Switch Theme:

TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




Edited out my comment because I think I'm just starting a pointless argument

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/01/28 16:38:57


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Kdash wrote:The LVO has the highest participation levels of any events in the world for one reason – it is the final event of the ITC season and has the potential to massively change your standing and get you in the running for a prize. It also has the benefit of being well established over multiple years, and it being held in a country with a very strong competitive scene.

If the LVO had decided to run CA19 missions this year, it would still have been the biggest event in the world.

it is the Crown Jewel event of the year and the big finale to a year of hard work. That isn’t going to change just because the missions they use might change.
The ITC is a scene. It is a year long race for points. A mentality and a strive to be the best Warhammer player over the course of the year. The ITC is not a mission set.


I feel like this is something that people have truly lost focus on, and instead only see the ITC as a ruleset.
Yeah, can't argue with that. I guess it's not actually the ITC rules themselves that the selling point, it's that it's the Big Competitive Tournament, and they've built their image around that. If the core rules changed, I think that the people playing in the event would just change too, to follow the 'prestige' of the LVO/ITC.

Of course, as it's later mentioned, it's not really as big here in the UK, but that's besides the point.


They/them

 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 Jidmah wrote:
IMO Soft scores done right are a very good thing - before one of the GWs here closed, they used to give separate prices for best general, best painter and best sportsman.

Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying. Just make it different tournaments.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

Kdash wrote:


The ITC gives people a reason to hold, and attend, competitive events around the world.


I would argue this point. I think prize support is what brings people to events. The bigger the pot, the bigger the attendance. ITC and rankings in and of themselves don't mean much to many. If there was an ITC tournament going on across town with no prize support and a non-ITC tournament going on at the same time with prize support, I'd argue the non-ITC tournament would be more well-attended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
IMO Soft scores done right are a very good thing - before one of the GWs here closed, they used to give separate prices for best general, best painter and best sportsman.

Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying. Just make it different tournaments.


Yes, one of my FLGS used to give out these prizes. Best Sports, Best Painted and Best General. They were all awarded on a single tournament, but even if you got your face bashed in, you may still win Prize Support because your army looked amazing. It was good for the tournament scene, imo.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/01/28 17:20:59


WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






Dudeface wrote:
If you don't care , don't engage to avoid the hostile situations, although I understand why you're trying to show your reasoning for you thinking GW should want to balance around ITC, however you don't know what they're reasoning is and hence all this is subjective at best. The LVO is so big partly due to years of invested effort creating a community, partly because they can actually host that many when many organisers can't, but most importantly the American scene is so ingrained into ITC and this is the big soap box drama showdown for the whole season.

Adepticon looks to not be ITC missions this year and has 310 player capacity, which will hopefully provide some interesting results.

Hostile situations don't worry me man, especially not online lol. To be honest I don't understand why the conversation has turned hostile. I'm just trying to apply a rationale to GW's actions - it's certainly all subjective guesswork. I don't really think one way of playing is better than another - they're just different. I think I know why GW are choosing to balance around the mission set, I could be wrong of course.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:What I have said is that ITC is the most popular way to play 40k COMPETITIVELY.
Yes, and that's what I'm disagreeing with.
OK, well as none of us have the data to prove one way or another I guess it's a moot point? I'm not really trying to push that ITC is the most popular way to play, you've got it backwards. I think that GW are balancing around ITC because they believe (or it is) the most popular way to play.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/28 18:26:28


 
   
Made in pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

Never liked ITC rulesets. I avoid them as much as I can.

AI & BFG: / BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / WWX: Union

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Galas wrote:
Soft scores are stupid.

Make a Painting Tournament and the Gaming Tournament. Then give sportmanship points that don't influence the Gaming Tournament rankings. Have a winner for both tournaments and then a "Man of the century" or something like that for the guy with the highest points in every category of the tournaments you are running + Spormantship points.


I think sportsmanship is appropriate and a worthwhile measure of skill. One that keeps their head and still wins is a better general.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?


Don't be ridiculous, this is Dakka.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?


PFAHAHAHAHA

There are legitimately people on here that think trying to make the game fun for your opponent is the worst thing you can do.


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Galas wrote:
Soft scores are stupid.


No, they're not - depending on how they're implemented.

 Galas wrote:
Make a Painting Tournament and the Gaming Tournament. Then give sportmanship points that don't influence the Gaming Tournament rankings. Have a winner for both tournaments and then a "Man of the century" or something like that for the guy with the highest points in every category of the tournaments you are running + Spormantship points.


