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.

No, he was saying that ITC missions were too easy to "game the system on" and saying that this made it not a true test of skill.

I never actually criticized him on the CA2018 missions suggestion at all. I never had too. Others have spoken about them already. They don't work in a highly competitive scene without some modification because they don't all award the same amount of points.

I'd like to know where I showed authority as well. I don't run any tournaments atm and haven't since 5th not to mention I don't have any kind of power with FLG or the ITC circuit at all.

I do have knowledge of what constitutes a good competitive game only because I've been doing it on and off for 15 years. Not just 40k, but other big games both on and offline.


I do admit that im taking it a bit off topic though and for that I apologize. I get frustrated with people that complain about something that's working fine for the wrong reasons though. Just like your last comment. Why people feel that "their" game shouldn't be held up to the same standards as a globally recognized competitive event makes no sense to me. Everyone should strive for the things they like to hold up in a serious conversation when talking about competitive events.

@Crimson

The questions weren't meant to skew people away from the missions, I wrote them that way (with lots of peer review) because literally no one was asking for CA missions to be used. It wasn't on the radar, but some folks were asking if we would adopt elements of CA so I asked the question to the community I was being asked. This thread has more people advocating for the missions than anywhere else by a long shot. I actually assume pretty much all of the people saying to use them probably are coming from this thread, actually, haha. So, you're seeing it from your perspective and then assuming we did things on purpose to cloud the issue or whatever. That isn't the case. We didn't ask the question directly because no one was asking it of us.

If in time more and more people ask for it, cool, we'll go the way the wind blows. Looking at the feedback so far though, that is highly unlikely to be the case.

And again, and for the last time, lol, if you like them, and your community wants to use them...do! Have fun! You can still get ITC points and play the game you want to. But I am not going to tell people coming to an event we run they will use missions they are telling me they don't want to use, that would be a poor choice on my part.

@Spoletta

I disagree, some missions certainly are more or less competitive than others. I think that is quite obvious, actually. It is fine to discuss that. Trying to say all missions are created equally is false, otherwise we wouldn't be having these types of discussions.

And I get some of your points but you are saying what the game has been balanced for to a person that literally helped balance the game...

Like, let that sink in, haha. People like Mike and my job is to help balance 40k and we use similar mission sets in our events. Why would we do that if it was counter to a fun and fair game of 40k or was counter to the balance of the game? We of all people would have to be fools to do that as we have a much better understanding of the game's design and intent than others.

And yes, you make a great point. The CA missions aren't designed to be used as is in a tournament and some aspects of them, like turning off invul saves or what have you, aren't conducive to a fair and balanced tournament environment. They are fun though (I think, anyway) and are a great way to enjoy games of 40k.

@Red Corsair

Happy to get the feedback, even the criticisms. Can only make us better =)

The enclosed ruins thing is more of a reaction to the 8th ed terrain rules which IMO, need the most help out of the core rules. Saying a game that recreates battlefields shouldn't have buildings on them sucks because they look cool and the game is as much about aesthetics as anything else. Otherwise, we should be playing chess.

And real battlefields DO have buildings. It not only looks cool but it feels right, too. Soldiers do go into them not just walk around them, haha.

What I'd like to see is instead of getting mad at a building providing cover or whatever, is rules that make using buildings more fun and interactive to avoid situations that can be frustrating. That obviously isn't going to happen right this instant (or ever, possibly) and obviously we can't recreate all of the terrain we've spent years building (nor do we want to! Our terrain is beautiful) so we simply added a single rule to avoid the absurdity of planes/etc. flying into and out of buildings. That rule changes very little really, the core issue is the way ruins work right now. So, it is what it is at this point in time.

If a ruin was on any table in an 8th ed game that had 4 walls and a roof, it would be exactly the way we play ours apart from the fact that magically a Wave Serpent could fly in and out of it, lol. The only way to avoid that would be to say some ruins are not actually ruins but impassible terrain (which is again, altering the game), which get confusing to the players and is non-intuitive. You may prefer that personally, but the judging staff debated it at length and given all of the variables we decided to go the route we did and I feel it was the right choice given the terrain that we have, and provide the best play experience given the options available to us.

As for wanting credit for CA, no, that was not an ego thing. It's just funny that someone tells me to "stop trying to be a game designer, use the missions that you helped design!"

It was ironic and made me laugh but of course, he probably didn't know the play-testers had a hand in it or he wouldn't have made the comment, which is why it was funny and why I pointed it out. I could care less if anyone knows I helped make them or not which is why I never brought it prior to this.

If enough people brought up using the missions, we'd be open to it but it is not even remotely close to a lot of people at this time.

And for you, 40k may not be a "sport" or whatever, but it is a competitive outlet for a lot of people so I would suggest not trying to do the thing to them you say they shouldn't do to other's ideas and hand wave it away. Because, the fact of the matter is, that is the direction some of 40k is going not because of any masterminded effort to make it happen, but because a lot of people want to see it happen. It's creating a vacuum in the market that will be filled. We already have people supplementing their income/hobby through "professional 40k type activities", it's really just a matter of time. And again, that is because the demand is there. It's hapenning all over the place and in lots of interesting ways, too. I am very curious to see how things look in the next 5 years.

