shop interests and tourney winner interests, GW is trying to identify this point of highest returns for themselves...
For myself, all the more reason to focus on older editions, home-brew editions like Prohammer, once I get into a stable home then a 3d printer and so on.
Dunno about Kan, but in my case I have. Nobody wants to play anything but the comp standard, even the other casual players I've approached locally. In most cases if you ask them to play using open war/eternal war/crusade mission pack they'll usually say something to the effect of "nah, those missions suck, lets play with the GT mission pack, they're much better balanced and more fun". Heres the thing though, overwhelmingly they haven't played any of those missions, of the dozens of people I've asked I've only found a literal handful who have ever tried any of those missions, ever - yet they all seem to know that the missions suck, are unbalanced, unfun, etc. Why? Because the discourse surrounding the game is dominated by around 1% of the community, for whom those missions do not fulfill their definition of what good/fun gameplay is like, etc. and they are the ones who go out and critique and criticize those missions, etc. and generally messge to the community not to bother with them.
So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
No, what he's saying is that most players don't want to put in the effort to actually try something new because they've been told it's not worth it and most people want to travel the path of least resistance and just play "normal 40K", something which is being dictated by tournament players in most stores.
kodos wrote: and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
Why are flamers and blast weapons supposed to hit multiple units and weapons that spray countless bullets aren't? A dakkajet firing 42 shots or a 9 man squad of warbikes firing 108 shots should definitely be appropriate examples of units that have the chance to hit multiple units, much more than a guy wielding a flamer or firing a missile.
Machine gun style weapons clearly need arc of fire templates to represent their accurate method of usage. Don't just bring back templates, introduce MORE templates.
kodos wrote: and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
just looking at Bolt Action, which is based on 40k, and removed templates with 1st Edi as an improvment over the original rules
and brought them back with 2nd edition
Might be that the removing was driven by the tournament crowed, but not because it is hard to use or open to arguments, but it was a hard counter to certain lists and competitive players want as less hard counters as possible in their game
I moved from 40k to Bolt Action and really enjoyed 1st edition. The shoddy v2 rulebook, errors and typos as well and mainly bringing templates into v2 killed my fun of the game. No templates means far less micromanaging of models so less can be hit under a template. All that micromanaging and spacing of models really slows the game down and removes the fun.
As far as the ITC thing goes for GW?
Well, GW won't do anything without some kind of profit in mind so they must have some plans up their sleeves.
When I played 40k casually, I'd be lucky to get a game in every couple of months, the same with a lot of the crowd I played with. I'd far more prefer a thorough playtest with competitive tournament players who probably get far more games in than most casuals and GW themselves. GW's playtesting was more than likely a couple of casual games over a dinner period at GWHQ, and those games were probably photographed as the big battles for WD as well.
What I'd like to see? A day when any unit in a codex could be taken without you getting scoffed/laughed at for bringing it. That would be a start to balance.
Blackie wrote:
Why are flamers and blast weapons supposed to hit multiple units and weapons that spray countless bullets aren't
because it is a game and not a simulation, hence you have some kind of stone/paper/scissor mechanics
for the same reason Anti-Tank weapons do not cause Mortal Wounds for all their damage, it would be realsitic that infantry is instant killed by something that can remove a Land Raider, but it would make them better Anti-Infantry weapons than AT weapons (and vica versa, were in 7th the best AT weapons were anti-infantry weapons)
and no, it makes no sense to argue for realism in 40k (and games based on that), as this is beyond what the rules can do, it is a game, not a simulation
and from a game perspective, not having a counter play to MSU meatshield on objectives outside of melee is a problem if not all armies have access to fast melee units that can do it (so we go back to the balance issue that not all armies can do everything which makes some superior by default detc)
Platuan4th wrote:Don't just bring back templates, introduce MORE templates.
most games that want to have a realism use fire corridors for that and no those have less templates as they might have only 1 in addition (for artillery) if at all
but people who like 40k don't want realism found in historical games so having such things instead of specific targets and things like overwatch is out of question
I tried logging on to the ITC results page to see who the likely group of players are who might be involved in this, but the site is down at the moment due to the LVO. My impression in the past has been that the ITC is essentially a US thing. Am I wrong?
My only hope with the next edition of 40k is that crusade persists and that some of the abysmal wording we now have in the rules gets reviewed. I work with UK legislation on a daily basis and frankly reading that is easier that the overly verbose rules we now have.
Machine gun style weapons clearly need arc of fire templates to represent their accurate method of usage. Don't just bring back templates, introduce MORE templates.
That was sarcasm and meant to be ad absurdium, not the desirable conclusion. I'm one of those that agrees with the removal of Templates and the "Argument Phase".
Blackie wrote:
Why are flamers and blast weapons supposed to hit multiple units and weapons that spray countless bullets aren't
because it is a game and not a simulation, hence you have some kind of stone/paper/scissor mechanics
for the same reason Anti-Tank weapons do not cause Mortal Wounds for all their damage, it would be realsitic that infantry is instant killed by something that can remove a Land Raider, but it would make them better Anti-Infantry weapons than AT weapons (and vica versa, were in 7th the best AT weapons were anti-infantry weapons)
and no, it makes no sense to argue for realism in 40k (and games based on that), as this is beyond what the rules can do, it is a game, not a simulation
and from a game perspective, not having a counter play to MSU meatshield on objectives outside of melee is a problem if not all armies have access to fast melee units that can do it (so we go back to the balance issue that not all armies can do everything which makes some superior by default detc)
Platuan4th wrote:Don't just bring back templates, introduce MORE templates.
most games that want to have a realism use fire corridors for that and no those have less templates as they might have only 1 in addition (for artillery) if at all
but people who like 40k don't want realism found in historical games so having such things instead of specific targets and things like overwatch is out of question
The only argument behind people arguing about bringing templates back is realism/immersion. Nothing else.
I agree about the game not being a simulation, and that's why I don't miss templates at all.
Yeah, if I wanted to play a card game, I would play a card game. Realism means that the table and the models and the scale and the space of the board matters. Dice only data slate driven CCG inspired mechanics gets around all of this, so that people can put huge models on a kitchen table and pretend they are not playing a card game. Sad, imho, when "list building" (which is really just deck building by another name) "metas" (which is really just gaming the game instead of using the game to moderate something more like an RPG with a small army) are more important than a model based hobby with realistic terrain features and something like a battlefield dynamic in mind. With current iterations, the models themselves are only placeholders for what might as well be cards, and a card game is much more suited to a kitchen table sized table than models in the first place... makes me wonder why people who don't want "realism" in the game don't just play with cards instead. But oh well, I suppose I am a voice from the margins, here, as the people who cheer ITC secondaries and so on and CPs and model scale creep and chasing the "meta" all seem too point of fact, as if they are the voices of reason that "realism doesn't belong in the game" and so on, when again, i don't understand why they don't just play with cards on their mom's kitchen table trying to get a half dozen games in before dinner, instead...
Besides that, to me it seems obvious that the problem with templates and so on is less with the actual mechanic than the attitudes of people who abuse them, so why people will call template use the "argument phase" and so on. And again, my solution is to simply not hang out with people of such a attitude.
Have you actually played a modern day card game? Tabletop games have always had iterations with cards and such.. I mean 2nd edition warhammer and it's wargear cards were common for that.
I started with 2nd. Wargear cards and contemporary 9th are worlds apart in this regard imho...
And no, I do not play card games... last card game that I enjoyed was about vampire clans, can't remember that actual name of the game but I think that it changed after its first iteration. That would have been around 1994 maybe...
Laughing Man wrote: So you don't see any conflict between "There's a minority of players that drive the balance of 40K" and "I am in a minority of players who are upset we aren't allowed to drive the balance of 40K"?
I wondered how many more leading questions you were going to ask before you got to your actual point. Thanks for sparing us the wait.
Thankfully, aside from "I don't think anyone's actually arguing that", someone got to it before me, so I'll just quote them:
Platuan4th wrote: No, what he's saying is that most players don't want to put in the effort to actually try something new because they've been told it's not worth it and most people want to travel the path of least resistance and just play "normal 40K", something which is being dictated by tournament players in most stores.
The only argument behind people arguing about bringing templates back is realism/immersion. Nothing else.
the last argument/thread I have seen here on dakka was about the problem that blast/barrage weapons working against "hordes" while being useless against the same amount of models in the same area that are from different units (a 6x5 models in an objektive vs 1x30 models)
and I agree with that, from a simple gameplay perspektive, we are missing the option to hit multiple units with an anti-horde weapon, as having 90 models is still a horde and not an elite army just because those are 18 units instead of 3
using templates is the easiest solution to htis problem, there are other solutions as well, but with those would not work with how GW write rules
TO ME, the issue with 9th edition is that it doesn't really know what it wants to be...well, at least beyond a vehicle to sell models. Yes, clearly tournament considerations are driving various aspects of the game. But on the other hand, the faction rules aren't at all what any designer in their right mind would create in order to craft a balanced wargame for tournament play and tournament timeframes. But if more narrative-focused players are enjoying Crusade, and more competitive gamers are enjoying everything that's happening on that side, and GW is selling models like crazy, who am I to criticize? *shrug*
GW should keep this the faux sport stuff away from Specialist Games, though. Like far away.
The only argument behind people arguing about bringing templates back is realism/immersion. Nothing else.
the last argument/thread I have seen here on dakka was about the problem that blast/barrage weapons working against "hordes" while being useless against the same amount of models in the same area that are from different units (a 6x5 models in an objektive vs 1x30 models)
and I agree with that, from a simple gameplay perspektive, we are missing the option to hit multiple units with an anti-horde weapon, as having 90 models is still a horde and not an elite army just because those are 18 units instead of 3
using templates is the easiest solution to htis problem, there are other solutions as well, but with those would not work with how GW write rules
From a gameplay perspective that's not even a problem in my opinion. Because as I pointed out earlier it's just an arbitrary concept that barrage weapons should be able to hit multiple units and weapons with high rate of fire, which are also anti horde weapons, shouldn't. A concept I disagree with.
The mechanic that allows a single weapon to hit multiple targets should be either avoided completely for semplicity or granted to all kinds of weapons that in real life cover a large area when they fire, not only by an explosion but also by a massive amount of bullets.
Not to mention that shifting hordes from objectives isn't an actual issue in 9th.
gorgon wrote: GW should keep this the faux sport stuff away from Specialist Games, though. Like far away.
Surely Blood Bowl would be a natural fit, though?
Okay...MAYBE that one. It's closer to chess than a traditional wargame anyway. Certainly Underworlds is built for more competitive play, although I don't know if that's technically SG. But for the rest, no rankings and points and such please.
GW + ITC = most tournaments. You want GW support? You want a GW shop at your tournament and the exclusive GW con/event-exclusive models to be sold at your event? You gotta follow our rules. Not just for gaming, but for modeling and other things.
Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.
Blackie wrote: From a gameplay perspective that's not even a problem in my opinion. Because as I pointed out earlier it's just an arbitrary concept that barrage weapons should be able to hit multiple units and weapons with high rate of fire, which are also anti horde weapons, shouldn't. A concept I disagree with.
The mechanic that allows a single weapon to hit multiple targets should be either avoided completely for semplicity or granted to all kinds of weapons that in real life cover a large area when they fire, not only by an explosion but also by a massive amount of bullets.
