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.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I would like to share this article I found online for the discussion:

http://www.spikeybits.com/2015/10/are-we-even-playing-40k-at-tournaments-anymore.html

lol. Rob Baer and SpikeyBits are click bait mongers and contrarians. I can't take anything on that site seriously, let alone the Long War podcast or videos.

To be fair I don't take much on Dakka seriously anymore either.

It is a well written article imo ... but that is just my opinion.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I would like to share this article I found online for the discussion:

http://www.spikeybits.com/2015/10/are-we-even-playing-40k-at-tournaments-anymore.html

lol. Rob Baer and SpikeyBits are click bait mongers and contrarians. I can't take anything on that site seriously, let alone the Long War podcast or videos.

To be fair I don't take much on Dakka seriously anymore either.

I listened to the long war pod cast back to back and they seem to be baiting people into the podcast, Specifically with their titles "Are tournament players ruining the hobby" when they only touched on that for like 10 seconds
And they say the community needs to police themselves, when they admit on the podcast, they play hardcore deathstars.

I am a hardcore deathstar player - you can't really blame people for looking out for their own interests. The banned units and rules changes is really getting crazy now.

To a large degree the community does police itself and that is why we are having this discussion.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am a hardcore deathstar player - you can't really blame people for looking out for their own interests. The banned units and rules changes is really getting crazy now.

To a large degree the community does police itself and that is why we are having this discussion.

To be honest they dont.
Trust me, If I could, My Vindicare would be manning a Plasma Obliteerator with a Void Sheild Around it.
Why? Cause I hate my opponent and want to make them cry.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
Black Blow Fly is the new Blackmoor.

How dare you!

Understand that this is MY opinion, but I feel 'inspired' by lemur's post to offer a different perspective.

Personally, I can't stand the ITC format / rules. I'm constantly finding myself in a position where I am forced to deal with the format if I want to attend any event, and discussions about certain units not being good in competitive events, when they really mean, or only reference ITC events. It's even gotten to the point where I've gone to some stores and all they play is ITC for their normal game nights, which is something that even the Frontline guys don't normally do. I have been working on an ITC list and practicing the missions, mostly because other players have been asking me to practice. Unlike Lemur, the more I play and tweak my list, I find the whole thing less and less enjoyable. This is NOT because the ITC is bad, it's because it clashes with my personal preferences of how I prefer to play 40k.

I fully support the ITC, and what they're doing. I have been providing my feedback in as many of these surveys as possible, because they are getting feedback. They are doing what any event organizer has to do, and that is provide a rule set that meets how the community that attends their events prefers to play 40k. They do a phenomenal job of getting feedback and finding a 'majority' guide of how most players wish 40k would be played. From an event perspective, this is great as it aids in getting more people to attend, even if it's not Pure 40k. While there are elements that are missing, or have been implemented that aren't in the current rules, it meets how the majority of competitive players WISH 40k would be.

Where my frustration comes in, is when the more fanatical players take this format as the best/only way to play 40k, which is something that is becoming more and more common, at least from my perspective. I'm not saying I'm any better, or that I play pure 40k. While I do agree with some of the rulings, I won't force a player to abide by them. This has been true for any of the events. I've run into Adepticon, NOVA, even Feast of Blades Fanatics. I've got nothing against any of these events, but against the players who try to convince everyone else that 40k should be played that way because of XXX reasons.

I'm sure that the players who excel at these events are excellent players, and I would love the opportunity to play against some of them. What I wish is that people would realize or keep in mind at least, is that they are currently the best players within their respective formats, and it's not reflective of the hobby as a whole.

One of the things I don't like if an army comes along they lose to then a new poll is created and sure enough there is a proposed nerf to that specific army. I feel super friends is getting picked on now since it won the recent nova open and invitational while other armies continue to fly under the radar for whatever reason.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
One of the things I don't like if an army comes along they lose to then a new poll is created and sure enough there is a proposed nerf to that specific army. I feel super friends is getting picked on now since it won the recent nova open and invitational while other armies continue to fly under the radar for whatever reason.

I don't think its a 'oh no I lost, nerf it to the ground' reaction.

Its players reacting to rules mechanics abuse creating un-fun play environments.