So, anyway, I wouldn't get on that high horse because there's no reason to look down your nose at someone for enjoying the hobby the way they want to. I think it's great! I like to see people excited to play and compete and have fun. I also think it's great for people to enjoy reading the books, or just painting, or only playing in leagues, or narrative campaigns, or friendly games, etc. The hobby has something for every type of person and that diversity is only going to make the overall hobby better, bigger and more fun.

@Reanimation_Protocol

Lol, what?

Do you hail from the land of Jumpstoconclusia?

This has NOTHING to do with selling our terrain. At all, lol, and you should think twice before casting stones like that with literally zero evidence to support your statement. I highly doubt you'd want others doing that to you.

Sheesh, it's funny to see how many people in this thread draw conclusions about our motivations with almost nothing to support it other than speculation.

Just ask me guys, lol, I am happy to answer.

Anyway, no, this is not about sales. It is about the fact that we have spent years and years and tens of thousands of dollars investing into beautiful tables of terrain. If we simply made all of these buildings impassible, that would be really lame, lol. Some tables would be nothing but impassible terrain blocks, haha! That would not provide an enjoyable play experience.

So, you speak from a position of ignorance. And I say that in the literal sense, not as an insult. You literally don't have enough information to know what you're talking about so again, think before you speak, please. Or just, ask some questions first so you can have an informed opinion before making a declaration.

We make choices based on what we think will give the best possible play experience. That's it. Trying to "sell more terrain" at the expense of a good show would be shooting myself in the foot.

We are in the business of running good events. But, there are also limitations on what we can physically do. I can't change our terrain, nor do I want to. Again, our tables look amazing, far better than most tournaments and I am very proud of that. The only issue at this slice of time (and we've been using this terrain for years and many editions) is that right now, the ruins rules are extremely prohibitive. That's all. If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation just like we haven't been for all the years we've been using this terrain, lol.

@Wayniac

If you are disgusted by people playing the game they want to, and having fun, then your threshold for being disgusted is reaaaaaallllyy low, lol

What do you care, at all, if people are enjoying their hobby and wanting to see it grow! That's awesome. Do you think video-games are worse off because some people do it professionally? Do you think sports have gotten worse for that reason? Come on, that's silly and so obviously not the case. Having a pro aspect to those activities have made them better.

If you aren't in to it, fine, play the game you want to and have fun with it. I'm not going to tell you you disgust me because you don't play the game the way I think you should, because that would be an absurd thing for me to say, lol.

@Thread

Any way, thanks for the feedback, everyone. Much appreciated. It's interesting to see and hear some alternative perspectives, even if some of them are a bit misinformed but that's cool, the only way to overcome that is to communicate.

If you like one way of doing things then by all means, play the way you have the most fun!

 Reecius wrote:
@Crimson

The questions weren't meant to skew people away from the missions, I wrote them that way (with lots of peer review) because literally no one was asking for CA missions to be used. It wasn't on the radar, but some folks were asking if we would adopt elements of CA so I asked the question to the community I was being asked. This thread has more people advocating for the missions than anywhere else by a long shot. I actually assume pretty much all of the people saying to use them probably are coming from this thread, actually, haha. So, you're seeing it from your perspective and then assuming we did things on purpose to cloud the issue or whatever. That isn't the case. We didn't ask the question directly because no one was asking it of us.

If in time more and more people ask for it, cool, we'll go the way the wind blows. Looking at the feedback so far though, that is highly unlikely to be the case.

Be that as it may, if there were a contingent of people who wanted to use CA missions this questionaire would never find it out.

As for wanting credit for CA, no, that was not an ego thing. It's just funny that someone tells me to "stop trying to be a game designer, use the missions that you helped design!"

It was ironic and made me laugh but of course, he probably didn't know the play-testers had a hand in it or he wouldn't have made the comment, which is why it was funny and why I pointed it out. I could care less if anyone knows I helped make them or not which is why I never brought it prior to this.

Yes, I understand that you're part of the playtest group who helped to shape the CA.Of course what level of communication there exactly is and whose idea exactly something was I cannot know. Regardless, it seems pretty bizarre to me that the CA missions you helped to shape are not good enough for you...

And this is not about how I personally play. Competitive events in which I participate are tiny, local and utterly insignificant (and use GW missions.) I just don't see the point in intentionally dividing the competitive scene in this way.

And I get some of your points but you are saying what the game has been balanced for to a person that literally helped balance the game...

Like, let that sink in, haha. People like Mike and my job is to help balance 40k and we use similar mission sets in our events. Why would we do that if it was counter to a fun and fair game of 40k or was counter to the balance of the game? We of all people would have to be fools to do that as we have a much better understanding of the game's design and intent than others.

Frankly, if you, as a playtester, help to balance the game with an assumption that your houserules will be used then something has gone terribly wrong. Either GW needs to make your houserules official or the game needs to be balanced on the official GW missions.

