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.

 Swabby wrote:
I absolutely despise the ITC, it is mob voting on rules changes to a ruleset that are not made for the type of game they want to play that does in fact prevent play of the game as it is intended to be played even outside of their own tournament circles.

The sooner the sun sets on the format the better off the 40k community will be.

I disagree. Some of the changes are needed since GW has totally abandoned balancing the game and are not coming out with FAQs anymore. Clarification is needed on many rules and GW will not answer those so someone has to.

In addition, there are some things in the game that NEED to be nerfed badly. Invisibility comes to mind. Tell me that you believe a single psychic power, which only costs 2 warp charges, should be able to make an entire unit that costs 1000+ points immune to blasts, immune to templates, prevent the enemy from gaining any bonus BS boosts, causing them to only hit on 6s at range and in close combat.

yeah, that is fun and balanced lol.

I don't agree with every ITC decision but until GW decides to go back to making FAQs 40k needs third party judgement calls and having one entity do this helps for pick up games.

That doesn't mean that one entity has to be one that is run by mob decision and knee-jerk reaction that also needlesly divides the playerbase.

 Swabby wrote:
That doesn't mean that one entity has to be one that is run by mob decision and knee-jerk reaction that also needlesly divides the playerbase.

The problem that you have with the ITC is that it's based on "mob rule"? Personally, I see it as a healthy democracy that allows for player input. You can bet there would be a whole lot more complaints if everything was decided on the basis of "Because Reecius Says So".

How does the ITC divide the playerbase? It's influence covers an area the size and population of Western Europe plus the British Isles, Poland, and the former Czechoslovakia. That's a lot of gaming groups and players providing their input.

Say what you want about the ITC, but they have helped to bring something resembling balance to the mess that 7th edition 40k has wrought. Playing strictly by the book both leads to massive imbalance and doesn't actually work on the tabletop.

 Orock wrote:
He went on to say that their votes have been tainted in the past by people making dozens of fake accounts to swing the vote their way.

Ha!

Playing with toy soldiers is serious business.

I ran a GT this summer using no external FAQs and everything went just fine.

 Orock wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 pretre wrote:
You already answered your question: They are going to have a vote. Everyone who votes decides what is fun/fair.

TOO BAD I CANT VOTE AND IT AFFECTS ME HUH??

Why can't you vote? Everyone can vote in it.

NOT ANYMORE. Only people who can prove they have played in one of their tournaments are allowed to vote anymore.

So you dont play in ITC tournaments but claim it "affects" you, how exactly

Besides the ITC is their tournament, they can use whatever rules they want for their tournaments.

 Swabby wrote:
I absolutely despise the ITC, it is mob voting on rules changes to a ruleset that are not made for the type of game they want to play that does in fact prevent play of the game as it is intended to be played even outside of their own tournament circles.

The sooner the sun sets on the format the better off the 40k community will be.

Well considering the game as it was "intended to be played" by the rulebook allows unbound, infinite detachments, super heavies with no downside at any point value, and a ton of badly written rules that will just end in a 4+ rolloff after a long argument, I for one am glad they exist, and I've had a lot of fun games against awesome people I didn't know with no rules issues because of the ITC. So more power to 'em.

My only gripe is that they don't do more. 40k is an abused child with an alchoholic negligent parent. Id be totally happy to see actual experienced players rescue it and give it a makeover.

However, if you like playing the above way where you need to have long discussions about different rules and whether or not you want to play against 5 wraithknights before the game, and you can find an opponent up for that as well, go right ahead. Just don't tell the rest of us we're having fun wrong.

40k is intended to be played in a relaxed way. scenarios, campaings. as a way of story telling. it has never been made up for competive playing.

This is what 40k was intended to be played

 _ghost_ wrote:
40k is intended to be played in a relaxed way. scenarios, campaings. as a way of story telling. it has never been made up for competive playing.

This is what 40k was intended to be played

This, right here, is a big issue with me and a weak defence for a company that has failed to embrace the age of gaming we live in.