Some players correctly identified that they can add A + B + C + D abilities together in a super-friends list to create an unstoppable army: a unit which pays static costs for force multipliers. It is too efficient. About the only thing remotely holding it back is that ITC missions heavily favor MSU.
I think that players in general want to feel engaged in the game. This essentially means that stuff needs to die, both yours and your opponents. It also means that player agency should play as big a role as possible, over random chance.

Hence nerfs to deathstars: stacking of buffs like invisiblity, FNP, H+R, 2++/2++ saves makes for units that aren't fun to play against.
Hence nerfs to D-weapons and superheavies: 'whoever rolls the first 6 wins' is a game we can play without $1000 worth of models.

I've thought for a LONG time that Imperium of Man is probably the single best/most broken rule in the game. The sheer number of unintended shenanigans you can pull by being a human is far beyond what any other force can muster. CTA allies, while they break the fluff and immersion, don't actually break the game balance at all. Personally I'd prefer that ALL allies (CTA and BB) get counted as Allies of Convenience so we get a level playing field without Flesh Tearers Taxi Services.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
One of the things I don't like if an army comes along they lose to then a new poll is created and sure enough there is a proposed nerf to that specific army. I feel super friends is getting picked on now since it won the recent nova open and invitational while other armies continue to fly under the radar for whatever reason.

This is the tragedy of the ITC, or any event that has a non pure 40k structure. I kind of feel the same way, but in a broader view of the rules in general. These events reflect that. The majority of competitive players still don't want to change to what the current rules allow. Even non competitive players have this issue, and I struggle with it too. In that light you could also say that the ITC (and similar events) picks on CTA Allies or Unbound lists. You could even reverse it and say it picks on players who feel that FW, LoW, GCs , etc don't belong.

I see other complaints about the events that don't make sense to me until I see that the format tends to support it. Two examples of common complaints. The 'One Toe in Terrain' for a cover save is one example that I saw above. Why are you still playing Area Terrain, or not defining terrain with your opponent pre-game? How does the TO rule when two players don't do this pre game and both disagree? 'Not everyone has access to Skyfire'. Aren't you using Mysterious objectives? Oh, the event missions don't use them/don't use enough objectives to even have a chance of getting a Skyfire Objective. Again, not starting a rules debate here, but it's an observation and my opinion that these things would be less of an issue if players would attend events with these rules included instead of ignored.

Regardless of all that, you're always going to have players who will make lists that will abuse every aspect they can within whatever rules provided. This makes these events no different from pure 40k, or each other. I remember an article on Frontline covering this, that was pretty good because he talked about running those power lists, and running into the same lists. It even mentioned the Grey Knight/Adepticon disaster. As good as it was, I still felt it was a plea to not run those lists to create a fun environment, but as a result, don't expect to win.

I recall one poor Necron player from the Seattle GT that GW ran years ago. Just by chance he had managed to get paired off against an all Drop Pod list every round. This was before the armies were even popular, and there were only 7-8 players. On his 4th round, he was playing against a similar list despite being a different player and it wasn't fun for him. He was able to see a TO and they accommodated him. In a more extreme perspective, I read a recent thread on the Know No Mercy event. The Guy flat out said that he changed his list when he a)Found out he could run 5 Wraithknights and b)Was able to BORROW the models to do it. He didn't even go with the models he owned. How is that fun for the guy who put his own money, time, heart and soul into it. Worse still is that I didn't see one person mention it, so it appears to be more widely accepted.

ANY event has two responsibilities. The first is to create a fun environment. The second is to create one where people will attend. The variety of events means that players can find an event that will mostly cater to their preferences. The success of the Know No Mercy event shows that players will still go, even when the format isn't as restrictive as the ITC.

The Frontline/ITC guys remain a leader in the second point, by constantly adapting their format to find the majority preference of players and involving the community to try to make it as fun for everyone. Unlike other events which are more limited in their scope. This is probably the only reason I'm even bothering with the format at all because it is probably the closest reflection of how most players feel about 40k, despite my own views on it. The other thing that the ITC does well,is that it is inclusive of other formats. There is no requirement for FLGS', who wish to participate, to use the ITC format or rules. I think this is something that 40k players want, so that we have a ranking system, since it works for other games, like MTG.