If a ruin was on any table in an 8th ed game that had 4 walls and a roof,

But they don't. None of the GW ruins are like that. An intact building is not a ruin.

Thank you for answering Reecius but i really don't understand.
How can you assume during playtest that the "competitive" 40K will be played with ITC when some of the houserules of ITC severely impacts the effectiveness of models?

No LoS weapons for example in canon40K are worth half of what they are worth with ITC LoS rules. I'm not arguing whether those rules are fine or not, but using them or not makes a big difference for things like a basilisk. How can you balance with both ITC and canon in mind?

Mind you, this is not an attack on your work, i'm just curious.

Spoletta wrote:
Thank you for answering Reecius but i really don't understand.
How can you assume during playtest that the "competitive" 40K will be played with ITC when some of the houserules of ITC severely impacts the effectiveness of models?

No LoS weapons for example in canon40K are worth half of what they are worth with ITC LoS rules. I'm not arguing whether those rules are fine or not, but using them or not makes a big difference for things like a basilisk. How can you balance with both ITC and canon in mind?

Mind you, this is not an attack on your work, i'm just curious.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I was getting at too.

Wait, when was I on a high horse judging folks? I simply asked that Eihnlazer stick to 40k and not make comparisons to the NFL or E-sports. It's comparing apples to hand grenades and it only ever derails otherwise constructive discussions. I almost exclusively play competitive games and even I understand it's a ridiculous comparison.

As for the play testing bit, you brought it up mate. you also just did it again as a an argument from authority against Spolleta. It's a rather convenient card to pull, especially when you can't actually provide what capacity or what material your influencing, certainly more then me that's for sure, but I don't think it helps move the discussion in a constructive direction when you use it to bolster your claim rather then stand by your own argument alone.

As for the terrain, your explanation didn't actually address my point. I never argued that the core rules were superior, or that something shouldn't be done. Terrain in 8th is a joke. I agree some abstraction should be added as a stop gap until GW addresses it. But modding existing ruins is one thing. As I said before I think would be further improved by treating ruins as solid when targeting units on the opposite side but target-able when inside.

The closed ruins are a whole other animal, you created a piece of terrain that doesn't exist in the core design and add more consequences then they create solutions. Taking a game that uses TLOS and adding jack in the box large structures where units can redeploy inside and be hidden has huge implications, and it calls into question how much play testing went into them. I have played several games and the only addition it provided was upper echelon gamesmanship, something I don't think competitive 40k needs any more of. The closest 40k equivalent would be defined destructible terrain like bastions, or impassible terrain. A ruin is a ruin, it is not an in tact building with all it's walls, floor and a roof. Again, I know and understand that this is out in the water already, but I am hoping for a poll specifically on things like terrain, deployment and point levels regardless of whether I can convince you to change your perspective Thanks again.

Competitive 40K isn't that different from NFL or esports, it's just smaller. Most of the successful sports and esports out there are either run by a player/team association or based on a player made mod to the game. We wouldn't want Nike or Adidas making the rules for football, or there would be 10 balls used at once or some other insanity. ITC doesn't divide anything, and ITC rules aren't some random "houserules", these are the rules used at the largest (most well attended) 40k tournaments in the world. Even NOVA uses their own, non-GW missions. If you really don't like the ITC and ITC rules, make your own rules and then hold your own 801 man tournament and start your own, larger tournament circuit.

I like the most of the current ITC rules. I do doubt the ruins rules were intended to be used with fully LOS blocking, enclosed ruins so I'm not sure I like ITC's rules for those. I like the idea of encouraging close ranged engagements though, maybe add another special rule that says models within 0.25" of a ruins wall can see through it and be seen through it? Melee oriented units could position themselves to be safe from ranged combat, but not completely immune to non-infantry melee outside the ruin (this is all assuming the ruin wall is less than 0.5" thick).

 THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:
ITC doesn't divide anything, and ITC rules aren't some random "houserules", these are the rules used at the largest (most well attended) 40k tournaments in the world. Even NOVA uses their own, non-GW missions.

Well, they're still houserules. Until they're in a GW publication, that's what they are. I understand that tournament organisers need to tweak and clarify some things, but I think this goes far beyond that. And I do think it is a problem if playtesters test the game with their own houserules instead of the actual rules. I mean, isn't it blindingly obvious that doing so is a terrible idea?

So I read through this thread. Not surprised at anything I read. Folks providing input. Input being discredited and laughed off. Soaked with "we know better" and "We are the law".(note: meant with sarcasm, not a quote)

We write the rules. We've ran events for years. We know more than you little people.

Why ask for feedback? Dealers don't ask how's the crack? Just Hold your events and people will come. The little people get it.

In the Mike and Reece ecosystems who is really gonna disagree with you? Nobody. So folks outside your influence say something and it can't make sense because group think.

Im not trying to be mean. Im just keeping it real. What your reflection looks like in the mirror from a different perspective. But I suspect you'll say I'm misinformed.