Not to mention that shifting hordes from objectives isn't an actual issue in 9th.
if it is a heavy bolter that can do it or a blast weapon makes no difference, it is just something that is missing (same as a pinning mechanic instead of the moral rules we have now)
that it is not a real issue because horde MSU is not "meta" does not mean it should not be there, just that most people are not missing it by now which can change as soon as GW comes up with a crazy new idea for the next Codex
I like the idea of using feedback from top players to balance out lists. GW's internal testing has always been lackluster, and they miss obvious things that anyone can figure out with a few minutes and some math.
That being said, 8th and later increasingly are not about the models themselves, but about all the extra stuff on the side. At some point you could replace units with cards and make it a CCG and it would play the same.
Auras, strategims, objectives, all these things that are not obvious on the models, and are just stacked on top of things to the point you really can't tell what is going on just looking at the board anymore. There was value in 3rd edition's simplicity of "here's a marine statline, and the only differentiating thing is the obvious wargear."
chaos0xomega wrote: So 5000 players, about 1.1% of the games total playerbase (I'm guessing that theres probably another 500k+ individuals who aren't counted in the reddit subs who just don't use social media or reddit, etc. so that number might really be more like 0.5%) is essentially dictating the terms of the game to the remaining 98.9% (or 99.5%).
I have collected the BCP data through 2018 for 8+ player tournaments.
There are 39,000+ distinct players ( across all years ). Nearly 88,000 games were played across 18,000 unique players in 2021 ( 2019 was 69,000 and 2018 was 41,000 ).
and how many of those are competitive players (as playing tournaments on a regular bases) and how many are casuals playing events (as once or twice a year)?
jeff white wrote: I started with 2nd. Wargear cards and contemporary 9th are worlds apart in this regard imho...
And no, I do not play card games... last card game that I enjoyed was about vampire clans, can't remember that actual name of the game but I think that it changed after its first iteration. That would have been around 1994 maybe...
If you played 2nd, then you should remember that the Psychic phase literally stopped the game to have you play a card game.
oni wrote: Am I supposed to feel sympathy for someone who cannot ‘switch it off’?
Seems a bit condescending to me.
Assuming you're referencing me/my tale of the friend who can't figure out what casual means, you've completely misunderstood both the point and the substance of the story. The point isn't to generate sympathy for him, its to illustrate that the conceptions of what a casual list looks like to a competitive player is different than what it looks like to a casual player. Its not that he can't "turn it off", its that he doesnt know what "off" looks like, because his experience with the game is almost 100% competitive gameplay and the idea of playing a list where your listbuilding decisions are dictated 100% by fluff completely divorced from anything to do with a units performance or rules is alien to him.
Incidentally, the reverse is also true and it cuts both ways. I hung up my competitive stirrups about 10 years back, recently when I was asked by another friend to help him practice for an upcoming tournament, I showed up with what i conceptualized as a "competitive" list based on my past experience, and - well, it was nothing like what actual competitive lists look like today. Completely different meta, might as well be a different game.
So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
Did you completely miss the part in one of my previous posts where I calculate the competitive playerbase to be at most 5% of the player popuation? Take a look back, its in bold red text, can't miss it.
So you don't see any conflict between "There's a minority of players that drive the balance of 40K" and "I am in a minority of players who are upset we aren't allowed to drive the balance of 40K"?
Referring to anywhere from 95-99.5% of the games playerbase (i.e. the casuals) as a "minority" is certainly a hot take. I am, in fact, part of the "majority" of players. The fact that a large segment of that majority has been influenced by an actual minority of players to perceive "real 40k" as having a very narrow and specific interpetation doesn't suddenly shift them into the majority and me into the minority. There is no reason for the more than 90% of players who will never play in a tournament to play using tournament gameplay standards 100% of the time. The only reason they do so is because those who advocate for that style of play are, essentially, the sole public voices in discourse about the game.
kodos wrote: and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
You can accomplish the same thing more quickly and easily by adding a single sentence to a given weapons "Abilities" section (as opposed to the half page of rules necessary to make templates work within the construct of the rules) that says that you do X additional attacks to y many units within z inches of the target unit, without creating an incentive for anal retentive players to precisely measure the spacing between each and every model in their army or introducing the various issues that come with holding a template with shaky hands and trying to determine what is/isn't rightfully under the area of effect, etc.
just looking at Bolt Action, which is based on 40k, and removed templates with 1st Edi as an improvment over the original rules
and brought them back with 2nd edition
Might be that the removing was driven by the tournament crowed, but not because it is hard to use or open to arguments, but it was a hard counter to certain lists and competitive players want as less hard counters as possible in their game
Removal was driven by an effort to streamline gameplay and limit arguments and issues associated with the templates. The reason they were added back in was because there was no incentive for models to spread out and instead they ended up clumping up in and around objectives and terrain, increasing the value of blast templates (the spamming of which became essential to playing the game) and decreasing the value of regular weapons, and leading to a generally static game.
There are numerous ways that this issue could have been addressed, but they chose what was arguably the lowest effort solution which was to make blast weapons templates instead of randomized hits, so that players would space out their models more, thus devaluing blast templates and increasing the value of non-blast weapons in the process. In other words, they added blast templates into 2nd Edition to intentionally make blast weapons worse so that they would be less popular than they were in 1st Edition. IMO that says a lot about blast templates, and not much of it is good.
kodos wrote: and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
Why are flamers and blast weapons supposed to hit multiple units and weapons that spray countless bullets aren't? A dakkajet firing 42 shots or a 9 man squad of warbikes firing 108 shots should definitely be appropriate examples of units that have the chance to hit multiple units, much more than a guy wielding a flamer or firing a missile.
There are wargames that do this. Chain of Command for example, most ranged attacks (not just explosive/blast weapons) spread from the target team to other teams within 4", rationale being that the guys doing the shooting don't really know or care about how the enemy teams/squads/units, etc. are organized and will fire on basically any enemy forces in a certain direction/area of the battlefield regardless of how they are organized/administratively segregated.
Machine gun style weapons clearly need arc of fire templates to represent their accurate method of usage. Don't just bring back templates, introduce MORE templates.
The old Warhammer Historicals World War 1 game (amongst others) did this. You can do this without templates though, as some games already do. If you have things like firing/line of sight arcs incorporating into the rules and gameplay, creating weapons that hit everyting within range within a given arc isn't really that difficult. The aforementioned Chain of Command solution is even simpler though, simply allow the weapon to cause additional attacks to adjacent units and you've achieved the same outcome sans template.
jeff white wrote: Templates disappearing coincided with less emphasis on the table, scale and placement of models, and generally a reduction in 'realism' imho to suit a mindset corrupted (again, imho) by CCG and video game mechanics.
There are many, many, many CCGs where card placement/position matters and effects/abilities can have adjacency and impact cards next to others. Trying to put the blame on a "corrupted mindset" and influence from other styles of games in this case says more about your own lack of knowledge/experience with these games than it does about the 40k design team/philosophy.
Sure, scatter was a problem and sure, some arses maxed their coherencies to minimise template effectiveness, in my relatively limited experience, but (again imho) the best strategy there was to just not hang out with those people anymore, if it was an option.
The last bit is the important part there. For many its not really an option, in my own extensive experience the "problem players" you are describing basically covers the majority of the US playerbase. The fact of the matter is that if you weren't spreading out your minis to some extent you were handing your opponent free victory points. Even the most casual players would, at various points during the game where victory or defeat came down to certian key units/situations, take the time to spread their minis to improve their resiliency. There was no getting around it.
why not a photo of the table with scatter done on the phone?Or, why not blast markers like dice with little lasers inside that point in the direction of the scatter? GW could make them.
Overwhelmingly the playerbase is against the use of apps/technology being a requirement for gameplay. Many prefer this being an analogue experience played out with commonly available tools as opposed to something that requires extensive investment into bespoke gadgets and tech in order to do something that can be achieved far more simply via other means. Heres a pretty big hint - if you need an app or a custom laser tool to get it to work, maybe its not a good mechanic and you shouldn't use it.
barring low-intellects who abused it...
You sound a lot like someone who never really played the editions of the game that used templates.
The Black Adder wrote: I tried logging on to the ITC results page to see who the likely group of players are who might be involved in this, but the site is down at the moment due to the LVO. My impression in the past has been that the ITC is essentially a US thing. Am I wrong?
Yes and no. It started in the US but a bit under half (lets call it somewhere around 40-45%) of the players registered in ITC are international, with Europe being about 25% of total registrations and Canada being another 20% on its own, so definitely heavily weighted towards the US but not being exclusively "a US thing". I suspect though, that a disproportionate number of the European registrants are UK based rather than continental/EU. From what I gather, Australia has its own separate ITC-like system and they don't really make use of it there. There is also BCP, which is some kind of an ITC off-shoot for score-tracking and ranking, but without otherwise following the ITC "format". All ITC registrations are on BCP, but not all BCP registrations are on ITC. Like ITC, about half of registrations in BCP are American, but Europe makes up about 32% and Canada only 8%, with the remainder being Asia/Australia/Rest of World (though again Australia is underrepresented as they don't use ITC and whatever they use also fills the roll of BCP).
The only argument behind people arguing about bringing templates back is realism/immersion. Nothing else.
I agree about the game not being a simulation, and that's why I don't miss templates at all.
Basically this. As I pointed out in another thread this past week, templates actually aren't very realistic, so its really more about immersion and (perceived) realism than anything else.
When it comes to flamethrowers, for example, putting the narrow end in base contact with the firing weapon isn't really the best representation of how they work as they weren't usually used as a "point" weapon to fire in a narrow cone - the "inferno" method (or whatever it was called) used by the hellhound would be a slightly more accurate representation, as they were generally used in broad sweeping motions to cover a rather large area of real estate.
When it comes to blasts, perhaps the biggest mistake there is the assumption that an explosive blast is circular - at best they are more of an elliptical shape, and more careful study of them will show you that their area of effect is often extremely irregular as the concussive blast effect and the fragmentation effect are essentially two semi-independent variables that can produce lethality in two completely different directions/orientations - picture a venn diagram, but instead of circles you have ovals, and depending on the design of the weapon you might have multiple ovals as a result of multiple blast charges and fragmentation sleeves, etc, and some of those ovals may or may not be overlapping, or oriented along completely different axes, etc. In some cases, the old flamer tempalte is a better depiction of the area of effect of an explosive blast than the actual circular blast templates are, though depending on the weapon you might need to place multiple such templates, each potentially scattering in a slightly different direction and orientation from the others, to properly approximate the lethal area of an actual explosion.
Perhaps the next biggest mistake is the assumption that these weapons are consistent in their area of effect - they aren't. Depending on a huge number of variables, the lethal area of an explosive weapon can vary wildly from one use to another. Chuck a grenade towards the enemy and it might have a "lethal radius" (i.e. the distance at which it has a 90% probability of killing someone) of 50 meters because it landed in a nice flat and heavily exposed location, chuck a second one and it might only have a lethal radius of 15 meters because it landed in a ditch/crater, etc. and most of the lethal effects are absorbed by the ground. This is true of basically every such weapon, and it gets even wonkier once you account for things like variable fuzing (time-delay fuzing, airbursting, etc.) and the intended effect/usage of the weapon, variable yield ("dial-a-nuke" but increasingly being used on smaller and smaller conventional weapons, including hand grenades), and the layout of terrain within the blast area which could potentially create "shadows" where someone standing a few feet from the source of the explosion is unaffected but someone 50 feet away is shredded to a bloody pulp.
