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.

So as the question asks is ITC a real way to play 40k?

As for my own opinion I lie in between option 2 and 3. ITC is the main format for the U.S. which is the country that runs the biggest tournaments. That said I understand that many European players don’t even play the format at all, and thus ITC isn’t the end all be all.

ITC is A way to play.
The fact that the birthplace of GW and its surrounding countries hardly play the format (regardless of player numbers) does tell you that it is not the intended way to play.

Voted "ITC is a valid mission set to play, but it doesn’t fully represent 40k as a whole."

Those who voted for "No ITC is a homebrew format which shouldn’t be counted as real 40k," feel pretty silly in my opinion, given that I doubt anyone (BCB excepting) play fully RAW.

The third option feels more valid, but not accurate as number two. As far as I know, it IS the main 40k competitive scene, but that doesn't mean it represents every meta-far from it.

ITC is a valid way to play in the same way that beyond the gates of 40k is a real way to play. Everyone can play however they feel like. No. It shouldn't count for anything for GW.

It is not valid GW - it's more like a campaign scenario. Tournaments need to move to CA missions. Preferably Eternal War.

 Lance845 wrote:
ITC is a valid way to play in the same way that beyond the gates of 40k is a real way to play. Everyone can play however they feel like. No. It shouldn't count for anything for GW.

Not having played ITC or knowing a ton about it, what houserules are there? I know of one-the "magic boxes" of first floors always blocking LoS.

But what else is actually houseruled?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
ITC is a valid way to play in the same way that beyond the gates of 40k is a real way to play. Everyone can play however they feel like. No. It shouldn't count for anything for GW.

Not having played ITC or knowing a ton about it, what houserules are there? I know of one-the "magic boxes" of first floors always blocking LoS.

But what else is actually houseruled?

Aside from what you just mentioned, the main difference ITC has vs “regular” 40k is that ITC’s secondaries are often times achieved based on killing certain types of units. This means that top players will adjust their lists with these secondaries in mind thereby changing how top lists are constructed. Beyond this? Not much is changed in ITC.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
ITC is a valid way to play in the same way that beyond the gates of 40k is a real way to play. Everyone can play however they feel like. No. It shouldn't count for anything for GW.

Not having played ITC or knowing a ton about it, what houserules are there? I know of one-the "magic boxes" of first floors always blocking LoS.

But what else is actually houseruled?

ITC clock rules (optional)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByVzaY23LOX-dGUzQ3YxSG1xX3FTdy1VdXNHQXlEVkJJdEQw/view

"Guidelines"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bUs0HrJ3f6YzR6mWlT1LRLq0i9_0ekf7ah9WhCTxsIo/edit

"missions"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ltQMdeDqYRXOhvdYT3dtUSji3AISvZRM8gDlhOXDaF8/edit
https://novaopen.sharepoint.com/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?guestaccesstoken=numqdmghJq7vVQ9x3uYbgsU5M4zsCkqniJGdDH5ftSE%3d&docid=0b790d7fdb5004a42ae1980f6f0e2db7e&action=view

ITC is real 40K for those dedicated to playing tournaments using their rulesets. It is an option for those who play around those dedicated to those tournaments. It is nothing to those who are not around ITC enthusiasts.

It's little different from how FIFA, Olympic, NCAA, or your local league rulesets are considered. They only matter if you are involved in those games.

Salt donkey wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
ITC is a valid way to play in the same way that beyond the gates of 40k is a real way to play. Everyone can play however they feel like. No. It shouldn't count for anything for GW.

Not having played ITC or knowing a ton about it, what houserules are there? I know of one-the "magic boxes" of first floors always blocking LoS.

But what else is actually houseruled?

Aside from what you just mentioned, the main difference ITC has vs “regular” 40k is that ITC’s secondaries are often times achieved based on killing certain types of units. This means that top players will adjust their lists with these secondaries in mind thereby changing how top lists are constructed. Beyond this? Not much is changed in ITC.

There are a few other minor ruling too about how things work.

I think the division needs to be better defined. Do you mean ITC as a culture? If so then yes, because it's essential just a league system and they produce missions for playing in their league. As with any league people get invested in the competition and become attached.

If you mean the ITC missions (which is what I think was meant) then no, those are house rules for people who want to be in that league.

I think that for the hobby would be good to develop or agree with some sort of international tournament championship rule set that put together all the major actors in the hobby scene and GW.

At the end of the day, GW is the one who develops and maintain the core rules, miniatures and datasheet, and the tournament organizations are the one who is closer to the competitive scene and knows better the needs of the competitive scene.

What we got till recently is both actors working independently of each other wasting time and resources that would have been far better spent if they worked together. No wonder why ITC appeared and has become that popular but at the same time has bring unbalance to the game.

If it's true that the ITC team has been collaborating in the CA 2019 mission pack, then this is good and the way to go. Just put together more actors in the hobby scene plus a set a formal communication channel that allows any individual hobbyist to give his or her opinion and cast his / her vote and then you will have a solid base to build an international format for tournaments.

psipso wrote:
I think that for the hobby would be good to develop or agree with some sort of international tournament championship rule set that put together all the major actors in the hobby scene and GW.

At the end of the day, GW is the one who develops and maintain the core rules, miniatures and datasheet, and the tournament organizations are the one who is closer to the competitive scene and knows better the needs of the competitive scene.

