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.

 Ishagu wrote:
40k's main focus should not be on the competitive side of things.
The main focus should be on the narrative and models with rules that support it.

Competitive play is simply one aspect of 40k. If you don't like what GW do you can play another game.

Most people don't even play with the correct 40k rules, chosing to reduce the entire game to a single mission with unofficial terrain rules (ITC missions) , and then complain.

GW's rules aren't correct, either. They have proven themselves inept since at least 1994. GW's missions make the game worse, not better. GW's terrain rules make the game worse, not better.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
40k's main focus should not be on the competitive side of things.
The main focus should be on the narrative and models with rules that support it.

Competitive play is simply one aspect of 40k. If you don't like what GW do you can play another game.

Most people don't even play with the correct 40k rules, chosing to reduce the entire game to a single mission with unofficial terrain rules (ITC missions) , and then complain.

GW's rules aren't correct, either. They have proven themselves inept since at least 1994. GW's missions make the game worse, not better. GW's terrain rules make the game worse, not better.

Terrain I agree, but missions... well let's not rehash this argument in this thread, but I feel the latest CA19 missions are pretty damn good and perfectly suitable for tournaments.

It's a fun game, but not a "good" game, IMO. Doesn't stop me from loving it. Don't care about tournies. I am somewhat pleased this thread was created, though.

Still no downsides for hordes. Reduced player agency. Plus GW's track record of ineptitude.

I have no way of proving this, but it's possible that marines ended up the way they did because GW can't figure out how to put in real downsides for hordes into their missions. So marines are now SUPER KILLY.

Even with all the BA improvements, I typically lose in the deployment phase to Imperial soup in GW missions. Because I can't extract VPs from guardsmen and they block all assault.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
40k's main focus should not be on the competitive side of things.
The main focus should be on the narrative and models with rules that support it.

Competitive play is simply one aspect of 40k. If you don't like what GW do you can play another game.

Most people don't even play with the correct 40k rules, chosing to reduce the entire game to a single mission with unofficial terrain rules (ITC missions) , and then complain.

GW's rules aren't correct, either. They have proven themselves inept since at least 1994. GW's missions make the game worse, not better. GW's terrain rules make the game worse, not better.

But their missions are good. Certainly better than the one ITC mission. How many people who complain about GW rules aren't even playing by them?

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
40k's main focus should not be on the competitive side of things.
The main focus should be on the narrative and models with rules that support it.

Competitive play is simply one aspect of 40k. If you don't like what GW do you can play another game.

Most people don't even play with the correct 40k rules, chosing to reduce the entire game to a single mission with unofficial terrain rules (ITC missions) , and then complain.

GW's rules aren't correct, either. They have proven themselves inept since at least 1994. GW's missions make the game worse, not better. GW's terrain rules make the game worse, not better.

But their missions are good. Certainly better than the one ITC mission. How many people who complain about GW rules aren't even playing by them?

Let's not derail this into ITC vs. GW missions. That's another debate and one that comes up frequently enough as it is. However, I do agree to a point: A lot of the complaints come from people playing ITC style which is already houseruled 40k (whether good or bad houserules)

Just saying that they are good doesn't address the specific points I brought up. No downsides for hordes. No player agency.

It's not a derail if it's central to the issue.

I'm complaining about IH being nuts and marines in general getting too much too quickly. It doesn't matter which missions; IH are nuts.

Just a reminder, saying something is FUN and FLUFFY are not points. They are not arguments. They are statements of opinions.

I also can't lie, seeing all the upset and dishonesty over people playing 40k competitively is part of what drives me to continue building lists which are designed to win and ignore people's dumb conceptions of what the lore and fluff is. There is nothing more satisfying than seeing someones dumb 'I brought one of every weapon in my terminator squad! Aren't I a champ for crippling my own chances of success!' get BTFOd almost immediately while my bare bones minmaxed unit actually achieves something.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

SERIOUSLY.

It couldn't possibly be more clear that 40k is meant to be a fun, narratively-oriented, mostly-casual kind of game about spectacle and cool battles and funny moments and nice memories to enjoy with friends. .