The other thing though, is that there isn't a hard line at which the effects of a blast simply end. The lethality of a blast or an explosion exists on a gradient/spectrum. In generalized/idealized terms, the closer you are to the epicenter, the more likely you are to die. The "lethal radius" (i.e. 90% probability of death) of the typical fragmentation grenade is about 5 meters and the "severe injury radius" (i.e. 90% of severe wounds/non-lethal casualty) is about 15m... but they can still potentially kill you from 200-250m away under ideal conditions (i.e. flat terrain, no cover, optimal detonation height at full yield). These gradients can vary wildly from weapon to weapon based on size but also, again, fuzing effects as well as how the weapon is intended to kill you (concussive blast vs fragmentation, etc.). If we wanted to be "realistic", every time you fired the weapon you would be rolling for a different template/a different blast radius, etc.
jeff white wrote: Yeah, if I wanted to play a card game, I would play a card game. Realism means that the table and the models and the scale and the space of the board matters. Dice only data slate driven CCG inspired mechanics gets around all of this, so that people can put huge models on a kitchen table and pretend they are not playing a card game. Sad, imho, when "list building" (which is really just deck building by another name) "metas" (which is really just gaming the game instead of using the game to moderate something more like an RPG with a small army) are more important than a model based hobby with realistic terrain features and something like a battlefield dynamic in mind. With current iterations, the models themselves are only placeholders for what might as well be cards, and a card game is much more suited to a kitchen table sized table than models in the first place... makes me wonder why people who don't want "realism" in the game don't just play with cards instead. But oh well, I suppose I am a voice from the margins, here, as the people who cheer ITC secondaries and so on and CPs and model scale creep and chasing the "meta" all seem too point of fact, as if they are the voices of reason that "realism doesn't belong in the game" and so on, when again, i don't understand why they don't just play with cards on their mom's kitchen table trying to get a half dozen games in before dinner, instead...
Besides that, to me it seems obvious that the problem with templates and so on is less with the actual mechanic than the attitudes of people who abuse them, so why people will call template use the "argument phase" and so on. And again, my solution is to simply not hang out with people of such a attitude.
Removed - rule #1 I think you'll find that many of the players in this thread arguing againgst templates are the same people who are against the ITC/GW partnership, so on that basis your entire thesis about who is championing not using templates is 100% wrong.
Perhaps the greatest irony in all this is that you are complaining that you want the position and spacing of the models on the table to matter, and that blast templates are the vehicle by which this is achieved, but then saying that is ontly argumentatitve donkey-caves with a bad attitude that would actually bother to position and space their models in response to blast templates. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
the last argument/thread I have seen here on dakka was about the problem that blast/barrage weapons working against "hordes" while being useless against the same amount of models in the same area that are from different units (a 6x5 models in an objektive vs 1x30 models)
and I agree with that, from a simple gameplay perspektive, we are missing the option to hit multiple units with an anti-horde weapon, as having 90 models is still a horde and not an elite army just because those are 18 units instead of 3
using templates is the easiest solution to htis problem, there are other solutions as well, but with those would not work with how GW write rules
From a gameplay perspective that's not even a problem in my opinion. Because as I pointed out earlier it's just an arbitrary concept that barrage weapons should be able to hit multiple units and weapons with high rate of fire, which are also anti horde weapons, shouldn't. A concept I disagree with.
The mechanic that allows a single weapon to hit multiple targets should be either avoided completely for semplicity or granted to all kinds of weapons that in real life cover a large area when they fire, not only by an explosion but also by a massive amount of bullets.
Not to mention that shifting hordes from objectives isn't an actual issue in 9th.
Indeed. "Machine gun artillery" is/was a thing and they have been used as indirect fire weapons similar to mortars/field guns.
As it stands, the game (perhaps rightfully) abstracts the idea that the models within your units are smart enough to disperse in a manner which is conducive towards surviving artillery attacks, the dice roll that has replaced blast weapons essentially crunches all the numbers "under the hood" to determine the number of models that would be hit from an explosive attack (or flame weapon) based on the assumption that your minis are smart enough not to stand shoulder to shoulder with one another. The game also assumes (again, perhaps rightfully, because both these things are wartime SOP for every actual military force in the real world) that your units are spread out so that realistically no conventional weapon could potentially catch two completely separate units within its area of effect.
The idea that you should have to monitor the positioning of each and every one of your troops is tedium disguised as immersion. There is nothing immersive about spreading your models out in order to minimize potential casualties, nor is it realistic. As the commander of a company/battalion scale unit you are entrusting that responsibility to your platoon, squad, and fireteam leaders and trusting that months or years of training and battlefield experience kicks in and has your troops disperse and move cautiously on their own without needing to be constantly reminded or told to do so, without the need for the direct supervision that the game would otherwise have you engage in. In terms of gameplay, there is no real "value add" for players in caring about the precise positioning of each and every model in their army within the construct of the existing rules, as the game tends to default to unit based interactions rather than model based interactions. 40k is not that kind of game, nor has it been at any point since 4th edition (can't speak for 3rd or prior, didn't play those). If the rules construct was more similar to Warmachines which emphasizes precision model placement and mechanically resolves specific model-to-model interactions (instead of unit-to-unit interactions as 40k does) then there might be room to argue that positional palcement of each and every model in your army is important and that templates play an important role in doing so, but thats not the case as the game is actually played - so why make your players do something tedious, boring, and unimportant?
kodos wrote: and how many of those are competitive players (as playing tournaments on a regular bases) and how many are casuals playing events (as once or twice a year)?
I'm loading the tournaments with less than 8 players now to see if there's any tip of iceberg effect ( I doubt it ). There's a lot of fuzziness with the stupid TTS games logged, which I think I can remove most of those from consideration.
Without TTS about 56% played just one tournament. The other 8,000 have an average of 4.5 and median of 3.
This is the guy who played the most tournaments:
And this is Richard Siegler ( excludes LVO at the moment ):
There are more casual players than competitive players but who actually play more games? Also the data being collected from a casual game compared to a competitive game data is different right.
kodos wrote: and how many of those are competitive players (as playing tournaments on a regular bases) and how many are casuals playing events (as once or twice a year)?
Well, last time that random mess of data came up, 90%+ only played in those tournaments once ever and it was deemed that they shouldn't be considered for any kind of statistical data, and were considered 'fallen out of the gaming side of the hobby' https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/803002.page
jeff white wrote: I started with 2nd. Wargear cards and contemporary 9th are worlds apart in this regard imho...
And no, I do not play card games... last card game that I enjoyed was about vampire clans, can't remember that actual name of the game but I think that it changed after its first iteration. That would have been around 1994 maybe...
If you played 2nd, then you should remember that the Psychic phase literally stopped the game to have you play a card game.
Iirc we paid points for powers that worked as if weapons. Often we didn’t use psykers depending on the players involved. And I dunno if I am not clear or others are not thinking through or just looking for something to argue about or acting in bad faith… but the problem is not using actual physical cards so much as ethos turning the hobby into a deck building as of might as well be a card based game.
But also, why do casual players care if the tournament side is getting love?
Casual players, showing you dont care about units performance and just play fluffy lists(Whatever that means lol) shouldnt care because you will just play what you want whether is broken busted or UP or OP.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But also, why do casual players care if the tournament side is getting love?
Casual players, showing you dont care about units performance and just play fluffy lists(Whatever that means lol) shouldnt care because you will just play what you want whether is broken busted or UP or OP.
Because nobody wants to play their version of the game with them, because apparently tournament players exude a hypnotic aura that convert all who see them.
jeff white wrote: I started with 2nd. Wargear cards and contemporary 9th are worlds apart in this regard imho...
And no, I do not play card games... last card game that I enjoyed was about vampire clans, can't remember that actual name of the game but I think that it changed after its first iteration. That would have been around 1994 maybe...
If you played 2nd, then you should remember that the Psychic phase literally stopped the game to have you play a card game.
Iirc we paid points for powers that worked as if weapons. Often we didn’t use psykers depending on the players involved. And I dunno if I am not clear or others are not thinking through or just looking for something to argue about or acting in bad faith… but the problem is not using actual physical cards so much as ethos turning the hobby into a deck building as of might as well be a card based game.
The "Powers that worked like weapons" was 3rd. 2nd, you bought psyker levels, then drew random Powers from a deck of Powers for each psyker up to their level(except Tyranids who DID spend points to buy specific powers). Each Psychic Phase, you drew from a deck of power cards(that also contained a card that let you cast irresistibly, a card that let you dispel automatically, cards that let you destroy Powers, etc.) that you used to power your Powers and/or dispel opponent Powers(in a bidding fashion. Certain items let you store cards so there was a deck building element depending on how you built your characters and their purchased gear.
GW + ITC = most tournaments. You want GW support? You want a GW shop at your tournament and the exclusive GW con/event-exclusive models to be sold at your event? You gotta follow our rules. Not just for gaming, but for modeling and other things.
Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.
Sure, for now, until policy among GW higher-ups changes. ITC's given away the keys to the car here, and now just has to hope that GW drives it sensibly. Historical precedent suggests that's a gamble.
jeff white wrote: I started with 2nd. Wargear cards and contemporary 9th are worlds apart in this regard imho...
And no, I do not play card games... last card game that I enjoyed was about vampire clans, can't remember that actual name of the game but I think that it changed after its first iteration. That would have been around 1994 maybe...
If you played 2nd, then you should remember that the Psychic phase literally stopped the game to have you play a card game.
Iirc we paid points for powers that worked as if weapons. Often we didn’t use psykers depending on the players involved. And I dunno if I am not clear or others are not thinking through or just looking for something to argue about or acting in bad faith… but the problem is not using actual physical cards so much as ethos turning the hobby into a deck building as of might as well be a card based game.
The "Powers that worked like weapons" was 3rd. 2nd, you bought psyker levels, then drew random Powers from a deck of Powers for each psyker up to their level(except Tyranids who DID spend points to buy specific powers). Each Psychic Phase, you drew from a deck of power cards(that also contained a card that let you cast irresistibly, a card that let you dispel automatically, cards that let you destroy Powers, etc.) that you used to power your Powers and/or dispel opponent Powers(in a bidding fashion. Certain items let you store cards so there was a deck building element depending on how you built your characters and their purchased gear.
Thanks for that. Yeah… remembering that now. Apologies… been a long time. Did play some nids back then. And sure, not my fav part of the game now that you remind me, guess why third is resonating best with me recently…
kodos wrote: and how many of those are competitive players (as playing tournaments on a regular bases) and how many are casuals playing events (as once or twice a year)?
Well, last time that random mess of data came up, 90%+ only played in those tournaments once ever and it was deemed that they shouldn't be considered for any kind of statistical data, and were considered 'fallen out of the gaming side of the hobby' https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/803002.page
I've included far more of the tournaments than the initial data set had ( and put everything into a structured DB ). And the actual statement was "but they either just don't play often and in the case are extremely unlikely to switch or they just fell out of the gaming side of the hobby"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Sure, for now, until policy among GW higher-ups changes. ITC's given away the keys to the car here, and now just has to hope that GW drives it sensibly. Historical precedent suggests that's a gamble.
