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.

 Sim-Life wrote:


Have you not been paying attention to the broader discussion? Theres like 3 threads about why the ITC format is bad/not bad for the balance of the game.

It's entirely possible to despise the effect that the ITC ruleset has on outcomes without denigrating the people who play it as somehow "less than pure" practitioners of the game.

No one did that.

It's a valid way to play 40k, but technically there is no "real" 40k other than the base rules. ITC is a houseruled set of 40k to make it more balanced for big competitions (or so the claim is), nothing more, nothing less.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
So much gatekeeping.

40K, and wargaming in general, has always been about tweaking the rules to your needs, coming up with your own custom scenarios and doing your own thing with the tools included in the game.

ITC is still "real 40K" just like the homebrew missions in my narrative league are.

Have you not been paying attention to the broader discussion? Theres like 3 threads about why the ITC format is bad/not bad for the balance of the game.

This thread isn't about those threads though.

I would put the bar at what constitutes "real 40K" pretty low. Real 40K includes Open, Narrative, Matched and Tournament Play. It includes house rules, custom missions, and Legends.

If someone wants to limit 40K to just the words written by staff GW writers, I'd qualify that as "by the books 40K' or something, not "real".

True it is like saying MMA isn't a real sport, because it doesn't follow just wrestling or just ju jitsu rules.

Anything which you can expect to be able to play with a high enough degree of chance at an unknown venue is real.

Karol wrote:
True it is like saying MMA isn't a real sport, because it doesn't follow just wrestling or just ju jitsu rules.

The point is that MMA isn't wrestling or jiu jitsu, it's MMA. No-one's saying ITC isn't a valid way to play the game, but that it's its own thing. MMA is a valid sport, but it's its own thing.

Same as ITC isn't the 40k rules, it's ITC.

It's real, it's valid, and it's certainly popular, but it's not "official" 40k any more so than any homebrew game - which, personally I don't class as "official" 40k (not that there's anything wrong, bad, or incorrect about playing a homebrew game! Find what you like, and play that way!). Is that a problem?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
True it is like saying MMA isn't a real sport, because it doesn't follow just wrestling or just ju jitsu rules.

The point is that MMA isn't wrestling or jiu jitsu, it's MMA. No-one's saying ITC isn't a valid way to play the game, but that it's its own thing. MMA is a valid sport, but it's its own thing.

Same as ITC isn't the 40k rules, it's ITC.

It's real, it's valid, and it's certainly popular, but it's not "official" 40k any more so than any homebrew game - which, personally I don't class as "official" 40k (not that there's anything wrong, bad, or incorrect about playing a homebrew game! Find what you like, and play that way!). Is that a problem?

"Official" =/= "Real". Especially in the context of a baseline ruleset that literally tells you to make stuff up if you want.

As a person playing in the US in a meta including a lot of competitive players locally now including the LVO champ I will say ITC is pretty relivant to me. I can see where a person in other countries might not care about it, but with my area its not always possible to go to one of the several FLGS and find a person wanting to play a non ITC mission outside of our local quarterly narrative events where the big guns get put away to share a few brews and have some fun.

I think saying it is silly and not real 40k is ... stupid. it uses the 40k basic rules and then add a few customizations to that.

I drive a Nissan Armada. I replaced the suspension with a better off roading setup with a lift, larger all terrain tires, supercharged the engine, reprogramed the ECU and added an exhaust... am I still driving a Nissan Armada? of course I am (though in the EU and worldwide you would call it a Nissan Patrol) It has just been tweeked to fit what I the user want from it. Are these mods useful for everybody .. hell no, does it make my enjoyment and abilities in overlanding and camping better? yup so to me the mods work. Same with ITC its added rules and elements/missions for the group of players who want them and benefit from them.

Selfcontrol wrote:


It should NOT be considered "real 40k".

This poll is so stupid I'm wondering if it's a troll.

The only thing more stupid is that people are actually giving answers other than "No" IMO, but then again the response options are extremely poor and don't actually align with the question being posed.

Pure and simple, ITC rules are house rules. They are one way that you can choose to play, but they aren't the rules published in the book, nor are they official, and they absolutely should not be the standard that GW looks to in order to determine whether or not their rules are balancing or functioning.

