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.

Honestly i don't think it's lack of caring, i think it's complete lack of knowing. Anyone who plays 40k can read the codecies and get the distinct impression that whoever wrote them has never played a game of 40k. I don't think it's malice, i think it's ignorance. They honestly don't even know how much grey knights suck because they don't play their own games, and when they do they've even admitted they don't really care about rules and just kinda make it up as they go based on 'what seems like it might be cool." So they think balance is fine as is.

They also seem hesitant to even attempt to fix rules that are obviously broken. Chaos codex 2 showed that. They had the perfect opportunity to tweak chaos rules but they didn't touch any of the things that were issues in it, just basically a reprint with 1 unit changed. And in CA they only ever change points. Again, they probably have no idea what's wrong with it so don't understand why they would change something someone already wrote.

Well my assumption is, that after 30 years of designing stuff, not knowing is a really bad excuse. I get that someone who just started lets say any contact sports, doesn't know all the different tournament rules, or the rules for sparring etc. But if someone wrestled for 30 years, he can't say oh I didn't know that in classic an eye poke is not allowed. As being cool, well am not against that. I tsure is better to have cool mechanics, the boring ones.
The problems start, I think, when GW decides that puting some lore in the book, covers the cool aspect in the game too. Harder or weaker to play armies are always going to exist, just like you ain't going to grow longer arms or bigger hands in 2 months for an event, but the rules should work. GK rules, from what I take out of WD articles and the design comentary, were suppose to be about turn 1 deep strike, having access to a lot of smites when other do not and being elite with superior stats, but fewer numbers.
Out of the 4 right now, they have the fewer numbers and that was suppose to be the negative that reign them in vs other armies. Right now that would be as if chaos got a rule that all their weapons are damaged and old, so when they roll a 1 they explode hiting the person and removing it from their sheet. It maybe flavourfull, and maybe cool for some opponents, but it sure wouldn't be fun to play with.

New Blood Angel character models. Dante, Mephiston, they're showing their age and need suitably impressive replacements

Review of certain Codexes. Personally Necrons (Really like to see 3+ Warriors and T5 Immortals again). Dark Angels,Space Wolves, Grey Knights, and Demons ALL need to be shown some attention instead of 'Here is something to hold you over'.

Core Game:
- More consistent points balancing for Monstrous/Vehicles. I think the rules are fine, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason behind points once a model gets in the 8+ Wound range.
- 'Sudden Death' and 'Alternating Deployment' back in the CA missions. HORRIBLE mechanics that should never have been suggested, let alone implemented.
- An end to 'Soup' lists for Matched play. Stop the implementation of fixing an armies weakness through allies, while other armies are forced to accept them.
- Refinement of the 'Command Points' system. Continue addressing and tweaking this 8th ed. mechanic.

Tournament:
- An ACTUAL GW Tournament kit release. We've seen it with Shadespire/Kill Team. Give us a functional one for 40k. (End the ITC missions)

 Akar wrote:

- An end to 'Soup' lists for Matched play. Stop the implementation of fixing an armies weakness through allies, while other armies are forced to accept them.

Agreed, make the factions stand on their own.

It might be enough to restrict the number of detachments allowed in tournament lists from 3 to 2. That forces some decision making. You can have the Guard for numbers and CP, the Smash Captains for their assault potential, the Knight for the ranged shooting, but you can't have all 3.

Also, get rid of the Supreme Command detachment. It makes no thematic sense that a bunch of a faction's top commanders are just going to randomly show up and leave their army behind. From a game perspective, it's just used to spam powerful characters and turn the game into HeroHammer.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
It might be enough to restrict the number of detachments allowed in tournament lists from 3 to 2. That forces some decision making. You can have the Guard for numbers and CP, the Smash Captains for their assault potential, the Knight for the ranged shooting, but you can't have all 3.

Also, get rid of the Supreme Command detachment. It makes no thematic sense that a bunch of a faction's top commanders are just going to randomly show up and leave their army behind. From a game perspective, it's just used to spam powerful characters and turn the game into HeroHammer.