 Crimson wrote:

 THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:
ITC doesn't divide anything, and ITC rules aren't some random "houserules", these are the rules used at the largest (most well attended) 40k tournaments in the world. Even NOVA uses their own, non-GW missions.

Well, they're still houserules. Until they're in a GW publication, that's what they are. I understand that tournament organisers need to tweak and clarify some things, but I think this goes far beyond that. And I do think it is a problem if playtesters test the game with their own houserules instead of the actual rules. I mean, isn't it blindingly obvious that doing so is a terrible idea?

We also have no idea whats being play tested exactly anyway. Your talking about countless list possibilities for each book between ~20 factions that can then ally between themselves in several combos of factions in some cases, all while vetting BIG FAQ 1 & 2 and a yearly chapter approved with 12 of it's own missions against EACH variable? I am only willing to take it on faith so many times before the "trust me I know better I play tested it" card stops working. It's why GW now asks for community feedback, it's the best way to get data and also why they wait until after events with huge attendance to release FAQ's. Which all circles back to what is influencing the game? Because GW waiting until after majors that are played with none GW missions on house ruled terrain means they are making changes under a false pretenses. I am not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it is definitely worth having a honest discussion about. It also makes no sense to ask for community feedback on the ITC missions, I mean why bother since he not only created them but also playtested them? I thought the buck stopped there? Either way laughing at feedback isn't the best approach.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Because GW waiting until after majors that are played with none GW missions on house ruled terrain means they are making changes under a false pretenses. I am not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it is definitely worth having a honest discussion about.

Yeah this is my worry. And I'm pretty sure it is a bad thing.

Really not sure it's a mission/ITC thing however their is a few things I'd like to suggest for consideration.

I think that a minimum points percentage of 60% should be required to qualify for best in factions. I'm not sure exactlly how feasible this is as I don't want to suggest something thats unworkable though if your work with BCP and the new list format works I'm hoping it should be possible for them to automate this.

With Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari and Hive* added for anyone who is running a more soup/allies list rather than a faction with allies.

*Needs a new name since GW used Tyranids to ally in genestealer cult and it feels unfair to someone going for best in faction in the Tyranids codex to have to compete against Genestealer cult etc


I feel like there is potential to add a secondary mission that helps out players against the cherry picked from 3 codex armies but it needs more finesse than I can suggest.

Breaking Alliances
Score 2 points for destruction of each allied force, determined by detachment keywords.
If no models in another detachments that share a keyword excluding the following keywords Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari or Tyranids remain on the table score 2 points.
Models with the Ynarri keyword count as only having the Ynarri keyword for the purposes of scoring this secondary.

Lastly and this is ITC related, would it be possible to just not allow anything line of sight requiring or not to be shot from inside a fully enclosed ruin. I agree 8th editions terrain rules are bad and I get the need to improve them, however the indoor mortors just doesn't feel right.

Reece .. thanks for all the hard work you guys have done putting together the ITC missions as well as looking to the community to give there feedback. Mike, same with you and NOVA.

I’ll leave my feedback and opinions to any changes I see fit on your linked page instead of here.

Cheers

 Byte wrote:
So I read through this thread. Not surprised at anything I read. Folks providing input. Input being discredited and laughed off. Soaked with "we know better" and "We are the law".(note: meant with sarcasm, not a quote)

We write the rules. We've ran events for years. We know more than you little people.

Why ask for feedback? Dealers don't ask how's the crack? Just Hold your events and people will come. The little people get it.

In the Mike and Reece ecosystems who is really gonna disagree with you? Nobody. So folks outside your influence say something and it can't make sense because group think.

Im not trying to be mean. Im just keeping it real. What your reflection looks like in the mirror from a different perspective. But I suspect you'll say I'm misinformed.

Given that according to the Dakka ecosystem the ITC is invalid because it isn't pure 40k makes the reaction understandable don't you think?

 Crimson wrote:

Be that as it may, if there were a contingent of people who wanted to use CA missions this questionaire would never find it out.

This is pretty much where I am at. The last few surveys where you've attempted to include the non-ITC participants are written in a way to skew the results in favor of those who participate. The feedback lines are short and brief and the amount of information you must sort through is beyond comprehension, so it makes sense. However, I was unable to complete the survey again because a majority of the questions simply can't be answered.

Most of my other thoughts have already been expressed by other posters here. The ITC isn't doing anything to include the 40k community as a whole, and has devolved into a group of players who don't wish to play the current state of the game. I agree with them on the points that players are allowed to play and take no issue with wanting to do that. It's the divide that non-ITC participants, players, etc aren't 'competitive' or how good of a '40k' player is seems to be dictated by their ITC rank, that is hurting the game. It's gotten to the point where even accepting the invite to run non-ITC format and participate in the results, or whatever, attracts the very people we are trying to avoid at our events.

For the record I don't think anyone is trying to discredit the work Reese and the ITC have done for the game; I know I'm not. My issue is like others that Reese and co are playtesters for the game, but are playing a slightly different game which is what they're basing their feedback on (at least that's how it seems to be). So the feedback GW is receiving is not 100% "pure" 40k despite it affecting the game with and without ITC rules. That's the main concern here. That the feedback is skewed because it's not being played from the baseline game, but with a slightly modified version.