If I were GW, personally, I would be actively discouraging the use of ITC or similar rulesets in high level competitive play and absolutely trying to identify and shore up the perceived weaknesses in the core ruleset that these formats are trying to address (because ultimately that is why they became popular in the first place). The sad reality is that ITC and ETC and the other formats that are being used elsewhere are poisoning GW's ability to accurately collect and assess the data being generated and adjust and rebalance the game in response. Even minor tweaks to the rules made by these formats can have an outsize impact on the data and results generated, which in turn gives false impressions as to the games overall health. If 1/3rd of the data generated is ITC format, 1/3rd is ETC format, and the remaining 3rd is split between Warzone, NOVA, Renegade Open, Adepticon, etc. if you're GW you can't look at those results and say that all the data collected is consistent with itself and you're comparing apples to apples, etc. and then derive any sort of meaningful conclusion as to what adjustments need to be made to the game from it. If game balance was a scientific process, then GWs attempts at it would never survive peer review due on its data collection failures alone, other potential issues notwithstanding. I'm not necessarily saying that game balance needs to be held to the same rigorous standards of scientific experimentation, etc. but I think most of us hope - if not outright want - GW to make balancing decisions based on rigorous analysis and assessment of factual information, something that simply isn't possible currently as a result of these various formats.

In very basic terms, we all need to be playing the same game for discussions of balance to mean anything at all, and that simply is not the case right now, which is why I regular see posts of people claiming xyz is overpowered or underpowered or needs a buff or needs to be nerfed, etc. and say to myself "what the hell is this dude talking about?". 9 times out of 10 it seems those situations occur when someone is discussing balance in the context of ITC tournament results (sometimes other formats, but it seems its generally ITC that makes me scratch my head most, likely because its the most popular format in the area I live and with the people I interact with) - which are an entirely different set of experiences from what I've had as an American who basically only plays by the book rules.

 Sim-Life wrote:
No one did that.

I think the point is that the way the topic is phrased is inherently loaded. The moment you start qualifying things as 'real' or 'not genuine' it's a fairly common perception to view that as inherently denigrating.

I know, words, right?

chaos0xomega wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:


It should NOT be considered "real 40k".

This poll is so stupid I'm wondering if it's a troll.

The only thing more stupid is that people are actually giving answers other than "No" IMO, but then again the response options are extremely poor and don't actually align with the question being posed.

Pure and simple, ITC rules are house rules. They are one way that you can choose to play, but they aren't the rules published in the book, nor are they official, and they absolutely should not be the standard that GW looks to in order to determine whether or not their rules are balancing or functioning.

If I were GW, personally, I would be actively discouraging the use of ITC or similar rulesets in high level competitive play and absolutely trying to identify and shore up the perceived weaknesses in the core ruleset that these formats are trying to address (because ultimately that is why they became popular in the first place). The sad reality is that ITC and ETC and the other formats that are being used elsewhere are poisoning GW's ability to accurately collect and assess the data being generated and adjust and rebalance the game in response. Even minor tweaks to the rules made by these formats can have an outsize impact on the data and results generated, which in turn gives false impressions as to the games overall health. If 1/3rd of the data generated is ITC format, 1/3rd is ETC format, and the remaining 3rd is split between Warzone, NOVA, Renegade Open, Adepticon, etc. if you're GW you can't look at those results and say that all the data collected is consistent with itself and you're comparing apples to apples, etc. and then derive any sort of meaningful conclusion as to what adjustments need to be made to the game from it. If game balance was a scientific process, then GWs attempts at it would never survive peer review due on its data collection failures alone, other potential issues notwithstanding. I'm not necessarily saying that game balance needs to be held to the same rigorous standards of scientific experimentation, etc. but I think most of us hope - if not outright want - GW to make balancing decisions based on rigorous analysis and assessment of factual information, something that simply isn't possible currently as a result of these various formats.

In very basic terms, we all need to be playing the same game for discussions of balance to mean anything at all, and that simply is not the case right now, which is why I regular see posts of people claiming xyz is overpowered or underpowered or needs a buff or needs to be nerfed, etc. and say to myself "what the hell is this dude talking about?". 9 times out of 10 it seems those situations occur when someone is discussing balance in the context of ITC tournament results (sometimes other formats, but it seems its generally ITC that makes me scratch my head most, likely because its the most popular format in the area I live and with the people I interact with) - which are an entirely different set of experiences from what I've had as an American who basically only plays by the book rules.