Yeah, leave herohammer to the annals of history.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
It might be enough to restrict the number of detachments allowed in tournament lists from 3 to 2. That forces some decision making. You can have the Guard for numbers and CP, the Smash Captains for their assault potential, the Knight for the ranged shooting, but you can't have all 3.

Also, get rid of the Supreme Command detachment. It makes no thematic sense that a bunch of a faction's top commanders are just going to randomly show up and leave their army behind. From a game perspective, it's just used to spam powerful characters and turn the game into HeroHammer.

Yeah, leave herohammer to the annals of history.

Supreme Command to narrative only, I say.

I agree with the Supreme command detachment going the way of the dodo. If you want to take Bobby G or three captains (#vomit) then you should have to take troops. I also wouldn't mind them getting rid of super heavy auxiliary detachment either

 Apple Peel wrote:

Spoiler:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
It might be enough to restrict the number of detachments allowed in tournament lists from 3 to 2. That forces some decision making. You can have the Guard for numbers and CP, the Smash Captains for their assault potential, the Knight for the ranged shooting, but you can't have all 3.

Also, get rid of the Supreme Command detachment. It makes no thematic sense that a bunch of a faction's top commanders are just going to randomly show up and leave their army behind. From a game perspective, it's just used to spam powerful characters and turn the game into HeroHammer.

Yeah, leave herohammer to the annals of history.

Supreme Command to narrative only, I say.

Works for me. Maybe GW should move more of that stuff to Narrative only. I
love my generic HQ's & dont really have any named although I did make a Harath Shen model since I had the right components & wanted an apothecary.

 Akar wrote:
Review of certain Codexes. Personally Necrons (Really like to see 3+ Warriors and T5 Immortals again). Dark Angels,Space Wolves, Grey Knights, and Demons ALL need to be shown some attention instead of 'Here is something to hold you over'.

Core Game:
- More consistent points balancing for Monstrous/Vehicles. I think the rules are fine, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason behind points once a model gets in the 8+ Wound range.
- 'Sudden Death' and 'Alternating Deployment' back in the CA missions. HORRIBLE mechanics that should never have been suggested, let alone implemented.
- An end to 'Soup' lists for Matched play. Stop the implementation of fixing an armies weakness through allies, while other armies are forced to accept them.
- Refinement of the 'Command Points' system. Continue addressing and tweaking this 8th ed. mechanic.

Tournament:
- An ACTUAL GW Tournament kit release. We've seen it with Shadespire/Kill Team. Give us a functional one for 40k. (End the ITC missions)

ITC is fine. GW missions wouldn't automatically be better because GW made them.

In fact, if you played Sigmar you'd know that GW makes missions that deliberately cripple certain armies (no deepstriking, large models start tucked in the backed corner despite Sigmar being a predominantly melee game, maximum shooting/magic range of 6", etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:

 jobalisk wrote:
A return to the atmosphere and actual "we actually care what our customers think" mentality of the 90s and early 2000s.

I've been around GW since Rogue Trader days. They've NEVER cared what their customers think. They produce, you're supposed to buy - end of story.

They were cartoon villains for most of their history tbh.

ERJAK wrote:
ITC is fine. GW missions wouldn't automatically be better because GW made them.

The question was what I want to see for 40k. I'd like to see a GW Tournament packet, and an eventual end to the ITC Missions and format.

Until GW changes their "shoot through window slits" rules, I doubt ITC goes anywhere.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Also, get rid of the Supreme Command detachment. It makes no thematic sense that a bunch of a faction's top commanders are just going to randomly show up and leave their army behind. From a game perspective, it's just used to spam powerful characters and turn the game into HeroHammer.

Sure, but then the "no faction bonus for single LoW" rules need to go away. It's stupid that a supreme command detachment is the only way to get the full rules for a LoW in a normal 1500-2000 point game, but that's how it is now and taking away that option means you're stuck with spending ~1500 points on a full detachment of LoW and creating a very skewed (and often not fun) list in the process. But if you can take a Baneblade in a normal detachment then yes, kill off the supreme command detachment. Normal detachments have plenty of HQ slots for everything you could reasonably need.

