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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.

You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.

Making games play to their natural conclusion is always one of the most important things you need out of a tournament packet. Time limits are an unfortunate necessity, but you want to push players to play fast enough that they are the exception rather than the norm.

#40kChessClocks

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.

You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.

Turn 4 is pretty reliable until you run into people who don't know rules and you have to call judges. I spent 32 minutes in a tournament recently because my opponent didn't know basic rules and challenged me on them. Even rules specific to his army. What can you do? It's time lost.

When you play with good, knowledgeable people, turn 4 is easy. 5 gets tough because even if there's time left to start a 5th turn, if it's under 20 minutes that becomes really difficult. So sometimes you'll have game round where 20 minutes is spent in the deployment phase, and 15 minutes are lost at the end, meaning you've got under 2 hours to get 5 turns.

Also, shooting armies with lots of different kinds of weapons will eat through time like nobodies business. If every unit is throwing a grenade and firing a special weapon, it gets kind of silly in the time spent there. I use the GW assault dice app for my rolls. I can get 80 attacks from my Genestealers done in 10 seconds. Faster than a kill team doing its shooting.

 Marmatag wrote:

karandrasss wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.

Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.

I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"

Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."

I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."

Why would 2.5 hours not be enough to table? If anything, games are faster when you're just trying to kill each other rather than carefully measuring whether you have units in all table quarters, near objectives etc., no?

What do you usually play and what "tabling lists" have you crushed?

Logistically tabling someone in 2.5 hours - which includes all mission prep & setup time - is not easy. Don't confuse "essentially tabled" with "actually tabled." You can have someone clearly beaten within 2.5 hours no problem, but actually killing *every* model isn't easy.

My gaming resume doesn't really matter, but if you'd like to see it shoot me a PM.

Brb missions barely have any mission prep, especially Relic and No Mercy. Gonna shoot you that PM.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.

You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.

Making games play to their natural conclusion is always one of the most important things you need out of a tournament packet. Time limits are an unfortunate necessity, but you want to push players to play fast enough that they are the exception rather than the norm.

#40kChessClocks

For the millionth time, chess clocks do not apply. Chess has no logistics tied to taking your action. It's thought, and then the thought is instantly manifested on the board.

The better solution would be capping games at 4 turns. It's like having a game of 3 minute chess, instead of 10 minute chess. Tournament 40k is like blitz chess. 2.5 hours is plenty for 4 turns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

karandrasss wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

karandrasss wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.

Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.

I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"

Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."

I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."

Why would 2.5 hours not be enough to table? If anything, games are faster when you're just trying to kill each other rather than carefully measuring whether you have units in all table quarters, near objectives etc., no?

What do you usually play and what "tabling lists" have you crushed?

Logistically tabling someone in 2.5 hours - which includes all mission prep & setup time - is not easy. Don't confuse "essentially tabled" with "actually tabled." You can have someone clearly beaten within 2.5 hours no problem, but actually killing *every* model isn't easy.

My gaming resume doesn't really matter, but if you'd like to see it shoot me a PM.

Brb missions barely have any mission prep, especially Relic and No Mercy. Gonna shoot you that PM.

Yes they do, you still have to measure zones and deploy. This is where the time is spent. Also, ITC terrain is pre-set up and configured before the round starts.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.

You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.

Turn 4 is pretty reliable until you run into people who don't know rules and you have to call judges. I spent 32 minutes in a tournament recently because my opponent didn't know basic rules and challenged me on them. Even rules specific to his army. What can you do? It's time lost.

When you play with good, knowledgeable people, turn 4 is easy. 5 gets tough because even if there's time left to start a 5th turn, if it's under 20 minutes that becomes really difficult. So sometimes you'll have game round where 20 minutes is spent in the deployment phase, and 15 minutes are lost at the end, meaning you've got under 2 hours to get 5 turns.