'Narratively-orientated'

The 40K game does not represent the setting in any meaningful manner.

I look forward to your pendantic rant about how an abstract wargame that expects you to use your imagination to fill in the blanks does not represent its setting. Unless you expect people to actual field thousands of guardsmen or gaunts at time? Or for only about 5 space marines to be present at a given battle?

Christ some of you people have no ability to argue for gak. Almost immediately you fall back on some snarky comment. The point isn't the game doesn't represent the scale of the universe properly, but you probably knew that. The point is that the game does not represent the fluff in even the most basic manner - the galaxies best super soldiers can barely go toe-to-toe with garbage tier infantry because the mechanics of the game favours the person who bought the most models. Entire units are simply garbage or crippled and might not even be placed on the table, yet in the lore they're described as terrifying and extremely dangerous. 40k, a universe with a fixation on close quarters combat, actively punishes you for engaging in close quarters combat in the game itself.[i]

Wayniac wrote:
Let's not derail this into ITC vs. GW missions. That's another debate and one that comes up frequently enough as it is. However, I do agree to a point: A lot of the complaints come from people playing ITC style which is already houseruled 40k (whether good or bad houserules)

Isn't that the exact topic of this thread, though? This is a heavily US-oriented forum from what I've seen, so when someone on Dakka says "competitive", you can assume they are probably talking about ITC. That's what makes this entire discussion so flawed. It seems like people want GW to use people who created a popular set of houserules to test the "official" rules, and to use those houserules to do so.

If the majority of competitive games are played under those "house" rules, they become the official rules, right? At least, in practice? It was an ITC event where GW lost its mind over flyrants and gutted deep strike, right? Also, if I cripple your list by turn 2, mission no longer matters. You're done.

If the majority of competitive games are played under those "house" rules, they become the official rules, right? At least, in practice?

 EnTyme wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Let's not derail this into ITC vs. GW missions. That's another debate and one that comes up frequently enough as it is. However, I do agree to a point: A lot of the complaints come from people playing ITC style which is already houseruled 40k (whether good or bad houserules)

Isn't that the exact topic of this thread, though? This is a heavily US-oriented forum from what I've seen, so when someone on Dakka says "competitive", you can assume they are probably talking about ITC. That's what makes this entire discussion so flawed. It seems like people want GW to use people who created a popular set of houserules to test the "official" rules, and to use those houserules to do so.

Fair points, I suppose. We don't know though if the playtesters test using ITC rules or the base rules (which goes back to their lack of transparency being a problem). I Wouldn't doubt it, even though it totally skews the issues because ITC is essentially playing their own variant of the game. I keep harping on this but I have a very strong dislike of ITC not because I don't appreciate the effort, but because the effort is of such magnitude that it fundamentally changes the entire nature of the game and as a result, completely changes how you build an army and even how you play it. So immediately you have two opposing forces arguing about the state of the rules when one side is using a modified version so can they really be trusted in their opinions?

I mean, if someone exclusively plays ITC missions, how trustworthy is their view of what's "busted" in 40k? Sure there are some obvious things (IH) or general statements about a general lack of balance or care but when you dive into specifics that end loses a lot of their reliability since something that may be absolutely terrible under ITC conditions might not be that bad if you use the base/CA rules instead. Or a perceived "fix" from ITC may not be a real issue outside of ITC; see Martel's constant harping about "downsides for hordes" and "player agency", the second which seems to mean "I can tailor what I do" (one of the worst parts about the ITC missions IMHO).

And no, a big part of the entire problem is how fundamentally the ITC adjustments change the very nature of the game. It completley puts them in their own little world.

IH are bad no matter what the mission is.

It's constant harping because those are serious flaws in GW's missions.

Martel732 wrote:
IH are bad no matter what the mission is.

That we agree on, but IH is also an outlier.

A very important one. GW can't help themselves. There's ALWAYS an IH.

Mathematically broken is likely to translate to most mission types. Being super killy will cripple your opponent's ability to score.