(Though, again, the answer is to go back to the 5th edition FOC with a single LoW slot added and either 2-3 flyer slots or flyers put back into normal FOC slots like they used to be. You get one detachment and that is it. No allies, no additional detachments. Save that nonsense for narrative play where only genuinely fluffy and interesting combinations can earn special approval to break the army construction rules.)

ERJAK wrote:

 Akar wrote:
Review of certain Codexes. Personally Necrons (Really like to see 3+ Warriors and T5 Immortals again). Dark Angels,Space Wolves, Grey Knights, and Demons ALL need to be shown some attention instead of 'Here is something to hold you over'.

Core Game:
- More consistent points balancing for Monstrous/Vehicles. I think the rules are fine, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason behind points once a model gets in the 8+ Wound range.
- 'Sudden Death' and 'Alternating Deployment' back in the CA missions. HORRIBLE mechanics that should never have been suggested, let alone implemented.
- An end to 'Soup' lists for Matched play. Stop the implementation of fixing an armies weakness through allies, while other armies are forced to accept them.
- Refinement of the 'Command Points' system. Continue addressing and tweaking this 8th ed. mechanic.

Tournament:
- An ACTUAL GW Tournament kit release. We've seen it with Shadespire/Kill Team. Give us a functional one for 40k. (End the ITC missions)

ITC is fine. GW missions wouldn't automatically be better because GW made them.

In fact, if you played Sigmar you'd know that GW makes missions that deliberately cripple certain armies (no deepstriking, large models start tucked in the backed corner despite Sigmar being a predominantly melee game, maximum shooting/magic range of 6", etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:

 jobalisk wrote:
A return to the atmosphere and actual "we actually care what our customers think" mentality of the 90s and early 2000s.

I've been around GW since Rogue Trader days. They've NEVER cared what their customers think. They produce, you're supposed to buy - end of story.

They were cartoon villains for most of their history tbh.

I disagree, we stopped using the ITC format in our local group. Games have become 100% more fun. ITC stands only to prep up the extreme competitive.

Killing competitive 40K would go a long way to fixing this game in all honesty.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I agree with the Supreme command detachment going the way of the dodo. If you want to take Bobby G or three captains (#vomit) then you should have to take troops. I also wouldn't mind them getting rid of super heavy auxiliary detachment either

What about armies that have HQs as their only good stuff. Without the supreme detachment, and being forced to run troops for groups of 2. A Grey Knight players would have to spend more then 2000 points on units, if they wanted to run a brigade.

 Togusa wrote:
Killing competitive 40K would go a long way to fixing this game in all honesty.

Lolwut? Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
What about armies that have HQs as their only good stuff.

All GK players will be executed and turned into servitors, if I'm understanding the Polish 40k rules correctly.

All GK players will be executed and turned into servitors, if I'm understanding the Polish 40k rules correctly.

I doubt the GW has the reach to make it so, specialy after brexit and with deathsentance not being a thing in Poland.

Area terrain rules

Vehicles cannot lock units in combat (except walkers)

Reduction of invul proliferation

Making fall back from combat less of a no-brainer/easy to do

 Peregrine wrote:
Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.

So you find it acceptable that the ITC community excludes an entire section of GW’s customer base?

Your statement operates under the assumption that the ITC, and other Alt-40k formats, is making improvements to the game. Which is only true when you cater to individuals who dislike the rules changes. This is BRILLIANT on the ITC part, since there is profit to be made off of creating an environment to provide for those who feel the same way. It also means that the ITC, specifically its ranking system, is only relevant to the ITC community. Same applies to all of the Alt-40k formats, but the ITC is probably the lead contender.