Absolutely - we shouldn't rest easy there, but there is little chance GW could effectively police the vast majority of tournaments. You'd basically only be concerned about the high profile ones like NOVA, LVO, US Opens, etc.
Oh boy, I sure do love calculating 5 different types of points scoring after every player turn and again at the game turn. I hope it doesn't cut too much into my "reviewing list of 400 stratagems that might be relevant at a given moment" time!
ph34r wrote: Oh boy, I sure do love calculating 5 different types of points scoring after every player turn and again at the game turn. I hope it doesn't cut too much into my "reviewing list of 400 stratagems that might be relevant at a given moment" time!
You can build a list and pick out the strats you focus on in a game until you get used to them and then expand. It wouldn't hurt to see restrictions from GW like one strat per unit per phase though.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: There is indeed risk of a "bad actor", but having more voices is better.
The ITC has a nasty habit of protecting bad actors.
kodos wrote:so GW finally realized that the best way to grow the US market is to invest into the tournament scene
with the Edition all people are telling me, is not the tournament edition but the narrative one, at that tournament play has never had any affect on the casual player in the US
wait and see how this will work out
BrotherGecko wrote:How are people complaining that casual isn't getting enough attention? There is a new crusade book like every 3 months. There is an entire version of the game for narrative casual play called Crusade. There is a alternative point system for casual play called power level.
9th if anything has had more focus on casual/narrative play than any edition since 2nd.
I am absolutely convinced most the people complaining here do not play the game, at all. And if they do, they are still mad about that Eldar player that beat them in 4th edition the one time they tried a tournament.
BrotherGecko wrote: How are people complaining that casual isn't getting enough attention? There is a new crusade book like every 3 months. There is an entire version of the game for narrative casual play called Crusade. There is a alternative point system for casual play called power level.
9th if anything has had more focus on casual/narrative play than any edition since 2nd.
I am absolutely convinced most the people complaining here do not play the game, at all. And if they do, they are still mad about that Eldar player that beat them in 4th edition the one time they tried a tournament.
Are you talking about yourself not playing the game? Because Crusade isn't casual. Crusade is a lot of extra work, both in terms of book-keeping and keeping the group together.
It can be fun with the right group, but its not what most people mean when they say 'casual'
Casual just means wandering into to the shop/club/venue, having a game and hanging out, maybe having another game.
Generic crusade is pick up games. Its about as casual as you can get. Crusade campaigns are an extra layer to crusade that isn't about pick up games. And there is still power levels, non-matched play, narrative play, etc.
Problem casual players have is other casual players. Competitive players are out there playing competitive games not "clubbing baby seals" at the local shop, that is a casual player doing that. People not playing competitive games at tournaments are casual players no matter how WAAC their style or list is.
Public enemy number one of the casual 40k fan is other casual 40k fans who play casual differently. The dude taking top spot at the LVO isn't anyone but other competitive players problem, the dude taking the top spot's list and strolling up to LGS to play exclusively pick up games is the guy you have issues with. And that dude is a casual player.
jeff white wrote:I started with 2nd. Wargear cards and contemporary 9th are worlds apart in this regard imho...
And no, I do not play card games... last card game that I enjoyed was about vampire clans, can't remember that actual name of the game but I think that it changed after its first iteration. That would have been around 1994 maybe...
I'd rather play poker for money than a CCG for free.
GW + ITC = most tournaments. You want GW support? You want a GW shop at your tournament and the exclusive GW con/event-exclusive models to be sold at your event? You gotta follow our rules. Not just for gaming, but for modeling and other things.
Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.
Cuz if Mike says it, it must be true.
hotsauceman1 wrote:But also, why do casual players care if the tournament side is getting love?
Casual players, showing you dont care about units performance and just play fluffy lists(Whatever that means lol) shouldnt care because you will just play what you want whether is broken busted or UP or OP.
If the core design philosophy is strictly for tourneys...umm I don't know how to put it to you.
agree, my problem is simply, if GW would use the style of rules that CoC used, each weapon would be different just for the sake of being different, with Marine Rocket Launcher being 6" spread, and Orks being 2" while heavy Bolters having 4" but other similar weapons none
the need of a template would prevend that up to a point
and that Warlord Games took the easiest way, well people call WG the GW of historical games for a reason
40k could also just remove the horde stuff for blast as I don't see a point for it without going after the "many models in one place" instead of "too many models in 1 unit"
Voss wrote:
kodos wrote: and how many of those are competitive players (as playing tournaments on a regular bases) and how many are casuals playing events (as once or twice a year)?
Well, last time that random mess of data came up, 90%+ only played in those tournaments once ever and it was deemed that they shouldn't be considered for any kind of statistical data, and were considered 'fallen out of the gaming side of the hobby' https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/803002.page
I see this very simple, for someone to be competitive, they need to play a lot and not just training battles but tournaments and people who only play events once, or just those that are local (LVO is such a big event, playing it once for fun without any other tournament that year does not make you a competitive gamer but a casual one who likes social events and meeting other gamers or just wanted to be there once)
competitive player is something different than (casual) tournament/event player, than store/club/garage only player
Daedalus81 wrote:
kodos wrote: and how many of those are competitive players (as playing tournaments on a regular bases) and how many are casuals playing events (as once or twice a year)?
I'm loading the tournaments with less than 8 players now to see if there's any tip of iceberg effect ( I doubt it ). There's a lot of fuzziness with the stupid TTS games logged, which I think I can remove most of those from consideration.
Without TTS about 56% played just one tournament. The other 8,000 have an average of 4.5 and median of 3.
This is the guy who played the most tournaments:
And this is Richard Siegler ( excludes LVO at the moment ):
ok, 8.000 is not that far off the assumed 5.000 and it looks like you can say those are the competitive part of the playerbase
Racerguy180 wrote: If the core design philosophy is strictly for tourneys...umm I don't know how to put it to you.
But it's not? GW puts out a gakload of content for Crusade and narrative content, and the default playstyle is PL. Even with 2 CA books a year, there's far more casual content than there is for tournaments.
I’m fine with the comp thing, if it means buffing up/entirely retooling factions that are behind. There’s so much in the ork codex that could use massive points cuts, or optimally reworks. Same with nearly every codex really.
Yes, but I don't think going off reddit subs is really going to get a reasonable assumption for active playerbase
active playerbase is impossible to tell, for events we have numbers, but overall players no chance is even with sub to FB or Reddit, no one knows who really plays or is just there for the pics
and than there are those who play but don't let others know about it
Yes, but I don't think going off reddit subs is really going to get a reasonable assumption for active playerbase
active playerbase is impossible to tell, for events we have numbers, but overall players no chance is even with sub to FB or Reddit, no one knows who really plays or is just there for the pics
and than there are those who play but don't let others know about it
Yea it's quite hard, because you also have just straight hobbyists that never play the game.
Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.
Cuz if Mike says it, it must be true.
In this case, very much yes.
I love the wording...
I could say something about GW that is true, without any personal influence over whether it remains so. In this case, it's the opposite. But I love it too, thanks!
hotsauceman1 wrote: But also, why do casual players care if the tournament side is getting love?
Casual players, showing you dont care about units performance and just play fluffy lists(Whatever that means lol) shouldnt care because you will just play what you want whether is broken busted or UP or OP.
They want to play fluffy lists and have a chance against GT winning lists...but also they don't care about being competitive. Yea, I don't get it either.
Tyel wrote: 5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?
The article says that "top ITC finishers" and TOs will be involved in the balance dataslates. That isn't 5000. It's perhaps, what? Another couple of dozen?
Tyel wrote: 5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?
The article says that "top ITC finishers" and TOs will be involved in the balance dataslates. That isn't 5000. It's perhaps, what? Another couple of dozen?
Of wonderful, like-minded people who have nothing but the best intentions for the ga(competitive version)me...
People are acting like the only outcome is top players are going to whisper "make this strong unit stronger" and completely ignore the possibility that some of these players/TOs may want to be able to bring other models.
"Hey, I'd never consider bringing a Gladiator Lancer, but I do like the model, maybe if..." kind of stuff.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But also, why do casual players care if the tournament side is getting love?
Casual players, showing you dont care about units performance and just play fluffy lists(Whatever that means lol) shouldnt care because you will just play what you want whether is broken busted or UP or OP.
Saw this gem and felt it needed addressing. A knight castellan, 3 blood angels captains and a guard CP battery is not fluffy. That's a list that was designed solely around abusing game mechanics.
That level of douchery has been dialled back, but I cant imagine many competitive players are sitting down going "you know what, hive fleet jormungandr sounds cool, they attack using rapid moving serpent forms and burrow attacks, I'll build an army that focuses on that". Instead they'll be abusing min-max hive guard armies and the new MC spam.
I'd love to get some form of confirmation from Mike since he's around, or anyone at GW in honesty that they are going to use these feedback groups to bring up the bottom X% just as much as they are going to reign in the top Y%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: People are acting like the only outcome is top players are going to whisper "make this strong unit stronger" and completely ignore the possibility that some of these players/TOs may want to be able to bring other models.
"Hey, I'd never consider bringing a Gladiator Lancer, but I do like the model, maybe if..." kind of stuff.
It depends how it's handled, of the feedback requested is "how do we stop drukhari having the top WR" the answer isn't going to be "make gladiators lancers good"
Rihgu wrote: People are acting like the only outcome is top players are going to whisper "make this strong unit stronger" and completely ignore the possibility that some of these players/TOs may want to be able to bring other models.
"Hey, I'd never consider bringing a Gladiator Lancer, but I do like the model, maybe if..." kind of stuff.
That isn't much better. Just improving under performing unit (X) because some ITC winner likes it isn't going to improve the game as a whole. Gw should be focusing on bringing up all under performing units while reigning in anything that's massively over performing. They shouldn't be "playing favorites".
hotsauceman1 wrote: But also, why do casual players care if the tournament side is getting love? Casual players, showing you dont care about units performance and just play fluffy lists(Whatever that means lol) shouldnt care because you will just play what you want whether is broken busted or UP or OP.
Saw this gem and felt it needed addressing. A knight castellan, 3 blood angels captains and a guard CP battery is not fluffy. That's a list that was designed solely around abusing game mechanics.
That level of douchery has been dialled back, but I cant imagine many competitive players are sitting down going "you know what, hive fleet jormungandr sounds cool, they attack using rapid moving serpent forms and burrow attacks, I'll build an army that focuses on that". Instead they'll be abusing min-max hive guard armies and the new MC spam.
I'd love to get some form of confirmation from Mike since he's around, or anyone at GW in honesty that they are going to use these feedback groups to bring up the bottom X% just as much as they are going to reign in the top Y%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: People are acting like the only outcome is top players are going to whisper "make this strong unit stronger" and completely ignore the possibility that some of these players/TOs may want to be able to bring other models.
"Hey, I'd never consider bringing a Gladiator Lancer, but I do like the model, maybe if..." kind of stuff.
It depends how it's handled, of the feedback requested is "how do we stop drukhari having the top WR" the answer isn't going to be "make gladiators lancers good"
You're misunderstanding that first poster's point.
He's not saying, 'competitive players play fluffy' he's saying 'why do casual players care what competitive players do?' as well as 'why does it matter if a unit is too strong to a casual player that's only using it for its fluff in friendly games?'
Most balance changes should have a near zero impact on the casual/narrative community because winning shouldn't really matter to them so long as they have fun playing. A super OP combo should make precisely 0 waves (because it should be mutually agreed upon not to use it) and super OP individual units (which, lets be honest, there aren't a huge amount of units that are game warping in a vacuum anymore. Almost every top tier strategy relies on multiple layers of rules to make anything really over the top. Take those away and even things like double Volkite Contemptors are just 'good'.) should be naturally weeded out down to maybe 1 per list just via social pressure.
If anything, the casual community should be laser focused on improving bad units because that might actually have a positive impact on the feel of that army on the table. Nerfing OP stuff shouldn't really make any difference. SPECIFICALLY for casual and narrative play.
Rihgu wrote: As an example, the devs of another wargame I play specifically asked the community "which options aren't you taking, and why?".
GW could easily use this program to ask those kinds of questions rather than just... whatever it is everybody else is suggesting they're going to do?
In almost every case that I've heard of, when the developers/producers of a game reach out to the community and actually take their input and put it into action, the game does fantastically.
It happened with DnD 5th edition when WotC reached out to big community-building DM's around the world and asked them literally "How can we make DnD good?" an put their feedback to work.
GW did a small part of that by reaching out to competitive players for input on 9th edition. I remember watching a lot of Tabletop Tactics, people that go to tournaments regularly, being really excited about the changes to 9th edition. Fast forward to now, with the latest Chapter Approved, and even getting the book free Chef and Beard couldn't recommend actually getting the book because of how little is in it.
There are other community-builders throughout the world that do more than competitive games, and it's on GW to reach out to them to ask how they can improve their game and make it more appealing. One pipeline that I'm sure GW would love to have is a way to turn casual players INTO tournament and convention-goers, since that's what builds the community they have more control over (with this ITC+GW partnership).
As it is, when someone gets into 40k, they usually determine after a couple games which camp they want to join and then stick pretty rigidly to it, thanks to their distaste of their experiences on one side of the bridge or the other.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Depends. I mean, we do have Warmachine as a cautionary tale of what happens when tournament-play is driving the game design.
Warhammer is nowhere near that level of design given the Crusade and campaign stuff they push out. There is a risk of the wrong people influencing the direction of the game in general, but the structure seems unlikely to cause it since it isn't consolidated into one group. Being able to give feedback =/= effecting change to GW's rules writers.
Platuan4th wrote: But D&D 5th isn't good. It's a bloated mass carried along by popularity.
Sounds vaguely familiar, where have I heard about a game like this before...
I see some TikTok videos from a couple D&D focused people on these specific character builds that can do crazy things. It sort of confuses me, because back when I was a kid we kind of just used our imagination rather than this established set of rules.
It was an 'old man shakes fist at cloud' moment.
But, really, the core of roleplaying is still there. Now there is just more space for the people more inclined to structure. And that's what D&D rules are supposed to do - aside from providing flavor to stimulate stories. And it's better than the old THAC0 stuff.
So, yes, just like Warhammer some people just don't see the value and continue to shake their fist at the sky while claiming the popularity must be a glitch in the system, because people liking a thing must be wrong if it isn't just as they want it to be.
I dunno I stopped playing D&D during AD&D 2nd(& I loved AD&D) so I have no idea or compulsion to see what 5th is about. RT got me out of dnd & I've never looked back.
Platuan4th wrote: But D&D 5th isn't good. It's a bloated mass carried along by popularity.
Sounds vaguely familiar, where have I heard about a game like this before...
I see some TikTok videos from a couple D&D focused people on these specific character builds that can do crazy things. It sort of confuses me, because back when I was a kid we kind of just used our imagination rather than this established set of rules.
It was an 'old man shakes fist at cloud' moment.
But, really, the core of roleplaying is still there. Now there is just more space for the people more inclined to structure. And that's what D&D rules are supposed to do - aside from providing flavor to stimulate stories. And it's better than the old THAC0 stuff.
So, yes, just like Warhammer some people just don't see the value and continue to shake their fist at the sky while claiming the popularity must be a glitch in the system, because people liking a thing must be wrong if it isn't just as they want it to be.
You say this, but most groups don't get playing 5th without modules or insist on playing like Critical Role.
GW + ITC = most tournaments. You want GW support? You want a GW shop at your tournament and the exclusive GW con/event-exclusive models to be sold at your event? You gotta follow our rules. Not just for gaming, but for modeling and other things.
Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.
And you actually think GW respects him (I'll add or anyone else for that matter) enough to keep him in on those discussions or give him final say? That's WAY, WAY above his pay grade. I am sure they told him those things, I am also sure GW will change this policy as soon as they can.
They are getting nuked from orbit by 3D printing currently. As usual, they didn't do any research or pay attention from their tower. Their annual report shows them basically being carried through 2021 on licensing.
This is a company so asinine they C&D'd free marketing from fan animation. I'm really into film and watch a lot of film analysis and reviews on YouTube and was shocked by how many new folks were introduced by Space marine, so what does GW's do? Pull it from YouTube and hide it behind a paywall. Morons. They cater to existing fans with warhammer+ they haven't gotten any new blood from that wreck.
Whats the saying HMBCD() likes to coin?
GW never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Rihgu wrote: As an example, the devs of another wargame I play specifically asked the community "which options aren't you taking, and why?".
GW could easily use this program to ask those kinds of questions rather than just... whatever it is everybody else is suggesting they're going to do?
The biggest issue with mass anonymous community feedback is how to get accurate and reliable data. If GW start reaching out to players about specific faction- or unit-level feedback, that channel is going to be flooded with so much data they'll need to hire a whole department to keep up.
What's more, it'll be mostly bad data. The second any kind of feedback form is available there will be organised attempts via sites like 4chan or Facebook to 'meme' the results by claiming Space Marines or Tau (or whatever faction a group thinks it's funny to dislike) are too strong and need to be nerfed. Some people will just flood the page with gibberish, or terrible players will try to get their favourite units buffed even if those units are already good.
That's why they've kept open feedback to more general topics with pre-set answers like "are there too many rules", rather than "what units should cost less points", and it's why balance feedback is taken from a smaller group of known players.
They are getting nuked from orbit by 3D printing currently. As usual, they didn't do any research or pay attention from their tower. Their annual report shows them basically being carried through 2021 on licensing.
This is a company so asinine they C&D'd free marketing from fan animation. I'm really into film and watch a lot of film analysis and reviews on YouTube and was shocked by how many new folks were introduced by Space marine, so what does GW's do? Pull it from YouTube and hide it behind a paywall. Morons. They cater to existing fans with warhammer+ they haven't gotten any new blood from that wreck.
Your post is quite impressive in how detached from reality it is. You clearly have no idea how to read the report if "getting nuked from orbit by 3D printing" was your take-away from it.
Can you tell me where do I add my credit card details in this paywall?
Rihgu wrote: People are acting like the only outcome is top players are going to whisper "make this strong unit stronger" and completely ignore the possibility that some of these players/TOs may want to be able to bring other models.
"Hey, I'd never consider bringing a Gladiator Lancer, but I do like the model, maybe if..." kind of stuff.
That's because there is a vocal minority of very salty folk in the gaming community.
GW + ITC = most tournaments. You want GW support? You want a GW shop at your tournament and the exclusive GW con/event-exclusive models to be sold at your event? You gotta follow our rules. Not just for gaming, but for modeling and other things.
Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.
And you actually think GW respects him (I'll add or anyone else for that matter) enough to keep him in on those discussions or give him final say? That's WAY, WAY above his pay grade. I am sure they told him those things, I am also sure GW will change this policy as soon as they can.
They are getting nuked from orbit by 3D printing currently. As usual, they didn't do any research or pay attention from their tower. Their annual report shows them basically being carried through 2021 on licensing.
This is a company so asinine they C&D'd free marketing from fan animation. I'm really into film and watch a lot of film analysis and reviews on YouTube and was shocked by how many new folks were introduced by Space marine, so what does GW's do? Pull it from YouTube and hide it behind a paywall. Morons. They cater to existing fans with warhammer+ they haven't gotten any new blood from that wreck.
Whats the saying HMBCD() likes to coin?
GW never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Sorry, but...their current half year is 191.5M. Last half year is 186.8M. How is an increase in revenue in any way "getting nuked from orbit"? The drop in profit is due to increased costs.
3M for salaries and headcount
5.6M for shipping costs
0.7M for new facilities
2.9M in additional inventory
15.1M in outstanding VAT receipts from Europe
5.6M in foreign exchange differences
Not to mention the challenges getting product out.
Platuan4th wrote: But D&D 5th isn't good. It's a bloated mass carried along by popularity.
Sounds vaguely familiar, where have I heard about a game like this before...
I see some TikTok videos from a couple D&D focused people on these specific character builds that can do crazy things. It sort of confuses me, because back when I was a kid we kind of just used our imagination rather than this established set of rules.
It was an 'old man shakes fist at cloud' moment.
But, really, the core of roleplaying is still there. Now there is just more space for the people more inclined to structure. And that's what D&D rules are supposed to do - aside from providing flavor to stimulate stories. And it's better than the old THAC0 stuff.
So, yes, just like Warhammer some people just don't see the value and continue to shake their fist at the sky while claiming the popularity must be a glitch in the system, because people liking a thing must be wrong if it isn't just as they want it to be.
You say this, but most groups don't get playing 5th without modules or insist on playing like Critical Role.
This just in, people play game the way they enjoy it, more on this shocking development tonight at 11.
Most people who play RPGs casually have such tenuous grasp on the rules already that they're basically playing homebrew as is. The system is irrelevant for anything but setting and what type of dice they use for 90% of gaming groups.
GW + ITC = most tournaments. You want GW support? You want a GW shop at your tournament and the exclusive GW con/event-exclusive models to be sold at your event? You gotta follow our rules. Not just for gaming, but for modeling and other things.
Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.
And you actually think GW respects him (I'll add or anyone else for that matter) enough to keep him in on those discussions or give him final say? That's WAY, WAY above his pay grade. I am sure they told him those things, I am also sure GW will change this policy as soon as they can.
They are getting nuked from orbit by 3D printing currently. As usual, they didn't do any research or pay attention from their tower. Their annual report shows them basically being carried through 2021 on licensing.
This is a company so asinine they C&D'd free marketing from fan animation. I'm really into film and watch a lot of film analysis and reviews on YouTube and was shocked by how many new folks were introduced by Space marine, so what does GW's do? Pull it from YouTube and hide it behind a paywall. Morons. They cater to existing fans with warhammer+ they haven't gotten any new blood from that wreck.
Whats the saying HMBCD() likes to coin?
GW never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
It's actually not way above. I report into the C suite and this sorta thing is my call with re events.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like GW bought out ITC. If GW does something like trying to get them to ban non-GW models, they can always just... stop partnering with GW? This isn't rocket science.
They are getting nuked from orbit by 3D printing currently.
No. No they really aren't. Making these sorts of outlandish claims demonstrates a lack of credibility to speak seriously on the subject matter. The idea is so far detached from reality it makes me question whether or not you and I even exist on the same material plane of reality.
GW + ITC = most tournaments. You want GW support? You want a GW shop at your tournament and the exclusive GW con/event-exclusive models to be sold at your event? You gotta follow our rules. Not just for gaming, but for modeling and other things.
Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.
And you actually think GW respects him (I'll add or anyone else for that matter) enough to keep him in on those discussions or give him final say? That's WAY, WAY above his pay grade. I am sure they told him those things, I am also sure GW will change this policy as soon as they can.
They are getting nuked from orbit by 3D printing currently. As usual, they didn't do any research or pay attention from their tower. Their annual report shows them basically being carried through 2021 on licensing.
This is a company so asinine they C&D'd free marketing from fan animation. I'm really into film and watch a lot of film analysis and reviews on YouTube and was shocked by how many new folks were introduced by Space marine, so what does GW's do? Pull it from YouTube and hide it behind a paywall. Morons. They cater to existing fans with warhammer+ they haven't gotten any new blood from that wreck.
Whats the saying HMBCD() likes to coin?
GW never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
It's actually not way above. I report into the C suite and this sorta thing is my call with re events.
I am getting such great Schadenfreude out of seeing you torpedo these posts lol.
Laughing Man wrote: And correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like GW bought out ITC. If GW does something like trying to get them to ban non-GW models, they can always just... stop partnering with GW? This isn't rocket science.
It all depends on how the contract(I would hope there is one as much as I despise ITC) is worded.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But also, why do casual players care if the tournament side is getting love?
Casual players, showing you dont care about units performance and just play fluffy lists(Whatever that means lol) shouldnt care because you will just play what you want whether is broken busted or UP or OP.
Saw this gem and felt it needed addressing. A knight castellan, 3 blood angels captains and a guard CP battery is not fluffy. That's a list that was designed solely around abusing game mechanics.
That level of douchery has been dialled back, but I cant imagine many competitive players are sitting down going "you know what, hive fleet jormungandr sounds cool, they attack using rapid moving serpent forms and burrow attacks, I'll build an army that focuses on that". Instead they'll be abusing min-max hive guard armies and the new MC spam.
I'd love to get some form of confirmation from Mike since he's around, or anyone at GW in honesty that they are going to use these feedback groups to bring up the bottom X% just as much as they are going to reign in the top Y%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: People are acting like the only outcome is top players are going to whisper "make this strong unit stronger" and completely ignore the possibility that some of these players/TOs may want to be able to bring other models.
"Hey, I'd never consider bringing a Gladiator Lancer, but I do like the model, maybe if..." kind of stuff.
It depends how it's handled, of the feedback requested is "how do we stop drukhari having the top WR" the answer isn't going to be "make gladiators lancers good"
You're misunderstanding that first poster's point.
He's not saying, 'competitive players play fluffy' he's saying 'why do casual players care what competitive players do?' as well as 'why does it matter if a unit is too strong to a casual player that's only using it for its fluff in friendly games?'
Most balance changes should have a near zero impact on the casual/narrative community because winning shouldn't really matter to them so long as they have fun playing. A super OP combo should make precisely 0 waves (because it should be mutually agreed upon not to use it) and super OP individual units (which, lets be honest, there aren't a huge amount of units that are game warping in a vacuum anymore. Almost every top tier strategy relies on multiple layers of rules to make anything really over the top. Take those away and even things like double Volkite Contemptors are just 'good'.) should be naturally weeded out down to maybe 1 per list just via social pressure.
If anything, the casual community should be laser focused on improving bad units because that might actually have a positive impact on the feel of that army on the table. Nerfing OP stuff shouldn't really make any difference. SPECIFICALLY for casual and narrative play.
It matters to casual players because this never just stops with "what stat/cost changes should GW make". You only need to look at all the changes various 3rd party event organizers have implemented over the years. Everything from standardized terrain placement rules, entirely different scoring systems, and even rule changes/interpretations to fix one thing but have knock on effects elsewhere.
And we keep seeing GW listen to that small population of tourny players just because they shout the loudest, in the most visible places. But their outsized influence reshapes the entire game with halfbaked, short-term band-aids to fix what is as much a player problem as it is a rules writing problem.
A perfect example of this is the rule of 3. Technically it's an optional rule specifically recommended for tournament games, but good luck finding any store where people don't consider it a mandatory rule in all games. Why? Because tournament players both in person and online have insisted it makes the game fairer or more balanced, and therefore is necessary to have fun. Should there be some limit in place to stop people from building ridiculous army's of one unit spammed countless times? Maybe. Did the Ro3 achieve that in a positive way? Well considering tourney players just moved on to playing some new broken combination but most people can't field IG Veteran Companies at their local anymore. No, no it didn't. But tourney players were satisfied if not happy.
And that's all in addition to the way tourney players already warp the game by controlling most of the forum, and sometimes even shop, discourse. They tout how "serious" they are about the game and use that as a false legitimacy to "advise" newer players on what to buy/not buy and how to play for "maximum fun" (always tourney rules/meta) while shouting down anyone else as giving bad advice that'll ruin your games. So now you have casual players walking into their local with a skewed image of anything not tourney-orthodox as being bad, unfair, or unfun.
Which is exactly where we are. If tourney players think a faction is OP, groups of casual players will avoid opponents with those armies even if their list isn't the broken. If you ask to play Narrative/Crusade scenarios, large swaths of players will decline and act like you tried to peddle a snake oil collection because "those scenarios are 'unbalanced'". Want to bring a not overpowered list that breaks a tournament rule like Ro3, "no that obviously gaks all over the contract of fairness".
Like I don't know if it's worth even wasting the breath at this point because we have to keep doing the same song and dance over and over...
GW + ITC = most tournaments. You want GW support? You want a GW shop at your tournament and the exclusive GW con/event-exclusive models to be sold at your event? You gotta follow our rules. Not just for gaming, but for modeling and other things.
Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.
The great part about this is that GW doesn't have to force independent tournaments to fit any particular mold.
There will simply be a difference. There will be ITC/GW tournaments, and there will be those that aren't. The tournaments that GW supports will be supported. It's a subtle thing, but very much a power play however you look at it.
If you need real-world examples for this in action, just check out the business strats of your local internet provider. You either have it or you don't, and what are you going to use as competition? The service that doesn't exist? They didn't 'force' them to do anything, they just out-competed them until they had a monopoly on a city/region.
To be clear, as Mike is here in the topic, I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'm just making a speculation on which way this partnership is going to go, long-term.
ITC bonus points for those using armies with 100% GW models without conversions, nothing more is needed to get people doing it
Daedalus81 wrote: Sorry, but...their current half year is 191.5M. Last half year is 186.8M. How is an increase in revenue in any way "getting nuked from orbit"? The drop in profit is due to increased costs.
I would not call it nuked from orbit, nor that 3D printing is the cause, but they increased the income from license to 20M, take that away and not only the profit droped but the revenue as well
it just tells us that GW being lucky during the first wave of lockdowns was just that luck of being in the right place at the right time and not some good strategy neither could the management build on that to keep it up
I guess it is more simple, people got into the hobby with GW because they had time, money and GW had everything in stock (were others already had problems, because they make models in house and not in China), and GW got record sales, but GW kept doing what they always did, and people left again after seeing what is needed to maintain the hobby or get playing the game at home (as for a lot of people playing in public because of restrictions was not an option last year) and as soon as the first hype drops, GW does offer nothing to stay unless you are already involved with the background and get hyped by the next faction released, or if you are not liking Marines
They are getting nuked from orbit by 3D printing currently.
3D hurts GW, but on a different level, first they profit from all people who 3D print to play 40k, as this keeps the game popular and gets new people in (who buy the GW stuff), and advertise it as a game worth investing the time and afford to make your own models
and those who want the GW plastics, for those it does not matter if 3D prtinting, 3rd party plastic, 3rd party resin or other are better/cheaper
3D printing affects only those that already used alternatives, looked at the 2nd hand market etc. as those for whom playing the game is more important than getting GW models, which is not the target group for their models in the first place
with all the people making models for 40k/AoS, the help to make the games more popular than GW ever would
kodos wrote: ITC bonus points for those using armies with 100% GW models without conversions, nothing more is needed to get people doing it
Daedalus81 wrote: Sorry, but...their current half year is 191.5M. Last half year is 186.8M. How is an increase in revenue in any way "getting nuked from orbit"? The drop in profit is due to increased costs.
I would not call it nuked from orbit, nor that 3D printing is the cause, but they increased the income from license to 20M, take that away and not only the profit droped but the revenue as well
it just tells us that GW being lucky during the first wave of lockdowns was just that luck of being in the right place at the right time and not some good strategy neither could the management build on that to keep it up
I guess it is more simple, people got into the hobby with GW because they had time, money and GW had everything in stock (were others already had problems, because they make models in house and not in China), and GW got record sales, but GW kept doing what they always did, and people left again after seeing what is needed to maintain the hobby or get playing the game at home (as for a lot of people playing in public because of restrictions was not an option last year) and as soon as the first hype drops, GW does offer nothing to stay unless you are already involved with the background and get hyped by the next faction released, or if you are not liking Marines
That's not quite how the income statement works.
Revenue does not reflect licensing. Licensing goes directly to profit. GW earned less profit on more sales dollars - they didn't suddenly start selling stuff with lower margins. There was a hit to their costs. This is something that has been mentioned as to why it isn't a simple slam dunk for GW to lower prices, which would make it so they sell more for less margin. Then when you factor in challenges like Brexit, Covid, currency exchanges, etc the business gets harder to operate and expansion ( e.g. facilities / specialist games ) gets more difficult.
The pandemic gave GW record profits, because the sales largely happened online where their highest profit margin exists.
People didn't buy into an expensive hobby and then suddenly wake up and realize it isn't what they wanted. Lots of people had extra hobby money, which they spent. That period is over now and we're back to "normal".
Tyel wrote: 5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?
Half a dozen people that only play fluffhammer and wonder why nobody took certain models because "look how cool they are!".
As opposed to half a dozen people that only play tourneyhammer and are only highly placed because of attending ungodly numbers of events(seriously, when do these people actually work? what do they do for a living?) and wonder why nobody took certain models because "why would you ever waste points"?
Tyel wrote: 5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?
Half a dozen people that only play fluffhammer and wonder why nobody took certain models because "look how cool they are!".
As opposed to half a dozen people that only play tourneyhammer and are only highly placed because of attending ungodly numbers of events(seriously, when do these people actually work? what do they do for a living?) and wonder why nobody took certain models because "why would you ever waste points"?
Latest season champion literally attended minimum number of events, Kan. The people that have the skill to regularly end up in this group aren't the ones buffing their qualifier points by averages.
Not saying they should be determining balance, but just attending lots of events doesn't indicate wins.
Tyel wrote: 5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?
Half a dozen people that only play fluffhammer and wonder why nobody took certain models because "look how cool they are!".
As opposed to half a dozen people that only play tourneyhammer and are only highly placed because of attending ungodly numbers of events(seriously, when do these people actually work? what do they do for a living?) and wonder why nobody took certain models because "why would you ever waste points"?
Yup, and those people have a much better idea of how to balance the game than people playing models because they look cool. The guy who just won LVO for the second time is a teacher's aid at FSU and doing his masters...
Edit- forgot I'm talking to the guy who thinks power level is the ultimate balancing system for 40k. Carry on, obviously nothing I say at this point is going to change your mind
Tyel wrote: 5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?