MTG was never intended to be competitive, but it became competitive over time and WotC fully embraced it, the company evolved with the fans. Now MTG has a massive following, with many formats, events etc that encourage all levels of play. (Oh, and have you seen how WotC playtest? It's awesome). MTG has a media element to it also. Go to their site; articles, discussions, deck theorycraft articles; they have embraced the modern age and are doing extremely well.

I don't think GW knows what social media is.

GW do none of this. And don't give me the "beer and pretzels game" argument. It's a game, the competitive element will always exist and it's an oversight to ignore that demographic as well as providing a stable, unambiguous core ruleset that supports all levels of play.

A "beer and pretzels" game is Risk. Move dudes, shoot dudes, take over Moon. Done.
A "beer and pretzels" game does not have complex rules or over 50+ special rules for individual models or lolrandumb roll tables.
Is "beer and pretzels game" somehow code for "lazy writing, development and support; money please?"

40K may be Grimdark, but that's no reason for the sodding rules to be murky damnnit.

/rantoff

Edit: Just to clarify, I am far from a competitive player. I play for a good time and a challenge, but the ruleset and general state of GW still infuriates me.
Edit edit: Spelling and Grammar

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's combining the Buffmander and Hunter Cadre with mass Splitfire

But you can't have "mass split fire." Unless you're talking stormsurges which is GC not split fire.

Split fire specifically says a unit with split fire can shoot ONE weapon at a different target.

And the hunter cadre says you shoot like ONE UNIT....

So your ONE UNIT gets ONE SPLITFIRE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 pretre wrote:
You already answered your question: They are going to have a vote. Everyone who votes decides what is fun/fair.

TOO BAD I CANT VOTE AND IT AFFECTS ME HUH??

Why can't you vote? Everyone can vote in it.

NOT ANYMORE. Only people who can prove they have played in one of their tournaments are allowed to vote anymore.

So you dont play in ITC tournaments but claim it "affects" you, how exactly

Besides the ITC is their tournament, they can use whatever rules they want for their tournaments.

In his OP he said his group plays by ITC rules.

Then the ITC rules Nerfed his faction and he wasn't ok with it anymore. Surprise.

 _ghost_ wrote:
40k is intended to be played in a relaxed way. scenarios, campaings. as a way of story telling. it has never been made up for competive playing.

This is what 40k was intended to be played

This is a terrible way to view any game as complex as 40k. It should never be a matter of either purely competitive or purely casual, as you make it out to be, it should be a mix of both. Things like campaigns, scenarios, narrative play and all are designed for a more relaxing and casual experience, while tournaments still exist for competitive play. There should also be an in between, but that's a different topic.

Sorry but large complex games can offer multiple homes to a vast variety of play styles, trying to keep it as only one or the other is actively trying to hurt the game as a whole.

Well this is they way you should see it. or as a competitive player keep in mind. GW tells us for years that this is the intended way for 40k . The BRB is littered with "thousands" hints of ways to make a better scenario or story and such.

Of course its possible do play 40k competive. Its Okay to do that. but its kind of silly to complain every time you play it that it is not balanced or as competivly fair as you want it to be.

thats the same as using a ferrari to to the work of a truck. It is possible but would you bother ferrari for not giving you a truck?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I ran a GT this summer using no external FAQs and everything went just fine.

What GT?

Do I get to point at my sig yet?

 _ghost_ wrote:
. it has never been made up for competive playing.

Categorically false. They used to run many competative tournaments themselves, and the rules were much more tuned. Game bloat happened with the pressure to make games bigger and with more models to sell, and they gave up. Mabye for YOU it never has been. But as recently as 5th ed GW ran tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's combining the Buffmander and Hunter Cadre with mass Splitfire

But you can't have "mass split fire." Unless you're talking stormsurges which is GC not split fire.

Split fire specifically says a unit with split fire can shoot ONE weapon at a different target.

And the hunter cadre says you shoot like ONE UNIT....

So your ONE UNIT gets ONE SPLITFIRE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 pretre wrote:
You already answered your question: They are going to have a vote. Everyone who votes decides what is fun/fair.