The TRUE absurdity is the belief that any Alt-40k format is somehow superior to the 40k format by default, or that the changes made are for the good of the community as a whole, and not just limited to their respective formats. This elitism is what is dividing the 40k community and has created a very Toxic environment. It doesn’t matter where the pro-40k players voice their views, there is always someone trying to shut them down, rather than trying to find ways to include them. What’s odd is that the ‘You will be assimilated’ attitude of the Alt-40k community is NOT one that Reecius, and probably a majority of the FLG team, push or even support. Reecius himself has said on several occasions that players can play how they want, something the ITC/Alt-40k community needs to adopt. There are Competetive players out there who don’t participate in Alt-40k events, like the ITC.

Competetive 40k itself has become problematic, since it no longer means what it’s supposed to. The strictest definition should be, ‘Those who play 40k in a competition setting’. The Alt-40k community has restricted its application to those who support their respective formats. Comments of lists, units, Armies, missions, etc, as not being ‘competetive’ plague every social aspect of the game. Trying to find Battle Reports, List advice, even answers to some rules questions, that AREN’T influenced by the Alt-40k community is not impossible, but is more difficult than it should be.



A tournament kit/packet from GW would go a long way to reclaiming what Competetive 40k should be. It’s good to see that GW is creating content for those who are competitively minded. Games designed with competition in mind, like Shadespire, Kill Team, Warcry are intended to provide outlets for those who feel that way about games. Unlike 40k, which is still intended to be a hobby/story driven form of entertainment.

I’m not AGAINST the ITC. They have done quite a bit of good. They filled the void left when GW stopped running events. They provide instructions for FLGS and Independent organizers to run an event. They provide a location resource for those wishing to participate and/or locate their events, and provide a ranking system for players who care.

If they’re going to be included in providing feedback, then it would help if they started playing 40k at their events. The Evolution of how Reserves work, the Rule of 3, formation limitations, etc have all been good temporary fixes that have made their way into 40k at the cost of screwing some armies/units over without having much impact on actually balancing the game. I really hope that we get Alternating deployment back, but I see the value of Army dropping in a Time sensitive environment. Whoever managed to get Sudden Death removed from the missions needs to be shot.

What do we need? We need GW to release a kit/packet to invalidate the Alt-40k format. Not that it’ll do much good since they’d probably continue to give GW the finger and run their own events anyway, but it would go a LONG way to show that GW is including the 40k community as a whole instead of catering to those that refuse to play it. Like Togusa said, killing the current Competetive 40k would do more good than harm. There are groups out that that refuse to adopt the ITC format and there are fewer, not more, complaints about the game.

Like Togusa said, killing the current Competetive 40k would do more good than harm. There are groups out that that refuse to adopt the ITC format and there are fewer, not more, complaints about the game.

LMAO now that's a bald faced lie.

I don't trust GW to write anything.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't trust GW to write anything.

Atleast they did not make unassualtable shoeboxes.....

No, they just made unassaultable towers.

I'd like to see Necrons be good.

On a more general note, I'd like to see lethality brought down a notch. The reason marines and the like struggle is that their slightly tougher profiles don't mean crap because of how easy everything is to kill.

Also like to see some steps towards making proper anti-tank firepower viable again, rather than spamming mid-tier weaponry with a billion shots.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

Like Togusa said, killing the current Competetive 40k would do more good than harm. There are groups out that that refuse to adopt the ITC format and there are fewer, not more, complaints about the game.

LMAO now that's a bald faced lie.

There are three different claims in that quote - you may need to be more precise.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't trust GW to write anything.

Then, quite frankly, what the hell are you doing here?

Then, quite frankly, what the hell are you doing here?

lamenting the demise of the humble adeptus astartes i'd imagine.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:

Like Togusa said, killing the current Competetive 40k would do more good than harm. There are groups out that that refuse to adopt the ITC format and there are fewer, not more, complaints about the game.

LMAO now that's a bald faced lie.

There are three different claims in that quote - you may need to be more precise.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't trust GW to write anything.

Then, quite frankly, what the hell are you doing here?

Killing off 60+% of the competitive tournaments in NA can hardly be called good for the game no matter how much anyone may dislike the ITC format.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:

Like Togusa said, killing the current Competetive 40k would do more good than harm. There are groups out that that refuse to adopt the ITC format and there are fewer, not more, complaints about the game.