What we got till recently is both actors working independently of each other wasting time and resources that would have been far better spent if they worked together. No wonder why ITC appeared and has become that popular but at the same time has bring unbalance to the game.

If it's true that the ITC team has been collaborating in the CA 2019 mission pack, then this is good and the way to go. Just put together more actors in the hobby scene plus a set a formal communication channel that allows any individual hobbyist to give his or her opinion and cast his / her vote and then you will have a solid base to build an international format for tournaments.

The ITC team have been play testers for GW since the conception of 8th ed. They play tested all the rulebook missions and all the CA missions so far in theory.

I see it as a way of playing 40k but not THE way of playing it.

Being in the UK, it’s rare to even hear people talk about ITC rules.
You tend to hear it far more often in bigger organised events or around the US.

I dabble with ITC rules and missions with friends as we find it clears some of the rubbish.
Problem is, not many others do, so trying to find a pickup game using ITC rules isn’t all that easy.

Ironically though, staff at my local GW are all followers of the tournament circuit so they are more than happy to play by ITC rules which is pretty nice.


As a whole, I see it like triple triad from final fantasy 8.
It has its stand alone rules but then differing rules are added by region.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
I think the division needs to be better defined. Do you mean ITC as a culture? If so then yes, because it's essential just a league system and they produce missions for playing in their league. As with any league people get invested in the competition and become attached.

If you mean the ITC missions (which is what I think was meant) then no, those are house rules for people who want to be in that league.

Well the thing is not even GW plays their games without house rules, and am not just talking here about stuff like them not knowing their own rules, but litteral rule changes that aren't in any of the core rule books,

Its a set of House rules for tournaments - not bad but not essential.

Should 3rd party, home-brew rules made without the input of the game's creators be considered the "real" 40k?

No lol. A bit of a silly question,

It's a common set of house rules. So, if someone were to ask me to explain the rules of 40k to them, I would not be talking about ITC - I would talk about the actual printed rules GW use.

What is this poll ?

ITC is a way to play 40K. It is extremely popular in Northern America but it is not popular in the UK (the birthplace of 40K) neither in the rest of Europe on top of using several homebrew missions etc.

It should NOT be considered "real 40k".

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

Selfcontrol wrote:
What is this poll ?

ITC is a way to play 40K. It is extremely popular in Northern America but it is not popular in the UK (the birthplace of 40K) neither in the rest of Europe on top of using several homebrew missions etc.

It should NOT be considered "real 40k".

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

I think given the high levels of discussion over the topic alongside the US scene being so vocal and ITC-centric, it's not that abstract they'd want some form of validation.

considering the results sofar, it seems that a fair few of them even share sceptizism torwards it?

Lot of questions about that, I think it has nothing to do with 40k.
It's like play chess with poker rules .
But I don't think gw rules will change the meta hardly, just by a bit

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.

 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.

Interesting choice of options.

None seem to match my exact thoughts of that ITC is a valid way to play. Just as narrative missions are a valid way to play, or custom campaign games down the flgs are.

However, as a set of house rules it it really can't be used in determining what is or isn't competitive (/balance) in 40k as a whole.

ITC like any house rules can heavily affect what is or isn't good. The data available suggests that whilst some armies perform similarly well (or not well) in vanilla and ITC, it also suggest some armies performance can be quite different between the two.

 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.

Yeah - they're not offical 40k though.

Gatekeeping would be saying "you can ONLY play official 40k rules, everything else is wrong!"
This is "ITC isn't official 40k rules, but that's okay. Do what you like."

 JNAProductions wrote:
Voted "ITC is a valid mission set to play, but it doesn’t fully represent 40k as a whole."

Those who voted for "No ITC is a homebrew format which shouldn’t be counted as real 40k," feel pretty silly in my opinion, given that I doubt anyone (BCB excepting) play fully RAW.

The third option feels more valid, but not accurate as number two. As far as I know, it IS the main 40k competitive scene, but that doesn't mean it represents every meta-far from it.

EDIT: I want to change what i said.

When talking about MATCH PLAY, ITC is 100% not Real 40k at all.

ITC is 100% real GW when you are talking about NARRATIVE PLAY, as for narrative you can do what you want.

 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.

It sounds more like he is calling out the ridiculousness on asking "is ITC real 40k?" It doesn't matter if people consider it to be real or not. As long as ITC continues to be the dominate tournament standard in the US, it is going to be a relevant part of the discussion. You can get into all kinds of bolter measuring contests with each other, but the hard fact is that ITC exists whether the European scene wants to acknowledge it or not.

That being said, "Is ITC more harm than good for 40k?" is a much more interesting topic.

ITC missions are a homebrew set up, there are no ifs ands or buts on this. That does not mean its an invalid way to play the game though.

It does, however, massively change the way the game is played and that can be a real problem when determining balance. I blame GW for this though, it has taken them far too long to come up with a decent set of missions so somebody had to fill the void. The problem now is that ITC mission use is so wide spread, particularly in the states, that it'll be difficult to get people to change back.

 Imateria wrote:
ITC missions are a homebrew set up, there are no ifs ands or buts on this. That does not mean its an invalid way to play the game though.

It does, however, massively change the way the game is played and that can be a real problem when determining balance. I blame GW for this though, it has taken them far too long to come up with a decent set of missions so somebody had to fill the void. The problem now is that ITC mission use is so wide spread, particularly in the states, that it'll be difficult to get people to change back.

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.