Also, shooting armies with lots of different kinds of weapons will eat through time like nobodies business. If every unit is throwing a grenade and firing a special weapon, it gets kind of silly in the time spent there. I use the GW assault dice app for my rolls. I can get 80 attacks from my Genestealers done in 10 seconds. Faster than a kill team doing its shooting.

I guess it helps that our tournaments never go past 20 tables so it's very easy to get a judge. Codices also required so knowing your own rules is rarely an issue.

You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.

I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.

Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.

Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)

 Marmatag wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.

You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.

Making games play to their natural conclusion is always one of the most important things you need out of a tournament packet. Time limits are an unfortunate necessity, but you want to push players to play fast enough that they are the exception rather than the norm.

#40kChessClocks

For the millionth time, chess clocks do not apply. Chess has no logistics tied to taking your action. It's thought, and then the thought is instantly manifested on the board.

The better solution would be capping games at 4 turns. It's like having a game of 3 minute chess, instead of 10 minute chess. Tournament 40k is like blitz chess. 2.5 hours is plenty for 4 turns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

karandrasss wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

karandrasss wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Saying ITC is a race to table the opponent is just not true.

Because of the 2.5 hour time limit games will not often end in a tabling. You NEED to be smart about how you score, because you cannot assume a 6 turn game.

I crush people who ignore objectives and try to table me. They think they're hot gak clearing 50+ models on turn 1, but then they lose by almost 10 points, and it's like "wait, what?"

Book missions / GW missions, are a race to table because they are all one dimensional. What ITC does very right is giving you multiple paths to victory. The problem right now -and this is the only real problem - is that the secondary objectives are being gamed in list construction. They need more objectives like "Recon" and less objectives like "Reaper."

I don't know how you guys can analyze a format you're not even trying. This would be like me saying "pfft, childbirth is easy, here's why..."

Why would 2.5 hours not be enough to table? If anything, games are faster when you're just trying to kill each other rather than carefully measuring whether you have units in all table quarters, near objectives etc., no?

What do you usually play and what "tabling lists" have you crushed?

Logistically tabling someone in 2.5 hours - which includes all mission prep & setup time - is not easy. Don't confuse "essentially tabled" with "actually tabled." You can have someone clearly beaten within 2.5 hours no problem, but actually killing *every* model isn't easy.

My gaming resume doesn't really matter, but if you'd like to see it shoot me a PM.

Brb missions barely have any mission prep, especially Relic and No Mercy. Gonna shoot you that PM.

Yes they do, you still have to measure zones and deploy. This is where the time is spent. Also, ITC terrain is pre-set up and configured before the round starts.

So keep that and take away the ITC paperwork and jotting down scores, you get our meta. Rarely ever get problems with time. Maybe it helps that every list is aiming to table.

karandrasss wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.

You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.

Turn 4 is pretty reliable until you run into people who don't know rules and you have to call judges. I spent 32 minutes in a tournament recently because my opponent didn't know basic rules and challenged me on them. Even rules specific to his army. What can you do? It's time lost.

When you play with good, knowledgeable people, turn 4 is easy. 5 gets tough because even if there's time left to start a 5th turn, if it's under 20 minutes that becomes really difficult. So sometimes you'll have game round where 20 minutes is spent in the deployment phase, and 15 minutes are lost at the end, meaning you've got under 2 hours to get 5 turns.

Also, shooting armies with lots of different kinds of weapons will eat through time like nobodies business. If every unit is throwing a grenade and firing a special weapon, it gets kind of silly in the time spent there. I use the GW assault dice app for my rolls. I can get 80 attacks from my Genestealers done in 10 seconds. Faster than a kill team doing its shooting.

I guess it helps that our tournaments never go past 20 tables so it's very easy to get a judge. Codices also required so knowing your own rules is rarely an issue.

Referencing your codex takes time. But more importantly, the games rules have changed as a result of FAQ entries. Locating the FAQ can be difficult, and it's easier to call a judge. Think about how Warp Time changed in relation to deep strike. That is not in the RAW or the codex.