Ultimately opinions of people who play ITC are worthless for balancing. They're playing skewed version of the game and it affects the results greatly. If I create some narrative missions with a ton of fluffy houserules to play with my friends, no one would think results of those games would be a good indication of balance in 40K either.

This is not to say the game has no problems, but prevalence of ITC has corrupted the data so badly that getting proper information is very difficult.

I disagree. I think the data is quite useful. I think ITC is close enough to determine the problem units for sure. I know the same units dominated both formats under CA 2018.

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. I think the data is quite useful. I think ITC is close enough to determine the problem units for sure. I know the same units dominated both formats under CA 2018.

You can’t have it both ways, though. If ITC was so close to the GW official tournament rules, close enough that the results are cross-compatible, then ITC House-rules wouldn’t exist—they’d be redundant.

The fact that ITC does exist and is different enough to warrant continued existence is proof that it has confounding variables to render critical analysis cross comparing results to real 40k impossible. In order to credibly argue otherwise, you’d need to offer what your adjustment factors are for every unit, in every phase, and for every point scored, in every mission. Which no one does.

What ITC results are useful for are essentially dice simulators with some arbitrarily chosen, and inconsistent assumptions around target priority and line of sight. The inconsistencies make it barely useful for indications of potential lethality... but that’s it. Barely useful.

Multiple people have posted in different Faction threads in the Tactics sub forum about winning games versus IH where they had been tabled on Turn 3 or 4. This is an impossible outcome for victory in ITC—a simple proof that’s results are not useful for balance considerations.

GW has made terrible rules, still makes terrible rules, and will make terrible rules. It makes horrifically unbalanced units, costs, and synergies; and it has done and will continue to do so.

But they also occasionally make really good choices, and come up with fantastic rules and units and player incentivisations... but so long as people continue to insist on pointing at results from homebrew rulesets, I suspect dissatisfaction will always result.

You raise a great question about what GW should do about that... if everyone is playing homebrew rules, should GW allow their game to be hijacked by this and balance around it? In essence, surrendering their game to the whim of a mob of players whose rule-makers could change things on a dime or fail to make needed adjustments when required? Who even more egregiously, bear no fiduciary interest to GW? I don’t think that’s a good idea.

ITC should do what they want: clearly they are successful in driving player engagement with their events and GW product. And players should do what they want: clearly they enjoy playing the ITC format. But it’s probably a vain hope to request that those players not whine about imbalance in a custom scenario over which GW has no control when the system the game is designed for could be fine (or not, few people have enough clean data to say aside from some squad in Nottingham...).

Martel732 wrote:
If the majority of competitive games are played under those "house" rules, they become the official rules, right? At least, in practice?

They are the official ITC rules, but not the official 40k rules. The UIL, NCAA, and NFL all play football, but each uses a different set of rules regarding clock management, down-by-contact, pass interference, targeting, roughing the passer and quarter length. The NCAA's targeting rule would be broken in the NFL, yet you don't see NFL fans screaming at the NCAA to abolish the rule.

Deadnight wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:
If pick-up games don't exist how do you expect introduce people to the hobby? "Yes. Buy this. But know that everything you have ever learned on the Internet is bulls**t because we play our own heavily modified version of the rules nobody else on the Internet is using, if you don't like it you can f*** off and find your own gaming group who agrees with you about what's fun. What's that? You don't have a gaming group? Or a place to play? Well, magic one up, then! I don't have time to play people I don't know according to rules I haven't written myself!"

Well, With less venom and hostility for a start. approaching people with a stinking attitude like that - never cool.

We play at home, and have introduced people to the game. Several have been people I/we worked with, who haven't played otherwise in years (burnout etc), one is a nephew-in-law who was intrigued enough by one players ww2 stuff to just dive in. Others are friends and acquaintances from other clubs or groups.

For us, at least full disclosure is a big thing. If someone is wanting to get involved doing that includes being honest and letting them know what they are in for.