I've rambled on enough, but thanks to those who read it.

We don't really know that it's how the majority feels - I'm sure a lot will vote because they can take a strong horse out of the race. They aren't necessarily voting with the best interest of the community in mind but what they think is best for them. That is the nature of this type of poll.

Why wasn't anything ever done about armies like Draigowing and nob bikers? Back then the competitive players learned how to beat them on the table.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
We don't really know that it's how the majority feels - I'm sure a lot will vote because they can take a strong horse out of the race. They aren't necessarily voting with the best interest of the community in mind but what they think is best for them. That is the nature of this type of poll.

Why wasn't anything ever done about armies like Draigowing and nob bikers? Back then the competitive players learned how to beat them on the table.

There is always inherent self-interest in a "democracy". That is unavoidable. However, not everyone and not even the majority will always vote in their own self-interest. Oftentimes, people vote for what they feel is right. For example:

1) Scatterbikes. There was a poll to limit scatter lasers to 1 per 3 bikes. Now with Eldar so "hated" and with 9 other armies with something to gain if Eldar scatbikes got nerfed, the result was that they didn't change.

2) D-weapons. Only a handful of armies - namely Eldar - have wide access to D. However, recently, people voted to change D from D2 (on a 2-5) and 2W (on a 6) to D3 and 3W. If people really voted in the own self-interest, shouldn't the majority vote to keep D at D2 + 2?

3) Detachments. The players voted to change from 2 detachments to 3 detachments. Now if people were so concerned about "Superfriends", why add another detachment and thus more combinations for Superfriend builds? One could argue that the mass of voters didn't know what they were getting into by allowing another detachment. But I feel that they made the change not because it was or wasn't in their own self-interest. Rather, the tournament scene was evolving and the voters felt it was time to evolve as well. They voted for what they felt was right, not what they thought would benefit them most.

And FYI, Draigowing was all but dead before the ITC became popular. When the ITC came into being, they had to deal with centstar, not Draigowing or Nob Bikers. That was before their time.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
We don't really know that it's how the majority feels - I'm sure a lot will vote because they can take a strong horse out of the race. They aren't necessarily voting with the best interest of the community in mind but what they think is best for them. That is the nature of this type of poll.

Tell that to all the guys who can't currently run their armies in the ITC format! If the poll passes, regardless of why their voting, wouldn't that be a reflection of how the majority feels about it? I agree that there will be players who will vote so that they won't have to change their army, I even believe that there are a few guys who will even go so far as to take the survey multiple times because they're bitter about it. I can also see a number of people doing the same to allow it. I believe that if this statement is true, then the numbers will reflect it, and the results will be close. It won't be the first time, and it might even come up again as the game progresses. Whatever they end up ruling, the outcome is the same. The slider moves, and the next combo will rise and become apparent in future events and dealt with at that time.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Why wasn't anything ever done about armies like Draigowing and nob bikers?

They obviously feel that these don't need to be addressed, and as far as I've seen, they're not as common/aren't topping out.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Back then the competitive players learned how to beat them on the table.

'Back Then' people didn't have access to forums with army lists telling them what to buy either. There is an aspect of this hobby that is dying if it's not already dead. I personally miss the days when players that took units that fit their playstyle or simply because they liked a unit and tried to make them work. Virtually all of the 'competitive' lists out there don't have any personalization or signature units that reflect the player. They feel sterile, and have no character. They have one purpose, and that is to win. Which makes sense when you put a huge prize pool in events like these to draw these armies out. 'Playing' isn't the main drive, 'Winning' is.

I get that this is an expensive hobby, and players don't want to waste money on units they won't play. I have a collection of Necron Models that I don't normally field, and Im sure Im not the only one. I also see a ton of new players come in with models and they have no idea how those armies play, or why they even got them. They got them because someone else said it's good, w/o ever learning WHY it's good. For that same reason, there aren't many surprises left. It's become even easier to predict what you're likely to face off against when you see your opponent plays 'Taudar' or mixed 'Space Marines', and adjust your list accordingly. When we see any Tau list, no one is surprise when 1-2 Riptides and 2 units of egg basket Broadsides show up. You'll rarely see a Necron army without a Canoptek Harvest. Any army with access to 'Invisibility' will try and take it, etc. Back then, armies were more varied because players used to get a hold of a codex, pick the units they wanted, then LEARN how to use them, creating the varied armies that people really want to see today. Players who do this now are rare.

Also, competitive players used to deal with the current rule set and implement them, not choose to ignore them, or only attend events that fit how they think the game should be played. To be fair, this really died when GW stopped running events and killed the Tournament support system they had, leaving it to the community. Maelstrom is the main thing that comes to mind. Most competitive players that I've seen don't want a true Maelstrom format. I hear it all the time, they don't want to deal with not being able to get objectives, or only drawing 1 achievable objective while their opponent draws 5, etc. They can't stand the thought of losing because their army SHOULD be better, and that they lost because the cards effed em over. I myself am guilty as well. I have a very strong opinion on Forgeworld, and when/where it should be allowed. I usually will refuse games and even certain events because I feel that strongly about it.

EDIT: I would eventually like to see the larger events, like the ITC, splitting their events to accommodate the different playstyles. Running 2 events, 1 as EW, the other as Maelstrom, or even a 3rd as 'Whatever. I feel that this will not only entice more players to come, since their will now be more winners, but it will hopefully show differences in the lists that perform in their respective mission types, rather than having just 1 set of winners. It's just an idea, but I've seen some other places do this, or start to do this.

Those armies were present with lots of crying on Dakka forums and other places like BoLS.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
We don't really know that it's how the majority feels - I'm sure a lot will vote because they can take a strong horse out of the race. They aren't necessarily voting with the best interest of the community in mind but what they think is best for them. That is the nature of this type of poll.

Why wasn't anything ever done about armies like Draigowing and nob bikers? Back then the competitive players learned how to beat them on the table.

Can you provide proof of that assertion?

LOL you're comparing Nob Bikers and Draigowing in 5th to Strength D and Invisibile Stars in 7th? That's not even apples to oranges comparison. That's like comparing Apples to Hotdogs, sure you eat them both but they're not even in the same food category.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Those armies were present with lots of crying on Dakka forums and other places like BoLS.

Crying on the internet means nothing. Reference, this thread or the Spikeybits blog.

'Back Then' people didn't have access to forums with army lists telling them what to buy either. There is an aspect of this hobby that is dying if it's not already dead. I personally miss the days when players that took units that fit their playstyle or simply because they liked a unit and tried to make them work. Virtually all of the 'competitive' lists out there don't have any personalization or signature units that reflect the player. They feel sterile, and have no character. They have one purpose, and that is to win. Which makes sense when you put a huge prize pool in events like these to draw these armies out. 'Playing' isn't the main drive, 'Winning' is.

Here is a post from a Draigowing batrep on Dakka back at the height of their glory:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/394774.page

Here is one for nob bikers:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/235967.page#657734

One of the reasons why Draigowing and Nob Bikers were so deadly back then was because they abused the heck out of Wound Allocation shenanigans. Well, GW corrected that themselves by changing the rules for Wound Allocation in 6th Ed. (back when GW still cared about the rules).

And yeah, competitive players learned to play through it. But in this hobby of ours, competitive players are actually a minority. The majority of the players - the more casual players or the hobbyists - I don't believe they had as much fun playing against these types of armies.

As for why nothing was ever done to them, you're just going to have to ask the TO's of that time. ITC certainly wasn't around back then. It'll be like asking Obama what had he done about Watergate or the Cold War Arms Race. Seriously?

 jy2 wrote:
One of the reasons why Draigowing and Nob Bikers were so deadly back then was because they abused the heck out of Wound Allocation shenanigans. Well, GW corrected that themselves by changing the rules for Wound Allocation in 6th Ed. (back when GW still cared about the rules).

And yeah, competitive players learned to play through it. But in this hobby of ours, competitive players are actually a minority. The majority of the players - the more casual players or the hobbyists - I don't believe they had as much fun playing against these types of armies.

I'm not sure competitive players like playing against invincible units either. Scream star, seer council, wolfstar, etc... are not really fun to play against.

Rynner wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
One of the reasons why Draigowing and Nob Bikers were so deadly back then was because they abused the heck out of Wound Allocation shenanigans. Well, GW corrected that themselves by changing the rules for Wound Allocation in 6th Ed. (back when GW still cared about the rules).