LMAO now that's a bald faced lie.

There are three different claims in that quote - you may need to be more precise.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't trust GW to write anything.

Then, quite frankly, what the hell are you doing here?

Talking about how much I don't trust or like GW.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Killing off 60+% of the competitive tournaments in NA can hardly be called good for the game no matter how much anyone may dislike the ITC format.

Having a format that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is good for the game how?

NO one is suggesting we kill off competitive tournaments. Just the format. If there is one thing that the FLG guys have shown is that they will sell out tickets no matter how bad they screw the game up. I have ZERO doubt that should they scrap their system and play 40k that players would still show up and complete. I honestly believe they are in the BEST position to do so. ITC champs for LVO next year are over 5 or 600 right? Why not split the event and have the ITC format and 40k formats both running, split the prize pool and create more winners for these events? You could even go 3 ways have have Maelstrom / Eternal War / and ITC formats all represented with that player base.

This alone would significantly improve the quality of the community and reveal more about the current state of the game than the current competitive scene does.
- Non Alt-40k players would have an option worth attending. You wouldn't have to worry about not filling all the available space, as players would select which format they prefer to play at the time of registration and go until seats sell out. Not only would this include the community, but it would also show the number of players who actually prefer 40k over the ITC. (Still skewed based on who would sign up first as I was told that they were sold out within hours)

- Since army lists tend to be different for both formats, we'd get to see a side by side comparison on how armies perform in 40k compared to how they perform in the ITC. This is a Win-Win for GW because there are two outcomes. One, the rankings are completely different to the ITC which would reveal that the ITC isn't reflective of the current state of 40k. Two, the performance of armies in the two formats don't change, which means all the extra crap that the ITC includes isn't necessary and isn't balancing the game at all. Both of these outcomes would result in the ITC needing to scrap it's format. The second one would show which armies GW needs to address in terms of needing an update. This would eventually happen in the first one, but not until everyone starts playing competitive 40k instead of the ITC.

So my WISH for 2019-2020 is for GW to release an official Tournament kit. (On topic again, My apologies Stormonu)

EVEN if GW did release a tournament kit that was in direct contrast to Alt-40k, and the ITC didn't adopt it, it would be a win-win for the community. Supporting what the ITC is built on, players are allowed to play how they want, and as long as the ITC keeps filling it's seats, then there would be no reason to stop offering an alternative for those who don't play 40k in it's current state. What is would do is force the ITC (and other Alt-40k events) to title their events properly. Honestly this is something that a majority of pro Alt-40k already do by stating up front if their events/lists/rules questions are directed at GW or toward the Alt-40k community. If you're on the supporting side of Alt-40k, then you don't understand the frustration of looking for advice, lists, tips, Battle reports, etc, where we click on them and either find out that it's not 40k. The worst are the comments in forums, and after actual games, stating that a unit, list, or even a game that was just lost, as invalid because it isn't 'Competitive'. IMAGINE stealing the win away from your opponent because he outplayed you in 40k, just to have it invalidated because they don't modify the game to the point you do.

So no, it's not a bold faced lie that killing off the format would be good for the game. It's an honestly thought out opinion on how scrapping Alt-40k interference would allow GW to do what they've been doing for the good of the game, and as a result, the 40k community as a whole. A truly competitive event would have every army at a 50% chance of winning. Nothing the ITC is doing is having an impact on that, and there are no facts to support that any of the ITC changes are doing anything more than providing a place for those who dislike 40k. As a result, they aren't making any improvements to the game, or the community as a result.

If you truly feel that the ITC is the best system, then there is a home on FLG forums for those individuals. Please be respectful of others opinions when on a shared forum. This has been a home for everyone to discuss their hobby since as early as 4th if I remember correctly. Comments like yours, do nothing but show that the ITC community is exclusive, toxic, and isn't doing anything to improve the community.

Can we please take the (ITC) tournament discussion elsewhere?