First part is usually along the lines of 'what game/stuff intrigues you' and the stuff that we are interested in (ww2 and historicals, limited sci-fi, some fantasy. Various rules sets) Second is helping with painting/building advice if required and third is incorporating the new stuff into our games. For what it's worth, we are not blind to the internet, tournaments and other gaming groups. We have all done some, or in my case, all of these things too. I would also say these exist, explain the difference in how we play versus the 'officialdon-adhering' clubs do it, some of the price that gets paid for this approach (a lot of your stuff, unless it seems optimal will be seen as a waste, churn and burn is a thing with meta shake up etc. And also, the price we play - more front-loaded work, the 'conversarion' etc) but for what it's worth, I also encourage them to check out the various clubs and tournaments in the area (again, several in the area, I know where they are, have nothing against any of them) and make up their own minds for themselves. It is possible to do both after all, and they may actually enjoy that kind of thing. As has happened if they also find, or know someone who plays on a similar wavelength to us, they are encouraged to bring them back.

I rather build a longer table than higher walls when it comes to investing in my community.

And a game with functional rules that allows complete novices to show up at a game store with an army and get a game against a stranger that at least kind of works rather than steamrolling/getting steamrolled because they bought the wrong minis...is more of a barrier to entering the game in your mind?

29 pages later
Casual hobbyist: GW should focus on the things i like
Competitive hobbyist: GW should focus on fixing the things i like

 EnTyme wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If the majority of competitive games are played under those "house" rules, they become the official rules, right? At least, in practice?

They are the official ITC rules, but not the official 40k rules. The UIL, NCAA, and NFL all play football, but each uses a different set of rules regarding clock management, down-by-contact, pass interference, targeting, roughing the passer and quarter length. The NCAA's targeting rule would be broken in the NFL, yet you don't see NFL fans screaming at the NCAA to abolish the rule.

And the NCAA doesn’t pretend to be the NFL, nor push its rules on the NFL.

When GW makes points changes to things, particularly large changes, as a result of tournament results (ITC, NOVA, and other house rule events), it ‘fixes’ things that may not have ever been an issue for the rest of players. I play a a lot of maelstrom with my group, and we never had any of the problems with Maelstrom missions that were constantly harped about on Dakka, and they forced a different approach to list building and gameplay which was part of the core rules, but impossible to list build around for tournaments. It also helped hamper some of the death stars and similar popular tournie builds. But the tourney goers don’t want their builds to be affected, they want to be able to list build around synergies And remove or reduce any randomness and chance. So they’re playing a different game.

As a former tournament goer, I ignore all the new adjustments from GW, because the tournaments have not helped to balance a thing, and made our games worse. Fortunately our group has a mix of approaches, but we are all able to have fun with the game without seeing the things that constantly creep up on Dakka and YMDC.

GW using ITC results as indicators for what might be broken is fine. They are, after all, good examples of people trying to break the game (because tournament) with a lot of sample data.

However, I think the issue is GW seems a bit too knee-jerk to what goes on for ITC (perhaps, in part, due to using them as playtesters and the fact FLG is pushing an agenda with ITC) without fully realizing that ITC missions show a particular subset of problems that may not crop up in the same fashion without ITC rules.

I would think a better example for data would be events that use the base rules, since those would show generic problems (e.g. spamming flyers, busted combos) without making it look like problems in ITC events are problems for the entirety of Matched Play. Once agan it is easier to fix generic issues and have them be adjusted for the specific than fix specific issues and broaden them to adjust the generic.

That's where the disconnect lies. IMHO GW should focus on fixing the core issues, the ones that crop up irrespective of mission (to give a nod to Martel yes this would be things like IH) and then put the onus on ITC to adjust their rules with "and also" rules which address their specific issues. Otherwise, you have houseruled 40k (ITC) influencing base 40k (everything else) which is the reverse of what it should be because it's not taking into account the fact that the feedback is from a modified version of the game which fixes and introduces its own problems which may not exist otherwise.

Or maybe it is. We have no way of knowing so can only go by what we suspect.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

And a game with functional rules that allows complete novices to show up at a game store with an army and get a game against a stranger that at least kind of works rather than steamrolling/getting steamrolled because they bought the wrong minis...is more of a barrier to entering the game in your mind?

Firstly, let's be clear. Your original post was a very venomous one having a go at folks like us as though it's impossible to bring people into the hobby by playing differently. I answered that.

Now it's mutated to snarky implications about something I didn't say.

But to answer, and firstly, I have no general issues with pick up game culture as a 'thing'. I've said it before - it has a viable and valuable niche. My problem is with people insisting this is the 'right' or 'proper' or 'only' way to play and outright dismissing the validity or value of other approaches. do I have a problem with a game with functioning rules that allows complete novices to show up at a game store with an army, and get a game against a stranger that at least kind of works rather than being a steamrolling because they had the wrong minis? In principle, no i dont. I've never come across this game though. I've never come across any game that didn't have issues, go to builds etc. I would say I have more of an issue with the base idea that you should firstly be playing against a stranger, (and that this should be the first consideration) instead of building a community and making friends with your peers.
While I don't need think it's a barrier to entering the game, I think an over-insistence of pick-up-game culture, an overvaluing of its value, and a dismissal of other alternatives/approaches and the narrowness of thought that can emerge from this, as well as an insistence on adhering to the 'tyranny of officialdom' in all circumstances (and claiming personal helplessness with issues in the rules), likewise, is problematic and damaging to the hobby in the long term. I think these can feed into a devaluing of communication and community building and it can therefore be detrimental and ultimately toxic in the long term.

I've burned out twice from pick up game and tournament game culture. I value it, for sure. I just don't see it as the be all and end all or the ultimate expression of the game. Ymmv.

GW needs to quit making 7th ed cwe and now IH or missions are largely moot. Also, cranking marines to 11 doesnt really address the race to the bottom. BA, for example, still can't deal with 4 ppm guardsmen in gw missions. They just can't. Too many targets that control the whole board from turn 1.

ITC doesn't magically make it become a different game, because certain units like Banshees or Assault Marines or don't suddenly become usable with "core" missions.

 EnTyme wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If the majority of competitive games are played under those "house" rules, they become the official rules, right? At least, in practice?

They are the official ITC rules, but not the official 40k rules. The UIL, NCAA, and NFL all play football, but each uses a different set of rules regarding clock management, down-by-contact, pass interference, targeting, roughing the passer and quarter length. The NCAA's targeting rule would be broken in the NFL, yet you don't see NFL fans screaming at the NCAA to abolish the rule.

I will not stand for this blatant insult to the noble traditions of the CFL.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If the majority of competitive games are played under those "house" rules, they become the official rules, right? At least, in practice?

They are the official ITC rules, but not the official 40k rules. The UIL, NCAA, and NFL all play football, but each uses a different set of rules regarding clock management, down-by-contact, pass interference, targeting, roughing the passer and quarter length. The NCAA's targeting rule would be broken in the NFL, yet you don't see NFL fans screaming at the NCAA to abolish the rule.

I will not stand for this blatant insult to the noble traditions of the CFL.

You're rugby with more pads, and you know it!


Seriously, though. The few times I've gotten to watch a CFL game, I like a lot of their rules better than the NFL.

I'd be fine with ITC putting out its own point values. And its own core rules, actually. Take the rules away from gw.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd be fine with ITC putting out its own point values. And its own core rules, actually. Take the rules away from gw.

Honestly, I am amazed they have not yet. They've fundamentally changed the way terrain and scoring work in 8th, yet all the big ITC fanboys I know just CONSTANTLY bitch about how gakky GW is at points balancing/rules writing...

Like, how hard is it for you guys to just put out a PDF with points?

I basically can't comment on how good ITC rules vs GW rules, since every game I've played under ITC rules is using optimized, competitive lists, so they just end turn 3 (and are basically over but for the crying turn 2 most of the time). I guess I'd make the complaint that there's a lot of decision making before the game starts that you could just, like, skip because it's gonna go to who tables who?

I dunno. Maybe I'm just not bringing the right hyper durability-skew lists to get to actually try out ITC missions. But GSC and Drukhari have been my two most competitive collections for most of 8th.