If there was one single version of 40k that everyone was playing, ITC and otherwise, the testing and feedback would be totally appropriate. As it stands though things like being able to choose your secondary objectives in ITC missions is HUGE and is completely missing from the base game and certainly changes how things play. So the feedback being given is based on that being a thing, when it's not.

Holy crap, haha, just got done working today and I forgot what debating on Dakka is like! Part of me misses the spirited back and forth, it's fun! I wish I had more time for it. I used to spend a lot of time here back in the day (as my post count would attest to).

Well, I am sorry if I cam across as rude or not listening. I do honestly listen to everything. I may get defensive at times, or vent about it to friends, but I really do take it all in. I read every comment and all of the feedback form so I wanted to say thanks to everyone for taking the time to share your opinions, even if your opinion amounted to: Reece, you're an idiot! lol

As a play-tester, I have input into the rules and missions, etc. but I surely do not write the rules, I didn't mean to come across as trying to present myself as mister cool guy, if anyone read it that way. I was just trying to share some of what I know and validate my points. Often I find that it doesn't end up coming across the way I think it will.

I fully understand the confusion some of you are feeling. I probably, inadvertently, added to it. Why would we play a seemingly different version of the game, especially if we helped shape the current version? That is confusing, for sure. I wish I could be more open about all of it, as that is my nature, but I cannot. It's kind of like trying to box with only one arm, you know? It's just a bit awkward. I aim to do one thing but end up doing something unintentional.

Anyway, I suppose just keeping my mouth shut is probably better when it comes to a lot of this stuff. Suffice it to say, your input is appreciated, it is noted and it is valued. You wouldn't say anything it you didn't give a gak what we did. Even when people are raging mad, it comes from a place of really caring about the outcome. We try our best to give everyone what they want but when everyone wants different things, then obviously we have to compromise.

All I can say I suppose, is fill out the feedback form, encourage your friends whom this applies to to do the same and it will matter. I promise it all gets taken into account. Our business is making the best possible matched play experience. It's not trying to make our own version of the game.

Thanks to everyone here for sharing their points of view!

Want to say thanks for the honest response. No kidding.

Not getting the "If you don't like it, buzz off! response is reassuring and not unprecedented.

Best of luck in 2019 and your feedback collection.

Wayniac wrote:
Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.

outside of LoL and seeing a few local Football (proper English football) teams starting up e-sports teams for the playstation generation I don't have any anecdotal experience of e-sports.

what is it that's wrong with heading in that direction? there is an appetite from fans (I Love me some Twitch streams of big events) and it can be easily monetised from advertisers / sponsors

so what's the dealio ?

Spoletta wrote:
Thank you for answering Reecius but i really don't understand.
How can you assume during playtest that the "competitive" 40K will be played with ITC when some of the houserules of ITC severely impacts the effectiveness of models?

No LoS weapons for example in canon40K are worth half of what they are worth with ITC LoS rules. I'm not arguing whether those rules are fine or not, but using them or not makes a big difference for things like a basilisk. How can you balance with both ITC and canon in mind?

Mind you, this is not an attack on your work, i'm just curious.

Well GW doesn't even pretend all their scenarios are balanced with the points either with scenarios varying effects of units and some scenarios even are just big middle fingers for other armies. And then GW changes scenarios without changing points either.

ITC just does it better if you are looking at competive point of view


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
For the record I don't think anyone is trying to discredit the work Reese and the ITC have done for the game; I know I'm not. My issue is like others that Reese and co are playtesters for the game, but are playing a slightly different game which is what they're basing their feedback on (at least that's how it seems to be). So the feedback GW is receiving is not 100% "pure" 40k despite it affecting the game with and without ITC rules. That's the main concern here. That the feedback is skewed because it's not being played from the baseline game, but with a slightly modified version.

If there was one single version of 40k that everyone was playing, ITC and otherwise, the testing and feedback would be totally appropriate. As it stands though things like being able to choose your secondary objectives in ITC missions is HUGE and is completely missing from the base game and certainly changes how things play. So the feedback being given is based on that being a thing, when it's not.

Well. There isn't even single version of 40k in GW world that people are playing so...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.

outside of LoL and seeing a few local Football (proper English football) teams starting up e-sports teams for the playstation generation I don't have any anecdotal experience of e-sports.

what is it that's wrong with heading in that direction? there is an appetite from fans (I Love me some Twitch streams of big events) and it can be easily monetised from advertisers / sponsors

so what's the dealio ?

It's kind of trying to make sport out of lottery. If not toxic it's at least amusing. Trying to make competive game out of non-competive game. Well let's enjoy competive lottery

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.

outside of LoL and seeing a few local Football (proper English football) teams starting up e-sports teams for the playstation generation I don't have any anecdotal experience of e-sports.

what is it that's wrong with heading in that direction? there is an appetite from fans (I Love me some Twitch streams of big events) and it can be easily monetised from advertisers / sponsors

so what's the dealio ?