Or, as Wayniac was suggesting, "Best Painted", "Best Sportsman" and "Best General", with a "Best Overall" award for the person who, well, does the best overall.

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

To add, this topic isn't about scrapping the ITC.

Their stat tracking, league tables, hobby track, etc etc are all fantastic. It's just the missions themselves we're discussing.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

 Ishagu wrote:
To add, this topic isn't about scrapping the ITC.

Their stat tracking, league tables, hobby track, etc etc are all fantastic. It's just the missions themselves we're discussing.


I think we're in agreement for the most part. The hobby needs something like the ITC, but it also needs to be able to be critical of itself. Anytime I've heard from anyone closely related to the ITC folks, it seems pretty defensive.

WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 puma713 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
To add, this topic isn't about scrapping the ITC.

Their stat tracking, league tables, hobby track, etc etc are all fantastic. It's just the missions themselves we're discussing.


I think we're in agreement for the most part. The hobby needs something like the ITC, but it also needs to be able to be critical of itself. Anytime I've heard from anyone closely related to the ITC folks, it seems pretty defensive.


If we seem defensive its because we're pretty exacting about what we'd accept for evidence or rational arguments.

I doubt you'd have any such success replacing ITC with CA17/18 missions. CA19? Maybe, but ITC will be updating missions now, too. On the other side the #8 Ork beat Iron Hands - the big bad - in rounds 5 and 6. Those are the rounds when opponents are pretty solid.

Certainly he didn't win by list building out of it. So was it the missions that permitted it?
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Dudley, UK

 puma713 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
To add, this topic isn't about scrapping the ITC.

Their stat tracking, league tables, hobby track, etc etc are all fantastic. It's just the missions themselves we're discussing.


I think we're in agreement for the most part. The hobby needs something like the ITC, but it also needs to be able to be critical of itself. Anytime I've heard from anyone closely related to the ITC folks, it seems pretty defensive.


Something something tendency for institutions to perpetuate themselves.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in au
Calm Celestian




 Daedalus81 wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
To add, this topic isn't about scrapping the ITC.

Their stat tracking, league tables, hobby track, etc etc are all fantastic. It's just the missions themselves we're discussing.


I think we're in agreement for the most part. The hobby needs something like the ITC, but it also needs to be able to be critical of itself. Anytime I've heard from anyone closely related to the ITC folks, it seems pretty defensive.


If we seem defensive its because we're pretty exacting about what we'd accept for evidence or rational arguments.

I doubt you'd have any such success replacing ITC with CA17/18 missions. CA19? Maybe, but ITC will be updating missions now, too. On the other side the #8 Ork beat Iron Hands - the big bad - in rounds 5 and 6. Those are the rounds when opponents are pretty solid.

Certainly he didn't win by list building out of it. So was it the missions that permitted it?
I suspect Cities of Death/Urban Conquest style scenario would've thrown a spanner in the ITC IH lists I've seen and CoD was one of the more interesting core book scenarios to play, but UC's popularity didn't seem to translate to any ITC wise.


   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Dudley, UK

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.


There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

 Daedalus81 wrote:


On the other side the #8 Ork beat Iron Hands - the big bad - in rounds 5 and 6. Those are the rounds when opponents are pretty solid.

Certainly he didn't win by list building out of it. So was it the missions that permitted it?


I can only he assume he won by practicing against the ITC meta lists with static missions and limiting terrain guidelines. I doubt it was playing Maelstrom or Eternal War missions or playing terrains that could be interpreted a variety of ways from LOS perspectives. But that would be a quick assumption without reviewing the games themselves.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


If we seem defensive its because we're pretty exacting about what we'd accept for evidence or rational arguments.


Then this is exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of a critically-evaluated format, it is arbitrated over and determined if something is rational or not. From whose perpsective? How does the ITC gather its critical data? How does it know that something is working for 25% of the tournament playerbase, but not for the other 75% of tournament goers? These are not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely curious. Are there polls taken, not of the people who places only in Round 5+, but also people who lost all of their games? Are there opinions of first-time tournament-goers evaluated? There are ways to collect opinions of thousands and thousands of people and filter them out to make a system head and shoulders better than it might be if it had, say 10% of that feeding data into it and deciding who is valid and who isn't. A metaphor, if you will:

A company that you work for implements a new rule that you completely disagree with. Every time you go to work, you have to deal with this new rule and it affects your enjoyment of the job. You press on and overlook the rule, but any time it creeps up, it puts you off. However, everyone on the 5th floor told you that it was agreed upon -- that they love it -- and that it was a rule that was great for the company. How does that make you feel? Disenfranchised? Like you have no stake in the system?