I agree that it is difficult to quantify between all formats out there, but a lot of balancing that probably should be done in buffing units or fixing points costs happen at all level, only the lists really change. No matter the format the new ork buggies for example are still overcosted. The necrons army despite getting points fixes is still pretty weak because their core rules are lacking. Custodes lost their special sausce with the new marines book makign them T4 custodes at 1/3 the price per model with better strategies and faction rules (hyperbole but not far off). The whole reaon ITC and others came to be was GW dropping out of the tournament scene and declaring 40k a beer and pretzels game as a cop out to having to balance or do much play testing. they are now righting the ship but we are not there yet imo to turn over the reighs completely to trust in GW going forward.

Unit Fixing and point costs should not be adjusted at all in response to anything from the ITC.

Homebrew rules that impact the balance of the game are null and void when it comes to unit balance complaints.

Yes.

Also, only Einstürzende Neubauten is 'real' music.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Yes.

Also, only Einstürzende Neubauten is 'real' music.

Perhaps if you ignore Kraftwerk's influence or Cabaret Voltaire.

Also, we all know Skinny Puppy perfected the art though.

No. Only things which align with my preferences are real.

It's a scoring system to get results best suited to the requirements of large player count events

yep some of it is odd and slants certain units or strats up or down but it seems to do the job (IT fubs notwithstanding)

 Excommunicatus wrote:
No. Only things which align with my preferences are real.

In the words of a Weirdboy. "I rejekt your realities, and subz my own!".

 Ishagu wrote:
Unit Fixing and point costs should not be adjusted at all in response to anything from the ITC.

Homebrew rules that impact the balance of the game are null and void when it comes to unit balance complaints.

You're right, BUT the people clamoring for balance fixes most are the people that play these events, and are using their experience in these events to justify it.

Sad and true. GW should literally ignore them completely.

If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it. Times have changed so much, GW has evolved their mission pack and the ignorance on the matter is pretty depressing.

Karol wrote:
So what are we actualy checking here, how many people on this forum play in the US and UK? because that is more or less what the data will show. For US people ITC rule set is valid and real, because it is used both in tournaments and outside of them. While people from the UK will say it is home brew, because they have not only zero attachment to it, but in fact negative conotations with ITC, as they try to put the way they play as the real way to play w40k.

Yeah, no. This assumes there isn't a large portion of US players that have issues with ITC, which there definitely IS.

The book missions up until CA 2019 were not viable for any sort of competitive game. I came back to 8th from having last played in 5th and tried the book missions and almost quit playing then and there.

Got introduced to the ITC missions at my FLGS and didn't play another type of mission until the marine supplements came out and drove me from competitive 40k. Tried the CA 2019 missions and realized that there are ways outside of ITC to play the game. Took a look at the most recent adepticon mission pack and really like those as well.

I do wish ITC would push more varied mission packs but until GW wants to pony up the cash to actually play test and balance their own game this is where we are. GW created this mess and they are going to have a tough time fixing it (they also broke 8th edition so I don't think they are really invested in fixing any of their messes unless it equates to bottom line gains). They release such a half-arsed unfinished product and rely on the community to test it for them. That community has to put modifications in place because no one wants to use their product as is because it is broken as feth.

I like playing in a couple GTs and seeing where I stand among my peers. I want to go to BAO, SoCAL and LVO in 2020/21 and the ITC mission pack will be used at those events so I need as much practice with it as I can get so it's not easy to "just use the GW missions".

It is funny to see a lot of people who have a lot to say about the competitive balance of 40k on here as never having played an ITC mission (or hate them so much). Where are you playing competitive games of 40k that don't use ITC missions? The ETC is just as homebrew as ITC and I don't know of any large competitive tournaments that use the GW missions.

True ITC is house ruled but it was necessary in order to fix the RNG mess that were GW missions. Now I think ITC pushes list construction too much to avoid giving up secondaries.