And yeah, competitive players learned to play through it. But in this hobby of ours, competitive players are actually a minority. The majority of the players - the more casual players or the hobbyists - I don't believe they had as much fun playing against these types of armies.

I'm not sure competitive players like playing against invincible units either. Scream star, seer council, wolfstar, etc... are not really fun to play against.

Agreed. I'm a really competitive player and even I thought Invisibility and re-rollable saves were stupid. But of course as a competitive player, you'd play through almost anything even if you didn't like it.

I don't go to tournaments expecting to play against casual army lists .

Why is anyone even afraid of the self-interest here? If someone were to tell me that people did not vote in self-interest, I would tell them the polls were actually useless and should be thrown out.

I GENUINELY HOPE the majority voted in self-interest. The whole point here was for Reece to find out what the majority of those who cared enough to vote did or did not want to play with and against. Would you rather they vote NOT in self-interest and urge him to legalize things they don't enjoy? Is that what you're arguing - that players should play things they don't have fun playing? Why are people so opposed to a tournament basing its rulings around the desires of its customers?

BBF and others - the majority of those who are passionate about attending tournaments enough to vote in polls that directly impact how the very tournaments they wish to attend are played ... have voted in this way. Even if you think Reece spins up his voting base with his posts before he goes with the votes (which I've seen accused or inferred), so what? If the result is most of his attendees feel like they get a tournament that is what they want, great!

Arguing that there's a silent majority in complete opposition to this is about as impactful on a logical thinker as saying there might be aliens with cloaking devices spying on us right now. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THERE AREN'T!

Pfft.

My issue is this. For ATC, I taught our teams Tau player how to systematically dismantle any type of Daemon list. From Screamerstar to FMC fly circus to everything in between. This resulted in our once VERY one-sided games becoming more 50/50 with the victor being decided by the scenario OR if Grimoire or invisibility failed. He only fought one daemon army but utterly demolished it. That being said, without using Invisibility and Grimoire shenanigans, I would have almost 0% chance against a well built Tau list and many flavors of lists with overwhelming firepower. So it feels like I have systematically had my tools to play a competitive Demon list pulled away whilst the lists I need them against get away Scott free, or even worse, become more prevalent as other things they suffered against (multiple super heavies, etc) are removed from the field. I don't build tournament lists to be fun to play against, I build them to be challanging to play and have the ability to win. I personally work to be fun to play against but my opponent can love me and hate my army. So after shelving my daemons I decided to play it safe and play a Imperial list and after using it in 1 event, it looks like it might get taken from me as well. All I can say is that ITC is very close to doing something that all of GWs screwups and erratas and unbalanced codecies of old hasnt managed in over 20 years of me playing 40k, getting me to give up on the competitive 40k scene. I can't afford to keep building, customizing and painting list after list only to have an internet popularity contest to invalidate my hard work.

 jy2 wrote:
One of the reasons why Draigowing and Nob Bikers were so deadly back then was because they abused the heck out of Wound Allocation shenanigans. Well, GW corrected that themselves by changing the rules for Wound Allocation in 6th Ed. (back when GW still cared about the rules).

And yeah, competitive players learned to play through it. But in this hobby of ours, competitive players are actually a minority. The majority of the players - the more casual players or the hobbyists - I don't believe they had as much fun playing against these types of armies.

As for why nothing was ever done to them, you're just going to have to ask the TO's of that time. ITC certainly wasn't around back then. It'll be like asking Obama what had he done about Watergate or the Cold War Arms Race. Seriously?

what this man said..and of course wound shenanigans back then was "cheese" but the end result was you still hurt things, and eventually they died, it just allowed players to keep models on the table a little longer then the units fold like wet towels if they all get down to 1 wound because you remove whole models for each wound the unit takes at that point, so it just bought you some inflated efficiency for the first turn or two- which in 40k then was a big deal since the early game decided a lot of the game.

Currently without house rules, which is what the ITC faq is- you would have frequent armies where models don't die, pretty much ever. re-rollable 2+, and if you get it on a bunch of units that are flying...forget about it. Of course a lot of players want to play this death star game, so they have an increased hatred of the D- which G-Dubs probably put in to end the d-stars, because that's not how G-Dubs plays, that's how tournament players play. The D is not a big deal if you build armies like how g-dub does, its a big deal when you build armies like a tournament player does with a super deathstar that has a ton of points in a small area, and requires certain key models to work, if they get removed their is a non linear cliff free fall in how the death star performs, which is bad for a death star player. Honestly I think its balanced in removing deathstars but thats my opinion, and I usually play MSU with few expensive characters so the D has little impact to me. You killed a few models out of one of my units that I have 4-6 copies of? You get the special weapon and the sgt? ill be okay.

Honestly though as some others have pointed out the ITC faq reaches beyond the tournament scene. In my casual games on the east coast, everyone played ITC rules and 1850 pts most of the time- because they wanted to practice things for tournaments. In my casual games now on the west coast, same thing. Guess what FAQs they want to play by? ITC. The hobby stores I played at, guess what pts and faq they play with on games night? if you guessed 1850 and ITC you got it right son. There's things I do not like about the ITC faq, like how FMC are immune to blasts and templates, which is a rules addition and not a FAQ- I pretty much keep my harpy/crone shelved and my voidraven, not that it gets much use- never runs with the blast weapons- because my metas always see a lot of FMC, and even with skyfire I can't shoot them under ITC rules- even though according to the rulebook I can. This also led me to pretty much remove most blast weapons from my armies unless they are barrage, I have a few templates for ignores cover, but the blasts cya!

That one nitpick aside, I would rather play with the ITC rules in many cases then go straight rulebook 40k.

MVBrandt wrote:
Why is anyone even afraid of the self-interest here? If someone were to tell me that people did not vote in self-interest, I would tell them the polls were actually useless and should be thrown out.

I GENUINELY HOPE the majority voted in self-interest. The whole point here was for Reece to find out what the majority of those who cared enough to vote did or did not want to play with and against. Would you rather they vote NOT in self-interest and urge him to legalize things they don't enjoy? Is that what you're arguing - that players should play things they don't have fun playing? Why are people so opposed to a tournament basing its rulings around the desires of its customers?

.

To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

 Blackmoor wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Why is anyone even afraid of the self-interest here? If someone were to tell me that people did not vote in self-interest, I would tell them the polls were actually useless and should be thrown out.

I GENUINELY HOPE the majority voted in self-interest. The whole point here was for Reece to find out what the majority of those who cared enough to vote did or did not want to play with and against. Would you rather they vote NOT in self-interest and urge him to legalize things they don't enjoy? Is that what you're arguing - that players should play things they don't have fun playing? Why are people so opposed to a tournament basing its rulings around the desires of its customers?

.

To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

Stop making sense! This is the INTERNET!

 Blackmoor wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Why is anyone even afraid of the self-interest here? If someone were to tell me that people did not vote in self-interest, I would tell them the polls were actually useless and should be thrown out.

I GENUINELY HOPE the majority voted in self-interest. The whole point here was for Reece to find out what the majority of those who cared enough to vote did or did not want to play with and against. Would you rather they vote NOT in self-interest and urge him to legalize things they don't enjoy? Is that what you're arguing - that players should play things they don't have fun playing? Why are people so opposed to a tournament basing its rulings around the desires of its customers?

.

To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

Most people don't play Space Marines; the largest minority probably does, but that does not a majority make ... they are simply the largest voting bloc (and even then, that is subdivided pretty substantially, as someone who plays gladius is going to vote against super TWC deathstars). Come to think of it, the majority faction argument is broadly silly to even try to make ... because even among smaller factions like Eldar, there are people who would rather see Jetstars succeed (for example), and other Eldar players who would want it to not be a thing. Arguing that Space Marine players would always vote in favor of a powerful combo that happened to be Faction: Space Marines is pointless. It is also pointless to say that a SM player who votes against a Space Marine power build is doing so for the good of the community; unless they play that particular build, they are just as self-interested toward denouncing it as any Xenos player is. Furthermore, someone could even play a power build because they feel forced to, and would rather see it banned then feel the need to match the arms race by fielding it themselves. People voting in their best interests does NOT mean voting for the army they currently play or for their faction, in any logical carry-through. Ipso facto, if Reece put in some question that would be super detrimental to the community in the first place if it went the wrong way, it would require at least a meaningful % of non-marine players voting in favor of marines and/or against themselves in order to pass. The follow-up would be that if people always voted against any one race's "super" build component or issue, because it always was in their best interest to reduce t he potency of any risked opponent, it would have the best impact at getting rid of "bullcrud" from the game, b/c any one given faction is always outnumbered by all the others.