Maybe that is what you're going for; that you are the playtesters, you are the rules arbitrators and you know what's best for everyone. That you don't need the opinion of Average Joe who doesn't go to all the tournaments because his opinion is deemed "irrational". It may be rational to a LOT of people, but who determines if it is or not? You do.

In contrast of the hypothetical company above, the real company I work for is amazing. The C-Suite Executives will freely tell you that they don't know what is always best for everyone and that without the feedback from everyone -- from the CFO to the person who has only been employed two weeks -- that we would not be as successful as we are. They don't always put every opinion into practice - that would be impossible. But they do ask every single person in the company on a quarterly basis, "What are we doing well? What are we not?" And if there are a majority of responses pointing to a problem, they tend to address it. Occasionally, the issue is something that everyone on the 5th floor agreed upon and loves - something they believed was great for the company. But it was not great for the majority of the people who make up their workforce, so, even though it seemed great, it actually was not. Even though we have a CEO, a CFO, a Board of Directors, etc., etc. - data is collected from a variety of sources and all angles are evaluated. It is a great place to work, but it is that way because I know that they have the interest of the company's longevity as their driving force. It is apparent in the workforce and throughout the country in the 90+ locations that we have.

I know for a fact that there are people that do not go to events if the rules are ITC. These are not forum lurkers, but real life Warhammer 40k fans. The answer they often get is "okay, just don't go if you don't like it." Is that the message that should be sent to foster a healthy tournament climate? Or should they feel like they can reach out to Frontline Gaming and that their opinion will be heard?

When those in charge take on a defensive posture when it comes to criticism, they tend to draw further inward, to seek out less opinions. But when they do that, they are often missing out on the perspective of the new employee or the person who is quitting because of the new rule. I just hope the ITC is considering all angles, talking to players from all over the tournament spectrum and taking as many opinions into account as they can, not just the opinions of the Top 20 in the World or of their close inner circle.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/29 02:32:48


WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

Catulle wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.


There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.


right, I'll bet they dont even shake their opponents hand after the game.

It's like sportsmanship is the boogeyman and they're the scared 4yo hiding under the covers...except HE'S REAL AND STANDING RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





Racerguy180 wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.


There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.


right, I'll bet they dont even shake their opponents hand after the game.

It's like sportsmanship is the boogeyman and they're the scared 4yo hiding under the covers...except HE'S REAL AND STANDING RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just assume anyone afraid of sportsmanship is TFG.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Catulle wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.


There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!

(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.


There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!

(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)

Completely great way to miss the point.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Spoiler:
 puma713 wrote:


Then this is exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of a critically-evaluated format, it is arbitrated over and determined if something is rational or not. From whose perpsective? How does the ITC gather its critical data? How does it know that something is working for 25% of the tournament playerbase, but not for the other 75% of tournament goers? These are not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely curious. Are there polls taken, not of the people who places only in Round 5+, but also people who lost all of their games? Are there opinions of first-time tournament-goers evaluated? There are ways to collect opinions of thousands and thousands of people and filter them out to make a system head and shoulders better than it might be if it had, say 10% of that feeding data into it and deciding who is valid and who isn't. A metaphor, if you will:

A company that you work for implements a new rule that you completely disagree with. Every time you go to work, you have to deal with this new rule and it affects your enjoyment of the job. You press on and overlook the rule, but any time it creeps up, it puts you off. However, everyone on the 5th floor told you that it was agreed upon -- that they love it -- and that it was a rule that was great for the company. How does that make you feel? Disenfranchised? Like you have no stake in the system?

Maybe that is what you're going for; that you are the playtesters, you are the rules arbitrators and you know what's best for everyone. That you don't need the opinion of Average Joe who doesn't go to all the tournaments because his opinion is deemed "irrational". It may be rational to a LOT of people, but who determines if it is or not? You do.

In contrast of the hypothetical company above, the real company I work for is amazing. The C-Suite Executives will freely tell you that they don't know what is always best for everyone and that without the feedback from everyone -- from the CFO to the person who has only been employed two weeks -- that we would not be as successful as we are. They don't always put every opinion into practice - that would be impossible. But they do ask every single person in the company on a quarterly basis, "What are we doing well? What are we not?" And if there are a majority of responses pointing to a problem, they tend to address it. Occasionally, the issue is something that everyone on the 5th floor agreed upon and loves - something they believed was great for the company. But it was not great for the majority of the people who make up their workforce, so, even though it seemed great, it actually was not. Even though we have a CEO, a CFO, a Board of Directors, etc., etc. - data is collected from a variety of sources and all angles are evaluated. It is a great place to work, but it is that way because I know that they have the interest of the company's longevity as their driving force. It is apparent in the workforce and throughout the country in the 90+ locations that we have.