Half a dozen people that only play fluffhammer and wonder why nobody took certain models because "look how cool they are!".
As opposed to half a dozen people that only play tourneyhammer and are only highly placed because of attending ungodly numbers of events(seriously, when do these people actually work? what do they do for a living?) and wonder why nobody took certain models because "why would you ever waste points"?
Yup, and those people have a much better idea of how to balance the game than people playing models because they look cool. The guy who just won LVO for the second time is a teacher's aid at FSU and doing his masters...
Edit- forgot I'm talking to the guy who thinks power level is the ultimate balancing system for 40k. Carry on, obviously nothing I say at this point is going to change your mind
The guy who just won the LVO is on record as not wanting to partake in playtesting etc. Due to lack of pay and conflict of interest. So not the best example.
Tyel wrote: 5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?
Half a dozen people that only play fluffhammer and wonder why nobody took certain models because "look how cool they are!".
As opposed to half a dozen people that only play tourneyhammer and are only highly placed because of attending ungodly numbers of events(seriously, when do these people actually work? what do they do for a living?) and wonder why nobody took certain models because "why would you ever waste points"?
Yup, and those people have a much better idea of how to balance the game than people playing models because they look cool. ...
No they don't.
Just because someone is good at identifying methods of rules abuse does NOT make them good at knowing how to correct them.
It's foolish to assume that because someone wins a tournament or several tournaments that they have an innate ability to troubleshoot and correct complex rules systems. Just because someone is an all-star football player doesn't mean that they're able to coach the team.
Tyel wrote: 5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?
Half a dozen people that only play fluffhammer and wonder why nobody took certain models because "look how cool they are!".
As opposed to half a dozen people that only play tourneyhammer and are only highly placed because of attending ungodly numbers of events(seriously, when do these people actually work? what do they do for a living?) and wonder why nobody took certain models because "why would you ever waste points"?
Yup, and those people have a much better idea of how to balance the game than people playing models because they look cool. The guy who just won LVO for the second time is a teacher's aid at FSU and doing his masters...
Aide*...and frigging lol at you for thinking his "grasp of balance" is somehow tied to his knowledge of the game rather than the list he wrote.
Why?
He picked a Skitarii Veteran Cohort...which immediately this limits your listbuilding to the "Skitarii" keyworded units in the AdMech book, with the exception of 1 of each Techpriest type.
Edit- forgot I'm talking to the guy who thinks power level is the ultimate balancing system for 40k. Carry on, obviously nothing I say at this point is going to change your mind
Never once have I said that "power level is the ultimate balancing system for 40k". I have said it's better than points for playing in anything short of tournaments, because it allows for flexibility that points don't. It allows for both players involved to scale or descale their army as necessary.
But you wouldn't care about that, since you seem to just be of the mind that "nubs need to git gud".
Tyel wrote: 5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?
Half a dozen people that only play fluffhammer and wonder why nobody took certain models because "look how cool they are!".
As opposed to half a dozen people that only play tourneyhammer and are only highly placed because of attending ungodly numbers of events(seriously, when do these people actually work? what do they do for a living?) and wonder why nobody took certain models because "why would you ever waste points"?
Yup, and those people have a much better idea of how to balance the game than people playing models because they look cool. ...
No they don't.
Just because someone is good at identifying methods of rules abuse does NOT make them good at knowing how to correct them.
It's foolish to assume that because someone wins a tournament or several tournaments that they have an innate ability to troubleshoot and correct complex rules systems. Just because someone is an all-star football player doesn't mean that they're able to coach the team.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
EviscerationPlague wrote: Well if tourney players are saying a faction is broken, that's a problem with GW and not the players refusing to play said faction.
That's a completely nonsensical take. Sure GW should be addressing a something if it's found to be overturned. But it wasn't GW that ran around the community shouting about how Space Marines were universally broken because of one build involving Iron Hands with lots of vehicles was tearing up tournaments or that Eldar were universally bullgak because of Wraithknight+Scatbikes or Warp Spider Spam.
It was a very specific, salty subset of the community that either brought those lists into their clubs or incessantly whined about them until new and uninformed casual players started erroneously judging historic players of those factions as FotM or turning their noses up at games of mixed Aspect lists and all comer Marine lists just as examples.
And this happens pretty consistently with every tourney cycle.
I didn't really hear the complaints about SM or Eldar being universally broken. The complaints I heard were "man those WKs and jetbikes are really broken".
EviscerationPlague wrote: Well if tourney players are saying a faction is broken, that's a problem with GW and not the players refusing to play said faction.
That's a completely nonsensical take. Sure GW should be addressing a something if it's found to be overturned. But it wasn't GW that ran around the community shouting about how Space Marines were universally broken because of one build involving Iron Hands with lots of vehicles was tearing up tournaments or that Eldar were universally bullgak because of Wraithknight+Scatbikes or Warp Spider Spam.
It was a very specific, salty subset of the community that either brought those lists into their clubs or incessantly whined about them until new and uninformed casual players started erroneously judging historic players of those factions as FotM or turning their noses up at games of mixed Aspect lists and all comer Marine lists just as examples.
And this happens pretty consistently with every tourney cycle.
Thank you for writing this out, I wish more people would read this and take it on-board.
Dudeface wrote: The guy who just won the LVO is on record as not wanting to partake in playtesting etc. Due to lack of pay and conflict of interest. So not the best example.
Well, a good example of something, at least! It's a principled stance to take and all credit to him for that.
Dudeface wrote: The guy who just won the LVO is on record as not wanting to partake in playtesting etc. Due to lack of pay and conflict of interest. So not the best example.
Well, a good example of something, at least! It's a principled stance to take and all credit to him for that.
It does feel like a "the people who should run for office are people with too much sense to run for office" kind of a situation. If GW is serious about playtesting it needs to just open its wallet and pay people to do it in a professional way, not use it as a carrot to keep influencers and top players on side.
Dudeface wrote: The guy who just won the LVO is on record as not wanting to partake in playtesting etc. Due to lack of pay and conflict of interest. So not the best example.
Sucks, because he's the best man for the job. I'd like it if he just gave his opinion on things occasionally at least. Class act in being concerned about conflict of interest, too.
Damn, so we all now must walk backward through a corn field and on a 6+ must buy poxy pre ordained terrain determined that the greater good to give us a playable game?
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
That assumes GW game is somehow complex and hard to figure out. It's not. Broken comboes are found with elementary school level intelligence.
GW games are broken because it suits GW. It helps sales when tournament try-hards pretend to be competive(lol) and chase newest meta buying new armies chasing the newest hotness(and some even think they are somehow special for figuring out what's broken when GW makes it damn obvious what's broken).
It's pointless to wonder who is best for making game balanced when rules are done by side which has vested interest in game NOT being balanced. Balance would be super bad for GW as players would focus on improving on their play rather than buying newest hotness to stay on power level.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Neither. Designing rules is a job for designers, not players. You want input from players, ex-players, people who play other games but are familiar with the rules, but the people writing them should be none of those groups.
This all goes back to Mark Rosewater's design rules, which are extremely relevant to all types of games. One of those rules is that players are good at finding problems but bad at solving them. That's fine, because the designers are the ones that need to solve the problems. There are a couple of other rules in that list that are relevant here as well. Things like making the fun way to play also the best route to winning, or making sure the aesthetics and the rules match are important and are usually not the kind of things your average tourney player cares about.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
I don't know anything about american football, but eveytime I hear a former coah or player, including top ones, talking about how to change football (soccer for american/canadian and aussie/NZ friends) they always end up with pure nonsense. All top former players and coaches for example were openly hostile towards the VAR, and a lot of them still are, and yet now it's impossible to even think about football without the VAR.
Players should play. Coaches should coach. Other than that they shouldn't do anything else than commenting games or news. People who write the rules should be good in writing the rules, former players and coaches typically have biased opinions that are influenced by their personal experience, which isn't everyone's experience, just theirs. That's why I don't trust tournament players writing 40k rules.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
That assumes GW game is somehow complex and hard to figure out. It's not. Broken comboes are found with elementary school level intelligence.
GW games are broken because it suits GW. It helps sales when tournament try-hards pretend to be competive(lol) and chase newest meta buying new armies chasing the newest hotness(and some even think they are somehow special for figuring out what's broken when GW makes it damn obvious what's broken).
It's pointless to wonder who is best for making game balanced when rules are done by side which has vested interest in game NOT being balanced. Balance would be super bad for GW as players would focus on improving on their play rather than buying newest hotness to stay on power level.
It's a compromise between the imbalance that drives people buying more stuff, and the balance to keep them around the game. A perfect imbalance we might call it. It's not that easy to achieve, actually. A few broken combos are clearly unintentional though.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
That assumes GW game is somehow complex and hard to figure out. It's not. Broken comboes are found with elementary school level intelligence.
GW games are broken because it suits GW. It helps sales when tournament try-hards pretend to be competive(lol) and chase newest meta buying new armies chasing the newest hotness(and some even think they are somehow special for figuring out what's broken when GW makes it damn obvious what's broken).
It's pointless to wonder who is best for making game balanced when rules are done by side which has vested interest in game NOT being balanced. Balance would be super bad for GW as players would focus on improving on their play rather than buying newest hotness to stay on power level.
Is that why the LVO winner used Drukhari, Custodes, or GSC? Oh...he didn't? He used the most nerfed army? Weird.
That doesn't disprove what tneva82 wrote. It only shows that one person did something different.
And he's right. People find the problems with the rules within mintes of getting a hold of them. Doesn't mean that all the combos wombos are found right away, but despite what the perpetual 'wait and see' crowd might like to peddle, people who have been doing this for a while can figure out the rules without much time.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
There shouldn't be any hostility between competitive and casual players with regard to the formal rules of the game.
It should also go without saying that people who are experienced at playing the game with the actual written rules at a high level of game skill probably ARE better are helping advise how the rules should be worked and modified over those who tend to play the game more casually and might use additional user-added rules of their own to the game.
Also note that by their very nature, narrative/casual are highly diverse. Some people are just playing competitive games with a story behind them; others are crafting whole narrative and campaign systems of hteir own and using loads of custom rules and such. There's no general point of unity nor agreement. So one narrative group to the next can have huge variations in the style of game they play
In the end ALL groups start out with the core rules of the game. Building them into a balanced, even system that works well should be the goal. We know that GW rarely aims for that goal (or at least never seems to reach it); however it "should" be the ideal. From that common starting point then you can branch out.
Heck a solid rules system is the BEST thing for then building a campaign system from; or a narrative story element; or Crusade and such. Because you start with known variables from the balanced core game so it becomes much easier to chop and change things and have a general idea how they will influence the game.
As someone looking for a narrative strategical wargame, I am just not the target audience anymore.
It's all about the meta, the model sales and enticing new players (not keeping them).
A solid wargame based around flanking, maneuvering and the dynamic between strategic and tactictal victories / losses is something 40k is just not going to be.
Maybe I can find some to try chain of command 40k with me. I probably wont.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
Agreed. Being a fan of a game and picking your favorite team because as a child you really liked penguins or the color teal, etc. doesn't mean you don't know anything about the game. I've certainly met plenty of sports fanatics that had no professional experience playing but otherwise extremely deep technical understandings of gameplay and could discuss the underlying game theory better than most players can or could. Its also worth noting that in many sports coaches, general managers, league leadership, etc. are often not former professional players themselves.