For me it comes down to 2 things, which are related. First, once you start treating your hobby as serious business it can change from a hobby to a job for some, and that can have knock-on effects for players who aren't interested in that style of play. You'll see people not wanting to play more casual style games, for example, as they try to emulate the "pros" and their armies. Some people already report this in their communities, with people not wanting to play non-ITC games. Secondly, and possibly more likely and worrying, is that there's often an increased amount of toxicity in the communities once something becomes serious business. All conversations are framed around being as l337 as possible, with ridicule waiting for those deemed too casual, or not worthy.

Note, I'm note saying these things would actually happen, just that is what people fear might happen. Personally, I think 40k is terribly suited to being any form of e-sport in the first place, for a whole number of reasons from balance to the fact that it really, really doesn't work well as a live-streamed event. Turning something into an e-sport can work for some, but I think it reduces inclusivity.

Slipspace wrote:

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Just to chime in briefly and sorry for the derailment, but 40k has no business trying to be an "e-sport". That is 100% the wrong direction to push the game, and it honestly disgusts me that people seem to want that. I get balance and fairness in tournaments, but this e-sport mindset is so ridiculously toxic that it has no place anywhere, ever.

outside of LoL and seeing a few local Football (proper English football) teams starting up e-sports teams for the playstation generation I don't have any anecdotal experience of e-sports.

what is it that's wrong with heading in that direction? there is an appetite from fans (I Love me some Twitch streams of big events) and it can be easily monetised from advertisers / sponsors

so what's the dealio ?

For me it comes down to 2 things, which are related. First, once you start treating your hobby as serious business it can change from a hobby to a job for some, and that can have knock-on effects for players who aren't interested in that style of play. You'll see people not wanting to play more casual style games, for example, as they try to emulate the "pros" and their armies. Some people already report this in their communities, with people not wanting to play non-ITC games. Secondly, and possibly more likely and worrying, is that there's often an increased amount of toxicity in the communities once something becomes serious business. All conversations are framed around being as l337 as possible, with ridicule waiting for those deemed too casual, or not worthy.

Note, I'm note saying these things would actually happen, just that is what people fear might happen. Personally, I think 40k is terribly suited to being any form of e-sport in the first place, for a whole number of reasons from balance to the fact that it really, really doesn't work well as a live-streamed event. Turning something into an e-sport can work for some, but I think it reduces inclusivity.

Even Warmahordes is ill-suited to being an e-sport, and it's the wargame that's currently (IMHO) the most suitable for that (and their streamed games at events tend to follow an e-sport like pattern). I don't think wargaming in general is suited for it because wargaming is about the spectacle, not the game. Trying to commercialize it into an e-sport with professional sponsorships and whatnot is going way too far from what wargaming was meant to be.

 Reecius wrote:
Holy crap, haha, just got done working today and I forgot what debating on Dakka is like! Part of me misses the spirited back and forth, it's fun! I wish I had more time for it. I used to spend a lot of time here back in the day (as my post count would attest to).

Well, I am sorry if I cam across as rude or not listening. I do honestly listen to everything. I may get defensive at times, or vent about it to friends, but I really do take it all in. I read every comment and all of the feedback form so I wanted to say thanks to everyone for taking the time to share your opinions, even if your opinion amounted to: Reece, you're an idiot! lol

As a play-tester, I have input into the rules and missions, etc. but I surely do not write the rules, I didn't mean to come across as trying to present myself as mister cool guy, if anyone read it that way. I was just trying to share some of what I know and validate my points. Often I find that it doesn't end up coming across the way I think it will.

I fully understand the confusion some of you are feeling. I probably, inadvertently, added to it. Why would we play a seemingly different version of the game, especially if we helped shape the current version? That is confusing, for sure. I wish I could be more open about all of it, as that is my nature, but I cannot. It's kind of like trying to box with only one arm, you know? It's just a bit awkward. I aim to do one thing but end up doing something unintentional.

Anyway, I suppose just keeping my mouth shut is probably better when it comes to a lot of this stuff. Suffice it to say, your input is appreciated, it is noted and it is valued. You wouldn't say anything it you didn't give a gak what we did. Even when people are raging mad, it comes from a place of really caring about the outcome. We try our best to give everyone what they want but when everyone wants different things, then obviously we have to compromise.

All I can say I suppose, is fill out the feedback form, encourage your friends whom this applies to to do the same and it will matter. I promise it all gets taken into account. Our business is making the best possible matched play experience. It's not trying to make our own version of the game.

Thanks to everyone here for sharing their points of view!

This is a measured, sincere and heartfelt response. Thank you. As someone who regularly puts his foot in his mouth, and doubles that when his intentions are best I can totally relate. I figured you were boxing with one arm as you put it (lol that would suck in actual boxing) which was why I just kind of wanted to stick to your opinions on the few issues I had relating to the ITC. Poll completed, friends notified! Thanks for your time!