So I don't think we disagree, in reality, regardless of any hypotheticals. People voting for the situation they most want to play against will always be in the best interests of the game as a whole.

 Blackmoor wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Why is anyone even afraid of the self-interest here? If someone were to tell me that people did not vote in self-interest, I would tell them the polls were actually useless and should be thrown out.

I GENUINELY HOPE the majority voted in self-interest. The whole point here was for Reece to find out what the majority of those who cared enough to vote did or did not want to play with and against. Would you rather they vote NOT in self-interest and urge him to legalize things they don't enjoy? Is that what you're arguing - that players should play things they don't have fun playing? Why are people so opposed to a tournament basing its rulings around the desires of its customers?

.

To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

How is that not self interest? If i don't want tyranny of the majority or a very bad 40k scene then I call that self interest. just so happen my self interest and the common interest are the same.

 Blackmoor wrote:


To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

This. So much this.

The reality is that invisibility and rerollable +2 saves are bad for the game. They do not foster a healthy competitive scene, and they do not foster a streamlined casual scene. The only individuals who gain from such mechanics in their "pure" form are those who abuse those mechanics, which is not a long list. If there are enough people who want that type of game and shun the ITC, then they will form their own scene, and if so, godspeed to them in their task. It's not for me, but I'm ok with that.

It seems to me that many of the blog postings and podcasts that I've seen that heavily criticize ITC do so out of a desire to disparage a competing product rather than creating a superior product. ITC isn't perfect, but then it is the best fit for me that I've found, and judging by its growing popularity, I'm certainly not alone in this. If others want to create an alternative, then go for it, but until these alternatives demonstrate that they create more enjoyable play experiences for all involved in the most equitable way, then I think ITC will rule the day. Seeing as their events continue to grow, this suggests then that more and more people find it a workable and enjoyable format. The proof is in the pudding, so they say.

If anyone loses an army build, I'm sorry to hear it. I had that happen to me with other formats, and it sucks, but then I accept that I am under no obligation to play in those events. Granted, ITC is definitely the most popular here in the West Coast, so if you hate it, it is harder to avoid, but if there are truly enough like-minded individuals, then there is ample room to plan other events and offer other FAQS/formats. Best of luck with that, quite sincerely.

(Woooo! under 1,000 words!)

lemurking23 wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:


To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

This. So much this.

The reality is that invisibility and rerollable +2 saves are bad for the game. They do not foster a healthy competitive scene, and they do not foster a streamlined casual scene. The only individuals who gain from such mechanics in their "pure" form are those who abuse those mechanics, which is not a long list. If there are enough people who want that type of game and shun the ITC, then they will form their own scene, and if so, godspeed to them in their task. It's not for me, but I'm ok with that.

It seems to me that many of the blog postings and podcasts that I've seen that heavily criticize ITC do so out of a desire to disparage a competing product rather than creating a superior product. ITC isn't perfect, but then it is the best fit for me that I've found, and judging by its growing popularity, I'm certainly not alone in this. If others want to create an alternative, then go for it, but until these alternatives demonstrate that they create more enjoyable play experiences for all involved in the most equitable way, then I think ITC will rule the day. Seeing as their events continue to grow, this suggests then that more and more people find it a workable and enjoyable format. The proof is in the pudding, so they say.

If anyone loses an army build, I'm sorry to hear it. I had that happen to me with other formats, and it sucks, but then I accept that I am under no obligation to play in those events. Granted, ITC is definitely the most popular here in the West Coast, so if you hate it, it is harder to avoid, but if there are truly enough like-minded individuals, then there is ample room to plan other events and offer other FAQS/formats. Best of luck with that, quite sincerely.

(Woooo! under 1,000 words!)

Spikey Bits/Longwar much?