I think you obviously want a designer writing the rules who has the proper, larger perspective about the game/concept/business plan/etc. and experience players giving feedback on the granular stuff for the designers to consider.
Custodes, because they're the easiest army to transport.
Do you honestly believe this to be the reason?
Yes it's absolutely a factor. Cheap to collect. Easy to finish painting. Easy to transport.
Otherwise why wouldn't they do Drukhari? Of 54 player IDs who took Custodes 34 of them had played Custodes prior. Seven of them had played DE previously and opted not to take them to LVO.
Of the people who didn't have Custodes before -- 6 of them never played before now and Custodes is their first army.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
Agreed. Being a fan of a game and picking your favorite team because as a child you really liked penguins or the color teal, etc. doesn't mean you don't know anything about the game. I've certainly met plenty of sports fanatics that had no professional experience playing but otherwise extremely deep technical understandings of gameplay and could discuss the underlying game theory better than most players can or could. Its also worth noting that in many sports coaches, general managers, league leadership, etc. are often not former professional players themselves.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
Not really. If they would actually start paying attention to their bloody FAQ submissions, they would have been in a better situation than having to deal with trash like ITC.
Oh, and just go ahead and say what it really is:
"If GW wants balance, they need to partner with people who write lists gud". Skill has extremely little to do with anything in 40k. And listwriting isn't a skill.
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
The only metric that matters to GW in regards to writing rules for the game is.....
Overread wrote:The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
That's... insane. Sorry, but winning a round robin or swiss tournament or whatever doesn't prove jack to anyone, except winning the handful of games on offer that week(end).
At best its a couple data points amongst several thousand needed for tournament data to be converted into something vaguely useful to ballpark diagnose problem areas.
It doesn't prove understanding of game design, balance, or anything else. It certainly isn't a 'metric' to show why GW should pay attention to someone. If the person behind a win wants to 'prove themselves' useful for balancing purposes, they need solid logic and reason and a depth of understanding of design principles, same as everyone else.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
Agreed. Being a fan of a game and picking your favorite team because as a child you really liked penguins or the color teal, etc. doesn't mean you don't know anything about the game. I've certainly met plenty of sports fanatics that had no professional experience playing but otherwise extremely deep technical understandings of gameplay and could discuss the underlying game theory better than most players can or could. Its also worth noting that in many sports coaches, general managers, league leadership, etc. are often not former professional players themselves.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
I think the point here is that the "metric" GW is using to evaluate players isn't actually measuring their technical knowledge/understanding of gameplay, at least not in terms of their ability to identify design and balance issues. I.E. GW has a metric that they now are going to use, but that metric isn't actually measuring what they think its measuring/what they want it to measure, and the end result of that is that using that metric is going to create more problems than it will solutions.
Yes it's absolutely a factor. Cheap to collect. Easy to finish painting. Easy to transport.
Otherwise why wouldn't they do Drukhari? Of 54 player IDs who took Custodes 34 of them had played Custodes prior. Seven of them had played DE previously and opted not to take them to LVO.
A factor, absolutely. And fair enough, I might have underestimated ease of use, but with 14/54 players (if I got that right) there was still a good amount of hopping going on. Why not play Dark Eldar instead or switch from DE to Costodes? They likely deemed Custodes to be stronger/easier to pilot or opponents to be less well prepared for what is a fresher codex. Anyway, it's all speculation at this point and I would love to hear from one of the participants as to what their motivation was.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
OK, just want someone who has won something to tell me in precise terms what a Land Raider needs to be both fun and balanced.
Yes it's absolutely a factor. Cheap to collect. Easy to finish painting. Easy to transport.
Otherwise why wouldn't they do Drukhari? Of 54 player IDs who took Custodes 34 of them had played Custodes prior. Seven of them had played DE previously and opted not to take them to LVO.
A factor, absolutely. And fair enough, I might have underestimated ease of use, but with 14/54 players (if I got that right) there was still a good amount of hopping going on. Why not play Dark Eldar instead or switch from DE to Costodes? They likely deemed Custodes to be stronger/easier to pilot or opponents to be less well prepared for what is a fresher codex. Anyway, it's all speculation at this point and I would love to hear from one of the participants as to what their motivation was.
not a related player, but with local tournaments coming up again and me thinking to join them just to support the local clubs organizing them, Custodes are my go to Army
not like I have more than enough different Marines, Chaos and Xenos around to get myself an army, but to make a tournament army now I would need to invest time and money on all of them to get something I would play at an event
Yet going with Custodes would be cheaper and less time consuming because less models, while being easier to transport around (during the event) and easier to play
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
Because you still don't understand what a casual or narrative player is, or what they want.
As a casual/narrative player I couldn't care less about knife edge tournament balance, "interesting" list building choices, or tactical gotcha-traps.
I just want my units to feel like they accurately reflect their lore and that, should two people decide to play a pickup game, every game doesn't end up with one side steamrolling the other.
If you have some bad matchups where player A brings pure gunline and player B brings foot slogging melee, then adjust/add more terrain or change to a scenario that slightly advantages the disadvantaged player.
But I would 100% of the time prefer someone passionate about the setting and the hobby writing a wonky but whimsical ruleset over a diehard number-cruncher writing a soulless "chess but with gothic hats" competitive game.
Because the vast majority of people that know about or engage with 40k, do so because of the aesthetic and setting/lore. That's pretty unarguable given the number of people who only consume the games, books, and fan content or paint but don't play. So I would much rather the game do a good job of reflecting that than some forced, tortured conception of a gentleman's duel.
And before someone tries to claim "well you could do both man! It's not one or the other", how many changes to come out of the competitive scene have ever made the game more reflective of the lore or weren't just fixing problems that competitive players themselves created? Because I struggle to think of any casual/narrative players even contemplating things like "oops all hive tyrants".
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
Agreed. Being a fan of a game and picking your favorite team because as a child you really liked penguins or the color teal, etc. doesn't mean you don't know anything about the game. I've certainly met plenty of sports fanatics that had no professional experience playing but otherwise extremely deep technical understandings of gameplay and could discuss the underlying game theory better than most players can or could. Its also worth noting that in many sports coaches, general managers, league leadership, etc. are often not former professional players themselves.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
I think the point here is that the "metric" GW is using to evaluate players isn't actually measuring their technical knowledge/understanding of gameplay, at least not in terms of their ability to identify design and balance issues. I.E. GW has a metric that they now are going to use, but that metric isn't actually measuring what they think its measuring/what they want it to measure, and the end result of that is that using that metric is going to create more problems than it will solutions.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
Because you still don't understand what a casual or narrative player is, or what they want.
As a casual/narrative player I couldn't care less about knife edge tournament balance, "interesting" list building choices, or tactical gotcha-traps.
I just want my units to feel like they accurately reflect their lore and that, should two people decide to play a pickup game, every game doesn't end up with one side steamrolling the other.
If you have some bad matchups where player A brings pure gunline and player B brings foot slogging melee, then adjust/add more terrain or change to a scenario that slightly advantages the disadvantaged player.
But I would 100% of the time prefer someone passionate about the setting and the hobby writing a wonky but whimsical ruleset over a diehard number-cruncher writing a soulless "chess but with gothic hats" competitive game.
Because the vast majority of people that know about or engage with 40k, do so because of the aesthetic and setting/lore. That's pretty unarguable given the number of people who only consume the games, books, and fan content or paint but don't play. So I would much rather the game do a good job of reflecting that than some forced, tortured conception of a gentleman's duel.
And before someone tries to claim "well you could do both man! It's not one or the other", how many changes to come out of the competitive scene have ever made the game more reflective of the lore or weren't just fixing problems that competitive players themselves created? Because I struggle to think of any casual/narrative players even contemplating things like "oops all hive tyrants".
In theory a balanced competitive system for a wargame aims to give you exactly what you want. A situation where two opposing armies can have a decent chance of winning. Yes there will be bad choices in that and good choices. If you decide to bring an entire army of termagaunts with almost no synapse beyond the minimum then yes its going to break because you are so far outside of the expected. However in theory a good balanced system won't have huge swings of balance between good and well build armies.
The issue comes when people who are influential want not a competitive balanced game, but an easy win. When they push for unbalanced systems. That has less to do with competitive vs casual and more the attitude and maturity of the person.
And before someone tries to claim "well you could do both man! It's not one or the other", how many changes to come out of the competitive scene have ever made the game more reflective of the lore or weren't just fixing problems that competitive players themselves created? Because I struggle to think of any casual/narrative players even contemplating things like "oops all hive tyrants".
Basically every single casual player I have ever met across any system I have played or even looked into has built their army/list around "how do I take the most possible of the models I like best?"
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
Because you still don't understand what a casual or narrative player is, or what they want.
As a casual/narrative player I couldn't care less about knife edge tournament balance, "interesting" list building choices, or tactical gotcha-traps.
I just want my units to feel like they accurately reflect their lore and that, should two people decide to play a pickup game, every game doesn't end up with one side steamrolling the other.
If you have some bad matchups where player A brings pure gunline and player B brings foot slogging melee, then adjust/add more terrain or change to a scenario that slightly advantages the disadvantaged player.
But I would 100% of the time prefer someone passionate about the setting and the hobby writing a wonky but whimsical ruleset over a diehard number-cruncher writing a soulless "chess but with gothic hats" competitive game.
Because the vast majority of people that know about or engage with 40k, do so because of the aesthetic and setting/lore. That's pretty unarguable given the number of people who only consume the games, books, and fan content or paint but don't play. So I would much rather the game do a good job of reflecting that than some forced, tortured conception of a gentleman's duel.
And before someone tries to claim "well you could do both man! It's not one or the other", how many changes to come out of the competitive scene have ever made the game more reflective of the lore or weren't just fixing problems that competitive players themselves created? Because I struggle to think of any casual/narrative players even contemplating things like "oops all hive tyrants".
In theory a balanced competitive system for a wargame aims to give you exactly what you want. A situation where two opposing armies can have a decent chance of winning. Yes there will be bad choices in that and good choices. If you decide to bring an entire army of termagaunts with almost no synapse beyond the minimum then yes its going to break because you are so far outside of the expected. However in theory a good balanced system won't have huge swings of balance between good and well build armies.
The issue comes when people who are influential want not a competitive balanced game, but an easy win. When they push for unbalanced systems. That has less to do with competitive vs casual and more the attitude and maturity of the person.
So I want to open by apologizing for my tone being overly heated in my last post.
That said, if what you took from my message was "a robust competitive system would do you good" then I either did a poor job explaining or you did a poor job listening.
I'd much rather the designers ignore all thoughts of balance and first focus on making all the armies, units, wargear, mechanics, etc feel like they are depicting a reasonable abstraction of a well written/directed 40k book/show. Then, and only after that's done, thinking about how two people selecting things off a list is supposed to be approaching balance.
Because when you do that in reverse you start seeing the designers compromise the identity of units or the thematic function of rules purely to try and pull a bunch of disparate concepts into some state of gameplay equilibrium.
I'd much rather have a moderately unbalanced game where the players adjust on their end through board set up or scenario selection, if it means the units actually feel like the universe that made me interested in this game to begin with.
.
It's closer to chess than a traditional wargame anyway. Certainly Underworlds is built for more competitive play, although I don't know if that's technically 