I'll echo Reece's frustration on one item - we can't exactly go and tell the community what GW says to us or is thinking, as it's not allowed by our NDAs. We can and do provide heavy playtesting feedback and design input, and we can and do run our events with their full knowledge and discourse in the way that we do. I would suggest that we probably aren't playing as vastly different a version of the game as intended by the designers given those facts, but we can't really explain it, so it can come off - as Reece says - like boxing with one arm tied behind your back. But we certainly aren't "rebels" going it in opposition to the game ... quite the contrary; we do actually have more feedback and insight than most organizers, simply due to the nature of the testing process and being WHC-approved events.

MVBrandt wrote:
I'll echo Reece's frustration on one item - we can't exactly go and tell the community what GW says to us or is thinking, as it's not allowed by our NDAs. We can and do provide heavy playtesting feedback and design input, and we can and do run our events with their full knowledge and discourse in the way that we do. I would suggest that we probably aren't playing as vastly different a version of the game as intended by the designers given those facts, but we can't really explain it, so it can come off - as Reece says - like boxing with one arm tied behind your back. But we certainly aren't "rebels" going it in opposition to the game ... quite the contrary; we do actually have more feedback and insight than most organizers, simply due to the nature of the testing process and being WHC-approved events.

And i think that we are all grateful for that. 8th edition is the best edition of 40K and is in no small part because it acutally feels like someone tested things before writing them.

You have to understand our PoV though, we are given an official ruling with an official mission pack. Half the community plays something differrent and we cannot create a common discussion basis between the 2 communities because there are some quite big differences in the formats. Then we are told that the game was playtested with the unofficial format in mind...

I'm sure that you can understand our confusion.

Spoletta wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
I'll echo Reece's frustration on one item - we can't exactly go and tell the community what GW says to us or is thinking, as it's not allowed by our NDAs. We can and do provide heavy playtesting feedback and design input, and we can and do run our events with their full knowledge and discourse in the way that we do. I would suggest that we probably aren't playing as vastly different a version of the game as intended by the designers given those facts, but we can't really explain it, so it can come off - as Reece says - like boxing with one arm tied behind your back. But we certainly aren't "rebels" going it in opposition to the game ... quite the contrary; we do actually have more feedback and insight than most organizers, simply due to the nature of the testing process and being WHC-approved events.

And i think that we are all grateful for that. 8th edition is the best edition of 40K and is in no small part because it acutally feels like someone tested things before writing them.

You have to understand our PoV though, we are given an official ruling with an official mission pack. Half the community plays something differrent and we cannot create a common discussion basis between the 2 communities because there are some quite big differences in the formats. Then we are told that the game was playtested with the unofficial format in mind...

I'm sure that you can understand our confusion.

I CAN understand your confusion! I think it's very reasonable. I think there is also a big difference between Tournament and Matched Play. They don't mean "Tournament Match." They mean "Equally Matched" as it were. I think if you asked most of GW's design team who they would ask to make them a tournament packet, they'd probably look at me or Reece before looking at who is running a local GW. That's not gospel and not something we've ever bothered directly asking, so pure hunch there, but there's a HUGE difference between "balanced and enormously stress-tested modern tournament missions" and what you see in CA or the core rule book, and far different motivators and constraints behind them and how they're constructed. I.E. you'll notice nearly every GW mission is entirely self-contained on a single page of paper without a lot of things it refers to beyond deployment.

I love the idea of treating the ruins like old school forests. One first story wall you can be seen (but have cover) two first story walls you can't.

Hell, combine this with "buildings with intact ceilings cannot be shot out of by indirect fire weapons" and I'm in. Honestly, if you start shooting mortars through the roof of the building you are in, eventually you will have a bad time.

I like the ITC missions but some of the scoring goals feel gamie and more easily exploited by certain armies than others further adding balance issues to a game that has enough of them. At least that's what I take away from the criticisms. The ability to take large 30 man squads to impact kill more or squads under PL 7, some armies reliance on 7w or greater models or armies have more fragile squads all seem to favor a few particular armies over others.

All that being said some sacrifices have to be made in order to create a framework that does work for tournaments of more that 16 people and GW missions just are not it. I do wish the missions were more dynamic but I understand that it is really hard to get dynamic and not completely random.

Maelstrom could be okay if it were more finely tuned and I think the army specific goals/missions are something that could be incorporated. With smart objective placement and numbering you could avoid the "take objective (in my opponents deployment zone)" vs "hold objective (in my deployment zone)" imbalance or the "kill a psycher" vs a DE list that makes maelstrom not really fit for competitive play.

Maybe even something along the lines of a build your own maelstrom deck to kind of mirror the existing secondaries could be a cool beta concept for you guys to test in house?

As for the play testing brags...I'm not sure I'd be thumping my chest about 28 point grav cannons vs 15 point dissie cannons, or centurions, or the 50% of models that don't see the table because they are pretty bad. Or the fact that GW seems surprised by the almost tourney worthy lists from the newest WD. We get it, you've seen more of the inner workings of GW than most but using that to shut down peoples criticism seems juvenile at best.

bananathug wrote:
I love the idea of treating the ruins like old school forests. One first story wall you can be seen (but have cover) two first story walls you can't.