TOO BAD I CANT VOTE AND IT AFFECTS ME HUH??

Why can't you vote? Everyone can vote in it.

NOT ANYMORE. Only people who can prove they have played in one of their tournaments are allowed to vote anymore.

So you dont play in ITC tournaments but claim it "affects" you, how exactly

Besides the ITC is their tournament, they can use whatever rules they want for their tournaments.

In his OP he said his group plays by ITC rules.

Then the ITC rules Nerfed his faction and he wasn't ok with it anymore. Surprise.

I wasent "ok" with it nerfing a specific faction and leaving so much other garbage untouched. The RAW is crystal clear, but they found it necessary to nerf THIS, but leave reanimation protocols, gladius strike force, and basically all of eldar untouched. Or if they nerfed them, it was to general game rules such as toning down D weapons. Things like psychic shenaingans that could give you ++2/++2 were toned down to ++2/++4 and it affected multiple armies. it wasent just seerstar, but screamerstar that was affected and others. This is a surgical nerf completely against how the rules are written, for the sake of balance alone.

_ghost_ wrote:Well this is they way you should see it. or as a competitive player keep in mind. GW tells us for years that this is the intended way for 40k . The BRB is littered with "thousands" hints of ways to make a better scenario or story and such.

Of course its possible do play 40k competive. Its Okay to do that. but its kind of silly to complain every time you play it that it is not balanced or as competivly fair as you want it to be.

thats the same as using a ferrari to to the work of a truck. It is possible but would you bother ferrari for not giving you a truck?

GW also says that they are primarily a model company first and a gaming company second, despite all evidence to the contrary.

When GW says to "Forge The Narrative", they're acknowledging that players will use their game for their own purposes, and are free to deviate from how GW "wants" people to play. It also gives carte blanche to fudge the rules when needed, because GW is terrible at writing rules.

While 40k is a game of fundamental unbalance, that does not excuse the terrible state of the game in an totally unrestricted format. Top-tier competitive lists are based around exploiting terribly overpowered combos and rules interactions. In an ideal game, this should not be the case. Look at FFG's X-Wing and Armada: those have excellently balanced gamesets at both the competitive and casual level due to drum-tight rules and a willingness to interact and playtest rules with the community. GW does none of this. Therefore, for the good of the game at both the competitive and casual level, house rules and restrictions are necessary.

I feel that the ITC and other collections of house rules and FAQs have done a lot for improving the mess that is 7th edition.

pretre wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I ran a GT this summer using no external FAQs and everything went just fine.

What GT?

Was it the Know No Mercy GT?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's combining the Buffmander and Hunter Cadre with mass Splitfire

But you can't have "mass split fire." Unless you're talking stormsurges which is GC not split fire.

Split fire specifically says a unit with split fire can shoot ONE weapon at a different target.

And the hunter cadre says you shoot like ONE UNIT....

So your ONE UNIT gets ONE SPLITFIRE.

While technically true, consider this: Tau battlesuits have Multitrackers, and each battlesuit can take a Target Lock for the ability to Split Fire. Coordinated Fire lets them shoot as one unit at one target, and then the Multitrackers and Target Locks allow the battlesuits to individually Split Fire at different units. Add in the sharing of special rules form the buffmander, and you can see how broken this can get.

Orock wrote:I wasent "ok" with it nerfing a specific faction and leaving so much other garbage untouched. The RAW is crystal clear, but they found it necessary to nerf THIS, but leave reanimation protocols, gladius strike force, and basically all of eldar untouched. Or if they nerfed them, it was to general game rules such as toning down D weapons. Things like psychic shenaingans that could give you ++2/++2 were toned down to ++2/++4 and it affected multiple armies. it wasent just seerstar, but screamerstar that was affected and others. This is a surgical nerf completely against how the rules are written, for the sake of balance alone.