Using ITC missions to balance the game could lead to some skew but if GW wants to beta test their rules (because it is obvious they don't test them in house, see 2++ rubrics or IH or GK or marines before 2.0 or marines after 2.0 or possessed bombs, or CA 2019, or space wolves, or....) we need some where to draw data from and ITC is the only group that has their stuff together enough to provide a big enough data set.

ITC is 'real' 40K in that it is a completely legitimate way to play the game.

ITC is not 'real' 40K in that it does not represent the competitive balance of the vanilla Matched Play rules. It's a form of widely-accepted house rules.

House rules are fine and encouraged. I play with house rules all the time for adjusting the systems I don't like.

Experience based on playing with house rules is inherently tainted and should not be taken into account when balancing the core, actual rules. Hence where the debate actually lies.

Because this isn't a question about semantics, it's about whether ITC should be considered representative of the game as a whole and used for balance adjustments.

bananathug wrote:
Tried the CA 2019 missions and realized that there are ways outside of ITC to play the game. Took a look at the most recent adepticon mission pack and really like those as well.

CA2019 actually having good missions is probably why this has come up now. Last January there wasn't a bunch of topics about how ITC missions should be ditched in favor of CA2018 because most people recognised that they weren't the best. But when GW has started putting out good missions while IH/Marines 2.0 has started to emphasise the cracks in the ITC system it means stuff needs to be talked about and looked at.

I think it is conflating two issues.

One is the balancing issue and the other that "commonly played type of game".

A) The first is what are GW rules writers basing their info on when they receive feedback from external playtesters and/or observe events as info for future balance adjustments and rules.

B) The second one is more the perceived "default" or "normal" game people would generally expect when they hit their local club or store to "play 40K".


For the first one, there's some valid points on why GW playtesters taking balancing-inspiration from events using ITC missions (or external playtesters invested/accustomed to ITC missions much more than book missions) might cause some problems. Ultimately, the entire point of ITC (or any modification of the game as presented in the rulebook) is to change and tweak the balance (i.e. what wins the game). If the win/lose outcome for all armies/units/combinations/list was always 100% identical, whether you'd use ITC missions or book missions, there'd be no point. The entire reason to go through the effort of making a variant set of win/lose conditions is because you aren't happy with the win/lose results the game produces with the win/lose conditions presented in the rule book (chapter approved, etc..). If, in turn, you base your future balancing-efforts on the tweaked variant ruleset, you'll never actually get around to address the likely problematic rules/units/rules-interactions that motivated authors of a variant rule set to make that rule set in the first place.

For the second one, it's questionable that there is or even should be a single answer. A lot of people, when they go to "play 40k" obviously have (probably mostly 2000 points) matched play ITC in their mind. Others have "by default" (probably 1750 points) matched play book mission in their mind. And again a lot of people don't even think of matched-play initially.

Balancing is more difficult than people give it credit for, and the ITC missions do obfuscate things. The mission and terrain do impact how effective units are.

A classic example:

How much are 5 Heavy Bolters worth against an Ork army on an open table?
How much are they worth against an Imperial Knight hidden behind lots of cover?

How much is a scoring focused unit with teleportation worth in a mission where every objective is far away from your deployment?
Is it worth the same when all the objectives are in your deployment? Of course not.

Because the ITC is so predictable and variation between missions is near non-existent, certain units are funnelled into being effective whist others end up as ineffective.

How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k. End of discussion.

The Salt Mine wrote:
How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k. End of discussion.

Anything not using the official rules can be interpreted as not being the real 40k.

A homebrew ruleset is not the real ruleset.

End of discussion

The Salt Mine wrote:
How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k. End of discussion.

Please show me where GW directly supports ITC missions and rules alterations. The fact they balance off missions they don't formally endorse or supply is exactly the issue.

Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.

Who is going to tell them that the events are switching over and why should the events switch over to begin with if they feel more comfortable using ITC rulesets? This isn't really as easy as just saying "tell them to switch over". There are players/events invested in the format and thinking that they will switch just because is a bit presumptuous.

What makes this even harder is that the largest and most popular events in 40k are States-side and they have shown so far that they are invested in the ITC league.

ITC league is great and should remain. The missions should be dropped for the health and enjoyment of the game.

If people REALLY want to control all variables, the board, etc there is a little game called Chess they can try. 40k is not Starcraft.