Calling a judge takes time. If you want 6 turns in 2.5 hours you don't have 10 minutes to spare.

bananathug wrote:
You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.

I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.

Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.

Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)

Take objectives off the table (or just render them irrelevant) and it's a lot faster. How did he win, aside from "arbitrarily standing next to a poker chip"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

karandrasss wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.

You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.

Turn 4 is pretty reliable until you run into people who don't know rules and you have to call judges. I spent 32 minutes in a tournament recently because my opponent didn't know basic rules and challenged me on them. Even rules specific to his army. What can you do? It's time lost.

When you play with good, knowledgeable people, turn 4 is easy. 5 gets tough because even if there's time left to start a 5th turn, if it's under 20 minutes that becomes really difficult. So sometimes you'll have game round where 20 minutes is spent in the deployment phase, and 15 minutes are lost at the end, meaning you've got under 2 hours to get 5 turns.

Also, shooting armies with lots of different kinds of weapons will eat through time like nobodies business. If every unit is throwing a grenade and firing a special weapon, it gets kind of silly in the time spent there. I use the GW assault dice app for my rolls. I can get 80 attacks from my Genestealers done in 10 seconds. Faster than a kill team doing its shooting.

I guess it helps that our tournaments never go past 20 tables so it's very easy to get a judge. Codices also required so knowing your own rules is rarely an issue.

Referencing your codex takes time. But more importantly, the games rules have changed as a result of FAQ entries. Locating the FAQ can be difficult, and it's easier to call a judge. Think about how Warp Time changed in relation to deep strike. That is not in the RAW or the codex.

Calling a judge takes time. If you want 6 turns in 2.5 hours you don't have 10 minutes to spare.

Or you can table your opponent in 3-4 turns, which is a frequent occurrence, to a point that it's boring (even if I win most of my games) but I can't convince people around me to play any other way.

I'd like to see what list you're running where you get tabled in 3 turns.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'd like to see what list you're running where you get tabled in 3 turns.

The usual daemons soup/Nanavati Eldar/IG with shield captains/Genestealer Tyranids with Hive Guard/Drukhari Blaster + Disintegrator spam get played in my meta. They get tabled. Or they table each other, however you want to put it.

 Marmatag wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well it's my opinion that the time issue is the greatest issue going on in tournaments right now.

You say "you can not assume turn 6" it's really more like "you can't assume turn 4 or 5". This issue needs to be fixed. Perhaps a minimum game turn requirement for the game to count or something like that.

Making games play to their natural conclusion is always one of the most important things you need out of a tournament packet. Time limits are an unfortunate necessity, but you want to push players to play fast enough that they are the exception rather than the norm.

#40kChessClocks

For the millionth time, chess clocks do not apply. Chess has no logistics tied to taking your action. It's thought, and then the thought is instantly manifested on the board.

The better solution would be capping games at 4 turns. It's like having a game of 3 minute chess, instead of 10 minute chess. Tournament 40k is like blitz chess. 2.5 hours is plenty for 4 turns.

For the millionth time (I guess?) logistics are irrelevant. You have a game you have to finish in a limited span of time. Chess clocks make that happen more reliably than anything else out there. I've used them in pretty much any game system out there and they get the job done. You have to adjust what happens when time runs out a bit depending on the game system, but the core premise of "my 75 minutes" is pretty universal for any turn based system out there.

bananathug wrote:
You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.

I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.

Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.

Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)

Well, you did kill a hive tyrant in like 2 seconds effortlessly. This was a good game honestly, it just came down to bad rolls even with Guilliman. You had pretty bad luck. I think you'd do better after the deep strike change. Let me know if you want a game some time.

 Marmatag wrote:

bananathug wrote:
You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.

I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.

Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.

Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)

Well, you did kill a hive tyrant in like 2 seconds effortlessly. This was a good game honestly, it just came down to bad rolls even with Guilliman. You had pretty bad luck. I think you'd do better after the deep strike change. Let me know if you want a game some time.