Here's the thing: the RAW isn't crystal clear. Reecius goes into the reasoning behind his interpretation of Coordinated Fire here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/27/the-curious-case-of-buffmander-and-his-merry-band/

The ITC, from what they have put out in their FAQs, are not in the business of re-writing codexes. They nerf broken game mechanics, but not mechanics unique to armies. and before you start, Eldar were heavily affected by their changing 2+ re-rollable, ranged D, stomps, Invisibility, and limiting GCs. Other armies can take advantage of some of those mechanics, but only Eldar have them all. Compared to Eldar, Gladius and Res Protocols seem almost fair.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's combining the Buffmander and Hunter Cadre with mass Splitfire

But you can't have "mass split fire." Unless you're talking stormsurges which is GC not split fire.

Split fire specifically says a unit with split fire can shoot ONE weapon at a different target.

And the hunter cadre says you shoot like ONE UNIT....

So your ONE UNIT gets ONE SPLITFIRE.

This is off topic, but I suggest you read the rules for Target locks. They do not grant spitfire. They simply allow any model equipped with it to fire at a different target then the rest of its unit. If it have 5 units, 4 of which have target locks, all 5 can shoot at a different target, and yet the actual "unit" is still firing at one specific target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Here's the thing: the RAW isn't crystal clear. Reecius goes into the reasoning behind his interpretation of Coordinated Fire here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/27/the-curious-case-of-buffmander-and-his-merry-band/

The ITC, from what they have put out in their FAQs, are not in the business of re-writing codexes. They nerf broken game mechanics, but not mechanics unique to armies. and before you start, Eldar were heavily affected by their changing 2+ re-rollable, ranged D, stomps, Invisibility, and limiting GCs. Other armies can take advantage of some of those mechanics, but only Eldar have them all. Compared to Eldar, Gladius and Res Protocols seem almost fair.

I disagree with the "problems" reecius" has with CFP sharing rules . i.e.: Units DO NOT have to be in coherency during the shooting process, which is only time the multiple units are now considered "1 unit".

The simplest reading of the rule, the obvious RAI, and in my opinion the RAW, is that if they become one unit for shooting, then as one unit they share abilities. I honestly do not see how you can argue this even though people try and right 5 pages of weird scenarios to try to. If they only wanted marker lights to be shared, they would have just written that. There would have been no need to put them "firing as if one unit".

 _ghost_ wrote:

thats the same as using a ferrari to to the work of a truck. It is possible but would you bother ferrari for not giving you a truck?

And yet Lamborghini exists because the Ferrari founder insulted someone who manufactured tractors for farms from surplus military hardware :/.

Lamborghini also beat Ferrari in the Geneva beauty motor show contest this year with a vote of 64% to 35%.

Izural wrote:
GW do none of this. And don't give me the "beer and pretzels game" argument. It's a game, the competitive element will always exist and it's an oversight to ignore that demographic as well as providing a stable, unambiguous core ruleset that supports all levels of play.

A "beer and pretzels" game is Risk. Move dudes, shoot dudes, take over Moon. Done.
A "beer and pretzels" game does not have complex rules or over 50+ special rules for individual models or lolrandumb roll tables.
Is "beer and pretzels game" somehow code for "lazy writing, development and support; money please?"

40K may be Grimdark, but that's no reason for the sodding rules to be murky damnnit.

Look at Dungeons and Dragons. Tactics, board game, miniatures, movement, stats, it's all the elements of an RPG. No need for balance in those, a Wizard outclassing a Fighter is just typical and expected. Some monsters will be worthy of their CR and others will be pushovers.

Warhammer Fantasy points out in its actual rulebook how non-competitive it is while 40k tells us to Forge the Narrative.

 Arkaine wrote:

Izural wrote:
GW do none of this. And don't give me the "beer and pretzels game" argument. It's a game, the competitive element will always exist and it's an oversight to ignore that demographic as well as providing a stable, unambiguous core ruleset that supports all levels of play.

A "beer and pretzels" game is Risk. Move dudes, shoot dudes, take over Moon. Done.
A "beer and pretzels" game does not have complex rules or over 50+ special rules for individual models or lolrandumb roll tables.
Is "beer and pretzels game" somehow code for "lazy writing, development and support; money please?"