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been more involved in this conversation. Per usual, haven't had time. We need our intern back!!! Haha, can't wait till he graduates so we can hire him on full time. Anyway.

Some great ideas and commentary brought up here. Jy2, Lemurking, Akar, and everyone else, thanks for sharing such thoughtful feedback, very much appreciated.

Some of this we go over every time, but that's OK, I will repost our POV.

We do not "pick on" things or armies. We don't. You can see it that way, which is fine, but we simply do not. We do at times target specific things that are not conducive to organized play in our opinions, when backed by community support. Sometimes that impacts specific armies more than others, or pertains only to one faction, but the notion that we do so because we dislike a certain faction or something is beyond silly.

For one, we sell these models as our livelihood, lol. I want every model in the range to sell very well. When we make the choice to consider not allowing something that could impact our bottom line, we literally consider taking money out of our own pockets to do so. We consider this route ONLY when we feel strongly that it is for the better in the larger picture.

For two, we want people to participate and come to events. To be biased against people that play these armies would run counter to that and hurt our business and make out events less fun and exciting.

For three, we want variety at events. To pick on an army eliminates variety.

For all three of the above reasons and countless more, we'd have to be inexcusably stupid to try and intentionally undermine a faction because we don't like it. We'd not be in business if we operated that way and no one would give a fart about the ITC.

Another point: we don't strictly pick the topics to be voted on. They come about as a result of player feedback. This current bugaboo with super friends space marines didn't happen BECAUSE of NOVA Open, it may have been influenced by it, but to say X caused Y is being very myopic.

When a large number of people bring up a topic (from all over the world at this point), it's not because of something one person did. It represents a trend in the feelings of the community that something is inherently unfair or not what a rule should mean. Time after time, we see ITC community members voting with what they think a rule means, not what it always says.

Lastly, saying folks vote strictly in their own favor is just flat out wrong. We have the data to prove this.

Follow my very simple logic here.

You believe ITC members vote in their own self-interest.
Premise: ITC Voters vote in their own self-interest to make their own faction stronger or by making opposing factions weaker when give the opportunity.
No faction has a majority of players in the ITC (over 51% of players).
In order to pass a vote, you need a majority vote (51% off votes in favor).
Hypothetical conclusion: Therefore, anytime a vote to increase a faction in power is proposed, it will fail.

Reality: Almost every vote to increase a faction in power has PASSED. Every time one of these votes passes, it further debunks the above argument as it shows a majority of players not only vote to help their fellow factions if they feel it is the right thing to do, but repeatedly vote to help their neighbor factions.
Therefore, the ONLY conclusion you can draw is that ITC voters in fact do not always vote in their own self interest and that further, do not even do so frequently.

You cannot fault that logic. That is why I say, emphatically, that ITC voters do not vote to screw their neighbor. This is FACTUAL, not just my opinion.

Do some people vote to boost their faction and hurt other factions every time? Yes, probably a small percentage.

Do some people vote to boost their faction and hurt other factions some of the time? Yup, probably a larger group than the last.

Do most of the people vote with what they think is right, regardless of their own faction? Yes, clearly this is the largest group for the reasons listed above, backed by the data we have.

You can interpret the data however you choose, but the inference that is probably closest to accurate is that when something gets voted to be nerfed, it is because of the very simple reason that a majority of players think the game is better off with the rule in question toned down. Not because they don't like the faction(s) associated with it, the people that play the faction or whatever. They quite simply enjoy the game more, with certain things altered a bit. When they think something should be better to boost up the guy or girl next to them, they vote that way.

What I take away from this experience with community driven policy for the ITC is very positive and uplifting. Despite the vocal minority of folks online that can be ultra negative about certain things, the reality is that we are luck to be a part of a largely benevolent community that regulates themselves towards what they perceive to be a ruleset that provides a fun and fair play experience for as many people as possible.

Oh, and on a final note, for those folks saying; "Why isn't topic X,Y,Z on the poll?" that is because no one brought it up through our feedback questionnaire...including you! Haha, be sure to use the channels we provide to offer feedback, please, otherwise we can't tell if a topic is pertinent or not. Much like I tell my GF often, I can't read minds, you all have to talk to us for us to know what is important to you