Isn't a 10-point difference easily boiled down to holding an objective and holding one more than an opponent for 5 turns? How does this qualify as getting crushed? Isn't it just a matter of one list having more bodies and not dying?

karandrasss wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

bananathug wrote:
You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.

I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.

Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.

Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)

Well, you did kill a hive tyrant in like 2 seconds effortlessly. This was a good game honestly, it just came down to bad rolls even with Guilliman. You had pretty bad luck. I think you'd do better after the deep strike change. Let me know if you want a game some time.

Isn't a 10-point difference easily boiled down to holding an objective and holding one more than an opponent for 5 turns? How does this qualify as getting crushed? Isn't it just a matter of one list having more bodies and not dying?

Holding more objectives for 5 turns would be 5 points. In this game he denied me holding more pretty easily, because i can't just waltz into the killbox of razorbacks and aggressors with any expectation of surviving. I don't think I was up by 10.

 Marmatag wrote:

karandrasss wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

bananathug wrote:
You can't kill that many gaunts in a stupid -1 to hit venomthrope bubble with psychic fnps and immune from morale while protecting yourself form genestealers and getting shot by hive guard while protecting an objective or two while screening out the deepstriking flyrants/tunneling whatevers with their little baby whatevers in 2.5 hours.

I've tried but if you don't believe me give it a shot yourself.

Marm crushed (by like 10 points) my tabling list (gulliman + razorbacks+aggressors back before the nerfs) I'm pretty sure he also beat a 3x fire-raptor list at the same event. Last I heard that list was 20 something and 0 so I'm pretty sure he beat a fair number of "tabling" lists.

Maybe games will go quicker now but at super competitive events lots of measuring is important for more than just being close to objectives and shooting your enemy (pile in moves, charges to objectives, deep strike denial, buff auras, los, closest targets, smite targets, psychic denials...)

Well, you did kill a hive tyrant in like 2 seconds effortlessly. This was a good game honestly, it just came down to bad rolls even with Guilliman. You had pretty bad luck. I think you'd do better after the deep strike change. Let me know if you want a game some time.

Isn't a 10-point difference easily boiled down to holding an objective and holding one more than an opponent for 5 turns? How does this qualify as getting crushed? Isn't it just a matter of one list having more bodies and not dying?

Holding more objectives for 5 turns would be 5 points. In this game he denied me holding more pretty easily, because i can't just waltz into the killbox of razorbacks and aggressors with any expectation of surviving. I don't think I was up by 10.

What stopped you from attempting to tabling him? Did you later think that maybe you should run a list that could win a less roundabout manner by dealing with the Razorbacks and Aggressors without entering their killbox?

If the game was just to kill each other list design would be a lot different and the codex imbalance would be even more pronounced.

I think it adds a strategic element to the game that you can design a list to kill, be resilient or both. In response you have to build your list to handle both of these elements. It's what keeps a lid on knight lists or all custode bike lists. Allows people to compete with dark reaper lists and gives value to units like gaunts, guardsmen and the like.

The codexes are not balanced when it comes to killing/not getting killed power. Rewarding other army strengths (mobility, out of los ability, deployment, force concentration/spread) adds more to the game than it takes away.

And holding more for 5 turns is not a close game (although considering we only went through turn 4 those 10 points were more than that and he was able to kill as much or more each of those 4 points while having board control and really good resiliency)

[edit: match specifics]
His list was built around board control and playing ITC missions. If he would have just spammed flyrants and hive guard he could have gone the tabling route (which is why the rule of 3 was implemented) and given the efficiency of those units vs anything I could put out there probably would have won. But that's not fun, tactical or engaging to play with/against. I had a great time trying to chew through his guys while not getting my tanks/dread tied up and screening from deepstrike. Without the ITC format it would have been 7 flyrants vs 7 razors+gman+guard screens and we might as well have just math-hammered out the results (he wins).

I don't need to deal with them. I could maintain a solid advantage in points and force him to bring the fight to me. Winning by 1 is the same as winning by 100 when it's the final table.

And if the game was straight "kill each other" he would have crushed me.

 Marmatag wrote:
I don't need to deal with them. I could maintain a solid advantage in points and force him to bring the fight to me. Winning by 1 is the same as winning by 100 when it's the final table.

So in this one instance it was beneficial not to attempt to table. Why ITC at all if it's turning fights into non-fights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:
If the game was just to kill each other list design would be a lot different and the codex imbalance would be even more pronounced.

I think it adds a strategic element to the game that you can design a list to kill, be resilient or both. In response you have to build your list to handle both of these elements. It's what keeps a lid on knight lists or all custode bike lists. Allows people to compete with dark reaper lists and gives value to units like gaunts, guardsmen and the like.

The codexes are not balanced when it comes to killing/not getting killed power. Rewarding other army strengths (not getting killed, mobility) adds more to the game than it takes away.

And holding more for 5 turns is not a close game (although considering we only went through turn 4 those 10 points were more than that and he was able to kill as much or more each of those 4 points while having board control and really good resiliency)

I actually agree wholeheartedly. But what do you say to people who believe if you can't win the killing part, you should either play better or switch armies?

Because designing an army to just leverage the best ppw inflicted is boring for people with a basic grasp of math?

bananathug wrote:
Because designing an army to just leverage the best ppw inflicted is boring for people with a basic grasp of math?

See, that's a tough sell. They don't think it's basic math. They think there's strategy in spamming Drukhari blasters and disintegrators...somehow. Because you still move, kite, use timely Strategems, etc.

karandrasss wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Because designing an army to just leverage the best ppw inflicted is boring for people with a basic grasp of math?

See, that's a tough sell. They don't think it's basic math. They think there's strategy in spamming Drukhari blasters and disintegrators...somehow. Because you still move, kite, use timely Strategems, etc.

Not much can be done if people believe that selecting the most points efficient dakka is equivalent to player skill.

Like it's well documented how to win in that way. May as well replace a tournament with a simple question: "do you have the disposable income to buy up the lastest cheese?" Everyone who answers yes goes to roll-off to determine first turn. The winner of those roll offs are considered the victor of the game.

 Marmatag wrote:

karandrasss wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Because designing an army to just leverage the best ppw inflicted is boring for people with a basic grasp of math?

See, that's a tough sell. They don't think it's basic math. They think there's strategy in spamming Drukhari blasters and disintegrators...somehow. Because you still move, kite, use timely Strategems, etc.

Not much can be done if people believe that selecting the most points efficient dakka is equivalent to player skill.

Like it's well documented how to win in that way. May as well replace a tournament with a simple question: "do you have the disposable income to buy up the lastest cheese?" Everyone who answers yes goes to roll-off to determine first turn. The winner of those roll offs are considered the victor of the game.

I guess ego is part of it, too. They'd be like, you're just saying that because you can't just table your opponents and they can. Lol. It's seriously hair-pulling. That tabling stuff got boring LAST YEAR.

Get them to try objective based games? I didn't think it was that important until I tried it and realized how many options for wining/losing it opened and how it added another layer onto list building.

I love your idea of trying to come up with local mission packs and having to construct an army that can do more than one type of mission is fun (and that's why we play right?)

And I think you answered your own question because your local meta turns into eldar vs eldar. DE vs altoric + yanarri. Shining spears vs whatever.

And yeah, then the game turns into who has the biggest model collection/most time/or is willing to spend the most on the new hotness. I'm not sure how that isn't apparent to your group.

It seems like you are a leader in your community (which is awesome!!! thank you for your time!!). Hell try to just organize a one day 3 round tourney using ITC packs and see what happens? If they like to play I think they'll show up and have a good time. I don't think it makes the game worse in any way.

I like the ITC missions. They give much more flexibility on how you can play and hopefully win the game. Nobody wants to feel that they're screwed from either a bad match up or highly unfavorable mission conditions, from the get-go. Nobody wants to feel that if they dont bring some broken, Forgeworld, superheavy, that they can't play the game. I think that was the point to ITC. Also, if you play the ITC missions, competitive play is assumed. I think it fits well in the meta and allows players to quickly differentiate whether they want to play competitively (ITC) or play more casual (BRB).

bananathug wrote:
Get them to try objective based games? I didn't think it was that important until I tried it and realized how many options for wining/losing it opened and how it added another layer onto list building.

I love your idea of trying to come up with local mission packs and having to construct an army that can do more than one type of mission is fun (and that's why we play right?)

And I think you answered your own question because your local meta turns into eldar vs eldar. DE vs altoric + yanarri. Shining spears vs whatever.

And yeah, then the game turns into who has the biggest model collection/most time/or is willing to spend the most on the new hotness. I'm not sure how that isn't apparent to your group.

It seems like you are a leader in your community (which is awesome!!! thank you for your time!!). Hell try to just organize a one day 3 round tourney using ITC packs and see what happens? If they like to play I think they'll show up and have a good time. I don't think it makes the game worse in any way.

I think the prevailing thought is 40k has always been like that - the "meta" (meta being what's good at killing, ah those five Wraithknight lists...) shifts based on what GW wants to sell, and that's how the game is played. Funny thing is there are some who would argue there is still strategy in end game objectives when they're almost always afterthoughts. Yeah really hoping this thread will pave the way to a better mission format in my community. It's a reaaaaal tough sell though. Like you come to a game with scoresheets and that's way too much bookkeeping, apparently.

If ITC hadn't updated their packs to be progressive scoring with selectable secondaries i would have quit 8th edition. It becomes such a one dimensional game that it's pointless.

karandrasss wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Get them to try objective based games? I didn't think it was that important until I tried it and realized how many options for wining/losing it opened and how it added another layer onto list building.

I love your idea of trying to come up with local mission packs and having to construct an army that can do more than one type of mission is fun (and that's why we play right?)

And I think you answered your own question because your local meta turns into eldar vs eldar. DE vs altoric + yanarri. Shining spears vs whatever.

And yeah, then the game turns into who has the biggest model collection/most time/or is willing to spend the most on the new hotness. I'm not sure how that isn't apparent to your group.

It seems like you are a leader in your community (which is awesome!!! thank you for your time!!). Hell try to just organize a one day 3 round tourney using ITC packs and see what happens? If they like to play I think they'll show up and have a good time. I don't think it makes the game worse in any way.

I think the prevailing thought is 40k has always been like that - the "meta" (meta being what's good at killing, ah those five Wraithknight lists...) shifts based on what GW wants to sell, and that's how the game is played. Funny thing is there are some who would argue there is still strategy in end game objectives when they're almost always afterthoughts. Yeah really hoping this thread will pave the way to a better mission format in my community. It's a reaaaaal tough sell though. Like you come to a game with scoresheets and that's way too much bookkeeping, apparently.

People are pretty set in their ways on this subject. You aren't going to make a difference. Everyone wants to think they are playing 40k the right way and everyone experience with the game is different to.

I play some other games. World of warships and leauge of legends.

If you actaully experience the different metas on different servers you will come to the same conclusion.

In WOWs Russian server is a slug fests - everyone drives full speed at the enemy ships and the games are over in 5-10 minutes with battleships fighting at 2-3km or ramming each other to finish the game. On the US server everyone stays as far apart as they possibly can and fire over islands out of LOS and the games are often decided by points when the 20 min time limit runs out. Who is playing the game right? Who knows...but they are playing with the same ships. IMO though - there is no question who is having more fun.

Play the Russian lists on the American servers and find out?

 Marmatag wrote:
Tournament 40k is like blitz chess. 2.5 hours is plenty for 4 turns.

You know I'd be curious to see how the game plays if people played with the expectation for 4 turns.

It almost feels right.