40K may be Grimdark, but that's no reason for the sodding rules to be murky damnnit.

Look at Dungeons and Dragons. Tactics, board game, miniatures, movement, stats, it's all the elements of an RPG. No need for balance in those, a Wizard outclassing a Fighter is just typical and expected. Some monsters will be worthy of their CR and others will be pushovers.

Warhammer Fantasy points out in its actual rulebook how non-competitive it is while 40k tells us to Forge the Narrative.

D&D is a co-op game where balance between classes isn't as vital over all, since the game is generally played with one person telling a story and the others living in it, whether they cooperate or not. The DM is there as a dedicated balancing force between players.

On the other hand, a game like 40k is a strictly PvP game, as opposed to a PvE game, with potential PvP, like D&D, and as such lives or dies on how the base rules moderate player interaction, since there is no DM to constantly calibrate it. In other words, D&D and 40k are completely different games. Things like MtG, Hearthstone, and League of Legends are much closer to 40k, as they were all designed to be casual version of their genre, while also being the most successful in their genre thanks to their ability to balance both competitive and casual PvP play.

 Arkaine wrote:
Look at Dungeons and Dragons. Tactics, board game, miniatures, movement, stats, it's all the elements of an RPG. No need for balance in those, a Wizard outclassing a Fighter is just typical and expected. Some monsters will be worthy of their CR and others will be pushovers.

Warhammer Fantasy points out in its actual rulebook how non-competitive it is while 40k tells us to Forge the Narrative.

You're forgetting one key element of RPGs: the Game Master, a.k.a. the DM a.k.a god. RPGs are meant to provide a framework within which the players and the GM fill in the details. Tabletop and board games have a much more restrictive ruleset. Every game action must be taken in the context of the rules in this type of ruleset, which doesn't work for RPGs. If a monster has a CR that doesn't fit, it can be adjusted by the GM; this is not possible in a game like 40k, where no such mechanism exists.

In any case, there's a lot of playtesting and community feedback involved in RPGs, which GW doesn't do. Look at D&D 5th edition, a.k.a WOTC saying "We're very very sorry about 4th edition. Here, have a much better game." On a side note, unless at very high levels, a Fighter or melee character will always win a one-on-one fight with a spellcaster in 5th edition. Pathfinder and 3.5 edition were much the same.

Casual players benefit just as much from a tight, well-written ruleset as do competitive players. The game is better balanced, so there isn't as much of a problem with cheese and rules exploits and mechanics that break the game.

Some players will always want to compete at a high level to see who is the best at the game. If a game has a competitive element, it will attract people who play to win. The ITC and other organizations have done a remarkable job of fixing the glaring rules omissions and errors GW makes and decently balancing out the game at a GT-level of competition. Because they have stepped in and provided this framework, the game is improved for both competitive and casual players.

Oh, and before someone has the bright idea to state that judges in PvP games fill the role of a DM, no, no they don't. A judge is there to be an impartial source, that can not provide assistance outside of rule calcification.

For example, if you're judging an MtG event, and someone comes up to you and says:

"Can I target 'Thrun, the Last Troll' with a Mana Leak?"

The answer is "Ugh, yes.", the "ugh" is important because it's a clue to the player they're being wrong. For those who don't play MtG Thrun can't be countered, but he can be targeted by a counter spell, so what happens is they can target him but then the counter spell does nothing when resolving since it can't.

The point of a judge is to get the player to phrase a question in the right way that shows they understand what the rules do, but not to give them outside information. I've been on all three sides of this issue, where I saw someone being unable to communicate what they were asking, where I was unable to do that, and having to judge someone who couldn't communicate it.... It's not about being a DM, it's about being a walking FAQ.


Edit: I've also seen a ruling go to a head judge in charge of a 600+ person event (A small-medium event), the head judge making a wrong ruling because they had no outside sources, and then having to go to the players and stating "We apologize, but this ruling was wrong, there is nothing we can do about it at this point, and we are truly sorry."