Hell, combine this with "buildings with intact ceilings cannot be shot out of by indirect fire weapons" and I'm in. Honestly, if you start shooting mortars through the roof of the building you are in, eventually you will have a bad time.

I like the ITC missions but some of the scoring goals feel gamie and more easily exploited by certain armies than others further adding balance issues to a game that has enough of them. At least that's what I take away from the criticisms. The ability to take large 30 man squads to impact kill more or squads under PL 7, some armies reliance on 7w or greater models or armies have more fragile squads all seem to favor a few particular armies over others.

All that being said some sacrifices have to be made in order to create a framework that does work for tournaments of more that 16 people and GW missions just are not it. I do wish the missions were more dynamic but I understand that it is really hard to get dynamic and not completely random.

Maelstrom could be okay if it were more finely tuned and I think the army specific goals/missions are something that could be incorporated. With smart objective placement and numbering you could avoid the "take objective (in my opponents deployment zone)" vs "hold objective (in my deployment zone)" imbalance or the "kill a psycher" vs a DE list that makes maelstrom not really fit for competitive play.

Maybe even something along the lines of a build your own maelstrom deck to kind of mirror the existing secondaries could be a cool beta concept for you guys to test in house?

As for the play testing brags...I'm not sure I'd be thumping my chest about 28 point grav cannons vs 15 point dissie cannons, or centurions, or the 50% of models that don't see the table because they are pretty bad. Or the fact that GW seems surprised by the almost tourney worthy lists from the newest WD. We get it, you've seen more of the inner workings of GW than most but using that to shut down peoples criticism seems juvenile at best.

The last bit of this reaction seems in some ways juvenile (ironically) in and of itself. In re: the playtesting .... I'm not sure how else I'd define it. It's a lot of work, and it's not a brag, it's something we do. The point isn't "we playtest, hell yeah," especially given 28 point grav vs. 15 point dissie ... but rather "we aren't completely uninformed // operating in rebellion against GW." It wasn't used to shut down criticisms - it was used as actual evidence, when peoples' criticisms (the ones I'm personally responding to) are claiming they know what GW intends and saying we are going in opposition to GW intent.

If you're arguing that we shouldn't dare to use evidence to support our arguments, I really don't know what to tell you. But it's a funny thing of you to say. Do you also dislike it when scientists use science to discredit flat Earthers? Like, "stop bragging about your college degrees in 'science' just to shut down peoples' criticisms of your round earth 'hypothesis'."

No. I'm a scientists so believe me doesn't work if you got your degree from McDegree's dot com. Presenting evidence, facts and examples is the most effective way of "proving" your theory rather than just "I'm Dr. Phil, believe me..." (which is really hard from your GW contracts I'm gathering).

Now I agree that the "you're just changing the rules to sell terrain" was way uncalled for and plain crazy talk but I think a lot of the problem with the perceived divide between ITC and GW missions. We would love more of an explanation than "I helped design the GW missions too" but it doesn't look like we are going to get one (NDAs contracts and all that jazz) so it sucks. Not just for you guys boxing with one hand behind your back but for those of us stumbling around in the dark trying to figure out the logic behind a lot of game design choices.

Not being able to share what GW thinks about the ITC missions and how that is used in the balance makes it nearly impossible to give a satisfactory answer to those of us who wonder if there are two discrete games being played and attempted to be balanced. Sorry if I cam across as aggressive or rude (which reading over my post is obvious now, but damn it I hate dissie cannons ) but I was just hoping there was some wiggle room for you guys to explain a bit why ITC and GW missions are closer than we think and balance for one really means balance for all.

Anyways, thanks for all the hard work. Hopefully you guys incorporate a little more randomness (not chaos, that would be heresy) into the missions and find a way to bring in the new deployment as well. The work you guys have done to make the game tournament worthy is great and I'll see you at the BAO!

MVBrandt wrote:

The last bit of this reaction seems in some ways juvenile (ironically) in and of itself. In re: the playtesting .... I'm not sure how else I'd define it. It's a lot of work, and it's not a brag, it's something we do. The point isn't "we playtest, hell yeah," especially given 28 point grav vs. 15 point dissie ... but rather "we aren't completely uninformed // operating in rebellion against GW." It wasn't used to shut down criticisms - it was used as actual evidence, when peoples' criticisms (the ones I'm personally responding to) are claiming they know what GW intends and saying we are going in opposition to GW intent.

It's really not about whether you are informed, or whether GW is. Perhaps they indeed intent their rules to be playtested with your houserules. It is still a terrible idea regardless of whose idea it is.

If you're arguing that we shouldn't dare to use evidence to support our arguments, I really don't know what to tell you. But it's a funny thing of you to say. Do you also dislike it when scientists use science to discredit flat Earthers? Like, "stop bragging about your college degrees in 'science' just to shut down peoples' criticisms of your round earth 'hypothesis'."

That is incredibly condescending. You're not offering evidence, you're offering an argument from authority.