I know for a fact that there are people that do not go to events if the rules are ITC. These are not forum lurkers, but real life Warhammer 40k fans. The answer they often get is "okay, just don't go if you don't like it." Is that the message that should be sent to foster a healthy tournament climate? Or should they feel like they can reach out to Frontline Gaming and that their opinion will be heard?

When those in charge take on a defensive posture when it comes to criticism, they tend to draw further inward, to seek out less opinions. But when they do that, they are often missing out on the perspective of the new employee or the person who is quitting because of the new rule. I just hope the ITC is considering all angles, talking to players from all over the tournament spectrum and taking as many opinions into account as they can, not just the opinions of the Top 20 in the World or of their close inner circle.



Well, to be clear, I'm not in the business of knowing what is best for everyone. I'm also not a hardline ITC person even if I argue its side most often.

From a personal level my position comes from being frustrated by GW missions often and then coming across ITC, playing it, and developing a strong appreciation for what it offered. I likewise expect someone willing to criticize something to have spent time in it and understanding it -- this is probably my biggest peeve where people come out against it and it seems they have not used the system. If they just don't like that structure, fine, but don't use it as a place to attack balance.

On the flip side of this I am not willing to criticize CA19, because I have not spent sufficient time in it. I am working to change that. If I get the sense that CA19 is better for the health of the game I will be the strongest advocate and I will help people organize and collect the information necessary to prove it.

Now a really fair criticism is that ITC has a large learning curve. It isn't simple to get into and requires a lot of thought. People also talk about "secondary avoidance lists", but they fail to recognize the secondaries that don't require interaction with the other army. That Ork list above offers up several avenues to score against it and clearly that was not an issue to his success.

ITC does take feedback. Some people did not like that they did not take the feedback they wanted to give last time, because they gave a form with a limited set of answers. But this time we also need to step a little carefully, because people's feelings on how ITC missions work gets warped by how stupid Iron Hands are right now. And as far as I'm concerned LVO is a null set for the state of the game, because everything is so screwed up right now (even if there are interesting questions to ask within it).

   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Dudley, UK

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.


There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!

(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)

Completely great way to miss the point.


Go on, then. Show your working-out.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Catulle wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.


There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.


Well, I'd sooner the guy with the fake smile who bought me a beer wins than the guy who wins based on painting.
Afterall, how do you know wether the player painted their own stuff or it's a commission job?
   
Made in us
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.


There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!

(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)

Completely great way to miss the point.


I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.


There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!

(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)

Completely great way to miss the point.


I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.

Then the guy who shook your hand saying "good game" instead of the one just saying it. Take your pick. It has nothing to do with the game though so it's asinine to have it affect your overall score.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in au
Calm Celestian




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.


There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!

(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)

Completely great way to miss the point.


I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.

Then the guy who shook your hand saying "good game" instead of the one just saying it. Take your pick. It has nothing to do with the game though so it's asinine to have it affect your overall score.
It has a lot to do with the game; plenty of people play or don't play games based on the quality of the community and there are places where 40k is the worst real life gaming experience(beating out even M:tG). The difference between the player that shakes hands and says GG isn't going to be different from the player that just says it but it will discouraged sloppy play etiquette and plain rudeness.

Example: I played another game online with a few different people. One was a self aware person with characteristics that sounded quite sociopathic when I reread them and another was a relatively self aware person that after reflection sounded like a narcissist to me.

One of them I love and would play with all the time and occasionally have little thoughts about that make me smile and the other has caused me to reflexively defend another player I don't have the time of day for because of 'stuff' they did. Can you guess which is which?

   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.


There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.
Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!

(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)

Completely great way to miss the point.


I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.

Then the guy who shook your hand saying "good game" instead of the one just saying it. Take your pick. It has nothing to do with the game though so it's asinine to have it affect your overall score.


Let's look at this another way, complete a-hole wins the tourney and leaves everyone annoyed and they think "what a douche I won't come to this event again because of TFG's like that", vs "Oh Jimmy won overall, he wasn't best general but he's a decent dude and made sure everyone had a good time, this is a welcoming community and one that's worth sticking around in". which event grows and which community has the better atmosphere?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/29 08:35:52


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: