Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I took some time to run some fun vids next to my normal Sunday workload and
was listening to some "top-table" ITC event coverage, top-down battle-report camera angle,
streamed just 12 hours prior to my viewing.

Note, I don't watch this sort of thing often -
meaning not since watching batreps filmed by the dudes from Frontline years ago.
Since, if it is a batrep on the webz, it is Scorpion or some others...

This was mostly black base-painted plastic models used as counters
with terrain that blocked line of sight to a couple knights, a tank hidden behind a building on one side,
and the other had a few more models than that but not many.

I let the video run in the background and listened in a sort of second-stream-of-thought sort of way,
and it struck me that 40k in this venue felt more like World Series of Poker than a miniatures wargame.

Has anyone else had a similar thought?

The reason your getting that vibe is because the ITC format was designed specifically for tournament (i.e. professional) play.

You wont get the same kind of interactions you would in regular matched play or maelstroms.

In ITC, to have a fun game, it relies completely on the interaction of the two players and their banter.

"Professional" play is a complete misnomer here. There's no way anyone can make a living from playing tournament 40k (some people can from all the stuff surrounding it, like YouTube monetisation, but not from the tournament itself).

Personally I think tournament streams are a really bad reflection of the game. They never really show you what's going on and even the commentators often seem confused. The models are usually badly painted, if they're painted at all and you lose all the player interaction that makes wargaming videos even vaguely watchable. It's probably the biggest thing holding 40k back from being the sort of e-sport style event that a lot of TOs seem to be pushing it towards. The game is simply too slow and unengaging when you're not playing to be interesting for most people.

If i watch tournaments streams its to see how the players deal with the situations on the table and how I would do it to learn something about it while i'm painting or doing something else.

From a pure entertainment perspective it doesn't work, imo, but a lot of things don't work either.
Streams will never replace the enjoyment from playing yourself.

I think there's a lot of players here that would enjoy 40k more if they came down from their ivory towers and actually tried to win an ITC tourney. They claim the game has no tactics, but when you watch these streams, you realize that "Holy cow, these two players are really working for their wins!"

I believe that the secret sauce to a streamed 40k game hasn't been cracked yet. Right now streaming battles feels like a Starcraft 2 commentated game, except that the decidedly slower pace of 40k means that you don't get those spikes of excitement. I think an approach where the commentators get excited about some specific dice rolls, while providing strategic commentary and trying to predict player's moves might be a better approach. Unfortunately I don't have the gear to start doing video bat reps, otherwise I'd give it a shot.

Going to larger events breaks up stale local metas at a minimum.

 Yarium wrote:
I think there's a lot of players here that would enjoy 40k more if they came down from their ivory towers and actually tried to win an ITC tourney. They claim the game has no tactics, but when you watch these streams, you realize that "Holy cow, these two players are really working for their wins!"

I believe that the secret sauce to a streamed 40k game hasn't been cracked yet. Right now streaming battles feels like a Starcraft 2 commentated game, except that the decidedly slower pace of 40k means that you don't get those spikes of excitement. I think an approach where the commentators get excited about some specific dice rolls, while providing strategic commentary and trying to predict player's moves might be a better approach. Unfortunately I don't have the gear to start doing video bat reps, otherwise I'd give it a shot.

I have noticed that some of the friendly games streamed by the Warhammer TV team actually do feature the enthusiasm and predictive talking that you mention.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I have noticed that some of the friendly games streamed by the Warhammer TV team actually do feature the enthusiasm and predictive talking that you mention.

I just haven't really seen it yet. Or maybe I'm hoping to see it in a different way. Like, I know what you're talking about, but between the visuals and the discussions and the emotions, there's a total package right now that I feel is on the cusp of really succeeding, but just isn't quite there. I've had things like LVO streaming while 40k buds and I are off playing, and we usually only just tune in when we hear "oh my god!" and we go to look, and it's back to the same old same old and things are just, well, still very boring (to me - obviously, others find it much more exciting than I do).

 jeff white wrote:

I let the video run in the background and listened in a sort of second-stream-of-thought sort of way,
and it struck me that 40k in this venue felt more like World Series of Poker than a miniatures wargame.

Has anyone else had a similar thought?

How can the non competive game even hope to feel like actually competive game? 40k is never going to work as competive game. Actually make that miniature games. It's just make believe but in the end they suck for competive gaming.

Tneva82, that's bull. There are highly competetive miniature games in existence which can be very entertaining to watch, like Blood Bowl (I've even been a live commentor on stage for a match, can recommend for good times).

I prefer the tabletop tactics kind of video. Fun guys having wacky fun with dice and plastic models.

Being able to see the video in question would be of great help here.

I do not watch Such events, But i do watch other games more regularly.
I also thought most tournaments at least had a basic 3 color style rule for 40k.

But even so, i would say GW is asking a lot from players playing at those levels. In some cases they probably have only a short time to paint up a army if things shift around in the meta. And Losing even a few events could make it much tougher on a player.

But without being able to watch the stream in question, i not sure exactly what to say otherwise on it.
I used to watch a lot of poker, And i have not seen a Table top game stream that really felt the same. at least not more than what any event at a table top would be.

Yarium wrote:I think there's a lot of players here that would enjoy 40k more if they came down from their ivory towers and actually tried to win an ITC tourney. They claim the game has no tactics, but when you watch these streams, you realize that "Holy cow, these two players are really working for their wins!"

yeah, by min-maxing & not playing 40k the way it was designed(since in order for it to be competitive the rules had to change). It would be better if they did it with the worst units in the game. If ITC were as good for the game as everyone says, GW would ditch their ruleset in a heart beat, since it's "objectively" sooooooooooooooooo much better.

Well, people in ivory towers at least know that the kind of game they'll get from ITC/ETC/wtfever is the opposite of the games they would want to play.

Poker is boring to watch if you have no skin($€£¥) in the game. Playing poker is way more fun when there is risk/reward. What's the fun in watching someone else win/lose $?

Now if you enjoy playing those type of games, great just don't presume that it is as great for others as it is for you.

Wow. Yarium hit a nerve.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Yarium wrote:I think there's a lot of players here that would enjoy 40k more if they came down from their ivory towers and actually tried to win an ITC tourney. They claim the game has no tactics, but when you watch these streams, you realize that "Holy cow, these two players are really working for their wins!"

yeah, by min-maxing & not playing 40k the way it was designed(since in order for it to be competitive the rules had to change). It would be better if they did it with the worst units in the game. If ITC were as good for the game as everyone says, GW would ditch their ruleset in a heart beat, since it's "objectively" sooooooooooooooooo much better.

Well, people in ivory towers at least know that the kind of game they'll get from ITC/ETC/wtfever is the opposite of the games they would want to play.

Poker is boring to watch if you have no skin($€£¥) in the game. Playing poker is way more fun when there is risk/reward. What's the fun in watching someone else win/lose $?

Now if you enjoy playing those type of games, great just don't presume that it is as great for others as it is for you.

Your first sentence calls yourself out.

Min/Maxing is HOW YOU DO ANYTHING COMPETITIVE. You think professional drivers are out there driving honda civics in F1? Min/Maxing is the absolute minimum baseline necessary to be considered competitive.

Secondly, if it's not an illegal move it's part of the game. They're playing the game in a way you don't like, NOT in a way it wasn't designed to.

Also Not every tournament uses ITC rules. Even when they do The ITC changes are the same type of house rules we all use, just codified. They don't change that much, it's custom missions and 'make more non-los blocking terrain LoS blocking.'

Racerguy180 wrote:

Yarium wrote:I think there's a lot of players here that would enjoy 40k more if they came down from their ivory towers and actually tried to win an ITC tourney. They claim the game has no tactics, but when you watch these streams, you realize that "Holy cow, these two players are really working for their wins!"

yeah, by min-maxing & not playing 40k the way it was designed(since in order for it to be competitive the rules had to change). It would be better if they did it with the worst units in the game. If ITC were as good for the game as everyone says, GW would ditch their ruleset in a heart beat, since it's "objectively" sooooooooooooooooo much better.

Well, people in ivory towers at least know that the kind of game they'll get from ITC/ETC/wtfever is the opposite of the games they would want to play.

Poker is boring to watch if you have no skin($€£¥) in the game. Playing poker is way more fun when there is risk/reward. What's the fun in watching someone else win/lose $?

Now if you enjoy playing those type of games, great just don't presume that it is as great for others as it is for you.

Poker is entertaining to watch for many people, as the continued market for it proves. Your lack of interest in something does mean no one is interested in it.

GW has been slowly shifting to support the more competitive scene, while still trying to go slowly. Considering the cultural differences between GW itself (rather beerhammer and narrative) and competitive play, plus how hard it is to actually balance a wargame (see 15+ years of Blizzard tweaking Starcraft), I think they have been doing an acceptable job of it.

Personally, ithink livestreaming warhammer is too slow placed, and I think the sweet spot needs to involve player commentary on an edited version of the film, post match.

 Yarium wrote:
I think there's a lot of players here that would enjoy 40k more if they came down from their ivory towers and actually tried to win an ITC tourney. They claim the game has no tactics, but when you watch these streams, you realize that "Holy cow, these two players are really working for their wins!"

I believe that the secret sauce to a streamed 40k game hasn't been cracked yet. Right now streaming battles feels like a Starcraft 2 commentated game, except that the decidedly slower pace of 40k means that you don't get those spikes of excitement. I think an approach where the commentators get excited about some specific dice rolls, while providing strategic commentary and trying to predict player's moves might be a better approach. Unfortunately I don't have the gear to start doing video bat reps, otherwise I'd give it a shot.

I played Jim Vesal at a GT recently. He didn't make a single damn mistake the entire game. The plaguebearers slowly closing in, it was like a noose. I kept hoping for an opening where I could get a charge off on a Daemon Prince, or where there was an opening to kill something, but it never happened. Top players in this game are top players for a reason. They know the game, know how to play every matchup, and do not make mistakes. It's not easy.

See Horst, that's the issue. A lot of these guys cant even hope to compete with the top players in ITC and it piss's them off to no end so they hate the format.


They want a format where they can get lucky with card draws or random objectives, that allows them to beat even the best players. They then turn around and say it takes "Real Skill" to play to "adapt" to the random stuff.

The other one that amuses me is how many casuals seem to think tourney's suck unless you win.

I've won big tourneys, but I've never even placed in many more. Placing high level at tourney's is all about constant list building, travel to see more opponents, subtle tweeks that might only happen over many 10's of games played.

And it was all fun. I have nearly as much fun at the event I place 2nd from the bottom as I do at the one I get second.

Reemule wrote:
The other one that amuses me is how many casuals seem to think tourney's suck unless you win.

I've won big tourneys, but I've never even placed in many more. Placing high level at tourney's is all about constant list building, travel to see more opponents, subtle tweeks that might only happen over many 10's of games played.

And it was all fun. I have nearly as much fun at the event I place 2nd from the bottom as I do at the one I get second.

I am always amused by these horror stories that tournaments are full of these WAAC douchebags that are terrible human beings and sacrifice babies. Every tourney I have been to has been full of all kinds of people from casual guys looking to just get some games of 40k in against guys they normally don't get to play against. Heck I have even played against a few of the guys gunning for the top spots and they are great guys to play against. Are there going to be gakky people to play against in tournaments sure. When you get a large amount of people together for something odds are there are always going to some douches in there. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking there are not some casual players who are also grognards and terrible to play against. My all time worst game of 40k was during a casual game it happens.

ERJAK wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Yarium wrote:I think there's a lot of players here that would enjoy 40k more if they came down from their ivory towers and actually tried to win an ITC tourney. They claim the game has no tactics, but when you watch these streams, you realize that "Holy cow, these two players are really working for their wins!"

yeah, by min-maxing & not playing 40k the way it was designed(since in order for it to be competitive the rules had to change). It would be better if they did it with the worst units in the game. If ITC were as good for the game as everyone says, GW would ditch their ruleset in a heart beat, since it's "objectively" sooooooooooooooooo much better.

Well, people in ivory towers at least know that the kind of game they'll get from ITC/ETC/wtfever is the opposite of the games they would want to play.

Poker is boring to watch if you have no skin($€£¥) in the game. Playing poker is way more fun when there is risk/reward. What's the fun in watching someone else win/lose $?

Now if you enjoy playing those type of games, great just don't presume that it is as great for others as it is for you.

Your first sentence calls yourself out.

Min/Maxing is HOW YOU DO ANYTHING COMPETITIVE. You think professional drivers are out there driving honda civics in F1? Min/Maxing is the absolute minimum baseline necessary to be considered competitive.

Secondly, if it's not an illegal move it's part of the game. They're playing the game in a way you don't like, NOT in a way it wasn't designed to.

Also Not every tournament uses ITC rules. Even when they do The ITC changes are the same type of house rules we all use, just codified. They don't change that much, it's custom missions and 'make more non-los blocking terrain LoS blocking.'

Well, to be honest if you change the mission you have applied quite the drastic change to the game. I mean "Oh look, those 2 games are identical, except for the win conditions". I guess that chess would be the same game if the objective was not to score a chessmate but just to remove all enemy pawns, right? I guess they would play exactly the same way

Eihnlazer wrote:See Horst, that's the issue. A lot of these guys cant even hope to compete with the top players in ITC and it piss's them off to no end so they hate the format.


They want a format where they can get lucky with card draws or random objectives, that allows them to beat even the best players. They then turn around and say it takes "Real Skill" to play to "adapt" to the random stuff.

Ok, now you are being unfair.
Non-ITC does not mean non-competitive. There are plenty of events that don't use ITC rules and are just as competitive and skill based as ITC events, let's stop this elitism thing once and for all, ok?

Some do not like the ITC format, and some like it. We get it, fine. Both are perfectly good for a game of any competitive level (barring maybe maelstrom missions...maybe).
Also, both could really use taking a page from the other.

Your right that there are other formats that are very competitive. NOVA and Warzone: Atlanta formats are both more competitive than normal book 40k.

I what I spoke of earlier is exactly things ive seen people argue about so its not wrong either.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Your right that there are other formats that are very competitive. NOVA and Warzone: Atlanta formats are both more competitive than normal book 40k.

I what I spoke of earlier is exactly things ive seen people argue about so its not wrong either.

Well yeah, BRB 40K missions are quite bad, but CA18 eternal war missions are on par with other formats.
Actually, ITC should really take some hints from those missions, they made a lot of good things.

I used to go to tournaments for Warmachine, and also a couple of Hell Dorado and AT-43 and more recently Horus Heresy events. There were a couple of tiresome bellends that made the games not fun, but even against decent people, I always found the games a little disappointing. There was no conversation other than trash talk, the games were always rushed and none of them had terrain of the standard I expect at my club.

Playing games against new opponents isn't a draw for me - I'd rather play a game with someone I already know a bit first.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I used to go to tournaments for Warmachine, and also a couple of Hell Dorado and AT-43 and more recently Horus Heresy events. There were a couple of tiresome bellends that made the games not fun, but even against decent people, I always found the games a little disappointing. There was no conversation other than trash talk, the games were always rushed and none of them had terrain of the standard I expect at my club.

Playing games against new opponents isn't a draw for me - I'd rather play a game with someone I already know a bit first.

And that's fine. Tournaments are not for everyone.

But there is a group of people who cry about tournament players without ever actually having played in a tournament.

Tournament players did kill off the local casual Warmachine community, though. I played through the Sul campaign in No Quarter, and generally the games we played were quite varied; one, two (or occasionally three) Warcasters, different scenery setups, different points values. Then the tournaments started, and overnight, it was just 500 points, one Warcaster, 'Caster-kill as a victory condition. Not to mention the dreaded phrase "do you mind if we use this game as practise, there's a tournament on Saturday".

Yes, I fething mind; do I look like your punching bag?

So the community dwindled, and then when the next "balanced, competitive" game came along, the tournament scene switched to Malifaux then Guild Ball and X-Wing. We're actually seeing the beginnings of a minor casual resurgence in Warmachine now, the green shoots poking up through the ruins. the hardcore players wouldn't recognise it, though; these games actually use proper scenery!

Andrew, I think it's a bit different for 40k players though. It's such a massive investment of time and money to get a good 40k army together that people aren't going to just jump to other games as readily.

I don't play competitive 40k because I like competitive tabletop gaming... I play competitive 40k because I like 40k and I find this to be the most fun way to play it. I love the models, and the massive variety in armies you can field. I love the fluff, and I love reading the novels. No other game system has this level of depth that you can sink your teeth into, beyond just the game itself. So I don't think competitive 40k players are likely to jump to other games very often.

 Horst wrote:
Andrew, I think it's a bit different for 40k players though. It's such a massive investment of time and money to get a good 40k army together that people aren't going to just jump to other games as readily.

I don't play competitive 40k because I like competitive tabletop gaming... I play competitive 40k because I like 40k and I find this to be the most fun way to play it. I love the models, and the massive variety in armies you can field. I love the fluff, and I love reading the novels. No other game system has this level of depth that you can sink your teeth into, beyond just the game itself. So I don't think competitive 40k players are likely to jump to other games very often.

The people who buy whatever army is FOTM will readily jump ship because the investment clearly doesn't matter to them.

But again, thats a problem of the player, not the game.

Most players at my local club are not competitive players. I know not to bring competitive lists or ask them for a tournament practice game. And yes that means I play less practice games then I would like but the alternative is to club seals and that doesn't teach you anything either.

 Horst wrote:
Andrew, I think it's a bit different for 40k players though. It's such a massive investment of time and money to get a good 40k army together that people aren't going to just jump to other games as readily.

I don't play competitive 40k because I like competitive tabletop gaming... I play competitive 40k because I like 40k and I find this to be the most fun way to play it. I love the models, and the massive variety in armies you can field. I love the fluff, and I love reading the novels. No other game system has this level of depth that you can sink your teeth into, beyond just the game itself. So I don't think competitive 40k players are likely to jump to other games very often.

Depends on the state of the game.

During 7th many made that jump.

I agree, competitive tabletop gaming seems more interesting than 40k